,,MSSi^^-^^ :i^.

^i

OXFORD DIVINITY

COMPABED WITH THAT OP THE

ROMISH AND ANGLICAN CHURCHES:

SPECIAL VIEW TO THE ILLUSTRATION

DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH,
AS IT WAS MADE OP PRIMARY IMPORTANCE BY THE REFORMERS ;
AND AS IT LIES AT THE FOUNDATION OP ALL SCRIPTURAL
VIEWS OF THE GOSPEL OP OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.

BY THE RT. REV. CHARLES PETTIT M'lLVAINE, D.D.,
BISHOP OP THE PHOTESTAWT EPISCOPAL CHUBCH IS THE
DIOCESE OF OHIO.

JOSEPH WHETHAM & SON.
1841.

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1840, by the Author, in
the Clerk's oiEce, ofthe District Court, of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

J. L. Powell, Printer, BurlingtoD, N. J.

To
The Reverend,
The Presbyters and Deacons of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in
the Diocese of Ohio,
This Volume is inscribed,
as the fruit of a sincere endeavour to discharge his solemn duty,
and as a testimony of most earnest desire that they may be both
happy and useful in the knowledge and preaching of the truth, as it
is in Jesus, by their affectionate brother and servant,
in the Gospel of Christ,
The Author.

VUI PREFACE
the wane in the Church of England, vve find this great subject more
and more excluded from the controversies wilh Rome, as if the greater
number of Protestant writers were either agreed with her doctrine in
that particular, or considered the objections of Protestants of no
great importance. When however we have reached the eighteenth
century wherein, it is universally conceded that the spiritual charac
ter of the Church of England was at its lowest depression, we take
leave of Justification by Faith, as occupying any conspicuous place
in the differences between Popery and Protestantism. The a.xc is
laidno more at the root ofthe tree. The great effort against Popery
is to trim off its branches.
This lamentable change in the doctrinal character of Ihe divines
of the Church of England, must be considered as having received
one of its earliest impulses from the writings of that learned foreigner,
Hugo Grotius. The peculiar views of that author, on justification,
lacked no favour in Archbishop Laud. Sheldon, after the Restora
tion, renewed their influence. They were rescued from the disgrace
of being associated with the rapidly growing irreligion of that age,
by finding in the main, a most learned and vigorous champion in
that truly excellent Prelate, Bishop Bull. This eminent divine had
commenced his studies in divinity under a Puritan and Non-Con
formist, named Thomas. Recoiling from the Antimonianism which
he perceived to be rapidly growing up under the extremes of doctrine
to which many of that way had gone, he became a devoted reader
of Grotius and Episcopius, associating with those writers, the works
of Hammond and Jeremy Taylor, wherein he perceived no little sym
pathy with the views of the former, on the subject of justification.
In the year 1669 was first published his Harmonia Apostolica, for
the reconciUation ofthe Epistle of St. James, with those of St. Paul,
in reference to that matter. By this work, far more than any other,
was the standard of orthodoxy, among the Divines ofthe Church of
England, on justification and its kindred subjects, reduced to that
low degree which afterwards reigned so widely in the times of the
Non-Jurors, and which went on debilitating and exaniraating the re
ligion ofthe Anglican Church ; till, in the latter part ofthe last cen
tury, by " the renewing of the Holy Ghost," there took place the
contemporaneous and connected blessings of the revival of true, spirit
ual piety, and the return of the teaching and preaching of the doctrine
ofthe Reformers, as to the sinner's justification before God.

PREFACE. ix
But greatly as the Antinomian abuses during the time of the Com
monwealth, followed by the general languor in regard to religious
doctrine which the excitements of that stormy period had left upon
the public mind, and the flood of licentiousness which ensued, had
prepared the way for the gradual reception of such doctrines as were
taught by the disciples of Bull, going beyond their teacher; the
famous work of that great Master did not appear without arousing
the strongest opposition to its doctrines, as an abandonment of the
principles of the Reformation, inconsistent with the Articles and
Homilies of the Church of England, and essentially in agreement
wilh the vital principle of Romanism. " There was presently (says
Nelson, in his Life of Bull) no small alarm both in the Church and
out ofit, from Mr. Bull's performance, as if the Church of England
and the whole Protestant religion were, by il, in danger. For his
departing herein from the private opinions of some doctors of our
Church, was, by several, interpreted for no less than a departing
from the faith by her delivered ; hence there arose in the Church no
small contention whether this interpretation of Scripture were con
formable to the Articles of Religion, and the Homily of Justification
therein referred to; some maintained with our author that it was;
some doubted about it, and others downright denied it, and con
demned it as heretical. There was many a hard censure passed upon
the book — yea, there were not wanting then, even men of some emi
nence in our Church, who, wilh all their might, opposed him, proba
bly out ofa well-meant zeal, and would certainly have overwhelmed
him and his doctrine, had it been possible."
Thus much is acknowledged by the non-juring Nelson, who fully
embraced the views of Bull. Among the Bishops who resisted the
influence of those views, the one who proceeded much further than
any of his brethren, was Morley, Bishop of Winchester. Lectures
were read against them, before the University of Oxford, by Dr.
Barlow, then Margaret Professor of Divinity, afterwards Bishop of
Lincoln. * But the most conspicuous writer in the Church of Eng-
' The present Margaret Professor, Dr. Fausset, has followed the example of
his learned Predecessor, in having pubhshed strongly against the new and en
larged edition of Bull's doctrines, as exhibited in the new divinity of Oxford;
while the Regius Professor of Divinity, Dr. Hampden, has borne a noble testi
mony to the truth, against the same errors, in a late Sermon on Justification by
faith. 2-*

X PREFACE.
land, against the doctrines of Bull, was Dr. Tully, Principal of St.
Edmund's Hall, Oxford, a divine of high standing in the University
for learning, eloquence, piety, zeal, and usefulness. This writer
was amazed at the indifference or insensibility to the interests of
religion, of many who endeavoured to persuade him to decline the
controversy, on the ground that the points in dispute were matters of
comparative unimportance, not worth the risking ofthe peace ofthe
Church, while to him they seemed to involve " the most noble and
momentous of all controversies," and lo put in jeopardy " the very
palladium ofthe Reformation." Under this conviction he published,
in 1674, a Latin Treatise, entitled " Justification, as delivered by
St. Paul, without works, asserted and illustrated according to the
sense of ihe Church qf England, and of all the rest of the Re
formed Churches, against the late innovators." In the publication
of this work, the author was encouraged by Bishop Morley, who
read il in manuscript, wilh approbation. Therein, it is charged that
the doctrine of Justification, as expounded by the author ofthe Har
monia, " was properly heretical, as being contrary, in a fundamental
point, to the testimony of Scripture, and against the opinion of the
Catholic fathers, the judgment of the Church of England, and the
determinations of all the foreign reformed churches."
The grand question in dispute, "the ¦^o K^m/o^evok" according to Dr.
Tully, was expressed precisely as in the ensuing volume we have
staled the main question between Popery and Oxford Divinity, on
the one hand, and the doctrine ofthe Anglican Church, on the other,
viz. " what is that, for the sake of which God may receive a sinner
to grace, may acquit him from the curse of the law, and make him
an heir of everlasting life." ^ The side espoused by Dr. Tully, which
was precisely ihat of justification through faith only, by the imputed
righteousness of Christ, was maintained by reference lo the Ancient
Fathers, the literal and grammatical sense ofthe Articles and Homi
lies of the Church of England, and the testimony of her most famous
divines, such as Andrewes and Hooker.
The feeble attempt of Bishop Bull, in his Apologia to answer the
appeal of Dr. Tully, to the standard divines of the Church, and the
anxiety of his biographer to claim for him that he should be judged,
not by the Anglican Reformers, but by the Ancient Fathers, and the

I Apologia pro Harmonia, Sect.

PREFACE. XI
Holy Scriptures, are strong evidences how futile was considered "in
that day, the pretence that such doctrine as that of the Harmonia
had received the suffrages of those divines whom the Church then
looked to, as her standard writers.
If it shall be the honour of this volume, in any degree, to reivive
the attention of the members of the Church, especially of her clergy,
and candidates for orders, to the works of the elder divines of the
Seventeenth Century, such as Usher, Hall, Hopkins, Andrewes, &c.,
as well as to those ofthe age preceding them, up to the period ofthe
Reformation, so that the nervous and clear displays of divine truth,
as therein abounding, and as distinguished from that feeble, confused
and mixed mode of representing the way of salvation which charac
terises the majority of the more modern Anglican divines, shall be
come raore thoroughly studied and appreciated, then, whatever be
comes of Oxford Divinity, this book will be amply rewarded.
It may perhaps be considered a great defect of this volume that it
does not institute a comparison of Oxford Divinity directly with the
Scriptures. The author must not be understood as countenancing,
by this omission, the idea that there can be any approach to a final
settlement of Christian truth, short ofa direct appeal to the Inspired
Word. But all objects cannot be embraced at once. Sometimes,
the recalling of the doctrine of the Church, at some particular period,
raay be of more benefit, for a special purpose, than even the exposi
tion of the Scriptures. To recall the great principles of the Refor
mation, as illustrated by a comparison with those of the Church of
Rome, and the Romanising Divinity of Oxford, seemed to the author
to be the precise desideratum at the present juncture, and of dimen
sions sufficient to occupy a volume by itself. He is fully persuaded
that with a truly Protestant communion the most direct refutation of
Oxford Divinity is itself. Only let it be displayed without " reserve;"
let the system which has been brought before the public so skilfully
and reservedly, by heterogeneous parts, so that it required the skill
of a professional anatomist, to find out their place in the body, and
to form, from them, any accurate idea of the whole frame- work, be
set up and seen in its own proper aspect ; its several members and
joints, and dependencies, and connections, and humours, and issues,
and appetencies — all presented ! Its work then is done. Its day is
ended. The Protestant Church is too much alive to the truth that

XU PREFACE.
Popery is the Antichist, " that Man of Sin," revealed in the Scrip
tures, " who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called
God, or that is worshipped," and that " there is no society of Chris
tians in the world, where Antinomianism and Libertinism more
reign, than among the Papists, with whose very faith they are inter
woven,"' not to be turned away, in entire rejection, from a system
which, as will be shown in this volume, is little else than Popery
restrained. 'Bull's Works, by Nelson, Sermon, I.

CONTENTS

PREFACE,  V
CHAPTER I.
Introductory Remarks — Oxford Divinity before the publication of Dr.
Pusey's Letter — Effect of that Letter — Convictions of the present Au
thor — Reasons for this publication — The doctrine of Justification select
ed, as that by which the Romanism of Oxford Divinity may be most
thoroughly tried — That this was the great point of the Reformers,
shown from Hooker, &c. — Three presumptive objections to the charge
of Romanism, from the character of Oxford Divines removed — The
views of the writer as to Ihe designs and snares of Satan  9
CHAPTER II.
STATEMENTS PREFARATORr TO THE RIGKT ESTIMATION OF THE OXFORD
DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATlOX.
Professions of Oxford Divines concerning the conformity of their doctrine
with that of the Church of England — Their account of Ultra-Protest
antism — The identity of their system with that of Alexander Knox —
The condemnation of the latter, as Romish and dangerous, by certain
eminent divines, of diverse schools in the Church of England, before
its development, at Oxford, had excited any special notice  35
CHAPTER m.
THE DOCTRINE OF OXFORD DlVINITT AS TO THE KIGI1TE0U6NKSS OF JUS
TIFICATION, EXHIBITED.
To set forth the precise doctrine of Oxford Divinity, as to the way of Jus
tification, the object of this chapter. — The main question of Hooker, as
to the Romish doctrine, adopted here — The great point of enquiry
stated — The Scriptural use of the word Justification — Two kinds of
righteousness, asserted by Hooker, Beveridge, Andrewes — Only on« by

xiv CONTENT.'^ Page.
Oxfordism— This opens the door to the divinity of Oxford, as well as
of Rome— That one righteousness, made identical with Sanctification—
'What is meant in this divinity by Imputation, Accounted, &c.— Ex
tended proof that it makes Sanctification the same as Justification —
The position in which it puts (he cross of Christ— The use it makes of
the merits and passion of Christ— Its effect upon the consolations of
the believer— Singular effort to escape from being identified with Ro
manism, by denying what was before asserted as to Sanctification and
Justification being essentially one— The same in Mr. Knox — This doc
trine shown in Osiander- Concluding observations  57
CHAPTER IV.
THE DOCTRINE OF OXFORD DIVINITY, AS TO THE RISUTEOUSNESS OF JUS-
TIFICATIO.X, CO.MI'AHED WITH THAT OF THE SCHOOLMEN.
Origin of the Romish doctrine of Justification in the self-righteousness
of the human heart — Advance until the age of the Schoolmen — The
origin of Scholastic Theology — Character of the Schoolmen— Fitness
of the age for the rapid growth of error — The corruptions of Romanism
which were matured in that age — The seven sacraments — Sacramental
Confession — Transubstantiation — Half Communion — Image worship
¦ — Purgatory — Indulgences — The same age, as was to be expected, gave
birth to the Romish doctrine of Justification — Connection between the
Schoolmen and the divines of Trent — Three propositions to show ttie
identity of the doctrine of Oxfordism with that of the Schoolmen. —
Similar tendencies — Concluding remarks — Note, showing the resem
blance between the doctrine of Oxford, and that of the early Quakers. 107
CHAPTER V.
THE DOCTRINE OF OXFORD DIVINITY, AS TO THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF JUS
TIFICATION, COMPARED WITH THAT OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT.
Recapitulation — Language of the Council of Trent — State of the Ques
tion at the Reformation, and now, from Chemnitz, Jackson, Hall, Usher,
Hooker — Holiness required at least as much by Protestants as Roman
ists — Oxford interpretation of single passages of Scripture, compared
with those of Romish divines — Three particulars in which Oxford di
vines claim to be regarded as not conformed to Romanism — These con
sidered, and shown to make such conformity the more obvious — The
vindication drawn from the Romish claim of merit, answered — Hooker's
argument against the Romish doctrine of merit, shown to be applicable,
in the same way, to Oxfordism — Concluding remarks  139

CONTENTS. XY
CHAPTER VL
THE DOCTRINE OF OXOHD DIVINITY, AS TO THE NATURE AND OFFICE OP
JUSTIFYING FAITH, EXHIDITED, AND COJiPARED WITH THAT OF THE
ROMISH CHURCH. Page.
The influence of the doctrine of Justification, whether true or false, upon
the body of divinity, in general — The sameness of Ihe Oxford doctrine
and that of Rome, tested by the sameness of influence upon connected
and subordinate doctrines — This, first exhibited as to the doctrine of
Justifying Faith — The doctrine of Faith, as held in the Romish Church,
stated in six propositions — The doctrine of Oxford stated in compari
son, under the same propositions, showing the nature and ofEce of
Faith, before Baptism, in Baptism, and after Baptism — The profession
of making Faith the sole internal instrument of Justification examined
and shown to be without any reality — Justification by Faith, in this
system, nothing but Justification by Christianity — A rebuke from
Bishop Beveridge. . .  .  177
CHAPTER VII.
THE DOCTRINE OF OXFORD DIVINITY, AS TO THE OFFICE AND EFFICACY
OF THE SACRAMENTS, ESPECIALLY OF BAPTISM, COMPARED WITH THAT
OF THE HOMISH CHURCH.
Tendency of all such principles, as that of Justification in Oxford Divinity,
to magnify external ceremonies, and ultimately to make all religion con
sist in them — This tendency prominent in regard to the Sacraments —
Baptismal Justification similarly held by the Romish Church and the
Divines of Ciford — The opus operiUum of Baptism held alike by both
— Effect of this, the same in both, in keeping out of view the truth, that
the Sacraments are si^ns, and identifying the visible sign with the in
visible grace — The tendency to transubstantiation, in Oxford Divinity,
explained from the same cause — The false and injurious comparison be
tween the spiritual nature of the Sacraments ofthe Old and New Tes
taments, resulting alike from Romish and Oxford Divinity — Extract
from Jeremy Taylor — Limbus Patrum — Bishop Burnet on Sacramental
Justification  211
CHAPTER VIII.
DOCTRINEOF OXFORD DIVINITY FURTHER EXHIBITED BY ITS EFFECTS
UPOV OTHER DICTUIXES AND PARTS OF CHRISTIANITY.
Effects upon the doctrine of Original Sin ; Testimony of Jackson to the
Peculiar Romanism of these results — Sin after Baptism — Mortal and

IVI CONTENTS. Page.
Venial Sins— Tendencies of Oxford Divinity to the doctrine of Purga
tory—to Prayers for the dead— Invocation of Saints— 'I'ransubstantia-
tion  'Working of Miracles — Auricular Confession — Extreme Unction
 Anointing at Baptism and Confirmation — Additional matters of Rcs-
leration contemplated — Sacramental character of Marriage counte
nanced—Use of Romish Prayer Books and Rules of Fasting — Favour
to Image-'Worship — Christian Holiness — Tradition ; Why this topic
reserved to the last — Extracts from the late Charge of Bishop 'Wilson. 237
CHAPTER IX.
THE DOCTRrNE OF OXFORD DIVINITY .IS TO THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OE JUS
TIFICATION, AND THE NATURE AND OFFICE OF FAITH, COMPARED WITH
THAT OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH.
Matter of mortification that such comparison is necessary — A general ac
count of the doctrinal standards of the Anglican Church — Statement
ofthe questions investigated in this Chapter — Arguments from the as
sertion of Dr. Pusey that the Article of Justification says nothing of
what Justification consists in — The Articles xi, xii, and xiii — Exposi
tion of the xi, from the language of its Authors elsewhere — From its
own peculiar precision as to the ofliice of faith — Homilies quoted and
expounded — Seven difiiculties into which the Oxford doctrines are
brought by the language of the Article and Homilies — Each made use
of as an evidence against the consistency of that Divinity with that of
the Anglican Church  317
CHAPTER X.
THE DOCTRINE OF OXFORD DIVINITY AS TO BAPTISMAL JUSTIFICA
TION, COMPARED W^ITH THAT OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH.
Recapitulation of the Oxford and Romish Doctrines — Difference between
remission of Original Sin as held by the Anglican Church, and the Ox
ford Divines — Testimony of Jackson — Baptismal Justification of Adults
— A priori reason for believing that the AngUcan and Oxford doctrines
are diverse on this head — Silence of the Articles and HomiUes unac
countable if the Oxford doctrine were that of the Church — Language
of the Articles and Homilies irreconcilable with the Oxford doctrine —
Language of Scripture, Fathers, English divine.^, needs explanation —
Evidence of necessity of other interpretation than Oxfordism gives —
Barrow — Beveridge — Hooper — Frith — Hooker— Hall— Homilies-
Usher — Beveridge — Inconsistencies in English divines, according to

CONTENTS. xvii Page
the Oxford interpretation — Barrow — Hooker — St. Bernard — Jewel —
Inconsistencies of Augustine and other Fathers according to the Ox
ford doctrine — True doctrine shown from Bishops Hooper, Beveridge,
and Taylor — Mode of interpreting the strong language of the old di
vines, &c. — Bishop Bethell's mode rejected as too low — Strange incon
sistencies of Oxford divined — Mode of Interpretation illustrated from
Augustine, Jewel, from language of Hooker, &c. — Concerning the
membership of infants in the Church before Baptism; common lan
guage concerning a call to the ministry and language of Scripture as to
the baptism of Christ — Further illustration from common law terms —
application to language of Nowell's Catechism — Passages from Whit-
gift, and Dr. Haddon — Concluding observations — Extract from Bishop
Hopkins on the Doctrine of Baptism  365
CHAPTER XL
THE DOCTRINE OF OXFORD DIVINITY A3 TO THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF JUS.
TIFICATION AND THE OFFICE OF FAITH, COMPARED WITH THAT OE
STANDARD DIVINES OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH.
Majorities in such a question of no avail — Laud's testimony — Divines of
the 17th Century especially relied on by the Oxford writers — The same
mainly employed in this Chapter — Testimony of Oxford writers to the
eminent authority of Hooker — His views acknowledged to be in entire
opposition to those of this divinity on Justification — Force ofthe con
fession — Singular attempt to escape its force — Citations from Hooker —
Tyndale — Barnes — Cranmer — Bishop Hooper — Bishop Latimer — Ed
ward VI, Catechism — Confession of Martyrs and Divines in Prison —
Nowell's Catechism — Haddon and Fox against Osorius — Perkins —
Bishop Downame — Bishop Andrewes —Mede — Bishop Hall — Bishop
Nicholson — Archbishop Usher — Bishop Hopkins — Bishop Beveridge. 447
CHAPTER XIL
Concluding Observations  507

3*

OXFORD DIVINITY COMPARED, &c.

CHAPTER I.
Introductory Remarks — Oxford Divinity before the publication of Dr. Pusey's
Letter — Effect of that Letter — Convictions of the present Author — Reasons
for this publication — The doctrine of Justification selected, as that by which
the Romanism of Oxford Divinity may be most thoroughly tried — That this
was the great point of the Reformers, shown from Hooker, &c. — Three pre
sumptive objections to the charge of Romanism, from the character of Oxford
Divines removed — The views of the writer as to the designs and snares of
Satan.
Fe"w observers of what is passing in the Christian
Church, can fail to be aware that what is called Oxford
Divinity, meaning, by that term, not the dominant
theological system of the University of Oxford, but
that which is far from holding a rank so distinguished,
the peculiar doctrines of certain scholars and divines
of high standing in that Institution, has reached a
position of prominence, in the public view, of great
importance, for evil or good to the vital interests of
religion. It is also a raatter of notoriety that this di
vinity, zealously urged as the true doctrine of the
English Church, and the Scriptures, sustained by
singular industry of the pen and press, and certainly
with great vigour of mind, and diligence of research,
is confidently accused, by writers of no less repute
for all soundness of mind and adornment of learning

10
and piety, of a lamentable departure from the true
doctrines of the Gospel, and of the Church of Eng
land; as also of a correspondent approximation to
those doctrinal corruptions of the Church of Rome of
which the Temple of God, in England, was cleansed,
at the blessed era of the Protestant Reformation.
Between the two sides of the accusers and accused,
thus arranged, the controversy was carried on for
some time, abroad, before the friends of Christian
truth, in this country, were called to take any part;
except as spectators, deeply interested in the ani
mated disputations of their transatlantic brethren.
At length, however, it was thought expedient by
some of those spectators, that the controversy should
be set up in the Church of this land, and that the
publications on orte side, viz. that of the Oxford di
vines, should have a reprint here. Hence the far-
famed " Tracts for the Times'^ were issued from the
press of New York, preceded by the promise of the
reprint of a large selection of other English publi
cations on the same side of the question. During
the progress of these works, the most zealous efforts
have been made to commend the peculiarities of Ox
ford Divinity to the diligent reading, and confidential
reception, of the clergy and laity of this country.
Thus has the controversy been forced upon those
who, while the publications were confined to a trans
atlantic Church, and only introduced among us by
scanty importations, would have been content to leave
it with those to whom it especially belonged, however
deeply convinced themselves, that Oxford Divinity
was most justly accused.
As yet, however, the name, Oxford Divinity, seem-

11
ed to very many readers, like its famous aversion
Ultra-Protestantism, a something indeed of no unpor-
tentous mien, but exceedingly difficult to reduce into
distinct expression and shape. The Tracts were by
no means a full, systematic, or satisfactory develop
ment of this divinity. They displayed its peculiari
ties only here and there ; in many of their earlier
portions, scarcely at all, except to a practised eye;
while they contained so much that was unquestion
ably good; so much, in a somewhat new relation, of
what we had always held to be true and necessary,
especially as to points of defect in the outward being
of the Church of England as she is oppressed and
disfranchised by the State, that scarcely any unpro
fessional reader would discover in the Tracts alone
the several distinctive doctrines of the system. In
deed it is questionable whether any reader, having no
other aids, would be able, without much care, and fa
miliarity with the precise bearings of the Romish con
troversy, as it was waged by the Reformers, to con
struct in his own mind, the whole edifice of that sys
tem. The difficulty would be, not in discovering
divers places in the Tracts to which a mind well in
structed in the Gospel, and thoroughly protesting
against Romanism, would most seriously except. It
would be rather in the gradual manner in which these
developments are brought before the reader, in pro
portion as his mind may be expected to become pre
pared to bear them. It would lie also in the disjointed
scattering of such parts over the whole surface of the
Tracts, the intervals being filled in with an attrac
tive display of original matter or of selections from
approved writers, to which none could except.

12
But Oxford Divinity is by no means confined to
Oxford Tracts, technically so called. Some of them
indeed are sufficiently objectionable. Many, how
ever, contain a sort of material which, when read by
itself, insulated from the more direct manifestations
of the s'ystem, may be, not only innocent, but useful.
It would be singular indeed, if works so voluminous,
abounding in extracts from so many of the best di
vines of the Church of England, and composed
throughout by learned and estimable men, should not
contain a great deal of useful knowledge, of sound
and valuable discussion, and of practical principle
important to be had in remembrance. Read Car
dinal Bellarmine's defence of Popery ! May not as
much be said of the works of that learned champion
of the decrees of Trent? Read the works of Soci-
nus ! May not as much be said of the writings of
that learned, acute, zealous originator of the modern
school of Unitarian divinity ? Surely it is but a poor
voucher for the s'ystem inculcated in any work of the
ology, to say that many of its parts, taken in separa
tion from each other, are sound and useful. Many a
man is slowly dying with disease at the vitals, whose
hands or feet are still capable of useful service.
Oxford Divinity is represented partly in the Tracts,
but in other writings also of various authors, some of
whom are known as leaders, others as followers, all
disclaiming the name of being connected together as
a school or a party, or in any way to be associated
but as having been raised up, in the same age, un
der the same divine providence and teaching, to tes
tify against the same departures from primitive truth,
and in favour of the same restoration of the Church

13
Catholic from the supposed disintegrating influences
of what they have united in branding as Ultra Pro
testantism. In this concert of action and purpose,
and real system, so long as there was no common
symbol or confession marking out their common pecu
liarities, it would not unfrequentiy occur that an at
tempt to designate the doctrines of the class, by
particulars from individuals, would be met by the
answer that Oxford Divinity was not responsible for
whatever might appear in the writings of all who
professed to coincide with that way.
This difficult diffusiveness of essence, without cor
porate tangibility, has been, in some wise, removed by
the publication in England, and the reprint in this
country, of "A Letter" by the Eev. E. B. Pusey, D.D.,
Regius Professor of Hebrew, in the University of Ox
ford, addressed to the Bishop of Oxford; — a work of
more than two hundred well filled pages, and purport
ing to contain, in behalf of the author, and his fellow-
labourers, a declaration of faith on the points whereon
they have been accused, with a special view to a vin
dication of their doctrines from the charge of a ten
dency to Romanism. The object of the author of
that Letter is, in his own words, to lay before the
Bishop ^^An explicit confesssion."
How far the confession is explicit on all points, pro
fessedly exhibited, may hereafter appear. How far
it tends to remove the imputation of a dangerous ten
dency to Romanism, need not yet be said. It cer
tainly places the question of Oxford Divinity — rvhat
it is, what it is responsible for, and where it is to be found,
in a much more satisfactory position for investigation
than that in which it appeared before. Its distinct

14
mention of other vouchers beside itself, particularly
the Lectures of Mr. Newman on Justification, as con
taining an exhibition of Oxford Divinity equally au
thentic and responsible with itself, enable the inquirer
to embrace a wide field of reference without fear of
depending upon authorities which might afterwards
be called in question.
The present writer has devoted a long time and a
great deal of pains to the study of the system, as ex
hibited in the several sources to which the Letter of
Dr. Pusey has opened the way. With great truth he
can say that he has diligently studied the system,
and that too with every effort to judge it fairly, kindly,,
conscientiously, and with frequent prayer to know
the truth with regard to a movement which promises
so much influence, good or evil, upon the state of Re
ligion in the Protestant Churches.
He is constrained to say that every further step of
insight into what is indeed a thoroughly wrought,
highly complex, and deep-laid scheme or system of
doctrine, (much as the name of system is rejected bv
its advocates) has produced but a deeper and deeper
conviction on his mind that whatever the intention or
supposition of those who maintain it, it is a systematic
abandonment of the vital and distinguishing princi
ples of the Protestant faith, and a systematic adoption
of that very root and heart of Romanism, whence has
issued the life of all its ramified corruptions and de
formities. In this declaration it is not meant that all
the divers particulars — all the far-reaching extremi
ties of error and corruption into which the system of
Romanism has spread, and by which, far more than
by its deep-rooted principles, it is known in raodern

15
controversy, are manifest in the system under consid
eration. — Far frora it. Romanism did not grow into
its present stature and wide extension of limb and
shade in an age. But in the essential and character
istic life of its divinity it existed nevertheless, and was
no less Romanism when modestly sending out its
feelers, and quietly widening its under-ground roots
and shooting forth its branches, as the times allowed,
than it is Romanism now, in all its maturity and
boastfulness. And so may Oxford Divinity be essen
tially Romish Divinity, built on the sarae foundations,
squared with reference to the sarae cardinal points,
and by the law of its own nature, necessarily proceed
ing, in proportion as room is given, and the " Times"
will bear, to make itself known in all those evils to
the Gospel of Christ by which the sway of Roman
ism has been so lamentably distinguished ; while as
yet, being truly a systera "¦for the times," it may not
be Romanism in such overt self-confession and unre
served manifestation, before an unprepared commu
nity, or even in the unprepared minds of its irama-
ture, but growing disciples, as to strike the common
eye, or be generally recognized, as of the house and
lineage of Popery.
The present writer is fully convinced that such is
the precise character and such are the certain results
of Oxford Divinity, in proportion as its tendencies
shall have time and roora to develop theraselves.
Every additional examination of the system, as addi
tional documents have appeared from its advocates, or
a closer dissection, of those long in hand, has been
made, has only rendered this conviction more and
more immoveable. Instead of this conviction being

16
in any degree impaired by the consideration that sun
dry branches of Romanism have not been avowed, or
have been really opposed by the advocates of this sys
tem; the fact only shows that, if their doctrine be
Romanism, in essential character and influence, its
imperfect ramification, by making the evil more invi
sible, only renders it the raore dangerous. A more
rapid development would be the better warning to
the unwary and would arouse a more vigorous ef
fort for its extinction.
Under the serious and painful conviction, thus ex
pressed, and in consideration of the many internal
attractions of learning, and of bold pretension to pri
mitive simplicity and purity under which this system
appears; accompanied, as it is, by the influence of
distinguished scholars and divines, and emanating
from one of the two great Universities of our Mo
ther Church of England; it has seemed to the pre
sent writer to be a duty arising out of his relation to
the Church Catholic, and his more immediate rela
tion to the clergy, candidates for orders, and laity of
his own Diocese, to lay before the public an exhibi
tion of this system, in its essential principles, as
compared with the doctrines common to the Pro
testant Episcopal Churches of England and Amer
ica, on the one side, and those of the Church of
Rome, on the other. And this he conceives to be the
more necessary, because, from the manner in which
this Divinity is made to stand before the reader, the
beautiful garments in which it is invested, the unex
plained phraseology it sometimes uses, but especially
because the main positions and fundamental interests
of the Romish controversy as carried on by the Re-

17
formers of England and the Continent, in common,
have passed so much out of raind, and men are accus
tomed to contemplate Romanisra, rather in its ex-
treraities, than its root and trunk, and to aim at cutting
off" its limbs, instead of taking away its heart, and
thus are not ready to compare with it a system
which, though it may have put out comparatively few
branches into the upper air, has yet all the root and
trunk and life of Romanism, ready to ramify just as
fast as the " Times " shall be prepared ; — for these rea
sons the writer considers it the more necessary that
so much attention should be devoted to that system as
it is about to receive in this volume. He may be
charged with great presumption in attempting to dis
cover in the writings, under consideration, what their
own authors, so learned and acute, and their friends,
so learned and acute, seem not to have discovered ;
and in attempting to arraign on the charge of such
serious error, the opinions of divines at whose feet it
would be no evidence of humility that he should be
ready and glad to sit, as well for examples of per
sonal excellence, as for the benefit of deep thought
and various and matured erudition. But in the
words of Mr. Newman, '^Bystanders see our minds."
It may be added. Bystanders nf very inferior capacity
may see our minds, when we do not. A very skilful
physician may be blind to his own malady; v/hile to
one of very inferior skill it may be quite evident; and
that, precisely because he is a bystander. But pre
sumptuous, or not, the way of duty seems plain ; then
with no profession but that of an honest, single,
prayerful desire, by the grace and mercy of God, to
discharge his solemn responsibility as "a watchman
3

18
over the House of Israel," feehiig at the same time
that raany others, in the Church, would discharge
the duty far more efficiently, the author must request,
at least, his brethren of the Church in his own dio
cese, to accompany him in the examination of this
widely circulated and high-pretending divinity.
But to go over the whole body of divinity, in all its
merabers, for the sake of estiraating the character of
this, were an endless task. We must select some great
fundamental principle of the Gospel, which, viewed
in one aspect, makes the main doctrinal feature of the
Protestant orthodox faith ; and viewed in an opposite
aspect, makes the main doctrinal feature of Roman
ism; and to which, as it is held by the two opposite
parties, may be traced the chief peculiarities which
rise up before the public eye and distinguish them
respectively, each from the other. Then we must
inquire to which of the two contrasted views of that
main principle, the essential features of Oxford Di
vinity are raost conformed, and if we find them con
formed to that of Rome, and opposed to that of the
Church of England, then the system is essential Ro
manism, even though it have not yet put forth a single
branch of Romanisra, as that is developed in its Pur
gatory and Image-worship, and Transubstantiation,
&c. But if we shall find, moreover, that it is not only
thus conformed in the main principle, but is going on
to shoot out more and more, however slowly and cau
tiously, into just the same growth of bud and branch;
then we shall be the more confirmed in the conviction,
not only that it is Romanisra in essence, but that, in
proportion as the times will allow, and room shall be
given, it will become Romanisra in full raanifestation.

19
Now what is that fundamental question which will
thus serve as a position whence we may coramand
the whole field of enquiry before us? We need go
no further than the Judicious Hooker for an answer.
"That grand question," he says, "that hangeth in
controversy between us and Rorae is about the matter
of lustifying righteousness. We disagree about the
nature and essence of the medicine rvhereby Christ
cureth our disease; about the manner of applying it ;
about the number and the porver of means, which God
requireth in us for the effectual applying thereof to
our soul's comfort. When they are required to show
what the righteousness is whereby a Christian man
is justified, they answer that it is a divine spiritual
quality; which quality received into the soul, doth
first make it to be one of them who are born of God;
and secondly, endue it with power to bring forth such
works as they do that are born of Him ; even as the
soul of man, being joined to his body, doth first
make him to be of the number of reasonable crea
tures ; and, secondly, enable him to perform the natu
ral functions which are proper to his kind : that it
maketh the soul amiable and gracious in the sight of
God, in regard whereof it is termed Grace; that it
purgeth, purifieth, and washeth out, all the stains
and pollutions of sins; that, by it, through the merit
of Christ, we are delivered, as from sin, so from eter
nal death and condemnation the reward of sin. This
Grace they will have to be applied by infusion; to
the end that, as the body is warra by the heat which
is in the body, so the soul might be made righteous
by inherent Grace; which Grace they make capable
of increase ; as the body may be more warm, so the

20
soul more and more justified, according as Grace
should be augmented; the augmentation whereof is
merited by good works, as good works are made
meritorious by it. Wherefore, the first receipt of
Grace, in their divinity, is the first Justification : the
increase thereof, the second Justification. As Grace
may be increased by the merit of good works: so it
may be diminished by the demerit of sins venial; it
may be lost by mortal sin. Inasrauch, therefore, as
it is needful, in the one case to repair, in the other to
recover, the loss which is raade, the infusion of Grace
hath her sundry afterraeals : for the which cause, they
make many ways to apply the infusion of Grace. It
is applied to infants through Baptism, without either
faith or works ; and, in them, really it taketh away
original sin, and the punishment due unto it: it is
applied to infidels and wicked men in the first Justi
fication, through baptism, without works, yet not
without faith ; and it taketh away sins both actual
and original together, with all whatsoever punish
ment, eternal or temporal, thereby deserved. Unto
such as have attained the first Justification, that is
to say, this first receipt of Grace, it is applied farther
by good works to the increase of former Grace : which
is the second Justification. If they work more and
more, Grace doth more increase : and they are more
and more justified. To such as diminish it by venial
sins, it is applied by holy water, Ave Marias, cross
ings, papal salutations, and such like: which serve
for reparations of Grace decayed. To such as have
lost it through mortal sin, it is applied by the Sacra
ment (as they term it) of Penance : which sacrament
hath force to confer Grace anew ; yet in such sort,

21
that, being so conferred, it hath not altogether so
much power as at the first. For it only cleanseth
out the stain or guilt of sin committed : and changeth
the punishment eternal, into a teraporal satisfactory
punishment here, if time do serve, if not, hereafter to
be endured; except it be lightened by masses, works
of charity, pilgrimages, fasts, and such like; or else
shortened, by pardon by term, or by plenary pardon
quite removed and taken away. This is the mystery
of the Man of Sin. This maze the Church of Rome
doth cause her follorvers to tread, when they ask her
fhe way to Justification. Whether they speak of the
first or second Justification, they raake the essence of
a divine quality inherent, they raake it righteousness
which is in us. If it be in us, then it is ours; as our
souls are ours, though we have thera from God, and
can hold them no longer than pleaseth him ; for, if he
withdraw the breath of our nostrils, we fall to dust.
But the righteousness, wherein we must be found,
if we will be justified, is not our own. Therefore we
cannot be justified by any inherent quality. — The
Church of Rorae, in teaching Justification by inhe
rent Grace, doth pervert the truth of Christ : and, by
the hands of the Apostles, we have received other
wise than she teacheth. Now, concerning the Righte
ousness of Sanctification, we deny it not to be inhe
rent: we grant, that, unless we work, we have it not:
only we distinguish it, as a thing different in nature
frora the Righteousness of Justification. By the one,
we are interested in the right of inheriting : by the
other, we are brought to the actual possession of eter
nal bliss. And so the end of both is everlasting life."'
' Hooker's Disc, of Juslif ^ 5, 6.

22
Now here we have a regular pedigree of the most
injurious corruptions of the Romish Church, and
all traced to the parent cause in her doctrine of Justi
fication. All together make up "the mystery of the
Man of sin" — "the maze which the Clmrch of Rome
doth lead her foUowers to tread, when they ask her the
way to Justification ;" — all constitute that " building "
of manifold error which Hooker believed must fall "in
the presence of the building of God," " as Dagon, be
fore the Ark." But the corner stone on which that
building rests ; the clue to that maze; the secret of that
mystery, is the Romish doctrine of Justification by
Inherent Righteousness — the answer she gives to
the question of a sinner enquiring what he must do
to be saved, instead of that plain answer of St. Paul,
" Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt he
saved." Embrace the answer of Rome, and you
have essential Romanism ; carry out the principle ,
and you will have developed Romanisra, in the whole
of its raaze and raystery. Embrace the answer of
St. Paul, and you strike Romanism to the heart; so
that, whatever its ramifications, they must all die and
pass away; whatever its maze, it is all disentangled
and scattered. It is the Romish doctrine of Justifica
tion that gives value to indulgences, need to purgatory,
use to the sacrament of penance, motive to the invo
cation of saints, credence to the existence of the sa
cred treasury of supererogatory merits ; that makes
auricular confession tolerable, and all the vain inven
tions of meritorious will-worship, precious. Next
come devices for the defence of these, and hence the
Romish doctrine of tradition and of infallibility and of
implicit faith. Such precisely was the view of the
judicious Hooker, as furnished in the extract above

23
given ; a writer whose authority will not be denied,
as to what was the fundamental question in the days
of the reformation of the Church of England, in her
controversy with Rome. In this prominence of Jus
tification, there was a perfect agreement among the
Protestant Divines, as well of England, as of the
Continent. It was in precise accordance with the
view of Hooker, that Luther spake of the doctrine of
Justification as " the article of a standing or a falling
Church f^ that Calvin maintained that " if this one
head were yielded safe and entire, it would not pay the
cost to make any great quarrel about other matters in
controversy with Rome;"^ that Melancthon said he
and his brethren were brought into danger for the
only reason that they denied the Romish doctrine of
Justification ;^ that divines in the Council of Trent
opposed the Protestant doctrine of Justification be
cause it " abolished the punishment together with the
guilt, and left no place remaining for satisfaction,"^
that is, it made all the devices of sacramental penance,
propitiatory masses, yea, the whole " maze and mys
tery of the man of sin," unnecessary. Such was the
view universally taken by the earlier divines of the
Church of England. With such raen as Usher, Hall,
Andrewes, Beveridge, as well as a host before them,
the Romish Justification was always a main and
fundamental question, on which the whole building
of Romish error ultimately rested .
In this work the author goes back to the essential
test of the Romanism of any system of divinity. Is

iBp. Hall's Works, ix. p. 44, 5. 2Ep.i. 120. sPaufsHisf,
Counc. of Trent, p. 200.

24
Oxford Divinity conformed essentiaUy to the doctrine
of Rome, on the question of Justification ; or to the
opposite doctrine of the standards of the Church of
England, and of her daughter-Church in America!
To arrive at the right answer to this question, will
be the object ofthe following pages.
But here it is asked how can we suspect such men
as the advocates of this system, men of a reputation
so unimpeached, and under such solemn vows of
conformity to the doctrines of the English Church,
of a design to bring in Romanism, or to bring over
the Church of England to that of Rome?
It is answered that we siispect no such thing.
That they consider themselves as labouring to intro
duce what they will call Romanism ; that they have
any desire to make the Church of England subject
to that of Rome ; or to make her similar, in all those
peculiar features which most strike the eye and ex
cite the general aversion, and some of which their
own writings have opposed; that they do not con
sider themselves as special lovers of the mother-
Church, and working directly for the best interests
of religion therein, we by no means assert. It is this
very fact, that their personal reputation is so unim
peachable, and that their conviction of the propriety
of what they are doing seems so sincere, which, if
they do teach serious error, must make their teach
ing the more dangerous, and give it the greater
power of extension. Men are often half persuaded
already of a doctrine, when its advocate, to learning,
adds evident sincerity and benevolence. Soon would
it do away our apprehensions of much evil result
from any error in the writing of these divines, to see

25
them stand disclosed as knowing their doctrines to
be inconsistent with those of the Church of which
they profess to be devoted sons, and promotive of a
system against which that Church so earnestly pro
tests. In such a case, we might, in a great degree,
confide in the evil, for its remedy ; in the criminal,
for his halter.
But some of the worst corruptions of religion have
had their origin with its best and sincerest friends.
Among those who most disturbed the Churches of
Rome and Carthage in the days of Cornelius and
Cyprian, were Confessors, with maimed and man
gled bodies, frora the torture, in which they had
borne a noble testimony to their Master. What is now
a full-grown idolatry in the Church of Rorae, had
its beginnings in the bosoms of men ready to die for
Christ, and was nursed by some of the purest piety
of the early Church. The ovum of saint-worship
was laid, by the Serpent, in the ashes of the martyrs;
and in the assemblies of devout men, around their
tombs, met together out of just veneration for their
holy example and noble death, was the embryo
cherished. The whole history of the Church warns
us against forgetting that very good and sincere men
may set on foot great errors — and thus inflict an in
jury of which worse men would not be capable.'

' Jackson traces the idolatrous worship of Romanism to " the making auch
fair garlands, as Antiquity had woven for holy Saints and true Martyrs, into
chains for every dead doff's neck which had brought gain to their Sanctuary."
" The choicest respect or reverence, (he says) which had been manifested towards
the best of God's Saints or Martyrs, was afterwards enjoined as a perpetual
honour to their birth-days. Rome-Christian hath been of this kind more lavish
that Rome-Heathen. In process of time it became matter of imputation unto
4

26
Again : it is asked whether the eminent learning,
united to the religious'character of these Divines, is
not such protection against serious error that we
may feel assured they have not fallen into doctrines ap
proximating in any evil or dangerous degree to Ro-
manism ? The idea has weight practically, but it is
only necessary to ask the question, to answer it.'
"Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest
he fall." "The depths of Satan" are deeper than
any man's learning. His wiles are stronger than
any man's goodness. His great enmity is against the
rederaption of man by Jesus Christ, and consequently
against the true way of Justification through his
righteousness. And to cut off the supplies of the
Church, by choking up, if he cannot wholly cut off,
that new and living way to the Father, was his grand
device in Romanisra, and will ever be araong all
people. No human learning and goodness can be
trusted for security against his "principalities and
powers." "We wrestle not with flesh and blood."
The war which began when it was said to the Ser
pent, "thou shalt bruise his heel," is still waged
¦without ceasing against that "Seed ofthe Woman,"

some religions orders that they had not so many canonized Saints as their oppo
sites could brag of. Thus the order of the Carthusians was suspected not to
be celestial. And lest any part of heathenish superstition might be left unpar
alleled by like practices of the Romish Hierarchy, as the deification of Antinous
was countenanced with feigned relations of a new star's appearance, &c.  so
were Revelations pretended in the Papacy to credit their sanctifications which
stood in need of some divine testimony to acquit their sanctity from suspicion."
— Works, Vol. 1, pp. 936, 7.
' In Dr. Pusey's Scriptural Views of Holy Baptism we are warned against
the " delusive criterion" of allowing ourselves to be influenced in the enquiry
whether any doctrine be a Scriptural truth, by the supposed religious character
of those who hold or deny it. — p. II. Am. Ed.

27
"the second Man," "the Lord from Heaven." His
mystical body, on earth, is compassed with strata
gem which often eludes the raost careful search.
Many a learned, many a zealous, many a sincere
man has been unwittingly harnessed to the work of
that "Ruler of the darkness of this world;" who
never succeeded in constructing such an Antichrist
as when he wrought up Romanism, and has no de
vice so dear as that of sustaining it, in all its integ
rity, and of reducing the whole kingdom of Christ, on
earth, to that dominion.
But, again, it is asked, how can the writers in
question be charged with a dangerous tendency to
Romanism, when it is well known that they have fre
quently expressed themselves, and even written trea
tises directly against certain conspicuous features
ofthe Roman Church?
That these divines have so written, we have no
disposition to deny. Whether they have not con
fined themselves, in their arguments against what
they call Roraanism, to a very meagre selection of
topics; expressly excluding what our Reforraers and
ancient divines considered to be the great cardinal
matters of the controversy ; whether, in the points
embraced, they have not taken ground exceeding
low and tame, using language which often betrays
a disposition, rather to apologize for the Church of
Rome, than to detect her heresies; whether they
have not confined themselves to such a selection of
the weapons of argument, especially in the exclusion
of the authority of Scripture, and the substitution of
a single reliance upon that of tradition, in disprov
ing certain errors of Rome, so as in reality to dis-

28
honour and betray the very cause of which they are
the professed defenders ; whether they be not pre
cisely such advocates of Protestanism, as the Church
of Rome, in her steady effort to plant again the
standard of the Vatican upon the walls of Lambeth,
would select, had she the choosing of her adversa
ries ; whether, by the very nature and mode of their
restrained and tame and apologetic controversy, so
wholly unlike the vigorous onsets of England's Re
formers and greatest divines, they are not really do
ing Rome's work, in England, far more advantage
ously, for the present Times, than any of her own
professed sons could do it, and that simply because
they consider themselves consistent clergymen of
the Church of England, and because many cry out
loudly against the uncharitableness of supposing
they are not ; whether, if they were citizens of a
country in which Romanism was the established
faith, they would not find themselves bound by their
present principles, and but little forbidden by their
present sympathies, to fall in submissively, with the
ways, and bow to the authority of, the Romish
Church, it would be premature, in this place, to
consider. Let it, however, for the present, be granted that
these divines have -written well and faithfully against
such features of Romanism, as the Papal Suprema
cy ; the schismatic position of the Church of Rome
within the Dioceses of the Church of England ; the
denial of the cup to the laity, &c. &c., so as to prove
that so far as these and similar matters constitute
Romanism, they desire none of its ways. But surely
it is not uncommon for persons to be opposing the

29
overt manifestations of deadly disorder, while unwari
ly, but constantly, cherishing its vital principle. The
seat of ruinous evil may as easily be mistaken in
the mystical body of "the Man of Sin," as in the
natural body of any of its individual merabers. — It
is indeed a singular mode of argument to contend
that because certain writers oppose some things in
the Church of Rome, they may not be charged with
the vital essence of Romanism, and with maintain
ing those very principles which, above all others,
have made her almost Apostate, and us entirely Pro
testants. The fact that these divines have written
with learmng and sincerity against some of the
more offensive and inconvenient developments of
Popery, (for the claim of Papal Supremacy would
certainly be quite inconvenient to the clergy of Eng
land, if allowed,) puts them in the precise position
from which, if they be wrong in the one radical mat
ter of justification, the publication of their doctrines,
on that, will operate the more covertly and danger
ously upon the Protestant community around them.
Men will be the less awake to the maintenance of
the raore abstract and irapalpable error, because they
are witnesses to the resistance presented to the more
superficial, but impressive. Let a school of divines
appear among us who, under the profession of Pro
testants, instead of appearing as advocates of only
some of the more interior and least farailiar, but
head-sources, of Roman corruptions, shall come out
also full handed with arguments for the supremacy,
and transubstantiation, and divers other matters of
equal note. We shall little fear their influence. Ten
years of open attack around the walls of Troy, ef-

30
fected nothing. But one day of delusion amongst
the wardens of her gates ; the not examining what
lay concealed under an apparent act of religion
betrayed the city. So it is, says Usher, " They who
kept continual watch and ward against the more di
rect introduction of evil, might sleep while the seed
of an iniquity, cloaked with the name of piety, were
a sowing ; yea, peradventure might, at unawares
themselves, have some hand in bringing in their
Trojan horse, commended thus unto them under
the name of religion and semblance of devotion.'"
"We do not hold, (says the same admirable Pre
late) that Rome was built in aday ; or that the great
dung-hill of errors, which we now see in it, was
raised in an age;" Neither do we hold that Rome
could be rebuilt in any country where she has been
cast down, in a generation ; nor that the re-construc
tion must necessarily be called Rome, and have all the
forms and outward and visible signs of that inward
and spiritual departure from grace which is usually
denominated Popery. Should we conceive of the
grand enemy, actually employing a band of men,
concealed under profession of Protestants (and we
may do so for the sake of illustration, without offence)
to lay open a secret road for Popery, into the very
citadel of the Protestantism of England, we could
readily understand that they would select the most
gradual means, as the most effectual; the most noise
less and unseen, as the most ensnaring ; that they
would seem to be great opposers of Romanism, in
some points, while insinuating it in others; would
' Answer to a Jesuit, p. 4.

31
break ground at a distance, where they would be
least feared and reraarked ; get their position fixed
in peace, " while men slept;" then cautiously com
mence approaches, gradually familiarizing the watch
ers upon the walls with the sound of their working,
and never putting forth a new approach, till the no
velty of the former was forgotten. We can readily
conceive that the weapon of such a siege would not
be as the Roman Catapult, hurling, in open day, its
bolts and fiery darts. Some Christian Archimedes,
with the bright mirror of the word, would soon burn
up the engine and put the workers to confusion.
But the weapon would be the pick of the sapper, dig
ging at the base; and the foundation selected would
be that of the bastion, which, while in reality the
key of the fortress, is least known in that importance
to the multitude, and therefore the least watched;
and their object would be, like that of the gun-pow
der plot, under the Senate-House and Throne, to
subjugate the whole, in the ruin of the head; and
could they only persuade sorae honoured and trusted
men of the city, under the sincere supposition, on
their part, that they were only searching after hid
treasures of Antiquity, or endeavouring to effect sorae
useful restoration in the old walls of a venerable raon-
uraent of ancient prowess, to do the digging for them,
till they themselves could work unseen in the raine,
it would indeed be great gain. By and by, it would
be seen that a portion of the wall was fallen — then
another, but each with such interval, that all lookers-
on had grown familiar with the sight of the first di
lapidation, before the second was permitted. By and
by, that bastion is in ruins, and the city at the mercy

32
of the enemy, but all has gone on so gradually and
imperceptibly that it excites but little apprehension.
Now because there is little change to the eye; no
change of accustomed names; no overt invasion of
old attachments and usages; no hoisting of the flag
of the Pope, men may be saying, where is the fear of
his coming — for all things continue as they were
from the beginning. But, like Samson asleep, their
strength is departed and the Philistine is upon thera.
That strong bastion of our Reforraed Church is Jus
tification by Faith; erected "upon the foundation of
the Apostles and Prophets — Jesus Christ himself
being the chief-corner stone." That gone, the tera-
ple is taken, the ark is in captivity; "from the daugh
ter of Zion, all her beauty is departed." What
then if there never grow up over the desolate
courts of the Lord's House, the thorns and thistles,
and all those rank growths, whose names are in the
Breviary of abominations indigenous to Romanism?
Satan is well content. The land is desolate. ' The
work is done. A greater display of ruin, might make
it only the less permanent.'
To some readers it may occur that, in the above
remarks, the writer has made insinuations disrespect
ful to the honesty and sincerity of the divines at Ox
ford. But not so. They are in no wise intended,
but as they may be unconsciously instrumental in the
process described. But so is the writer impressed
with the Scripture-warnings as to the enmity of Sa
tan against the Lord our Redeemer, who being per
sonally out of reach, in heaven, can only be assailed
1 Amisso Articulo jusiijicaiiords, simul amissa est iota doctrina Christiana.
— Luther.

33
through his mystical body — the Church, on earth.
So fully does he believe that in these last times, Sa
tan has come down, having great wrath, because he
knoweth he hath but a short tirae, ;' so does he feel
the iraportance of that Litany, " That it may please
thee to beat down Satan under our feet ;" and so do
the signs of the times seem to indicate that the
Church of England, as it has been always the strong
hold of the truth, is now the grand object of a spe
cial effort in these last days of " the Ruler ofthe dark
ness of this world;" and so deeply is the writer im
pressed, by the history of all ages, that it is the good
men and strong — the Peters of the Church, whora
Satan intensely desires to have that he may sift them
as wheat — and that out of these he raay yet succeed,
as he did with Peter, and has often since succeeded,
in causing some to fall into his snare, and drag in his
traces, and make a stand against the truth, while they
know not what they do; that the writer could not
adventure on this subject, without expressing these
habitual and solemn thoughts of his mind ; however
liable he might make himself to the false imputation
of an unkind, unbrotherly, disrespectful meaning
towards the authors particularly referred to in his
pages. It is nothing more, however, than these au
thors not unfrequentiy say, in substance, of those,
their brethren in the Church of England, whom they
are fond of distinguishing as Ultra-Protestants, and
to whom they unequivocally attribute, not only essen
tial Rationalism, but a direct tendency to Socinianism,
and ultimate Infidelity. Now since such features of
'Rev. xii. 12.

34
the system of these unhappy Ultra-Protestants, must,
in the judgment of their accusers, be "not of the light,
but of the darkness," and consequently of "the Ruler
of the darkness of this world," however unconscious
the instruments, the present writer may be excused
in expressing a similar opinion of the secret instiga
tion of what he considers to be Romanisra at Oxford.
Mr. Newman expresses precisely the writer's mind
when he says that "Satan ever acts on a system,
various, manifold and intricate, with parts and instru
ments of different qualities, some almost purely evil,
others so unexceptionable, that in themselves, and de
tached from the end to which all is subservient, they
are really 'Angels of Light,'' and may be found so to
be at the last day."^
'Newman on the Prophetical Office of the Church, p. 102. "Taking it for
granted," says a writer now of great note at Oxford, "that the Devil had jas
great a longing since Christ triumphed over him, as he had before, to work the
bane of men's souls throughout Europe — it were a brutish simplicity to think
he could not, and a preposterous charity to think he would not, minister his re
ceipts in a cunninger fashion, since the promulgation of the Gospel, than he did
before ; although the poison be still the same. To eat figs, or other more cor
dial food, with the infusion of subtle and deadly poison, exempts not men's bo
dies from danger. Much less can speculative orthodoxal opinions of the God
head free men's souls from the poison of idolatrous practices wherewith (in the
Romish Church,) they are mingled." " Were rats-bane as simply and grossly
ministered to men, as it is to rats, few would take harm by it." — Jackson'
Works, b. V. c. xxii.

CHAPTER II.
STATEMENTS PREPARATORY TO THE RIGHT ESTIMATION OF THE
OXFORD DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.
Professions of Oxford Divines concerning the conformity of their doctrine with
that of the Church of England — Their account of Ultra-Protestantism — The
identity of their system with that of Alexander Knox — The condemnation of
the latter, as Romish and dangerous, by certain eminent divines, of diverse
schools in the Church of England, before its development, at Oxford, had
excited any special notice.
Before proceeding any further, it is proper to state
that the Divinity which we propose to examine, is
loudly claimed by its advocates to be the middle path,
the Via Media, of the Church of England, "distinct
from the by-ways of Ultra-Protestantism on one side,
and neither verging towards, nor losing itself in,
Romanisra on the other."' The forraularies of the
Church of England, and the writings of her standard
Divines are often and confidently appealed to as ex
hibiting the precise doctrines of the systera. Now
it is the siraple question how far these pretensions
are true, which we propose to institute. But in order
to estimate this Via Media aright, the first thing is to
get a view of the opposing sides between which it
professes to pass. Of the one side, viz. of Romanism,
we are to speak particularly hereafter. Of the other
—Ultra Protestantism, a something which occurs
with singular frequency in the works of these writers,
> Pusey's Letter, p. 14.

36
what shall we say? What is Ultra Protestantism?
We have seen no definition. But according to the
use of Dr. Pusey, and others, the name seems to be
applied to whatever is in religion, or relating to it,
negatively, or positively, for, or against, only except
ing Roraanism and Oxfordism; embracing all varie
ties of cause and effect, doctrine and inference; from
the case of those clergy of the Church of England,
who are, " in the main, orthodox and sound, in spite of
the natural tendency of their principles," through
Lutheranism and Calvinism, and every grade of un-
romish dissent and heterodoxy, down to what is
considered the result ofthe common tendency , an entire
Rationalism, and Socinianism, ut nee pes, nee caput
uni reddatur formce. One would suppose that a coast
so undefined would afford but little guidance in keep
ing the middle way, except as when mariners, under
fear of hidden shoals and currents, on an unseen shore,
keep as far away as possible.
Some specimens will help us to judge how far the
Via Media is really a middle way.
Dr. Pusey describes " a large portion " of the clergy
of the Church of England as holding "that Justifi
cation is not the gift of God through his sacraments,
but the result of a certain frame of mind, of a going
forth of themselves and resting themselves upon their
Saviour; that this is the act whereby they think
themselves to have been justified; and so as another
would revert to his "baptism and his engraffing into
Christ, and his thus being in Christ, so do they this act
whereby they were justified." " They sever Justifi
cation from Baptism, and make it consist in the act
of rehance upon the merits of Christ only; .sin, ac-

37
cording to them, is forgiven, at once, upon each re
newal of this act : and in that, they thus virtually
substitute this act for Baptism ; a man has no more to
do with his past sins, than he has with those remitted
by baptism ;" according to them " when men have been
once brought, in repentance to renounce their sins, and
seek reconciliation through the free mercy of Christ —
then their sins are done away, they are covered, they can
appear no more; the hand-writing is blotted out. This
"apprehension of Christ's merits is to them a full re
mission of sins, corapletely effacing them." " To re
vert to past sins is to doubt of Christ's mercy; to bear
a painful recollection of it is to be under the bondage
of the law; to seek to efface it by repentance is weak
ness of faith; to do acts of mercy or self-denial, or
self-abasement, or to fast with reference to it, is to in
terfere with ' the freeness and fulness of the Gospel :'
to insist upon them ' is to place repentance in stead
of Christ.""
It is impossible not to see in this strange caricature,
which really applies, in all respects, to no class of
the clergy of England, that "the large portion" in
tended is that which is best known in this country
by such names as Robinson, Scott, Venn, the two-
Milners, Simeon ; of whose mode of exhibiting the
way of salvation, the writings of such living divines
as the present Bishop Wilson, of Calcutta, the two
Bishops Sumner, one of Winchester, the other of
Chester, the Rev. G. S. Faber, &c. are fair examples.
True indeed the views of this most honourable and
useful body of the English Clergy are very singu-
I Pusey's Letter, pp. 74, 8, 54, 5.

38
Iarly overdrawn ; one can hardly recognize them un
der the strained and warped features for which they
are made to be accountable ; but without doubt, the
Ultra Protestantism referred to in the above extracts,
is intended to be understood as being displayed in the
general mode which appears in that class of English
divines, of representing the nature and essence of the
medicine whereby Christ cureth our disease, the manner
of applying it, and the number and porver ofthe means."
Of such views, does Dr. Pusey write as follows : " This
abuse ofthe doctrine of justification by faith sears men's
consciences now, as much as the indulgences of the Ro
mish system did before. It used to be said that ' the
Romish was an easy religion to die in,' but even the
Romish, in its corruptions, scarcely offered terms so
easy, at all events made not a boast of the easiness of
its terms." Then follows an evident preference of
the Romish system, on the ground that if it have only
"the stale dregs of the system of the ancient Church,"
it has the dregs — "something of the bitterness of the
ancient medicine;" it still teaches men "to make sa
crifices for the good of their souls ;" to accuse and
condemn themselves, that so they might find mercy"
through Christ — to be "punished in this world, that
their souls might be saved hi the day of the Lord." We
are given distinctly to understand that the modern
system of divinity of "a large portion " of the English
Clergy, is worse than even these stale dregs of the
medicine of the ancient Church; because it "stifles
continually the strong emotions of terror and amaze
ment which God has wrought upon the soul, and by
by an artificial wrought-up peace, checks the deep
and searching agony, whereby God, as in a furnace.

39
purifies the whole raan, by the spirit of judgment,
and the Spirit of burning." It is " a spurious system,
misapplying the promises of the Gospel, usurping the
privileges of baptism which it has not to confer, giv
ing peace which it has not to bestow, and going coun
ter to the whole tenor of Scripture, that every man
shall be judged according to his works.'"
The same singularly extravagant and most painful
strain of condemnation is found every where in Mr.
Newman's Lectures on Justification. The following
is a specimen. He calls the righteousness of Christ
imputed to us for Justification, as held by the "large
portion" of the English Clergy, above referred to,
"an unreal righteousness and a real corruption,"
"bringing us into bondage to shadows" — "another
gospel." "Away then (he says) with this modern, this
private, this arbitrary, this tyranical system, which
promising liberty conspires against it ; which abol
ishes sacraments, to introduce dead ordinances; and
for the real participation of Christ, and justification
through his Spirit, would at the very marriage feast,
feed us on shells and husks, who hunger and thirst
after righteousness."^
It is not the purpose here to say a word, in argu
ment, concerning all these wonderful and most me
lancholy exhibitions of morbid mind and spiritual dis
cernment. Whoever has paid any serious attention
to the writings of the Clergy, thus professedly dis
played, will need no help in estimating the justness

' Pusey's Letter, pp. 56 — 59.
"Lectures on Justif. p. 61. Extremes meet. Socinnus calls the same doc
trine, frda, execranda, pernitiosa, detestatida.

40
of the condemnation. But where there is no need of
argument, there raay be propriety in assertion ; and
soraetimes there is a solemn duty in assertion, if only
for the purpose of bearing our solemn testimony,
whatever it may be worth, to some precious, but de
spised and reviled portion of the truth as it is in
Jesus. Such testimony, the present writer feels con
strained to give, in this place, after such an afflicting
reprobation of what he raost solemnly believes to be
nothing else than " the glorious Gospel ofthe blessed
God," our Saviour. Denying entirely the justice of
the draft of doctrine laid to the charge of the class of
divines professedly described ; but perceiving just
enough of truth therein to mark distinctly who com
pose " the large portion" of Clergy whom our Oxford
divines have thus represented as teaching for the way
of salvation, "another gospel" — s. spurious system —
"an unreal righteousness and a real corruption," —
worse even than the system of indulgences in the
Church of Rome ; the author of these pages does ear
nestly hope that his name may be counted worthy to
take part in their condemnation. If the way here call
ed another gospel, even that of Justification through
the obedience and death of Christ, accounted unto us
for righteousness, through the instrumental agency
ofa living faith, be not the only hope ofthe sinner, then
he, for one, has no hope. He has learned of no other
" anchor of the soul sure and stedfast, which entereth to
that within the veil." He does hope he may be ever
identified with that divinity, that way of preaching
Christ Jesus the Lord, which instead ofa ''reserve"
in making known the precious doctrine of Atone
ment, instead of treating salvation by grace, through

41
faith, as " a great secret," and keeping the secret out of
the sight of the ungodly, for fear of " an indelicate ex
posure ofthe sacred mystery T as these writers urge,^
shall lift up the voice to the perishing and penitent,
like the Master and Lord, when to the great multi
tude, on the last day of the feast, he cried, " If any
man thirst let him come unto me and drink ;" a mode
of preaching Christ, that shall ever delight to pro
claim to all people a full, perfect and ready salvation
to the vilest sinner, whenever, in sickness or health,
he turns unto God, truly repenting and believing in
Jesus — a salvation which justifies perfectly, and im
mediately, on the act of a living faith, and which
sanctifies ^er/ec%, but -progressively, as the necessary
fruit of the same faith ; a salvation so perfect and
free, that, in the words of Hooker, " although in our
selves, we be altogether sinful and unrighteous, yet
even the man whichis impious in hiwn^^lf, full of in
iquity, full of sin, him being found in Christ, through
faith, and having his sins remitted through repent
ance, him God beholdeth with a gracious eye, put
teth away his sin by not imputing it, taketh quit-e
away the punishment due thereto by pardoning it,
and accepteth him in Jesus Christ, as perfectly righte
ous as if he had fulfilled all that is commanded him in
the Law. Let it be counted folly or frenzy, or fury,
whatsoever, it is our comfort and our wisdom."^ So
testifies our admirable Hooker — most surely an Ultra
Protestant, in the matter of Justification, and branded,
as others, with the hot denunciation of these Oxford
divines. One can scarcely open the works of such

1 See No. 80 of Tracts for the Times. 2 Discourse of Justif. § S.
6

writers as Bishops Beveridge, Usher, Reynolds,
Andrewes, Hopkins, Hooker, and of the Enghsh
Reformers in general, without meeting with the very
ideas, and often the very words, which have been
made the subject of such tremendous condemnation.
Having now obtained some general idea of the di
vinity in question, by a brief view of one of the oppo
site sides which it professes to avoid, and of the ex
treme antipathy with which its advocates recoil from
that one ; we are ready to proceed to a more direct in
vestigation. Our single object will be to enquire whether this
divinity does preserve, as it professes, the middle way
between the extremes of Protestantism, on the one side,
and of Romanism on the other — the way of the Protest
ant Church of England as indicated in her standards
of doctrine, and in the writings of her standard di
vines ; whether it does not substantiaUy renounce the
doctrines ofthe Church of England, as thus expressed
and expounded, in regard to the way ofa sinner's justi
fication before God, and its connected truths ; and sub
stantially identify itself with those very doctrines of the
Church qf Rome, on these points, against which the
Church of England, in common u'ith all the Protest
ant Churches of Europe, did in the days of the Refor
mation raost solemnly protest.
But how great would be the advantage, in favour
of a correct conclusion, could this question be pur
sued entirely aloof from the various temptations to
bias, arising out of the present wide-spread feeling in
reference to Oxford Divinity. This cannot be. But
then, as the next thing, how great would be our aid
could we obtain the deliberate judgment of learned

43
and good men upon the same divinity, expressed be
fore it came to be identified with Oxford Tracts; be
fore the peculiar views of iVir. Newman on Justifica
tion, and which are now avowed by Dr. Pusey, as
those of the Oxford school, had excited any general
attention, or drawn any party lines. But the advan
tage of the opinions of learned and good raen, in such
circumstances would be greatly enhanced, should
they come from those two schools of doctrine in the
Church of England, which would be the most likely
to differ on such a subject; so that while on one side
there would be all ability, candour and fairness, on
the other there would be also a special inclination to
see matters in a favourable light. Then if the opin
ions of such men should be essentially the sarae, the
probability that their judgraent was right would be
exceedingly strong.
The opinions of such men, in such circumstances,
and thus concurring, can be produced.
The reader is, perhaps, acquainted v/ith the name
and character of the late Alexander Knox, a member
of the United Church of England and Ireland, a gen
tleman of secluded life and high excellence of char
acter ; an author of meditative habits of mind, and
of extensive research. He was known, while living,
to be possessed of some peculiar views on several
subjects of divinity, especially those of Providence
and Justification. His " Remains," of which the
first volumes appeared in 1834, excited no little at
tention. The notions put forth therein, on the doc
trine of Justification, " would appear to have come
across the path of our Protestant Divinity (says the
British Critic) with a disturbing influence similar to

44
that of a comet upon the orbit of our globe." Many
greatly feared their influence. Others apprehended
little from the " meditations of a recluse and solitary
thinker whose life exhibited the pattern of every Chris
tian grace."
But whatever were the peculiarities of Mr. Knox,
and though they were conceived and written long
before those of Oxford, on Justification, had excited
any attention ; it is distinctly intimated in a late num
ber of the British Critic, under its now well-known,
though recent, character, as an organ of the new di
vinity, that between the views of Mr. Knox and those
of its own present school, there is so great an identity
that the former was but " an instance in rudiment " of
what the latter has since developed. Let us cite the
words. " His writings (says the Reviewer) are no
slight evidence ofthe intellectual and moral movement
under consideration." Again: "He is an instance in
rudiment of those great restorations which he foresaw
in development. He shares with the eminent writers of
the day in the work of advancing what he anticipated."^
Now let us see what were those anticipations of
Mr. Knox which are thus spoken of, as being now
advancing to development at Oxford. " Of Mr. Knox's
raore conspicuous peculiarities, none (says the Critic)
are more remarkable than those on the subject of Jus
tification by faith, and his speculations relative to di
vine Providence." Now the peculiarities concerning
the doctrine of Providence certainly are not referred
to as rudiments of the present developments at Ox
ford. It follows that those concerning Justification

' British Critic No. 56, pp. 40, 41, 42.

45
are. What then were the peculiar views — what the
anticipations of Mr. Knox on this subject, by which
he came into such acknowledged identity with the
"restorations" at Oxford?
Mr. Knox has declared that "no writer on this earth
is more misunderstood or misrepresented than St.
Paul" upon the subject of Justification.' "I greatly
suspect, (he writes) that the time is not very distant
when even Theological Creeds will be brought to a
Philosophical Test, and be discarded, should they
not stand the trial. At such a season, I have little
hope for those who are only acquainted with St. Paul,
through the interpreting medium of Luther or Calvin,
Dr. Owen or Mr. Romaine. Confident I am, they
will awake and wonder how they could have dreamed
of man's chief hope resting on any ground but that
MORAL ONE upon which our omniscient Lord himself
has placed it — 'Blessed are the pure in heart,' S^c; or
of a state of favour with God existing, for one mo
raent, independently of moral qualification. They
will, I doubt not, at length, discover this strange de
fect in the present favourite system."^ This then is
the sum of Mr. Knox's anticipations on this head ;
viz. — 1st. "The application of a philosophical test to
the Scripture doctrine of Justification, and the dis
carding of whatever abides not that fire. — 2d. The
passing away, as a dream, of the doctrine of Justifi
cation by the extrinsic righteousness of Christ, account
ed to us by faith, only, and the substitution of a Justi
fication resting exclusively upon the moral basis of
an inherent personal righteousness."
1 Remains, vol. 1, p. 284, 285, 2 Ih. p. 315.

46
These then are the views which Mr. Knox " shares
with the eminent writers of the day in advancing,"
which constitute a part of "these great restorations
which he foresaw in develop7nent" — and of which he
himself was "an instance in rudiment." So then by
the volunteer-profession of the Oxford school itself,
as declared by its present organ, the British Critic,
the theology of Mr. Knox on the subject of Justifica
tion was essentially their own. Further proof of this
identity will appear by and by. At present we have
enough to warrant the introduction of some account
of Mr. Knox's doctrine, with a view to the opinions
upon it which we have promised.
His system is thus expressed in his own words :
"In St. Paul's sense, to be justified is not simply, to
be accounted righteous ; but also a?id in the first in
stance, to be made righteous by the implantation of a
radical princi'ple of righteousness. " ' " What I am im
pressed with is: that our being reckoned righteous
before God, always and essentially implies a sub
stance of righteousness previously implanted in us;
and that our Reputative Justification is the strict and
inseparable result of this previous efficient Moral Jus
tification. I mean : that the reckoning us righteous
indispensably presupposes an inward reality of righte
ousness, ON WHICH THIS RECKONING IS FOUNDED." This
Justified State, Mr. Knox says, is "simply and essen
tially a state of Spiritual Vitality" — that is: to be
Justified is nothing more, nor less, than to be spiritual
ly alive — a state which, he says, "when duly cultivated,
thrives and advances," " when neglected, withers and

> Treatise on Redemption and Salvation in Remains, vol. 1 1 , p. 60.

47
dies."^ In common words, to be Justified is just to
be in a state of sanctification, ".simply and essentially."
They who are in this Justification, he says, "derive
all their comfort not from abstract reliance on what
Christ did for them in the days ofhis flesh, but from
consciousness of his effectual grace within them."^
" How completely this system (says Mr. Knox, with
serious truth) sweeps away the merely forensic sys
tem, leaving it neither root nor branch, I need not say
more to illustrate." Mr. Knox anticipates the day
when men "will awake and wonder how they could
have dreamed of Man's chief hope resting on any
ground but that Moral one — Blessed are the pure in
heart,"^ SfC. He assures us that never, till the Refor
mation, was the theory in vogue, "of a doctrinal faith^
giving ease to the conicience, through reliance on what
Christ has done to satisfy divine Justice."
The sum of the doctrine is this : — We are justified
not by what Christ has done for us externally, when
in the days of his flesh he offered himself a sacrifice
for our sins, which would be to be justified by a righte
ousness extrinsic and accounted to us; but by what
Christ works in us internally, by his Spirit, a right
eousness infused, instead of accounted, internal and in
herent, personal righteousness, an effectual, inwrought
grace on which our Justification is exclusively founded.
This inherent righteousness however is not acquired
except through faith and the merits of Christ.
Now there are few living writers in the present
day whose opinion upon the question how far this

> Treatise on Justif. in Rem. vol. 1. p. 306 & 311. " Treatise on Bap
tism in Rem. vol. p. 516, 517. ^ Rem. vol. 1, p. 315.

48
doctrine of Mr. Knox partakes essentially of Popery,
would command more attention in the Church of this
country, than the Rev. George Stanley Faber, whose
well-known learning is accompanied by an unques
tioned and single love of the truth, and a spirit of
moderation in all things. Frora his able pen we
have been favoured with a lucid and learned volume
on "the Primitive Doctrine of Justification;" a work
highly to be commended for its clear and vigorous
setting forth of the doctrine of the Scriptures, and of
the Church, on that head. Its main object is to ex
hibit the divinity of Mr. Knox in comparison with
that of Rome, of the Church of England, and of the
Scriptures. In that work, Mr. Faber writes as fol
lows : " so far as I can perceive, there is no differ
ence BETWEEN the DOCTRINE ADVOCATED BY HIM (Mr.
Knox) and the doctrine of the Council of Trent
— that Man is justified before God not by the extrinsic
righteousness of Christ, hut by an intrinsic righteousness
which really as much belongs to him, as his soul or his
body belongs to him, being i?iherently infused into him
by God, through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.
"Mr. Knox and the Tridentine Fathers and the
Schoolmen, with whatever subtle distinctions and ex
planations, raake the Procuring Cause of Justification
to be our own infused and therefore inherent and in
ternal righteousness.
"The Church of England, on the contrary, and all
the other Reforraed Churches, raake the Procuring
Cause to be the extrinsic righteousness of Christ ap
prehended and appropriated by the instrumental hand
of Faith.
" With respect to the necessity of holiness, both in

49
thought, and in word and in work, as an indispensa
ble qualification for the kingdom of heaven, all par
ties are agreed.
" But when they come to treat of the place, which
in the economy of Justification, is occupied by Holi
ness, they differ considerably, and indeed essen
tially ; for this in truth is the hinge upon which
the controversy^ turns."' "I think it is indisputa
ble both that the Church of Rome teaches the doc
trine of Justification by the merit of our own inherent
righteousness ; and that Mr. Knox, without any per
ceptible difference, has adopted the very same system.
In other words, the Church of Rome and Mr. Knox
have alike confounded together, the Righteousness of
Justification, which is perfect, but not inherent, and
the righteousness of Sanctification, which is inherent,
but not perfect. Whence, overlooking the theologi
cal fact that the one is consequential to, and distinct
from, the other, they have, in truth, made the two
altogether identical ; and the natural, or rather the
inevitable result has been, that the office of the for
mer they have ascribed to the latter." "It is pain
ful to say that I cannot but deem the views of Mr.
Knox, in regard to the doctrine of Justification, highly
dangerous, and essentially unscriptural."^
We have now exhibited the opinion of a writer
who, however learned and excellent and moderate,
and of good report for fairness and candour, is not of
that class of divines in the Church of England, with
which (the Oxford school excluded) the peculiarities
I Faber's Prim. Doc. of Justif. Pref. xviii. xx. ^Prim. Doo. of Justif.
pp. 36 and xxiii.

50
of Mr. Knox would be likely to find the nearest sym
pathy. The work of Mr. Faber was published in
'1837. The Lectures of Mr. Newman on Justification
were not then before the public, and his peculiar views
on that subject had excited but little attention.
The class of English theologians most likely to
syrapathise with Mr. Knox from a general similarity
of tastes, and aversions, and modes of viewing mat
ters in the Church, is that which was represented by
the British Critic, till such time as that Review,
having changed hands, was transformed into a de
cided advocate of those very peculiarities of Oxford
ism, of which Mr. Knox was "the rudiment." In
several numbers of that work, in the years 1835 and
1-838, we have reviews at large of Mr. Knox's Re
mains. From no quarter could a more favourable
judgment of that writer have been expected. It is
the very source from which we should desire an opi
nion for comparison with that of Mr. Faber. The
Critic writes as follows : " Closely connected with
Mr. Knox's speculations on the ways of God in justi
fying the believer, was his mode of contemplating
the one great Sacrifice once offered for the redemp
tion of the human race. According to the notions
usually entertained by Protestant divines, the cross of
Christ is the grand ayid central object in their system
of theology. Thus it is we believe, for the most part,
with those who profess the truth for which our martyr
B'ishops poured out their soids unto death. But this,
it must be acknowledged, was not precisely the view
of redemption which presented itself to the meditations
of Alexander Knox. The cross was not the cen
tral OBJECT OF his DIVINITY. It held a somewhat

51
remote and subordinate position. His chief reliance
was not so much on what Christ had, once for all,
effected for the whole human race, as upon that which
Christ stands pledged to accomplish within the heart
of every true believer. The blood of sprinkling is
supposed to have done little more than to satisfy him
that the destroyer had once been averted from his
dwelling ; and to have given him no distinct assur
ance that a preservative and healing pCwer was con
tinually present with him." The Reviewer sup
poses hiraself asking Mr. Knox such questions as
the following: "Has the reraission of sins passed
away with the waters of baptisra? Is it no more
than a mere transitory absolution? Is every lapse
and failure, in the subsequent life of the Christian,
to be engraven on the rock? Has the Saviour's blood
no healing or absolving virtue for them who may
still appear to be more or less afflicted with the taint
of our original distemper?" To these questions
the Reviewer says — and coraing frora such a source,
in reference to the consequence of such views, we
would mark what he says with special emphasis :
"Were we to answer according to the spirit of Mr.
Knox's theology, we do not see how we could do
otherwise, than answer them in a manner which
might send despair into many a contrite and broken
spirit, and lead to the apprehension that all but a
•very minute and insignificant remnant of mankind
were indeed left without a saviour." In agree
ment with Mr. Faber, the Critic says, " On the whole
matter he does seem to us somewhat unwarrantably to
identify the remission of sin, with deliverance from fhe
bondage {the inherent corruption) of sin. He affirms.

52

or, at least he plainly and pointedly intimates, that
they are one and the same thing. The whole tenor
of his speculations seems to imply a denial of the
Christian's right to fly to the cross, ?vhen troubled with
the conscience of sin. According to him the blood of
Christ has, once for all, given us access to the Father.
Having done this, its propitiatory virtue passes away.
We have nothing more to do with it, than as we find
the office of the Sanctifier, which it has purchased
for us, reahzed in our hearts, &c. Now this we
CONFESS, (continues the Critic,) does appear to us
TO BE somewhat FEARFUL SOUND OF DOCTRINE. It
nullifies at once the dying words of Hooker, which
are constantly in the thoughts of every humble
Christian, ' Lord I plead not mine own righteous
ness, but the forgiveness of my unrighteousness for
the sake of Him who came to purchase a pardon for
penitent sinners.' It almost deprives the word par
don of any meaning, except in its application to those
who are taking their first step from death to life. In
short, it does appear to us, to have been conceived
in strange forgetfulness ofthe office and character of
Him who will neither crush the broken reed, nor tread
out the smoking flax." "^ Again, in another number of
the Critic, " Mr. Knox professed hiraself utterly un
able to imagine that the Deity would ever confer
upon us a title to which there was nothing actually
corresponding in ourselves — declare any one to be
righteous, or account him to be righteous, or deal
with him as righteous, otherwise than with reference
to some moral quality inherent in that individual."
'Review ofthe Remains of Alexander Knox. — British Critic for July 1838.

53
After all this we are not surprized that the Re
viewer is prepared to avow a conclusion so sirailar to
that of Mr. Faber, as the following, viz. that the
above difficulty "drove Mr. Knox into a theory
which, IT CANNOT BE DENIED, APPROXIMATES VERY
CLOSELY TO THE EXPLODED THEOLOGY OF ROME."
But, adds the Reviewer, "the approximation did
not much discompose hira. His greatest embarass-
ment arose frora the manifestly imputative or forensic
language of certain of our formularies. But he extri
cated himself frora the objection, by affirming that
God PRONOUNCES US to be righteous, simply because
He has MADE us so."^
Now from the concurrent judgments of two wri
ters, so diverse as to their respective schools, and each
so prominent, as Mr. Faber and the recent editor of
the British Critic, the reader may see what is Ro
manism, as to this main doctrine of salvation and
great point of the English Reformation; what it is
for a distinguished member of a Protestant Church
to be identical with Romanism, or to approximate
very nearly thereto, in his most important published
opinions ; how it is that a man, very eminent for read
ing and thought, of very pure motive, serious spirit,
and high elevation of character, as Mr. Knox cer
tainly was, raay be "beguiled by philosophy" (so
called) or soraething else, into a singular departure
from the simplicity of the Scriptures, and from the
plainest declarations of his Church, into a singular
abandonment of the very life-vein of the blessed sys
tera of redemption, and a distinct adoption of that by
1 British Critic, No. lxvii. p. 89.

54
which the whole gigantic system of anti-christian
error, in the Church of Rome, has always lived and
had its being; that very thing, in which, says
Hooker, that Church differs from ours in the nature
and essence, and mariner and means of applying the
medicine whereby Christ cureth our disease ; and lastr-
,ly, how it is, that a writer may be and may do all
this, and yet be, as Mr. Knox doubtless was, an
opposer of Rome in several of those particulars in
which her doctrines are usually considered the most
offensive. Having now seen the character of Mr. Knox's
doctrines and anticipations, we recur to the claim
put forth by the school at Oxford, to the connection
between him and them, his views and their views ;
his rudiment and their development; his anticipa
tions and their fulfilment ; his hopes of restorations,
and the concurrence of his writings with their writ
ings in the bringing of theiA about; and we ask,
what inference is to be drawn ? What else can be
inferred than that the doctrine of Justification in the
Oxford School, is precisely that which, in the judg
ment of Mr. Faber, is identical with that of Rome,
^' highly dangerous and essentially unscriptural," ¦And
in the judgment of the British Critic, under its for
mer raanagement, is " a fearful sound of doctrine f
" approximates very closely to the exploded theology
of Rome," a form of doctrine which, in the words of
the Critic, does away with almost the whole sub
stance of pardon, except in the initial step of a Chris
tian ; removes the cross of Christ from its central po
sition in the system of Christian verity; sends de
spair into many a contrite spirit; deprives all but a

65
precious few of the consolations of a Saviour; nulli
fies the only refuge of the dying Hooker ; a doctrine
" conceived in strange forgetfulness ofthe office and
character of the blessed Redeemer." Alas ! what
would such men as Beveridge and Usher and Hall
and Andrewes and Hooker and Cranmer, who were
never awakened from that "dream" of a hope
based exclusively upon the perfect righteousness qf
Christ, imputed, through faith, till they awoke in the
white raiment of a personal righteousness, made per
fect, in heaven ; what would they say to such restora
tions 1 And yet have we not reason to believe from
what we have now seen, so far as the opinions of the
writers, who have been quoted, are to be relied on, that
such will appear on further investigation to be the
precise nature and the awful consequences of the re
storations which Oxford divinity is aiming at, in the
Protestantism of the Church of England ?
Old English Churches, erected in times of domi
nant Romanism, and for the superstitious purposes
of old Romish worship, but long since reformed,
have sometimes presented examples of similar resto
rations. Under the process of repair, when some
later erection has been removed, there has sometimes
been suddenly revealed, to the great delight of the
antiquary, an ancient " roo(?-/o/7t " — the old "cham
ber of imagery" and conservatory of idols, the sym
bol of "the mystery of the man of sin," " an instance
in rudiment" of "the exploded theology of Rome."^

' Of the rood-lofts of tho old English Churches, prior to the Reformation,
some extended along the whole width of the nave and aisles; smaller ones ex
tended merely across the chancel-arch and over the screen, and were used for

66
From similar restorations in doctrine, it behoves the
whole Church most earnestly to pray "Good Lord
deliver us."

the purpose of setting up the rood with its attendant images. The present
organ-lofts of the cathedrals were once the rood-lofts. Where in many small
churches, there was no loft or gallery for such purposes, a beam extended across
the chancel-arch, to which the rood and other images were affixed.

CHAPTER HI.
THE DOCTRINE OF OXFORD DIVINITY AS TO THE RIGHTEOUSNESS
OF JUSTIFICATION, EXHIBITED.
To set forth the precise doctrine of Oxford Divinity, as to the way of Justifica
tion, the object ofihis chapter. — The main question of Hooker, as to the Ro
mish doctrine, adopted here — The great point of enquiry stated — The Scrip
tural use of the word Justification — Two kinds of righteousness, asserted by
Hooker, Beveridge, Andrewes — Only one by Oxfordism — This opens the door
to the divinity of Oxford, as well as of Rome — That one righteousness, made
identical with Sanctification — What is meant in this divinity by Imputation,
Accounted, &c. — Extended proof that it makes Sanctification the same as
Justification — The position in which it puts the cross of Christ — The use it
makes of the merits and passion of Christ — Its effect upon the consolations
of the believer — Singular effort to escape from being identified with Roman
ism, by denying what was before asserted as to Sanctification and Justification
being essentially one — The same in Mr. Knox — This doctrine shown in
Osiander — Concluding observations.
In the last chapter, the acknowledged "rudiment" of
Oxford divinity, as exhibited in the writings of Alex
ander Knox, was shown to have been pronounced by
two erainent writers of high authority in their respec
tive schools, to be " highly dangerous, and "a very near
approximation " to, if not essentially identical with,
Roraanisra. The chief iraportance of the opinions
thus adduced, independently of the standing of their
authors, arises from the consideration that they are
derived from those two classifications of the clergy
of the Church of England, whose diversities of opin
ion in other matters are just such as should make
their concurrence, on this point, the more impres
sive. They were published, moreover, at a time
8

58
when the peculiarities of Oxford Divinity, on the
subject of Justification, had excited but little atten
tion, and consequently, when they were wholly free
from all suspicion of such party-bias, as the present
excitement, in reference to those peculiarities, may
be supposed to produce. From the concurrence of
such opinions, in the one point of attributing to the
"Rudiment" a decided character of Romanism, as to
some of the most vital parts and applications of Gos
pel truths, we may surely enter upon our further in
vestigations ofthe "Developments" of Oxfordism, with
a strong presumptive reason to anticipate that, if Ro
manism was apparent in the germ, much more will
it be seen in the half-grown tree.
We now address ourselves to the work of setting
forth the precise doctrine of Oxfordism, as to Justifi
cation before God.
The manner in which the Judicious Hooker com
mences the same work with Romanism will answer
as well in the present case.
He begins with a statement of the precise points
of agreement and disagreement between the doctrine
of the Church of Rome and that of the Church of
England. " Wherein do we disagree ? We disagree about
the nature and essence of the medicine whereby Christ
cureth our disease; about the manner of applying' it;
about the number and power of means which God re
quireth in us for the effectual applying thereof to our
souls' comfort."^
These assuredly are most grave matters of disa-

' Hooker's Discourse on Justifie. § 4, 5.

59
greement. But they are precisely those on which
we charge the divinity under consideration with
being essentially opposed to the doctrine of the
Church of England, and identically Romish.
The present chapter will be occupied with an ex
hibition of what this system teaches as to " the na
ture AND essence of THE MEDICINE AVHEREBY ChRIST
cureth our DISEASE."
Now Justification, according to our eleventh Arti
cle, is the being "accounted righteous before God."
Hence it presupposes sorae righteousness, as its"essen-
tial basis. " The nature and essence of the medi
cine," is simply the nature and essence of that righte
ousness. Hence the great question has always been,
as Hooker gives it : " What is the righteousness where
by a Christian man is justified? or as Mr. Newman,
in the name of Oxford divinity, states it, "what is
that which constitutes a man righteous in God's sight?"^
or, as the learned Chemnitz, representing the Refor
mers in their controversy with the Divines of the
Council of Trent, states it : " What is that which we
are to interpose between the anger of God, and our sins,
so that on account thereof, we may be absolved from
the sentence of condemnation, received into the favour
of God, adopted as sons, and accepted to everlasting
life.'" It will materially assist in the development of the
answer, given, in Oxford divinity, to this fundamen
tal question, if we first occupy a few moments in
considering the Scriptural use of the word Justifica
tion, as bearing upon- the nature of the righteousness
by which we must be justified. The following, from
> Lectures on Justification, p. 144. ^Examen. Dec. Cone. Trid. p. 144,

60
the late Charge of the Author, on Justification, will
answer the purpose.
The Justification of a sinner must be in one of two
ways. It must be either by a personal change in a
man's moral nature, or by a relative change in his
state, as regards the sentence of the law of God. The
former justification is opposed to unholiness ; the lat
ter, to condemnation ; the one takes away the in
dwelling of moral pollution; the other, imputation
of judicial guilt. If we understand Justification, in
the first sense, as expressing the making a man righte
ous, "by an infusion of righteousness," as Romanism
expresses it, we make it identical with Sanctification,
and therefore, it is as gradual as the progress of per
sonal holiness, and never complete till we are per
fected in heaven. But how will that sense appear in
such a passage as that wherein it is said : " He that
justifieth the wicked and he that condemneth the
just, even they both are an abomination to the Lord."
Not to speak of the evident opposition in this passage
between the words justify and condemn, implying in
both ^judicial and not a moral change ; how could it
be an abomination to the Lord to justify the wicked,
by making him personally holy, by an infusion of
personal righteousness. But if Ave take Justification
in the latter sense, as indicating a relative channre, it
is then a term of law, understood judicially, anci ex
presses the act of God, in his character of Judge, de
ciding the case of one accused before him, and instead
of condemning, acquitting him ; instead of holding
him guilty, accounting him righteous, so that he be
comes the man of whom David speaks — the happy
man "unto whom the Lord imputeth no sin."
In relation to the former sense, there is not a place

61
in Scripture wherein the word Justify, in any of its
forms, is used, in reference to remission of sins, that
can be so interpreted. As to the latter, the judicial
sense, there are passages, very many, in which it can
with no appearance of reason, be understood in any
other.' This sense is specially manifest where Jus
tification is spoken of as the opposite of condemnation.
Take Rom. v. 18. " As by the offence of one, judg
ment came upon all men to condemnation ; even so
by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon
all men unto justification of life." Here, most evi
dently. Justification imports a judicial clearing from
the iraputation of guilt, in the precise sense and de
gree in which conderanationiraports a judicial fasten
ing of the imputation of guilt. The same appears in
Rom. viii. 23. " Who shall lay any thing to the
charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth; who
is he that condemnethl" Here is the idea ofa court,
a tribunal, a person arraigned ; the accuser is called ;
the whole is judicial; and if, by the condemnation
spoken of, we could understand an act of the Judge
making the accused guilty by the infusion of un
righteousness ; then also by the Justification spoken
of, we might understand an act of the Judge making
the accused just by an infusion of righteousness ; but
if this interpretation would be absurd in the former
case, so must it be in the latter ; for the two must evi
dently be interpreted alike.
But it is not necessary to go very particularly into
the proof of the judicial sense of the word Justifica
tion in the Scriptures. The great matter is to keep
clear the essential difference between Justification
I See Job ix. 2. 3. Ps. cxliii. 2. Rom. iii. 8. Acts xiii. 39.

62
and Sanctification; between the former, as opposed
to the iraputation of guilt, and the latter, to the in
dwelling of unholiness ; the former as a restoration to
favour; the latter, to purity; this, as the act of God
within us, changing our moral character; the other,
as the act of God without us, changing our relative
state; blessings inseparable indeed, but essentially
distinct. "There be tAvo kinds of Christian righte
ousness; (says Hooker) the one without us which we
have by imputation ; the other in us, which consist
eth of Faith, Hope, Charity, and other Christian
virtues — God giveth us both the one justice and the
other; the one by accepting us for righteous in
Christ; the other by Avorking Christian righteous
ness in us."
In Bishop Beveridge, of most venerable memory,
we thus read :
" It is evident that the Holy Ghost useth this -word Justification to
signify a man's being accounted, or declared, not guilty ofthe faults
he is charged with, but in that respect a just and righteous person,
and that too before some Judge, who in our case is the supreme
Judge of the world. And this is plainly the sense wherein our
Church also useth the word in her articles: for the title of Xlth Ar
ticle is thus: '¦Of the Justification qf Man :' but the Article itself be
gins thus : ' We are accounted righteous before God,' &c. — which
clearly shows that in her sense, to be justified is the same with being
accounted righteous before God ; which I therefore observe that you
may not be mistaken in the sense of the word as it is used by the
Church and by the Holy Ghost Himself in the Holy Scriptures, like
those who confound Justification and Sanctification together, as
if they were one and the same thing : although the Scriptures plainly
distinguish them ; Sanctification being God's act in us, whereby we
are made righteous in ourselves ; but Justification is God's act in
Himself, whereby we are accounted righteous by him, and shall be
declared so al the judgment ofthe great day."^
' Beveridge's Sermons No. 74.

63
Such then being the judicial or forensic sense in
which man is said to be justified before God, a sense
so essentially iraportant to be kept distinctly in mind,
that, as Bishop Andrewes says, " we shall never take
the state of the question aright unless we consider it
in this A'iew;'" and since a judicial process iraplies
a law, according to which it is conducted, and a law
requires, of course, a perfect fulfilment of its precepts,
in other words, a perfect righteousness, before any can
be justified by sentence of the Judge ; the question
occurs, by what righteousness is a sinner to be justi
fied before God?^
The reader is requested to raark particularly " the
two kinds of Christian righteousness " spoken of by
Hooker as above — the one not in us, which we have
by iraputation," whereon Justification, which Bever
idge calls " the act of God in himself " is based ; the
other IN us, a personal, inwrought righteousness, which
constitues our Sanctification, and which Beveridge
calls " God's act " not in himself, like the other, but
" in us, whereby we are made righteous in ourselves."
" That both these there are, (says Bishop Andrewes,)
there is no question." But let us quote this great
divine raore fully.
" In the Scripture, there is a double Righteousness set down, both
in the Old and in the New Testament. In the Old, and in the very
first place that Righteousness is named in the Bible : ' Abraham be
lieved, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.' A Right
eousness accounted ! And again, (in the very next line) it is men
tioned, ' Abraham will teach his house to do Righteousness.' A
righteousness done ! In the New Testament, likewise. The for
mer, in one chapter, (Rom. iv.) no fewer than eleven times; Repu-
1 Sermons (Justification) foi. 725. 2 Charge by the Author on Justification.

64
tatum est illi ad justitiam — ' It is accounted to him for righteous
ness ' — a Reputed Righteousness ! The latter in St. John — ' He
that doeth righteousness, is righteous' — a Righteousness done !
Of these, the latter. Philosophers, themselves conceived, and acknow
ledged ; the other is proper to Christians only, and altogether un
known in Philosophy. The one is a quality of the party. The
other an act of the Judge declaring or pronouncing righteous. The
one, ours by influence or infusion ; the other, by account, or impu
tation. That both these there are, there is no question.' "
The reader is requested to mark the words of Bi
shop Andrewes, that, of the existence of these two
kinds of righteousness, so distinct in nature and of
fice, and yet equally necessary, he knew of no ques
tion. This fundamental distinction between the right
eousness of Justification, and that of Sanctification,
so universal in Protestant Divinity, is found b'y
Hooker, as in other places of Scripture, so especially
in that notable passage of St. Paul, (1 Cor. i. 30)
Avhere the Apostle says, "Of him are ye in Christ
Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdora, right
eousness, sanctification and redemption." Here most
evidently there is a righteousness spoken of, which is
as much distinguished from sanctification, as wisdom
is made distinct from righteousness. Hence, says
Hooker, on this passage, Christ is made "Righteous
ness, because he hath offered up himself a sacrifice
for sin ; Sanctification, because he hath given us his
Spirit."^ And this very distinction does he con
sider the key to the whole controversy on the
subject of Justification, with the Church of Rome.
"It openeth the way (he says) to the understanding
of that grand question, which hangeth yet in contro-

' Sermon on Justification. 2 Discourse of Justification, § 3.

65
versy between us and the Church of Rome, about
the matter of Justifying righteousness.'" It is a dis
tinction which the Church of Rorae entirely denies ;
and which the Church of England, with all the
Churches of the Reformation, has most earnestly
maintained, as fundamental in the Gospel plan of
our salvation.
Now it is precisely the sarae distinction that opens
the way to the understanding of the whole contro
versy between the doctrines of the Church of Eng
land, and the derived Church in America, on the
one hand, and those of Oxford divinity on the other,
as to the matter of Justifying righteousness. The
whole of Oxford Divinity is founded upon the denial
of that distinction, which we have expressed above
in the Avords of St. Paul, and his expositors. Hooker,
Bishops Andrewes and Beveridge. While, on the
contrary, the whole of the divinity of the Reformed
Church of England, as to the way of salvation, is
founded upon the belief of that distinction. The
latter asserts a righteousness external and imputed,
and also a righteousness internal and inwrought by
the Spirit; the two inseparably connected indeed,
but of very different natures and offices. The for
mer acknowledges that only which is internal and
inwrought. And this is the key to all the labyrinth
of Oxfordism, precisely as it is also to all the sinuosi
ties of Romanism.^
'Discourse of Justification, § 3.
2" In all doctrinal discussions, the undeveloped germs of many diversities of
practice and moral character lie thick together, and in small compass, and as if
promiscuously and without essential differences. The highest truths differ from
the most miserable delusions, by what appears to be a few words or letters.''
—Tracts for the Times, No. 79, Am. Ed. vol. iii. p. 513.
9

66
Mr. Newman, in his Lectures on Justification,
writes as follows :
" It is usual at the present day to lay great stress on the distinc
tion between deliverance from guilt, and deliverance from sin ; to
laj' down as a first principle, that these are two coincident indeed,
and contemporary, but altogether independent benefits, to call them
justification and renewal, and to consider that any confusion be
tween them argues serious and alarming ignorance of Christian
truth." " This distinction," Mr. Newman says, " is not sceiptu-
KAL." " In truth. Scripture speaks of but one gift which it some
times calls renewal, somei'imes justification, according as it views it,
passing to and fro, from one to the other, so rapidly, so abruptly, as
to force upon us irresistibly the inference that they are really one."^
Some fifteen or tAventy pages are occupied by Mr.
Newman in making good this position, so directly in
the teeth of the doctrines given above, from Hooker,
&c., as the very corner stone of his system.
Then, since in the vicAv of these divines, there is
but one righteousness, and that is the righteousness
of renewal or sanctification, and called the righte
ousness of Justification, only because viewed sorae-
tiraes in a different aspect or relation ; it is, of course,
to be inferred that when Ave ask the great question of
the Reformation, " what is that on account of which
we may be absolved from the sentence of condemna
tion, received into the favour of God, adopted as sons
and accepted to everlasting life ;" or, to use the words
of Hooker, "what is that righteousness whereby a
Christian man is justified ?" The answer of Oxford
divinity can be nothing else than that the righteous
ness of renewal or sanctification is that righteousness.
This is expressly stated by Mr. Newman as fol
lows:

' Newman's Lect. pp. 42, 43 ; also pp. 120, 129.

67
" One side says that the righteousness in which God accepts us
is inherent, wrought in us, by the grace flowing from Christ's atone
ment ; the other says it is external, reputed, being Christ's own
sacred and most perfect obedience on earth, viewed by a merciful
God, as if it were ours. And issue is joined on the following ques
tion, whether Justification means in Scripture, counting us righteous
or malting us righteous."^
Now which bf these two sides does Mr. Newman
select ? The latter raost decidedly. That the raere
word Justification, means counting us righteous, or
imputing to us righteousness, he must get into his
system, sorae how or other, since he grants that " but
one passage can be produced where justification is
used for making righteous, and there the reading is
doubtful."^ Indeed, no one can assert raore strong
ly than Mr. NcAvman the exclusively forensic or judi
cial use ofthe 7vord "Justify," in the Scriptures.
" Justification extends to the present, as well as the past ; yet, if
so, still it must mean an imputation or declaration; or it would
cease to have respect to the past. And if it be once granted to mean
an imputation, it cannot mean any thing else ; for it cannot have two
meanings at once."^
But while the name is forensic and iraputative, the
thing (he says) is moral and effective. Justification
is nominally accounting us righteous, really it is
making us righteousness.
" I would thus explain myself." " To justify means counting
righteous, but includes under its meaning ' making righteous ;' in
other words the sense of the term is counting righteous, and the
sense of the thing denoted by it is making righteous. In the ab
stract, it is counting righteous, in the concrete, a making righteous. "¦*
Thus, while the Scriptures, as Mr. Newman so
distinctly grants, never mean by the word, Justifica-
' Lectures, p. 67. ^ib. p. 75. sib. p. 73. *Ib.p.70.

68
tion, the maJcing of us personally righteous, and al
ways mean by it the accounting of us righteous ;
they never mean by the thing, Justification, the ac
counting, but ahvays the making of us righteous.
Then Avhat can this writer mean by imputation or
the accounting of righteousness, on the part of God,
to the sinner ? To this question the reader's atten
tion is especially requested, because it is the free use
of such familiar words, in these writings, which has
made so many readers suppose that the difference
between them and those who object to them cannot
be of much importance. Now the sense of the
Church of England, as to impulation, is thus given
by Bishop Beveridge, on the Article "of Justifica
tion." Having quotet.l the text wliich speaks of Christ, as
having been made sin for us, that we might be made
the righteousness of God ia hini, (2 Cor. v. 21,) he
says: "How was Chiist made sm lor us? Not by our sins inherent in
him, that is horrid blasphemy ; but by our sins imputed to him, that
is true divinity. And as he was made sin for us, not by the inhe
sion of our sins in him, but by the imputation of our sins to him ; so
we are made the righteousness of God in him, by the imputation of
his righteousness to us, not by the inhesion of his righteousness in
us. He was accounted as a sinner, and therefore punished for us ;
we are accounted as righteous, and therefore glorified in him. He
was accounted as a sinner, for us, and therefore he was condemned,
we are accounted as righteous in him ; and so we are justified. And
this is the right notion of justification, as distinguished from sancti
fication. Not as if these two were ever severed or divided in their
subjects ; no, every one that is justified, is also sanctified; and every
one that is sanctified, is also justified. But yet, the acts of sanctifi
cation and justification are two distinct things; for the one denotes
the imputation of righteousness to us; the other, the implantation oJ

69
righteousness in us. And, therefore, though they be both the acts
of God, yet the one is the act of God towards us ; the other is the
act of God in us. By our sanctification, we are made righteous in
ourselves, but not accounted righteous by God ; by our justification
we are accounted righteous by God, but not made righteous in our
selves." Let not the reader suppose that it is in any such
sense as this of Beveridge, which is no other than
the ordinary sense, that Oxford divinity speaks of
righteousness being accounted or imputed unto the
sinner — what then ?
" It is a sort of prophecy, (says Mr. Newman,) an
nouncing God's purposes (of making us righteous)
before the event and working towards their fulfil
ment."' This he illustrates by the prophecies. As
the chosen people were accounted as being already
formed, when as yet they were only promised, be
cause God intended to form them ; " such is justifica
tion as regards an individual," so far as he is ac
counted, jusf God intends to make him righteous,
and therefore declares him to be righteous, and with
the declaration, sends forth the power that begins
the work. Thus,
" In justification the whole course of sanctification is anticipated,
reckoned, or imputed to us, in its very beginning." " It is a pro--
nouncing holy, while it proceeds to make holy. As Almighty God
in the beginning created the world augustly and in form, speaking
the word, not to exclude, but to proclaim the deed — so does he now
(in Justification,) create the soul by the breath of his mouth, by the
sacrament of his voice."^
So then, for God to make us righteous, and to cre
ate the world by His word, are, in reference to impu
tation, similar events. Just as far then as you could,
' p. 89. 2 p. 89. 3 p. 79, 80.

70
with any propriety', call the creation of the world a
fore7isic or judicial act, because it was preceded by
God's word, so far, and only so far, is the justification
of the soul forensic or judicial, being, (according to
Mr. N.) a new creating act, preceded by "the voice
of the Lord." Precisely so far as the world may be
said to have been accounted as created, before it was
created, because God intended to create it, and be
cause, with His Avord, indicating his will, He sent
out his poAver to effect that will; so far, according to
Mr. N., is the sinner said to be accounted righteous,
before he is righteous, because God intends to make
him righteous, and, with the will declared, sends
forth the grace that renews his heart and accomplishes
his sanctification. Thus we read that :
" Imputed righteousness is the coming in of actual righteousness.
They whom God's sovereign voice pronounces just, forthwith be
come just. He declares a fact, and makes it a fact by declaring it.
He imputes, not a name, but a substantial word, which, being en
grafted in our hearts, is able to save our souls. God's word effects
what it announces."'-
'Lectures pp. 86, 87, and the whole of Lecture III.
Should n physician, having a full intention and a full ability to heal a sick
man, say to him 'I will heal you,' and instantly begin to efl'ect a change in his
health, which, if continued, would result in entire restoration, and should that
man be already, by that physician, accounted well, or be said to have imputed
health, the case would be precisely parallel to what Mr. N. understands by ac
counting righteous as distinct from making righteous. In other words, imputed
righteousness is simply a promised, declared and imperfectly-accomplished
Sanctijicaiion. M.I. Newman, in a note, refers to Mr. Knox, as illustrating his view of ac
counting righteous, by precisely the same reference to the creation, and in the
same sense — (see note on p. 87 of Lectures.) The following is the illustration
of Mr. Knox, as interpreted by the British Critic: "In the creation God said
Let there be Light, and there -was Light) and then he saw that the Light was
good. So in the work of redemption, God says to the chaos of our fallen na
ture, let there be light, and there is light, even the light of faith, the grand vital-

71
And this is all that Mr. Newman means by that
forensic sense of the word Justification so universal in
the Scriptures. It never means (he says) the maMng
us righteous ; and yet it differs from that sense, only
so far as the command, "Let there be light," differs
from the act of God creating the light' What is this
but most egregious trifling with a raost sacred sub
ject : a violent subjection of a plain scriptural doctrine
to the most crushing screws of system-raaking, till it
is flattened to nothingness, for the purpose of render
ing it admissible into a frame-work of doctrine pre
viously set up, independently of the most manifest
testimonies of Inspiration ?
Now since, according to Mr. N., Justification is an
accounting of us righteous only " in the sense of the
term;" and since it is a making of us righteous "in
the sense of the thing denoted by it;" and as we are
seeking for a thing, when we ask what is the righte
ousness by which we are justified, and care only for
terms, so far as they denote things; we must be ex
cused, if we lay aside the above distinctions, as vain
and worthless, and conclude that Justification, accord
ing to Mr. Newman, is neither more nor less than
making us righteous, by "a righteousness inherent,
izing principle. And when once this light is actually given, he pronounces the
individual to be a child of light. In other words, he accoujits him to be righte
ous. So that according to this scheme, God justifies man, first by making him
righteous ; and then again by pronouncing him to be righteous when he is ac
tually made so. And the whole of this process is implied in the term justification.
— Critic No. 34, p. 264. Mr. Newman's idea seems to be a little worse than this
His accounting is a declaration of what is to be, and now, by the force of the
declaration, begins to be. Mr. Knox makes it a declaration of what i&. With
the former we are accounted righteous, because God intends, promises and be
gins to effect our righteousness ; with the latter, because we are actually made
righteous. "Vain jangling .'"

72
wrought in us by the grace flowing from Christ's
atonement.'" In other words, it is neither less, nor
more, than sanctification. This, Mr. N. in so many
words declares. A large part of his Lecture II. is oc
cupied with the proof that Justification and Sanctifi
cation are "really one;" that to distinguish thera as
"two kinds of righteousness," is "not scriptural." He
considers himself as haA'ing in that Lecture, "proved
that justification and sanctification are substantially
the same thing; — parts of one gift ; properties, quali
ties or aspects of one." In the sixth Lecture, he
maintains their "identity, in matter of fact, however
we may vary our terms, or classify our ideas " — (p.
67, 68.
This then is the righteousness by which we are
justified before God, according to Oxfordism ; that
same inwrought, inherent righteousness, which, in
all divinity, is called sanctification.
Such then is the fundamental doctrine, the grand
distinguishing feature of this new divinity, asserted,
with so much assurance, to be the doctrine of the
Church of England and of her standard divines, and
now attempted to be set up on high in the Protestant
Churches, as that of the Primitive Christians, and of
the writings ofthe Apostles and Prophets. Because
of its being the very corner-stone, elect and precious,
of the whole system of this new divinity ; not only has
Mr. Newman devoted a whole octavo volume to its
setting forth, and Dr. Pusey another, besides the ar
ticle on that subject in his letter to the Bishop of Ox
ford, so that on no one subject have these divines be-

67.

73
stowed near so much of the labour of their diligent
press ; but in the course of their illustration, they
have used such a variety of figures and modes of ex
planation as to leave no possibility of a doubt as to
their justifying righteousness being no other than
that of sanctification.
Some of these various expressions may be here ex
hibited. Our Justification is made to consist in obedience.
" Cleanness of heart and spirit, obedience by word and
deed, this alone can constitute our Justification."
" The gift of righteousness (for Justification) is not
an imputation, but an inward work.'"
The righteousness whereby we are Justified be
fore God, is made to consist in the fulfilling of the
Law by us. Because love, in the abstract, is said by
the Apostle, to be "the fulfilling of the law;" as
"perfect love" certainly is; therefore the love of
Christ abiding in us; such love as Christians have
implanted in them by the Spirit of God, is said by
Mr. Newman to be " imputed to us for justification."^
"By righteousness is meant acceptable obedience.
We needed then a justification or making righteous,
and this might become ours in two ways, either by
dispensing with that exact obedience which the law
required, or by enabling us to fulfil it. Now the
remedy lies in the latter alternative only ; not in
lowering the law, much less in abolishing it; but in
bringing up our hearts to it — attuning them to its
high harmonies." "If he (God) counts righteous, itis
by making righteous ; if He justifies, it is by renewing ;
if He reconciles us to him, it is not by annihilating
' Lectures on Justifie. pp. 34, 39. 2 lb. p. 101.
10

74
the Law, but by creating in us new wills and new
powers for the observance ofit.'"
Again, we learn from this divinity, that those who
are regenerate in Baptism, can and do so fulfil the
divine Law, that their indwelling righteousness has
in it a satisfying and justifying quality, and does
justify them in the sight of God.
That indwelling righteousness is called by Mr.
Newman " the propitiation for our sins in God's
sight," (p. 39.) "We becorae inwardly righteous,
(justified) in the sarae sense in which we are utterly
reprobate by nature, (p. 96.)
But we are reprobate by our own i7ihe7~ent un
righteousness. It follows that, according to this di
vinity, we must become justified by our own inhe
rent righteousness.^
' Lectures, pp. 35, 36.
2 "That in our natural state, and by our o-wn strength, (says Mr. Newman,)
we are not, and cannot be justified by obedience, is admitted on all hands. But
it is a distinct question altogether, whether, with the presence of God, the Holy
Ghost, we can obey unto justification ; and while the received doctrine in all
ages ofthe Church has been that through the largeness and peculiarity of the
gift of grace •»« can, it is the distinguishing doctrine ofthe first Protestants,
that we cannot." (pp. 66, 67.) " In the same sense in which we are unrighteous
or displeasing to God, by nature, we are actually righteous and pleasing to Him
in a state of grace. Not that there is not abundant evil still remaining in us,
but that justification coming to us in the power and inspiration ofthe Spirit, so
far dries up the fountain of bitterness and impurity that we are forthwith re
leased from God's "wrath and damnation, and are enabled in our better deeds to
please Him. It places us above the line in the same sense in which we were
below it." " By grace we are gifted, not with perfection, but with a principle
hallowing and sweetening all that we are, all that we do religiously, sustaining,
abiding, and (in a sense) pleading for what remains of sin in us, making inter
cession for us according to the will of God." "And here we see in what sense
Christians are enabled to fulfil the Law. Christians then fulfil the Law in the
very sense of pleasing God. Not that we are able to please Him simply and
entirely, (for in many things we offend all ;) but that the presence ofthe Spirit
is a sanctifying virtue in our hearts, changing the character of our services.

75
Aorain, "Justification consists in God's inward
presence." " It is the act of God imparting His di
vine presence to the soul, through baptisra, and so
making us the temples of the Holy Ghost."'
"It is the habitation in us of God the Father, and
the word Incarnate, through the Holy Ghost," (p.
47.) " Christ is our Righteousness by dwelling in us
by his Spirit, justifies by entering into us, continues
to justify us by remaining in us," (p. 51.) "This
divine gift, or indwelling, is ' an angelic glory'
which Prophets and Apostles exult in as the great
gift of Divine mercy, as the rich garment of salva
tion, and the enjewelled robe of righteousness ; a
linen clean and 7vhite." (p. 184.) "This is the glo
rious Shekinah of the word Incarnate, the true wed
ding garment in which the soul must be dressed,"
(220.) This doctrine "buries self in the absorbing
vision ofa present, an indwelling God." (220.)
Again, Justification is raade to consist in " the in
ward application ofthe atonement."
Let it not be supposed that in this language there
is intended the least resemblance to what is meant
in ordinary language, by the appropriation of the
atonement to our souls by the instrumental hand of
faith. It simply means that Justification consists in

making our obedience new in kind, not merely fuller in degree, and in this
sense a satisfying obedience, rising up, answering to the kind of obedience
which is due from us, to the nature of the claims which our Creator, Redeemer,
and Sanctifier has upon us.'' " It seems then that a Christian's life is avait-
able, justifying ; not of course the origin, or well-spring of our acceptable
ness, (God forbid,) &c. (Lect. pp. 98, 99, 100, 101.)
" Works done in faith, though mixed with evil, are good in themselves, as
being the fruits of the Spirit."— (Note to p. 351.)
' Pusey's Letters to Bishop of Oxford, p. 42.

76
our being crucified unto sin — in other words, as be
fore, our sanctification. "It is," (says Mr. New
man,) " the setting up of the Cross rvithin us." We
have been accustomed to su.ppose that the Israelites,
looking upon the brazen serpent in the Avilderness,
was, according to our Saviour's words, (John iii. 14,.
15,) a clear illustration of how we are to look unto
the great atoning sacrifice for sin, an the cross, and
be justified through the obedience and death of
Christ. But such is far from being the teaching Ave
are now to learn. On the contrary, had that serpent
been set u]) within each Israelite, ^^o that precisely as
the poison Avherewith he was dying A\^as within, so-
sliould have been the refuge — then would have
been typified the true way in wliich Ave are now to
be justified, viz: by a Christ crucified ivithin us.'^
These passages, (and similar ones occur every
tvhere,.) will suffice to shoAv how earnestly and en
tirely it is the fundamental principle of Oxford Di-

' " You- hear men speak of glorying in the cross of Christ, who are utter
strangers to the nature of the cross as actually applied to them, in -water and
blood, in holiness ajid pnin. They think individuals are justified immediate
ly by the great atonement — justified by Christ's death — Justified by what they
consider looking at his death. Because the brazen serpent healed by being
looked at, they consider that Christ's sacrifice saves by the mind's contemplat
ing it. — Gazing on the brazen serpent did not heal ; but God's giving invisi
bly the gift of health to those who gazed. So Justification is a power exerted
on our souls by Him, as the healing of the IsraeUtes was a power exerted on
their bodies. Christ's cross does not justify by being g;azed at in faith, but by
being actually set up within us, and that not by our act, but by God's invisi
ble grace. Men sit and gaze and speak of the great Atonement and think this
is appropriating it. Men say that /ai'rt is an apprehending and applying;
FAITH CANNOT heaiit APPiT IT; man cannot make the Saviour ofthe world
his own ; the cross must be brought home to us, not in word, but in power,
and this is, the work ofthe Spirit.— r/u's is Justijicatio n."— Newman's Lect.
pp. 200, 201,203.

77
vinity, that the Justifying righteousness has no ex
ternal character at all, is not in any true sense a
righteovisness accounted unto us, is identical with
Sanctification, a righteou.sness m us and not in Clirist,
personal, as opposed to imputed, a righteousness in
fused and inherent, and therefore our own righteous
ness, as much as our souls, our intellect, our affec
tions are our own.
We proceed. Justification according to this Di
vinity is PROGRESSIVE, increasing as sanctification in
creases. This is expressed by Dr. Pusey as follows :
" We are by baptism brought into a state of salvation or justifi
cation, (for the words are thus far equivalent,) a state into which
we were brought of God's free mercy alone, without works, but in
which having been placed, we are to ' work out our salvation with
fear and trembling,' through the indwelling Spirit of 'God, working
in us to will and to do of his good pleasure;' a state admitting of
degrees according to the degree of sanctification — (although the
first act whereby we were brought into it did not ;) a state admit
ting of relapses and recoveries, but which is weakened by every re
lapse, injured by lesser, destroyed for the time by grievous sin ;
and after such sin, recovered with difficulty, in proportion to the
greatness, of the sin, and the degree of its wilfulness, and of the
grace withstood."*
Now the meaning of all this, as interpreted in Mr.
Newman, is that when a sinner comes to Baptism, he
comes without any of that indwelling righteousness in
which Justification consists. He is therefore brought
into a state of Justification without antecedent Avorks,
of God's free mercy alone, for Christ's sake — that is,
his past sins are pardoned, and he is justified by
having an indwelling righteousness implanted in
him by the Holy Spirit, in virtue of the passion of

' Letter, pp. 54, 55.

78
Christ. This takes place only at Baptism. This first
act of making righteous, does not admit of degrees,
any more than does the first act of Sanctification,
which is Regeneration — but after that, Justification
is greater or less, increases or diminishes, precisely
according to the degree of Sanctification.'
The reader will now be good enough to mark the
position occupied in this scheme by that which St.
Paul so exclusively gloried in, which he so exclu
sively preached, Avhich stands so conspicuously in
the creeds and hopes of Christians, which so fills the
petitions of our Liturgy, and the hearts of all who
devoutly take up its halloAved strains — the cross of
Christ, the death, the Atonement of our blessed Lord.
Read in our Homilies and great writers, of the
righteousness of Christ, as constituting our justifica-
^ Justificatio impii, says Aquinas, ^? a Deo in instanti — P. 12. Q. 113. a. 7.
"Justification of the ungodly takes place instantaneously.'' This from the Ro
mish Saint, refers also to what takes place in Baptism, the first Justification.
Christians (says Mr. N.) are justified by the communication of an inward, most
sacred, and most mysterious gift. From the very time of Baptism, they are tem
ples of the Holy Ghost. This is what is common to all. The fact that we are
the Temple of God does not admit of more or less. Righteousness then, con
sidered as the state of being God's temple, cannot be increased; but considered
as the divine glory which that state implies, it can be increased, as the pillar of
cloud which guided the Israelites could become more or less bright. Justifica
tion being acceptableness with God, all beings who are justified differ from all
Tvho are not, in their very condition. In this sense, it is as absurd to speak of
our being raore justified, as of life, or colour, or any other abstract idea, increas
ing. But when we compare the various orders of just and acceptable beings
with one another, we see that though they all are in God's favour, some may
be more pleasant, acceptable, righteous than others, that is, may have more of
the light of God's countenance shed on them ; in this sense their Justification
does admit of increase and degrees, and whether we say justification depends on
faith or on obedience, in the same degree that faith or obedience grows, so does
justification. And again, as Holy Communion conveys a more a-wful presence
of God, than Holy Baptism, so must it be the instrument ofa higher justifica
tion." — JVe-wman's Lect. 168, 169.

79
tion. For example, the Homily on Salvation says,
that what the Apostle calls the Justice (Righteous
ness) of God in our Justification, is that righteous
ness of Christ " which consisteth in paying our
ransom and fulfilling of the Law.'" Thus Hooker
says, " the external righteousness of Jesus Christ,
which is imputed," is that by which we are justified,
distinguishing it from "the habitual righteousness of
the Spirit, which is engrafted."^ But "it appears
(we use the language of the British Critic) from the
whole tenor of his work, that Mr. Newman recoils
with something approaching to a positive antipathy,
from the thought of a justification external to our
selves. He seems to derive but meagre satisfaction
from the contemplation of what was done for us
eighteen hundred years ago." In truth, what Hooker
atid the Homily, in the above passages, mean by the
righteousness of Christ, a Mediatorial righteousness,
wrought out for us by his obedience and death, and
raade ours by iraputation only, through the inst7'u-
mental agency of faith alone, has no place in Oxford
Divinity. Its very existence is denied. When Paul,
in the Epistle to the PhUippians, says : " that I might
win Christ and be found in him ; not having mine
own righteousness which is of the law, but that
which is through the faith of Christ, the righteous
ness which is of God through faith;" it is denied
that he speaks of two kinds of righteousness, the
one, his own, of W07-ks ; the other, of Christ and of
faith ; the former of the law, the latter not of the
law ; it is maintained that he speaks throughout only

' Homily of Salvation, part 1 . ^ Discourse of Justification, §21.

80
ofa righteousness ofthe Za??', of obedience, of works;
a righteousness of his oiim, and that the only differ
ence intended is that between obedience in a natural
state, by ones own strength, and obedience in a con
verted state, by grace helping, obedience inwrought
by the grace of God, in Christ, and therefore called
"the Righteousness of God by faith."'
But does this scheme entirely exclu.de the Me7'its
of Christ ? We answer in the words of Mr. Knox,
which perfectly express the sense of Mr. NcAvman.
"Doubtless the Church never loses sight of the
merits of our blessed Saviour; but she. confides in
them, not as a substitute for internal grace, (in Justifi
cation,) but as an infallible security that this grace
shall be freely communicated to all Avho cordially
ask it."^
Then the doctrine is; The merits of Christ have
purchased for us the grace of Sanctification, by
which we are made righteous for Christ's sake.
When a sinner first turns to God, his past sins are
pardoned freely, through the merits of Christ ; after
that, his acceptaljleness depends upon his fulfilling
the laAV. He fulfils the law by having a righteous
ness implanted in his heart at Baptism, for Christ's
sake. By that he Avorks out his salvation. His
works are noAv "good m themselves." "Love is imputed
to him for righteousness." "His life is available,
justifying." He looks unto himself, to a " cross ivith-
in," for acceptableness and peace. He can, he does,
fulfil the LaAV for righteousness, unto salvation.
Justification, at its commencement, Avas chiefly par-

' See Newman, p. 128. ^ Knox's Remains, vol. i. p. 517.

81
don ; it becomes less and less as it advances, and
becomes more and more simply sanctification. It
ends in being not pardon, but all sanctification, so
that as Mr. Newman expressly says, " the righteous
ness wherein we must stand at the last day, is not
Christ's oAvn imputed obedience, but our good
works''^ Now see what he does with the cross of Christ,
and what he means by preaching, and glorying in
that cross.
" The cross in which St. Paul gloried, was not (what persons
among ourselves would take it to be, without even the plea of being
literal, as the Romanists have,) the actual sacrifice oxi the cross;
but it is that sacrifice coming in power to him who has faith in it,
and converting his body and soul into a sacrifice. It is the cross re
alized, present, living in him, sealing him, separating him from the
world, sanctifying him, afflicting him."^
Such is " the inward application ofthe Atonement."
"A cross erected within, made ours by our being
marked with it." To glory in the cross of Christ
then is to glory in our own cross, in our own cruci
fixion, our own sanctification. To preach Christ cru
cified is not to preach Christ crucified on the cross
of Calvary, making atonement; but Christ ivithin us,
crucifying our flesh, "with its affections and lusts."
To look unto Jesus, as the Israelites looked upon the
brazen serpent, is not to behold the Lamb of God
lifted up on the cross "7vithout the gate," but within
our hearts; not crucified, but crucifying; not suffer
ing for us, but causing us to suffer for him ; not satis
fying the law for us, but enabling us to satisfy the
law for ourselves. Alas ! alas ! if this be true, we

1 Lectures, p. 60. ^Ib. p. 206.
11

82
must turn our creeds, and hopes, and sermons, and
books and homilies, inside out; old things indeed
must pass away, and a/Z things become new.'
The reader may hoav understand in Avhat sense
the merits of Christ have any share in our Justifica
tion. He reads in Oxford Avritings that while it is a
righteousness within us, by Avhich we are justified,
all, 7ievertheless, is through the tnerits of Christ — the
passion of Christ. Now if he supposes that by this
is meant any thing like what is usually meant by
such language, viz. that a sinner looks to the Atone
ment of Christ as his only hope, and pleads, and in
his heart relies upon, Christ crucified as the sacrifice
for his sins, and glories or rejoices only in that atoning
sacrifice for all peace with God, he is exceedingly
mistaken. And yet undoubtedly such is the mean
ing in which this divinity is taken by the many who
suppose it is only different from the common faith,
by a different use of words. That we are not mis
representing this matter will be obvious to the reader,
from the consideration that one large Tract, by these
divines, is expressly devoted to the inculcation of
"Reserve in communicating religious knoivledge," in
which the "Necessity of b7'inging foi'ward the doctrine
iThe same doctrine is pressed, by the same Author, in the Tract on Reserve,
No. 80. For example — *' It is a great mistake to suppose that by preaching the
Atonement, we are preaching what St. Paul meant when he said • -we preach
Christ crucified.' It isthe opposite of this modern notion which St. Paul always
intends by it. It is the necessity of our being crucified to the world, it is our
humiliation together with him, mortification of the flesh,'' &c. (p. 75.) It is
difficult to see how the Apostles could have been charged with making void the
la-Lv, through faith, and encouraging a continuance in sin ihat grace might
abound, if this was all they meant by preaching Christ crucified. Our Oxford
divines do not seem to be much in danger of sharing in that reproach of the
Apostles.

83
ofthe Atonement," without reserve, of teaching it to
the impenitent at all, or even to any but those who
have made progress in grace is denied. In that Tract,
we read that :
" Fully to know that we are saved by faith in Christ only, and
not by any works of our own, and that we can do nothing, except
ing by the grace of God, is o great secret, the knowledge of which
can only be obtained by obedience — as the crown and end of great
holiness of life."» "In all things it would appear that this doctrine (the
Atonement) instead of its being what is supposed,^ is in fact the very
secret ' of the Lord ' which Solomon says is with the righteous,' &c.
' Tract on Reserve (No. 80.) p. 49. Eng. Ed.
2 The supposed idea is learned from Tract No. 73, where it is mentioned as a
very objectionable feature of " the popular theology of the day," that it considers
"that the Atonement is the chief doctrine of the Gospel — that on this, as on the
horizontal line in a picture, all the portions of the Gospel system are placed and
made to converge; as if it might be fearlessly used to regulate, adjust, correct,
complete every thing else." The author of the Tract No. 80 considers that in
the days of the Puritans great evils arose from the putting forward of divine
truths " without that sacred reserve " which he has been urging. " The conse
quence of this indelicate exposure of religion was the perpetration of crimes al
most unequalled in the annals of the world." That is, the making known ol
the Gospel— the preaching of the death of Chiist as an atonement for the sins of
the whole world ; the calling of sinners to flee to that refuge by repentance and
faith ; to seek rest only in the Cross of Christ, was productive of all this ruin.
What will it be when the Gospel is preached to every creature ? A writer of
the same school, reviewing tho Tract on Reserve, in the British Critic, now in
the hands ofthe Oxford fellowship, carries on the strain as follows : " How very
different this sacred reserve from the manner in which the sacred mystery (the
Atonement) is in the present day, pressed forward by a peculiar school, whether
for the conversion of unbelievers, or for winning back stray souls to their duty
and allegiance. It is held forth and touchingly depicted to all men indiscrimi
nately. The characteristics of its full reception into the heart of any individual,
seem to be an entire disclaiming of any merit or desert in himself, a watchful
jealousy of any worth or importance in any thing he can do— a casting himself
upon Christ," &c. Again : " It is notorious how popular books of the day
bring forward the doctrine of the Atonement, and press it in every rhetorical
form, as the great instrument for the conversion of the careless and ill-living."
—British Critic for Ap. 1839. If Paul did not preach it to unconverted
Jews and Greeks, how could it have been to the one a stumbling block to the
other foolishness ?

84
—-'the hidden manna' which he will give to those who overcome
the world. To require, as is sometimes done, from both grown per
sons and children, an explicit declaration ofa belief in the Atone
ment, and the full assurance of its power, appears untenable. If a
poor woman, ignorant and superstitious, as raight be supposed, was
received by our Lord, by so instant a blessing, for touching the bor
der of his clothes, (what a perversion ! Was it for touching his
clothes, or for knowing and believing in him ?) may it not have been
the case that in times, which are now considered dark and lost to
Gospel truth, there might have been many such? That there might
have been many a helpless person, who knelt lo a crucifix in a
churchyard, who might have done so under a more true sense of
that faith which is unto life, than those who are able to express the
most enlightened knowledge."'
Now from the above it is manifest that there may
be a true sense of a living faith, where an explicit be
lief in the Atonement of Christ is not to be required
or expected. It is manifest that an adult is supposed
to be a true Christian, a true believer, feeling, enjoy
ing, displaying the poAvcr of a living, justifying faith,
to whom the Atonement is not only not the promi
nent object of his faith, the single foundation of his
hope, the great argument Avith God in his prayers,
the only source Avhence he expects any 7nerit before
his Judge, but to Avhom. it is so unknoAvn, that to ex
pect of him enough knowledge of it, to be able to
profess a belief in it, would be too great a trial of his
faith — to boAv down before a crucifix, ignorant of the
great doctrine of A\'hicli it is the symbol, is evidence
of enouo'h knoAvledsre to be the basis of a saving
faith. And this supposed case of the Avorshiper
of the crucifix, ignorant of any doctrine symbolized
thereby, is not given as an extraordinary case, but as
1 Tract on Reserve, Eng. Ed. p. 76—78

85
an illustration of the general principle that Ave are not
to expect of adults, in order that they may have a
saving faith, an explicit profession of faith in the
Atonement. Who now are hastening to the very
gulf of Unitarianism ? It is not the divinity of Christ
that Unitarians chiefly aim at, but his Atonement.
Suffer them to be possessors of a saving faith, while
having no reference to that doctrine, and their zeal
against its foundation in the Divinity of Christ will
die away.
Now let the reader judge, how much is meant by
the expressions of these divines, as to all Justifica
tion, &c., coming through the passion of Christ.
The knowledge of his atonement, a looking to that
atonement, a reliance upon that atonement, as all
ones hope and peace, has nothing to do with it. It is
like the Romish sacrifice of Mass, which is effectual
whether any but the sacrificing Priest unite in it,
or not. The merits of Christ are applied to the sin
ner, according to this new way, without any know
ledge or application on his part, except as he comes
to the sacraments, or uses other "sacred symbols,"
and "effectual signs of grace." And this apphcation
consists in the coramunication of inherent risfhteous-
ness, so that we are justified, not by the merits of
Christ, but by an inherent holiness of our own,
Avhich is given for his sake. All this explains the
manifest favour with which the Tracts look upon
the svtperstitious profaneness of administering the
Lord's supper " to i7ifants, or to the dying and appa
rently insensible," which we read is " not without the
sanction of primitive usage,'" and of course, there-

1 Pusey's Views of Baptism, p. 5. Am. Ed.

86
fore, the reverent submission of the Authors. If a
person can believe in Christ crucified, with a living,
justifying faith, withoiit an explicit belief in the
atonement of Christ, then he can take the Lord's
supper in reme7nbrance of the death of Christ, while
incapable of any remembrance of any thing.
The doctrine of explicit faith, as distinguished
from implicit, in the Church of Rome, Avill help the
reader here. In Aquinas Ave read, that some things
are objects of belief, per se, essentially, and these,
therefore, are Articles of Faith, and must be believed
with an explicit faith. Others are objects of faith
only per accidens, or in a secondary sense ; as, for
instance, that Abraha7n had two sons. Such need
be believed only implicitly ; that is in a preparation
of mind to receive Avhat scripture contains. In pre-
paratione animi, in quantum paratus est credere quic-
quid divina scriptura continet. Such faith requires no
knoAvledge of that AA-hich is said to be thus believed,
but only a readiness to receive it when made known.
All are not bound equally to have an explicit faith.
Teachers of religion are bound to have more than
others — ad quos pe7~ti7iet alios erudire, tenentur 7nagis
explicite credere,^
The Incarnation and the Trinity are the only doc
trines which Aquinas speaks of as requiring explicit
faith. Now, as explicit faith, in the doctrine of the atone
ment, according to Oxford Divinity, is not to be
required of an adult, but one may have a strong
influential faith, who believes therein only, because
believing the Scriptures or the Church in general,
1 Aquinas Summa P. 1, Q. 2. A, 5.

87
he is prepared to believe whatever they teach, though
he never have heard of it ; it foUoAvs that the atone
ment is not strictly an article of faith, but a secon
dary matter; not an object of faith perse, butter
accidens, like such a truth as Aquinas gives, for an
example, that Abraham had tivo sons. Thus indeed
is the cross out of sight, except as Ave set up its
symbol in the Church, or trace it Avith our finger
upon our foreheads. And this is the Gospel ! !
Again, let the reader distinctly observe and esti
mate the condition into which this new 7vay neces
sarily casts the dearest hope of the penitent and be
lieving sinner.
According to the Scriptures, when one is " justi
fied by faith," he has "peace with God." "In this
grace (of justification,) he rejoices in hope of the
glory of God." It is manifest, that the Scripture
not only represents a very joyful assurance of salva
tion as attainable by all Christians, but as the
bounden duty of all, when it tells us so frequently
that the saints in this life, have kno7V7i their justifica
tion and future salvation; when it declares, that
whosoever believeth in Christ, "hath everlasting
life;" which it would be vain to declare, if we can
not know ourselves to be believers or not; when it
bids us to examine ourselves, prove, know ourselves,
whether Ave be in faith; Avhen it speaks of the hap
piness of the man unto A\-hom the Lord imputeth no
sin; when it makes the knowledge of peace, in the
shape of hope, the anchor of the soul, the helmet of
the head in storm and battle ; AA'hen it requires us
to rejoice in the Lord ahvays; to love and haste unto
the appearing of our Lord.

88
But Avhere is the possibility of all this, if, accord
ing to this scheme, our Justification be dependent on
our own inwrought righteousness. Let us see !
Justification and peace Avith God are essentially con
nected in Rom. v. 1 : " Being justified — ive have peace
with God." But, says Mr. NeAvman, Justification
consists in a righteousness dwelling in us, and that
"righteousness is acceptableness." But this accepta
bleness, it is said, may be more or less. Of course,
then, we may be more or less justified, and so more
or less at peace Avith God. "In the same degree,
(says Mr- Newman,) that faith or obedience grows,
so does Justification. On the other hand, those Avho
are declining in their obedience — as they are quench
ing the light Avithin, so are they diminishing their
justification,"' and, of course, so are they decreas'ing
in peace ivith God.
Now in what way is a poor- sinner, working out
his salvation, ever to know whether he has peace
with God, and may rejoice in hope, or not? He can
have peace only so far as he is justified. And ac
cording to this doctrine, some are more justified than
others; the same person at various periods, may be
in various stages of justification. He asks for the
line or mark of justification so that when beneath it,
he may know that he is not sufficiently justified to
have peace with God, and when above it, may know
that he is justified enough to have peace with God.
No such line is pretended to. Then, whether he is
at peace with God, or under his wrath, for there is
no mediura, he can never know. Where then is the
'Newman, pp. 168, 169.

89
helmet of hope, that "strong consolation" for him
who has fled for refuge to Christ? The "hope that
maketh not ashamed," the confidence that when
Christ shall appear, he shall be like him, and see
him as he is?
Now what is the natural consequence of such a
miserable, comfortless doctrine as this, this "feeding
us on husks and shells?" "A man who can never
know whether his amount of Inherent Righteous
ness is sufficient, will always be excogitating some
device or other by which God may be the more ef
fectually propitiated and satisfied. A gloomy, or a
poverty-stricken aspirant resorts to those unbidden
austerities and severe bodily macerations, by which
it is fully hoped that sins may be expiated and hea
ven meritoriously attained." In such righteousness
there is something that seems tangible, measurable,
appreciable. A raan can count his penances, mea
sure his pilgrimages, weigh his gifts, and thus keep
account of his righteousness, and at last come to ac
count himself sufficiently righteous to be at peace
with God. Sinners of various descriptions will re
sort to different modes of establishing such a righte
ousness; the rich will purchase what they are not
willing to work out, by the prayers of priests and
the merits of saints, and the virtue of indulgences,
to save themselves the pain of austerities. Thus,
will arise the monster of Supererogatory Merit. And
so there grows out of the mere effort of the troubled
conscience to supply the awful uncertainty arising
from a scheme of justification, which knows nothing
better for righteoiisness, than our own works and
personal holiness, that whole retinue of vain devices
12

90
for the making of a righteousness of our own and
easing the conscience with nostrums of man's quack
ery, by which the Church of Rome has been for so
many centuries so defiled, and degraded.'
The direct tendency, to precisely such results, is
manifest already in Oxford Divinity. Nothing is
more evident, than that precisely the state of uncer
tainty about one's actual peace Avith God, Avhich we
have described, is inculcated there as a matter of
duty. Any thing like a "joy of hope," a "strong
consolation," a confidence of peace is sternly repu
diated as presumption and Ultra-Protestantism.
Thus Dr. Pusey condemns, A\ith all severity, the
views of those who believe that, " when men have
once been brought ' to lay hold of Christ's saving
merits,' then their sins are done away; they 'are
covered ;' they can appear no more ; the hand- writing
is blotted; who believe that this apprehension of
Christ's merits is a full remission of sins ; and that,
after they have laid hold on Christ by faith, and so
have their sins forgiven, " to seek to efface it by re
pentance, is weakness of faith ; to do acts of mercy,
or self-denial, or self-abasement, or to fast 7vith refer
ence to it, is to place repentance instead of Christ."
This is what Dr. Pusey considers worse than Ro
mish indulgences, just because it does give what
the Gospel calls us to, "a strong consolation," to
the believer, instead of "the bitterness of the an
cient medicine," (of penance and austerity,) and
by what he calls " an artificial, wrought-up peace,
checks the deep and searching agony, whereby God,
1 See Faber's Primitive Doctrine of Justification, c. v.

91
as in a furnace of fire, purifies the whole man by the
spirit of judgment, and the spirit of burning — going
counter to the whole tenor of Scripture, that every
man shall be judged according to his works."
We cannot leave this view of the painful uncer
tainty under which the doctrine of the scheme under
consideration, shrouds in gloom the dearest hopes of
the humble believer, without refreshing the mind
of the devout reader, after all the desert-ground we
have been walking over, with the foUoAving excellent
passage from Mr. Faber, on the Primitive Doctrine
of Justification.
" If we adopt the system recommended to us by these authorities,
ancient and modern, (the ancient Fathers and the standards of the
Church of England,) the modern being swelled by the assent ofthe
various Reformed Churches of the Continent, we shall encounter
no imperious and perplexing requisition to draw a line between suf
ficiency and insufficiency ; for in that case we shall build our Jus
tification, not upon the ever shifting sands of man's Imperfect and
Inherent Righteousness, but upon the immovable rock and absolute,
cubical unity of the Perfect and Finished Righteousness of Christ.
Thus freely justified through an imputation to us of faith, (the righte
ousness of Christ by faith,) instead of any righteousness of ourown;
henceforth, by the Sanctification of the Spirit, we sedulously work
and abound, not for Justification, but feom Justification. Our ef
forts therefore, through grace, to advance in every good thought and
word and work, perfecting holiness in the fear of God, are the wil
ling and grateful exertions of sons anxiously desirous to please a
reconciled and most merciful father, not the reluctant and con
strained and grudging labours of slaves, fearful lest any slackness
in their hated task should call forth the lash of an exacting and un
relenting master. Erecting our edifice on this sure foundation of
Christ's Righteousness; and knowing that there is therefore no con-
demnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the
flesh, but after the Spirit; perfect, confiding love casting out all that
slavish fear, which in the very nature of things, cannot but attend

92
upon the Romish system, (the Oxford system,) ; we have peace
with God, being justified through faith — and we thankfully experi
ence the blessedness of those, lo whom the Lord will not impute
sin, inasmuch as their iniquities are forgiven, and their sins are
covered."' Before we conclude the Chapter and proceed to the
comparison of Romanism, there is one main point
which raust be set out with special distinctness, and
be raade to stand foremost in the reader's mind.
We have treated the Oxford doctrine of Justifica
tion by a righteousness within us, as contradistin
guished from a righteousness external and imputed,
as being neither more nor less than Justification by
inherent righteousness, or Sanctification. And we
doubt not that, to the reader whose only knowledge
ofthe writings of Mr. Newman and Dr. Pusey, &c.,
has been derived from the citations we have given,
the idea has not occurred that such identity could
gravely be questioned. But let him remember that
if this be granted, the essential Romanism of their
Divinity, on this main doctrine of the Reformation,
is also granted. Justification by inherent righteous
ness or Sanctification is the grand distinguishing
feature of Romanism, in regard to "the nature and
essence of the medicine whereby Christ cureth our
disease." Can it then be expected that such a point of
resemblance between them and Rome could be given
up, without at least an attempt at some different
showing? Would it not be a silly thing indeed for
Dr. Pusey to publish a work for the very purpose of
vindicating his system from the charge of Romanism,
and yet acknowledge, or not expressly deny, that it
' Faber's Prim. 'Dot. of Justif., p. 211.

93
contains that which Hooker, &c., raake the very soul
of Roraanism ? Of course he denies it, and attempts
to make out such distinctions between their indwell
ing righteousness and what, in all theology, is called
Sanctification, as will enable them to hold to the for
mer, without feeling convicted of going back to Rome ;
and unquestionably, whatever we may think of the
reality of those dictinctions, we in charity believe that
they think them good. But whether the distinctions
be real or fictitious, it is our duty to judge for our
selves, and to decide upon the doctrine accordingly,
without regard to the unsupported assertions of its
advocates. A raan raay teach Socinianisra, and deny
that it is Socinianisra. We must not take his word
except for the fact that such is his opinion. A man
may concoct a poison and deny that it is poison, and
by mixing it Avith ingredients foreign to, and con-
tradictive of, its natural properties, may take it him
self, without death ; but we must judge of its legiti
mate tendency, neither by his assertion, nor his foreign
admixture, nor its effects upon him, but by its own
properties. We have a good example of this in these
divines themselves. They will by no means receive '
the assertions of those whom they call " Ultra Pro
testants " as to whether their system involves this or
that evil consequence. What is good in them per
sonally, or the ministry they maintain, is in spite of
their system. We must be excused then for main
taining that, if there be any expressions or inferences,
or practical effects, in- the works of these writers in
their Christian views and hopes, which are better
than what would naturally and directly issue as the
fruit of their doctrine, (and we know there is much,

94
and strange would it be, were there not) it only proves
that they are better than their system; that the seed
of truth within them has its growth, as well as the
seed of error, the wheat as well as the tare. To use
the words of Dr. Pusey : " The tendencies are doubt
less checked in individuals ; but whatever checks
there are, are the result of past duty, of an implanted
integrity, of God's law within them, in despite of
their system. Their tendency is to act upon a theory,
not upon Scripture.'" The same language we may
use of many Romanists, Socinians, Antinomians, as
Avell as many who are less astray — and the same we
must use in regard to those whom Dr. Pusey repre
sents. Now for the distinction contended for, as the line
of demarcation between the Justification of Roman
ism, and that of Oxford Divinity.
Dr. Pusey expressly declares that he and those
who bear him company do " exclude Sanctification
from having any place hi our Justificatio7i." Where
the line runs, or what it is, he does not say. But he
does tell us, with singular contradiction, that " the
state of Justification admits of degrees according to
the degree of Sa7ictification."^
Mr. Newman maintains the same denial.
" This is really and truly our Justification, not faith, not holiness,
not (much less) a mere imputation; but the very presence of
Christ,"'' " not faith, not renovation, not obedience, not any thing
cognizable by man, but a certain divine gift in which all these quali
fications are included."* " Scripture expressly declares that righte
ousness is a divine inward gift, while at the same time it teaches that

' Letter, p. 48. ^ Letter, p. 54. 3 Lectures on Justif. p. 167.
^Ib. p. 1.59.

95
it is not any mere quality of mind, whether faith or holiness."'
Justification is " not renewal or the principle of renewal."^ " The
Apostle goes on to say that the only true Justification is the being
made holy or renewed ; does not this imply from the very nature of
the case that renewal was not just the same thing as Justification."^
(The implication is beyond our ken. But again) : " If the justify
ing word be attended by the spiritual entrance of Christ into the
soul, justification is perfectly distinct from renewal, with which
Romanists identify it."'*
Now the question of the astonished reader raust
be, where, in the name of all Scriptural and Protest
ant, and common-sense, diAdnity, is the distinction
aimed at — a distinction betAveen Justification, as be
ing made holy, or renewed, and Justification as being
holiness and renewal? between righteousness as being
in us and being a quality qf nsl All the answer of
Mr. Newman is found in the following extracts
Avhich the reader will understand if he can.
" If we say that Justification consists in a supernatural quality im
parted to the soul by God's grace, as the Romanists say,' then in
like manner the question arises, is this quality all that is in us of
heaven ? does not the grace itself, as an immediate divine power or
presence, dwell in the hearts which are gifted with this renovating
principle? It may or it may not; but if it does, then surely its
possession is really our Justification and not renewal or the principle
of renewal."^
'Lectureson Justif. p. 154. 2 P. 151. 3 P. 76. ¦'P. 170.
s Mr. Newman is wrong if he means that it is part of the established and
enjoined creed of Romanism that it "consists in a supernatural quaUty im
parted to the soul." Romanists are as subtle and wary in distinctions as our
Oxford divines. Mr. JVeteman got his distinction from them, as we shall see.
Wo read in Tract No. 71, that in Romanism " It is defide that man is justified
by inherent righteousness; it is not dp fide that justifying righteousness is a
habit or quality," see p. 23 of American Edition. What the author of the
Tract means by saying that he does ?iot deny the reality ofthe distinction and
that it may be properly insisted on, but does deny that it exists in the particular
case, (p. 21) passes understanding. « Lectures, p. 150, 151.

96
Here then is the attempted distinction. Some
thing there is, called "grace," which is supposed to
dwell in the heart, and which works holiness, but is not
holiness ; it is holy, but not holiness. It is " the pre
sence of the Holy Ghost shed abroad in our hearts, the
Author both of faith and of renewal. This is really
that which makes us righteous (or justifies us) and
our righteousness is the possession of that presence.'"'
So then the possession of the presence of the Holy
Ghost — the simple presence, irrespective of effects
upon our hearts, is our Justification. But as faith
and spiritual renovation are said to be "fruits of that
presence,"^ if Justification be that presence, faith
must follow after Justification, while St. Paul says
we are "Justified by faith."
But we have this distinction differently expressed.
"The righteousness on which we are called righteous, or are jus
tified, that in which justification results or consists — this justifying
principle, though within us as it must be, if it is to separate us from
the world, yet is not of us, or in us, not any quality or act of our
minds, not faith, not renovation, not obedience, not any thing cog-
nizible by rnan, but a certain divine gift in which all these qualifica
tions are included.'"'
Now let US mark! This "divine presence" by
which we are justified, viz : "the habitation in us of
God the Father, and the Word incarnate through the
Holy Ghost" is a "righteousness ;" it is also a "prin
ciple;" (the divine presence a principle!) this pre
sence is also a " gift." This righteousness, or prin
ciple, or gift, is WITHIN us, within our hearts, our
minds, our affections, yet is not of us ; is not in us ;
is not IN our hearts and minds and affections. It is
iLectures, p. 150, 151. 2P. 151. =P. 159.

97
our righteousness, a principle, a possession and gift
of our minds, and yet "not any quality or act of our
minds." It is not the qualities of faith, renovation,
obedience, but something which includes thera all as
the qualities of Avhich that gift is the occult essence.
Such is the strongest exhibition of the whole mid
dle wall of partition on which Oxford divinity relies
for the separation of its doctrine of Justification from
that of Romanism, by inherent righteousness or Sanc
tification, "O this sad, misty divinity (as Coleridge
said of some in Donne) far too scholastical for the
pulpit, far too vague and unphilosophic for the
study." Now we have no intention of spending any time
to show that this laborious distinction is unscriptural,
unreal, mystical; that in so serious a matter, it is
mere trifling, and to all pretence of sober, bibli
cal theology, disgraceful. It speaks for itself Sha
dowy as it is, however, and vain ; it shows to what
straits these divines are driven if they would even
seem to keep clear of the downright charge of Pope
ry ; and, in our next chapter, it Avill be shown how
entirely, by the very using of this attempted distinc
tion, which is no other than an old device of scholas
tic Romanism, their doctrine is identified with that
of Popery. When sick men begin to pick at the air,
it is a mournful evidence that sight is failing, and the
darkness of death is at hand. We could hardly have
a stronger proof of how near these writers have gone
to Rome than that the only separation they can find,
in regard to the great subject before us, is in this
wall of interposing mistiness. Mr. Knox, with a simi
lar approximation, was sensible of precisely the same
13

98
necessity, of finding out some such distinction. With
less scholastic subtlety, if he has not used precisely
the same distinction, he has at least expressed one more
intelligibly, and is surprised that all do not see its
sufficiency. In reply to the objection that to sup
pose Justification to have an efficient, as Avell as repu
tative sense, is to confound it with Sanctification, he
says " This is a wonderfully common idea. But I
apprehend that it rests on this pure mistake — that
Sanctification is a general term for all inherent good
ness wrought in us by the grace of Christ. On the
contrary, I am persuaded it is a distinctive term for
goodness grown into, or growing into maturity. And
I apprehend, that among all the preliminary know
ledge necessary to the beneficial reading ofthe Scrip
ture, none is more important than an accurate idea
of this distinction and of the weight attached to it."
This distinction then is that grace in infancy is Justi
fication; grace-adult, or approximating thereto, is Sanc
tification. We may be the more easily acquitted of presump
tion in so unceremoniously rejecting all distinction
between the righteousness in which Justification,
according to Oxford Divinity, consists, and Sanctifi
cation, when it is remembered that in so doing we
only conform to what Mr. Newman in several parts
of his Lectures asserts. He expressly declares, and
he considers himself to have proved, as has been
shown before on page 66, that the distinction ordina
rily made between "two kinds of righteousness,"
that of Justification and that of Renewal or Sanctifi-
fication, is "not sci'iptural" — that these two are
"reaUy one;" that there is but one righteousness.

99
Now as he would not deny that sanctification or holi
ness is a righteousness, his righteousness of Justifica
tion must be that, or else his great position that there
is only righteousness is abandoned. Again, he ex
pressly says that "Justification and Sanctification are
substantially the same thing " — described, in Scrip
ture, as parts of one gift, properties, qualities or as
pects of one."'
Thus Justification is sometimes called a quality,
sometimes denied to be a quality; sometimes the pro
perty of a " divine gift," and then the gift itself and
none of its properties, but including thera all. The
reader must unravel the maze for hiraself
Again, the "real identity, in matter of fact, between
Sanctification and Justification, however we may vary
our terms, or classify our ideas," is positively asserted.^
"Justification and Renewal" are said to be "converti
ble terms''^ Justification is described as "coraing to
us through our sanctified wills and doings; as wrought
out for us by the power of God, actively employed
within us,"'* and may be viewed as consisting in evan-
gdical obedience,"^ and "will stand either for imputa
tion or for Sanctification."^ Perhaps no stronger ex
pression of the real identity of these two names, in
Oxford Divinity, could be given than Mr. Newman's
assertion that we become inwardly just or righteous
in God's sight (i. e. we are justified) upon our regene
ration, in the same sense in which we are utterly re
probate and abominable by nature."' Now we sup
pose it will not be denied that our natural unrighte-

1 Lectures, p. 42, 67. 2 P. 68. s p. 69.
<P. 59. 5 P. 104. 6 P. 107. ''P. 96.

10(1
ousness is a quality of our mmds, inherent, in us and
ofns, as well as nntliin us, not a something which,
while it includes unholiness, unbelief, disobedience,
is not any or all of them ; of course then our super
natural righteousness, according to the above asser
tion, must be a quality of our minds, inherent, &c.'
' This very doctrine is no other than what was broached by Osiander in the
16th century. That continental theologian, whose niece Archbishop Cranmer
married, excited much controversy among the reformed, after the death of Lu
ther, by his peculiar views of Justification. So far as the present writer can
see, Osiander's views and expressions were just those now re-edited at Oxford.
Mr. Newman indeed disclaims connection with Osiander, because the latter
maintained that " the Christian's justifying righteousness is the essential righte
ousness of the divine nature infused." True, there is much language in Osian
der that beajrs this interpretation, but so there is in Mr. Newman. And if in
Mr, N. there is much opposite language, as if our justifying righteousness were
regeneration, reneiiml, sanctification, or the personal holiness wrought in us
by the Holy Ghost, there is quite as much in Osiander. The great aversion of
the latter is to a " gratuitous imputation ;'' his great principle is that we are jus
tified by being made personally righteous ; he confounded " that gift of acceptance
•with regeneration," that inward, justifying sanctity, he speaks of as consisting
of "tbe inhabitation of Christ," in respect to his divine nature, and he main
tained a difference between that indwelling righteousness and our personal holi
ness, at the same time that he often spoke of them as convertible terms. The
Reformers indeed understood him as teaching justification by the communication
to us ofthe essential righteovsiiess ofthe divine nature, and so he did, and so
we think they would have understood Mr. Newman as teaching. But Osiander
did not teach this alone. He contradicted himself, just as mariners, in a mist
often turn around insensibly and go precisely an opposite course. He taught
also justification by our own personal holiness. So precisely does Mr. N. con
tradict himself. The latter, when he says that our justifying principle is *' the
inhabitation of God t/iroiigh the Spirit," is involved in this predicament, — he
must either mean, that it is the personal holiness which that blessed Spirit
works in us, which is Sanctification ; or else that it is a communication ofthe
divine, essential holiness, to us ; or else that it is simply a presence of God
within us, without respect to any communication, influence, effects. But
what shall we say of justification by a presence! What is "unreal, abstract,
visionary righteousness," if this be not"! Mr. Newman is sometimes upon one
of these alternates, sometimes another — sometimes all three are mixed up to
gether, literally in an inextricable fog, the mistif-ed mariner turning round and
round, and all the while rowing with all his might for the haven. So much for

101
But we are heartily wearied with the handling of
such aerial forms. Can it be necessary to say that
our Church, in her standards, knows but one inter
nal righteousness — and that, Sanctification — that her
standard divines know no more, and never dreamed
of any more? Bishop Barrow, on Justification, has a
passage which looks as if it had been made for our
present use. "That which is by some termed making
a person just, infusion into his soul of 7'ighteousness, of
grace, of virtuous habits, is in the Scripture style
called acting by the Spirit, bestowing the gift of the
Holy Ghost, renovation of the Holy Ghost, creation
to good 7V07-ks, Sanctification by the Spirit."^ It
need not be declared that all such divines as Bever
idge, Hal], Andrewes, Hooker, &c., continually use
the words Sanctification, Inherent Righteousness, In
dwelling Righteousness, as identical expressions ; that
the only other Righteousness they know is the exter-
losing sight ofthe true cross. So much for being guided by a cross within us,
instead of a cross on Calvary. The latter is always fixed. The former wan
ders as we wander. There is all the difference in the world between steering
by an object on shore, and an object in the boat.
The writer could devise no better refutation of Mr. Newman than what Cal
vin, in his Institutes, has in refutation of Osiander. — B. iii. c. xi. § v. to xiii.
Said Melancthon, I regard Osiander's dogma as no mere logomachy or strife
of words. He differs from our churches in a very esential point, and obscures,
or rather destroys the only consolation provided for distressed consciences, see
ing he leads us, not to the promise of mercy, through the obedience ofthe Me
diator, but directs us to another object." Osiander holds that we are justified
by the divinity dwelling in us. This differs little from the doctrine of the hea
then philosophers, who taught that man attains not to virtue but by a divine
influence — (see passage from Bishop Andrewes, p. 102.) Osiander, in effect,
says, that we are justified by our renovation to holiness. We, on the other
hand, while we admit the necessity of renovation, hold that the renewed man
is justified or accepted of God for the sake of Christ's obedience." — Scott's con
tinuation of Milner s Ch. Hist. vol. II, pp. 115, 116.
' Barrow's Works, 8to, vol. iv. p. 120.

102
nal and imputed Righteousness of Christ ; that a ifer-
tium quid, a so7nething between, called Righteous
ness, they have no acquaintance with."
We fear that " philosophy falsely so called " has had
far too much to do with Oxford Divinity; philoso
phy such as Mr. Knox was thinking of Avhen he said,
"I greatly suspect that the time is not very distant
when even Theological Creeds will be brought to a
Philosophical test, and be discarded should they not
stand the trial. "^ Bishop Andrewes says, "The phi
losophers themselves conceived and acknowledged
that righteousness which is a quality of the party."
We need no revelation to teach us that. But "the
other (righteousness by imputation, and external)
is proper," says the good Bishop, " to Christians only,
and altogether unknown in Philosophy." " Philo
sophy," said Clement of Alexandria, "should sub
mit itself to theology, as Agar to Sarah ; should al
low itself to be advised; but if it be uiiAvilling to be
come obedient, cast out the hand7naid,. "All here
sies," said Tertullian, "have drawn existence from
the brains of philosophers. They affect truth, and
in affecting, they mar it."
' Hooker makes a distinction between what he calls " two liinds of sanctifying
righteousness, habitual and actual. Habitual, that holiness wherewith our souls
are inwardly endued, the same instant when first we begin to be the 'i'emples
of the Holy Ghost; actual, that holiness which afterwards beautifieth all the
parts and actions of our life." But these two kinds are one .Sanctification,
in Hooker's view — not sanctification and something else also, which is its es
sence, and not itself. " The virtue of the Spirit, the habitual justice which is
engrafted," he opposes to the " external justice of Jesus Christ, which is im
puted." The former, however divided into parts, he makes to be neither more
nor less than Inherent righteousness, or Sanctification. To neither does he as
sign any part in Justification. — See Discourse of Justif. § 31. For Hooker's and
Beveridge's account of the " two kinds of righteousness " see the beginning of
this chapter. ^Uemains, vol, 1. p. 315 — Bp. Andrewes' Sermons, p. 734.

103
We have now seen that great improvement in " the
popular theology of the day;" that grand reform of
Ultra-Protestantism ; that high tower from Avhich to
defend the truth, against Rationalism, on the one
hand, and Roraanism, on the other; that Via Media,
which is now, we are told, being rapidly restored
from the sad dilapidations under Avhich, through a
Reformation that needs reforming, it has long been
suffering; the old path from which those who are
"dreaming" ofthe opposite, hoping tobe ju.stifiedby
"the unreal righteousness," the "abstract, visionary,
tyrannical, usurping system" of Hooker, Andrewes,
Beveridge, &c., have been wandering in a path " as
ruinous, to men's consciences, as the indulgences of
Romanism."^ We must be excused indeed. We are far behind
this new march of intellect. We are not yet prepar
ed for this Reformation. We have been believers
too long in a path washed Avith the tears and crim
soned with the blood of the Saints, to be easily raov-
ed away frora that hope of the gospel, which we
have heard frora a long line of noble witnesses,
reaching up to the first day of the Protest of the
Church, against the Roraan Anti-Christ: that bless
ed hope which was preached in the beginning to
every creature, "^whereof Paul was made a minister,"
If, as these modern, retrograde Reformers decla7-e, the
way of Justification by the external, imputed righte
ousness of Christ, be " another gospel"^ to them, then
it follows that their Avay of Justification by a righte
ousness, not external, but within us ; not Christ's but

1 Pusey, p. 56. ¦ Newman's Lectures, p.

il.

104
ours ; not imputed or accounted to us by faith ; but
wrought in us by the Spirit, is another gospel to us.
We are bound, therefore, Avith regard to their divin
ity, as they feel bound with regard to ours, by that
ApostoUc charge. " Though an angel, from heaven,
preach unto you any other gospel, than that ye have
received, let him be anathema."^
We must take heed : there may be much restora
tion of what is old, in this system, but it may be old
error, wearing a venerable aspect to some, because
antiquated ; and speaking Avords of wisdom to some,
because, like the prayers of some, in an unknown
tongue. We must try the spirits. Even "angels of
light" must not be received as Reformers, without
their credentials. The Canaanite is yet in the land.
Romanism is Avorking hard to put on strength. The
Church was once reformed away from Rome, by the
powers of light. The next thing attempted will be
to reform her back to Rome, by the powers of dark
ness. Our Protestant Reformers, were at first,
Romish Priests; and AAhen they began their work,
were led by ways they knew not of, and to an ex
tent of change, which they did not at first contem
plate, and Avould not at first have dared to attempt.
Our next Reformers may be Protestant Presbyters,
reversing the work of the others; led, as they,
though by another hand, in Avays they know not

1 Oxford divinity has led the way in the application of this text. In a late
British Critic, (No. 53.) we find it said, that while the changes in the Latin
Church, from the truth, have been only "objective and external;" that made
by "common Protestantism involves a radical charge of inward principle,
sufficiently startling, to recall with unpleasant sensations, those awful words,
'Though we or an angel from he.Tven preach,' '' tScr.

105
of, to an extent of change, which, in the beginning,
they raay have no idea of seeking, and would not
have conscience to undertake. Reformation, as other
things, vires acquirit eundo. Reformers learn new
ends, by atterapting to discover old paths; changes,
once begun, have a wonderful tendency to raake more
advanced ones right, and expedient, and practicable,
and at last obligatory. From imputed righteousness
to inherent, for Justification, is a great step; but once
accomplished, it makes many others easy. It would
be a wonderful leap, to cross at once, from imputed
righteousness io purgatory; but the middle ground of
inherent, once gained, the rest is soon accomplished.
From the righteousness of Christ imputed to me, to
the righteousness of Saints imputed to me, is indeed
a great gulf, which no leap of reforming agility could
cross at a bound ; but the half-way position of man's
righteousness, for Justification, takes half the diffi
culty away, so that under a sense of one's need of
some better righteousness than his own, the leap of
the sinner is easy into the midst ofthe righteousness of
" All Saints," living and dead, deposited under the
keys of St. Peter, for the convenience of the Church,
and the benefit of the system of Indulgences.
"Consider your ways," "Ponder the path of
thy feet." This Via Media, [qu. Via Appia?) may
be an old path, worn deep with the steps of pilgrims,
who have travelled far and toiled hard, and dropped
many a scalding tear over the doubtfulness of a sal
vation which laid the foundation of its hopes in such
righteousness, as they felt in their hearts, after all
their striving ; and yet it raay not be so old as that
14

106
Via Stricta,' that narrow way that leadeth unto life,
of which the Saviour spoke, in Avhich one walks by
faith, the way of peace, to the world " foolishness,"
and of which it is Avritten : " Few there be that
find it."
That way is an old path indeed : for Patriarchs,
Prophets, Apostles, Martys, and Saints of all ages
have walked therein and found it " a way of holi
ness," as well as of "joy unspeakable." At the same
time it is the "new and living way consecrated for us
through the blood of Jesus;" by which it is not only
our privilege but our duty to draw near to God, " in
full assurance of faith," not doubting our acceptance,
but confident of our acceptance if we come with a
living faith ; not fearing lest our sins should be too
great for a plenary Justification, but honouring the
infinite riches of divine grace, by the full assurance
that whosoever believeth in Jesus hath everlasting
life, and his precious blood cleanseth hira from all sin.
' Matth. vii. 14.

CHAPTER IV.

THE DOCTRINE OF OXFORD DIVINITY, AS TO THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF
JUSTIFICATION, C05IFARED WITH THAT OF THE SCHOOLMEN.
Origin ofthe Romish doctrine of Justification in the self-righteousness of the
human heart — Advance until the age of the Schoolmen — The origin of
Scholastic Theology — Character of the Schoolmen — Fitness of the age for
the rapid growth of error — The corruptions of Romanism which were ma
tured in that age — The seven sacraments — Sacramental Confession — Tran
substantiation — Half Communion — Image worship — Purgatory — Indulgen
ces — The same age, as was lo be expected, gave birth to the Romish doctrine
of Justification. — Connection between the Schoolmen and the divines of
Trent — Three propositions to show the identity of the doctrine of Oxfordism
with that of the Schoolmen. — Similar tendencies — Concluding remarks —
Note, showing the resemblance between the doctrine of Oxford, and that of
the early Quakers.
Before proceeding to a direct exhibition of the doc
trine of the Romish Church, as set forth in mature
growth, and in solemn, didactic array, in the Decrees
of the Council of Trent, we will pursue a course
similar to that by which we arrived at the doctrine
of the Oxford divines. We first contemplated that
doctrine "in rudiment," as contained in Mr. Knox;
and then the same in " hrger development," in the
writings of its present chief representatives at Ox
ford. The real origin of the Romish error of Justifica
tion, by inherent righteousness, may be dated as far
back as when men first began to go about establishing
their own righteousness, 7iot submitting themselves to
the righteousness of God. Like the system of the
Gospel, which it has been the unceasing aim of the

108
Adversary, by this heresy, to subvert; it has had its
various dispensations. Before the era of Christianity,
it was a counterfeit Judaism, professing the righte
ousness of God, under the forins of the Mosaic ritual,
but relying upon the righteousness of the Scribes
and Pharisees, under a yoke of traditions which
taught for doctrine the commandments of men, and
changed the truth of God into a lie, and the power
of godliness into the form thereof; full of pretence
without, but Avithin, of all uncleanness.
The proneness of the human heart to depart from
the righteousness of God, was not eradicated, nor
was the malice of the devil satiated, when the
Church arose frora out of the shadows of the Jewish
dispensation, and shone in the clearer light of the
Christian. To make the cross of Christ of none
effect; first, by making it foolishness to the Greek,
and a stumbling block to the Jew ; and then, when
men would embrace it, by turning it into "an idol,
like the brazen serpent of a former age ; so that men,
retaining the narae of Christ upon their lips, and
making the sign of the cross upon their foreheads,
might be substituting a foundation of wood and stub
ble, for "Jesus Christ and him crucified;" their own
cross, for his ; an inward sacrifice, for the one obla
tion once offered by the Son of God ; this has been
the grand effort of Satan, to Avhich the errors and
heresies of every century of Christianity bear most
impressive testimony. It was a circumstance favour
able to the covert introduction of great practical
error, in regard to the justification of the sinner be
fore God, that for many centuries the chief points of
controversy raised in the Church, while connected,

109
in a very iraportant sense, Avith whatever related to
salvation, were calculated rather to keep the eye of
careful guardianship away frora the precise question
of justification, by the excitement they created
around others which seemed to be more immediately
endangered. While men thvis slept, came the Ad
versary, and found an open field and many a propi
tious soil, into which to sow those prolific seeds of
self-righteous doctrine, which early sprang up in the
Platonic soil of the Alexandrian divinity, and after
wards ripened so abundantly during Avhat are most
truly called the "dark ages" of Christianity.
But as y«t, there was no publicly professed and
general creed, embodying what was now the widely
diffused spi7~it of departure from "the righteousness
of God by faith." It was an active, vigorous, prac
tical principle, appearing under a thousand forms.
speaking all languages, giving life to a rapidly in
creasing and multiplying burden of formal observ
ances, resisted indeed by sorae faithful confessors of
the truth, and not yet introduced to the formal dig
nity of theological profession, nor honoured with
any scholastic degree.^
But a new dispensation Avas uoav about to arise.
About the year 1140, the form of doctrine within the
bounds of the Latin Church, began to be greatly
changed by the profuse admixture of human tradi
tions and philosophy.

m When all good learning, and the lessons ofthe holy Scripture, were drowned
by the Goths and Vandals in Europe, Asia, and Africa, and yet somewhat
rescued and taught again by Charles the Great, A. D. 800, men not acquainted
with the phrases and vien of scripture, accustomed theraselves to the reading of
doctors, and left the -word of God." — Bp. Hooper's Fifth Sermon on Justif.

no
From this unnatural union arose an offspring, the
birth of which reminds us of a certain fable of hea
thenism, to AA'hich we beg for a moment to advert.
The fabled origin of Minerva, is said to have been
as folloAvs. Jupiter having obtained the sovereignty
of the skies, by his victory over the Titons, chose the
daughter of Ocean for his wife. An oracle however
had predicted that of this marriage would proceed an
offspring by whom he would lose his sovereignty.
To avoid this, Jupiter swallowed his 7vife. By and
by, he experienced a sharp pain in his head, Avhere-
upon, his skull having been cleft by Vulcan, there
sprang forth Minerva, to the astonishment of Jupiter,
in complete armour, full of enthusiasm, brandishing
her spear and clashing her arms, as if in full battle
with some unseen enemy The interpretation is
plain. Jupiter is the Papal Su.premacy, The thun
ders of the Vatican had gained the sovereignty of the
Church. A marriage had taken place between that
infallible sovereignty and an amphibious offspring of
Oceanic confusion, half ecclesiastical tradition, half
heathen philosophy, whose name then was Wisdom.
But there Avas an oracle in the book of truth that the
consequence of that union Avith "philosophy a7id vain
deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments
ofthe 7vo7'ld, and not after Christ,"'^ would be the
overthrow of that Papal dominion. To avoid Avhich,
instead of dissolving the unlawful union, it was only
made the more entire. The Mystical Potentate pro
ceeded to swcdlow down the whole body of mingled
tradition and philosophy, Avorldly rudiment and Gen-
I Col. ii. 8.

Ill
tile deceit, so that whether the Papacy had turned to
Philosophy, or Philosophy had turned to the Papacy,
whether Rome Gentilized, or Gentilism Romanized,
was a point admitting of no little doubt. But, as in
the experience of Tertullian, "all heresies had drawn
existence from tlie brains of philosophers," it Avas now
much to be expected that from this immoderate meal
of the Papacy, some unheard of progeny would soon
appear. Vega, of Trent, relates thaty^s^ at this time
"there was a great conce7'tation of divines." It was
certainly a time of much labour. Never had Popery
experienced such sharp head-pains as in the begin
ning of the century which gave birth to Indulgences
and Transubstantiation. The nature of the Mystic
Sovereignty was evidently exerting its instinctive
energies for the production of something which
should be a meet protector for these helpless babes
in their passage through this sinful world. Besides,
the amphibious bride had been taken too far into the
very body of the Papacy, to be disgorged without
medicines of Reform too disagreeable to be thought
of. The only course was to let the aching head
bring forth. Who the Vulcan, that struck the famous
blow, the learned may not be agreed. But forth
sprang, to the astonishment even of the god himself,
the Minerva of Romanism, Scholastic Theology, armed
cap-a-pie, in her father's mail, with helmet of brass,
and lance of subtlety, beating the air, quivering with
electric instinct of syllogistic fight; burning with
the ardour of dialectic chivalry; ready to do battle
with any foe, and, when none was found, to make
one; the goddess of the Philosophers; the Knight

112
Errand of the Papacy; the Patroness of "Angelic,"
" Seraphic " and "Irrefragable Doctors;"
" Resembling Ocean into tempest toss'd.
To waft a featlier, or to drown a fly."
Under such favouring auspices, flourished the chief
Schoolman of the twelfth century, — Peter Lombard,
known, after thename ofhis chief work, as The Master
ofthe Sentences. Around that work, composed of sen
tences from the Fathers, was soon assembled a busy
tribe of lesser schoolmen, as bees, around a cluster of
flowers, whose Avhole business Avas to make Commen
taries upon the Sentences of the Master. But, in
the next century, arose a disciple Avhose fame eclipsed
that ofthe Master, and to whom were given the high
names of the Universal and the Angelic Doctor, the
celebrated Thomas Aquinas. Contemporary with
him was Bonaventure, a schoolman of almost equal
renown, particularly noted for mystic theology and
the AVorship of the Virgin Mary. Of these and the
whole constellation of Doctors of inferior magnitude,
belonging to the scholastic age, the learned Mosheim
gives the following description :
" The greatest part of these Doctors followed Aris
totle as their model, and made use of the logical and
metaphysical principles of that subtle philosopher in
illustrating the doctrines of Christianity. Yet not
withstanding all the subtlety of these Irrefragable and
Seraphic and Angelic Doctors, as they are called,
they often appeared wiser in their own conceit, than
they were in reality, and frequently did little more
than involve in greater obscurity, the doctrines which
they pretended to place in the clearest light. The

113
method of illustrating divine truth by reason and phi
losophy, prevailed universally : and was followed with
such ardor that the number of those who, in confor
mity with the example of the ancient Doctors, drew
their systems of Theology from the H. Scriptures
and the writings of the Fathers, and who acquired on
that account the name of Biblicists, diminished from
day to day,"^ John of Salisbury, one of the most
discreet writers of the twelfth century, testifies of the
divines of his day, that they collected auditors solely
for the ostentation of science, and designedly render
ed their discourses obscure, that they might appear
loaded with the mysteries of wisdoih ; and that though
all professed to follow Aristotle, they were so ignorant
of his true doctrine, that in attempting to explain his
meaning, they often advanced a Platonic notion, or
some erroneous tenet, equally distant from the true
system of Aristotle and of Plato,"^ The learning even
of the Universal and Angelic Doctor, was confined to
the Scholastic Theology. Unable to read Greek, he
was confined, in his study of Aristotle, to some mis
erable Arabian translations, till a better version Avas
made by an unknown hand.^ The leading charac
teristic of the Schoolmen was that they employed
themselves "in an ostentatious display of ingenuity,
in which axioms, assumed without examination, dis
tinctions, without any real difference, and terms without
any precise meaning, were made use of as weapons of
assault and defence, in controversies about abstruse
questions, which after endless skirmishes, it was im-

' Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. Cent. xiii. p, ii, c. 3. 5 Rnfipld's Hist, of
Phil. Svo. p. ."iO-^. nb, ."^02. 3.
15

114
possible to bring to any issue, and which, notwith
standing all the violence of the contest, it was of no
importance to determine.'"
" The opinions which these philosophical divines
instilled into the minds of youth appeared, even in
that day, to the remaining votaries of the ancient fa
thers, highly dangerous and even pernicious. When
it was objected to several of their tenets that they
were in direct contradiction to the genius of Chris
tianity, and to the express doctrines of Scripture,
these scholastic quibblers had recourse, for a reply,
or rather for a method of escape, to that perfidious
distinction, which has been frequently employed by
modern Deists, that these tenets were philosophically
true and conformable to right reason, but that they
were indeed theologically false, and contrary to the
orthodox faith. "^
Such a dispensation of divinities coming after
many centuries of extreme spiritual and intellectual
darkness, and characterized by such neglect of the
Scriptures and idolatry of Aristotle ; by such empti
ness of the mind, and yet such sharpening of its
powers of disputation ; by such pride of reason, and
yet such poverty of knowledge, when the Church
was literally spoiled " through philosophy and vai7i de
ceit" — when the Masters in Israel, did literally
" strive about words to no profit, but to the subverting
ofthe hearers," continually starting "foolish and un
learned questions, which did but gender strifes;" so
that, as Dr. Jackson describes them, they delighted
to draw all doubts and queries, about the most solid
'Enfield's Hist, of Phil. Svo. p. 509. « Mosheim, cent. xiii. c. iii. § viii.

115
points of divinity, or matters most capable of phi
losophical expressions, into second notions, or terms
of art, or artificial fabrics of words ; as if they meant
to rend or resolve strong and well-woven stuff, into
small and ravelled threads, to entangle themselves
and their readers, in perpetual fallacies, a rebus ad
voces. "^ Such a dispensation was a most favourable
opportunity for the maturing of the divers growths
of heresies, which had long been silently, but vigor
ously, spreading their poisonous roots through the
wasted vineyard of the Church. It is the precise
period to which we should naturally look with the
expectation of seeing the shooting up of heresies into
the upper atmosphere of the Church, and claiming
to be received into the rank of doctrines of Faith.
The history of that period most abundantly con
firms such expectation. The age of the Schoolmen
was singularly the age of superstition and heresies;
the age of the regular installation of those several
features of Romanism, which had long been growing
into prominence, and which were afterwards eccle
siastically robed, and more publicly proclaimed by
the Council of Trent.
"The most received Tenets of the Romish Church,
(says Jackson,) were first hatched by the Schoolmen,
which never saw the light of heaven, but through
the dark painted glasses of the cells wherein they
were imprisoned, and hence imagined our Saviour's
form of doctrine to be of the same hue with midnight
duncery, or grossest ignorance of sacred dialects."^

' Jackson's Works, iii. p, 19. ^Ib. vol. i. p, 678.

116
Let us briefly advert to some of the inventions of
that ingenious age.
THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS.
Cassander, a learned Romish Divine, says : " You
shall not easily find any man before Peter Lombard,
(twelfth century,) AA'hich had set down any certain
and definite number of Sacraments. '^
SACRAMENTAL CONFESSION.
This bird, (says Bishop Hall,) was hatched in the
Council of Lateran, 1215, and fully plumed in the
Council of Trent. "^
TRANSUBST.iNTIATION.
" Before the Council of Lateran, 1215, transub
stantiation was no point of faith; as Bellarmine con
fesses."^ The name was first used by Peter de Celles
and Stephen, Bishop of Autun, in the twelfth cen
tury. ¦* HALF COMMUNION.
"We cannot deny, (says Vasquez,) that m the
Latin Church, there was the use of both kinds, and
that it so continued until the days of St. Thomas,
which was about the year of God, 1260."* In the
previous century, Lombard " gives an account Avhy
the body and blood are administered under two
kinds," and Pope Paschal II. orders that in the com
munion they should give the h'ead and 7vine apart,
' Cassand. Consult. Art. 13, de Numero Sac. ^ Works ix, p. 375.
3 Scotus, quoted by (Bp. Taylor, Disusaslve from Popery, c. i. § 5.
¦* Dupin's Eccl. Hist. *. ix. p. 156, ^ Quoted by Bp, Hall, ix. 255.

117
which was contrary to the custom of Cluny, where
sometimes they dipped the host in the wine. In
fants and the Infirm were excepted frora this order. ^
IMAGE AVORSHIP.
Aquinas held, " that the Image is to be worshipped
with the same adoration which is due to the thing
represented by it;" an opinion which sounder
Schoolmen refused. A writer of the previous cen
tury, Guibert, had gone no further than to say : " We
fix our wandering mind on the contemplation of
spiritual things, by looking upon pictures, which
serve as it were to admonish us of our duty."^ This
was the doctrine of Durandus and other Schoolmen.
But that of Aquinas became the doctrine, not only
of " all his disciples," but also of " all the old School
men almost," and has since been, says Azorius, the
Jesuit, "the constant judgment of divines."^
PURGATORY.
" For extinguishing the imaginary flames of Popish
Purgatory, we need not go far, (says Usher,) to fetch
water. And if we need the assistance of the ancient
Fathers, behold they be here ready with full buckets
in their hands." The Archbishop shoAvs, from Otto
Frisingensis, that in the twelfth century, "the doc
trine of purgatory was esteemed only a private asser
tion, held by some, and not an article of faith." To
Thomas Aquinas, and other Schoolmen of the next
century. Usher ascribes " the bringing of the frame
of this new building towards perfection.'"^

1 Dupin's Eccl. Hist. cent. xii. pp. 198 and 35. ^ Ih. cent. xii. p, HI,
' Usher's Answer to a Jesuit, pp. 433-3. 4 n,, pp. 164-6.

118

INDULGENCES.

These follow Purgatory of course. "Bishop Fish
er, the Romish Prelate, says, that in the beginning
of the Church, there was no use of indulgences ; that
they began after the people were awhile affrighted
with the torments of purgatory; and many of the
Schoolmen confess that their use began in' the time of
Pope Alexander III., towards the end of the twelfth
century." Chemnitz challenges the production of
evidence to the existence of Indulgences, according
to the Trent doctrine, prior to the age of Thomas
Aquinas. DISUSE OF THE SCRIPTURES.
Contemporaneous with the coming in of the above
corruptions and the multiplication of subordinate
branches of evil, was the removal in a great measure
of the Scriptures from the daily services of the
Church, as it had been already from the studies of
the leading divines and Schoolmen, andthe substitu
tion of legends and tales of saints. To this we have
the testimony of the Oxford Tracts, " It would seem
as if the eleventh, or at least the twelfth century, a
time fertile in other false steps in religion, must be
charged also, as far as concerns Rome and its more
intimate dependencies, with a partial removal of the
light of the written word from the sanctuary." In
the year 1278 — grave and sounder matter being ex
cluded, apocryphal legends of saints were used to
stimulate and occupy the popular mind ; and a way
' Bishop Taylor's Dissuasive from Popery, c. 1, § 3.

119
was made for the use of those invocations to the Vir
gin and other saints, which heretofore were unknown
in public worship.^
Thus it is impressively evident that the age of the
elder schoolmen, particularly that of Thoraas Aqui
nas, was productive of all the most odious of the
overt deformities of Romanisra. Then it was that,
as from a forcing bed, long seeded and fermenting,
they sprang up together, suddenly, vigorously, and
rank. Now in all the corruptions that have been
mentioned, there is a connection with the question
of Justification; while in Confession, Image Wor
ship, Purgatory, and Indulgence, there is a direct
and near connection, so that such corruptions could
not have taken place but in consequence of a gross
departure frora the truth on that vital point. With
a confident expectation, therefore, of finding it in
those Schoolmen, we look for an advance of corrup
tion in the doctrine of Justification, corresponding
with, and accounting for, the great advance of cor
ruption in all those parts of religion which depend
on this as their head and heart. We are not disap
pointed. The Age of Peter Lombard and Thoraas
Aquinas was emphatically that of the introduction
into the high places of school, and church, doctrine of
the present Romish dogma of Justification. They
were the men who, when the widely diffused and
spreading spirit of self-righteousness, as yet without
a fixed doctrinal form in the Church, was fast gather
ing itself up, like the fabled genii of oriental tales,
into shape, and demanding " a local habitation and a
I Tract on the Roman Breviary, No. 75. Am. Ed., pp. 180, 2.

120
name," they were the men Avho clothed it first in
solemn didactic raiment, invested it with the dignity
of formal theology, ushered it before the Church under
high scholastic sanction, recorded, for coming gene
rations, that floct7-ine of self-righteousness, under
shape of a righteousness, implanted and inherent, for
justification, which the Council of Trent adopted as
the model of its decree, and AA'hich has stood ever since
a most lamentable evidence of how the Church of
Rome was spoiled, " by the rudiments of the Avorld,
and the traditions of men," into a rejection of " the
righteousness of God." The history of the debates
of Trent are continual proof that the Schoolmen,
especially Aquinas, were the Masters of those sen
tences which issued from that body of divinity. An-
drada, a famous defender of the Council, is cited, by
Chemnitz, as acknowledging that the decree of Trent
" was only a paraphrase of the doctrine which had
been taught by these Schoolmen, and that the single
purpose in constructing that decree was to repeat a7id
confirm their opiniowf^ while another learned mem
ber of the Council, Pighius, said it could not be
denied that this great doctrine of Christianity had
been " rather obscured than illustrated by the thorny
questions and disputations ofthe Schoolmen."^
Andreas Vega, another prominent divine of the
Council, has left us the foUoAving account ofthe origin
of its doctrine. " Some ages since, there was a great
concertation among divines what should be the for
mal cause of our Justification. Some thoucrht it to
be no created justice infused into man ; but only the
' Chemnitz Examen. Dec. Con. Trident, p. 146. '¦ P. 128.

121
liiA'our and merciful acceptation of God : Others,
whose opinion is more common and probable, held
it to be some created quality, informing the souls of
the just." " This opinion was alloAved in the Coun
cil of Vienna ; and the School-Doctors, after the Mas
ter of the Sentences, delivered this 7iot as probable
07ily, but as certain. Afterwards, when some defend
ed the opposite part to be more probable, it seemed
good to the holy Synod of Trent thus to determine
it."^

1 A'"ega, quoted by Bishop Hall — Works, 8vo. ix. p, 239.
The theology of the Schoolmen retained undisputed sway till the era of the
Reformation, when Erasmus, Ludovicus Vives, James Faber, &c., not having
the fear of heresy before their eyes, boldly charged, with solid learning and cut
ting ridicule, upon the follies cf the prevailing systems of theologizing, as well
as philosophis'mg. But the Malleus Scholasticorum was Luther, and tho
swelling tide that rent asunder, and cast ofl^, and sent to oblivion, the chains of
ice in which the mind of all Europe had been so long bound down under dark
ness, was that of the Reformation throwing ofl' Romanism, and with it the whole
dominion of Aristolelian and Scholastic subtlety. " The study of ancient lan
guages being now revived, and the arts of eloquence and criticism having now
resumed their ancient station, the Reformers were soon convinced that igno
rance and barbarism had been among the principal causes of the corruption of
doctrine and discipline in the Church." " Luther saw much reason to consider
the scholastic philosophy as the foundation of the principal errors which had
been introduced into theology, and the chief support of that oppressive dominion
which the See of Rome exercised over the consciences of men ; they regarded
the logical and metaphysical parts of Aristotle as the immediate grounds of those
disputes which had given rise to the factions ofthe Thomists, Scotists, Occam-
ists and others." But in order to retain this Palladium of the Church of Rome,
the advocates of established forms pleaded that the evils complained of had arisen
not from the Scholastic method, but its abuse. Under this futile pretence, the
friends of the Romish hierarchy retained in their hands an instrument, which
had been found so useful in establishing and perpetuating the reign of ig
norance and superstition. Hence the Scholastic philosophy was still studied
and professed in the colleges and monasteries belonging to the Church of Rome
The generality of the Romish clergy still retained so much of the Scholastic
spirit that, instead of promoting, they only retarded, the progress of true phi
losophy, 16

12'.

Now, if It may not be shown that the divines ut
Oxford have gone, like the holy Synod of Trent.
among the sjmiosas quastiones ei definitiones Scho-

Their writings chiefly consisted nf systems of philosophy, summaries of logic,
theses upon Scholastic topics and commentaries upon the works of Aristotle
and Thomas Aquinas.'
Platonism and the Middle Ages are quite hobbies in the O.xford School. The
Republic of Plato is to Mr. Newman almost an inspired type of the Church. He
cannot account for "the close parallelism" between the " Republic'' and the
Church without adverting to the idea of" a species of inspiration from the same
Being who formed the Church." Ho considers Plato as having foreseen with
an almost "prophetic eye" "the phases through which the Church would pass,
having supplied the best outline ever yd given, not only ofthe civil but of the
ecclesiastical history of man." — British Critic, No. 53.
Much of the peculiar mysticism of the Oxford School, and its fondness for
the Alexandrian, may be accounted for by its love of Plato. " Enthusiasm,
mysticism and fanaticism have been the extravagancies of Platonism." The
school of Alexandria, in the second century, was miserably unevangelized, by
that Philosophy, many of its divines remaining devout Platonics after they be
came Christians. The school of Oxford is most reverently following theii
steps, inider the guidance ofthe Schoolmen.
It may here be remembered that in England " the study of the Greek philoso
phy has been chiefly confined to the University of Oxford, which providentially
(says the British Critic) has been saved from setting the seal of its sanction
either to Paley or to Locke ; and has adhered firmly to Aristotle as the text
book in her plan of education." "Precisely the reverse is the case at the Uni
versity of Cambridge, where Locke and Paley have long held a prominent place
in instruction." — See British Critic for July, 1838, p. 2 — and Sedgwick on the
studies ofthe University of Cambridge, p. 40.
It may also be noted, iha.t, pari passu, with the coming out of Oxford Di
vinity, there was a decided effort, by a series of elaborate papers in the British
Magazine, (a work sympathizing entirely with that way) to -write up the Mid
dle Ages; — to call attention to their stores; to vindicate them from that char
acter of "Dark Ages," by which it has been the universal opinion of Protest
ants they ought to be known. As a specimen of such effort, we have in a late
British Critic the following passage, found in an article which decries the study
ofthe Evidences of Christianity as inimical to the right sort of faith, and advo
cates the receiving of our doctrines from the traditionary Creed ofthe Cliurch,
prior to any reference to Scripture, and just because it is -what the Church be-

1 Enfield's Hist, of Phil, b, viii. c. 3.

123
lasticm'um, to get their doctrine of Justification, it
will at least be made to appear that they have ar
rived at a singular agreement with the doctrines of
the Schoolmen.
From the extract from Vega, just given, we learn
the following important particulars. — 1. That prior
to the Council of Trent, the doctrine of the Church
of Rome was not determined on this great point, of all
vital religion, whether justification consists in an in-
fused, personal righteousness, or in an external and,
imputed. 2. That, on this subject, there had been a
great controversy among divi7ies, some ages prior to
the Council. No doubt he refers to the age of the
elder Schoolmen." 3. That while the doctrine of in
fused righteousness for justification, was "allowed" in

lieves. " There is a certain era of the Church (says the Review) of which our
enlightened generation seldom deigns to speak with respect; holding it to have
been dark ; not only in arts and sciences, not only in its manners and laws;
but also, and that above all, in its religion. Any one who has passed a few
hours in a college library, will remember vast rows of gigantic volumes, which,
heavy and sombre as they frown on the modern student, look like the sepulchral
monuments of an obsolete literature. These are the works of the Schoolmen.
great men in their day, heard and read and admired, and imitated by thousands.
Taken, as a whole, it was a vast school of learning, vast in its duration and ex
tent ; in the powers and labours of its chief masters and in the multitudes of
those they led. Yet the judgment of the moderns (we are not enquiring whe
ther true or false) their deliberate judgment is, that all this learning was but a
cloud of darkness, obscuring both Gospel truth and the natural light of human
reason ; that it was all labour lost, » mere shadow of knowledge." — See British
Critic for July, 1839, p. 22. How these hints are intended to operate, cannot
be doubted.
' That this controversy originated in comparatively modern times is thus
granted by Vasquez, another distinguished Trent divine. "Eaquas pertinent
ad formalem causam nostrre justificationis — dificillima eorum qua de justifica-
tione nostra traclari solent, neque prieteritis scsculis tam exacle a patribus dis-
cussa, quam ea quje de necessitate auxillii gratite ad operandum et recte viven-
dum hactenus anobis sunt dispulata." — Quest. 112. Disp, 202. Bishop Bar
row has a similar observation.— Sec on Justifie.

124
the Council of Vienna, {tolerated,) it was reserved
for the School Doctors, after their great leader, Peter
Lombard, the Master of the Sentences, to propound
this growing doctrine, " not as probable only, but as
ce7'tain." 4. That still there were those in the
Church of Rome who maintained the opposite doc
trine. And those continued of that side till the
Council of Trent. Some in the Council we know,
frora other sources, were of that side, and openly
maintained it. But this was to countenance Lu
theranism. Therefore it seemed good to the Coun
cil to determine that justifying righteousness is in
fused and inherent righteousness, and to curse all
who, like those of whom Vega speaks, should pre
sume to hold any different opinion.'
' Mr. Faber believes that " lhe svsteni of human, justifying righteousness, in
fused, and therefore inherent," derived its origin from the early Schoolmen,
especially Peter Lombard and Thomas Aquinas. After showing that the doc
trine of the famous St. Bernard, of Clairval, the head of the Biblicists, in oppo
sition to the speculative philusophico-theology of the Schoolmen, in the mid
dle ofthe twelfth century, was directly the reverse; and after declaring that he
can find in the writings of St. Bernard, no evidence that he had ever heard of
such a doctrine, sums up his thoughts on the point of derivation, as follows :
"Scripture rejects it : The .'Vncient Church disowns it: Bernard, the last ofthe
Fathers, apparently knows nothing ofit. But the Schoolmen who immediate
ly followed, Bernard, and whose characteristic was a desertion both of Scripture
and of Ecclesiastical Antiquity, for Human Reason and Human Philosophy,
give it, as the fruit of their novel mode of illustrating divine things, with the
utmost precision and intelligibility. Furthermore, though the speculations of
the Schoolmen were strongly opposed by the Biblici.«ts of Ihe Old Theology,
they rapidly became so fashionable, as lo be received even by acclamation, and
thence to form, henceforth, the basis of the accredited system of Orthodox Di
vinity." — Primitive Doc. of Justifie. p. 276.
The following is an example of St. Bernard's doctrine. " What can all our
righteousness he before God 1 Shall it not, according to the Prophet, be viewed
as a filthy rag ; and if it be strictly judged, shall not all our righteousness turn
out to be mere unrighteousness and deficiency ] Yet who shall bring any ac
cusation against the elect of God 1 To me, it is sufficient for all righteousness

125
Now, since from one of the chief divines and de
fenders of the Council of Trent, and from other
sources previously mentioned, it is manifest that the
doctrine established at Trent, was there considered
as having been drawn directly from the Schoolmen,
and to have been first propounded, for a sure doc
trine, by those "Irrefragable" Doctors; so that the
Romanisra of Trent, and the Romanism of the
Schoolmen, on the present subject, are one, in all
important respects ; it will tend not a little toward a
right estimate of the Romanistic character of Oxford
Divinity, if we shall make good the three following
propositions. 1. That the Schoolmen described the righteous
ness of Justification, precisely as do our Oxford
Divines. 2. That they felt the same necessity, as do the
latter, of finding out a distinction between an in
dwelling righteousness that justifies, and an indwell
ing righteousness that sanctifies, and that they fell
upon precisely the same subtle and shadowy expe
dient. 3. That this very, distinction of the ancient School
men, which equally characterizes the divinity of our
Oxford Schoolmen, is used by our ancient writers as
one distinctive characteristic of Popery,
only to have Him propitiated, against whom only I have sinned. Every thing
which he shall have decreed not to impute to me, is thus, as if it had never been.
Freedom from all sin, is the righteousness of God, The pure indulgence of God is
the righteousness of man. Saith the Apo tie, if one died for all, then were all
dead ; meaning that the satisfaction made by one, should be imputed to all, even
as one bare the sins of all ; so that there should not be found one distinct per
son who incurred the forfeit, and another who made satisfaction ; because truly
the head and the body are one Christ. The head satisfied for its members ;
Christ for his own bowels." — See St. Bernard as quoted by Faber, in Prim. Doc.
of Just. pp. 155, 158.

126
1. As to the fir.st of these propositions, there is no
need of argument — Mr NcAvman declares it. "Great
divines, (he says) as Lombard and Thomas Aquinas,
{the t7V0 head Schoohien) declare that the Holy Spirit
indwelling, is ilie formal cause of Justification" — Jus
tification by i7iherent righteousness, in other words ; —
or to use the words of St. Thomas himself, "Justify
ing Grace is something real and positive in the soul,
a supernatural quality."'
2. The second proposition may be as readily dis
patched. It Avill be remembered that while Mr.
NcAvman most directly asserts that there is but one
righteousness ; that Justification and Sanctification
are substantially the sarae ; that the usual distinction
between them is unscriptural, that they are really
one, the terms RencAval and Justification being ide7i-
tical ; he attempts Avhat he considers a most impor
tant distinction, a distinction on which Dr. Pusey
positively asserts, that he and his fellows " exclude
Sanctification from having any place in our Justifi
cation," and on which Mr, Newman asserts, that
Justification is "not reneAval, nor the principle of re-
ncAval, but perfectly distinct from renewal, with 7vhicli
Romanists 'identify it." The idea then is that between
"the divine gift," or "the justifying principle," or
"the inward reality of righteousness," or "the in
dwelling ofthe Ploly Ghost," (whichever expression
we choose) and personal holiness, there is such a
difference that while the latter is the complex of the
several virtues of the renewed mind, the other includes
them all, but is not any of them. Hence that curious

'Gratia gratum faciens, id est justiftcans, est in Anima, quiddam reale el
positivum, qualitas qua;dam supernaturalis. .\qumas, p. 1, 2, q. 110.

127
description of the Justifying righteousness, as a
" something which is within us, but not of us, nor
in us, not any qtiality or act of our minds, (though
within them,) not faith, not renovation, not obedience,
not any thing cognizable by man, but a certain di
vine gift in which all these are included."'
Now on what ground can Mr. Newman assert that
the Romanists " identify Justification 7vith renewal,"
one whit raore than he does ; how can he rest, as he
does, his grand claira of distinction between his doc
trine and that of Rome on the fact that they make
that identification and he does not, when avc find him
saying, that "the 7'eal distinction already alluded to,
(his own, ) is allowed in the Church of Ro7ne, and held
by Romanists, both before the Council of Trent and
after ?
" St. Thomas contends that the gratia justificans, (the justifying
righteousness,) is not the same as the habit of love ; the latter belong
ing to the will, and the former to the essence of the soul. In which
opinion he is followed by Cajetan, Conradus, Soto and others.
Bonaventura" (one of the most mystical and superstitious, and
idolatrous ofthe Schoolmen,) " assents, so far as to consider there is
a real distinction between them. This alleged distinction was a
subject of dispute at the Council of Trent between the Franciscans
and Dominicans, on all which accounts it was left unsettled by the
Fathers there assembled."''

' Newman's Lectures, p. 159.
2 Newman's Lectures, p. 397. " There was a sharp disputation between those
two orders, (says Father Paul,) whether the habit of grace be the same with
the habit of charity, as Scotus would, or distinct as St. Thomas." Hist. p. 198.
Whoever will take the trouble to read what St, Thomas has left us under his
110th Question ofthe second — first part of his Summa, as well as under ques
tion 113th — will perceive an exact resemblance between Mr. N, and him on
the subject in hand. Does Mr, N, sometimes treat the Grace of Justification
as the same with infused righteousness 1 so does St, Thomas ? "Idem est

128
We add to the above, the extract from Aniiati, in
Tracts for the Times, No. 71. " It is de fide that
man is justified by inherent righteousness ; it is not
de fide (not an established article of faith,) that justi
fying righteousness is a habit or quality."
Now, Avith all this before him how could Mr.
Newman say, as he does on page 150 of his Lec
tures, that Romanists make Justifying righteousness
" consist in a supernatural quality, as if that word
quality were decided upon any more, among them,
than it is with him, and as if in the use of that word
lay the great difference between his doctrine and
theirs ?
Enough has now been said for our second proposi
tion, viz. that the Schoolmen and our Oxford Di
vines, not only are agreed as to inherent righteous
ness for justification, but are characterized by pre
cisely the same vain device to prevent its being con
sidered exactly the same thing as Sanctification.
3. For our third proposition that our ancient
writers have used that very distinction as a distinc
tive characteristic of Popery ; Hooker will suffice as

gratise infusio, et culpse remissio, sicut idem est illuminatio et tenebrarum ex-
pulsio. Q. 113. Does Mr. Newman make them divine in certain respects? —
so does St. Thomas. He mentions certain respects in which Justifying grace
is not a quality of the soul — and one in which it is. As to the latter he says :
Quaedam est qualitas supernaturalis, non eadem cum virtute infusa ; sed aliquid
praeter infusas virtutes, quaedam habitude, qu» prassupponitur in istis virtutibus
sicut earum principium et radix, &c. The same difference is expressed else
where, as follows : — Aliter est in anima gratia, et aliter character. He says,
Character importat quandam potentiam spiritualem ordinatam ad ea quae sunt
divinae cultus, Anima est subjectum, characteris, secundum intellectuam par
tem, in qua est fides. And the difference between this character and grace is
thus given. Gratia est in anima sicut quaedam forma habens esse completam
in ea ; character antem est in anima sicut quaedam virtus instrumentalis.

129
an example. In the commencement of his famous
discourse on Justification, he sets out with that ad
mirable account of the doctrine of the Church of
Rome, which we have laid before the reader already.
The only authority which he quotes for the account
there given of what justifying righteousness consists
in, according to Rome, is in the AVords of Thomas
Aquinas, containing the precise distinction in ques
tion, and which Mr. Newman refers to, above, as
agreeing with his own.
"Justifying grace is something real and positive in the soul — not
the same with infused virtue as the Master (Lombard) maintains ;
but something beside the infused virtues, faith, hope, charity; a cer
tain habitude which is presupposed in those virtues, as their princi
ple and root ; it occupies, as its subject, the essence of the soul, not
its powers; yet from it flow virtues into the powers of the soul by
which the powers themselves are formed into actions."^
This is precisely Mr. Newman's idea; a " Quod-
libet of the Schools," (as Bishop Andrewes says,)
a habitude distinct from any habit ; an essence in the
soul distinct from any quality of the soul : righteous
ness distinct frora the righteous affections of faith,
hope, and charity. And this is the Romanisra of
the Schoolraen, which Hooker selects as the best ex
pression of the very essence of all Romanism. And
'Thom. Aquin. 1,2. qnaest, 110. Gratia faciens gratum id est justificans,
est in anima quiddam reale et positivum, qualitas quaedam (art. ii. concl.) su
pernaturalis, non eadem cum virtute infusa, ut magister; sed aliquid (art, ii,)
praeter virtutes infusas, fidem, spem, charitatem, habitude quaedam (art, ii, ad 3,)
quae praesupponitur in virtutibus istis, sicut earum principium et radix ; essen-
tiam animae tanquam subjectum occupat, non potentias, sed ab ipsa (art. iv. ad.
1,) effluunt vitutes in potentias animae, per quas potentiae moventur ad actus,
— Hooker's Disc, Justif, § 5.
It may be of use to remark that, in all editions of Hooker, which the author
has seen, the above quotation is referred to quest. 100 of the second — first part
of Aquinas. It should be as above, viz. 110.
17

130
this IS Oxford Divinity — and this is what the Coun
cil of Trent referred to as the source and model of
theirs — the new divinity of the dark ages, engender
ed of Pagan philosophy and Papal superstition, mar
ried together under the bands of the Schoolmen.
It is manifest from the above, that the question
which the Trent doctors left unsettled, and therefore
open, was one on which Aquinas differed from his
Master, Peter Lombard ; the latter making justifying
righteousness precisely the same as Sanctification ;
the former attempting the distinction which Mr.
Newman and Dr. Pusey Avould now use as evidence
that their doctrine differs from that of Rome.
We are indebted to Mr. Keble, in his Appendix
to Book V. of his learned edition of Hooker, for the
following additional evidence, that Hooker considered
that very distinction as a striking characte7~istic of the
Romanism of the Schoolmen. Hooker writes as
follows :
" The Schoolmen, which follow Thomas, do not
only comprise in the name of grace, the favour of
God, his Spirit, and effects of His Spirit; but, over
and besides these three, ^fourth kind of formed habit
or inherent quality, which maketh the person of man
acceptable, perfecteth the substance of his mind, and
causeth the virtuous actions thereof to be meritorious.
This grace they will have, (as we shall see our Ox
ford divines will have,) to be the principal effect of
sacraments ; a grace which neither Christ nor any
apostle of Christ did ever mention. The fathers
have it not in their writings, although they often
speak of sacrame7its, and of the grace we receive by
them. Yea, they which have found it out, are as

131
doubtful as any other, what name or nature they
should give unto it."
They could not have been more puzzled about
its name and nature than their present successors
seem to be, as we have already seen in the assertion,
that it is the same as Sanctification, and then the flat
denial that it is any such thing.'
Such then is the doctrine at once of Oxford Di
vines, and of a race of theologians eminently distin
guished in their day, for the preference of heathen
dialectics, to Holy Scripture, the words of Aristotle
to the writings of the Christian Fathers, so that those
who made the Bible their guide, Avere called in dis
tinction from them, by a name rendered opprobrious
by the general neglect of the Bible — Biblicists.
The question is forced upon us; — Since the age
that was distinguished by the bringing in of this
doctrine of inherent righteousness for Justification,
was also so remarkable for the introduction of all the
other chief corruptions of Romanism, such as the
full doctrine of image worship, as now established,
that of transubstantiation, of purgatory, of indulgen
ces, &c. ; and since the very men who were foremost
in the former, were also eminently distinguished as
patrons of the latter, as Aquinas and Bonaventura,
(the latter, the chief devotee of the Virgin Mary,)
what are we to anticipate from the introduction of
precisely the same doctrine of Justification among
Protestants? Is its natural strength abated? Call
it by a Protestant, or a Romish name, set it up at
Oxford, or at Trent, is it not the same; the old
I Keble's Ed. of Hooker, vol. ii. p. 702.

132
righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, and as
able as ever, to lead men to go about "establishing
their oAvn righteousness, not submitting themselves
to the righteousness of God ?" The light abroad may
face it doAvn ; the barrier around, of better princi
ples, may hedge it in. But can it live now in a
Protestant land, without having, and exerting, and
manifesting those same old tendencies, especially
upon such as shall receive it at second or third hand,
from its original propagators ? The present aspect
of the Oxford system, so far as its practical develop
ments have had room and time to appear, answer
impressively. No. There is enough in what has al
ready appeared, as will appear more fully by and by,
to show that the .strong tendency is now precisely as
it was in the days of the Schoolmen; more restrained
indeed by circumstances — more refined in its tastes,
by higher intellectual culture; but strongly bent, as
of old, upon the taking of its doctrine from man's wis
dom, to the serious disparagement of the authority of
Scripture, and to the introduction, though under bet
ter pretension, and a more attractive type, of divers
overt corruptions of Romanism. This tendency
seems to be at present quite as strong and active,
and is doing its work quite as fast, conside7-ing the
differences of age and circumstances, as in the days
of Aquinas.
We are very far from meaning that Dr. Pusey,
Mr. Newman, &c., are conscious of all this tendency,
or see all the way in Avhich they are being led in the
Avilderness they have entered upon. We have no
expectation that they Avill ever get to the full advo
cating of Image Avorship, Purgatory, &c. We speak

133
of the tendency of their system. It has weaker minds,
and more unfixed hearts, and incautious heads, and
reckless hands than theirs to work on. A genera
tion of unfledged disciples is to swarm around the
Master of the Sentences and suck honey and poison
out of his flowers, choosing which they please ; un
folding principles Avhich the Master left in bud ; ap
plying principles which the Master left in abstract;
marching boldly and proudly, where he feared to tread
but slowly and humbly; mounting upon his shoul
ders, and therefore reaching higher, and seeing fur
ther into reserved mysteries, than he. They raay
reach a doctrine of Romanism, from that height,
which he thought not of aspiring to. They may see
by his aid a need and a reason and a fitness in Image-
Worship, and Purgatory, &c., which he did not
dream of What the Master would revolt at, the
School may boast of There is such a thing as grow
ing wiser than our Teachers. "Transubstantiation
(says Dr. Pusey) was at first connected with high
and reverential feeling for our Lord, and no one could
have anticipated beforehand that this one error
would have had effects so tremendous." True — and
this error of Justification raay be connected with rev
erential feeling of no little depth, and yet who knows
what desolating consequences may ensue therefrom?
"Let us fear!"
As we have found a striking resemblance in Ox
ford Divinity to the mystic and subtle doctrine of
Romanism in the 13th Century, it may not be out of
place before closing this chapter to point out its re
semblance to v/hat is much supposed, we think Avith
out reason, to have been the opposite extreme to Ro-

134
manism, viz. the mysticism ofthe eai'ly Quakers. Few
things, would seem, at first sight, more unnatural
than to associate Mr. NeAvman and Thomas Aquinas,
with Robert Barclay and William Penn; but mysti
cism is a feature common to them all — the fog in
Avhich, unknoAving and unknown, they all roAV one
way, and meet at last at the very Ostia Tiberina, on
which Barclay supposed, and Mr. Newman is con
fident he has turned his back. Strange meetings
often occu.r in a mist. Besides, there is no knowing
in what company a man raay find himself who goes
much abroad. A disciple of Penn once went to
Rome to convert the Pope. But the Pope converted
the disciple of Penn. " The light 7vithin," of the lat
ter, was no ne7V light to Romanism. In that great
monastery, are raany cells, furnishing accommoda
tions for any sort of idiosyncracy , so that it will only
accoraraodate itself to the general rules and interests
of the fraternity. But to the likeness between Ox-
fordisra and the Quakerism of Penn and Barclay.
" By this holy Birth, to wit, Jesus Christ formed
within us, (says Barclay) and working his work in
us, as we are sanctified, so are we justified in the sight
of God." — Apol pi-op. l.p. 364.
"By the light, which they (the Quakers) call the
Spirit, the Grace, the Word of God, Christ withi7i,
the flesh and blood of Christ 7vhich came down from
heave7i, they do not mean 'the Essence and Nature of
God precisely taken.' They make it a distinct and
separate thing from man's soul and all its faculties."
Mr. Barclay says, with Mr. Knox, "we know it to be
a substance;" with Mr. Newman, "by this seed (the
Christ within) we understand a, spii'itual, heavenly,

135
and invisible p7'inciple, a real spiritual substance, in
which God, as Father, Son and Spirit, dwells." — Ben
net on Quakerism, pp. Ill, 112, 113.
" Though the light within, is by them supposed to
be the immediate efficient cause of Justification, yet
they believe the sacrifice of our Saviour, through
whose obedience and sufferings the Light is purchased,
that thereby this birth, (by which we becorae regene
rate, sanctified, justified, &c.) might be brought fo7'th
in us; I say, they believe the sacrifice of Christ to
be (what we raay call) the mei'itorious cause thereof"
But, says Mr. Barclay, "not so as to exclude the real
worth of the work and sufferings of Christ in us."
They do therefore (says Bennett) attribute a real
worth, 1. to the work of the Light shining in them,
and bringing forth righteousness — 2. to the sufferings
of Christ in them. For he being united to such as
resist not the Light, is said to suffer, Avhen any evil
is inflicted on them — 3. to the Intercession of Christ,
that is, to his intercession ?OT7Am them, by the Light's
stirring, moving and enabling them to pray unto
God. For my Author (Barclay) distinguishes this
intercession of the Saviour, /rcw? his intercession with
out us in heaven." — Bennet, 125, 126,
The cross set up withi7i was a favourite expression
of the Quakers. To this, the Quakers ascribed the
formal cause of Justification, as well as Sanctifica
tion. " It is by this iuAvard birth of Christ in man
(said Barclay) that man is made just, and therefore
so accounted by God. Wherefore, to be plain, we
are thereby, and not till that be brought forth in us,
formally (if we must use that word) justified in the
sight of God. Because Justification is both more

136
properly and frequently in Scripture taken in its sig
nification for making one just, and not reputing one
merely siich, and is all one with Sanctification." —
Bennet, p. 168.
William Penn maintained, just as Romish and
Oxford Divines, that the remission of sins, in the
case of a sinner first turning to God, is only for the
merits of Christ, but like thera also he made the
ground of subsequent acceptance to be an inherent
righteousness, and like Oxford divines he was charged
with Popery for it, and he vindicates himself pre
cisely as they do. "We would provide (he says)
against the malice of those who rank us araong the
Papists as pleading for the merit of Good Works.
For we lay not this second sort of Justification (pre
cisely what is called second in Romanism) and much
less the first, upon any exterior works — as merely
exterior, be they acts of Justice, Mercy, Charity or
such like ; but upon the holy working of God's power
and Spirit in the heart, and the creature's believing
it and resigning himself up unto God, to be by hira
renewed, ordered, &c. So our wills thus daily sub
mitted to the holy will of God, which is Sanctifica
tion, is the ground of our daily acceptance with God,
and being received (not as just by the non-imputa
tion of sins formerly committed, for that alone de
pends on Repentance and Faith in God's free love
to remit; but) as just by being actually and really
made so through the participation of the Just and
Righteous Nature of Christ-"^
The mysticism of the early Quakers of the ancient
' Penn's Quakerism a new nick-name for Old Christianity, 1672. p. 155, 156.

137
Schoolmen, and of the present Schoolmen of Oxford,
is just about the same thing, allowing for modifica
tions arising out of varieties of learning, and of gene
ral circumstances.
We are aware that for a long tirae the Mystics and
the Schoolmen, of the dark ages, were at swords'
points ; but under the melting rays of the A.ngelic
Doctor, they coalesced, so that the Schoolmen be
came commentators on Dionysius, the great chief of
the Mystics, as upon Peter Lombard, the Grand
Master of the Scholastics. Here also, " Thomas
Aquinas, (says Mosheim,) shone forth, as a star of the
first magnitude, though like the others, he was often
covered with irapenetrableyb^5."'
> Eccl. Hist, Cent. xiii. C. iii. §§ ix. xx.

18

CHAPTER V.

THE DOCTRINE OF OXFORD DIVINITY, AS TO THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF
JUSTIFICATION, COMPARED WITH THAT OF THE COUNCIL OF
TRENT.
Recapitulation — Language of the Council of Trent — State of the Question at
the Reformation, and now, from Chemnitz, Jackson, Hall, Usher, Hooker —
Holiness required at least as much by Protestants as Romanists — Oxford in
terpretation of single passages of Scripture, compared with those of Romish
divines — Three particulars in which Oxford divines claim to be regarded as
not conformed to Romanism — These considered, and shown to make such
conformity the more obvious — The vindication drawn from the Romish claim
of merit, answered — Hooker's argument against the Romish doctrine of
merit, shown to be applicable, in the same way, to Oxfordism — Concluding
remarks.

Before proceeding to an exhibition of the doctrine
of the Church of Rome, as at present established, the
reader is requested to bear in mind, that in making
out the doctrine of Oxford Divinity, the following
prominent features were made to appear — viz :
1. That the righteousness by which we are justi
fied, before God, is exclusively internal and infused,
a righteousness within us, iuAvrought by the Holy
Ghost. 2. That by the acknoAvledgment and strong asser
tion of Mr. Newraan, this justifying righteousness is
" really one" with Inherent righteousness, or Sanctifi
cation, so that the terms are convertible; — the dis
tinction afterwards attempted, instead of showing
any difference, only making the identity the more
certain, by its purely imaginary character, and ren-

140
dering the sameness of the Avhole doctrine with that
of Romanism only the more certain.
3. That the regenerate can, and do, so fulfil the
Law that their indwelling righteousness, has in it a
satisfying and justifying quality, and does satisfy and
justify thera before God.
4, That this justification is progressive, increasing
and decreasing according to the degree of Sanctifica
tion. We now proceed to show that such are precisely
those characteristic features of the present established
doctrine of Rome, against which the Reformation was
directed, and which our ancient and standard writers
considered, without question, as consti tilting the
middle wall of partition, so far as Justification is con
cerned, between Protestants and the Church of Rome.
In ascertaining the present doctrine of Rome, the
decisions of Trent must be considered as of sure
authority. The decrees of that Council, it is true,
so far as they relate to Discipline, have not, in all
countries, been implicitly obeyed by Romanists. In
France, for instance, the GaUican Church has been
opposed to the decrees on Discipline. But not so as
to those relating to Doctrine, which are universally
received by such as profess the Romish faith. ^
From Canon vii. Sess. vi., and from Canon xvi.
Ave raake the following extracts.
" Justification is not merely the remission of sins, but also Sanc
tification and renewal ofthe inward man, by his voluntary recep
tion of grace and gifts. Whence a man becomes righteous from un
righteous, a friend of God for an enemy, so as to be an heir accord-
• See Marsh's Comparative View of the Churches of England and Rome,

141
ing to the hope of eternal life, and the communication of the merits
of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ."
After saying that the meritorious cause of Justifica
tion is Christ, the Council proceed to declare that
" The only ybrmaZ cause is God's justice, not by which he himself
is just, but by which he makes us just, wherewith being endowed
by him, we are renewed in Ihe spirit of our minds, and are not only
reputed, but are made, truly just."
" Thus, neither our own proper righteousness is so determined to
be our own, as if it were from ourselves; nor is the righteousness
of God either unknown or rejected. For that which is called our
righteousness, because, through its being inherent in us, we are
justified ; that same is the Righteousness of God, because it is infused
into us by God, through the merit of Christ."
Now what was the interpretation which the Re
formers, soon after the issuing of these decrees put
upon them? Chemnitz, a Lutheran divine, who
lived in the time of the Council, and wrote a refuta
tion of its doctrines, which all Protestants, as well in
the Church of England, as on the Continent, re
garded as of eminent value, and whom Bellarmine
treats as high authority, on the Protestant side, thus
states, in that work, the great question between Pro
testants and Romanists, and how the Council an
swered it. " What is that which we are to interpose
between the anger of God and our sins, so that on
account thereof, we may be absolved from condem
nation, and received to everlasting life. The de
crees of Trent respond in two ways. 1. They deny
that Justification is merely the Remission of Sins ;
and they anathematise any that shall say that a man
is justified by the imputation of Christ's Righteous
ness only, or only by the reraission of sins, or by the
raere favour of God. 2. They affirm that Justifica-

142
tion before God, to eternal life, is not remission of
sins alone, but the sanctification of the inner man;
and they affirm that the only formal cause of Justifi
cation, is that righteousness given to us, of God, by
which we are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and
are not only reputed, but are made truly righteous ;
this righteousness in us, they say is charity, inhe
rent in lis, which, by the Holy Spirit, is wrought in
us, through the merit ofthe passion of Christ,"^
Dr, Jackson, an eminent divine, of Oxford, in the
seventeenth century, states the issue as follows, viz :
" The point then in which, with him, (the Romanist)
we must join issue is; What should be the true,
iraraediate, and next cause of this final absolution
from the sentence of death? aught within us,
or somewhat avithout us? We deny, he affirms,
righteousness inherent to be such an absolute cause
of absolution or remission of sins, of Justification ho7V-
soever taken. Christ's righteousness they grant to
be the efficient or mei'itorious cause for which, not
\\1efor7nal cause by which our sins are remitted, or
we are justified. He alone is formally just, which
hath that form inherent in himself, by which he is
denominated just, and so accepted with God; as
Philosophers deny the sun to be formally hot, be
cause it hath no form of heat inherent in it, but only
produceth heat in other bodies. To be formally,
just, we, for these reasons, attribute only unto Christ,
who alone hath such righteousness in himself, as by
the interposition of it between God's Justice and sin-

' Chemnitz's Examen. Dec. Cone. Trid. p. 144. Bp. Hall speaks of him as
' our learned Chemnitius."

143
ful flesh, doth stop the proceedings of his Judgment.'"
How the Judicious Hooker delineates what he
calls that grand question which hangeth yet in con
troversy between us and the Church of Rome, the
reader is requested to review in pages 19 — 21 of our
first Chapter.
Bishop Hall describes the difference between us
and Rome, as follows :
"What can be more contrary than these opinions to each other.
The Papists make this inherent righteousness the cause of our Justi
fication : the Protestants, the effect thereof. The Protestants require
it as the companion or page : the Papists, as the usher, yea, rather
as the parent of Justification."^
" The question, (says Usher,) between us and them is, whether
there be any Justification besides Sanctification ; that is, whether
there be any Justification at all? We say Sanctification is wrought
by the Kingly office of Christ. He is a King who rules in our
hearts, subdues our corruptions, by the sceptre of his word and
Spirit ; but it is the point of his Priestly Office, which the Church of
Rome strikes at ; that is, whether Christ hath reserved another
righteousness for us, besides that which as a King, he works in our
hearts; whether he hath wrought forgiveness of sins for us? we say
he hath, and so said all the Church, till the spawn of the Jesuits
arose. "^
From the high authority of the Authors we have
now cited, it is unquestionable that, whatever other
points raay be connected subordinately with the con
troversy between the Church of Rome, and the Re
formed Church of England, as to Justification, the
main question, and that, therefore, with reference to
which our Article of Justification and its explicating
Homilies were framed, was simply whether we are

' Jackson's Works, vol. i. pp. 754, 765, ^ Hall's Wraks, vol. ir. p. 46.
'Usher's Sermons, No, xvi.

144
«
justified before God, by a righteousness external and
made ours only by imputatioji, or by a righteousness
in us, and ours because in us ; by infusion, and not
by iinputation. The Reformed Church of England,
like all other Reformed Churches, stood fast upon
the former ground, maintaining, as Hooker says,
that the Church of Rome, "in teaching Justification
by inherent Grace, doth pervert the truth of Christ."
"The righteousness of Sanctification, we deny not to be inherent,
only we distinguish it as a thing different in nature, from the righte
ousness of Justification." " That whereby we are justified, is per
fect, but not inherent. That whereby we are sanctified, is inherent
but not perfect."'
Between Romanists and us, there is no difference
as to the necessity of Holiness, for the kingdom of
heaven. We preach Sanctification at least as much
as they, and upon a rauch higher and rnore effective
ground. But the relation of that holiness to the jus
tification of the sinner, is the precise point of dis-
agreeraent, the hinge of the whole controversy. By
the standards of our Church, it is made to follow
after Justification, as its fruits, and as evidences of a
Justifying Faith, By the Church of Rome, it is
Justification itself; or at least the ground of Justifi
cation. In the last chapter of the decrees of the Sixth ses
sion of Trent, we read as follows :
" Since Jesus Christ as the head into the members, and as the vine
into the branches, perpetually causes his virtue to flow into the justi
fied ; which virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows
their good works, and without which they would in no wise be grate-

' Disc, of Justif. §§ 6 and 3.

145
ful to God and meritorious, we must believe, that nothing more is
wanting to the justified themselves, which need prevent us from think
ing, both that they can satisfy the divine law, according lo the state
of this life, by those works which ore performed in God; and that
in their own times, they may truly merit the attainment of eternal
life." The present Avriter sees no difference betAveen
this doctrine, and that shown in the last chapter, by
extracts from Mr. Newman.
Does Oxford DiA'inity neutralize the distinction of
two kinds of righteousness, and confound Justifica
tion and Sanctification? So does Romanism. Tho
following, from Bishop Downame, of the 17th Cen
tury, shoAvs hoAv this feature of Popery was regarded
in the Church of his day.
" The first capital error of the Papists is, that they
confound Justification and Sanctification, and by
confounding of them, and of tAvo benefits making but
one, they utterly abolish the benefit of Justification ;
which notwithstanding is the principal benefit, Avhich
we have by Christ in this life, by which we are freed
frora hell, and entitled to the kingdom of heaven.
And this they do in two respects : first, they hold,
that to justify in this question signifieth to make
righteous by righteousness inherent, or by infusion
of righteousness, that is, to sanctify. Secondly, they
make remission of sin, to be not the pardoning and for
giving of sin, but the utter deletion or expulsion of
sin by infusion of righteousness. Thus they make
Justification wholly to consist in the parts of Sancti
fication.^ Does Mr. Newman declare that the regenerate or

' Downame on Justif. p. 50.
19

146
baptized can, and do fulfil the law; that their obedi
ence has a justifying and sanctifying quality or virtue;
that divine love, in the Christian, is imputed to him
for righteousness ?"' The Council of Trent declares
that the justified, that is the baptized, "can satisfy
the divine law, according to the state of this life, by
those works which are performed in God." Cardi
nal Bellarmine, in defending this doctrine of the
Council, cont?nds that "they that are able to love
God and their neighbour, are also able to fulfil the
laAV ; that notAvithstanding our charity in this life is
imperfect, because it may be increased, yet that it
is so perfect as may suffice for the fulfilment of the
Law," The following comparison between the Papists
and Pelagians, by Bishop Downame, as to the keep
ing of the Law, will shoAv, not only the Romish doc
trine on this head, but also in AA'hat light it was re
garded by the great divines of the English Church
before the middle of the 17th Century.
" The difference betAveen the Pelagians and Pa
pists is not in respect of possibility or impossibihty,
but in respect of greater or less difficulty. For the
Papists do not acknowledge that men by nature are
dead in sin, and utterly deprived of the spiritual life :
but that they are fickle and weak, and tied with the
bands of sin, so that they cannot fulfil the Law of
God, unless they be holpen and loosed by grace : but
being holpen by grace, then the fulfilling of the
Commandment is easy to them. The Pelagians like
wise confess, that by the Grace of God, which they

Pp. 7.3 & 74 of this work.

147
call bonum natures, or the power or possibility of na
ture they were enabled ; by the grace of God vouch
safed in his Word and Law, guided and directed ;
by the justifying grace of God freed from the bond
of their sins; and by the sanctifying grace of God
holpen with more ease to fulfil the Commandments
of God,
" So that the Papists, although they do not with the
Pelagians deny original sin, or the necessity of sav
ing grace : yet they do extenuate the original corrup
tion, and so magnify the strength of nature, that
they differ not much from them,
" And as touching the other difference ; though the
Papists hold that a man cannot be without sin for
any long tirae, though for some short time (in Avhich
short time, if he shall say he hath no sin, he shall
make Saint John, and not himself, a liar, 1 John,
i. 8.) yet they say they may be without all sins ex
cepting those Avhich they call venial; Avhich they do
so extenuate, that indeed they make them no sins,
as being no anomies or transgressions of the Law
committed against the Law, or repugnant to charity,
but only besides the LaAv; such as may Avell stand
together vAdth perfect, inherent righteousness. For
they say he only is a righteous man in Avhom there ¦
is no sin, and yet that there is no man so righteous,
as that he liveth without these venial ones. But if
they be besides and contrary to the Law, then they
are neither coramanded nor forbidden, and so no sins
at all, but things indifferent."'
On the subject of the increase and decrease of Jus-
' Downame on Justiiication, pp. 503, 504.

148
tification, according to the degree of Sanctification,
the Council of Trent pronounces thus :
"If any one shall say that Justification once obtained, is not in
creased by good works, but that the.se are only the fruits and signs
of Justification, let him be accursed." — c. xxiv. Sess. vi.
But Hooker's statement of this point of Romanism
will ansAver best.
"The grace of Justification (he says) they make
capable of increase, that as the body may be raade
raore and more Avarm, so the soul, more and more
justified, according as grace should be augmented;
the augmentation whereof is merited by good works,
as good works are made meritorious by it. Where
fore the first receipt of grace, in their divinity, is the
first Justification; the increase thereof, the second
Justification. As grace may be increased by the
merit of good works; so it may be diminished by
the demerit of sins venial; it may be lost by mortal
sin. If they work more and more, grace doth more
and more increase, and they are more and more jus
tified." This is one of the characteristic features of
Avhat Hooker at the end of the description calls "the
maze which the Church of Rome doth cause her fol
lowers to tread when they ask her the way to Justi
fication." The reader may compare for himself the Oxford
Doctrine as stated on p. 77.
We will now give a specimen or two of Mr. New
man's interpretation of Scripture, in coraparison with
the Roraanist interpretation.
" By the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be
justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge
of sin." Rom. iii. 20. That is, says Mr. N., " by a

149
conformity to the external\&'w," not an internal, shall
none be justified, Lect, p, 54.
" But now the righteousness of God without the
Law is manifested — even the righteousness of God,
which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon
all them that believe." Rom. iii. 21, 22.
" That is, (says Mr. N.) the new righteousness intro
duced and wrought upon the heart by the ministra
tion of the Spirit," new as distinguished frora that of
the unconverted heart. P. 54.
Again : " By grace ye are saved through faith, and
that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God — not of
works, lest any man should boast." Eph. ii. 8-10.
" ' Not of works,' means not of all your AVorks, but
only works done in your oivn unaided strength, in
confoi'mity to the natural laiv. Here the difference
is marked between the works of the Spirit which are
good," (for justification,) "and those of the Law
which are worthless." P. 55.
Again : " That I may win Christ and be found in
him, not having mine OAvn righteousness, which is of
the law, but that Avhich is through the faith of Christ,
the righteousness which is of God by faith." Phil.
iii. 8, 9.
It is maintained by Mr. Newman that the righte
ousness of the Law, Avhich Paul renounced, is the
righteousness or obedience " done in his own strength
before faith, and without grace;" and the righteous
ness which he desired to have in its place was " a
new righteousness, consisting in obedience and in
faith, and by the grace of Christ," p. 128. "If legal
righteousness is of a moral nature, (he asks,) why
should not the righteousness of faith be moral also ?"
p. 53.

160
Now it will be shown, by and by, that all this is
directly the reverse and in entire denial of the in
terpretation, most confidently and solemnly put upon
these and the like passages, by such standard writers
of our Church, as Hall, Beveridge, Usher, Reynolds,
Andrewes, Hooker, &c. But the present point is
here, viz : that Avhile in entire departure from the
doctrine of those great divines, they are identical
with the interpretation of Romanist leaders.
Chemnitz sums up the interpretation given by
Andrada, a distinguished member and defender of
the Council of Trent, as follows :
"Andrada contends that both kinds of righteousness spoken of by
St. Paul, the righteousness of the law and of faith, consist in our
obedience to the law, and that they differ not in office, but only in
the manner of their office, so that when one is rendered by the un
regenerate, then it is the righteousness of the law; but the righteous
ness of faith consists in this, that it leads the regenerate to the obe
dience of those things which are written in the law — so that the
righteousness is the obedience itseir,_of the regenerate to the law,
when love which embraces the whole law is poured into those who
believe by the Holy Ghost. "^
Now, after all this marvellous conformity of Ox
ford divinity, to that of Rome, the reader is doubtless
ready to enquire with amazement, what defence do
they set up? Dr. Pusey publishes a work purposely
in ansAver to the charge of a " Tendency to Roman
ism;" he draws his answer, in a great degree, from
Mr. Newman. What is the defence? Where do
they find their distinction?
After searching again and again, the writer can
discover nothing that is pretended to as constituting
a characteristic difference, but the three following
allegations.

' Chemnitz Examen. Dec. Cone, Tred., p, 148.

151
1, That Romanists make the infused and indwell
ing righteousness by which Ave are justified, a quality
or habit of the mmd, and thus the same as Sanctifica
tion; while in Oxford Divinity, it is not a quality,
but that wbich includes in it all the qualities and
virtues of holiness; a righteousness "within us, but
not of us or in us," " a divine gift," " a principle,"
but not a quality of our minds.
But it has been abundantly shoAved, that Oxford
divinity does make, and does positively assert, though
it afterwards denies, that righteousness to be a quality,
identical 7vith sanctification; that Avhen it attempts a
distinction, that distinction is a mere scholastic fig
ment, which, as it is precisely the same as that in
vented by the Schoolmen, to whora the Council of
Trent resorted for its doctrine, only shows the more
perfectly the identity between Romanism, and the
divinity in question; and again, that whether the
distinction be good or bad, it is just as admissible in
Romanism as in Oxfordism; the Council of Trent
having, by Mr. Newman's own showing, forborne to
decide the point; so that, whether the righteousness
of Justification be a quality or not, is not a point
de fide in the Church of Rome.
So much for one of the three lines of demarca
tion. 2. Another is found in this, that in one of the
Canons of Trent, it is declared, that "Inherent
righteousness is the only formal cause of Justifica
tion" — Unica Formalis causa Justificationis.^ This
1 That is called a formal cause of Justification, in Romish Divinity, which
contains Ihat, in itself, which causes the person to be denominated just or

152
is stated to be a doctrine of "high" Romanism, from
which Oxford Divinity dissents. Mr. Newman
maintains two formal causes, pi'oper and improper.
"The proper formal cause, with the Romanists, I
would consider, (he says,) as an inward gift, yet
with the Protestants, 7iot a quality of the mind."^
But what is the other formal cause; The Im
proper? The difference of the latter, from the forraer,
is expressed in the folloAving passage : "We are made
absolutely acceptable to God through the propitiatory
indwelling of lin's, Son," {the cross ivithin,) yet are not
without the beginnings of inherent acceptableness
wi'ought in us by that 'indwelling."^ The indwelling
of Christ, elscAvhcre called the justifying "principle"
and "gift," is here fhe proper formal cd.'n^e ; the "ac
ceptableness" or holiness wrought in us by that di
vine gift, is the improper foi'mal cause; both in us;
both inherent ; both uniting in the completion of our
Justification ?
Now where is the difference between these two?
Nothing more than the shadoAvy figment by^which,
as we have before seen, Mr. Newman, like the
Schoolmen of old, tries to distinguish betAveen an
indwelling divine gift of righteousness, and Sanctifi
cation. As we cannot admit such a distinction, we
must deny that his two formal causes are else than
righteous. " He alone is/orma;/i/ just which hath that inherent in himself, by
which he is denominated just, and so accepted of God ; as Philosophers deny
the sun to be formaUy hot, because it hath no form of heat inherent in it, but
only produceth heat in other bodies." — Jackson's Works, vol. i. p. 75.5.
' Lect. p. 426. 2 Here again it is indicated, that the Romanists do not
make it a quality, whereas by his own showing they have left the point unset
tled. 3Lect. p. 428.

153
one and the same; and that his doctrine and the
unica formalis causa of Trent, are in any wise dis
tinct.^ But strange! While he maintains that Romanism
is distinguished by the doctrine that inherent righte
ousness is the OXLY formal cause, he expressly refers
to Romanists as admitting two, precisely as he does.
"It would seem, (he writes,) as if there were two
formal causes of justification admitted by Romanists,
love or inherent righteousness, and grace or the pre
sence ofthe Holy Spirit's indivelling."^
We conclude then that here, as elsewhere, there
is no difference at all between the Oxford doctrine,
and that of Rome. The attempted distinction be
tween two formal causes is just as admissible on one
side as the other, and has no reality with either. Let

1 The decree of Trent is as follows : Unica formalis causa, est justitia Dei,
non qua ipse Justus est, sed qua nos justos facit, qua videlicet ab eo donata, re-
novamur Spiritu 'mentis nostri, et non modo reputamur, sed vere justi nomi-
namur. " The only formal cause (of Justification) is the righteousness of
God; not that by which he himself is righteous, but that by which he makes
us righteous; that is to say, by which we being endowed by him, are renewed
in the spirit of our mind, and are not only reputed righteous, but are truly
righteous." The Council proceeds to add : Quanquam nemo possit esse Justus
nisi cui merita passionis Jesu Christi communicantur, id tamen in hacjustifica-
tione impii fitdum, ejusdem sanctissimoe passionis merito; per Spiritum Sanctum,
charilas Dei diffunditur in Cordibus eorum, qui justificantur. " Since none
can be justified but those to whom the merits of the passion of Christ are com
municated, yet that communication takes place in tbe justification ofthe ungodly
when, by the merit of that most \\o\y passion, the love of God is shed abroad,
by the Holy Ghost, in the hearts of the justified." — Concil. Trident, sess. vi,
c, vii.
In these expressions is contained the whole of Mr. Newman's formal causa
tion. Whether he be tho more accurate in making t-wo formal causes, or the
Council in making both, one, the learned in disputes of words, may determine.
2 Lectures, p. 399.
20

154
US hear then Dr, Jackson, whom avc hke to quote on
such matters, because of his bearing so high a name
at Oxford, just noAv.' His words are quite as appli
cable to one party as the other.
"Our adversaries in that they acknowledge inherent righteousness
to be the sole formal cause of Justification, do, by the same assertion,
necessarily grant it to be the true immediate cause of remission of
sins, of absolution from death, and admission to life. This is the
only point from which they cannot start; at which, neverthe
less, while they stand, they may acknowledge Christ born in the
flesh, crucified, dead and buried, or perhaps ascended into heaven^
but deny, they do, the power ofhis silting at the right hand of God,
the virtue of his mediation or intercession, and more than half
evacuate the eternity ofhis Priesthood,"''
The Reader is requested to compare the last sen
tence with the extract from Usher, on page 143.
3. The last of the three particulars, in which Dr.
Pusey and Mr. Newman attempt to shoAv a difference
between their doctrine and that of Rorae, is in the
matter of imputation, as folloAvs :
" Justification," " is not imputation merely." " In this I con
ceive to lie the Unity ofthe Catholic doctrine, that we are saved by
Christ's imputed righteousness, and by our own inchoate (inceptive)
righteousness at once."^ But more at large as follows. " Our di
vines, though of very different schools, have, wilh a very ^ew e.x-
ceptions, agreed in this, ihat justification is gained by obedience in
the shape of faith ; that is, an obedience which confesses it is not
sufficient, and trusts solely in Christ's merits, for acceptance, which
' We have before quoted this truly learned divine — an Oxford man, of great
eminence in his day — but that day was the day of the giants in the controversy
with Rome. Usher, Hall, Andrewes, &c.,were his contemporaries. It is said
(by the British Critic) that his works have risen wonderfully in the Oxford
market since the new divinity began, showing that his authority is acknow
ledged by that side to be of great weight. AVe shall find use for him hereafter.
2 Jackson's Works, vol. i. pp. 755, 756. 3 Lectures, p, 414,

155
is in other words the doctrine of two righteousnesses, perfect and im
perfect ; not the Roman, that obedience justifies without a continual
imputation of Christ's merits ; nor the Protestant, that imputation
justifies distinct from obedience; but a middle way that obedience
justifies in, ot under Christ's Covenant, or sprinkled with Christ's
meritorious sacrifice." — p. 420,
Now, all this, at first sight, has the appearance of
something like the Gospel, Here are " two righte
ousnesses," whereas Mr. Newman has before ex
pressly said, that such a distinction is unscriptural.
But, on examination, it Avill appear that a change of
language is the only difference frora all that has gone
before, and that still the doctrine is in no sense dis
tinct frora that of Rorae.
We have before shown, that because these writers
can screw the word imputed into their system, we
are not to suppose that it means, in their use, any
thing like what it stands for in the common use of
divines. It would have been too great a leap to
have arrived, all at once, at a doctrine so glaringly
unscriptural, as that the word which St, Paul employs
so often in the fourth Chapter of Romans, {eleven
times, says Bishop Andrewes, in its several forms of
impute, account, and reckon,) could not, by any pos
sibility, be admitted. No, the word impute raust be
got in sorae hoAv or other.
But in what sense do these writers now speak of
two righteousnesses and one imputed? Hooker, for
example, says, in the common use of words, "There
be two kinds of Christian righteousness ; the one
without us, Avhich we have by imputation ; the other
7vithin us, which consisteth of Faith, Hope, and
Charity, and other Christian virtues,"
But this external righteousness of Christ, which

15(i
is here said to be iinputed, for the very purpose of
distinguishing it from that which is indivelling and
inw7-ouglit, is precisely Avhat Dr, Pusey stigmatises
"as a mere abstract title of righteousness," a mere
name — the "Reputative Justification," which Mr.
Newman says, "Avas the gift of the LaAv," in distinc
tion from the " Grace and truth which came by
Jesus Christ,"
" When the divines who teach this, (he says,) come to me with
their visionary system, an unreal righteousness, and a real corrup
tion, I answer, that the law is past, and 1 will not be brought into
bondage by shadows. Away then with this modern, this private,
this arbitrary, this tyrannical system, which promising liberty, con
spires against it, and for the real participation of Christ and justifica
tion through his Spirit, would feed us on shells and husks. It is a
new gospel. It is surely too bold an attempt to take from our
hearts, the power, the fulness, the mysterious presence of Christ's
most holy death and resurrection, and to soothe us for our loss wilh
tbe name of having it,"^
Of course then we must so far obey this peremp
tory injunction, that though we raay not be quite
willing to " away" Avith the "two kinds of righteous
ness," whieh Hooker finds, we must away with the
idea that, in Oxford divinity, the expression, " two
righteousnesses, perfect and impe7'fect," participates in
the least ofa righteousness "without us, which we
have by imputation," or really means any other than
that one righteousness within us, which consisteth of
Faith, Hope, Charity, &c, — and which is wrought in
us by the Spirit, through the merits of the Passion
of Christ, We cannot forget that it has been else
where said by Mr. Newman, that "Imputed righte-

1 Lectures, pp. 61, 63.

157
ousness is the coming in of actual righteousness," actnsd,
or personal, as distinguished frora external, from what
is called, in common language, imputed. And further
that it has been before said that " Christ is our
righteousness, by dwelling iji us by the Spirit." The
sanctifying indAvelling of the Spirit is therefore all
that is raeant by "the imputed righteousness of
Christ," in the speech of these divines.^ Then since
the phrases "righteousness of Christ," "merits of
Christ," "meritorious sac7~ifice of Clmst," have all
the same use, it follows that when in the extract
above given, Mr. NcAvman seems, after all that has
gone before, of such exceedingly diverse aspect, to
speak at length a little like the simplicity and truth
ofthe Gospel, of our being justified by "obedience
which trusts only in Christ's merits for acceptance,"
in " the sprinkling of Christ's meritorious sacrifice,"
we are only to understand that it trusts in the merits
ofthe indwelling of the Spirit, or in other words, of
that righteousness of Sanctification in us, which the
Spirit works for Christ's sake ; and thus the cross
which we are referred to for additional merit is only
"the cross within" — "the mysterious presence of
Christ's death and resurrection;" and so Mr. New
man is, after all, no better than he was before, when
he said that " the cross in which St. Paul gloried,"
(and, of course, "the sprinkling" we are to trust in,)
" was not the actual sacrifice on the cross, but that
sacrifice coming in poAA'er to him who has faith in it,
and cojivei'ting body and soul into a sacrifice — the

1 For a further view of the use of the word imputed, or accounted in this
divinity, see p. 69 of this work.

158
cross reaUzed, present, living in him, sealing him,
separating him from the Avorld, sanctifying, afflicting
him.'" We have now reached the precise meaning of the
declaration " that we are saved by Christ's imputed
righteousness, and by our oivn inchoate righteousness
at once'' It is simply the doctrine of the t7vo formal
causes of Justification of AA^hich we have already
spoken, the proper and the improper — the former con
sisting of " the indAvelling of the Spirit," or Christ's
"propitiatory indwelling ;" the latter of our oavu sanc
tification ; which two, we learn from Mr. Newman
himself, are also " admitted by Romanists."^ So that
after all this work about imputed I'ighteousness, as if
at last our Oxford gentlemen Avere getting back to
the Gospel and to Protestantism, the whole distinction
between what they call by that name, and our own
righteousness Avith which they associate it, is that
old Scholastic Quodlibet of Thomas Aquinas, the dis
tinction between " that divine gift," or "principle"
of indwelling righteousness, which is not within us,
but in us, Avhich includes all holy virtues, but is not
any, or all of them, and that " quality" of holiness
which is in us as Avell as irithin us, and which Mr.
Newman says elsewhere, is nevertheless "substan
tially the same as the other."
But this distinction, instead of being a dissent from
Romanism, is of Romish orimn. Mr. N. himself as-

' Lect. p. 206.
2 Lect. 39f). Bishop Hall al.so shows this, " Who can abide, (he says,)
that noted speech of Bellarmine, ' A just man hath by a double title, right to the
same glory : one by the merits of Christ, imparted to him by grace, another by
his own merits. '" H.ilt's iVo Peace wifh Rome, Works ix. p. 51 .

159
sures us that it was a subject of debate in the Coun
cil of Trent, and Avas left undecided, and is therefore
perfectly consistent Avith its established creed. Here
then is the Avhole result. The imputed righteous
ness of Christ, in Oxford Divinity, is nothing else
than our own Sanctification, communicated by the
Spirit, for Christ's sake; to be saved by that and our
own inchoate righteousness at once, means simply to
be saved by our own inceptive holiness, wrought in
us in virtue of the death of Christ, The Avhole mean
ing of Mr, N,, as expounded by hiraself, is just as
consistent with Romanism, as with Oxfordism, and
is actually said, by him, to be admitted by Romanist
authors. So rauch for the only three particulars in
which our Oxford divines profess to distinguish be
tween their doctrine and that of Rorae, viz., 1. That
Romanists make the indwelliiior rio-hteousness of
Justification a quality of the mind, and Oxfordism
does not. 2. That Romanism admits but "one for
mal cause of Justification, (inherent righteousness)
while Oxfordism has two. 3, That Romanism teaches
we are justified by obedience, Avithout the continual
iraputation of Christ's merits, while Oxfordism teaches
that we are justified by both at once.
But these three, though for the sake of perspicuity
they have been treated separately, really amount to
but one, as they all unite in the merits of the first,
and must stand or fall with the validity and anti-Ro
manist character of that distinction. We have seen
that in each case the distinction is without a differ
ence, and that whether it be valid or not, it is just as
consistent Avith Romanism, as Avith this new sort of
Protestantism,

160
The reader is now prepared to set the true value
upon the declaration of Dr, Pusey, that what he con
ceives to be the true Anglican doctrine differs "from
the Roman, in that it excludes Sanctification from
having any place in our Justification."^ Mr. New
man knows better, and grants it to be one of the
" ivfo formal causes." The Romanists know best of
all, and interpret Oxford Justification as an entire re
turn to theirs.
As to the use of the word impute, in the Oxford
sense, there never has been any objection among Ro
manists. The anathema of Trent is not against those who
hold Justification by imputed righteousness in part,
or in any sense; but precisely according to the pro-
cul este prof ani of Mr. Newman; it is against those
who hold " that we are justified by the mere imputa
tion of Christ's righteousness, to the exclusion of grace
and charity, which by the Holy Spirit is shed abroad
in our hearts" — in other words, to the exclusion of
"inchoate righteousness.""
The merits of Christ come into the Romish doc
trine quite as much as into that of Oxford. " They
teach as we do, (says Hooker) that unto Justice no
man ever attained, but by the merits of Jesus Christ.
They teach as we do, that although Christ, as God,
be the efficient, as man, he is the me7-ito7'ious cause
of our justice, and without the application of the
merit of Christ, there can be no Justification."^ Now

'Letter, p. 46. ^si quis dixeri hominem justificari, vel sola imputa-
tione justitiK Christi, vel sola peccatorum remissione, exclusa gratia et charitate,
quas in cordibus eorum, per spiritum Sanctum ditfunditur — anathema sit. — Sess.
vi. c. xi. 3 Hooker on J ustif. § 4 .

161
this is quite as strong, as to the merits of Christ, as
any thing in Oxford Divinity. The Romanist can
not deny, (says Chemnitz) that Paul often uses the
word impute in reference to Justification; but An
drada maintains that the imputation of Christ's righte
ousness signifies nothing more than the infusion of
inherent righteousness into the regenerate for Christ's
sake. As if to impute iniquity were, in St. Paul's
sense, to infuse iniquity into any one.^
A vindication of Oxford divinity may be attempt
ed on the ground that whereas it is a prominent
' Chemnitz Examen. Dec. Trid. p. 149,
This put Chemnitz in mind that during the Osiandrian controversy, he had
heard, not without laughter, of some who philosophized on the word putare
and its compounds, as verbum hortense, a word pertaining to horticulture; so
that, as amputare signifies to take a-way something, so imputare must signify
lo insert, implant, pour in new qualities into a man. And this -wisdom, he
says, viz,, that imputation signifies only to infuse righteousness, was introduced
in the Council of Trent," (p. 149.) Father Paul gives us some of the debate
on this subject, " Vega, a leader, maintained that it was a most proper Latin
word to say that the righteousness of Christ is imputed for satisfaction and
merit, and that it is continually imputed to all tliat be justified, and do satisfy
for their o-wn sins, but he would not have it said that it was imputed as if it
-were ours." This is better doctrine than that of Oxford, The Heremite Gene
ral held that in Baptism the Justice of Christ is imputed, because it is commu
nicated wholly and entirely, but not in penance, lohen our satisfactions are also
required. But Soto, who thoroughly held to the effective sense of Justifica
tion, said the word Imputation was most popular and plausible, because it sig
nified, at the first sight, that all should be acknowledged for Christ, but yet he
did ever suspect it, in regard of the bad consequences which tbe Lutherans did
draw from thence — that is, that this only is sufficient (for Justification) without
inherent righteousness, that the punishment is abolished, together with tho
guilt ; that there remaineth no place for satisfaction. This admonition begat
such a suspicion in the hearers that there appeared a manifest disposition to
condemn the word for heretical, though reasons were effectually applied to the
contrary."— 'Pa.ViVa Hist. Cone, Trent, pp. 199, 200.
Much was said against the Lutherans, who grounded their doctrine of Imps-
tation upon tbe Hebrew Tsadak and the Greek i'lxMom^n-i fflgnify to be pro-
21

162
feature of Romanism, that it positively attributes a
degree of merit to the good works of the Justified, so
that by them they may truly deserve an increase of
grace, and eternal life ; the Oxford divines, on the
contrary, expressly ascribe all merit in Justification
to the Cross and Passion of Christ.
To those who are familiar Avith the position of the
doctrine of merits, in the decrees of Trent, it is need
less to say any thing in answer to this plea. But for
others, a little time may not be uselessly spent on
this head.
nounced, not made just. This leads ns to some amusing features of the de
bate on the Scriptures, in which great care was taken against being troubled
with the interpreting of the Bible in its original tongues.
Soon after the opening, " there was much difference about the Latin Trans
lation, between some few who had good knowledge of Latin, and some taste of
Greek, and others who were ignorant in the Tongues." Friar Aloisius urged
much, on the authority of Cajetan, a reference to the Hebrew and Greek Texts
the latter having said that " to understand the Latin Text was not to under
stand the infallible word of God," and that if " the Doctors of the former age
had gone to the original texts, the Lutheran heresy never would have found
place," But "the major part of the divines (knowing better where their
strength lay) said it was necessary to account that Translation which formerly
had been read in the Churches, and used in the Schools, divine and authen-
tical; otherwise they should yield the cause to the Lutherans — that the doc
trine ofthe Church of Rome, is in a great part founded by the Popes and by School
Divines, upon some passage of the Scripture, which if every one had liberty to
examine whether it were well translated, running to other translations, or seeking
how it was in the Greek or Hebrew, these new Grammarians would confound all,
and instead of Divines and Canonists, Pedants should be preferred to Bishops
and Cardinals. The Inquisitors would not be able to proceed against the Lu
therans, in case they knew not Greek and Hebrew,'' To this, some, as Isido-
rus Clarus, a Benedictine Abbot, were directly opposed. Vega proposed mid
dle ground — but Richard of Mans, a Franciscan, said th^t "the doctrines of
faith were now so cleared, (viz. by Popes and Schoolmen) that we ought no
more to learn them out of Scripture; that the studying of the Scripture should
be prohibited to every one that is nolfirst confirmed in School divinity; neither
do the Lutherans gain upon any but those that study the .Scripture."— 'Pa.nl's
Hist pp. 155—159,

163
Now it is true that in the decrees of Trent, we
find this raost appalling language :
" If any man shall say that the good works ofa Justified Person
are the gifts of God, in such a manner that they are not also the
Justified person's merits ; or that the Justified person does not truly
deserve increase of grace, eternal life, and (upon condition that he
die in the grace of God,) the obtaining of eternal life, and also an
increase of grace, by those good works which he does by the grace
of God, and the merit of Jesus Christ, of whom he is a living mem
ber, let him be accursed,"'
It is true also that Dr. Pusey interprets the Article
ofhis Church on Justification, as putting "in strong
contrast the merits of Christ and the merits of man,"
and as saying, " that we are justified solely for the sake
ofhis merit, and not for our own works or deserving s."
" The Article opposes, (he continues,) the merit of
Christ, to any thing which we have of our own, to our
own works and deservings, as the meritorious cause
of our salvation." " It is so plain a truth, and has
been so often inculcated by us, that every sin of man
which is remitted, is remitted only for the sake of His
meritorious Cross and Passion, every good and accept
able work is such through his power working in us,
that little, I believe, has thus far been objected.""^
To a superficial reader, it may seem that between
these words of Dr. Pusey and those above of the
Courfcil of Trent, there is a vast discrepancy. But
in sober truth, there is not the least disagreement.
They refer to different matters entirely. Dr. Pusey
speaks of merit for the obtaining of that Justification
whereby an ungodly man becomes a righteous man
in God's sight ; that which the Romanists call the
' Concil Trident, sess. vi. c. 3?. ' Letter, p. 41.

164
first Justification. But the words cited from the
decrees of Trent, as do all the pretences of Romish
merit, in Justification, refer only to " the increase of
that grace," the pi-ogressiofi of that Justified state," or
what Romanists call the second Justification.^ When
the Church of Rome speaks of that Justification, on
which we are now writing, and of which Dr. Pusey
wrote, the only one indeed of Avhich the Scriptures
speak, to wit, vA-hen a sinner, hitherto abiding under
condemnation, repents and turns to God, and seeks
remission of sin and peace through Jesus Christ, the
language of merit is scrupulously avoided, and the
language of Dr. Pusey is fully paralleled, if not
word for word employed.
The doctrine of Oxford Divinity and that of Rome,
as to what Justification consists in, being precisely
the same, it is quite as much the declaration of the
Council of Trent, as of the school of Oxford, that
whether the infusion of righteousness, by Baptism,
be in the case of infants, or of "wicked men," it is in
either case " without works. "^ We are then said to be
justified yree/y, in the sense of Trent, "because no
thing 7vhich precedes justification, whether faith or
works, deserves the grace of Justification."^ Does Dr.
Pusey ascribe the " 7neritorious cause" only to Christ?

1 They call that the First Justification when a man, not before regenerate,
first receives the infusion of inherent righteousness. And this infusion o^
grace, they say, is what no works going before deserve, as a due reward, ^anyuam
debitam mercedem. They call that the .Second Justification, when infused
grace exercises its proper operations, bringing forth good works. And this,
they say, is obtained and deserved by good works, but still through the merits
of Christ.
2 Hooker's Discourse of Justification, § ."i.
3 Quia nihil eorum qua; justificationem prajcedent, sive fides, sive opera, ipsam
justificationis gratiam promeretur. Sess. vi, c. 7.

165
So does Rome, precisely in the same words, "This
first Justification, they say, is by faith, the obedience
and satisfaction of Christ being the only meritorious
cause thereof." "The Council warily avoided the
name of merit, with respect unto the first justifica
tion."^ How could we expect any thing else ? The
substance of the doctrine, whether of the Romanists
or Oxfordists, may involve a glaring departure from
the Scriptural way of justification by the righteous
ness of Christ ; but it would be to charge its advo
cates, not only with tremendous heresy, but singular
fatuity, to suppose them capable of maintaining in
words, or of not denying in words, that when an un
godly man, yesterday at enmity with God, repents
to-day and is baptized and justified, his justification
is by any merit of his own. There are no passages
in Oxford writings in assertion of salvation only
through Christ's merits, stronger than those which
Hooker has given to the same point in the 33 sect.
of his Discourse of Justification, from the writings
of leading divines of Rome.
"Can any man, (he says,) that hath read their books, be ignorant
how they draw all their answers unto these heads? That the re
mission of all our sins, the pardon of all whatsoever punishments
thereby deserved, the rewards which God hath laid up in heaven, are
by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ purchased, and obtained suffi
ciently for all men ; but for no man efiectually for his benefit, in
particular, except the blood of Christ be applied particularly to him,
by such means as God hath appointed that to work by. That those
means of themselves, being but dead things, only the blood of Christ
is that which putteth life, force, and efficacy, in them to work, and
to be available each in its kind, to our salvation."

I Owen on Justification, c, v. pp, 170, 171,

166
Where, in Dr. Pusey, or Mr. Newman, is more
thorough-going language than this? But even this
does not save the Church of Rome from Hooker's
charge of being "an adversary to Christ's merits,"
and a maintainer of a heresy, on this head, "which
overthrmveth the foundation of faith."
" If any think, (he says,) that I seek to varnish their opinions, let
him know, that since I began thoroughly to understand their mean
ing, I have found their halting greater than perhaps it seemeth to
them which know not the deepness of Satan, as the blessed Divine
speaketh. For although this be proof sufficient, that, they do not
directly deny the foundation of Faith, yet, if there were no other
leaven in the lump of their doctrine, but this (merit,) this were suffi
cient to prove that their doctrine is not agreeable to the foundation
of Christian Faith, The Pelagians, being over-great friends unto
Nature, made themselves enemies unto Grace, for all their confess
ing, that men have their souls, and all the faculties thereof, their
wills and all the ability of their wills from God."'
And so, after all the protestations of Romanists,
Hooker taking their doctrine of Jiistification, and
choosing to judge for himself, how far its essential
nature referred all to the merits of Christ, sums up
the whole in this one sentence of entire condemna
tion. "Whether they speak of the ^rs^ or second Justifi
cation, they make the essence of a divine quality inhe
rent ; they make it righteousness ivhich is in us. If
it be righteousness in us, then it is ours, as our souls
are ours, though we have them from God, and can
hold them no longer than pleaseth him ; for if He
withdraw the breath of our nostrils, we fall to dust;
but the rio-hteousness wherein we must be found, if

' Discourse of Justifie. § 33.

167
we will be justified is not our own ; therefore we can
not be justified by any inherent quality."^
Now let the force of this exceedingly pregnant pas
sage be well understood. Hooker has just been dis
playing^ the whole "maze which the Church of
Rome doth cause her followers to tread when they
ask her the way to Justification." He has spoken of
the second Justification by professedly meritorious
works, as well as of the first by Baptism, without
works. He says he cannot take time "to unrip this
building and sift it piece by piece;" he will, how
ever, pass it with a few words, " that that may befall
Babylon, in the presence of that which God hath
builded, as happened unto Dagon before the Ark."
Such is his idea of Romish Justification — emphati
cally Babylon. Then he selects for an example of
"that which God hath builded," those blessed words
of St. Paul, " Doubtless, I have counted all things but
loss, and do count them but dung, that I may win
Christ and be found in him, not having my own
righteousness, hut that which is through the faith of
Christ, the righteousness which is of God through
Faith." Before this building of God, he unravels
the maze of Rome, in the passage we have quoted;
in which, as thus connected, let the reader well
observe 1. That, though the Church of Rome disclaims
merit in the first Justification, and pretends lo it in
the second, and in both ascribes all to the merits qf
Christ; in Hooker's judgment, fhe foundation in both
' Discourse of Justifie. § 5, 2 See p, 19, of this work.

168
is really neither more nor less than our own merits,
or righteousness; precisely that " own righteousness"
which St. Paul rejected as opposed to the righteous
ness of faith, and which he counted as dung.
2. He considersthefoundationof both tobe simply
that of crur oivn merits or righteousness, not because,
in either case, merits are claimed, but in both,
whether claimed or denied, because "the essence" or
"the justifying p7'inciple," is "a divine quality," or
" a righteousness in us. Its being a righteousness in
us and not " the external righteousness of Jesus
Christ, which is imputed," is the sole ground on
which he rests the charge of Justification by our
" own righteousness" or merits. That Romanists do
actually pretend to merits in the second Justification,
is, in Hooker's view, the advancing of no claira not
substantially professed before, but only the further
developraent in words of what existed before in
reality, the bolder carrying out of the principle of
Justification by a righteousness within us.
3 In Hooker's view no righteousness can be
within us, whether called " the presence of God by
His Spirit," or "a divine glo7-y," or "light," or
"gift," 'or " Shekinah," without being inherent, in
the same sense in which our souls are inherent ; or
without being our own, in the same sense in which
our souls are our oivn; so that, in his view, to say
that the righteousness within us is "a divine gift
needing continually a divine renewal, and there
fore, to be justified thereby, is not to be justified
by our own merits, is just the same as to say
that the faculties of our souls are a divine gift.

169
and continually sustained in us of God; and there
fore, to be justified by them or their works, would
not be a justification by our own merits.
Thus, in Hooker's view, however odious and aw
ful the Romish positive claim of merit, in the se
cond Justification, the doctrine involves the claim ;
whether they make it, in so many words, or not.
Precisely as the Pelagians have been universally
considered as enemies io grace, because "being over-
great friends unto Nature," they maintained the
sufficiency of man, without the inworking of the
Holy Ghost, to do good works acceptable to God ; at
the same time that they confessed "that men have
their souls and all their faculties thereof, their wills,
and all the ability of their wills, from God ;" so must
the Romanists be considered as enemies to grace and
advocates of merit, in our Justification; because,
being over-great friends unto our own inherent
righteousness in this matter, they maintain the suf
ficiency thereof for our acceptance with God ; at the
same time that they do strenuously profess that all
our righteousness, in all its works, cometh only by
the inworking of God's Spirit, and in virtue of the
mercy of God and the passion of Christ. There is,
indeed, a revolting extent of abomination in the
overtness and barefacedness with which the Council
of Trent, and sundry Romish writers, since, have
evolved the rudiment of merit into daring expres
sions of anti-christian presumption,' as if Satan's
right hand had forgot its cunning. But in planting
the principle of a righteousness in us, as fhe justify-

' See Usher's Answer to a Jesuit; Chapter on Merits.
22

170
ing principle, they planted the tree, which must, in
time, ramify into such boasting, if allowed its natural
spread, whether planted at Trent, or at Oxford.
Noav let us see where all this applies to the sys
tem of our Oxford divines. Like Rome, they as
cribe the "meritorious cause" of Justification, only
to Christ; the efficient, to the Holy Spirit; the in-
st7-umental, to Baptism, and the "formal cause,"
only to a righteousness in us. Then, we say of
thera, according to the AA'ords of Hooker ; "Whether
they speak of the first or second Justification, they
make it consist in a righteousness which is ours, as
our souls are ours;" inherent as our souls are inhe
rent; they make it the righteousness Avhich St. Paul
renounced that he might Avin Christ, and not the
righteousness for Avhich he counted that as worth
less and loathsome; precisely because they make it
our "own" Then let it be said that it is infused of
God and sustained of God, without our desert; so
we say of our souls and all their faculties; let them
deny that they ascribe any merit to such righteous
ness, or to any works proceeding therefrom ; let them
maintain that in making Justification thus to con
sist in a righteousness in them, instead of an external
righteousness only in Christ and only accounted unto
them, they do attribute all to the merits of Christ
and nothing to their own Avorks or deservings ; it is
nothing more than Romish writers have often done ;
nothing more than the Council of Trent itself has
done.'" They teach, (says Hooker,) that our good
' " Thus neither our own proper righteousness is so determined to be our own,
as if it were from ourselves ; nor is the righteousness of God either unknown or
rejected. For that which is caiied our righteousness, because through it being

171
works do not these things as they come from us, but
as they come from grace in us; which grace in us,
is another thing in their divinity, than is the mere
goodness of God's mercy towards us, in Christ
Jesus.' To deny, in the development, what is substantially
contained in the acknowledged rudiment, is an in
consistency by which many, we hope, very many,
professed Romanists, as well as our brethren of Ox
ford, have held on, in their hearts and words, to that
only foundation of a sinner's hope before God, which
their more formal doctrine has substantially denied ;
and have rejected, in their devout affections, the very
righteousness of Avorks which their written creed has
embraced. Thus says Bishop Andrewes, " the very
Schoolmen themselves, take them from their ques
tions, quodlibets, and comments on the Sentences, let
them be in their meditations or devotions, and espe
cially in directing how to deal with men in their last
agony — then take Anselm, take Bonaventure, take
Gerson, you would not wish to find ' Jehovah our
Righteousness' more pregnantly acknowledged."
The sarae venerable Bishop shows the same happy
inconsistency in Gregory of Valentia, in Stapleton,
in Cardinal Bellarmine. We earnestly hope there is
the same to be found in their followers at Oxford.
With the personal, private, practical reliance for sal-
inherent in us we are justified ; that same is the righteousness of God, because
it is infused into us of God, through tlie merit of Christ. Far however be it
from a christian man, that he should either trust or glory in himself and not in
the Lord ; whose goodness to all men is so great, that what are truly his gifts,
he willeth to be estimated as their merits." — Concil. Trident. Sess. vi. c. 16.
1 Discourse of Justifie. § 33.

172
vation, in these gentlemen, whether it be consistent
or inconsistent with the great error of their theory of
Justification, we have nothing to do. God grant
they may abundantly rejoice in Christ, in spite of
the lamentable substitution of a crucifixion within
them, as the object to be looked to for Justification,
instead of the sacrifice upon the cross, in which alone
we are permitted to glory. We are dealing only
with their doctrine. That is one thing. Their use
of it is quite another. The former, we maintain, is
that of our own righteousness, or works, or merits,
in substitution for what Paul and our Church call
"the Righteousness of God by faith,'" Their denial
of this only proves that such is not the inference
they make frora the doctrine. We must make our
' Our own righteousness and that of God by faith are always set in opposition
by the inspired -writers. Is one called "the righteousness of la-w?" the other ig
"the righteousness of faith;" is the one called by St. Paul, our "a-wn righteous
ness?" the other he cd\\a " i\ie rigldeousness of God." Is one described as
"by the law ?" the other is " -without the la-w." Is one " reckoned to him that
¦worketh ?" the other is "to him that -worketh not." Is the one " of debt?" the
other is " of grace." Does the one give man " -whereof to glory " because it is
'of -works ?" the other "excludes boasting," because it 'is "of faith." Does St,
Paul " count all things but loss that he may win Christ and be found in himi"
He has no hope of succeeding till he has first laid aside his o-wn righteousness,
as worthless, and put on, in its stead, " the righteousness which is by the faith
of Christ," In his view, these two cannot coalesce ; cannot unite into one
vesture ; they are essentially inconsistent in the office of Justification ; so
that if we trust in the one, we cannot have the other ; if we " go about to estab
lish our own righteousness," it implies that we have rtot submitted to, but re
jected the righteoiisness of God. Our justification must be either of grace ex
clusively, or of works exclusively. It cannot be of both. " J^l'ot of -works, lest
any man should boast." If by grace, (says St, Paul) then it is no more of
-works, otiier-wise grace is no more grace. But if it be of -works, then it is no
more grace ; otiier-wise -work is 710 more -work." "It is not grace anyway,
(says Augustine) if it be not free every way,"
Now between one or the other of these rival hopes must every sinner choose.
His choice of one is necessarily the rejection of the other.

173
own inference ; we cannot be forced to adopt theirs.
Their doctrine is now public property, doing its good
or evil independently of its authors ; just as a poison,
or a medicine, works its health or death in those
who take it, independently of the apothecary who
compounded it. The public must judge of the com
pound, as to its nature and consequences, without be
ing bound by the opinion of the apothecary. And so
the public will, and can, raake the true inference as
to whether Oxford Divinity is essentially as much
a system of human merits, as that of Rome, without
being governed by the deductions of Oxford Divines.
And as sometimes the public voice adjudges to be poi
sonous in its operation upon the human body, what
the son of ^sculapius has issued under the name of
Panacea; so may it most justly determine that what
has thus issued from Oxford as the Grand Restora
tive, the Universal Elixir of Life, "the Weapon
Salve to heal the Church's Wounds," is mere Popery
disguised ; " rats bane, given in figs," as Jackson says ;
fraught with the most baneful consequences to truth
and piety; certain to intoxicate the Church with the
spiritual pride of a full systera of mere Pharisaic ob
servances, in place of the humility of "the power of
godliness," and this just in proportion as it shall pass
out of the hands of its authors and compounders, and
become separated from the antidotes which in spite
of their theory, it meets with in thera, and shall be
adopted into the practice of disciples of equal zeal,
but less restraint of sound doctrine. These will
carry out the new system of practice. The Rudi
ment of Merit, now unprofessed, will soon expand
into its development, boldly declared. The march

174
of Restoration Avill look back to the present outset at
Oxford, as a propitious beginning indeed, and good
"for the times;" timid indeed, and slow and reserved^
but well suited to a Church which, as these divines
say of the Church of England, is not privileged with
the "richer banquet" out of the "depth and richness
the ancient services," such as are found in "the Ro
man and Parisian Breviaries; but must, as yet, put
up with "the homelier fare which a merciful ProAi-
dence has set before her," because she has declined
from something, (we are not told what) in the Catho
lic Church, and has thus " sullied her baptismal robe
of purity, and is not permitted to come into the Di
vine Presence till she has done penance — nor to raise
her voice in the language of joy and confidence,
without many a faltering note of fear and self-re
proach." She is now "in a degraded condition."
" She seemed to say at the Reformation, ' Make me
as one of thy hired servants;' and she has been
graciously taken at her word ; lowered from her an
cient and proper place, as the king's daughter, &c.,
into the condition of a slave at the table where she
should preside. Lower strains befit her depressed
condition; and with such, in the English Liturgy,
she is actually provided.'"
How long will it be before the disciples of this
school will consider the march of Restoration to have
proceeded far enough to warrant the taking off of the
penance; the advancement of the present slave, to the
daughter's seat; the elevation of her now faltering
and depressed notes, to the higher strains of the

' BriiJsh Critic for Ap. 1840.

175
Roman and Parisian Breviaries; the breaking off of
the degrading fetters put on at the Reformation, for
the glorious liberty of that yoke of ceremonial service
under which all piety, all morality, all knowledge, all
improvement, all civilization groaned and travailed
in pain until Luther arose, a man of God, and sound
ed the trump of Jubilee, and, in the name of the
Lord, opened the prison doors to thera that were
bound? We doubt not "the Times" are fast hastening on
this second Reformation, so far as the disciples of the
present Restorationists are concerned. They are
evidently too much elated with present success, to
be patient much longer with the present degradation
of their penance-stricken Church. We fear the time
is fast drawing on, when what is now being prepared
for, and of which the large importations into Oxford of
Roman and Parisian Breviaries, "for private devo
tion," as Avell as literary study, are a sign, Avill be
ready to take its stand in the gates, and proclaim
itself upon the house-tops.' We must in deep so-
' The article in the British Critic, from which we have taken the extracts
above given, is a Review of the latest " Tract for the Times," No. 86, on the
Church Service; and its expressions are just an echo of that Tract. In that
Review we read that whereas " the Liturgies of Rome and Paris were, till very
recently, sealed books to the Protestant world " — " now, Mr. Parker, of Oxford,
finds it Worth his while to import a considerable number of copies, both of the
Roman and Parisian Breviaries every year ; whence we infer (says the Reviewer)
and with great satisfaction, that the ancient services are coming to be studied,
not merely as a matter of literature — but for purposes of private devotion." If the
selections from the Roman Breviary, occupying one hundred pages ofthe Tracts,
are favourable specimens of its " hid treasures," we must confess that, except as
it contains what is also in our own Bible and Prayer Book, its treasures are suf
ficiently hid. What our Oxford Divines mean by the richness of the ancient
services, as displayed in these Breviaries, is clearly seen in the fact that they
have not only constructed "for social or private devotion," a full Matin ser-

176
leranity remind the Church of our parent-land, the
standard-bearer of the Reformation, object of hatred
for her firm stand on the side of religious and civil
liberty, to all who would bind the fetters of despotic
power, of bigot-intolerance, of priestly domination, of
popish superstition, upon the minds and souls of
men; set upon and surrounded by a combination, for
her abasement, in which the money, and craft, and
learning, and power of all the popery of Europe is
leagued, in alliance with all that radicalism and infi
delity can do to help them; we must in deepest
sympathy, and with earnest prayer for our mother
Church of England, beseech her to reraember the
word of the Lord : "Satan hath desired to have thee
that he may sift thee as wheat." " Watch and pray
lest ye enter into temptation!"
vice for the commemoration of " Bishop Ken's DiT," and also a Matin, Ves
per and Laud Service for "the Com.memoratiox of the Dead in Christ;"
but have followed most strictly the model and peculiarities of the Roman Bre
viary as to Nocturns, Antiphons and every other minute feature of order and
mode, with as little reference to the peculiarities of the English Liturgy as if it
were not in existence. Because the Romish Breviary ii.troduces here and
there little scraps of a Homily by St, Ambrose, &c,, therefore the service for
Bishop Ken, does the same with a scrap ofa sermon from Bishop Taylor. Be
cause in the Romish services are legends of the Saints, therefore in the Oxford
service is a legend of Bishop Ken, which tells where he was born and educated,
ordained, &c, — how he brought Ana-baptists to baptism, was self-denied, charita
ble, faithful, iScc, — that he died in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith, &e.,
but has not one word by which may be learned any one distinctive doctrine or
precept of the Gospel of Christ.

CHAPTER VI.

THE DOCTRINE OF OXFORD DIVINITY, AS TO THE NATURE A\D
OFFICE OF JUSTIFYING FAITH, EXHIBITED, AND COMPARED WITH
THAT OP THE ROMISH CHUECH,
The influence of the doctrine of Justification, whether true or false, upon the
body of divinity, in general— The sameness of Ihe Oxford doctrine and that
of Rome, tested by the sameness of influence upon connected and subordinate
doctrines — This, first exhibited as to the doctrine of Justifying Faith — The
doctrine of Faith, as held in the Romish Church, stated in six propositions —
The doctrine of Oxford stated in comparison, under the same propositions,
shewing the nature and oflSce of Faith, before Baptism, in Baptism, and after
Baptism — The profession of making Faith the sole internal instrument of
Justification examined and shown to be without any reality — Justification by
Faith, in this system, nothing but Justification by Christianity — A rebuke
from Bishop Beveridge,
The fundamental doctrine that our Justification con
sists in a Righteousness Inherent, as the moral basis
on which alone " we are accounted righteous before
God." is of such boundless influence upon the whole
structure of the body of divinity, as necessarily to
require a marked and characteristic change in all
parts of the Gospel plan of salvation, more especially
in those which are connected most particularly with
the nature of sin, and the way of deliverance from its
defilement and condemnation. Of this subordinat
ing influence, all the peculiarities of Romish divinity,
in its several members, are conspicuous evidences.
If Ave shall succeed in showing that the funda
mental doctrine of Oxford Divinity, as to the righte
ousness of Justification, is of such similar influence,
that it affects precisely the same subordinate doc-
23

178
trines, in substantially the same way, and with re
ference to the same accommodation ; so that the tree
is, not only Romish in root and ti'unk, but, so far
as it has spread out doctrinally, is Romish in ramifi
cation also; it Avill then be the more manifest that
the difference between this divinity and the true
divinity, for which our Reformers gaA^e themselves
to death, is no mere logo7nachy ; no mere differential
expression, a rebus ad voces ; but a difference of great
vital doctrine, not of one doctrine merely, but of the
system of doctrine, from corner-stone to roof, a differ
ence which makes so great a gulf between, that ac
cording to the belief of Oxford Divines themselves,
it makes the one side, or the other, " another Gospel."
-In proceeding to this shoAving, Ave begin with the
Nature and Office qf Justifying Faith. Next, to an
enquiry as to the nature of the righteousne«s in
which the sinner is to be Justified, is the question,
by what means he is to become possessed of that I'ighte-
ousness. The plain answer of the Scriptures is " hy
faith." No doctrine then may be expected to par
ticipate more directly in any essential peculiarity of
view in regard to justifying righteousness, than that
of justifying faith. "Hence it comes to pass (says
Chemnitz,) that the devil is so angry at the doctrine
of faith. When he could not hinder the divine de
cree concerning the redemption of the human race,
he brought all his arts to bear upon the destruction
or corruption of the appointed means of its applica
tion, knowing what v/as Avritten that the Avord
preached does not profit except it be mixed v/ith
faith in them that hear it."
The doctrine of the nature and office of Justifying

179
Faith, as held by the Church of Rome, is squared in
entire consistency with her doctrine of Justification
by inherent righteousness. We shall see the same
squaring, for the same reason, and with the same
cardinal points, in view, in the doctrine of Oxfordism.
As in both systems, the nature of Faith is accom
modated to the position assigned to Baptism, as the
sole instrument of Justification ; so in both there is a
distinction assumed in the nature and efficacy of
faith before Baptism and after Baptism. And this
distinction must be well understood as the key to the
Avhole raatter in each.
What then does the Church of Rorae teach con
cerning faith before Baptism, or that which is re
quired of Adults in order to Baptism? It cannot be
properly ^justifying faith, because Baptism is made
"the only instrument of Justification." It cannot,
therefore, be the faith of ^justified or righteous per
son, and so must be the faith of the u.nrighteous.
Hence it cannot be "a /^'ye/y faith," the "fw^fhthat
worketh by love." What then does the Church of
Rome pronounce as to the nature and office of Faith
before Baptism? She anathematises in Canon xii.
those Avho understand by justifying faith such a
trust in the divine mercy as apprehends and accepts,
in the promises ofthe Gospel, the remission of sins,
through the mediation of Christ; and who hold that,
by such trust alone, we are justified before God unto
eternal life. And she moreover pronounces that
" we are said by the Apostle to be justified by faith,
because faith is the initiatory step in human salvation,
the foundation and root of all justification." And
just hoAv we are to understand these words, we learn

180
from the interpretations of Andrada, professedly ex
pounding and defending the doctrines of Trent. He
says that the power of justifying is ascribed to faith,
because it prepares the mind for the receiving of jus
tification. The wicked (he says) are said to be justi
fied by faith, and faith is the beginning and founda
tion of justification in this sense, viz : that it opens the
door to hope and charity, Avhich works are necessary
to the obtaining of justification. Faith, therefore,
according to the Trent decree, is the beginning and
preparation for Justification, not because it appre
hends the remission of sins through Christ, but be
cause it excites the will to such motions, or acts, as
are necessary to the obtaining of Justification. Con
sequently, it is in no sense a direct insti-ument of
obtaining Justification; but only a sine-qua-non, a
preparation, as the Trent-Council says, "without
which, it is impossible to please God, and obtain the
adoption of sons."
By faith therefore, as a preparation for Justifica
tion, the Church of Rome understands, (says Chem
nitz,) a mere historical knowledge and naked assent,
by which, in general, we acknowledge that those
things are true which are revealed concerning God
and his word, not only in Scripture, but also in
those things Avhich are proposed under the title of
traditions. This general assent, says the Priest
Gandolphy, is called "a divine faith," because it is
based on the testimony of God, in distinction from
human faith as based on the testimony of men, "It
essentially excludes the existence of doubt," "and
consists in believing, without doubting, truths re
vealed by the Deity."

181
Such then is the fides informata, or the unformed
faith At^hich is required in Adults for Baptism, which
is confessedly said by the Apostle to be justifying;
but until Baptism give it some additional quality,
is a mere naked assent, a mere preparative for hope
and charity, and all good ivorks; not a living faith,
but still "divine," as Gandolphy says, because "found
ed on the testimony of God," And yet it is not
necessary that such testimony be drawn directly from
God's Avord. " The testimony of the Church, (says the
same Priest) derived from God, is a motive sufficient
to command the soul to render a full, perfect and
steady faith. Now this motive being supernatural
and divine, the assent of the soul becomes a super
natural and divine act, for Avhich a special grace is
necessary, and forms Avhat is termed a supernatural
and divine faith. It is even an act of the soul, as
distinct, and as much above a moral or human act,
as God himself is raised above all created objects.'"
Thus is a mere naked assent to the truth of the testi
mony of God, or of the Church, AA'hich the A\-icked
may have, as well as the righteous, which the devils
have and tremble, for they believe on the testimony
of God, exalted into a divine, supernatural act, re
quiring a special grace. But Avhen asked how such
naked faith can justify the soul before God, they
ansAver that in justification there is something added
to it, to Avit, charity, Avhich gives it greater weight
and merit. Andrada, for instance, says that, "not
by faith only, but by faith, together Avith hope and
charity, we apprehend Christ for righteousness —
' Gandol-phy's Defence, vol. II. p. 490.

182
that in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Justification
of many is attributed to faith, because faith excited
those illustrious men to the good works of hope and
charity. Noav since it is declared in chap. vii. of
Trent, that no justification can take place until Bap
tism; that in that sacrament, "the love of God is
shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Ghost, by
Avhich we are renewed in the spirit of our minds," it
follows that it is in Baptism that the unformed faith
which preceded it, becomes fides foi'mata, that is,
becomes joined with hope and charity, so as to be no
longer a mere assent of the mind, preparing the way
for justification, but a living principle, an inherent
righteousness by which, in proportion to its degree,
the justification first infused in Baptism is continued.
So that befoi'e Baptism, the faith of the Adult com
ing to that sacrament is a naked, unvivified assent,
justifying only as preparing the way for Justification;
a "divine faith," however dead, precisely as the faith of
devils is divine, because resting on the testimony of
God. After Baptism, it is the same faith, but with
a new heart given to it, a regenerate faith, having
the spiritual qu.alities of hope and love infused, or
superadded, in virtue of which, and not because of
any special agency in itself, it justifies before God.
What utter ruin all this makes in the Scriptural
doctrine of Justifying Faith we will not stop to show.
The above account consists chiefly of translation and
condensation from the chapter of Chemnitz, De Fide
Justificante, in which he exhibits the substance of
the doctrine of Trent. Were Ave reasoning with Ro
manists, Ave should be more particular in citing their
own words. But as our present object is exclusively

183
araong Protestants, the statements of a writer so
learned, and so universally confided in by all Pro
testants, as well in England, as on the continent,
will suffice for a view of one side of the comparison
we are aiming at.'
The main points of this Romanism to be kept in
view, in reference to the coraparison now to be made
Avith Oxford Divinity, are
1. That Faith before Baptism is not and cannot be
a living faith, that "which worketh by love."
2. That Faith before Baptism is said to Justify,
or to be an instrument of Justification, only as a sine-
qua-non, only as a necessary preparation for, and that
which leads to. Baptism, which itself is the only real
instrument of Justification.
3. This faith, so dead, is nevertheless a divine,
supernatural gift, based on the testimony of God,
through the Creeds and traditionary doctrines of the
Church, independently of a direct application to the
Scriptures, as the Primary and only Authoritative
Rule of Faith.
4. That this faith, before Baptism, instead of being
in any sense Justifying, until after the sinner be
comes Justified in Baptism, raust itself be first justi
fied, or raade a living faith by Baptism,
5, That Faith when regenerate and justified in
Baptism is not such a trust in the divine mercy as
apprehends and accepts remission of sins through the
mediation of Christ, and justifies the soul throvigh
his righteousness accounted to the believer.
6. That after it has become a regenerate and lively
' See Chemnitz Exam. Dec, Concil. Trident, p, 155 — 158.

184
faith, by the love of God shed abroad in the heart,
by Baptism, so that it is now joined with hope and
love, it then only continues or sustains the Justifica
tion already completed, in Baptism, before it 7vas
alive: and even this, not in any proper sense, as an
instrument applying the righteousness of Christ, but
only as united to, and acting in common with, all
other Christian virtues and works.
We proceed to show that all these several proposi
tions are contained, and strongly asserted, in Oxford
Divinity. 1. That the faith of the Adult coming to Baptism,
is not and cannot be a li'vi7ig fitith — that " which
worketh by love."
The Catechism of our Church, requires of those
who come to be baptized, " repentance, whereby they
forsake sin, and faith, whereby they steadfastly be
lieve the promises of God made to them in that
Sacrament." Precisely the same are required for
the Lord's Supper. We have been accustomed to
suppose that by these Avas intended a godly sorrow,
and a godly or living faith ; that as there is no true
repentance without love to God, so there can be no
truly ^enxie'nf faith, without love and life. We must
be pardoned this grievous error, since our Dr. Bar
row, in the same darkness, not to mention a thousand
others, has told us concerning this repentance and
faith as required for baptism, that " each importeth a
being renewed in mind, in judgment, in 7vill, in affec
tion; a serious embracing of Christ's doctrine, and a
steadfast resolution to adhere thereto in practice.
This is that death to sin, and resurrection to 7'ighteous
ness, that being buried with Christ and rising again

185
with him, so as to walk in newness of life, which the
baptismal action signifies."^ But, unhappily, Doctor
Pusey and Doctor Barrow are not agreed. "Faith
and repentance (says the forraer) are necessary to
the new birth; but they are not the new bi7'th."^
What then is Faith before Baptism and required
for Baptism? We ansAver by first stating, accord
ing to Mr. Newman, that " what faith was in the days
of the Son of Man for temporal blessings, such sure
ly it is now under the ministration of the Spirit for
heavenly," (p. 268.) This seems a promising be
ginning. One hopes for something clear and sound
from such premises. Again — " Faith is substanti
ally the sarae act under all circumstances, or it would
not be called faith; and so far, it has always the
same office," (p. 278.) Hence we hope to see that
faith before Baptism, and after Baptism, as they are
both certainly called faith, are substantially the sarae,
and of one office — both alike Justifying, and in the
same sense. But now our encouragement is at an
end — for says Mr. N. "Faith, as gaining its virtue
fro7n Baptism, is one thing before that sacred ordi
nance ; another after. ^ Baptism raises it from a co«!-

' Barrow on the Doctrine of the Sacrament. - Views of Holy Bap
tism, p. 178.
3 Aquinas furnishes us with all this in equal plainness. He states a variety
of opinions as to whether faith before Baptism, ^(7ts informis, dead faith, is the
same essentially with that after 'Ba-pi\sm, fides formata, living faith, or not.
Some thought that God, in the infusion of the latter, expelled the former — but
that would not do; because, as both were made to be gifts of God, it did not
seem right to suppose that he would expel his own gift. The conclusion of
Aquinas is precisely that of Mr. N., that the dead and living faith are substan
tially the same faith. Fides informis et fides formata unus et idem habitus est,
his diversisnominibus appellatus, ab ipsa charitate, qute est iUius forma. P, 1-
3, Q.4, A. -1.
24

186
dition, into the instru7nent of Justification — from a
mere forerunner, into its accredited representative."
This we should suppose to be a very substantial dif
ference both of nature and office. To be a condition
and forerunner only ; and to be an instrument and
representative, we should think was not so substan
tially the same thing. But the view opens. "Justi
fying faith may be considered in two main points of
view, either as it is in itself, and as it exists in fact,
in those who are under grace," (that is before Bap
tism and after Baptism.) "In the former point of
view, (before Baptism,) it is not necessarily even a
moral viidue; but when illuminated by love, and en
nobled by the Spirit," (which only takes place in
Baptism, according to this divinity,) "it is a name
for all graces together," (295.) So then, when our
Church requires faith as a preparation for Baptism,
she does not require Avhat is 7iecessarily a moral
virtue I Hence we read that " nothing is said of it
before Baptisra, that is not said of restitution, as a
necessary condition to Baptism," (275.) Before Bap
tisra, "it is without availing power, without life in
the sight of God, as regards our Justification," (275,)
that is, as regards "the indAvelling of the Spirit,"
which is Justification according to this system. This
representation is expounded in a passage on p. 277,
in which faith before Baptism is called "a moral
mV^we," as its highest possible condition; after Bap
tism " a grace'' The latter as " lively f the former
as "willing without pe7fo7'ming -j" being only "full of
terror and disquiet, vague, and dull-minded, feeble,
sickly, wayward, fitful, inoperative," " nothing till
Christ regenerate it" in Baptism. This faith must

187
be baptized before it can be a living faith. " When
it comes ybr Baptism, it is on the point of being rid
of itself and hid in Christ. It comes to the Fount of
Life to be made alive, as the dry bones in the Pro
phet's vision were brought together in preparation
for the Breath of God to quicken them, and He who
makes all things new, as he makes sinners righteous,
&c,, so also by His presence converts what is a con
dition of obtaining favour, into the means of holding
and enjoying it," (277, 8.) One would now suppose
that a dead faith and a living, were not " substanti
ally the same," or " of one office."
Such then is this faith before Baptisra, though called
by Doctor Barrow, &c. &c., " the inward grace which
Baptism signifies." Such, according to this system,
was the dead faith of Paul, the converted, before he
was baptized; of the three thousand who were con
verted at the Pentecost, until they were baptized —
such was the faith of Cornelius and his household
and friends, before they were baptized, although he
\vsi,s " a devout man" and "feared God, and prayed
to God always," and " his prayers came up for a
memorial before God," and he and all his friends
heard and believed the word of Christ, at the lips of
St. Peter, and on all of them fell the Holy Ghost.
Still their faith must have been dead, vague, inope
rative, unregenerate, needing to' be converted by Bap
tism, because it Avas faith before Baptism; and so
says Doctor Pusey, who more than any one else,
boldly carries out the system, " Cornelius had not
Chi'istian faith, nor love, nor prayer, for as yet he
knew not Christ; he could not call God Father, {to
whom he had prayed alway,) because he knew not

188
the Son, Faith and repentance are necessary in adults
to the new birth, but they are not the new birth,'"
This may suffice for our first proposition, and one
would suppose should su.ffice for the whole system,
with all who know the Scriptures, and are not walk
ing in mysticism.
2. That faith before Baptism is said to Justify, or
to be an instrument of Justification, only as a sine-
qua-non, as a necessary preparation for, and as that
which leads to. Baptism, which itself is the only "real
instrument of the first Justification,
This proposition requires but few citations out of
the many which might be adduced. " What (asks
Mr. N.) does the Scripture say of faith before Bap
tism, except as a necessary step to Baptism? Its
highest praise before Baptism is that it leads to it;
as its highest efficacy after it is that it comes from
it," Nothing is said of it before Baptism, that is
not said of Repentance or of Restitution, which are
also necessary conditions." " Upon these, not in and
through them, comes Gospel grace, meeting, not co
operating with them," (p. 275, 6). "We are saved
(says Dr. Pusey) by faith bringing us to Baptism,
and by Baptism, God saves us"^ — "faith being but
the sine-qua-non, the necessary condition on our parts
for duly receiving the grace of Christ."^ This writer
considers it "the essence of sectarian doctrine to con
sider faith, and not the sacraments, as the proper in
strument of Justification and other gospel gifts, in
stead of holding that the grace of Christ comes to us

1 Views of Holy Baptism, p, 177,8, 2 Views of Baptism, p, 49, Am. Ed,
sib, p, 5,

189
a] together /row without." And it was to correct this
undue elevation of faith, in other words, to degrade
that which the Scriptures every where 'speak of as
the only instrument of Justification, into a dead, in
operative, iinmeaning nothing, for the sake of elevat
ing Baptisra into "Salvation, the Cross andthe Resur
rection," (p. 142) denying that there is "any separa
tion, except in thought, between the outward form
and the inward substance," (p. 206) denying even
the language of our Article that Baptism is " a sign,"
saying it is "not a sign, but the putting on of Chi'ist;"
(102) it was for this, we are told, that Dr. Pusey's
laboured work on Holy Baptism was written.'"
Now the reader will perhaps remember such pas
sages as the following in Dr. Pusey's Letter to the
Bishop of Oxford, viz., "Justification comes through
the Sacraments, is received by faith," &c. "The
merits of Christ applied in Baptisra by the Spirit,
and received by a lively faith, complete our Justifica
tion for the time being."
' That faith which Mr, Newman can hardly call a moral virtue, and which
he says is not necessarily one, he even, in one place, denies the name of faith,
so dead is it and of no account in his sight, "Faith (he says) does not pre
cede Justification, (that is Baptism), but Justification precedes faith and makes
it Justifying, so that the faith required for baptism is not faith," Truly the zeal
of his system hath eaten him up. This entire degradation, into utter contempt,
of the spiritual qualification for Adult baptism is a most impressive comment
upon the real spirituality, both in essence and tendency, of what in language,
so mysterious and mystical, seems so spiritual. It is just the opus operatum of
Rome. We must fear, when the repentance and faith required alike for Bap
tism and the Lord's Supper, are degraded into dead things hardly worth men
tioning in the matter of salvation, for the sake of elevating an outward sign into
the highest seat of spiritual dignity and efiicacy. Spiritual -words do not al
ways express spiritual vie-ws. Mysticism and spirituality are as much alike as
the foolish and wise virgins in the parable — both have lamps — both shine — but
mysticism has no oil in its vessel with its lamp. When the Bridegroom cometh,
its light is gone out in darkness.

190
Ao-ain — "The instrtimental power of Faith cannot
interfere with the instrumental power of Baptism;
because Faith is the sole justifier, not in contrast to
all means and agencies whatever — but to all other
graces. When then Faith is called the sole instru
ment, this means the sole internal instrument, not
the sole instrument of any kind."'
It is exceedingly probable, that most readers of
these passages, as they stand unqualified in Dr.
Pusey's letter, have supposed that they referred to
faith in the common religious use of the word, faith
as preceding Justification, that AA'hich he has who re
pents and believes, before he is baptized; and they
have supposed probably that such faith Avas indeed
made an intei'nal, a7id the sole internal instrument,
while an external instrumentality only was given to
Baptism. But they are deceived. Faith Z'e/bre Bap
tism is not in the least referred to in these passages.
If they will read them again, they will see it is "a
lively faith" that is spoken of But this cometh only
frora Baptism. All before is dead and inoperative
and unregenerate — a mere sine-qua-non, no raore in
strumental in Justification than is restitution. So
that, Avhenever faith, in these writers is spoken of as
in any other sense, justifying, let the reader remera
ber that it is faith after Baptism, a justified faith.
There is too much " reserve" in Dr, Pusey's state
ments on this subject in his letter. A reader, not
otherwise informed, Avould hardly suspect the real
restriction of his meaning. There is not a line in all

1 Pusey's Letter, pp, 43, 3, 4, These passages are quoted by Dr, P, from
Mr, Newman.

191
his professed confession of faith, in his Letter to the
Bishop of Oxford, by which a reader, unenlightened
by other means, can get an idea of a distinction being
made between faith before, and faith after Baptism;
or that by the faith spoken of as the sole internal in
strument, is not meant that by which in our usual
understanding of things, the unbaptized, but peni
tent, sinner comes to Christ, and prepares for bap
tism : while in reality that faith is not mentioned,
and not a line is devoted, in Dr. Pusey's Confession,
to the great question what a penitent soul, just
awakened and turned to God, must do to be saved;
whether he must believe, or how he must believe, or
what sort of faith he must have, or how it operates ;
nothing is hinted but that he must be Baptized.
The whole account of Justifying Faith, in Dr. Pu
sey's Letter, has reference to its influence after a
Justification by Baptism; after ii has itself been con
verted, regenerated, justified, raised from death, made
operative by being Baptized. But this is what few
would suspect from the prima facie, showing of the
Confession. We do not like this " Reserve in com
municating religious knowledge."
3. That this Faith which precedes Baptisra and is
dead, is nevertheless a divine supernatural gift, and
based on the testimony of God, thi'ough the creeds and
traditionary doctrine of the Church, independently of
any direct application to the Scriptures as the pri
mary and only Authoritative Rule of Faith.
"By faith, (says Mr, N.,) is meant the mind's per
ception or knowledge of heavenly things, arising
from an instinctive trust in the divinity or truth of
the external words, informing it concerning them."

192
This instinctive ti'ust, he says, is "a moraZ instinct,
supernaturally implanted and independent of expe
rience;" it is an instinct, just as the trust of the
mind to the testimony of sense is an instinct.' Of
this instinctive faith, " the inward grace of God is the
first cause;" yet it is " onere faith" (dead); love being
afterward imparted in Baptism, (287); and yet this
faith, though " supernatural," and the gift of " the
inward grace of God," " is not a joractical principle,
nor peculiar to religious men," (2S9); is " not an ex
cellence, except it be grafted into a heart that has
grace," i. e, U7itil baptized; till then it is "nota virtue
or grace, else evil spirits could not possess it." "Devils
believe and tremble. — Thus dread and despair are
the essential properties of the devils' faith ; hojje or
trust of religious (or baptized) faith; but both are in
their nature one and the same faith, as bei7ig simply
the acceptance of God's ivord about the future and un
seen" {2^0).^
1 Lectures, p. 289,|
2 All these points are given in Aquinas, as in Mr. N., except that the former
attempts a distinction between the faith of devils and that of unbaptized per
sons, which the latter gives up. That the dead faith of the unbaptized is the
supernatural gift of God, Aquinas asserts. Fides informis est donum Dei. That
it is destitute of moral excellence, because not a grace, and without love, he also
maintains ; Fides et opus sine charitate possunt esse ; sed sine charitate, proprie
loquendo, virtutes non sunt. But he cannot venture to say that it is no better
than that of the devils. Its peculiarity, in his view, is that it is based on the
testimony of God, and therefore is a gift from grace; but he denies that devils
believe on such testimony. Vident enim multa manifesta indicia, ex quibus
percipiunt doctrinam ecclesite a Deo esse ; quamvis ipsi res quas Ecclesia docet
non videant — P. 1, 2 ; Q. A. 1. — Fides in dffimonibus coacta est, non laudabilis,
nee donum a gratia Q, 6. A. 2,
But Mr, N, considers that devils do beUeve on the testimony of God. "They
believe in a Judgment to come ; and on what but God's infallible word annouii-
cing it ]" Hence, he makes of necessity, their faith to be the same as that of
all the unbaptized, no more dead than theirs.

193
Thus the faith which is required for baptism, in
connection with repentance, the faith of a repent
ing sinner, seeking mercy through Christ, is identi
fied with the faith of devils, equally dead, and equal
ly without moral virtue or excellence, while each,
the faith of the devil, and the faith of the penitent
catechumen, is called a moral, supernatural instinct,
implanted by the in7vard grace of God ! I Was ever
truth like this!
Now we are prepared to understand that such faith
should be rested on the testimony of God, through the
creeds of the Church, independently of all consulta
tion of the Scriptures, as the Primary and only Rule
of Faith. Such is Oxford doctrine. Mr Newman
contends that "the sacred volume was never in
tended, and is not adapted to teach our creed, however
certain it is that we can prove our creed from it,
when it has once been taught us." He contends for
"the insiifficiency ofthe mere private study of Holy
Scripture (i. e. without the precomposed creed of the
Church as a guide) for the arriving at the exact and
entire truth which it really contains." "From the
very first (he says) the rule has been, as a matter of
fact, for the Church to teach the t7'uth, and then ap
peal to Scripture in vindication of its own teaching,"
while the way of heretics from the first has been "to
elicit a systematic doctrine from the scattered no
tices OF the truth which Scripture contai7is." There
fore the creeds of the Church are said to be "divinely
provided;"'^ "a gift equaUy from God" with Holy
Scripture; this, the "record," that, the "intei'preter,"
' Newman's Hist, of the Arians, pp, 55, 56.

194
of necessary truth;' and so it is contended that in
primitive times "the great duty of the Christian
teacher was to unfold the sacred truths in due order,
and not to insist prematurely on the difficulties,"
(that is the spiritual doctrines) "or to apply the
promises,"^ Among our Oxford men, the matters
to be sacredly reserved from the catechumen, are
such as the Atonement, because, says Tract No, 80,
"fully to knoAV that aa^c are saved by faith in Christ
only, is a great secret, the hnowledge of which can only
be obtained by obedience, as the crown and end of holi
ness of life." But this Reserve can only be used,
now that the Scriptures are in all hands, by discoun
tenancing the free use of them by the uninitiated,
the 7xeophytes, and shutting them up, virtually, to
the teaching of the Chu.rch, so far as her minis
ters choose to communicate it. Hence the stern
war of Oxford divines against the study of the Evi
dences of Christianity, as a way of becoming estab
lished in the truth, instead of heari7ig the Church,
and trusting by an "instinctive faith" in her testi
mony f hence the complaint that " Protestants dis
pense with the Church, by basing the genuineness
and authenticity of the Scriptures on history and
criticism;'^ Paley's Evidences being as rauch an ob
ject of aversion to these writers, as substituted for
the testimony of the Church, as his Moral Philosophy
' Tract No. 71, p. 5. Whatever is ihe final interpreter of Scripture must be
the final Arbiter of Faith. If one goes among people of a strange language,
his interpreter is his only guide to the knowledge of their words. It is one
thing to call Tradition the Interpreter, another to call it a main help in inter
pretation of Scripture, In the former sense it would be to us in place of the
Scriptures ; In the latter it is a witness and handmaid to them.
2 Hist, of the Arians, p. 57. a gee British Critic No. 51. '- Ib, 65.

195
is in comparison with the Philosophy of Plato.
Hence, because the Church of Rome requires this
implicit faith in the Church, not sending her sons to
the Scriptures, but requiring them to hear Avhat
they contain by and on her testimony, it "must be al
lowed the praise, that it ivas ever distinguished as a
pillar of the truth," so that "the Romanist cannot fail
to think it a great defect in the English Church,
that she has no authoi'itative voice of he7' own, and
cannot put forth the Bible in the 7iame ofthe English
Church; and therefore is driven to make the Bible
stand by itself, by a cumbrous apparatus qf Evi
dences."^ Hence it is maintained that "young men,"
catechumens, "though they may not be able formally
to state the ground of their faith, yet they do receive
it, whether they would say so or not, on the authority
ofthe Church." Hence also it is said to be "natural
and proper that youth should have a comparatively
external knowledge of religion. Do AA'hat we will, we
cannot make its knowledge other than external — the
opinions of youth are not so much in religion, as
about religion."^ "When therefore youth, in due
season make a right religious choice, it is not owing
to clearness of intellect, &c., but to the possession of
certain habitual ways of thinking and feeling, which
we are not ashamed to call wholesome prejudices, con
stituting our notion ofthe believing temper." ^ Thus
we come round again tothe "instinctive faith" which
precedes baptism, faith in the Church, faith Avithout
distinct knowledge; engaged only upon the external
of religion, the naked assent of the catechumen of the
'See British Critic No, 64. 2 Ib. p. 64. ^Ib. p. 41,

196
Church of Rome. And this is all that is required of
a sinner prior to being Baptized ! !
4. That Faith, instead of being in any sense an
instrument of Justification in Baptism, is itself first
Justified, made Regenerate, and living, by Baptism.
Thus, says Mr. Newraan.
" Faith being the appointed representative of Baptism, derives its
authority and virtue from that which it represents. It is justifying
because of Baptism ; it is the faith of the Baptized — of the regene
rate ; that is, of the Justified. Faith does not precede Justification ;
but justification precedes it, and makes it justifying. Baptism is the
primary instrument, and creates faith to be what it is, and otherwise
is not, giving it power and rank, and constituting it as its own suc
cessor. Each has its own office. Baptism at the time. Faith ever
after — the Sacraments, the instrumental. Faith the sustaining
cause."' 5, That Faith wlien regenerate and justified in
Baptism, is not such a trust in the divine mercy as
apprehends, embraces, or lays hold on the righteous
ness of Christ for remission of sins, and thus justifies
the soul before God.
Now we have not been accustomed to such lan
guage. In King Edward the Sixth's Catechism,
faith is said to be "trust alone, that doth lay hand
upon" the righteousness of God. "" The Homilies say
that faith is "a sure t7'ust of the mercy of God
through Christ," and " sends us to Christ;" "joins us
to Christ," " makes him our 07vn, and applies his
merits ;" that by faith we " e^nbrace Christ;" thatby
this " we touch hira with our raind and receive hira
with the hand of the heart;" Hooker says, " This is
the only hand which putteth on Christ for Justifica-
¦ Newman's Lect. p. 260. 2 Fathers of Eng. Ch. ii, p, 344.

197
tion;" so precisely says Usher. Beveridge says it
consists in a fiducial reliance or dependence upon
Christ for th« pardon of our sins, in a particular
manner;" it is "to trust, depend and confidently rely
upon Christ for salvation.^ Bishop Andrewes says^
" By faith Abraham took hold of Christ, and that
faith was accounted to hira for righteousness, and
to us shall be, if we be, in like sort, apprehensive of
hira. There is a double apprehension ; one of St.
Paul, the other of St. Jaraes ; work for both hands to
apprehe7%d; both love which is by faith, and faith
which worketh by love, (Sanctification and Justifica
tion.)^ In divers places. Bishop Andrewes illustrates,
as do the Horailies and Bishop Hooper, &c. &c,, the
faith justifying, by the looking of the Israelites upon
the brazen serpent; thus from Andrewes: "Foras
much as it is Christ, his own self, that resembling his
passion on the cross to the Brazen Serpent, maketh
a correspondence between their beholding and our
believing, we cannot avoid, but must needs make that
an effect," &c.^ Thus the good Bishop calls faith " the
eye of our hope f Leighton, " the seeing faculty of the
soul, which, as it is that which discerns Christ, so it
alone appropriates Chi'ist or makes him our own;"^ and
Andrewes again : " As from the Brazen Serpent no
virtue issued to heal, but unto them that steadily
beheld it, so neither doth there from Christ, but upon
those that with the eye of Faith have their contem
plation on this object, ivho thereby draw life from
hira." =

1 Sermon.5, No. 134. 2 Andrewes' Sermons, p. 3. » Andrewes'
Sermons, p. 324. ¦• On I Peter, c. ii, v, 7, 8, ^ Sermons, p. 222.

198
But all this is directly denied of faith, in Oxford
divinity, " It would seem (says Mr, NoAvman) that
Luther's doctrine, now so popular, that Justifying
faith is trust, comes first, justifies by itself, and then
gives birth to all graces, is not tenable; such a faith
cannot he, and if it could, 7vould not justify."^ Dr.
Pusey treats as Ultra-Protestant, the vieAV " that
Justifying Faith is nothing else than a reliance
(fiducia) on the divine mercy, remitting sins for
Christ's sake."^ And Mr. Newman: " Because the
Brazen Serpent healed by being looked at, they con
sider that Christ's sacrifice saves by the mind's con-
templati7ig it; (the very Avords of AndrcAves.) This
is what they call casting themselves upon Christ,
coming before him simply, and Avithout self-trust and
being saved by faith" "Christ's cross does not jus
tify us by being looked at, but by being applied ; not
by being gazed at in faith, but by being actually set
up within us. Men sit and gaze and speak of the
great atonement, and think this is appropriating it.
Men say that faith is an apprehending and apply
ing ; faith can7iot really apply it."^
Such is asserted by these divines to be the doctrine
of our Homilies and standard divines. We shall see
more clearly how far this is true by and by.
6. That Faith, after it has become regenerate and
living, by being Baptized, so as to be joined and dig
nified with hope and love, only continues, or sustains,
the Justification, or infusion of Righteousness receiv
ed in Baptism ; but this, not in any proper sense, as

' Lectures, p. 293. 2 Letter to Bishop of Oxford, p. 46. ^Lectures,
pp. 202, 203.

199
an instrument applying by itself the righteousness
of Christ, but only as joined with all other Christian
virtues and works.
Now it is to this faith, after Baptism, that all the
instrumentality, in Justification, is ascribed by these
divines, so far as any is ascribed to Faith.' — This is
said to be the " sole internal instrument" of Justifica
tion. "The merits of Christ applied in Baptism
by the Spirit, are said to be received by a living
faith." "Justification comes through the Sacra
ments; is received by Faith and lives in obedience."'
Mr. N. says, " On all accounts, from the instances,
statements and analogy of Scripture we may safely
conclude that there is a certain extraordinary and
singular sympathy betAveen faith and the grant of
gospel privileges, such as to constitute it, in a true
sense, an instrument of Justification." Now then we
expect to find that faith becomes at last really and
peculiarly an Instrument, " in a true sense," and as
such, having had no hand in Justification before
Baptism, except as Restitution has, is noAv honoured
Avith some instrumentality after Baptism, which
other gifts and graces and Avorks have not! But
we are doomed to entire disappointment.

' Pusey's Letter, pp. 42,43.
The reader will naturally ask how faith, even after Baptism, can be " the sole
internal instrument of Justification," when Justification must precede, in order
to make it a lively faith 1 how the merits of Christ, applied in Baptism, can be
received by a lively faith, when faith is not, and cannot, according to this divi
nity, be lively till after, and in consequence of i\\e prior application of those
merits; how Justification, coming by the sacraments, " js received by faith,"
when faith before Justification, has no hand wherewith to receive, but that
which is dead, and must, in baptismal justification, be itself raised from the
dead. These are questions without answers.

200
First we ask in Avhat sense is faith justifying after
Baptism? "Such (says Mr. N.) is justifying faith,
justifying not the ungodly, hut the just, whom God
has justified, when ungodly," "justifying the just, as
being the faith of the Justified" (271,2). What an
honour is here conferred on faith, that it makes
those righteous who are righteous already ! This
language is explained as far as it can be by the fol
loAving : " Justification needs a perpetual instrument
such as faith can and Bapti.sin cannot be. — Faith
secures to the soul continually those gifts Avhich Bap
tism p7-imarily convej^s. — The Sacraments are the
immediate, faith is the secondary, subordinate, or re
presentative instrument of Justification. Or Ave may
say, varying our mode of expression, that the Sacra
ments are its instrumental, and Faith its sustaining
cause" (p. 260). Thus Ave get to the point. — Faith
is only representatirchj justifying ; only as it acts in
the name, by authority, and as the instrument, or
servant, of Baptism, and thus sustaining what Bap
tism begun ; so that on the principle qui facit per
aliam, facit per se, it is only baptism justifying still.
Noav here arises a very grave question for this sys
tem to ansAver. According to Dr. Pusey and this
school, in full agreement Avith the Church of Rome
on this head, what they call Sin after Baptism, or
Mortal Sin, necessarily destroys the virtue of Bap
tism, removes its Justification, makes it unjustifica-
tion. Faith then has lost it.s power to sustain AA'hat
Baptism gave, can no more act as its representatiA'e,
because it is hoav dead again, by sin, and needs again
to be raised, regenerated and justified before it can
be in a condition to be an in.strument in any Avay of

201
Justification. Such Dr. Pusey supposes may have
been the case of Simon Magus. In his zeal to sup
port the opus operatum of Baptism, in every case in
Avhich the recipient may not be supposed to have
been an infidel or a hypocrite, he supposes that Simon
may have been indeed regenerated and justified in
his Baptism, though so soon afterwards, he was de
clared by St. Peter to be "in the gall of bitterness
and in the bonds of iniquity," But only his faith
did not sustain his Justification; it proved an un
faithful representative, is the explanation.'
Now the question is, how, in the case of Sin after
Baptisra, which is no other than the universal case
of those who have been baptized in infancy, how is
Justification to be renewed?
The answer raust be, not by faith, for that, by the
supposition, is now dead again, and incapable of acting
as the Representative of Baptism. And Baptism can
not be repeated. So that faith has no hope. Some
other way must be ascertained, if possible, for the re
newal of Justification.
Mr. Newman meets the difficulty by making both
sacraraents instruraents of Justification. Thus sin
after Baptism is remitted in the Eucharist. But
here is the difiiculty in such a scheme : How is the
poor sinner to come to the Eucharist? By Faith, of
course. But, alas, his faith is now dead, and there
is no more Baptism to revive it — so that if he come
to the Lord's Supper, and does truly and spiritually
receive the body and blood of Christ to his soul's
health — to his justification, it must be with a dead

' Pusey's Views of Holy Baptism, p. 185.
26

202
faith, such as, according to Mr N., is not even neces
sarily a moral virtue, has no moral excellence, any
raore than the devil's faith. From this result there
is no escape.' But possibly Mr. N. does not desire
an escape; for why is a dead faith any the less meet
preparation for the Lord's Supper, than for Baptisra,
when in both we receive the body and blood of
Christ, by putting on Christ, in one, and feeding on
him, in the other ? It is sufficiently revolting as to
either. But what more revolting than "to adminis
ter the Lord's Supper to infants, or to the dyi7ig and
apparently insensible?" And yet, say Oxford Tracts,
"neither practice is without the sanction of primitive
usage"^ — of course, then, not without the sanction of
Oxford Divinity, for the primitive usage is its laAv.
Then if these gentlemen are prepared to give the
Eucharist to Infants and the insensible, it is proba
bly, no objection in Mr. Newman's vieAv, to a system,
that it requires, in certain cases, that the same be
administered to a dead faith. Mr. Palmer, however,
though of this school, seems not to be quite ready for
such an extreme, and yet cannot very positively go
against it. On the question, whether those who
have not a living faith can receive the Eucharist to
their soul's health, he cautiously remarks that, since
we read in the Scriptures, "he that eateth 7ny flesh,
4-c., hath everlasting life, therefore the Church re
gards it as the more pious and probable opinion that
those who are totally devoid of true and lioely faith,
do not partake of the holy flesh of Christ in the Eu-
' For as the benefit is great, if wilh a true penitent heart, and lively faith, we
receive that holy sacrament, so is the danger great if we receive the same un
worthily." — Commimion Office. 2 Views of Holy Baptism, p. 5.

203
charist, God withdrawing from them so divine a
gift.'" This, indeed, is a most singularly moderate
opinion. But it cuts off" Mr. Newman's mode of
escape frora the difficulty in which " Sin after Bap
tism" involves the system. It forbids the use ofthe
Eucharist as a Justifying ordinance, in the case of
one whose faith by such sin has relapsed into death.
Now, the necessity of this, Dr. Pusey understands ;
so that he does not pretend that the Eucharist can
justify in such a case, nor does he at all shrink from
the consequence ; but, more boldly carrying out the
systera to its results, than Mr. Newman seems ready
for, he freely, and in several places acknowledges, as
well in the Tracts, as in his Letter to the Bishop of
Oxford, that "there are but two periods of absolute
cleansing — Baptism, and the Day of Judgment — and
as the Church "has no second Baptism to give" — so
in the case of the sinner supposed, "she cannot pro
nounce him altogether free from his past sins — she
therefore teaches him continually to repent, that so
his sins may be blotted out, though she has no com
mission to tell him absolutely that they are."^
Thus Dr. Pusey has no way of justification in
this life for Sin after Baptisra ; though Mr. New
man thinks he has, in the Eucharist — unless, how
ever, we are mistaken in his use of words, when he
calls the Eucharist a justifying sacrament. He
may mean, with the Roraanist, only that it takes
away venial sins — not mortal.
Now let us see how Romanism surmounts the

• Palmer's Treatise on the Church, vol, 1, p, 529, ^Letter p. 62.
Tract No. 79, pp. 7 & 32. No. 80, p. 46.

204
difficulty. According to the system of Rome and
that of Oxford, sin after Baptism destroys Justifi
cation, and makes a living faith to be dead. The
doctrine of Rome agrees Avith Dr. Pusey in denying
that Justification from such sin can be obtained in the
Eucharist, on the ground that he Avho is spiritually
dead ought not to receive that spiritual food Avhich
is only forthe living, and cannot be united to Christ.'
Still, however, the Eucharist is called in Romish
language a Justifying Sacrament, as is also' Extreme
Unction, and as sprinkling with holy water, and the
Episcopal Benediction, are called in Romish Divinity
Justifying ordinances ; but their efficacy is only for
the remission of venial sins, such as the Church of
Rome says "have not propeidy the nature of sm''
How then does the Church of Rome provide for
sin after Baptism? She invents a Sacrament for
its reraission — viz. : that of Penance, which consists
of contrition, confession and satisfaction, with the
absolution of the Priest. Without this, it is abso
lutely unpardonable. The tendency of the Oxford
systera to the sarae contrivance will be raore raani-
fest by and by.
Now let us return, and since we have seen that
Faith is considered as being justifying after Baptisra
as "the sole internal inst)-unient of Jusiificaiion," and
as doing this however only as the secondary, subor
dinate, representative insti'ument of Baptism, let us

1 Quicunque habet conscientiam mortalis peccati, habet in se impedimentum
percipiendi effectum hujus sacramenti, tum quia non vivit spiritualitcr et ita
non debet spiriluale nutrimentum suscipere, quod non est nisi viventis ; tum
quia non potest uniri Christo dum est in affectu peccandi mortaliter. — Unde in
illo qui ipsum percipit in conscientia peccati mortalis, non operator remissionem
peccati. Aquinas P. 1, 2. Q. 78. A 3. 2 Ib. Q. 71. A. 4 & Q. 87, A. 3.

205
enquire how far it is really an instrument in any
sense other than that in which all other graces are
instruraents, Mr, Newman says " It is a symbol
of the nature and mode of our Justification, or of its
history; and hence is said by Protestant divines
to justify only that our minds may be affected with
a due sense of their own inability to do any good
thing of themselves" (278), The Representative
is now exhibited as a stjmbol of Baptism, sustain
ing Justification symbolically; that is, an "inward,
and spiritual grace," is the symbol of " an outward
and visible sign," This is at least new, " This sym
bol, faith, (Mr. N, continues,) is said to justify
(the italics are his), not that it really justifies
more than other graces; but it has this peculiar
ity, that it signifies in its very nature, that nothing
of ours justifies us ; or it typifies the freeness of our
Justification. Faith heralds forth divine grace, and its
narae is a sort of representative of it, as opposed to
works. Hence it may well be honoured above the
other graces, and placed nearer Christ than the
rest, as if it were distinct from them, and before
them, and above them, though it be not. It is suita
bly said to justify us, because it says itself that it
does not — so to speak, as a sort of reward to it." (2f81)
Thus we are gravely told that faith is rewarded for
something, by being said to justify, when it- does
not — as if it were some little child to be amused
with a narae and honoured by a bauble, and deceiv
ed by a fraud, " It is but said, (Mr, N. says again)
to be the sole justifier, and that Avith a view to incul
cate another doctrine, not said, viz.: that all is
of grace" (282). "It is plain that 'faith only'
does not apprehend, apply, or appropriate Christ's

206
merits; but it only preaches them" (283). The
symbol is now a Preacher. Because our Homily of
Salvation says " The very true meaning of this pro
position or saying, Ave be justified by faith only, &c.
Mr. N. concludes from thence that " Justification by
faith only is here said to be a saying" — and makes
this illustrative remark, "Consider how astonished
and pained we should be Avere the doctrine of the
atonement, or Christ's divinity said to be a proposi
tion or saying" (285). Alas ! Alas!
We have now reached this point that the faith
which is "the sole mtoiza/ instrument" of Justifica
tion, the Representative, and Symbol, and Preacher
of Justification, does not really justify any more than
other graces; but is only said to do so. Justification
by Faith is only "a saying" Now Ave are prepared
for further light. Mr. N. asks, " why faith should
cease to be justifying faith, if called love or obedience ?"
(300.) " It justifies as including all other graces and
works in and under it," (346.) "Works vicAved as
one with faith, are in one sense instruments too, as
being connatural with faith and indivisible from it,
organs throug-h Avhich it acts and which it hallows —
instruments Avith faith of the continuance of Justifi
cation" (349). Thus, "Justification by obedience,"
is the " distinguishing tenet" of this divinity. Mr.
N, speaks therefore of " love being imputed for righte
ousness." We are now ready to interpret the select de
finition furnished by Dr, Pusey in his Letter, (App.
p. 20,) but taken from Mr. NcAvman, that "we are
justified by obedience in the shape of faith f that is,
really by obedience, apparently by faith; faith, the
saying; obedience, the doing ; faith, the symbol; obe-

207
dience, the thing. And thus also of that other ac
count, that " Justification is received by faith — lives
in obedience ;" in which the sustaining instrumen
tality of faith is taken away from the symbol, and
ascribed to the substance. The Avhole is sumraed
up by Dr. Pusey in these words — "Justification by
faith, is Justification by God's free grace in the Gos
pel, as opposed to every thing out of the Gospel;'"
not by faith as distinguished from works, but as op
posed to whatever is "out ofthe Gospel."
Such honour then has faith in Oxford Divinity.
That grace which stands out so conspicuously in the
language of the Saviour and of his Apostles, and
is connected with every thing in salvation, so that we
"hve by faith," "stand by faith," "Avalk by faith,"
are " kept by the power of God, through faith, unto
salvation;" condemned if we have it not; not con
demned if we have it; faith, that is spoken of in the
Scriptures a hundred times, Avhere Baptism is once,
which fills whole series of discourses of our great
divines, Avhen Baptism is not mentioned ; that very
distinguished grace, acknowledged by Mr. N. to be
represented in the Scripture as having "a certain ex
traordinary and singular sy7npatliy with the grant of
gospel privileges," is first degraded to a dead, inopera
tive thing, before Baptism, such as even devils have ;
into a mere symbol of Baptism, after Baptism; a jus
tifying instrument, only in being said to be Avhat it
is not — obedience being the real and only internal
instrument. We call Bishop Beveridge to deliver
his testimony against such doctrine.
'Views of Holy Baptism, p. 22,

208
" Although Faith be always accompanied with obedience and good
works, so as that it can never be without them, yet in the matter of
our Justification, it is always opposed to them by St. Paul. And
indeed lo look to be justified by such a faith, which is the same wilh
obedience, or which is all one, lo be justified by our obedience, is to
take all our hopes and expectations from Christ, and to place them
upon ourselves — and therefore this notion of Faith overthrows the
very basis and foundaiion of the Christian Religion."
The Bishop ascribes the doctrine we have exhibit
ed to Socinians, aa-Iio hold he says, that
" Justifying or Saving Faith is nothing else but obedience sincerely
performed lo the Law of God ; so that Good U'orks are not the
Fruit of Faith, but constitute the very form and essence of it."
" This contradicts the whole tenor of the Gospel and the grand de
sign of Christ's coming into the world, and of all that he hath done
or suffered for us."*
Socinians and Roraanists are not wide apart on the
subject of Justification and Faith. A A-eil of mystical
words, and the opus operatum of Sacraments, is nearly
all that separates them. It is quite refreshing to dip
into such doctrine as that of Beveridge, after all the
shadows, and symbols, and vain show of faith, in
which we have been so lon<? Avalking-, But itis with
far other feelings that we recur to what we cannot
but consider the improperly resei'ved language of Dr.
Pusey, quoted from Mr, Newman, and adopted as
his own, viz :
"The instrumental power of Faith cannot interfere wilh the in
strumental power of Baptism ; because Faith is the sole justifier, not
in contrast lo all means and agencies whatever, (for it is not surely
in contrast to our Lord's merits, or God's mercy,) but to all other
graces. When then. Faith is called the sohinstr'umerit, this means
the sole internal instrument, not the sole instrument of any kind."^

1 Beveridge's Sermons, No. 134. = Pusey's Letters, 43, 44.

209
From the ground we have gone over, all this is
evidently mere words. Faith before Baptism is, in
this divinity, no instrument at all, because dead. In
Baptism, it is no instrument at all, because not made
alive till Baptism is completed. After Baptism, itis
an instrument of Justification, only as it sustains
what Baptisra has already effected, and which, when
lost, it cannot renew. And even in that instrumen
tality, it is not a sole instrument, but is instrumental
only as all other graces are also ; and it is only said
to be the sole instrument, as a reward for something
peculiar to itself, which we do not pretend to under
stand. Such is the whole internal and sole instru
mentality of that Faith which St, Paul speaks of
when he says : " Being Justified by faith we have
peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ."

27

CHAPTER VII.
THE DOCTRINE OF OXFORD DIVINITY, AS TO THE DOCTRINE AND EFFI
CACY OF THE SACRAIMENTS, ESPECIALLY OF BAPTISM, COMPARED
WITH THAT OF THE ROMISH CHURCH.
Tendency of all such principles, as that of Justification in Oxford Divinity, to
magnify external ceremonies, and ultimately to make all religion consist in
them — This tendency prominent in regard to the Sacraments — Baptismal
Justification similarly held by the Romish Church and the divines of Oxford —
The opus operatum of Baptism held alike by both — Effect of this, the same
in both, in keeping out of view the truth, that the Sacraments are signs, and
identifying the visible sign with the invisible grace — The tendency to tran
substantiation, in Oxford Divinity, explained from the same cause, — The
false and injurious comparison between the spiritual nature ofthe Sacraments
of the Old and New Testaments, resulting alike from Romish and Oxford
Divinity — Extract from Jeremy Taylor — Limbus Patrum — Bishop Burnet on
Sacramental Justification,
In proceeding further to show that the fundamental
doctrine of Oxford Divinity, as to a righteousness in
herent for Justification, is so identical with that of
Rome, in ramification, as Avell as root, that it affects
the same subordinate doctrines, in precisely the same
way, and with reference to the same ends, we pro
ceed from the doctrine of Faith, to that of the Sacra
ments, and especially of Baptism,
We have found that Justifying Faith, like Justi
fying Righteousness in this system, is a matter of
works altogether ; that the latter is Sanctification,
and the former is justifying only as it Avorks by love
and other graces ; that is, as it works by Sanctifica
tion, Thus Justification by faith, is Justification by
all the Clmstian' s privileges and gifts — since they are
all a part of the faith bestowed on one who embraces

212
the mercies of God, in Christ, and through the Sa
craments is made a partaker of His life. "It is Justi
fication by God's free grace in the Gospel, as opposed
to every thing out of the GospeV^ The amount then
is, that Justification by laitli, through God's free
grace, means nothing more nor less than Justification
by Clwistianity .
Now the moment a system of religion gets thus to
rest in Avorks for Justification before God, its strong
tendency, unless fortuitously directed otherwise, is
to run into reliance on external Avorks, because they
are tangible, appreciable ; they can be counted and
distinctly grasped for refuge, Avhile internal holiness
is just the reverse. Hence, while all corrupt sys
tems of Christianity, have talked much of inherent
righteousness, inward holiness, &c., their real Avork
ing, in the long run, has been most grossly to neglect
the iuAvard work of religion, and make the whole
business of salvation consist in external observances;
and the more they have resulted in this, the more
has the outward show of devotion increased, and the
power and efficacy of external symbols and gestures
been magnified. All this is natural. We could
make the whole aspect of our congregations at once
as devout and prostrate in the dust, as that of a
Romish Monastery, or a Mohammedan Mosque, era
Hindoo Temple, were we only to make them tho
roughly to believe, as Papists, and Mohammedans,
and Hindoos, thatby our works we are to make our
selves acceptable. But what, in such an experi
ment, we should gain, in outward exhibitions of de-
' Pusey's Views of Baptism, p, 22,

213
votion, we should lose in that inward holiness, with
out which no man shall see the Lord. " We are the
circu7ncis'ion," (we are the true Christians) says St,
Paul, " which 7Vor ship God in the Spiiit, and rejoice
in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the fiesh."
The first indication of the tendency referred to,
after adopting a righteousness of works, is to the un
due magnifying of the office and efficacy of the Sa-
crame7its.
How this appears in Oxford Divinity, in compari
son with its phases in that of Rome, we now pro
ceed to show.
It is notoriously the doctrine of the Trent Decrees,
that Baptism is " the only instrumental cause" of Jus
tification ; so absolutely necessary thereto, that with
out it Justification is obtained by none. ' That this is
precisely the doctrine, and a great distinguishing
doctrine of the Oxford School, there can be no
need, after all our previous showing, of bringing any
passages to prove. Justification in Baptism, and
only there, is the sole subject of a whole volume
of Oxford Tracts, called " Scriptural Views of Holy
Baptis7n." The only exception to this absolute ne
cessity which is granted to have occurred in ancient
times, is considered as not applicable in our days.^
I Instrumentalis causa — Sacramentum Baptism! sine quo, nuUi unquain justi-
ficatio contingit. — Concil. Trident. Sess, vi,
2 "Fai(h considered as an instrument is always secondary to the sacraments.
The most extreme case in which it seems to supersede them, is not found in
oun OWN, but in the ancient Church ; in which the faith of persons dying in
the state of catechumens was held to avail to their reception, in death, into that
kingdom of which Baptism is the ordinary gate."
In the absolute necessity of Baptism to salvation, Mr, N, seems to exceed
some Romanists. The latter deny not salvation to such as have desired bap-

214
It is equally notorious that, in the view of the
Church of Rome, Baptismal Justification consists in
an infusion of righteousness by Avhich all original
sin in Infants, and all actual sin, as Avell as original
in adults, is entirely remitted. The remission of
Original Sin, which is the corruption of our nature,
is held to be, not in the sense of not being imputed,
but in that of bei7ig taken a7vay hy extinction.
There is no necessity of occupying space with the
shewing that this is also precise Oxfordism. The
advocates of this system do not pretend to any dis-
tism, but died without it ; but in strange inconsistency with their doctrine con
cerning the deadness of faith, and the necessary absence of love in all faith,
which precedes Baptism, allow that such persons may have internal Sanctifica
tion, and snch a desire of Baptism as proceeds from faith -working by love, and
therefore living and justifying. First, Aquinas says that Baptism is necessary,
simply and absolutely as food is to life; non, sine quo non habetur finis ita con-
venienter, sicut equus necessarius est ad iter; sed sini[)liciter sicut cibus est
necessarius vitse humans. He then cites Augustine as saying that invisible
Sanctification might be possessed, and might be availing without the visible sa
crament: but that she visible Sanctification by the visible sacrament, without
the invisible Sanctification, though it might be possessed, could not profit. lu-
visibilem Sanctificattonem quibusdam afl'uisse et profuisse, sine visibilibus sa-
cramentis; visibilem vero Sanctificationem, quae fit Sacramento \isibili, sine in-
visibili poste adesse, sed non posse prodesse. Hence St, Thomas concludes
that a person may obtain Salvation by invisible Sanctification, who by a desire
of Baptism has received it in wish, though not in form, which wish or desire
proceeds from faith working by love, through which God, " who is not tied to
visible sacraments," internally sanctifies the interior of the man. A'idetur sine
Sacramento baptismi aliquis possit salutem consequi per invisibilem sanctifica
tionem — minime salvari possunt qui nee re, nee veto sacramentum susceperinf ;
qui vero salutem voto sacram. Baptismi susccperint, eti non re, salvari possunt.
Cum aliquis baptizari desiderat, sed aliquo casu prcevenitur morte — talis sine
baptismo actuali salutem consequi potest, propter desiderium baptismi quod
procedit ex fide per dilectionem operante; per quam" Deus interius honiinia
sanctificat, cujus potenlia sacramentis visibilibus non allogatur. But such a
person must go to Purgatory, however. Talis decedens non statim pervenit
ad vitam eternam, sed patietur poenam pro peccatis prietcritis ; ipse tamen salvus
erit, sed quasi igrie. — P. 1, 2.Q. 65. A. 4. 2.

215
tinction on this point between their views and Ro
manisra, The reader is uoav requested to observe that what
is called the opus operatum, in the Romish doctrine
of the Sacraments, is found in all its offensive sub
stance in Oxford divinity. This we proceed to
shoAv, In the scholastic lano-uag^e of Romanism, there are
do '
tAVO technical expressions Avith regard to the efficacy
of the Sacraments, viz : opus operans and opus opera
tum. The expression that the Sacraments confer
grace ex opere operante, means that their efficacy re
quires in the recipient, a preparatory state of inward
piety; that is precisely what avc are accustomed to
understand by the Repentance and Faith required
for the Baptism of Adults, Such was the efficacy of
the Sacraments of the Jewish Church, according to
the Chvirch of Rome ; Abraham having been justi
fied by faith, while in uncircumcision. But the effi
cacy of the Sacraments of the Christian Church, is
exalted above that of those which went before, in
this, viz. that they confer grace, ex opere operato; by
which is raeant that no previous preparation of in
ternal piety, such as that of a living faith, is required
in the recipient ; so that, says Chemnitz, the School
men made a general rule that in order to receive the
grace of the Sacraments, unto Salvation, it is not
necessary that you have faith, that is to say, a good
internal affection of heart, (a living faith); but it is
sufficient that you place no obstacle in the way. The
opus operatum then is simply the efficacy of the Sa
craments, without respect to the state of the recipient,
except that he do not shut up his soul against them.

216
He may be entirely negative as to all spiritual affec
tion, and still the efficacy aviII remain. This does
not mean that in the Adult recipient of Baptism no
faith is required, but that it need not be a living
faith; it may be dead, inoperative, and yet be no
hindrance to the Sacramental efficacy. Neither is
it contended in the Church of Rome, that the efficacy
is not by the sole poAver of God, making the Sacra
ments thus mighty, and that for Christ's sake, and in
application of his merits. '

1 The whole preparation required in the Church of Rome for adult Baptism
is thus expressed in the catechism of the Council of Trent — "If they have
been born of infidel parents," (the children of Christians being supposed to
have been baptized in infancy) "the Christian faith is to be proposed" — "If
converted to the Lord," (that is if they renounce infidelity) they are to be
admonished not to defer Baptism beyond the time appointed by the church; and
they are to be taught that in their regard perfect conversion (that is the spirit
ual work) consists in regeneration by Uaptism." " The Church must take par
ticular care, that none approach this sacrament whose hearts are vitiated by
liypocrysy and dissimulation'' (the obe.r or impediment of the schoolmen), —
" The necessary dispositions for Baptism are, that in the first place, they must
desire and purpose to receive it-, for as in Baptism we die to sin and engage to
lead a new life, it is fit to be administered to those only who receive it of their
own free will and accord, and is to be forced on none." Faith for the same
reason is also necessary — (not a living faith, for that comes by Baptism).
" Another necessary condition is compunction for past sins, and a fixed deter
mination to refrain from their future commission.'^ The reason ofihis is that
when many on the day of Pentecost were " compunct in heart," Peter said to
them " do penance and be baptized." Thus we have a desire to be baptized, a
dead faith and compunction {not contrition) for sins, composing all the requi
sites for Baptism. Devils have compunction as well as faith — for they " be
lieve and tremble." For the Sacrament of Penance, which is for the remission
of" sin after Baptism" contrition, confession and satisfaction " are required —
for Baptism only compunction." — See Catechism of Council of Trent, p. 164,
167, and p, 241,
Aquinas defining the faith required for Baptism says that though a person
should not have a right faith as to other articles, he may have it as to Baptism ;
and thus he may have the intention to receive Baptism, But even though
he should not think correctly concerning this sacrament, u, general intention is

217
This opus operatum has ever been considered,
among Protestants, a dark and deadly plague-spot of
Popery, But is not this precisely the doctrine of
Oxford Divinity as to the efficacy of Baptism? The
reader need but refer to Avhat has been shewn,
under the head of Faith, to perceive, without a
doubt, that Baptism is considered, in that scheme,
as efficacious to Justification in the Adult recipient,
without any faith except such as devils may have,
as Avell as we. He is made righteous by Baptisra,
from being, up to the time of Baptism, unrighteous.
A living faith, working by love, is begotten in Bap
tism, and is expressly said, not to precede, but to fol
low it. Further evidence cannot be needed than

sufficient for its reception; because though he know nothing correctly about it,
he intends to receive it as Christ appointed, and the Church has handed it
down, Etiam non habens rectam fidem circa alios articulos, potest habere rec-
tam fidem circa sacramentum bap. et ita non impeditur quin possit habere
intentionem suscipiendi sacramentum bap. Sitamen etiam circa hoc sacra
mentum non recte sentiat, sufficit ad perceptionem sacramenti generatis inten-
tio, quia intendit suscipere baptismum, sicut Christus instituit et Ecclesia tra-
dit.— P, 1,2, Q. 67, Q. 8.
Thus the most general assent, a mere profession of faith, in whatever may
be asserted by the Church, without knowing any thing about it, is the whole
requirement for Baptism. Aquinas teaches no more concerning the repent
ance required. He says Penitentia ante baptismum est actus virtutis dispo-
nens ad sacramentum baptismi ; it is an act of virtue disposing one to Baptism.
This is precisely what he and Mr, Newman say of the dead faith before Bap
tism, Of course, if faith is dead, repentance must be also. Hence Romanists
call it mere attrition, that is, a sort of penitence, resulting only from fear,
having no love to God, which is the distinguishing feature of contrition.
Thus Aquinas : Antequam gratia infundatur non est habitus a quo actus contri-
tionis postea elicitur ; est sic nullo modo attritio, potest fieri contritio. " Before
grace is poured into the heart (in Baptism) there is no habit from which the act
of contrition may be elicited ; and thus in no way can attrition became contri
tion."— Van 3. Supp. Q, 2, A. 3,
28

218
this, that in the opus operatum of Baptism, the two
schemes of Rome and Oxford are one.
But further, in consequence of the doctrine of the
Church of Rome, as to the immediate efficacy of the
Sacraraents, it is Avell knoAvn that nothing is more
studiously kept out of vicAv, as pertaining to Baptism,
and the Lord's Supper, than that they are signs of
grace; the one a sign of Regeneration, instead of
Regeneration itself — the other a sign of the body and
blood of Christ, instead of being the body and blood
itself It is true, that in the defining of Sacraments in
general, the definition of Augustine is adopted — that
" a Sacrament is a visible sig7i of an invisible grace.'"
But when they come to the definition of Baptism,
the word, sign, is omitted, and it is defined as " the
Sacrament of Regeneration." How essentially the
idea of sign is dropped by the doctrine of a substan
tial transubstantiation in the Eucharist, need not be
said. But the connection between their doctrine of
Justification and their view of the substantial pre
sence of Christ in the Eucharist, may not be gene
rally perceived, " They Avere not willing to conceive,
(says Jackson,) hoAv Christ's body and blood could
have any real operation upon our souls, unless they
were so locally present, as that they might agree per
contactum, that is to purge our souls by Oral Mandu-
cation, as physical medicines do," (which is the pre
tended use of Transubstantiation.) Now, is not this
the explanation of that singular effort of Oxford Di
vinity, to keep out of sight, as much as possible, and
' Catechism of Trent,

219
in a most subordinate position, that viev/ of the Sa
crament, which, in all our standards, is held out so
prominently, viz: that it is not grace, but the "sign"
of grace, and to fix all attention upon the real presence
of the body of Christ, in and under the Sacramental
elements, as if there were some presence, not corpo
real indeed, and local, as Romanists maintain, nor
yet simply a presence by the operations of his Spirit
conveying the spiritual benefits of his atonement to
the believing communicant, as Protestants teach ;
but some other presence, which they do not pretend to
define, but which they consider as intended by the
words " This is my body?"
Now when with this, we connect, what appears so
conspicuously in the writings of Mr, NoAvman, an
utter contempt of the idea of Justification by a
righteousness external, a something done for us 1800
years ago, and of a faith looking to the cross of Cal
vary for remission of sins, and his strong insisting
upon an inward application of the atonement, a cross
within, a present, substantial righteousness, &c. &c,,
we may see the plain bearing of his doctrine of Jus
tification upon the exclusion of the idea of signs in
the Sacrament, and the fixing of his Avhole raind
upon a " substantial" presence (as the Oxford Tracts
have not scrupled to say) of the body of Christ. In
other words, his doctrine of Justification raakes hira
unable to conceive " how Christ's body and blood
can have any real operation, unless by contact."
The idea by which Jackson, and AndrcAves, and the
Catechism of Edward sixth, not to speak of others,
explain the 7-eal presence of Christ, as distinguished
from a local presence, viz. that he is really present.

220
when present effectively, as he A^^as to the woman who
touched, not him, but his gar7nent; Avhile he was
locally, but not effectively, present to the multitude
that pressed and touched him, but who derived no
benefit, because they had no faith; this idea, carried
into application to the believer's faith, in the Eu
charist, receiving the signs of the body and blood of
Christ, and through them, ascending to heaven, and
making Christ present to it, by its being present to
him ; this sort of real presence, which is just as ap
plicable to Christ's imputed righteousness, as to his
ascended body in heaven, is too distant and abstract
and visionary for Mr. N., &c., and therefore, though
not denied perhaps, is kept out of vicAv, and the im
pression sought to be produced, is that tliere is some
mysterious presence of the body of Christ in some
other sense, which is neither that of Romanists, nor
Protestants, but (like their doctrine of an inherent
righteousness "within us, but not in us,") a substa7i-
^«'a/ presence, but not coiyoreal; a real presence of his
real body, but not a local presence ; a substa7itial pre
sence, wherever the Eucharist is administered, but
not the presence of ubiquity ; not transubstantiation ;
but the next thing to it, and acknowledging itself to
be a great deal more like transubstantiation, and evi
dently sympathising with it far more, than with the
anti-transubstantiation doctrine of Protestanism. '

' The following extract from Dr. Jackson, on the Eeal Presence of Christ in
the Eucharist, will beautifully explain iu what sense the Real Presence was un
derstood by divines of the days of Bishop Andrewes, &c. Precisely the same
illustration is used by Bishop Andrewes,
With whomsoever he is virtually present, that is, to whomsoever he com
municates the influence of his body and blood by his Spirit, he is really present

221
This aversion to signs in the sacraments, this opus
operatum-docixine is broadly declared by Dr. Pusey,
in the very teeth of the most express language of his

with them, though locally absent from them. Thus he was really present with
the woman, which was cured of her bloody issue, by touching the hem of his
garment. But not so realty present with the multitude that did throng and
press upon him, that were locally more present with him. She did not desire
so much as to touch his body with her hand, for she said in herself. If I may
but touch the hem ofhis garment, I shall be -tvhole. And yet by our Saviour's
interpretation, she did touch him more immediately than they which were
nearer unto him, which thru.it or thronged him. And the reason why she alone
did more immediately touch him than any of the rest, was, because virtue of
healing did go out from him to her alone. It is true, then, (for our Saviour
sailh it) her faith did make her whole, and yet she was made whole by the
virtue which went out from him. This was the fruit or effect of her faith — or
rather the reward or consequent of her faith. In like sort, as many as are
healed from their sins, whether by the sacrament of Baptism or the Eucharist,
are healed hy faith relatively or instrumentally. Faith is the mouth or or
gan, by which we receive the medicine: but it is the virtual influence derived
from the body and blood of Christ which properly or eSiciently doth cure our
souls and dissolve the works of Satan in us,
" This woman, as St, Matthew relates the story, had said within herself, if I
may but touch the hem of his garment I shall be whole. She wanted either
the opportunity or boldness to touch the fore part of his garment, or to come
into his sight or presence. Yet he then knew, not only, that she had touched
the hem of his garment, but that she had said this within herself, and out of his
knowledge of this her faith and humility, he did pronounce and make her whole.
Now it is but one and the same act of one and the same Divine Wisdom, to
know the heart and secret thoughts of men afar off and near at hand. And
therefore a matter as easy, for the Son of God, or for the Man Christ Jesus, in
whom the Godhead dwelleth bodily, though still remaining at the right hand of
God, to know the hearts of all such as present themselves at his Table here on
earth, as well as he knew the secret thoughts of this woman which came behind
him. What need then is there of his Bodily Presence in the Sacrament, or of
any other presence than the influence or emission of virtue from his heavenly
sanctuary unto our souls. He hath left us the consecrated elements of bread
and wine, to be unto us more than the hem of his garment, if we do but touch
and taste them with the same faith by which this woman touched the hem of
his garment. This our faith shall make us whole, and staunch the running
issues (and cleanse or cure the leprous sores) of our souls, as perfectly as it did
this woman's issue of blood. — Jackson's Works, vol. iii. p. 307,

222
own Church. Baptism, says our 27th Article, "is a
sign of Regeneration or new birth — Avhereby the
promises, &c., are visibly signed and sealed." But
Dr, Pusey says expressly, "Baptism is not a sign, but
the putting on of Christ — AA'herefore Baptisra is a
thing most poiverfid and efficacious."'^ In other
words. Baptism, instead of being the sign of regene
ration, is regeneration itself. It is in itself "most
powerful and efficacious," The Church of Rome
never exceeded this. The opus operatum was never
more decidedly and boldly expressed.
The reader may now appreciate a singular pas
sage, in Dr. Pusey's Letter, as to the Romish doctrine
of Baptism, intended to produce the impression that
as to Baptismal Regeneration and Justification, the
Romish Church and the Oxford School are not quite
agreed, the latter falling below the mark, somcAvhat
as do Ultra Protestants.
"The chief charge against Rome, as to the Sacra
ment of Baptism, is not that she has unduly exalted
it, but on the contrary that she has depreciated it.
She insists indeed on its necessity, and there leaves
it. Her members are taught to look upon Baptism
as a mere preliminary act, in the back-ground as it
were of the Christian life; the foreground, upon
which their eye is fixed, being taken up by their
Sacrament of Penance and the Eucharist. As to
Holy Baptism, Rome innovated not; and yet she
has doubly lowered it."^ One would suppose that

1 Views of Baptism, p. 102.
2 See the whole passage on p. 76, 77, of Dr. Pusey's Letter. Do not Oxford
divines commit the very same thing with which they charge the Romish Church ?

223
to lower baptisra, was to innovate. But the lowering
consists not in any lowering of Baptisra, but in a rais
ing of Penance and the Eucharist. If the reference
be, in any degree, to the position of Baptism, in its
necessity and efficacy in Regeneration or Justification,
according to the standard of Oxfordism, it is wholly
unfounded. There is not a word in the latter, as to
those points, Avhich is not to be found in Romish
writers. Thoraas Aquinas is entirely an Oxford
man, on this, as well as other matters. It would
seem to be a singular depression of Baptisra in com
parison with the Eucharist, to assign to the former
the power of remitting Moi'tal sins, and to the latter
only the remission of Venial sins, a power given
equally to holy water, the Bishop's blessing, &c.; to
make Baptism the communication of life to the dead,
and the Eucharist, only the continuation of that life.
Another manifestation of the doctrine of the sacra
ments, in which Oxfordism and Romanism singularly
concur, is seen in the entire difference draivn by them
between the Sacraments of the Old and New Testa
ments, in regard to saving efficacy.
Nothing is raore notorious than the fact that the
old, as well as the modern, divines, of the Church
of England, have regarded the sacraments of the
two dispensations; Circumcision for example, as
standing on precisely the same footing with Baptism
in regard to the spiritual part of the covenant seal
ed; in other Avords, that the only vital difference

Do they not say that " as Holy Communion conveys a more awful presence of
God than Holy Baptism, so must it be the instrument of a higher justification?"
— Newman on Justif. p. 169.

224
was in the sign ; the iuAvard and spiritual grace, sig
nified, pledged, sealed, conveyed and confirmed, Avas
precisely the same in both. On this identity, it is
well known that our divines have been accustomed
confidently to argue the propriety of Infant Baptism,
because the spiritual grace being the same, there
could be no reason why infants under the Gospel
should be excluded from Avhat infants under the
law enjoyed. But there is great inconvenience in
this identity of circumcision and baptism, to those
who hold the latter to be the only instrument of justi
fication. Abraham was justified, being uncircu7nci-
sed, says St. Paul. Consequently, if Circumcision
and Baptisra be the same, a sinner may be justified
being unbaptized. Again, the Avhole generation of
Israel that were born in the wilderness continued
uncircumcised , some of them nearly forty years ; and
this by divine command : nor was the sacrament of
circumcision given them till they had entered into
Canaan. If Justification Avas linked to circumci
sion, as we are now taught it is with Baptism, how
could all that generation be required to remain so
many years unjustified? Evidently it could not
have been ; and hence results a most inconvenient
argument against Baptismal Justification ; and how
is it to be obviated ? Very easily. Our Oxford di
vines deny that Circumcision and Baptism do bear
the spiritual resemblance mentioned above; and
holding fast the exclusive insti-umentality of Baptism
in justification, they maintain that, since the Old
Testament Saints were not baptized, they were not
ju.stified, but were in bondage, under the law and not
under grace, and received not Justification until

225
Christ came, and with him, the grace and gift of
Baptism. To this general rule Mr. Newman makes
Abraham and Eljah exceptions.
The doctrine is not only that the sacraments of
the Law did not confer grace ; but that Justification
and Regeneration Avere not conferred except in spe
cial cases before the Gospel.
" Judaism (says ]\tr. Newman) had no life, no spirit in its ordi
nances to connect earth to heaven. The law could not be the
means of life, because hfe as yet was not; il was not created. The
law could not justify, because whatever favour might be shown here
and there hy anticipation, (as in Abraham's case) was not purchased
as a free gift to all who sought it. God justified Abraham, and
glorified Elijah ; but he had not yet promised heaven lo the obe
dient or acceptance to the believing. He wrought first in the few,
what he afterwards offered lo all ; and even in those e.xlraordinary
instances he acted immediately from himself, not through the Jew
ish law as his instrument. The ceremonies (Mr. N. will not call them
sacraments) of the Law were tokens not of the presence of grace,
but of its absence — (they were not so much a means of grace before
grace was purchased.) They were attempts in a bad case towards
what was needed — lhe representative of nature making dumb signs
for the things it needed — the Jews were told lo approach God wilh
works, which could not justify, as if they could," (we suppose this
is on the plan of faith being rewarded with being said to justify
when it does not) "what to the Jews then was impossible even to
the last is imparted to us from the first. They wrought towards
Juslificalion, and we from it. They came to God with rites. He
comes to us in sacraments.'" " Regeneration is a gift ofthe Spirit
not promised except under the Gospel."'*
In the same strain. Dr. Pusey complains that we
"take what is said of Baptism, as if it inculcated
the same as circumcision."^ The new birth and re-

I Newman's Lectures, p. 325-7, ^ Ib, p 287, ' Views of Baptism, p, 103.
29

226
newal of the Holy Ghost imparted in Baptism are
something different in kind (not, the reader will
observe, in clearness of light, &c., hut in kind) from
what had been before made knoAvn — the relation of
Israel as the child of God could but shadoAV forth,
not realize, the privilege of our sonship.'" The
Flood and the Red Sea are, by Dr. Pusey, put on a
level, as ordinances, Avith Circumcision, in point of
grace. All are mere types — sacraments they are
none. " Circumcision (says Dr. Pusey) Avasno means
nor channel of spiritual grace." It was only " a
type of Baptism" — a mere "symbol" or "shadow."^
From all this it is manifest not only that the sacra
mental character is denied to circumcision, which
St. Paul says was a "seal of the righteousness by
faith, which Abraham had being uncircumcised f but
that all those aa'Iio lived before the Gospel, from
Adam dowiiAvards, with some favoured exceptions,
were -v^if^ioni regeneration, WiihovX justification, with
out any promise or acceptance of heaven, and did not
receive any, till Christ came.
Noav Simon Magus, because he received Christian
Baptism, is supposed by Dr. P. to have been Re
generated and Justified ; at least that writer sees no
reason to suppose the contrary, because he is said to
have believed, though it is not pretended that he be
lieved before Baptism, Avith a living faith, and though
an apostle so soon after pronounced him in the bonds
of iniquity.^ So also Voltaire, Rousseau, and all
other infidels and reprobates, who were baptized in
1 Views of Bap. p, 49, ^ Ib, p, 254, 3 lb, p, 1 85,

227
infancy, when they could place no impediment of infi
delity or hypocricy to the efficacy of Baptism, were
once Regenerate and Justified, entirely cleansed frora
the stain of sin, and had, as Tract No. 82, says, all
thus baptized did receive, "so super-abounding and
awful a grace tabernacled in them, that no other
words describe it more nearly than to call it an
Angel's nature," "a Divine presence in the soul,
abiding, abundant, and efficacious," distinguished
from the greatest gift of the Spirit to the saints of
the Old Testament, in this, viz: that though "he
influenced their heai'ts, he did not reside in them."^
This most distinguishing grace of Baptism which
Dr. Pusey says, "gives a depth to our Christian ex
istence, an actualness to our union to Christ, a reality
to our sonship to God, an overwhelmingness (for this
system makes words, as well as doctrines,) to the
dignity conferred on human nature — a substantiality
to the indwelling of Christ;"^ all this Simon Magus,
for aught Dr. P. sees, may have had, and fallen so
soon and aAvfully, and all this, all reprobates and
Atheists who were baptized in infancy, certainly
once possessed. But none of this, did those noble
men of God, Moses, and Noah, and Samuel, and
all that "cloud of witnesses" who, "through faith,
subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness;" "ob
tained a good report through faith," " died in faith."
Alas! No — says Oxfordism, because, says St. Paul,
"they received not the promise, God having pro
vided some better thing for us, that they without us
should not be made perfect."^ That better thing

I No. 82, pp. 13 and 14. 'A^ews of Holy Baptism, p, 16,
sHeb. xi. 39, 40.

228
says this divinity is Baptism. One would suppose a
system could hardly need a more entire condemna
tion. Dr. Pusey assigns as a reason for the usual teach
ing among Protestants of the sameness of the Sacra
ments of Circumcision and Baptism, as to the
spiritual grace consignated, "an over-anxious seeking
for some scriptural justification of infant Baptism,
since they debarred themselves from appealing to the
authority of the Church." Noav if the reader will
consult Bishop Taylor on Baptism, (whom Ave cite
because he is a great favourite with these writers,)
Part 1, Sect, ix., of his "Liberty of Prophesying,"
Sect, xviii., he Avill find not only that /(gAvasnot dis
posed to rest the Baptism of Infants on the authority
ofthe Churchjhui that in appealing to Scripture in
its favour, he places his argument upon the entire
ideritity of Circumcision and Baptism in all spiritual
respects. " Thai (he says) which is of the greatest persuasion, is that the
children ofthe (.'hurch are as capable of the same covenant as the
children of the Jews, for it was the same covenant that circumcision
did consign, a spiritual covenant, under a veil; and now it is the
same spiritual covenant without a veil.'" Circumcision " princi
pally related to an effect and a blessing greater than was afterwards
expressed in the temporal promise, which effect was forgiveness of
sins, justification by faith," " The proiTiises which circumcision did
seal, were the same promises which are consigned in Baptism."
" To as many persons, and in as many capacities, and in the same
dispositions as the promises were applied, and did relate, in circum
cision, to the same do they belonc;, and may be applied in Baptism"
— " the covenant which circumcision did sign, was a covenant of
grace and faith ; the promises, vvei-e ofthe Spirit, or spiritual.'"'
1 Bp, Taylor on Baptism, p. 1, § ix. See also Bp. Jewel on the Sacraments,
Fathers of Eng. Ch. vol. vii, p, 488, 494, Homily on Common Prayer and
Sacraments.

229
But what does our Church, in her Homilies, say?
We adduce the following passage, not to show the
truth, for it needs no showing, but to show the mis
erable shifts to which this system is driven. The
second part of the Homily on Faith, after describing
the faith of those Fathers and Martyrs, and other
holy men whom Paul spoke of, in Heb. xi. says,
" This is the Christian faith which these holy raen
had, and we also ought to have,"
"And although ihey were not named Christian men, yet was it a
Christian faith that they had : for they looked for all benefits of
God the Father, through the merits of his Son Jesus Christ, as we
now do. This difference is between them and us — that they looked
when Christ should come, and we be in the time when he is corne.
Therefore, saith St. Augustine, the lime is altered and changed,
hut not the faith. For we have both one faith, in one Christ.
The same Holy Ghost also that we have, had they, (2 Corin.
iv. 13), saith St. Paul. For as the Holy Ghost doth teach us to
trust in God, and to call upon him as our Father; so did he teach
them to say, as it is written, ' Thou, Lord, art our Father and
Redeemer; and thy name is without beginning, and everlasting.'
(Isa. Ixiii. 16.) God gave them then grace to be his children, as he
doth us now. But now, by the coming of our Saviour Christ, we
have received more abundantly the Spirit of God in our hearts;
whereby we may conceive a greater faith, and a surer trust, than
many of them had. But in effect they and we be all one: we have
the same faith ihat they had in God, and they the same that we
have." Noav is it credible that such a passage could be
produced by our Oxford Gentleraen as evidence that
the Church teaches nothing opposed to their doc
trine? It is extracted in Tract No. 82, a tract in
express defence of Dr. Pusey, on Baptismal Regene
ration, and the remarks succeeding it are a fair spe
cimen of the treatment which the standards of the

230
Church, as Avell as the Scriptures, receive from those
scholars, and logicians. Thus writes the Tracta-
rian immediately after that extract.
"Though man's duties were the same, his gifts were greater after
Christ came. Whatever spiritual aid was vouchsafed before, yet
afterwards it was a Divine presence in the soul, abiding abundant
and efficacious. In a word, it was the Holy Ghost himself, who
influenced indeed the heart before, but is not revealed as residing in
it."' But the reader will ask, in astonishment, how can
men thus write under pretence of not being incon
sistent with the standards of the Church, Avhen the
Homily says expressly, that as Ave have the Holy
Ghost, so had the Old Testament Fathers ? If he
will look at the extract from the Homily, he will
see how such things may be done. The Tract Avri
ter sets out to quote the Homilies. He begins with
the first sentence of the extract as above. Then all
that follows, and what we have distinguished by
Italics, is omitted; The very pith of the passage,
just what asserts the very opposite of his doctrine —
all omitted. But does he give us any notice of an omis
sion ? So far from it that the two sentences, next
before and after the Italics, are joined by a colon,
precisely as if they Avere members of the same sen
tence, and not a word is said, or a remark is made, to
indicate that a word of the passage has been left
out. Comment upon such shifts to hide the glarino-
departure of this Avretched coveting of popery, from
the doctrines of that Church, which these Avriters
profess to love and to be consistent Avith, is needless.
The same vicAvs of the sacraments and privileges
1 No. 82, p. xiii, Eng, Ed.

231
of the Old Testament saints which we have given
from the Horailies and Bishop Taylor may be found
every where in the divines of the English Church.
Scarcely any argument have they written on the
scriptural warrant for Infant Baptism, in which they
have not been presented. Thus are our Oxford
Restorationists constrained by their doctrine of Bap
tismal Justification into a consequence directly at
war with the most common and notorious verities of
Protestant divinity. But precisely where they do
thus differ from our Protestant divines, they agree
with those of Rome, Their very doctrine and pre
cisely their reasons are found in Romish divinity.
The Schoolmen described the difference between
the sacraments of the tAvo Testaments, by making
the efficacy of those of the New, to proceed ex opere
operato, that is without an internal piety in the re
cipient; while that of the Old, preceded ex opere
opera7ite, that is from a living faith, or a pious affec
tion of the recipient. And the Council of Florence,
confirming the opinion of the schoolmen, said that
the sacraments of the Old Testament did not con
fer grace; but as types or figures, they signified that
it was to be afterwards given through the passion of
Christ; while our sacraments both contain grace,
and confer it on those who worthily receive them.'

' Chemnitz Examen. Dec. Cone, Trid, p, 207,
The doctrine of Aquinas as to the relations between the Sacraments of the
Old Testament and the inward grace signified, is almost precisely what our
Articles express concerning that relation in the Sacraments of the Gospel  a
strong evidence not that the dignity of the former had been depressed, but that
of the latter unduly magnified. He says the Sacraments of the Old Testament
were professions of faith, signifying the passion of Christ and its benefits but
they had not any virtue in themselves by which they conferred grace, but were

232
The reader may very reasonably enquire here
what, in the view of those Avho think thus concern
ing the Old Testament Saints, did become of their
souls after death — did they go to Heaven ? Romish
divinity answers Nay — and reasonably, because they
were not regenerated nor justified, since Christ had
not died, and therefore Baptism Avas not given.
Where then? To Limbus Patrum, answers Ro
manisra. The Jesuit, Avhom Usher ansAvered, undertook to
prove, not only that there is a Limbus Patrum, but
that our Saviour descended into hell to deliver the
ancient Fathers of the Old Testament ; because, be
fore his passion, none ever entered into heaven.
Whether that Limbus were distinct from that in
which infants that die Avithout Baptism, are hoav be
lieved by the Romish Church to be received, the
divines do doubt, says Maldonat. The Dominicans

only signs of that faith by which the saints were justified. They differed from
the Sacraments of the New Testament in this, that the latter contain grace,
as in a vessel which is thus made an instrument of grace — while in the former
grace was conferred only as they were signs of the passion of Christ. Sacra-
menta veteris legis erant quaedam illius fidei protestationes, in quantum signi-
ficabant passionem Christi et effectus ejus. Sic ergo patet quod non habeiant
in se aliquam virtutem, qua operarentur ad conferendam gratiam justificationis,
sed solum signa erant fidei per rjuam justificabantur.
After giving various opinions in his day as to the efiicacy of circumcision,
showing that this doctrine was by no means then well settled, for instance one
of Peter Lombard, that circumcision took atoay sin, thougji it did not confer
grace, and another that it conferred grace so as to make one worthy of eternal
life, but not to repress concupiscence tempting him to sin, Aquinas concludes
that it is best to say that circumcision, as other Sacraments of the Old Law,
was "only a sign of Justifying faith," and therefore in it grace was conferred,
inasmuch as it was asign of the future passion of Christ. In circumcisione con-
ferebatur gratia, in quantum erat signum passionis Christi futurss. — P. 1, 2.
Q. 62, A, 6,& Q. 70, A, 4.

233
in 1252, answered in the affirmative. " The more
common opinion, (says Usher,) is that these be two
distinct places" — that of the Fathers, "now being
emptied of its old inhabitants.'" That our Oxford
Divines have said any thing directly on this subject.

1 Usher's Answer to a Jesuit, c. viii.
" The Romish doctrine of the Limbus Patrum, or the absence of the Old Testa
ment Saints from the vision of God, and their enduring in limbo a certain nega
tive evil, consisting in the want of what, since the "Nev^ Testament blessedness, the
dead in Christ and all departed saints have inherited, arose entirely out of this
figment of the difference between the spiritual efiicacy of the Sacraments of the
two dispensations ; and in its essential character, it is a necessary consequence of
that doctrine of the Sacraments in which Oxford Divinity and Romish so well
agree. The doctrine of Romanism, as to the state of the dead, is given, in all its
fulness, in the "Angelic Doctor." Aquinas enumerates five receptacula for dis
embodied souls, according to their several states, viz. Paradise, Limbus Pa
trum, (for the Old Testament Saints) Limbus Puerum, (for children unbap
tized,) Purgatory, and Hell, The Limbus Patrum, and Puerum, and the
place of positive punishment of the wicked, are all considered, as to location,
essentially one. Quantum ad situm loci, sunt loca continua ; though they differ
as to quality — that of children, being an upper apartment to that of the damned,
that ofthe Old Testament Saints, before the Advent of Christ, superior (.para
superior,) to all, Supremum et minus tenebrosum locum habuerunt omnibus
puniendis. The Limbus Patrum, and "Abraham's bosom,'' are supposed to
have been the same before the advent of Christ. Since the descent of Christ,
ad inferos the bliss of the Old Testament Saints has been rendered as complete
as that of the departed saints under the Christian Dispensation. But before
that, they endured the pain of hope deferred, dolor de dilatione speratffi^ gloria;,
privatio gloriae sperata;; et secundum hoc habet rationem inferni, et doloris.
This dolor is called " an exclusion from the life of glory," and the reason given
for the incarceration of the Old Testament Saints in that Limbus, is that al
though they had been liberated by the faith of Christ from all sin, as well origi
nal, as actual, and from all liability to punishment for actual sin, they had not
been from liability to punishment (for original sin,) a reatu pajnffi originalis
peccati; and the reason for this is just the reason given by Oxford divines, as
shown above, viz., that the price of redemption was not yet paid, Christ had not
died, — nondum soluto pretio redemptionis. And therefore Christ descending
ad inferos, by virtue of his passion, absolved those Saints from this liability 
ab hoc reatu, that they might see God, per essejiham,— Aquinas, P, 3, Q. 52
& Suppl. Q, &9.
30

234
we know not; but how they can escape a Limbus
Patrum, substantially the same as that Avhich has
been set apart for the accommodation of the Romish
doctrine of Baptismal Justification, we cannot con
ceive. If nothing under the Jewish dispensation did
confer grace, if Regeneration and Justification were
not promised, nor given, till Christ came; if heaven,
nor acceptance, Avas promised to obedience, as is
maintained; then, though "in some favoured cases,"
God may have given justification, directly, and not
through the Jeivish dispensation ; yet, as to the multi
tude of them that believed, all those, for instance,
who are mentioned in Hebrews {eleventh Chap.) the
" great cloud of Avitnesses" who " all died in faith,"
it must follow that they did not enter into heaven.
But certainly they did not go into a place of torment.
It remains that they must have gone to some place
intermediate between that of the i7npenitent, and that
of the Justified, waiting the coming of Christ, and
from Avhich they were delivered when he had ac
complished that of which all their religion had been,
in the view of this system, but an inoperative, ineffi
cacious shadoAV.
The comparison of Oxford Divinity, Avith that of
our Church and standard divines, on the main topics
now brought into comparison Avith Romanism, viz ;
the constituent principle of Justification, the Nature
and Office of Justifying Faith, and, Sacramental
Justification, Avill be reserved for other Chapters.
We finish the present subject by quoting the testimo
ny of Bishop Burnet, on Sacramental Justification.
" It is a tenet of the Church of Rome, that the use of the Sacra
ments, if men do not put a bar to them, and if they have only im-

235
perfect acts of sorrow, accompanying thera, does so far complete
those weak acts, as to justify us. This we do utterly deny, as a
doctrine that tends to enervate all religion ; and to make the Sacra
ments, that were appointed to be the solemn acts of religion for
quickening and exciting our piety, and for conveying grace to us,
upon our coming devoutly to them, become means to flatten and
deaden us, as if they were of the nature of charms, which, if they
could be come at with ever so slight a preparation, would make up
all defects. The doctrine of Sacramental Justification, is justly to
be reckoned among the most mischievous of all those practical er
rors that are in the Church of Rome. Since, therefore, this is no
where mentioned in all these large discourses, that are in the New
Testament, concerning Justification, we have just reason to reject it;
since also the natural consequence of this doctrine is to make men rest
contented in low imperfect acts, when they can be so easily made up
by a Sacrament, we have just reason to detest it as one of the depths
of Satan." " And thus we object, not without great zeal, against the
fatal effects of this error, all that is said ofthe opus operatum; the
very doing of the Sacrament ; we think it looks more like the incan
tations of Heathenism, than the purity and simplicity of the Christian
Religion."^ ' Burnet on Articles xi, and x\y-

CHAPTER VHI.
DOOTKINE OF OXFOED DIVINITV FUETHEE EXHIBITED BY ITS
EFFECTS UPON OTHEE DOCTEINES AND PAETS OF
CHEISTIANITY.
Effects upon the doctrine of Original Sin ; Testimony of Jackson to the Pecu
liar Romanism of these results — Sin after Baptism — Mortal and Venial
Sins — Tendencies of Oxford Divinity to the doctrine of Purgatory — to
Prayers for the dead — Invocation of Saints — Transubstantiation — Working
of Miracles — Auricular Confession — Extreme Unction — Anointing at Bap
tism and Confirmation — Additional matters of Restoration contemplated —
Sacramental character of Marriage countenanced — Use of Romish Prayer
Books and Rules of Fasting — Favour to Image-Worship — Christian Holi-
ness — Tradition ; Why this topic reserved to the last — Extracts from the late
Charge of Bishop Wilson.
In the two preceding chapters we have exhibited the
developments, of the grand principle of Oxford Divi
nity, as already seen in its effects upon the doctrine
of Faith and of the Sacraments. We proceed to fur
ther ramifications, in evidence that the tree of Ro
manism, planted in the classic soil of Oxford, is
bringing forth Romish fruit, and going on to do so
more and more, and may thus be known, according
to the scriptural test, to be good, or evil, according as
any one may consider the spreading shade of Popery
to be good or bad. Tendimus in Latium.
We begin with the doctrine of Original Sin.
As we are not arguing with Roraanists, a protest-
ant authority may answer for a view of their doc
trine; and as we are dealing with Oxford-men, no
protestant authority could be raore in place than
that of the learned Dr. Jackson, whom we have se-

23S
veral times quoted already, and whose authority we
have said, is now of great price in the new school
of Oxford theology.
This author, in the beginning of his third volume,
is writing on Original Sin.
He begins by stating, that many Divines (School
men) have peremptorily determined that " the Righte
ousness of the First Ma7i, did formally consist m a
PECULIAR GRACE, SUPERNATURAL, cvcu to Imn ;" Con
sequently, that Adam's Justification, or his being
accounted Righteous, before he sinned, was not on ac
count of his being created in the Image and Like
ness of God, but on account of something superadded
to his constitution, as he was the work of God, and
without sin, viz : a Grace Supernatural, in which was
his Justifying Righteousness ; so that, in the creation
of the first man, there Avere two distinct works of
God ; one of which consisted in making him in God's
own Image; the second, in endowing him with a
certain Supernatural Grace or Righteousness, over
and above that perfect Image; as if in making a
round body, there were two distinct works, the one,
in making the round body, the other, in giving it
rotundity; so that Original Sin consists not in the
loss of any thing natural to Adam, as he Avas the
work of God, but only in the loss of a Righteousness
Supernatwal; not in any positive effect, any "infec
tion of nature'' as our Article has it; not "in the
coming in of a multiplicity of wounds or diseases in
our nature," but only in a "privation of that Super
natural Grace." ^
' Whoever will take the trouble to consult the Schoolmen of the I3th and
14th Centuries, will find them full of this doctrine. Thomas Aquinas treats of

239
" To raaintain this opinion, (says Jackson,) the
Romish Church, {especially since the publishing of the
Canons ofthe Trent Council,) is deeply engaged: For
unless this supposition be granted, many dogmatical
resolutions which the whole Christian world is by
the Romish Church bound to believe, sub poena
A7iathematis, cannot possibly, or with any mediocrity
of possibility, be maintained."
Among the consequences from this Romish dogma,
which Jackson deduces, are the two following.
1. That if Original Sin be only ihe privation of a
supernatural grace or righteousness, superadded to
the original image of God, in raan, then the restoration
of that supernatural gift, will be both the removal of
original sin, and Justification from it; consequently,
"the satisfaction of our Lord Jesus Christ had been
superfluous; and the opinion of the Socinians would
be more tolerable and more justifiable, than the doc
trine of the Romish Church, so far as it concerns the
value or efficacy of Christ's sufferings, or Satisfac
tion by his Merits, or Justification by woi'ks, rather
than hj faith, especially works of the Moral Law."
2. The second consequence (and that to which
we ask a special attention) is that, if this dogma be
true, " we of the Reformed Churches (says Jackson)

it in Quest 95 of Part 1, In answer to the question, "whether the first man
was created in grace," he says: Primus homo non fuit creatus in gratia. Ilia
prima subjectio qua ratio sandebatur Deo, non erat solum secundum naturam, sed
secundum supernaturale donum gratis!. " The first man was not created in
grace. The subjection of his mind to God was not only according to nature,
but the result of a sapernatural gift of grace." Instead of the illustration given
by Jackson of the difference between a round body and rotundity, Aquinas in
stanced the difference between a -zvhite body and -whiteness — so important are
the distinctions of scholastic theology.

240
should be concluded to yield, that Adam's posterity
were to be foi'mally justified by Inherent Righteous
ness." The deduction is thus made by our author,
" It is in confesso, and more than so, an undoubted 3Iaxim of
the Church of Rome, that the grace which is infused by, and from,
our Lord Jesus Christ, is a supernatural quality, or a qualificaliot^
raore sovereign than the first grace which God bestowed on the first
Man. Now if that Grace were a super-addition to his Nature, or
constitution, as he was the work of God, the loss of that grace could
not have made any wound in the human Nature which the least drop
of that Grace, which daily dislilleth from the second Adam, might
not more than fully cure. In respect of these and other reasons
which might be alleged, all such congregations or assemblies of
Christian men as have departed, or have been extruded out of
the Romish Church, stand deeply engaged to deny, that the
Righteousness of the first man was a Grace oe Quality
SurEENATUBAL,"^ Noav here it is evident that it was the adoption of
Justification by an Inherent Righteousness that led,
in self-defence, to this strange perversion of the doc
trine of original Righteousness, and consequently of
Original Sin. The idea is, that as AA-hat Adam lost
by sin, Ave gain by grace, then if it was a supernat
urally infused grace or gift that he lost, and thus
came under condemnation, it is then a supernatu
rally infused grace whereby we are to be delivered
from condemnation or to be Justified.
But this is precisely the doctrine of Oxford Di
vinity. The Avay of Justification taught therein
has wrought precisely the same change upon the
doctrine of Original Righteousness and Sin, and for
the same reasons.
Mr. Newman takes the ground that such strong
'Jackson's Works, vol. iii. pp. 4, 5, 6.

241
expressions of Scripture as being "clothed with the
garments of salvation," "bring forth the best robe and
put it on him," S^c, having "put on Christ," " can
not very well be taken to mean newness of life, holi
ness and obedience, for this reason — that no one is
all at once holy and renewed in that full sense which
must be implied, if these terms be interpreted of ho
liness." "Thus there is a call for some more ade
quate interpretation of such passages than is sup
plied by the Roman or Protestant creed."
Now the uuAvary reader Avill suppose that Mr.
Newman is going to furnish something indeed in
which Romanism is defective. He will be amazed
to find that his interpretation is nothing but the very
Romanism given by Jackson as above ; found, not in
deed in the formal creed' of Rome, as contained in
the Canons of Trent, but in those "Doctors" of the
Chu.rch of Rome, to whom it is maintained, in No.
71 of the Tracts, we have a right to go, for " the le
gitimate comment" upon, and elucidation of, "the ac
tual system represented in the Tridentine decrees."^
In Mr. Newman's particular friends the Schoolmen,
and others, who maintained a sort of tertium quid-
distinction, between Inherent Righteousness for Jus
tification, and common holiness, and therefore had
the same reason, Avith himself, to desire the "ade
quate interpretation" he is looking for, we find the
very light he furnishes.
But what is the interpretation? Why "the robe
of righteousness," in those strong passages, means
(says Mr. N.) "the inward presence of Christ, minis-

I See 71, of Tracts, p. 12 & 13.
31

242
tered to us by the Holy Ghost" Then, to set out this
inherent righteousness, he goes to Adam, thus:
" "Whereas we have gained under the Gospel what we lost in
Adam, and justification is a reversing of our forfeiture, and a robe
of righteousness is what Christ gives, perchance a robe is what
Adam lost. If so, what is told us of what he lost, will explain
what it is we gain. Now the peculiar gift which Adam lost cer
tainly seems to have been a supernatural clothing — Christ clothes us
in God's sight with something over and above nature; which Adam
forfeited." Mr. N, then declares that this "supernatural cloth
ing" of Adam, was not "actual inherent holiness,"
(the image of God) but "agreeably with the view of
Justification already taken, nothing less than the in
ward presence either of the Divine Word or of the
Holy Ghost." Of this "he was stripped, by sinning,
as of a covering, and shrank from the sight of him
self."' Thus have we, in completeness, the Romish doc
trine of original sin, consisting in a mere "privation
of original righteousness," instead of a positive "in
fection of nature;"^ the Romish doctrine of original
righteousness consisting in a supei'natural gift, super
added to the holiness of the Image of God; and all
this for the purpose of maintaining Justification by
inherent righteousness, and that vain distinction of
the Schoolmen, between such righteousness, as a su
pernatural gift, and what is usually understood by
holiness, or Sanctification in a sinner's heart, as if
this were not supernatural also. And thus have we,
in a system of divinity which feels exceedingly inju-
1 Mr, Newman's Lectures, p, 176 — 182, 2 See the Article on Original Sin,

243
red in being called Romish, a doctrine which, while
Mr. Newman is propounding ii professedly as a rem
edy of what is defective in the creed ofthe Church of
Rome, is precisely the doctrine which one of his own
professedly standard writers declares "the Romish
Church, especially since the Council of Trent, is
deeply engaged to maintain," and "all congregations
of Christian men out of the Romish Church stand
deeply engaged to deny."
But a little raore Romish illumination may be let
in here. Bishop Burnet says, " Those of the Church
of Rome, as they believe that original sin is quite
taken away, by Baptism, so finding that this corrupt
disposition {"infection of nature") still remains in
us, they do from thence conclude that it is no part of
original sin; but that this is the natural state in
which man was made at first, only it is in us now with
out the restraint or bridle of supernatural assistances,
which was given to him, but lost by sin, and is re
stored to us in Baptism,"^
Now here we see Oxford divinity again. Accord
ing to its systera. Baptism takes away, or Justifies
us from, Original Sin. It does this, by the infusion
of a supernatural gift of righteousness, which is the
restoration of what Adam lost. But this cannot be
the sarae as the holiness of the regenerate, because,
as Mr. N. says, that is so imperfect. Therefore what
Adam lost could not have been mere holiness, the
Image of God, in which he was created, but a super
natural grace, superadded.
Here then we have the concurrence of two emi-
' Burnet on Art. ix.

244
nent Protestant divines, the one, a writer whom our
Oxford men specially praise, the other, a Avriter AA-hom
they seem absolutely to hate, both setting doAAm, as
characteristic of Romanism, that precise doctrine of
original righteousness and sin, to Avhich they are dri
ven by their peculiar views of Justification ; and the
first (Jackson) considering it a feature of Romanism
so inwrought into its very system, that Romish di
vines, ever since the Council of Trent, have felt
deeply bound to maintain it ; so utterly subversive of
the fundamental doctrine of Justification, that all Re
formed Churches "stand deeply engaged to deny it;"
and so absolutely ruinous that "it Avould render the
opinion of the Socinians as to the value or efficacy of
Christ's sufferings more tolerable and justifiable."
SIN AFTER BAPTISM.
It is well knoAvn to be a prominent doctrine of the
Romish Church, that sin committed after Baptism,
cannot be forgiven, except through, what they call,
"the Sacrament of Penance." The doctrine is ex
pressed as foUoAvs, by Gandolphy. " As God has
chosen men to be his instruments and agents in puri
fying his creatures from original and actual sin, by
the spiritual regeneration of Baptism; so has he
likewise commissioned men, to pardon and restore
those to grace Avho might afterwards relapse. He
has instituted for the latter a fo7~m of repentance, a
tribunal of contrition and penance." "If the grace of
Baptisra be forfeited by sin, the subsequent pardon
and renewal, though gratuitous on the part of God,
are to be accompanied and secured by the criminal's
own humiliation and repentance. Hence in the

245
Catholic (Romish) Church, it is called the Sacra
ment of penance." "No individual can obtain the
remission of sins after baptisra without submitting to
penance (Sacrament of Penance) either in eflFect or
desire." "Jesus Christ has instituted the Sacrament
of Penance for the ordinary remission of all sin com
mitted after Baptism.'"
Now this is consistent ground. Sins before Bap
tism are remitted or taken away by the infusion of
grace at Baptism. But sin after Baptism, how shall
it be remitted? The true Protestant says " Repent
and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ." No, says
the Romanist, remission can come again only
through some Sacrament, as it came at first. But
what Sacrament ? The Romish church invents one,
called Penance, comprising conti'ition, confession,
satisfaction and absolution. When the Priest says
" I absolve thee m the na7ne of the Father," SfC, then
sin after Baptism is remitted.
Now it Avill be made to appear that Dr. Pusey is
precisely in the difficulty for which this Sacrament
of Penance Avas invented.
He too considers that only in Baptism, are sins
remitted. But what of him who sins after Baptism ?
He knows no way of absolute forg'iveness in this
life. " The Church (he says) has no second Baptism
to give, and so she cannot pronounce him altogether
free from his past sins. There are but two periods of
absolute cleansing. Baptism and the day of Judg
ment.^ Now here is the precise doctrine of the Ro-
1 Gandolphy's Defence, vol. iii, pp, 384 — 391, ^ -q,^ Pusey's Letter to
Bishop of Oxford, p, 62,

246
mish Church, But we proceed, — Dr, Pusey inforras
us that there are some points connected with this
head on which he and his fellows in doctrine, "diflFer
more or less from each other," One is this —
"Whether, or not, Baptism, besides A\ashing away
past sins, admits into a state in A\'hich for sins
henceforth committed. Repentance {qu. Penance? )
stands in place ofa Sacrament, so as to ensure forgive
ness without specific ordinance ; or whether the full
and explicit absolution of sin after Baptism is alto
gether put off till the day of Judgment.'" Grave
' But whatever the difference among these gentlemen on this head, Dr. Pu
sey, who is evidently the Magister, the Master of the Sentences, and more
ready than others to run the system to all its consequences, has taken good
care that his doctrine shall be the doctrine of the Tracts, and characterise the
school. He gets it in wherever there is a door. In the Tract on Purgatory,
p, 7, we read that penitents for sin after Baptism, " from this time to the
day of Judgment may be considered in that double state of which the Roman
ists speak — ihexT persons accepted, but certain sins uncancelled. Such a state
is plainly revealed to us in scripture as a real one, in various passages, to
which ive appeal as -well as the Romanists." See also p. 32 of No. 79, and
p. 46 of Tract on Reserve, No. 80. The miserable doctrine is defended and
re-asserted in No. 82, p. xxiii. The same appears in Dr, Pusey's Scriptural
Views of Baptism.
If "after having been washed once for all, in Christ's blood, we again sin,
there is no more such complete absolution in this life ; no restoration to the same
state of undisturbed security, in which God had by Baptism placed us.''
The difficulty into which the advocates of this system are thrown, as to the
forgiveness of post-baptismal sins, 'when they dare not be consistent, as Dr,
Pusey is, with their principles, is seen in the following strange passage from
the book of Dean (now Bishop) Bethell on regeneration, referred to by Dr.
Pusey as a " valuablo work," and by Dr, Hook as "a standard," — "As to those
persons who, after having been baptized in a state of hypocricy and wilful sin,
afterwards become true penitents and believers, I for my part, entertain no
doubt of their. forgiveness and salvation. ^Mi\)y v^\id.t, physical process they
are brought into a state of salvation and acceptance with God, whether by
the infusion or resuscitation of the incorruptible seed, or by what other
mysterious means, I neither know, nor do I wish to inquire. It is a case not
mentioned in the covenant, nor supposed and provided for in the -word of
God." Here then is the case of a true penitent believer, not provided for in

247
questions indeed for Protestant divines, with the
Articles and Homilies ofthe Church of England, and
the Word of God in their hands, to be divided about !
Go and learn the alphabet of the Gospel ! Spell the
name of Jesus! ("He shall save his people from
their sins"). Behold the miserable perplexity of Dr.
Pusey's mind in the following dark and doubtful
questionings. He is trying to get round the plain
meaning of our article on this object which says
"Not every deadly sin ' willingly committed after
Baptism is unpardonable, wherefore they are to be con
demned that deny the place qf forgiveness to such as
truly repent." On this Dr. Pusey says
" But who ^ruZj; repent ; when a man who has been guilty of sin after
Baptism may be satisfied that he is truly repentant for it; whether and
to what degree he should all his life continue his repentance for it —
wherein his penitence should consist ; whether continued repentance
¦wo\i\A efface the traces of sin in himself ; vihexhet he might ever in
thia life look upon himself as restored to the state in which he had been,
had he not committed it ; whether it affect the degree of his future
bliss, or its effects be effaced by repentance ; but Iheir extinction de
pend upon the continued greatness of his repentance ; whether cessa
tion of his active repentance {qu. Penance) may not bring back de
grees of the sin upon him; whether il shall appear again in the day
of Judgment: these and the like are questions upon which the Ar
ticle does not speak.
the -word of God. How a true penitent and a believer, can be accepted of God
through the merits of Christ, when he cannot be re-baptized is a mystery
neither to be understood nor enquired into. As he did not receive Justification
at his Baptism, how can he ever get it, seeing Baptism cannot'be repeated ! —
There is the diflBculty — and one which this system cannot solve. Nothing need
show more completely how the system opposes the first principles of the Gospel
than that while Bishop Bethell cannot find it in his heart to believe that one of
true repentance and faith in Christ will fail of salvation, he can find neverthe
less no explanation in his system of ho-w such a person can be saved, and there
fore has to cut the knot which he cannot untie !
• Bishop Beveridge, on'this Article, interprets " deadly sin" as meaning " every
sin" — " for every sin (he says) is deadly." Beveridge on the Articles, p. 358.

24S
What! when that Article expressly says, "they are
to he condemned who deny the place of forgiveness, to
those Avho truly repent" for such sin? But does not
the Homily speak to such points, Avhen it says :
"We do not without a just cause detest and abhor the damnable
opinion of them which do most ivickedly go about to persuade the
simple and ignorant people, that if we chance, after we be once come
to God, and grafted into His Son, to fall into some horrible sin, re
pentance shall be unprofitable to us; there is no more hope of recon
ciliation, or lo be received again into the favour and mercy of God."
" If (after such sin) we rise again by repentance, and wilh full pur
pose of amendment of life, do flee unto the mercy of God, taking
sure hold thereupon through faith in his Son Jesus Christ, there is
an assured and infallible pardon and remission of the same, and
that we shall be received again into the favour of our heavenly
Father." This, the Homily illustrates by the case of Peter,
who horribly sinned after Baptism, and assuredly
was pardoned.^ What havoc does this indignant de
claration of the truth of the Gospel make amidst
the miserable doubtings and questionings Ave have
quoted! We cannot but feel indignation in every
vein, as Ave Avrite. Allow this darkness about remis
sion of sin after Baptism, and Ave take leave of all
the consolation in Christ. Grant it ! Then welcome
Popery! We must have all the substitutes Popery can
give us, in such aflQiction. One thing or other — the
Sacrament of Penance for relief, or else to be all our
lives, through fear of death, subject to bondage, wait
ing the Judgment to knoAv AA'hether our Repentance
and faith and prayers, have availed, to secure a
Justifying interest in Christ.
I Homily of Repentance, Part 1. See also Homily of Salvation, Part I.

249
The reader is particularly requested to mark the
germs of a full-blown Romanism, which lie in almost
every one of the above questions, waiting the spring
time, to bud and blossom, and expand into leaf and
branch. " But 7vho tuvly repent ?" " When a man
may be satisfied that he is truly repentant" for sin
after Baptism. Of course this means that there is a
different kind of repentance, to be known by differ
ent marks, after Baptism, from that for sins before
Baptism. It means that he who understands all
about repentance in the usual sense, may not under
stand it when it takes place after Baptisra. " Where
in his repentance should consist?" One asks with
amazement, what can it consist in but true sorroiv of
heart and tu7'ning unto God ; but Dr. Pusey means
something else. " Whether, and to avhat degree, he
should cdl his life continue his repentance for it."
What means this? to what degree! With all his
heart, we answer, of course — let his turning to God
be perpetual. But Dr. Pusey means something else.
His eye is upon degrees and continuance of external
bodily penances — what he calls elseAvhere "the bitter
ness of the ancient medicine" " When men made
sacrifices for the good of their souls, — practised self-
discipline, accused and condemned themselves, — sought
to bring forth fruit worthy of 'penance,' — and were
punished with open penance, that their souls might be
saved in the day ofthe Lord." This is the guide to the
degree and continuance of repentance after Baptism.
A broken heart, with faith in the blood of Christ, are
not enough. The grand question, in Dr. Pusey's
sight, is how much penance, as distinct from repent
ance, is necessary for pardon. " Whether one might
32

250
ever in this life look upon himself as restored to the state
in which he had been, had he not C07n7nitted the sin."
Compare this with the precious language of our Com
munion Service, just after we have been confessing,
and professing to bewail and repent of, sin upon sin,
after Baptism. "Hear what comfortable Avords our
Saviour Christ saith to all who truly turn to him.
Come unto me all ye, &c., and I will give you rest. If
any man sin, we have an advocate with the Fa
ther, &c. Lift up your hearts." Oh! calumniated
Church, that one of thine own children and pastors
should teach such doctrine for thine ! But again —
"whether it (the sin repented of) affect the degree of
his future bliss, whether it shall appear again in the
day of Judgment." No leaning towards Purgatory
in the other world, discoverable in these words ! If
we depart this life with sin not entirely effaced and
pardoned — if it is to raeet us in the day of Judgment,
then what can be our hope? Evidently nothing in
this life; for the supposition is that all here was insuffi
cient. Nothing at the day of Judgment, for that is the
day of trial, not "a day of salvation," when we may
supply any deficiencies in our hope. Nothing re
mains but the interval between death and the Judg
ment. Here, if any where after death, must the re
maining traces of sin be effaced. How? Bythe effi
cacy of purgatorial discipline, of course. Can any
eye help seeing what all this means; what all this is
driving at; what fruit such buds must bring? But
Dr. Pusey is perfectly consistent. He is only follow
ing out their doctrine of Justification to its legitimate
results. Justification is by infused righteousness.
This infusion takes place at Baptism. Baptism can-

251
not be repeated. But sin after Baptism destroys the
grace of Baptism; that is, the justifying efficacy of
the infused righteousness. The light is quenched.
The bright mirror is marred. What shall remedy
the loss ? There remains no Sacrament for the reinfu-
sion of Righteousness. The Eucharist is only for its
increase and brightening ; and if any say otherwise,
they differ from Dr. Pusey, and are inconsistent with
their own principles. The merits of Christ will not
answer, because they are only applied for Justifica
tion, in Baptism. Faith will not answer, for it is
" subordinate to Baptism," and has been killed by sin
after Baptism. A new Sacrament, such as that of
Penance, or else a purgation between death and
Judgment, is absolutely necessary to such a scheme
" O my soul, come not into their secret!" Who can
fail to see in these dark passages, in this shadow of
death, that very state of mind, just that state of de
pendance on our own works for Justification, that
very blindness to the fulness and glory of Christ, as
"the Lord our Righteousness," from which procee
ded all that "maze" of inventions for the putting
on of the polluted rags of our own righteousness,
" which the Church of Rome doth cause her followers
to tread, when they ask her the way to Justification."
The germs of expiato7'y penances, pilgrimages,
masses, oflFerings, &c. ; yea, all the elements of pur
gatorial burnings in the future world, for the souls of
those who have sinned after their Baptism, are con
tained in, and scarcely veiled under, those ominous
and melancholy questionings. The mind that fully
sympathises Avith such views, is penetrated with the
essential virus of Romanism, and only needs, like

252
some latent diseases ofthe body, an exciting cause, a
favourable atmospheric influence, to be made to break
out, all over, Avith a full eruption of Romanism in
active development. To cross over to a full belief
in the doctrine of Purgatory, without Romish terms
perhaps, but with Romish substance, AA'ould be but a
natural transition from such a state.
Now we beg the reader to compare the extract we
have made from Dr. Pusey, as to the kind and de
gree, and effect, &c., of the repentance for sin after
Baptism, with the folloAving, from a modern Romish
writer, on the very same subject. The ideas and the
language are so much alike that it really looks as if a
Popish defence of Penance had furnished Dr, Pusey
with his own ideas and AA'ords,
" As Repentance, according to the Protestant, is absolutely neces
sary for the sinner (who has sinned after Baptism) to attain salvation,
let him say what is the quality and nature of this repentance; let
him determine the degree in which it will avail ; let him say if the
interior moral act of the soul is to be accompanied or unaccompanied
by any outward corresponding act, (Penance.) In short, let him
positively slate how much repentance is necessary to appease the
anger ofthe Almighty, otherwise he must find himself in the awful
and singularly distressing condition of being left in ignorance of the
condition so severely enjoined, and which alone is to entitle him to
the forgiveness of heaven,"^
How singular the resemblance of this passage to
that of Dr Pusey! It can only be accounted for
by the precisely similar states of mind of the two
writers. If any thing, the Protestant writes the
more Popishly ofthe two. He is on ground which
leaA'es him entirely exposed to the raking fire of the
next paragraph of the Romanist, which is as follows :
• Gandolphy's Defence, vol, iii, pp, 388, 389.

253
" Nothing can more evidently prove the divine superiority of the
Catholic (Romish) religion over every other — nothing more plainly
declare its high origin, than the circumstance of every point being
definitely settled therein, concerning this interesting question of sal
vation. While the reformer is ever insecure, the Catholic is enjoying
a moral repose — and while the repenting Protestant {ofthe Oj-ford
School) looks back upon his crimes with anxious trepidation, un
certain of what is demanded of him by the justice of God, tbe peni
tent Catholic (Romanist) retraces his past sins in the sorrow ofhis
heart, but in humble composure of mind, builds his hope of forgive
ness on the solid ground of a faithful compliance with every condi
tion, that Jesus Christ and his Church have specialty marked out for
him ; — I mean contrition before God — confession before his minis
ter, and satisfaction imposed by his Church.'"^
If the coincidence betAveen the questions of Dr,
Pusey, and those of Father Gandolphy, as to the na
ture, amount, and effects of repentance for sin after
Baptism, seem singular, perhaps it may be explained
by the supposition that both minds Avere formed as
to this subject, u.nder the same Master. Whoever
will consult the Schoolraen will find precisely the
questions both have asked — and not only so, but an
swered precisely as it is manifest both Avould answer
them, except as Dr. P. flies only to a purgation after
death, and the Schoolmen adds the Sacrament of Pe
nance. A fcAV specimens of questions proposed and
answered at large in the Summa of Aquinas, the
great thesaurus of the divinity of Trent, placed in
contrast with those of Dr. Pusey, will show whither
the latter has been seeking for aid.
Dr. Pusey asks, " Avhether a raan should all his life
continue his repentance " for sin after Baptism —
"whether cessation of his active repentance (Pen-
' Gandolphy, iii. p. 889, 390.

254
ance) may not bring back degrees of the sin upon
him." Aquinas asks, Utrum tota hcec vita sit cont7~i-
tionis tempus. Whether the Avhole of this life is the
time for such repentance.
Whoever understands the Gospel, as to the nature
of godly sorrow, will say yes ; we are to be penitents,
of a contrite heart, for all sin, unto death. But the
answer is not so easy to those Avho make Dr. Pusey's
distinction betAveen active Repentance and passive —
the former meaning the doing of penance, for the re
mission of sins.
Again Dr. P. asks : whether he who truly repents
for sin after Baptism "be altogether pardoned; or
whether only so long as he continue in a state of
penitence," Aquinas also asks : Utru7n peccata di-
missa redeant per sequens peccatum. Whether sins
remitted may return by subsequent sin — which is
the same thing as to ask whether they be alto
gether remitted, Dupin cites "the Master of the
Sentences" as treating the same question; vol, ix.
p. 198.
Again, Dr. Pusey asks: "Whether continued re
pentance Avould efface the traces of sin in himself."
Aquinas — Utrum remissa culpa mo7-tali, tollantur
omnes reliquice peccati — Avhether when the guilt of
mortal sin is remitted, all traces of the sin are
effaced. Again Dr. Pusey — " Whether one might ever in
this life look upon himself as restored to the state in
which he had been, had he not committed it?" Aqui
nas — Ut7'um post pcenitentiam resurgat homo in equa-
li virtute; Whether after Penance, the man attains
the same virtue he had before — JJti'um per pceniten-

255
tiam restituitur homo in pristmam dignitatem — whe
ther after Penance a man is restored to his former
dignity. Again, in Tract No. 76, it is stated to be a question
among the Oxford writers whether " the change in
the soul made by Baptism is indelible for good or
for evil," Aquinas asks, Ut7-um character insit ani-
mce indelibiliter. What is here called character, and
which is conferred only in Baptism, according to
Romanism, is in anima sicut qucedam virtus instru
mentalis et importat quandain potentiam spiritualem-
The questions of the Tract and the Schoolman are
precisely alike.
Again, Dr, Pusey — "Whether it (Sin after Bap
tism repented of) affect the degree of his future
bliss — whether it shall appear again in the day of
Judgment." Aquinas — Utrum remissa culpa per
pcenitentiam remaneat reatus pcena: — whether the
guilt being remitted, by Penance, there reraains
any liability to penalty. The answer of Aquinas to
this, is that although by Adrtue of Penance, the
guilt is remitted, and with it eternal punishment,
nevertheless there may remain a liability to punish
ment of a teraporal kind — in other Avords purgatory.
And this is precisely that "double state," viz: that
of one's person being " accepted," but his having sins
yet "uncancelled," after death, till the day of Judg
ment in which. Dr. Pusey says, the divinity of Ox
ford agrees with the Romanists, and AA-hich, he as
serts, is plainly revealed in the Scriptures.^
Blessed be God, who has spared us such bondage,
I Tract No, 79, p, 7.

256
and showed unto us a more excellent way — even
that "ncAv and living way," Avhereby we have
" boldness of access" to his mercy-seat, and are
" brought nigh by the blood of Christ," and are com
manded to " draw near with full assurance of faith,"
and to rejoice in the certainty that " the blood of Je
sus Christ cleanseth us from all sin," so that noth
ing can separate us from his love.
The following;- extract from the late charg-e of the
Bishop of Exeter, derives very serious additional
weight from all that Ave have now seen as to the Ox
ford doctrine, of which Ave have been writing.
" I lament to see the reason for which they (the
Oxford divines) enumerate the necessity of confession
in their list of those ' practical grievances'! to which
Christians are exposed in the Romish communion,
viz : because ivithout it no one can be partaker of the
Holy Communion." The Bishop means that it is a
lamentation that they could give no stronger reason
against that " abomination of desolation," Auricular
Confession. But he proceeds as follows :
" They thus seem studiously to decline including in the same list
the pretended Sacrament of Penance generally; (of vvhich confes
sion is but a part ;) though Penance, as taught by the Church of
Rome, is the greatest, because the most soul-destroying, of all those
'grievances' — we might rather say, the foulest perversion of God's
saving Truth, which the cunning of Satan ever put into the heart of
man to conceive. For this unhallov/ed device, byabusing the gra
cious promise of Christ given to the Church, in his Apostles, by
making lhe Absolution of the Priest not only effectual, but also ne
cessary, for the pardon of all sin committed after Baptism — while it
bows the souls and consciences of the people, lo a stale of slavish
fear ofthe Priest, practically releases them from all other fear, and
gives the rein to every corrupt affection of unregenerate nature.
let, this is not, it seems, one of 'the subjects, which,' in the

257
opinion of these writers, ' may be profitably brought into contro
versy with Romanists ofthe present day.' "
MORTAL AND VENIAL SINS.
It is a well known doctrine of the Romish Church
that sins are divisible into Mortal and Venial. Mor
tal sins are those "which are either done willingly,
or are of any magnitude. To these eternal punish
ment is due."^ Venial Sins are such as may not
properly be called sins; those that may not be consid
ered wilful, and are of no magnitude, or so light that
they do not avail to destroy grace, or to render one
worthy of death eternal. In the Romish Church,
Sin after Baptism, which is ordinarily remitted only
through the Sacrament of Penance, means only Mor
tal Sin. But Venial Sins need no such appliances.
Romish writers say that this sort of sin " deserves
pardon of itself" — that "venial sins are not against
but besides the law — that while all sin is a trans
gression of the law, all transgression of the law is
not sin," meaning mortal or deadly sin. Hence
Franciscus a Victoria writes that a Bishop's blessing,
or a Lord's Prayer, or a knock on the breast, or a
little holy water, is sufficient to remit venial sin.^
1 Tract No. 71,
2 Aquinas considers venial sins tobe referred to in 1 John, i, "If we say we
have no sin, we deceive ourselves, &c," This kind of sin, he says, is remitted
in the Eucharist. But not only there, Unus actus charitatis potest delete
omnia venialia sine actuali cogitatione eorum. One deed of charity can blot
out all venial sins, even without the least positive thought about them. Nor
only this, but many other ways there are to the same remission. Manifestnm
est generali confessionie, pectoris tunsione et oratione Dominica, quatenus cum
detestatione peccati sunt, peccata venialia remitti ; episcopali etiam benedicti-
one, aquae benedictae aspersione, aliisque hujusmodi actionibus, quatenus cum
Dei reverentia cxercentur.
33

258
This doctrine has an important connection with
that of indulgences and supererogation ; but the reader
is requested to note Avell how directly and necessarily
it arises out of the Romish doctrines of Justification
and Original Sin. For instance; Justification is the
i7ifusion of righteousness, by Avhich we are made ac
ceptable in the sight of God. This infusion takes
place at Baptism, Baptism entirely takes aAvay both
Original and Actual Sin. But it is granted on all
hands that, in the baptized and regenerate, there re
mains, what the decree of Trent and our ninth
Article call, concupiscence, (the lust of the flesh, the
i^ov-nixa. (ia^x.% of St, Paul,) This our Article declares
"hath of itself the nature of sin," and "though there
is no condemnation for them that believe and are
baptized," nevertheless it " deserveth God's wrath and
damnation." This concupiscence therefore, in the
judgment of our Church, is a mortal sin, as all sins
truly are. But the Church of Rome cannot hold
this, and at the same time hold that Justification, is
inherent righteousness, through Baptisra, which she
says takes away all original and actual sin ; for if con
cupiscence be a mortal sin, then is our justifying
righteousness ruined, and our Baptism has not done
what is ascribed to it. She must and does not only
maintain that the guilt of original sin, is all taken
away in Baptism, but pronounces, " If any one shall
assert, that all that which has in it the true and pro
per nature of sin, is not taken away, let him be ac
cursed."^ " In the regenerate or baptized," continues
the Decree of Trent, " there is nothing which God
' Dec. Trident. Sess. 5.

259
hates." They are "innocent, immaculate, pure.''
But still there reraains this "concupiscence," this lust
of the flesh. Consequently, it cannot have, what our
Article declares it has, of itself, the true and proper
nature of sin. It cannot be hateful to God. It can
not be inconsistent Avith purity before Hira, and with
the justifying virtue of inherent righteousness. The
Holy Synod of Trent, therefore, decreed " that this
concupiscence, though sometimes called sin (it acknow
ledged) by the Apostle, the Catholic Church had never
understood to be so called, because truly Si-xxd properly
sin in the regenerate, but only because it comes from
sin, and inclines to sin."^ Concupiscence, therefore,
is Venial Sin, which a little holy water or a Pater
Noster, will suffice to rerait. Thus the sufficiency
of inherent righteousness for Justification, and the
entire taking away of original sin, by raaking concu
piscence to be no sin at all, are preserved.
But how do they get at the doctrine that concu
piscence is no sin, not even a part of original sin ?
This is answered by a reference to what we have
said of the Romish doctrine of original sin. Original
sin in the Church of Rome, is not, what our Article
says it is, a positive "fault and corruption," or "infec
tion of nature," so that man " of his own nature is in
clined to evil," &c. ; but it is simply " aprivation of

•Dec. Trident. Sess, 5.
" Venial Sin, (says Aquinas,) has not simply and perfectly the nature of sin,
but is a sort of disposition towards sin" — sed est quasi dispositio ad illud, " It
causes properly no spot in the soul, but impedes the actions of virtue," — nul-
1am proprie maculam causal in anima, sed impedit actus virtutum, " No act
without the consent of the reason, is a mortal sin" — nullus actus sine consensu
rationis est peccatum mortale.

260
original righteousness." But that righteousness, ac
cording to Rome, was a supernatural grace, super
added to the constitution of man's nature, as he was
the work of God, and made in God's Image. Now,
if the loss of that was original sin, then as that loss
was only the loss of what was superadded to man's
original nature, it follows that original sin has no-
thi ngto do with any infection of any thing essential
to man's original nature; so that concupiscence, Avhich
is that infection, is not original sin, and not being in
Romish divinity actual sin, has not properly, in any
way, the true nature of sin.
Then, since Justification, through Baptisra, is the
restoration, in the shape of infused righteousness, of
fhai" supei'natural grace" which Adam lost, it is in no
way hindered or abridged or rendered imperfect by
this infection of nature remaining in the regenerate.
Such is the Romish doctrine of Venial sins, and
its essential connection with that of Justification and
Original Sin. The reader is now requested to con
sider wherein lies any substantial difference between
this doctrine and that of Mr. Newman and Dr. Pusey.
Precisely, as is taught in Romanism, the new di
vinity of Oxford teaches that the Justifying righte
ousness infused at Baptism takes away all original
and actual sin. Nevertheless it is granted that there
does remain in the unregenerate and baptized, that
concupiscence or lust of the flesh of which speaks our
Article on Original Sin. Hoav then is not our inherent
righteousness rendered by this insufficient for Justi
fication ? How does it appear that Baptism, in Jus
tifying, takes away all our original sin ? Of course
by denying that such remnant is Original Sin.

261
How? Why by teaching, as has before been showed,
precisely the Romish doctrine, that Original Sin
consists only in the loss ofa supernatural Grace ; of "a
Robe of Righteousness superadded" to man's original
nature; and that Justification, or Regeneration, for
they are the same thing in this divinity, is simply
the restoration, not of what may have been lost of
man's original nature, but only of that Supernatural
grace. So that Ave come to this, that concupiscence
not being original sin, and certainly not, in the view
of these divines, actual sin, and its existence not
being inconsistent with an inherent justifying righte
ousness, it has not what our Article says it has, "of
itself the nature of sin," nor "deserves God's wrath and
damnation;" but is only what the Church of Rome
has pronounced concerning it, viz: "though some
times called sin by the Apostle, it is not sin truly
and properly, but only because, ex peccato est, et ad
peccatum inclinat} it comes of sin, and inclines to
sin." In other words, it is Venial Sin.
Noav let us show this from some passages of Mr
Newraan. "Baptized persons do not so put on Christ
as to be forthwith altogether different men from ivhat
they were before."'^ This can only mean, AA'hat our
Article says, that "this infection of natui-e (or concu
piscence) doth remain even in them that are Regene
rate;" in other words, that the change in Baptisra
is not the entire putting off of "the old man," the un
regenerate, the carnal raan. But still Baptism does
take away all original sin. Consequently, to retain
any portion of our carnal and unrenewed nature, is not
'Newman's Lectures, p. 177,

262
to retain any original sin. In other words, this rem
nant of the carnal man is only improperly sin — or, as
Rome says, non habet vera7n et propriam rationem
peccati. It needs not Justification; it is therefore
not Mortal, but Venial,'
Now see how entirely Dr, Pusey's doctrineof Sin
after Baptism confirms all this.

I In one very important sense, it is true that from him who believeth in Jesus,
all Original and Actual Sin is taken away. But the wide difference between
what the Author holds to be the truth of God, on this subject, and that taught
above, is that, in the view of the Oxford divines and the Romish, both descrip
tions of sin are taken away by the infusion of a substance of righteousness ;
which is equivalent to saying that they are taken away by a righteousness,
which, because itis in us, is our o-wn righteousness, as much as our souls are
our own. But on the other hand, in the view ofthe writer, and of what, he
will have no difficulty in shewing, is the plain doctrine of our Protestant
Church, they are taken away by the mere iraputation ofthe external righteous
ness of Christ, fulfilling the law and paying its penalty for us, that righteousness
being simply accounted unto us, through the instrumental agency of our faith,
In the former case, the taking away of sin has reference to its indwelling ; in
the latter to its condemnation. The former is a moral change of personal cha
racter; the latter is forensically a change of relative state. In the one case, there
is no direct reference to the Saviour; the cross is almost out of sight. The
righteousness of Christ, consisting in his obedience and death, as Mediator, has
no part nor lot therein. In the other, Christ is all; his cross, the only object ;
his Mediatorial righteousness, wrought out by his obedience, finished on the
cross, apprehended by faith and imputed to the believer for Justification, is the
only hope. With the latter view, there is no inconsistency in the fact that the
moral nature of Original Sin, the infection, the concupiscence of which our Ar
ticle speaks, should remain, even in the Regenerate and Justified, (though its
power must be broken, and daily it is becoming weaker, through the progres
sive increase of personal holiness,) because, while Sanctification is always and
essentially the companion of Justification, it is not Justification, The one is
inherent, but not perfect. The other is perfect, hut not inherent. The one is
in us ; the other, in Christ " our Righteousness." But with the other view, the
remaining of that infection is incompatible, because it has the nature of sin,
and therefore conflicts essentially with the justifying efficacy of our inherent
righteousness — so that in Oxford, as in Romish divinity, its having the nature
of sin must be denied, and to this end, the nature of Original Sin must be
changed.

263
He says " the Church has no second Baptism to
give, and therefore cannot pronounce the person who
has sinned after Baptism altogether free from his past
sins.'"- But he decides this once for all by saying,
"there are but tivo periods of absolute cleansing —
Baptism and the day of Judgment."^
Now let the reader consider, that in a country
such as England, where Infant Baptism is almost
universal, there are hundreds, and hundreds of thou
sands of persons who have been baptized, and who
have never since professed to be sincere followers
of Christ, but have been living ever since their in
fancy in sin. Does Dr. Pusey mean that there is no
way for the pardon, on repentance, of the post-bap
tismal sins of any of these, until the day of Judg
ment ? Hovv, then, when they repent and corae to
be confirmed, can the Bishop say over them that
prayer which begins, "Almighty God who has vouch
safed to regenerate these thy servants, &c., and hast
given imto them forgiveness of all their sins ?" But
again ; We open our Morning and Evening Ser
vice with the words — " If we say that we have no sin
we deceive ourselves," SfC. — We then fall down and
confess that " We have erred and strayed like lost
sheep." The Bible says " There is not a just man on
earth that doeth good and sinneth not. Our fifteenth
Article, on " Christ alone, without sin," says "all we,
although baptized and born again in Christ yet offend
in many things : and if we say we have no sin, Ave
deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." Now
is it credible that, when Oxfordmen thus speak, they
1 Letter, p. 62. 2 P, 63,

264
mean to say that every man (for all have sinned af
ter Baptism) is beyond Justification, till the day of
Judgment? Incredible! Certainly not! What then?
Why, Avhen they speak of sin after Baptism, they
mean not such sins as are thus confessed, but [mor
tal sins. Hence such as the Christian daily confes
ses are venial sins. Here then is the precise conclu
sion we have been aiming at; viz. Mortal sins, as dis
tinguished from sins venial, so that although the sins
of the Christian's daily course are expressly called
sins by the Scriptures, by the Church, by her holi
est divines, yet so little do they seem to Dr. Pusey
to have the " ti'ue and proper nature of sm," that
when he uses the expression " Sin after Baptism,"
he does not mean to include them therein, and does
not think it worth while to hint that they exist.
But when the Homilies of our Church speak of
Sin after Baptism, they mean no distinction between
sins mortal and venial. When our xxi. Article
speaks of " deadly sin after Baptisra, it raeans no
such distinction. Bishop Beveridge interpreting
its language, says the expression "every deadly sin"
in the Article raeans " every sin, for evei'y sin is dead
ly."^ Bishop Hall says " some offences are more hei
nous than others, yet all, in the malignity of their
nature, are deadly. If we have respect unto the in
finite mercy of God, and to the object of his mercy,
the penitent and faithful heart, there is no sin which
is not ve7iial ; but in respect to the disorder, there is
no sin which is not worthy of eternal death."^

' Beveridge on the Articles.
2 Bishop Hall's Works, ix. p. 57. The Bishop of Exeter takes a similar

265
" There is, indeed, no condemnation to them that
are in Christ Jesus; but it is not because they do not
sin; nor because their sin is not of its own nature
deadly; but simply because they are 'in Christ
Jesus,' and are 'justified by faith.' That applica
tion by faith to the justifying righteousness of Christ,
is just as necessary to the taking away of the one sin
ofthe holiest man on earth, as of the million sins of
the most unholy. We glory, not that we have not
sinned after our Baptism, but, confessing that we
have sinned continually, we ' glory only in the cross
of our Lord Jesus Christ,' and 'believing in him,
we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.' "
We have now exhibited ramifications of Romanism,
from the Romish doctrine of Justification, which raay
be proved to be actually gro7vn out already. We
now proceed to show tendencies of no doubtful char
acter, towards other and more overt developments;
buds getting ready to burst into branches.
PURGATORY.
The decree ofthe Council of Trent on this subject
determines :

view ofthe language of the Oxford writers, with that we have now exhibited.
"Nor may we forget (he says in his late Charge) the tendency of such lan
guage to encourage the pernicious and perilous habit of distinguishing between
such sins as may destroy our state of grace, and such as we may think still
leave that state secure. Let it never be absent from our minds, that every wil
ful sin is deadly — and let us beware of hardening our own hearts, and corrupt
ing the hearts of our brethren — ^by whisperir>g to ourselves or them -which ein
is more or less deadly than others. That which we may deem the least will be
deadly enough, if unrepented, to work our perdition : — those which we deem
the most deadly, will, if repented, have been thoroughly wa^ihed away in the
blood of our Redeemer,''
34

266
" That there is a Purgatory, and that souls there detained are
aided by the suffrages ofthe living, and above all, by the acceptable
sacrifice of the Altar," Bishops are enjoined lo provide that the
suffrages of the believers living, that is, the sacrifices of masses,
prayers, alms, and other works of piety, which believers living are
wont to perform for believers dead, be performed according to the
rules ofthe Church, piously and religiously, &c — Session 25.
Now, of this dire Romish corruption, as expressed
in the above very words, do the Oxford writers, in
Tract No. 79, on Purgatory say :
"Taken in the mere letter, there is little in it
against which we shall be able to sustain formal ob
jections." p. 516, vol. iii. Am. Ed.
This is consistent. The Oxford system must ad
mit as much. And here folloAvs the reason in its own
words : " The Roman Church holds that the great
majority of Christians die in God's favour, yet more
or less under the bond of their sins. And so far
(says the Tract) we may unhesitatingly allow to
them, or rather ive ourselves hold the same, if we hold
that after Baptism, there is no plenary pardon of sins
in this life to the sinner, however penitent, such as in
Baptism was once vouchsafed to him," p. 517.
Now the only difference pretended to between the
Oxford and Romish doctrine, is that while both
maintain a purification or purgation for believers
frora sin, or a purgatory, in the future world, the Ro
manist makes a definite place for it, and makes that
place to be one of pain, and the pain to be meted out
" in a certain fixed proportion," p. 518, so that "every
sin of a certain kind has a definite penalty or price;"
while the Oxfordist contents himself with saying
that it is a purification from sin, not determining, but
not denying, that there is pain in, and a place for, it.

267
such as Romanists speak of. How near, however, the
Oxfordist approximates to his neighbour of Rome,
raay be judged from the following comraent of the
Tract upon 1 Cor. in. 12, 15. " If any build," &c.
" Now it would seem plain, that in this passage, the searching
process of final Judgment, essaying our works of righteousness, is
described by the word fire. Not ihat we may presume lo limit the
word fire to that meaning, or on the other hand to say it is a merely
figurative ex'press'ion, denoting judgment ; which seems a stretching
somewhat beyond our measure. Doubtless there is a mystery in
the word^^re, as there is a mystery in the words day of Judgment,
Yet it any how has reference to the instrument or process of judg
ment. And in this way the Fathers seem to have understood the
passage ; referring it to the last judgment, as Scripture does, but at
the same time religiously retaining the use of the word fire, as not
affecting to interpret and dispense with what seems some mysterious
economy, lest ihey should be wiser than what is written." p. 538.
The Church of Rome could not desire a publica
tion better suited to advance the doctrine of Purga
tory, in these days, a better " Tract for the Tiraes,"
going just as far as would be expedient, under the
circumstances, than Tract No. 79, frora which the
above extracts are taken.
Connecting all this with what has before been
shown under the head of Sin after Baptism, one
would suppose that the fiames of Purgatory could
hardly be prevented from soon bursting out in open
day, from the " wood, hay, and stubble" of Oxfordism,
seeing that it has such a preparatory funeral-pile of
combustibles. Mr. Newman began to prepare the
public mind for such maturer developments, when iu
his Parochial Serraons, he wrote as follows :
" Who can tell, but in God's mercy, the time of waiting between
death and Christ's coming, may be profitable to those who have
been his true servants here, as a time of maturing that fruit of grace.

268
but partly formed in them in this life ; a school lime of contem
plation, as this world is of discipline, of active service. Such surely
is the force of the Apostle's words, that He that hath begun a good
work in you, will perform it, until the day of Christ — not slopping
at death, but carrying it into the Resurrection, — as if the interval
between death and His coming, was by no means lo be omitted in
the process of our preparation for heaven," pp. 411, 412.
PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD.
We have seen, that in the injunction of the Trent
decree, concerning "the suffrages of the liA'ing, such
as sacrifices, masses, prayers, alms, and other works
of piety, Avhich the living (in the Church of Rome)
are Avont to perform for believers dead," "there is
little in the letter" against which Oxfordists think
themselves "able to sustain a formal objection."
Hence, Mr. NcAvman likens the intercession of the
Christian, to that of Christ, and calls it a propitiation
" The Christian is plainly in his fitting place when he intercedes
He is made after the pattern of Christ. He is what Christ is
Christ intercedes above, and he intercedes below." Again, speak.
ing of those whom infirmity prevents frora attending on public wor
ship, he asks, " shall not their prayers, unite in one before the
Mercy Seat, sprinkled wilh the atoning blood, as a pure offering of
incense unto the Father, and a propitiation both for the world of
sinners, and for his purchased Church."'
But the following from the late Charge of the
Bishop of Exeter, will answer on this head of fast-
developing Romanism.
" 1 lament the encouragement given by the same "writers to the
dangerous practice of prayer for the dead. They disclaim, indeed,
the intention of giving such encouragement, and I doubt not the sin
cerity of their disclaimer. But to state that this practice ' is a mat-
' Parochial Sermons, No. xxi.

269
ter of sacred consolation to those who feel themselves justified in en
tertaining it,' — (and all, they seem to suggest, may 'feel themselves
justified,' for it is ' warranted by the early Church,') — to say, further,
that it is ' a solemn privilege to the mourner' — ' a dictate of human
nature' — nay, that it ' may be implanted by the God of Nature, may
be the voice of God within us:' — lo say all this, is surely an 'en
couragement' of the practice so characterized, which is very feebly
counterbalanced by their admitting that 'our Church does not en
courage it' — by their abstaining from in ' any way inculcating it' —
or even by their thinking ' it expedient lo bring forward such a topic
in public discussion.
" Nor do I assent to their opinion, that ' our Church does not dis
courage' prayer for the dead ; on the contrary, if, as they admit, the
Church, having at first adopted such prayer, in the general words in
which it was used in the ancient Liturgies, afterwards ' for the safety
of her children relinquished lhe practice,' even in this sober and
harmless form, ' in consequence of abuses connected wilh it in the
Romish system' — abuses, of the least of which, she says, that they
are 'grounded, upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant
to the Word of God;' while of others she declares, that they 'were
blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits;" — 1 can hardly propose
to myself any more decisive mode of discouraging a practice, which,
in itself, could not be condemned as absolutely contrary to God's
word. " I must go further : I must add, and I do so with unfeigned respect
for the integrity and sincerity of these writers, as well as for their
eminent ability and learning, that I cannot easily reconcile it with
Christian discretion, for any member of the Church to speak with
so much of favour ofa practice which was thus deliberately, and for
such grave reasons, repudiated by the Church herself. Still less can
I understand what justification can be offered for his saying ofthe
Romanist, that in " deciding that almost all souls undergo a painful
purification after death, by which Infeclum eluilur scelus, aut exuri-
tur igni, he only follows ' an instinct of human nature.'' Surely,
if this be true, the Romanist is right in his decision : for an instinct
of our nature could have come only from the Divine Author of that
nature — it must be indeed ' the voice of God within us.'

270

INVOCATION OF SAINTS.
On this head, Ave are content to let the Bishop of
Exeter speak again :
" Next, of ' the invocation of Saints,' these writers say, that it
' is a dangerous practice, as tending to give, often actually giving,
to creatures the honor and reliance due to the Creator alone.'
" But ho w does the good Bishop Hall, whom they profess to follow,
speak on this same point? ' These foul superstitions,'' says he, ' are
not more heinous than new — and such as whereon we have justly
abhorred lo lake part with the practisers of them.' Again, ' This
doctrine and practice of the Romish Invocation of Saints, both as
new and erroneous, against Scripture and reason, we have justly re
jected ; and are thereupon ejected, as unjustly.' "
The Invocations to the Saints in the Roman and
Parisian Breviaries are called, in a late No. of the
British Critic, by the modest name of "uncatholic pe
culiarities."
NEW saints' days.
" In connexion with this subject (Invocation of
Saints) I cannot (says the Bishop of Exeter) but de
plore the rashness Avhich has prompted them to re-
comraend to private Christians the dedication of par
ticular days to the Religious Commeraoration of de
ceased men — and even to furnish a special Service
in honor of Bishop Ken, formed apparently on the
model of an office in the Breviary to a Romish
Saint. Would it be safe for the Church itself — and
is it becoming in private individuals — to pronounce
thus confidently on the characters of deceased Chris
tians — in other AA^ords, to assume the gift of ' discern
ing of spirits?' To what raust such a practice be
expected to lead ? The History of the Church of
Rome has told us ; and the Fathers of our Reforma-

271
tion, in compiling the Liturgy, have marked their
sense of the danger by rejecting every portion of the
Breviary which bears on such a practice, even while
they adopted all that was really sound and edifying
in it. Yet these writers scruple not to recommend
this very practice, thus deliberately rejected by those
wise and holy men — and, strange to say, recommend
it as only completing what our Fathers have begun
— a means of carrying out in private the spirit and
principle of those inestimable forms of devotion,
which are contained in our authorized Prayer Book."
A more barefaced insult to all decent consistency
with the principles of the Church of England was
never perpetrated than the "Matin Service for Bishop
Ken's Day" — constructed and published by these
devout adrairers of the Roman and Parisian Brevia
ries — "for social or private devotion," Who gave
them authority to pronounce upon the present bless
edness of Bishop Ken? Hoav do they know that, for
sins after Baptism, he is not noAV in their Purgatory,
undergoing a purification from "uncancelled .sins?"
Whence have they authority to canonize a Saint,
and call upon Christians to commemorate his holi
ness? It is but a completing, (they say) a carrying
out, in spirit and principle, what is already begun in
our Prayer Book. How is this? Has the Prayer
Book appropriated days or services to the memory of
any but a few distinguished personages mentioned
in the New Testament, and those almost all Apostles 1
But how is it a carrying out of the spirit of the
Prayer Book, when the model of the Prayer Book,
in the comraemoration of Saints, is entirely deserted,
and the whole service, in words, and form, and parts.

272
and arrangement, and every single feature, is most
studiously adjusted according to the Romish Bre
viary? Not a feature of the mode of the English
Prayer Book appears; not one of the Romish Bre
viary is omitted in this Matin Service.
This edifying " Restoration;" ihis tentative effort
to raise up the "degraded " Church of England from
her present place as "a slave" at her Father's table,
and set her in the condition of " the King's daugh
ter," and enable her to enjoy "the depth and rich
ness ofthe ancient services ofthe Universal Church,"
as contained in the Roraan and Parisian Breviaries,
raust doubtless be considered but as a feeler to try
how far the mind of English Protestants is able to
bear such an increase of light and privilege. Should
it appear that enough of the ancient spirit has re
turned, as no doubt it will seem to these very confi
dent Restorers, we shall certainly be favoured with
additional Saints and commemoration days. For
why should they stop at Bishop Ken? Cannot the
principle be advantageously carried out much fur
ther? If one such Saint is good, would not two be
better? Such is the principle on which these gen
tlemen proceed in other things; the sign of the
Cross is used in Baptism, and why not at all other
times ? To bow at the name of Jesus in the Creed
once, is considered well, (though the present writer
does not think so) and why not therefore at any
other time? So reasons Dr. Pusey, to the Bishop of
Oxford.' Then surely, as it is so good to have a
Matin Service for Bishop Ken, and as the Non Ju-
' Letter, pp. 6 & 7.

273
rors included many other raen of great repute at Ox
ford for Catholic doctrine and spirit, such as San
croft, and Hickes, and Kettlewell, there can be no
reason, but the necessity of waiting for a proper pre
paredness in the "degraded" state of the Anglican
Church, to prevent the further developraent of the
riches of ancient Catholic services in the publication
of Matins with Nocturns and Antiphons for other
departed Saints. Why not for Mr. Fronde? "Let
Daily Service and the keeping qf Holy Days become
universal," says the British Critic, reviewing the
latest Tract. "The Saints and Angels will be with
us at all events."' How is this known? Are not
these writers developing their systera too fast for the
tiraes ? transubstantiation.
So much has been written for the purpose of
shewing how near this divinity approaches to the
Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation in its zeal
ous maintenance that there is, not only a real pre
sence of the body and blood of Christ, or, in other
words, of "Christ crucified" in the Eucharist, in the
sense of effective, as distinguished from local, and
through the Holy Spirit applying the "benefits of
his Passion," and not in any substantial manner,
which is simply the sense of the Anglican Church;
but that there is also a" substantial presence;" "an
immediate, unseen Presence of that Body," that we
need not here exhibit the language of Oxford Di
vines any further on that head. The tendency at
least of such views cannot be mistaken.

> No. 54, p. 256.
35

274
But connect with this the anxiety of these writers
that the subject should not be discussed, expressed
as folio Avs :
" This consideration (the danger arising out of the sacredness of
the subject) will lead us lo put into the back-ground the controversy
about the Holy Eucharist, which is almost certain to lead to profane
and rationalistic thoughts in the minds of lhe many, and cannot well
be discussed in words at all, without the sacrifice of ' godly fear,'
while it is well nigh anticipated by- the ancient statements, and the
determinations ofthe Church concerning the Incarnation. It is true
that learned men, such as Stillingfleet, have drawn lines of distinc
tion between the doctrine of transubstantiation, and that high mys
tery ; but the question is, whether they nre so level to the intelli
gence ofthe many, as lo secure the Anglican disputant from foster
ing irreverence, whether in himself or his hearers, if he ventures on
such an argument. If transubstantiation must be opposed, it must
be in another way; by showing, as may well be done, and as Stil
lingfleet himself has done, that, in matter of fact, it was not the doc
trine ofthe early Church, but an innovation at such or such a lime;
a line of discussion which requires learning both to receive and to
appreciate."^

¦ Tract No. 71, vol. iii. of Am. Ed. pp. 7 & 8,
This keeping of certain matters in the hack-ground, for the purpose of pre
venting an inconvenient discussion, by drawing a veil of awfulness or mystery
over them, appears with singular frequency in these writers. For example:
While the writer in the British Critic, on the Church Service, is saying all he
desires to say on the comparative richness of the ancient services, and those of
the Anglican Church, depreciating the latter exceedingly, he shuts up the ques
tion against less reverent critics by this remark : " To say that the depth and
richness of the ancient services of the Universal Church have no parallel in
modern times, were to bring into a painful comparison -wliat is far too sacred
for human criticism." — British Critic No. 54, p. 251, The same writer, re
viewing the second part of Fronde's Remains, on the subject of Rationalism in
the interpretation of Scripture, says " the awful manner in which the author
treats the subject positively cows us " — it is more like that of a spirit speak
ing to us in a vision, than the tone of a theological treatise. All we can summon
heart to do is to take the elementary principles ofthe essay, &c. The Reviewer
leaves the work to those who will " come to it vr'ith fasting and mortification."

275
On the above singular paragraph, first barring all
discussion, and then, if the subject must be discussed,
excluding all reference to Scripture, and confining
us to the clear type and simple page of Tradition, the
Bishop of Exeter thus writes: "I lament to read
their advice to those who are contending for the truth
against the Romanists, that, ' the controversy about
Transubstantiation be kept in the back ground; be
cause it cannot well be discussed in words at all with
out the sacrifice of godly fear:' — as if that tenet
were not the abundant source of enormous practical
evils, which the faithful Advocate of the Truth is
bound to expose: in particular, of the extravagant
exaltation of the Romish priesthood, which seems
to have been its primary object — and, still worse, of
that which is its legitimate and necessary conse
quence, the adoration of the Sacramental Bread and
Wine, which our Church denounces as ' Idolatry to
be abhorred of all faithful Christians,' "
But while discussion has thus been discouraged,
advancement has been made towards Transubstan
tiation. Behold to what length the matter has come,
in the following passage from the last British Critic.
" Is the wonder wrought at the marriage of Cana, a Miracle, and
the change which the holy Elements undergo, as consecrated by the
Priest, and received by the faithful, no Miracle, simply because the
one was perceptible lo the natural eye, while the other is discerned
bythe spiritual alone? Protestants must take care what they are
about when they speak at random against the Church of Rome, lest

Is not this inconceivably foolish 1 A book on Rationahsm only to be read
with fasting and mortification ! What next ? How soon will the memory of
Froude be enshrined in a Matin Service, with Nocturns and Antiphons, and
all the richness of the Roman Breviary 1

276
they pave the way for things as far worse than Popery, as irreligion
is worse than superstition ; first rationalism, and next infidelity."*
AGE OF MIRACLES,
It is a well knoAvn tenet of Romanisra that the age
of miracles has never ceased — that divers miracles
are wrought at tombs of Saints, by the touch of re
lics, &c, — and that miracles are a distinguishing
raark of the true Church. Oxford Divinity is dis
posed to claim thus much also.
The last Tract as yet published. No, 86, asks why
we should suppose that with respect to sudden and
extraordinary cures, a broad line is drawn between
primitive and later ages? On which the writer in
the British Critic above quoted says :
" Surely — it is want of faith, which is the only hindrance to these
gifts in later times. Why does St, James apply to Elias the epithet
ofAoioifafli^j, except to show that the question turns upon difference,
not of Privilege, but of Faith, or of Privilege as depending upon
Faith? What is the meaning of the popular phrase 'the Age of
Miracles'? Is not every age ofthe Church an Age of Miracles? Is
there all the difference, or, indeed, any thing more than the differ
ence between things seen and unseen (a difference worth nothing in
Faith's estimate,) between healing the sick and converting the soul ;
raising man's natural body, and raising him in Baptism from the
death of sin ?" » AURICULAR CONFESSION,
How far we may go towards the Church of Rome
without ceasing to be sound Protestants, in the judg
ment of these divines, appears, in part, from the fol
lowing — In the British Critic, for January last, is a
review of Brewer's Court of King James L, by
I Br. Critic, No. 54, p. 260. 2 Ib. pp. 259, 260.

277
Goodman, Bishop of Gloucester, who was a reputed
Papist in the time of Archbishop Laud. The Re
viewer praises the Editor for meeting Ultra Protes
tants "with their own weapons," and says that "he
fairly argues that it does not follow, it is not necessa
ry, it is not certain that because Bishop Goodman
said this, or that, therefore he was «ther than a
"sound Protestant.' "
Now what did Bishop Goodman say? The Re
viewer says he advocated Auricular Confession. The
Editor says, that in his will was the following pas
sage : " I do acknowledge the Church of Rome to be
the mother Church. And I do verily believe that no
other Church hath any salvation in it, but only sofar
as it concurs with the faith of the Church of Rome."
Then in the concurrent judgment of these writers,
(we mark that of the British Critic, especially, because
of its office as an organ of Oxfordism,) a Bishop may
advocate Auricular Confession, as well as record his
solemn belief that no Church has salvation but so far
as it concurs with the Church of Rome, and still be
"a consistent Protestant." This is a stride indeed !
EXTREME UNCTION.
The British Critic in the Review of the late Tract,
No. 86, on Church Service, complains of the author
"because he did not enter a more decided protest,
than he has, against the common Protestant objec
tion to Extreme Unction." The Reviewer thinks
the testimony of Scripture, unexplained and un
guarded by Tradition, is in favour of it. The only
reason against it is that it wants Catholic consent.
But that may be discovered before long.

278

ANOINTING AT BAPTISM AND AT CONFIRMATION.
The absence of these in the Anglican Church is
called "the loss of a privilege." And the keeping up
of the Coronation-Service in which anointing is re
tained is regarded as an indication of special " Provi
dential care over the Church" — thus keeping up a
witness to both of the Catholic truths, of Avhich the
omission of anointing at Baptism and Confirmation
might seem to betoken a disparagement.^
INCREASE OF SACRAMENTAL SIGNS AND EFFICACIOUS
SYMBOLS.
The cross is called "a Sacramental sign," and
memorial to the eyes of the Faithful " a holy effica
cious Emblem."^ Now this is precisely the distin
guishing description given in our Article on the Sa
craments of the Sacramental character of Baptism
and the Eucharist — " Sacraments be not only badges
or tokens of Christian men's possession, but rather
they be sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace."
Thus is the cross put on a level, as a sacramental
sign, Avith Baptism and the Lord's Supper. The
writer, now quoted, is not fond of the Crucifix in
Churches. He aa-ouM not object to it "as an object
for very private contemplation under certain trying
circumstances." But " openly exhibited, it produces
the same sort of uncomfortable feeling with certain
Protestant exposures in preaching the Mystery
which it represents." On the other hand, "the mere
Cross embodies what no Christian should shrink
from conteraplating; while of the aAvful Mystery
1 British Critic No. 54, p. 259. 2 Ib, No, 54, p, 271

279
therewith connected, it is but suggestive, — We hope
the time Avill come Avhen no English Church will
want, what raany possess already, the Image of the
Cross in some place sufficiently conspicuous to assist
the devotions of the worshipper, — Let us multiply
the same holy, efficacious Emblem far and wide.
^ There is no saying how many sins its aAvful form
might scare, how many evils avert. "^ Truly effi
cacious indeed !
But the Cross is not the only sacred syrabol which
is soon to be erected in the Churches. The above
zealous restorer of the depth and richness of the an
cient services says :
" With the Cross should be associated other Ca
tholic syrabols still more than even itself dfo^vavTa.
(SmiToig, {vocul to the Spiritually discer7iing.) For these,
painted windows seem to furnish a suitable place.
They should at all events be confined to the most sa
cred portion of the building. Such are the Lamb
with the standard; the descending Dove; the An
chor; the Triangle; the Pelican; the i;:^«j, (fish) and
others. Perhaps the two or three last mentioned,
as being of most recondite meaning, should be adopted
later than the rest."^
Here we see Symbols "for the Times," as well as
Tracts. The Avriter speaks of "others," besides those
most edifying and sacred Avhich he has thought the
Times permit him to name. The other names
will doubtless follow in good time. So then we shall
soon need no preaching of the Avord by the Minis
ters' voice. The lessons in the service, with the
¦ British Critic, No, 54, p, 271, 2 lb. No, 54, pp, 271, 272.

280
preaching of these symbols, which has the advan
tage over that of a sermon, in being audible only by
the ear that is prepared for their awful and sacred
meaning, will do a great deal better than the present
Ultra Protestant mode of dispensing the truth as it
is in Jesus, without reserve.
ADDITIONAL RESTORATIONS.
The writer of the Review of Tract No. 86, on the
Church Services, in the British Critic, proceeding
in his revival of ancient services with a degree of
boldness which promises very much in the way of
subsequent developments of what, like the fish and
triangle, &c., may be "too recondite" yet for the
state of the times, recommends as follows :
"There should be some special decoration on Festival days; al
tar coverings and pulpit hangings of unusual richness; or the natu
ral fiowers of tbe season woven into wreaths, or placed (according
to primitive custom) upon the Altar, These should be chosen with
especial reference to the subject of the Festival. While flowers are
most proper on the days consecrated to lhe Blessed Virgin, as em
blematic of sinless purity; purple or crimson upon the several Saints'
days (except St. John Evangelist, and perhaps St. Luke), to signify
the blood of martyrdom; and on All Saints' Days and the Holy In
nocents, while should be intermingled, as a memorial of virgin inno
cence. We deprecate forced flowers, which look artificial ; but we
believe with a little management natural flowers of tbe proper co
lours may be found nearly throughout the year. It is difficult to
conceive a more suitable occupation for the Christian poor, than
that of cultivating fiowers far such a purpose, and afterwards ar
ranging them. The decoration of the chancel, however, should be
the especial privilege of the Minister himself. The Church bells
should, according to Archbishop Laud's Injunctions, be rung on
Festivals and their Eves. Two lights should be placed upon the Al
tar, according to Edward the 6th's order, ratified in our present
Prayer Book. We think it plain that these candles were meant at

281
the Reformation to be lighted, as had been usual, during the cele
bration of the Holy Eucharist; otherwise they do not so well 'sig
nify ' (in the words of the Injunction) ihe truth — Christus Lux
mundi. But such practices might give offence in these days, and
we do not advise it, though inclined lo regard it as strictly Anglican.
For the same reason, we should be unwilling to press sudden chan
ges in the ecclesiastical dress, though it is plain that these also might
be reconciled wilh the order in our Prayer Book, which directs us to
Edward 6th's lime for the practice of our Church as respects both
vestments and ornaments. Persons should be encouraged to make
obeisance on entering Church, and the Minister should never ap
proach, or pafes, the Altar without doing reverence as is customary
at this day in some of our cathedrals. We think it quite consistent
with the Rubric of our Church lo consecrate the Holy Elements at
the centre of the Altar and facing it. We should like to see all alms
offered at the Altar, and in a kneeling posture. At least the alms
and oblations of Bread and Wine, should be so oflfered; and the
remnants after consecration should be received likewise kneeling."*
SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE,
The germ of this Restoration is quite visible in
the following mystic language :
" The ordinance of Marriage has an inward and
spiritual meaning, contained in it and revealed
through it — as if persons, to place themselves in that
human relation, interested themselves, in some secret
way, in the divine relation (that of Christ and the
Church) of which it is a figure," — Tract, No 71,
p. 89.USE OF ROMISH PRAYER BOOKS AND RULES OF
FASTING, ETC.
"An Ecclesiastical Almanac for 1840, has been
published for the guidance of Oxfordists amid the

'See British Critic No, 54, pp. 272, 273.— All surely very edifying.
36

282
riches of the ancient services as found in Roman and
Parisian Breviaries. In this is " a selection from the
old Catholic Service Books, of Psalms and other pas
sages of Holy Scripture, appropriate to the several
classes of Saints' Days" while " the minute rules of
the Roman Church are quoted as a guide to indivi
duals " in reference to days of Fasting and Abstinence.
We have already stated that the British Critic re
gards it as a very delightful sign of the growth of
the Times that Parker, in Oxford, finds it his inter
est to import a large number of copies of the Roman
and Paris Breviaries for "private devotion."
SERVICE IN AN UNKNOAVN TONGUE  AND DISUSE OF
PREACHING.
That these writers have said any thing positively
in favour of service in an unknown tongue is not
here asserted; but their whole system of Reserve,
of sacred veils over "aAvful mysteries" to conceal
them from the eye of the profane, and of the use of
all those sacred Symbols which only the initiated
are supposed to be capable of reading, indicates the
very principle on which the Service in an Unknown
Tongue in the Romish Church is defended.
It is considered by these divines a great advan
tage in Hymns or Psalms for public worship, when
they "not only open and disclose, but also withdraw
and conceal the higher spiritual senses, according to
the character of the persons who make use of them
— serving as a religious veil to withhold frora some
what they impart to others" — lest it should "be pro
faned by a worldly eye."^
'See Review ofa New Version ofthe Psalms in the British Critic, No. 53.

283
Why then should there be no such veil over the
service for the Eucharist to hide its awful mysteries
from the profane, and so of Baptism, &c. Why, if
a poor creature, ignorant of the Atonement and of
every thing else but that the Cross is " a sacred syra
bol and efficacious sign of grace," standing or pros
trating herself before it, with implicit, but with no
explicit faith in what it signifies, raay be supposed to
have a strong sense of the power of a saving faith,
as we have seen asserted ; why may not a whole
congregation of such persons be equally profited by
the mere contemplation and preaching ofthe sacred
" Catholic Syrabols" above described, the Triangle,
the Fish, the Anchor, the Pelican, added to the mani
pulations and genuflexions, of the Priest, his divers
bowings and incensings, accompanied with the aid of
rich altar-cloths, symbolic candlesticks, splendid sa
cerdotal vestments, and enchanting choral music ?
The sarae considerations teach how little use there
is in frequent preaching, for all the purposes of the
Oxford systera. The Principle of Reserve requires
a far more restrained method of preaching than is at
present practised, especially as to the Atonement
and other such doctrines, which in this divinity are
not among the matters which must be explicitly be
lieved, in order to a saving faith. The outward cross,
contemplated, is considered as so "efficacious," that
one need knoAv nothing raore of the Atoneraent, to
have the raerits of Christ applied to his soul,
" The Church," says the British Critic, "is out of
her place, converting in a Christian country." The
present "degraded" state ofthe Church of England
reconciles the Oxford Reviewer "in sorae measure

284
to a more excited tone of preaching than is consis
tent with the perfect theory of the Catholic system."
But, says the cautious writer :
" Not indeed to the prominent exhibition in preaching of the
Christian Mysteries ; for this were inadmissible under far more ex
treme circumstances and even upon the supposition of our congre
gations being literally heathen ; indeed the more inadmissible the
farther the hearers receded from the perfect state." &c.^
IMAGE WORSHIP.
That these writers have advocated Image Wor
ship, is not here pretended. But that they manifest
a strange tenderness and tendency towards the abom
inable idolatry, we shall easily show. This is one
of the subjects which they would exclude from dis
cussion; but if it must be discussed, as with Tran
substantiation, they would not rest the argument
on Scripture, because there may be a difference
of opinion as to its meaning; but on Tradition.
As if the simple command, " Thou shalt not make
to thyself any graven i7nage, &c., which any one
can read for himself, were of less plainness and
solemn decision, than the confused folios of tradition
for which the million must depend on the reading of
the few.
We quote again from the Charge of the Bishop of
Exeter. " I yet cannot but lament, that they sometimes deal with some of
the worst corruptions of Rome, in terms not indicating so deep a
sense of their pernicious tendency, as yet I doubt not that they feel.
" For instance : defending themselves against the charge of leaning
towards Popery, they confidently aflnrm, that ' in the seventeenth
century the Theology of the Body of the English Church was sub-
1 British Critic, No. 54, p. 261.

285
stanfially the same as theirs;' and in proof of this, they profess, in
stating the errors of Rome, to ' follow closely the order observed by
Bishop Hall in his treatise on 'the Old Religion,' ' whose Protest
antism, they add, ' is unquestinnable,' and is claimed, therefore, as
a voucher for their own. But, looking to particulars, I lament to
see them ' following, indeed, the order of Bishop Hall,' but widely
departing from his truly Protestant sentiments, on more than one im
portant article.
" First, of' the worship of images,' (for so that great Divine justly
designates what they more delicately call ' the honor paid to images,')
they say only, that it is ' dangerous in the case of the uneducated,
that is, of the great part of Christians.' But Bishop Hall treats it
as not merely 'dangerous' to some, but as sinful in all; as 'against
Scripture;' 'the Book of God is full of indignation against this
practice;' and ' against reason,' ' What a madness is it,' says he,
' for a living man to stoop unto a dead stock !' "
Of the singular tenderness of these writers to
wards the idolatry of the Romish Church, there is
one example which as it comes incidentally into the
mass of Oxford writings, may be considered as spe
cially indicative of their habit of mind. The Re
viewer in a late number of the British Critic is de
scribing the Decorations of English Churches in
Papal times. He has gone over the whole detail of
pictures of St. George and the Dragon, of St.
Thomas a Becket, &c., and "numerous other sub
jects from the Legends of the Saints" — he has told
us of the various crucifixes, and roods, and images,
and rood-lofts, and beams, for the display of roods and
images ; we look in vain for the least expression of
sensibility or aversion at the thought of the idolatry
of which those "decorations" were once the objects.
At last it is mentioned that —
" To some particular images, peculiar honour was paid ; sums
were bequeathed to furnish lights to burn before them, and pilgrim-

286
ages and vows were made to them. Those of the Virgin, thus noted,
were in the highest repute and very numerous. Amongst others,
our Lady of Pity, our Lady of Grace, our Lady of Walsingham, &c."
But now we are told of a most famous image — our
Lady of Bolton, once in Durham Cathedral, which
was then connected with a Monastery. A sickening
account is drawn from an old writer, full of devout
admiration of this raost goodly spectacle.
" It was made to open with gems from the breast downwards.
And within the said image was wrought the image of our Saviour,
marvellously finely gilt, holding up his hands, and betwixt his
hands, a large fair crucifix of Christ — the which crucifix was to be
taken forth every Good Friday, and every man did creep unto it,
that was in the Church — and every principal day, the said image
was opened, that every man might see pictured within her, the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, most curiously and finely gilt ;
and both the sides within her were finely varnished with green and
flowers of gold, which was a goodly sight for all the beholders
thereof." Such was " Our Lady of Bolton." A more profane
enormity was never set up in the house of God. It
was this very Image, with others, of which Cranmer
speaks by name, and with zealous indignation :
" They kissed their feet devoutly; and to them they offered can
dles and images of wax, rings, beads, gold and silver abundantly.
And because they that so taught them had thereby great commodity,
they maintained the same with feigned miracles and erroneous doc
trine, teaching the people that God would hear their prayers made
before this image rather than before another image. Seeing there
fore it is an horrible idolatry to worship the sun, which is a most
g.oodly creature of God ; let every man consider how devilish idola
try it is, to worship our own images, made by our own hands. "^
Such is the language of one of those "our old mar
tyrs who rather than they would once kneel or offer
' Cranmer's Catechism ; on First Commandment.

287
up one crumb of incense before an image, suffered
raost cruel and horrible deaths."^
But how speaks the organ of Oxford Divinity of
this hideous development of the genius of Roman
ism ? Words of loathing, surely the heart of a Cler
gyman of the Church of England cannot smother.
Let us hear !
"Much there was (in the ancient Churches of En
gland) which sober piety cannot sanction."^
But is this all ? Yes — every syllable of the cen
sure ! Human ingenuity could not have invented
less. Entire silence would have been raore severe.
But even this pin-mark is too severe a wound with
out some healing balm. " Much there was which
sober piety cannot sanction; but (adds the indulgent
apologist) let us not forget what was holy and reli
gious on account of incidental corruptions." Here
the subject is dropped, on the principle, it would
seem, of "least said soonest mended;" leaving us to
the necessary conclusion, that all these hideous forms
of Antichrist, these diversified tools of an abominable
idolatry, uniting " Christ with Belial, the Temple of
God with idols," was only an incidental thing, no
thing to be charged to the legitimate tendency or
systematic patronage of Romanism ; only incidental,
and of little consequence, compared with "all that
was holy and religious" in the essential working of
the system. Where shall we find in these authors
such kind apologies for that system of doctrine, and
that way of preaching Christ — the way of "a large
portion" of the most devoted, most spiritual, most
1 Homily against Peril of Idolatry. 2 British Critic No, 50, p. 381.

288
useful Clergy of the Church of England — the way
called Ultra-Protestant? We hear nothing of inci
dental evil in that connection. Corruption there is
in-bred, essential, systematic. To be "holy and reli
gious" under that system is incidental. While to
Avorship profane representations of the Trinity and
of the Virgin in images of wood, and paint, and
gilding ; images disgusting to delicacy, as well as
odious to piety, is an incidental corruption, with
which Ave should deal tenderly, because of so much
that was holy and religious connected with it. To
preach Imputed righteousness for Justification before
God — to teach that "it is not by the inhesion of grace
in us, hut by the imputation of righteousness to us,
that we are justified" — that "we cannot be accounted
righteous but by Christ's righteousness imputed tous"^
— this, says Mr. Newman, is "a real corruption, a
bondage to shadows — the gift of the law — not of
grace, a tyrannical system which promises liberty,
but conspires against it — which feeds us on shells
and husks," instead of upon Christ. It is "another
Gospel." "Away with iti" exclaims the indignant of
reprobation of Mr. Newman. Alas ! that we could
see a little more in these writers of such indignation
against the manifold and deep-seated corruptions of
that Church, which our Homilies call emphatically
"the idolatrous Church."' Do they feel constrained
to endeavour to cleanse from the Temple, as a mon
strous profanation, the preaching of Justification by
Imputed Righteousness only, and will they not,

- Beveridge on the Articles, pp. 307, 308. 2 Against Peril of Idolatry.
Part 111.

289
with at least equal zeal, drive out, with the knotted
scourge of their indignation, those who turn the
House of Prayer into a den of idols ? Will they not
partake in the spirit of their oavii Church, "purged
from dumb idols to serve the living God," as she ex
claims against the Papacy to which she was once in
that bondage : O Avorldly and fleshly wisdom ! ever
bent to maintain the inventions and traditions of
men by carnal reason, and by the same to disannul
or deface the holy ordinances, laws and honour of the
Eternal God." "Away for shame with these co
loured cloaks of idolatry, of images and pictures to
teach idiots, nay to make idiots and stark fools and
beasts of Christians!'"
But why should we be unprepared for strange
evidence of extreme tenderness in these writers
toward corruptions, which filled our Cranmers and
Hookers and JcAvels with loathing, when in the
"Remains" of one of the Avriters of the Oxford
Tracts, edited by some of the others, " because of the
extreme importance of the vicAvs to Avhich the Avhole
is meant to be subordinate "^ — and edited too without
the least hint of disapprobation of any part, Ave read
such passages as the folloAving: "I think people are
injudicious to talk against Roman Catholics for wor
shipping of Saints and honouring the Virgin and
Images, &c. These things may perhaps be idola
trous, I cannot make up my mind about it."^ Again,
"As for the Reformers, I think Avorse and worse of
thera. Jewel Avas what you Avould call in these

"Homily against Peril of Idolatry, P. iii. « Preface to Froude's Re
mains, 3 Rem. vol. 1, p. 294,
37

290
days, an irreverent dissenter: his Defence of tlie
Apology, disgusted me more than almost any work
I ever read.'" Again, " Really I hate the Reforma
tion and the Reformers, more and more."
Such is language out of a book, and characteristic
of a book, which belongs, of right, to the documents
in evidence of the nature of Oxford Divinity, and of
its influence in begetting a taste and sympathy and
general character in accordance Avith those of the
Church of Rome. We cannot leave it till we have
invoked the spirit of the devout and faithful Bishop
Hall, to come forth and rebuke it.
" Sooner may God create a ncAv Rome, than re
form the old. Yea, needs must that Church put off"
itself and cease to be what it is, ere it can begin to
be what it once Avas. Rome may be sacked and bat
tered, as it hath often been, by military forces; but
purged by admonitions, convictions, censures, it will
never be. Only this one thing which God hath pro-

' Remains, I, 377, 380.
It may perhaps explain some of Mr. FrouJe's disgust at Jewel's irreverence,
&c., to remember that this able Apologist of the Reformation is supposed to
have written the Homily against the Peril of Idolatry from which we have just
quoted — and which tramples down in such just abhorrence the kind dubiety of
Mr. Froude as to the worship of graven images. That '* irreverent dissenter "
was the Patron of Hooker. The Church would probably not have had her
Hooker, had she not been blessed with a Jewel, The former, styled by Bishop
Goodwin, Theologicorum Oxonium, ihe Oxford of Divines, as Athens was
called " the Greece of Greece," was of a different opinion from Mr. Froude, as
to his Patron's merits — even that "/le xvas the -tvorthiest Divine tJiat Cliristen-
dom had bred for some Imndreds of years. — Eccl, Pol. b. ii. § 6. It would
perhaps have shaken, a little, Mr. Froude's confidence in his own judgment,
had he remembered that the Biographer of Dr. Jackson counts it a high praise
of that learned writer to compare him with " the invaluable Bishop Jewel."
Le Bas, speaking of the Apology, says: "No man on earth was more consum
mately qualified than Jewel to render this good office to the Church."

291
raised we do verily expect ; to see the day when the
Lord Jesus, shall with the breath of his mouth, de
stroy this lawless man, long since revealed to his
Church ; and by the brightness of His glorious cora
ing, discover and despatch him. Not only in the
means and way, but in the end also, is Rome oppo
site to Heaven. The Heaven shall pass away by a
change of quality, not an utter destruction of sub
stance. Rome by destruction, not by change.'"
CHRISTIAN HOLINESS.
It was well said by the divines in the Council of
Trent that when Luther wanted to destroy Indul
gences, the Romish doctrine of Penances, of the
Justifying efficacy of the Sacraraents, Authority of
Priests, Purgatory, Sacrifice of the Mass, and all
other Romish "remedies for the remission of sins,"
I Bishop Hall's Works (No Peace with Rome), Svo, ix, pp. 73 — 75,
See a strong comparison between Romish and Heathen idolatry in Book V.
vol, ii. of Jackson's Works — especially c. xxvi, in which it is maintained that
'Hhe -worship -which Satan demanded of our Saviour -was the very same -tohere-
toith the Romish Church -worshippeth Saints"
The same strong writer, speaking of the covert devices by which Satan con
trived to introduce idolatry into the Christian Church, says, "Now admitting
a resolution in the great Professor of destructive acts, so to refine or sublimate
his wonted poisons, as they might the more secretly mingle with the food of
life : where can we suspect this policy to have been practised, ifnot in the Ro
mish Church ; whose idolatrous rites and service of Satan, in former ages, have
been so gross, that if we had seen the temptation, unacquainted wilh the suc
cess, we should certainly have thought the great Tempter had mightily forgot
ten himself, or lost his wonted skill in going so palpably about the business;
nor could any policy have so prevailed against God's Church, unless it had
been first surprised wilh a lethargy, or brought into a relapse of heathenish ig
norance. And what branch of implanted superstition can we imagine in any
son of Adam which may not sufficiently feed itself with some part or other of
the Romish Liturgy, or with some customs by that Church allowed, concerning
the Invocation of Saints, the .Idoration ofreligues, or Worship of Images." —
Vol. i, p, 934,

292
" Justification, by Faith 07ily, seemed to him a good
means to effect this." " Therefore, by a contrary
way," (it was argued in the Council) " he that Avill
establish the body of the Catholic doctrine must over
throw this heresy of Justification by faith only " '^
Both ''were right. It Avas Justification by faith
that went into the temple of the Lord, after Roraish
corruptions had turned it into a market-house of
Masses, Indulgences, Relics and "slaves and souls of
men," and overturning the tables of the money
changers and the shrines of images, drove out "the
merchants of the earth," and said " make not my
Father's house a house of merchandize." None of
these profane intrusions into the sanctuary of God
can stand the stern rebuke of that doctrine. Like
Dagon before the Ark, they fall on their faces con
founded, and their arms and heads are cut off. Justly
did the Fathers of Trent begin their work by casting
out this, as the first step to the bringing back of the
whole host of their ejected "remedies for the remis
sion of sins." All these must return, in substance, if
not in name and form, Avhen, for the true Gospel doc
trine of Justification, that of Rome is preached. We
have seen such results most impressively in the
showing of this Chapter. With the return of Justi
fication, by Inherent righteousness, has come back
the Romish Doctrine of the Nature and Office of
Faith ; of the opus operatum of the Sacraments ; of
Baptismal Justification; of Original Sin; of Mortal
and Venial Sins; of Sin after Baptism; Avith most
evident and lamentable leanings, to say the least,
towards the whole array of Romish Purgatory, Invo-

' Father Paul's Hist. p. 190.

293
cation of Saints, Prayers for the Dead, Multiplica
tion of Sacramentals and of all external pomp and pa
rade in Church services; Transubstantiation, Mira
cle-working, &c., &G.
"Tiie tree is known by its fruits," We saw the
tree first in its root and trunk; and we have uoav seen
it more fully in its branches and products.
Now it is difficult to suppose that all this agree
ment with Romanism can exist witiiout a corres
ponding effect upon the general views and tastes and
sympathies of those so conformed, in reference to the
whole Christian ivalk and character. All this we
take to be strikingly indicated in the following pas
sage of Dr, Pusey's Tract on Baptism.
" We should at once admit that whole bodies of men in the Church of
Rome had arrived at a height of holiness, and devotion, and self-denial
and love of God, which, in this our day, is rarely to be seen in our
Apostolic Church; yet we should not for a moment doubt that our
Church is the pure Church, although her sons seem of late but rarely
to have grown up to that degree of Christian maturity which might
have been hoped from the nurture of such a mother; we should not
think the comparative holiness of these men, any lest as lo the truth
of any one characteristic doctrine of the Church of Rome; we should
rightly see that the holiness of these men was not owing lo the dis
tinctive doctrines of their Church; but that God had ripened the seed
of holiness in their hearts, notwithstanding the corrupt mixture with
which our Enemy had hoped to choke it; we should rightly attri
bute the apparent comparative failure among ourselves in these
times, not to our not possessing lhe truth, but to our slothful use of
the abundant treasures which God has bestowed on us. They hold
the great Catholic truths of our Creeds, and much of the self-disci
pline (as fasting) or means of grace (as more frequent prayer) which
modern habits have relinquished ; and these have brought their
fruit."'

' Pusey's Tract on Scriptural Views of Baptisra, p. 11, 12 — Am, Ed,

294
Thus is the holiness of the "pure " and "Apostolic
Church" of England, whose doctrines and institu
tions these Avriters profess to regard as the old path —
the Via Media, placed in such dishonourable, and
assuredly most untrue comparison Avith that of a Hie
rarchy in which, according to the English Church,
interpreting the Scriptures, "Antichrist sitteth" —
"that Man of Sin; a Church Avhich makes tradi
tions of men paramount to the Word of God ; which
has dared to add uninspired books to the Canon of
Holy Scripture ; Avhich destroys the Gospel doctrine
of salvation by faith, and teaches human merits for
the Justification of sinners before God; which
changes the nature of Oi'iginal Sin, and makes a
great part, and many of the Avorst, of actual sins, ve
nial; Avhich teaches that the mere fear of punish
ment, called "attrition," when united with the Sa
crament of Penance, is a substitute for true contrition
of heart ; which preaches indulgences, Avorks of su
pererogation, the intercession and invocation of Saints,
and Purgatory ; which sells Masses for the dead ; dis
honours the one great sacrifice for sm by making a
propitiatory sacrifice of Christ in the daily Mass,
offered by every Priest; Avhich destroys the Sacra
ment of the Eucharist, by denying one half of its
outward part to the laity, and by paying it idolatrous
worship degrades the remainder; which teaches her
people to be worshippers of Images, Relics, Pictures
of Saints and Angels, elevating the Virgin Mary to
a rivalship, in honour, with Christ; turning the Tem
ple of the living God, into a den of idols, and filling
it AAdth "the abomination that maketh desolate."
This which our Reformers called, "the Mother of

295
Abominations," the " Babylon" of the Revelations,
and which that book declares " has become the hold
of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean
and hateful bird," so that "a voice from heaven"
cries " come out of her my people, that ye be not
partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her
plagues;"^ this, in the view of these modern Re
formers, is the Church so far beyond comparison in
the holiness of her people !
What kind of holiness then, we must ask? Turn
back to the extract from our author and see — " Whole
bodies of men." — This of course can mean nothing
else than corporate religious bodies. Monastic bodies.
Then this eminent holiness of the Church of Rome
is to be found in her Monasteries, among her Monks !
Of course then, Ave are to look for this eminent holi
ness not where Romanism in its developments, is mod
ified by surrounding Protestantism; but in those
countries where the Reformation has not reached it ;
where Monastic Bodies flourish in all the glory and
holiness of those days of Monastic peace, when the
sound of the trump of Luther had not yet broke up
on the silence of the cell, or disturbed the quiet of
the Litany of St. Mary. We must go then to the
Monks of Italy, and Spain, and Portugal, and see
them as they Avere before the Council of Trent, in
order to find those " bodies of men in the Church of
Rome," who had " arrived at a height of holiness
and devotion, and self-denial, and love to God, which
in this our day is rarely to be seen in our Apostolic
Church," And what caused this eminent superiority,,
I Rev, xviii. 2, 3, 4.

296
in spite of all the false doctrines of Romanism?
What corrected the tendency of that "maze in
which the Church of Rome doth lead her foUowers
when they ask her the way to Justification?'" Dr.
Pusey tells us, it was not any thing characteristic in
doctrine, but, because, while the great doctrines of
the Apostles Creed are held alike in Rome and Eng
land, "much of the self-discipline {as fasting,) or
means of grace, {as more frequent prayer,) which mo
dern habits have relinquished," has been retained in
the Church of Rome.
Now, let the reader observe that this eminent holi
ness is ascribed not merely to fasting and more fre
quent prayer, but to othefr means of grace relinquished
by Protestants, of which these are only specimens.
But what other? Do we not retain the Word, the
Sacraraents, Private and Public Prayer ? Pray what
are those other means of grace so productive of
holiness ? We know of none in the Scriptures. But
they are retained, according to Dr. Pusey, in the Ro
mish Church, in the Monastic bodies, especially.
What can they be? Dr. Pusey speaks with Reserve.
Why does he not enumerate them? We desire to
know the particulars of what Avill supply this defi
ciency of holiness among us. Who can doubt Avhat
he means? What is there which Protestants have
relinquished but the Holy Water, the Auricular
Confession, the Sacramental Penances, Extreme Unc
tion, Anointing at Baptism and Confirmation, Pray
ing for the dead, the use of Images, of Pictures, of
Crosses, and the other holy "Catholic and efficacious
' Hooker.

297
signs," the frequent Crossing and Genuflexions and
Salutations, and Ave Marias, and Masses, and Pil
grimages, the hair shirt and knotted whip of the
Monastery? Some of these, at least, he raust raean.
The British Critic, as before shown, brings out his
idea in reference to many of the above.
But, at any rate. Dr. Pusey ascribes the eminent
holiness in the Church of Rome, to that more fre
quent praying and fasting which, he says, is relin
quished among Protestants. What then is this more
frequent praying ?
Will Dr. Pusey hear, on this subject, a writer for
whom is professed among his fellows and disciples, a
special regard ?
" Rome, (says Jackson,) is so besotted wilh the grapes of her own
planting, that she knows not what abominations she commits, nor
with whom. Like a harlot drunk in a common Inn, she prostrates
herself lo every passenger, and sets open all the temples of God,
whose keys have been committed to her custody, that they may
serve as common stews for satiating the foul souls of infernal spirits;
whom she thither invites by solemn enchantments, as by sacrificing
and offering incense unto Images, And finding pleasure in the prac
tice, dreams she embracelh her Lord and husband, whilst these un
clean birds encage themselves in her's and her children's breasts,"'
" The idolatry of Rome-Heathen, agrees wilh the idolatry of Rome-
Christian, as the type or shadow wilh the body or substance. "-
" While I read these and other Litanies used by the Romish Church,
I cannot but congratulate the wisdom and moderation ofthe Church
wherein I was born and baptized, which hath so well extracted the
spirit of primitive devotion from the grossness of later and declin
ing ages of superstition. These admitted new Mediators unto their
Liturgies, with as great facility as our Universities do students unto
their Registers."'' ' " The Romish Church in her public Liturgy
doth often give the reality of Christ's sovereign titles, sometimes the

' Jackson's Works, 1. p. 990. 2 Ib. p. 1001. a it. p, ggg.
38

298
very titles themselves unto Saints ; sometimes leaving not so great
difference between the divine Majesty, or glorious Trinity, and other
celestial inhabilanls, as the heathens did between their greater and
lesser gods."*
Of that part of the Romish Liturgy which is used
for persons in the agony of death, the same writer
says: "To censure this part of their Liturgy as it deserves, it is no
prayer but a charm, conceived out of the dregs and relics of Hea
thenish idolatry which cannot be brought forth without blasphemy,
nor be applied to any sick soul without sorcery." " The Church of
Rome," (continues this writer, one of those who fought side by side
with, Andrewes, and Hall, and Usher, not " mincing as they went,")
" compasseth sea and land, and rangeth through all the courts of
the great King's dominion, with gifts in her hand to entice, with the
sacrifice of praise and hymns in her mouth to enchant, the chaste
and loyal servants of the Lord unto her lust. And prostrates her
self, evening and morning, all the hours of day and night, unto
carved Images of both sexes ; with whom her Lord and husband
bath so strictly forbidden her familiarity. And yet, in her pride and
cunning, she presumes she is able to blear that all-seeing eye — if she
have but leisure to wipe her lips with this distinction I did Itiss thy
servants — only with kisses o[ dulia, not with lati-ia." — (p, 989,)
Bishop Beveridge gives us a view of the hohness
of those "whole bodies in the Church of Rome," es
pecially in connection with their many prayers and
fastings :
" This hath been the ruin of many souls. As our Saviour plain
ly sheweih ; when speaking of the severe sect of the Pharisees, he
saith that when they had made any Proselyte ; that is, turned a
Publican, or an harlot, or some such wicked Person, to their austere
and superstitious way of living, they made him ten times more a
child of wralh than themselves. Yet this is what is so much mis
taken for conversion amongst us ; yea, and amongst the Papists too,
who speak and boast much of such kind of converts as these; who
Jackson's Works, p. 981.

299
having lived many years in gross sins" (Sin after Baptism,) " af
terwards being weary of them, to make satisfaction as they think
for their former lives, undertake some tedious pilgrimage, or else enter
into a Monastery, and there spend the rest of their time in whippings
and Scourgings, in a constant repetition of so many Pater Nosters
and Ave Marias every day. And ihis is what the Papists call
Religion. And therefore these Houses (Dr. Pusey's " whole bodies")
are called Religious Houses ; these Orders, Religious Orders ; and
such persons, Religious Persons — whereas a man may do all this
and yet be as far from God as ever. What cares He for the scourg
ing of our bodies ? It is the mortification of our lusts which he calls
for. Neither doth he matter ^all the Sacrifices and Oblations that
you can make him, so much as one sincere act of Obedience to his
Laws." — Beveridge's Sermons, No, 85, — also. No. 88.
If the good Bishop does thus characterise the "ma
ny prayers and other means of grace which Protes
tants have relinquished, but the Romish Church has
retained, he also speaks of the fasting mentioned by
Dr. Pusey, as accounting partly for her superior ho
liness. He is urging a true Fast in Lent, and ex
plains his meaning by saying, " Not as the Papists,
who, abstaining fro7n notiiing but Flesh, aud using all
S07'ts of other the most delicious Food and Wine, do
rather feast than fast in Lent." — Sermons, No, 87,
Again, "Not fasting on Fish and Wine and Sweet
meats as the Papists do." — No. 88.
But the Jesuit with whom Bishop Stillingfleet
reasoned, had raade precisely such an assertion of the
eminently superior holiness of the Church of Rorae,
that we have now from Dr. Pusey; to Avhieh the learn
ed Prelate thus replied :
" Doth it lie in the service of your Religious Votaries? For that
is the great part of the conspicuous piety of your Church. But is
this indeed the bright sunshine of your Church, that there are so
many thousands of both sexes who tie themselves by perpetual vows,
never to be dissolved by their own seeking, (and therefore doubtless

300
pleasing to God, whether they are able to keep them or no,) and
these pray (if they understand what they say,) and sing Divine
Hymns day and night, which you say is a strange and unheard
of thing among Protestants? VA'hat, that men and women (though
not in Cloisters,) pray and sing H}'mns lo God? No, surely. For
as the devotion of our Churches is more grave and solemn, so it is
likewise more pious and intelligible. You pray and sing, but how ?
Let Erasmus speak, who understood your praying and singing well.
Cantiuncularum, clamorum, murmurum ac bomborum ubique plus
satis est, si quid ista delectant Superos. Do you think those prayers
and hymns are pleasing to God, which lie more in the throat than
the heart? And such as have been wise and devout men among
yourselves have been lhe least admirers of your mimical, uncouth,
and superstitious devotions ; but have rather condemned them as
vain, ludicrous things ; and wondered (as Erasmus said) what they
thought of Christ, who imagined he could be pleased with them.
Are these then the glorious parts of your devotions, your prayers
and hymns? If this be the only excellency of your devotion, how
much are you out-done by the ancient Psalliani and Euchita, that
spent all their time in prayer, and yet were accounted heretics for
their pains ? Still you pray and sing ; but to whom ? to Saints and
Angels often, to the Virgin Mary, with great devotion, and most
solemn invocations ; but to God himself, very sparingly in compari
son. If this then be the warm sunshine of your devotions we had
rather use such, wherein we may be sure of God's blessing ; which
we cannot be in such Prayers and Hymns which attribute those
honours to his creatures, which belong wholly lo himself.
But you not only sing and pray, but can be very idle too ; and
the number of those men must be called Religious Orders, and the
Garment of the Church is said by you to be embroidered by the
variety of them. And are these indeed the ornaments of your
Church, when those who had any modesty left were ashamed of
them, and called loud for a Reformation? Those were indeed such
gardens wherein it were more worth looking for useful or odorifer
ous fiowers, (as you express it,) than for Diogenes to find out an
honest man in his crowd of citizens. Therefore the main things we
blame in the Monastic Institutions, are the great degeneracy of them
in all respects from their Primitive Institutions, the great snares
which the consciences of such as are engaged in them, are almost
continually exposed to, the unusefulness of them in their multitudes

301
to the Christian world, the general unserviceableness ofthe persons
who live in them, the great debaucheries which they are subject to
and often over-run with ; and if these be the greatest ornaments of
your Churches Garments, it is an easy matter to espy the spots
which she hath upon her." — Slillingfleet's Grounds, p, 336.
Such then is the Church to which, say our Ox
fordists, " there will ever be a number of refined and
affectionate minds, who, disappointed in finding full
matter for their devotional feelings in the English
system, as at present conducted, will, through human
frailty, betake themselves."^
We have seen that the horrible evils which the
old Champions of Protestanism, whom we have just
quoted, so strongly exhibit in the devotional charac
ter and personal holiness of the mass of Romanists,
such as idolatrous Invocation of Saints and worship
of Images, &c. are called, in Oxford Avritings, only
"uncatholic peculiarities," "incidental corruptions ;"
"practical grievances." Now, to these expressions,
and all else that we have seen, put the following Ox
ford-account of the comparative departure from primi
tive religion, in the Romish, and Protestant Churches,
" That a certain change in objective and external religion has
come over the Latin Church, we consider to be a plain historical
fact — a change indeed not so great as common Protestantism, for
that involves a radical change of inward temper and principle, as
well, as indeed its adherents are sometimes not slow to remind us;
but a change sufficiently startling to recall to our minds, with very
unpleasant sensations, the awful words, " Though we or an angel
from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that you have
received, let him be accursed,"^ — Brit. Critic, No. 53.

1 No. 71, of Tracts, Am, Ed, vol, iii, p, 4,
2 Archbishop Laud with all his tendencies to a Romish extemalism in the
Church, would have told these Apologists for Popery, that there are not only
doctrinal errors in that system, but such as most manifestly endanger salva
tion. See Relation of a Conference, &c., p, 147.

302
So then the departure from primitive truth in the
Church of Rome is only as to external matters —
while that in common Protestantism, i. e. among the
Ultra Protestants who. Dr. Pusey says, include a
large portion of the clergy of the Church of England,
is radical, a change of principle, a change which
is most seriously threatened, at least, with the ana
thema pronounced by the apostle upon the preach
ers of a false gospel — the very anathema, with which
the Church of Rome has invested it.
Now what, according to the Oxford Divines them
selves are these certain external changes which reli
gion has suffered in the Latin Church? We will
take an account of some of them from Oxfordism it
self The following specimens are given by the writer
of No. 71, ofthe Tracts, as fair examples of Romanism.
Romanism teaches that " the Mass is a sacrifice
not only commemoratory of that of the Cross, but al
so truly and properly propitiatory of the dead and
the living," in which there is " a true and real death
or destruction of the thing sacrificed ;" that "the ser
vants of the Blessed Virgin have an assurance, mor
ally infallible, that they shall be saved;" that "she
can, not only entreat her Son for the salvation of her
servants, but by her motherly authority command
Him;" that her power, and that of her Son, "is all
one, she being by Him, herself omnipotent;" that
" she approaches the tribunal of divine Majesty, not
asking, but coraraanding, — not a handmaid, but a
Mistress." — therefore the Church prays, ' Monstra te
esse Matrem,' as if saying to the Virgin, supplicate
for us after the manner of a command, and with a
mother's authority. Again, the Romish Church,
"promises salvation to mere Attrition, (that is, sor-

303
row for sin arising from fear of punishment, ) on the
ground that real Conti'ition, (that is, hearty sorrow
for sin, proceeding from the love of God, above all
things, and joined with a firm purpose of amend
ment,) is to be found in very few; and hence dedu
ces the necessity of an easier M'ay for the salvation of
men in general," Only objective, external changes ! !
We have now seen the real value of the holiness
prevalent in the Church of Rome, and of those means
of grace for its promotion which she has been so wise
as to retain, and Protestants are so foolish as to re
ject. We have seen especially the value of those
means, and of their consequent fruits of holiness, in
those "whole bodies," those monastic bodies in the
Church of Rome, to which Dr, Pusey especially di
rects us. And to get a more correct view of the le
gitimate tendency of those means of grace and of the
unmodified character of that holiness, we have gone,
where, of course, Romanism would have us go, to
countries where Protestantism has not interfered
with the entire carrying out, and the full working of
what we are led to suppose is the genuine, ancient
Catholic system. And there Ave have seen, what Dr.
Pusey calls in this connection, " the ripening of the
seed of life in the heart" — there we have seen the
sort of holiness, and that " height of holiness, devo
tion, self-denial, and love of God," which we are
told "whole bodies of men in the Church of Rome
have arrived at," and " Avhich is rarely to be seen in
the Apostolic Church of England."^
I The following extravagant praise of Romish Monastic Institutions may well
be noted here — taken from the Oxford writer in the British Critic No, 51,
"If we find ourselves obliged to acknowledge that, as it is the literal, so

304
We may now form some idea of the holiness on
which the minds of these writers are set, and which
they would introduce into the Anglican Church,
We surely do not charge them with a desire to in
troduce the real depravity of morals and the awful
idolatry which has been spoken of in the extracts we
have given. Doubtless they would have purity of
life and sincerity of heart. But we do charge them
with vieAvs, and tastes, and sympathies, in regard to
the real nature of Christian holiness, and the prac
tical duties of godliness, which lead them to feel
that, amid all the raurameries of Romanisra, they are
in a far more genial climate than that of a Protestant
Church, and lead them to look with such extenuat
ing tenderness upon all the corruptions, all the idola
tries, all the horrid leprosies of Romish monastic
institutions, where Romanism is most unwashed, as
so little incompatible with genuine holiness, that, in
it is the truest and highest form in which obedience to the precept of perfec
tion, of selling all that we have and taking up our cross, can be expressed —
then let us not sully with affected candor and faint praise, what we have not
courage to imitate — rather let us be thankful that such an exemplar and encou
ragement of our puny strivings has been vouchsafed to us," The same writer,
byway of illustrating the meaning o{ the phrase, '• austere life," and "how sim
ple and unpretending true Christian mortification is,'' gives the following ex
amples of austere life and true Christian mortification, from St, Francis Borgia,
" One day when his broth had by accident been made with bitter herbs, he ate
it cheerfully without saying a word. Being asked how he liked it, he said, ' I
never eat any thing fitter for me!' When others found out the mistake, and
the cook in great confusion asked his pardon : ' May God bless and reward you,'
said he, 'you are the only person amongst all my brethren that knows what
suits me best.' When one would have had a bed warmed for St. Charles Bor-
remeo, he said, wilh a smile, ' The best way not to find the bed cold, is to go
colder to bed than the bed is.' " — Br, Critic No, .51, p. 156. We have no ob
jection to these traits of humble and amiable temper, but such pin-scratches of
mortification are miserable illustrations of what is meant by "come, talce up the
cross and follo-w me."

305
spite of them, and in consequence of such prayings
and fastings as are there practised, and such other
means of grace as the unctions, the bowi7igs, the pen
ances, the crossings, the reverence for Saints' Days,
the numerous sacramental signs of grace, of man's
making, united with the great disuse of all pretence
of the preaching of the Gospel, and the substitution
of the legends of Saints, there is in those monastic
bodies a degree of eminent holiness rarely to be
found in what, these writers believe to be, the most
pure and apostolic of all Protestant Churches,
Let such views of holiness be spread ; let them be
propagated into weaker minds, and entrusted to less
prudent advocates; let the irresponsible, those who are
not specially interested to be circumspect, because
not the heads of the school, be charged with the car
rying out of such views ; let the ignorant get hold of
them and the imaginative, then what sort of practical
holiness will ensue ! what leprosy will spread !
In the present leaders, the direct tendency of such
views may be so restrained by better things, within
and without, so hedged in by previous education,
and associations, and antagonist views, and surround
ing circumstances, as never to proceed to any such
lengths; but with other hearts, another generation
of disciples, under a more advanced state of Oxford
ism, in the public mind, a more developed organ of
veneration for "the int7-insic majesty and truth which
remain in the Church of Rome, amid its corrup
tions;" with a greater heat from without uniting
with the present bottom heat, in the forcing, bed of
Oxfordism, where have we any security ? The earth
is full of seeds which have never germinated. Give
39

306
them light, and air, and sun, and your garden will
be over-run with weeds. Many a man professes en
tire renunciation of doctrines, to which his system
directly tends, and of practices of which his princi
ples and frame of mind contain already the swelling
germ and essence. Hazael said, with sincere indig
nation, "Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this
great thing.'" But the germ ofthe horrible thing was
in him, nevertheless, and only waited the exciting
cause to spring forth — and soon he ivas the dog, and
had done it, and was tvell satisfied with the deed.
There was a time with the Church of Rome, Avhen,
had some Elisha "settled his countenance stedfastly
until he was ashamed, and wept" at the foresight of
her corruptions, and predicted what she would be
guilty of, she would have exclaimed, with equal in
dignation and sincerity. Am I a dog, that I should
ever be so defiled? But then even, the spirit and ten
dency were iu her, and strong; and now she glories
in her shame,
"As Original Sin is the Root; while any particu
lar actual sin is nothing more than a branch spring
ing out of that Root, visible from invisible, operative
from dormant; so the Doctrine of Man's Justifica
tion, by his oivn inherent righteous7iess, is similarly
the Principal, while every errant, and visible, and ac
tive peculiarity of Popery, practice from theory, de
velopment from speculation, is ultimately nothing
more than a derivative accessory. In short, the re
sult of the Anglican Doctrine, or rather, the perfectly
harmonizing result of the Reformed Doctrine is to
make Christ alone, in full-orbed glory, and in un
divided meritoriousness, the Saviour of sinful man ;

307
while the whole drift and object and necessary ten
dency of the Romish doctrine, so unhappily taken
up by Mr, Knox, (we add, by Dr, Pusey, Mr. New
man, &c.) as Scriptural verity, however speciously
disguised, and decently wrapped up in distinctions
which distinguish not, is to raake Church and Priest,
and Sacraraents, and Saints, and Purgatory, and
Extrerae Unction, and Pilgrimage, and Penance,
and Ordinances, and Notions without end and with
out measure, in a word, Miserable Man's own Self-
Meriting Righteousness, a college of Saviours, if not
avowedly supercessive of Christ, yet, to say the least,
concessive with him."' TRADITION.
We have reserved all that we have now to say
about the Oxford error of Tradition for this place,
because, though, theoretically it would seem to be
a starting point for all the errors of doctrine, we
regard it as in practice one of the last adopted.
The sinner first says in his heart there is no God,
and then he goes to hunt after arguments in support
of his atheism. So the Romish Church first declined
into great errors, and got upon a downward current
to more and more, and then invented her doctrine
of Tradition for a defence. So it is with Oxford
ism. Its doctrine of Tradition is not practically
the sovirce of all its other peculiarities, but its wall of
protection for them against the Scriptures. The need
was first felt, and then the cordon sanitaire was drawn.
' Faber's Prim. Doc, of Justifie.

308
Into the argument against the views and uses of
Tradition, as developed in this divinity, we have no
room, nor is it consistent with our plan, to enter.
We are only shewing developments. That Oxford
ism is throwing itself into the same defence, as Ro
manism, for the same purposes, in maintenance of
the sarae errors, we will be content with such evi
dence as may appear from the following extracts
from the late Charge of the Bishop of Calcutta, the
well known and apostolic Daniel Wilson, First,
however, let a general idea of what Avas thought of
the comparative authority of the Scriptures and the
Fathers, by the Reformers of the Anglican Church,
be taken from the following extract out of the Con
ferences between Bishops Ridley and Latimer, while
in prison, "for the testimony of Jesus."
" But what (said Latimer,) is to be said ofthe Fathers? How are
they to be esteemed? St. Augustine answers, giving this rule also,
(hat we should not, therefore, think it true, because they say so,
though they ever so much excel in holiness or learning ; unless they
are able to prove their saying by the Canonical Scriptures, or by a
good probable reason ; meaning that to be a probable reason, as I
think, which orderly follows upon a right collection and gathering
out ofthe Scriptures.
" Let the papists go with their long failh, be you contented with
the short faith ofthe saints, which is revealed unto us in the written
word of God. Adieu to all Popish fantasies. Amen. For one man,
having the Scripture and good reason for him, is more to be es
teemed himself alone, than a thousand such as they, either gathered
together, or succeeding one another.
" The Fathers have both herbs and weeds, and papists commonly
gather the weeds and leave the herbs. And the Fathers speak many
tiraes more vehemently — in sound of words, than they meant in
deed, or than they would have done, if they had forseen what sophis
tical wranglers would have succeeded them.

309
Bishop Wilson thus earnestly warns the clergy
of his vast and most interesting Diocese —
"It is to me, I confess, a matter of surprise and shame, that in the
nineteenth century we should really have the fundamental position
ofthe whole system of Popery re-asserted in the bosom of that very
Church, which was reformed so determinalely three centuries since
from this self-same evil, by the doctrine, and labours, and martyr
dom of Cranmer and his noble fellow-sufferers.
" What ! are we to have all the fond tenets which formerly sprung
from the traditions of men re-inlroduced, in however modified a form,
amongst us? Are we to have a refined transubstantiation — the Sa
craments, and not failh, the chief means of salvation — a confused
and uncertain mixture of the merits of Christ and inherent grace in
the matter of justification — remission of sins, and the new creation
of Christ Jesus, confined, or almost confined, to Baptism — perpetual
doubt of pardon to the penitent after that Sacrament — the duty and
advantage of self-imposed austerities — the innocency of prayers for
the dead, and similar tenets and usages which generate 'a spirit of
bondage'* — again asserted amongst us? And is the paramount au
thority of the inspired Scriptures, and the doctrine of the grace of
God in our justification by the alone merits of Jesus Christ, which re
poses on that authority, to be again weakened and obscured by such
human superadditions ; and a new edifice of' will-worship,' and 'vol
untary humility,' and the 'rudiments of the world,' as the Apostle
speaks, to be erected once more in the place ofthe simple Gospel of
a crucified Saviour ?
"My language is strong, my Reverend Brethren, but I think
you will agree with me that it is not too strong for the occasion.
You shall judge for yourselves. I select as a specimen of the whole
system, and what forms its basis, so far as I can understand, a pas
sage from the Sermon on Tradition, by the amiable, learned and ac
complished Professor of Poetry in the University of Oxford.
' " I confine'myself to topics of which no dubious intimations have been given.
I say nothing of what may possibly follow — the prohibition of the unfettered use
of the Scriptures — purgatory — the veneration of relics — prayer to the Virgin
Mary — the intercession of Saints — works of supererogation — monastic vows
— the celibacy of the Clergy, &c. &c.

310
" ' With relation to the supreme authority of inspired Scripture,'
says the Professor of Poetry, ' it stands thus — Catholic tradition
teaches revealed truth. Scripture proves it; Scripture is the docu
ment of failh. Tradition the witness of it; the true creed is the
Catholic interpretation of Scripture, or scripturally proved Tradition ;
Scripture by itself teaches mediately, and proves decisively ; Scrip
ture and Tradition taken together are the joint rule of faith.'
" So then. Tradition is the primary, and Holy Scripture the se
condary teacher of divine truth — so then we are to search the in
spired Word of God, not as the one authoritative, adequate rule of
failh, but as the document of what this Tradition leaches — we are to
study the Scriptures, not in order to ascertain simply God's revealed
will, but to prove Tradition by Scriptural evidence — and the stand
ard of revelation is no longer the Bible alone, that is, the inspired
Word of the Eternal God in its plain and obvious meaning, but
' Scripture and Tradition taken together are the joint rule of faith.'
"All this is surely sufficiently alarming; but it becomes incompa
rably more so, when we learn with what latitude the word Tradi
tion is understood. It includes, as we gather from the other repeated
statements of the learned author, 'unwritten as well as written' tra
ditions, ' certain remains or fragments of the treasure of Apostolical
doctrines and Church rules;' in other words, an oral law, 'inde
pendent of, and distinct from the truths which are directly Scriptu
ral ;' which traditions are to be received 'apart from all Scripture
evidence, as traditionary or coramon laws ecclesiastical.' So that it
appears that Scripture, and unwritten, as well as written
TRADITION, ARE, TAKEN TOGETHER, THE JOINT RULE OF FAITH.
" I appeal to you. Reverend Brethren, whether we have not here
a totally false principle asserted as to the Rule of Failh. I ap
peal to you, whether the very reading of this statement is not enough
to condemn it. I appeal to you, whether the blessed and all-perfect
Book of God, is not thus depressed into a kind of attendant and ex
positor of Tradition. I appeal to you, whether this is not to magni
fy the comments of men above the inspired words ofthe Holy Ghost.
I appeal to you, whether this is not to make Tradition an integral
part of the canon of faith, and so to undermine the whole fabric of
the Reformation, or rather of ' the glorious Gospel of the blessed
God,' which that Reformation vindicated and affirmed.

311
" I am as far as possible from supposing that the various pious and
learned authors, to whose sentiments, and especially one of them, I
am alluding, have any such intention. I am sure they have not.
But the tendency ofthe system is not in my view the less dangerous.
Such will and must be, I think, the general effect of its diffusion
amongst a multitude of young divinity students, with comparatively
little experience, and too apt to follow the new theories of popular
and distinguished persons.
"And wherefore this deviation from our old Protestant doctrine
and language; why this false principle; why this new school, as it
were, of Divinity? Ancient testimony in its proper place, who had
undervalued? The dignity and grace of the Sacraments, who had
denied? The study of primitive antiquity, who had renounced?
The witness ofthe early Fathers, who had disparaged? Wherefore
weaken, then, by pushing beyond its due bearing, the argument
which all writers of credit in our Church had delighted to acknow
ledge ?
" The testimony of the Apostolical and primitive ages, for exam
ple, to the genuineness, and authenticity, and Divine inspiration of
the Canonical Books of the New Testament, as ofthe Jewish Church
to those of the Old, who had called in question? Or who had
doubted the incalculable importance of the witness of the universal
ancient Church at the Council of Nice, to the broad fact of the failh
of the whole Christian world, from the days of the Apostles to that
hour, in the mysteries of the adorable Trinity and of the Incarna
tion, as there rehearsed and recognized. Or who called in question
the other matters of fact which are strengthened by Christian anti
quity, as the Divine authority and perpetual obligation ofthe Lord's
Day — the institution and perpetuity ofthe two, and only two Chris
tian Sacraments — the right of the infants of the faithful to the bless
ings of holy Baptism — the Apostolical usage of Confirmation — the
permanent separation of a body of men for sacred services — the
duty of willing reverence from the people for them — the threefold
rank of Ministers in Christ's Church — the use of Liturgies — the ob
servation ofthe festivals of our Lord's birth, resurrection, ascension,
and gift of the Holy Ghost — wilh similar points; to which may be
added, their important negative testimony to the non-existence of
any one of the peculiar doctrines and claims of the modern Court

312
and Church of Rome. These and similar facts we rejoice to ac
knowledge, as fortified by pure and uncorrupted primitive tradition
or testimony.
" We rejoice also to receive, with our own Protestant Reformed
Church, the universal witness of the Catholic Fathers and ancient
Bishops, expressed in the three Creeds, as a most important method of
guarding the words of revelation from the artful ambiguities of here
tics, and as rules and terms of communion ; just as we acknowledge
our modern Articles, Liturgy, and Homilies for the same purpose.
We rejoice again in tracing back almost the whole of our sublime
and Scriptural Liturgy to a far higher period than the rise of Popery
— to the Primitive ages of the Church in our own and every other
Christian country. We thus admit, in its fullest sense, for its pro
per ends, the rule of Vincentius Lirinensis — Quod semper, quod ab
omnibus, quod ubique tradilum est.
"And we receive such tradition for this one reason — because it
deserves the name of just and proper evidence. It is authentic
testimony. It is a part of the materials from which even the exter
nal evidences of Christianity itself are derived. It furnishes the
most powerful historical arguments in support of our faith. It is
amongst the proofs of our holy religion.
"But evidence is one thing; the rule of belief another. Not for
one moment do we, on any or all these grounds, confound the histo
ry and evidences of the divinely inspired rule of failh, with that Rule
itself. Not for one moment do we place Tradition on the same
level with the all-perfect Word of God. Not for one moment do we
allow it any share in lhe standard of revealed truth. Scripture and
Tradition taken together are not — we venture lo assert — ' the joint
rule of faith ;' but ' Holy Scripture containelh all things necessary to
salvation ; so that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved
thereby, is not to be required of any man ; that it should be believed
as an article of faith.' And Tradition is sofar from being of co-ordi
nate authority, that even the Ecclesiastical writers who approach
the nearest to them, and are read in our Churches — which not one
ofthe Fathers is — 'for example of life, and instruction of manners;'
are still, as being uninspired, not to be applied to establish any one
doctrine of our religion.
" Against this whole system, then, as proceeding upon a most

313
FALSE AND DANGEROUS PRINCIPLE, and differing from the generally
received Protestant doctrine, I beg Reverend Brethren, most respect
fully to caution you. I enter my solemn protest against the testimo
ny ofthe Fathers to any number of facts, being constituted a 'joint
rule of failh.' I protest against their witness to the meaning of cer
tain capital series of texts on the fundamental truths of the Gospel
being entitled to the reverence only due to the authoritative Revela
tion itself. I protest against the salutary use made of the testimony
of primitive writers by our Church, as a safeguard against heresy
and an expression of her view of the sense of the Holy Scriptures, be
ing placed on a level wilh the blessed Scriptures themselves — that
is, I PROTEST AGAINST A MERE RULE OP COMMUNION BEING MADE
A RULE OF FAITH.*

1 In the Appendix to his Charge, Bishop Wilson thus accurately and succinct
ly states the precise question between Oxford Divinity and its opposers, on the
subject of Tradition :
" The question to be determined, is not whether lhe witness of the early Fa
thers to the facts of Christianity, is of the greatest importance — this is admitted.
Nor is it the question, whether their testimony to the broad matter of fact, as to
the faith of the universal Church at the Council of Nice, in the doctrines of the
Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of our Lord, strengthens and sustains the in
terpretation of the orthodox Church in subsequent ages — all this we admit.
Nor is it the question, whether our Church in her authorized formularies, espe
cially in the three Creeds, makes this testimony a rule and term of Communion
— this is most fully conceded. Nor is it the question, whether all the weight and
infiuence which a sound criticism will ever give to writers situated like the Fa
thers, should be constantly granted them, especially where a consent of them
can be shown — that is, where the Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus
traditum est, applies — this is cheerfully allowed.
"But the question is. Whether Scripture and Tradition, written and unwrit
ten, taken together, are the joint rule of faith. — Whether Catholic Tradition
comes first as the teacher of revealed truth, and Scripture comes next, to prove
it. — Whether the true Creed is scripturalty-proved Tradition, or Catholic tra
dition supported by the Scriptures.
The following plain declaration of sober truth, from Dr. Jackson, is well
to the point,
" The second addition made by the Roman Church unto the ancient Canon
of Faith, is a transcendent one, and illimited ; and that is, the making of eccle
siastical tradition to be an integral part of the Canon of faith ;  the ad
dition of unwritten tradition, as part ofthe infallible rule, doth undermine the
structure of faith  We reject ecclesiastical tradition from being any
40

314
"Yes you may rely upon it. Reverend Brethren, that this 'joint
rule of faith' will never long consist wilh the simplicity of the Gos
pel. I speak with fear and apprehension, lest I should in the least
degree overstate the case. I suspect not — I repeat, I suspect not —
the Reverend and learned Leaders of the least intention or idea of
forwarding the process which I think is in fact going on. But the
plague is begun. A false principle is admitted in the rule of
FAITH, and is already AT WORK.
" Already an amplitude is given, as we have seen, to the word
Tradition, which may include any thing and every thing, and there
fore justly awakens our increased alarm. Already texts of inspired
Scripture are weakened or contracted to the narrowest and most
doubtful sense. Already are appeals made to documents which were
superseded by the more purely evangelical formularies of our pre
sent Book of Common Prayer, with its Articles and Homilies, at the
definitive settlement of our reformed Church; and a desire not ob
scurely expressed that our Reformation had retained more of lhe
Traditionary model.
" All this is but too natural. The false principle will go on ' eat
ing as doth a cancer,' if things proceed as they now do. The in
spired Word of God will be imperceptibly neglected; and the Tra
ditions of men will take its place. The Church will supersede the
Bible. The Sacraments will hide the glory of Christ, Self-righte
ousness will conceal the righteousness of God, Traditions and Fa
thers will occupy the first place, as we see in the sermons of the
chief Roman Catholic authors of every age, and Christ come next or
not at all ; and a lowered tone of practical religion will come in,
" The whole system, indeed, goes to generate, as I cannot but
think, an inadequate and superficial, and superstitious religion. The
mere admissions ofthe inspiration and paramount authority of Holy
Scripture will soon become a dead letter; due humiliation before

part of the Rule of faith , , . , This unanimous tradition ecclesiastic, was not in
those times held for any proper part of the Rule of faith  I hope the
same Scripture was (in Vincentius' judgment,), a Rule of faith neither incom
plete for its quantity, nor insufficient for its quality ; Ja rule every day compe
tent for ending controversies in religion, without the assumption either of tradi
tion or decrees of Council, as any associates or homogeneal parts of the same
rule,''

315
God under a sense of the unutterable evil of sin, will be less and less
understood ; a conviction of the need of the meritorious righteous
ness of the incarnate Saviour, as th'e alone ground of justification,
will be only faintly inculcated; the operations of the Holy Ghost
in creating man anew, will be more and more forgotten ; the nature
of those good works which are acceptable to God in Christ, will be
lost sight of; and 'another Gospel' framed on the traditions of men
will make way for an apostasy in our own Church, as in that of
Rome — unless, indeed, the evangelical piety, the reverence for Holy
Scripture, the theological learning, and the forethought and fidelity
of our Divines of dignified station and established repute at home
INTERPOSE BY DISTINCT CAUTIONS TO PREVENT IT — as they are be
ginning to interpose, and as I humbly trust they will still more de
cisively do." Bishop Wilson's Charge, 1838, pp. 58—76.

CHAPTER IX.
THE DOCTRINE OP OXFORD DIVINITY AS TO THE RIGHTEOUSNESS
OF JUSTIFICATION, AND THE NATURE AND OFFICE OF FAITH,
COMPARED WITH THAT OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH,
Matter of mortification that such comparison is necessary — A general account
ofthe doctrinal standards of the Anglican Church — Statement of the ques
tions investigated in this Chapter — Arguments from the assertion of Dr,
Pusey that the Article of Justification says nothing of what Justification
consists in — The Articles xi, xii, and xiii — Exposition of the xi, from the
Language of its Authors elsewhere — From its own peculiar precision as to
the office of faith — Homilies quoted and expounded — Seven difficulties into
which the Oxford doctrines are brought by the language of the Articles and
Homilies — Each made use of as an evidence against the consistency of that
Divinity with that of the Anglican Church,
It is indeed a raatter of deep mortification that, at
this late age ofthe reformed Church of England, we
are called upon to show that her doctrine of Justifi
cation, so prominent in the controversies waged in
the time of her emancipation frora Roraanisra, so
carefully defined and guarded against all possibility
of mistake in her standard writings, and so long re
garded by all as identical with that of all the Re
formed Churches of Europe, is not substantially the
same with the main doctrine of that very system of
Romish error against which she protested so earn
estly. But so it is. The doctrine of this Oxford divinity,
which we have seen to be just fhe Romish doctrine,
boldly claims to be also the Anglican doctrine ; the
doctrine of the standards and standard divines, of the
Anglican Church.

318
On this singular pretension, issue is now joined.
On no point of doctrinal confession are the declara
tions of the Anglican Church more full, more reiter
ated, or more earnest than that of Justification.
There is first, an Article, entitled, " Ofthe Justifi
cation of Man," in which the doctrine is sumraarily
declared in these words : "We are accounted righte
ous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ, by Faith, and not for our own
works and deservings." And then on the subject of
" our own works and dese7-vings," as rejected from
Justification, we have two more Articles; the one
entitled, " Of Works done before Justification,"
which excludes them from all eflBcacy to make men
meet to receive grace, or deserve it " of congruity,"
because " not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they
spring not of Faith in Jesus Christ, and have the na
ture of sin ;" the other, of " Works ivhich are the
Fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification ;"
declaring that though the necessary results of a live
ly faith, and pleasing to God in Christ, they " can
not put away our sins."
Thus have three distinct Articles been expended
on this subject.
But the Framers of our Confession were not con
tent with this. They regarded the doctrine of " Jus
tification, by which, of unjust, we are made just be
fore God," as " the strong rock and foundation of
Christian religion."'^ The history of all the subtle
devices by which Satan had in every age endea
voured to undermine that " rock," was before them.
' Homily of Salvation, Part ii.

319
The war, then at its height, with the corruptions of
Roraanism ; the Council of Trent, then sitting and
fulminating its Anathemas against the holders ofthe
truth, secured their due remembrance of that histo
ry. It taught them the necessity of greater minute
ness of declaration than was contained in the Arti
cles above named. Homilies were therefore used for
larger exposition. The Article on Justification re
fers the reader for a fuller view of the faith of the
Church, to " the Homily of Justification." The Ho
mily entitled " On the salvation qf mankind, by only
Christ our Saviour," is, by universal acknowledg
ment, the one referred to ; though it is not known
by what means, or when, its title was changed from
that given in the Article. But this is not the only
homiletic exposition bearing upon the subject. The
doctrine of the Church on Faith, and also on Good
Works, is essentially connected with that of Justifi
cation. We have therefore a standard Homily on
each ; so that there are three Homilies or Sermons,
each in three parts, all asserted in our 35th Article
to " contain a godly and wholesome doctrine ;" " all of
which together compose and make a treatise on Jus
tification, and all of which are to be referred to for
explaining the sense of the Church in her Article on
that subject.'"
Now, with these combined and minute exposi
tions, so remarkable for precision of language and
perspicuity of illustration, formed too with particu
lar reference to the very points on which errors have
arisen, it would seem impossible that the sense of
the Church should be mistaken.

' Ridley's Life of Ridley, p. 344.

320
But a recollection of the particular models and
men, most referred to in the construction of these for
mularies, as well as of those particular corruptions of
the truth against which they were aimed, if it may
not make their meaning more obvious, will at least
render it more emphatic and impressive.
Of the Articles which were framed in 1551, and
which, on the subjects involved in this discussion,
the chansres in the reia:n of Elizabeth did not materi-
ally affect, "Archbishop Cranmer must be consid
ered as the sole compiler."^ Of the first book of Ho
milies, with which chiefly we are concerned in this
work, the sarae Reformer is believed, by the best
authorities, to have been the chief composer, as was
Jewell of the second. But the Homilies on Salva
tion, Faith, and Good works, to which the Article of
Justification is especially related, are without a ques
tion ascribed exclusively to Cranmer.^ Now it is
well known that a frequent correspondence on the
most important matters of the Reformation was kept
up between him and the continental Divines, espe
cially Melancthon. The latter was particularly con
sulted on the subject of the Articles, and is known
to have urged, for a model, the Confession of Augs-
burgh.^ Hence the Articles of the English Church
" chiefly derive their origin from Lutheran Formu-

I Soame's Hist, of the Reformation, vol, iii, 618, Strype's Life of Cranmer,
b, ii, c, xxvii,
2 Tomline's Elements of Theology, ii, ,"535, Soame, iii, 63, Todd on the
39 Art, pref, p, xi, Strype's Cranmer, b. ii. c. iii.
3 Strype's Life of Cranmer, b. iii., c. xxiv. A son of Justus Jonas, the friend
and fellow-labourer of Luther and Melancthon, resided with Cranmer and seems
to have been his chief medium of correspondence with the Lutherans. — La-w-
rence's Bampton Lectures, p. 210.

321
laries, Sorae of thera are drawn frora the Confes
sion of Augsburgh, others frora that of Wittemberg,
known as the Saxon Confession, and professedly
drawn up in strict accordance with that of Augs
burgh.'" "The truth of the matter is, (says Le
Bas,) that the English Reformers framed their Arti
cles not as a wall of partition between Protestant
and Protestant, but as a bulwark against the perver
sions with which the scholastic theology had disfigured
the simplicity of the Gospel. — The only key there
fore which can readily unlock the true sense of the
Articles, is a knowledge, not of the opinions which
afterwards rent the Protestant community into frag
ments, — but of the papal doctrines against which the
main struggle of the reformers had been carried on
frora the very first." "If any person could but sit
down to the perusal of our Articles, in utter forget
fulness that Europe had ever been seriously agitated
by the Calvinistic dispute, and with nothing in his
raind but the controversy between the Reformed
Churches and the Church of Rome, he would then
clearly perceive that those Articles were constructed
for the most part on the Lutheran system and prin
cipally as a rampart against the almost unchristian
theology of the schools."^ This was emphatically
the case as respects the doctrine now under consi
deration. Thus we have two very important auxilia
ries, in case of any difficulty in understanding the
precise meaning of our standard compcsitions on this
subject. The writings of Luther and his associates,
' Soame, iii. p. 652.
2 Le Bas' Life of Cranmer. See also Lawrence's Bampton Lectures ; Blunt's
Reformation in England.
41

322
especially of Melancthon, together with the Augs
burgh Confession, which the latter composed, frora
materials prepared by Luther, are one of them. The
doctrines of the Church of Rome, on the subject of
Justification, are another, and not the least to be re
lied on.
Now there is no necessity of going into an iuA^es-
tigation of the doctrine of the Church in reference
to all, or many, of the particular points which, as we
have showed, are erabraced in Oxford Divinity. All
depend upon two main questions, viz :
1. What is the righteousness whereby we are to
be justified or made acceptable before God ?
2. What is the mode or means by which that
righteousness is applied ?
On the settlement of these, hangs all the contro
versy. The first is resolved into the following: Is the
righteousness by which we are justified an external
or internal righteousness? If the former, then it must
be what is ordinarily called the righteousness of
Christ's obedience unto death, accounted us, throuo-h
faith ; If the latter, then it must be the righteous
ness of a personal holiness, wrought in us by the
Spirit of God. Oxford Divines assert the latter, and
so does the Church of Rome. We assert the former,
and so we contend (and till recently we did not sup
pose it could be doubted,) do the Articles and Homi
lies of the Anglican Church. So that the first ques
tion comes to this — viz :
Do the Articles and Homilies teach Justification
by a righteousness external, as distinguished from
such as is in the believer ; in other words, the righte-

323
ousness which consists, not in our obedience to the
Law, through the aid of the Spirit; but exclusively
in the obedience of Christ, as our surety, and his
death upon the cross?
The second question, as to the mode or means of
applying the righteousness of Justification, may be di
vided into these two, viz :
1, Is faith represented as an instrument, and the
only instrument, on the part of man, in his Justifica
tion before God?
2, While, as a living faith, it must work by love,
and be productive of fruits of holiness, does it jus
tify on account of these, its fruits and attendants, or
through them, as instrumental, with itself; or does
it renounce thera, in its office as justifying, and re
nounce even itself, so far as it is a virtue, or work,
within us, operating simply as the instrument or
hand by which we embrace the righteousness of
Christ? The need of these questions will be easily . per
ceived if the reader will keep in mind what we have
shown to be the doctrine of Oxford Divinity, as to
the nature and office of faith, viz, — that, before Bap
tism, it cannot justify, but is necessarily a dead faith
and must itself be brought to Baptisra to be raade
alive thereby and justified ; and that it can be instru-
raental to Justification, only in that it brings us to
Baptism, having no more concern in our first Justifi
cation, than Restitution, or any other similar moral
act done before Baptism ; that we are first Justified by
Baptism, without a living faith; and then, in conse
quence of such Justification, our Faith becomes liv
ing and justifying. That even now, after Baptism,

324
it is justifying only as a symbol and Representative of
Baptism, "sustaining" what has already been ac
complished without its agency; and that in this
mere sustaining office, its peculiar character as an in
strument is only nominal, all other fruits of the Spirit
having just as much instrumentality, and faith being
mentioned above the rest merely because all others
are included under it; so that it is a name for the
whole complex of Christianity, as carried out in prac
tical piety. ^
To prove that it is the doctrine of our Articles and
Homilies, not only that we are justified only by the
external righteousness of Christ, accounted unto us;
* It is not uncommon for those who would shrink from participation in the
general system of Oxford Divinity, as to faith, and the constituent principle of
Justification, to maintain nevertheless the same doctrine substantially, as to the
union of all fruits of faith with itself, in its relative office of Justification, We
refer to the representation of the oflBce of faith, as if it were efiicacious unto Jus
tification, not as a single act ofthe soul, by -whicli -we embrace Christ, operating
merely as the appointed instrument of participation in his righteousness, and
justifying only because it lays hold on that righteousness; but as efficacious,
because it is "the root of all Christian virtues," "the originating principle of
love and every good work," and thus, in root and branch, the "complex of
Christianity.'' If this representation be correct, there is no propriety in saying that we are
justified hy faith, which there would not be also in saying that we are justified
by " love, joy, peace, long-suffering," &c., by all those virtues of godly living
which are " ihe fruits of faith," and which "follo-w after Justification."
Now that the word faith is sometimes used in the Scriptures for the sum of
Christianity, we freely grant; that Justifying Faith is indeed the root of al'
Christian virtues, so that they " do all spring out necessarily of a true and lively
faith," we consider a most necessary truth, exceedingly to be insisted on with
every soul to whom the Gospel is preached. But that faith derives any of its
justifying virtue from these fruits, which are not its life, but its evidences of
life, we hold it of great importance to deny, and on the contrary, to maintain
that, though -working by love, as it must if living, faith is effectual for justifica
tion, simply as an act of embracing Christ, in all his offices, and benefits, and
requirements, whereby the sinner lays hold ofhis promises and puts on the gar
ment of his justifying righteousness. To some it may seem that the difierence

325
but that faith is the only instrumental means, on
man's part, of his partaking in that righteousness,
and that, in its agency, as the only instrument, it acts
not as including, but as renouncing the co-operating
instrumentality of all those fruits of holiness within
us, with which it is essentially connected in all prac
tical piety; to make good these positions will suffi
ciently command the whole field of the present con
troversy. In referring to the authorities, now to be cited, the
passages bearing on all these points are so interwo
ven one with another, that it would be impossible
to make separate citations for each, without too
rauch repetition. We will therefore have them all
in view together.
between these divergent views is too slight to be made of any importance. We
apprehend, however, that it is the point of divergency where lies the unseen
origin of those very errors which have for their legitimate issue, -ivhen carried
out, nothing less than justification by inherent, and therefore by our o-wn, righte
ousness. Two ways may separate at so small an angle, that to some it may seem of
little consequence which you choose; and for a long while, you may go on in
one, without being very far separated from the other — but still they are getting
wider apart, and if the lines be carried out, they will become separated by the
breadth of the earth. So we think concerning the divergency above described.
These two views of faith seem to begin their separation at an angle scarcely
measurable. Many an eye would not detect it. But the angle is there, never
theless, and the minister, though he may never trouble his people with its mea
surement, sliould know the importance of accuracy there, and govern his views
and language accordingly. Two minds, taking the two ways from this point,
may long continue very near one another in doctrine, and spirit, and fellowship;
and because the tendencies of the way that leads erroneously may never be car
ried out, they may never be parted any further asunder. But evil tendencies are
not always in such good hands. Let the wrong way be carried out. The issue
will be, as appeared at the Reformation, and as now appears in the true Pro
testant and the consistent Romanist, — the two poles of doctrine, as far asunder
as the North and South, — Justification by the righteousness of Christ imputed
— Justification by our own righteousness inherent.

326
The first question, viz : as to whether Justification
consists in a righteousness external, or in one that is
inherent, we consider to be settled by a singular as
sertion on the part of Dr. Pusey in his Confession of
Faith. In his Article on Justification, contained in his
letter to the Bishop of Oxford, we find the declara
tion that the eleventh Article of the Anglican Church
entitled, " Of the Justificatio7i of Man," says noth
ing AS TO wherein our JUSTIFICATION CONSISTS.^
Now let the Reader look back to what we have
said, from Le Bas, &c., as to the Articles being
framed simply "as a bulwark against the perversions
with which the scholastic theology had disfigured
the simplicity of the Gospel;" that "the only key
to their true sense is a knowledge of the papal doc
trines, against which the main struggle of the Re
formers was carried on;" that the Articles "were
constructed, for the most part, on the Lutheran sys
tem, and as a rampart against the almost unchristian
theology of the schools ;" let the reader also consider
that all this is granted, by Dr. Pusey, with regard
to the intention of this particular Article of Justifi
cation, in these very words, viz: " The eleventh Ai--
ticle bears the appearance, on its vei'y face, of being a
protest against Romish ei'ror ;"^ let it be remem
bered that "the almost unchristian theology of the
Schools" and of the Romish creed, as founded on
that theology, entirely excludes all external righte
ousness from that by which a sinner is justified,
making Justification to consist entirely of a righte-
' Letter, p. 42,. 2 Jb. p. 41.

327
ousness inherent; that this very doctrine it was,
against which the Reformers levelled their most in
dignant protests; that according to Hooker the
"grand question which did then hang in controver
sy with the Romish Church, was about this very
matter of Justifying righteousness" — " the nature
and essence of the medicine ivherehy Chi'ist cureth our
disease;" that Mr, Newman states the fundamental
question of Justification in the same way, viz : what
does the 7'ighteousness of Justification consist in; that
when Dr, Pusey and Mr. Newraan are engaged in
setting forth, distinguishing and defending their own
doctrine of Justification, they feel it necessary to
spend pages after pages, on this very question; and
yet when the Church of England, in the midst of
the conflicts and jealousies and confusion and false
accusations, of the sera ofthe Reformation ; when the
clouds of Romanism had only partially passed away
from her parishes, and the Council of Trent was sit
ting and forging its decrees and anathemas on this
very subject, and all eyes, as well of the reformed
states of the Continent, as of the Romish hierarchy,
were upon her, and precision and fulness of state
ment upon the chief matters in controversy with
Rome, as well for tlie vindication of her own posi
tion, as for the guidance and protection of her peo
ple, were so specially demanded; then, her Arch
bishop and Bishops and great divines did solemnly
frame and set forth a declaration of faith, on this
great point the Reformation, with express reference
to the Romish error, calling it the Article of Justifi
cation, and yet, as Oxford Divines assure us, they
say not a Avord as to 7vhat Justification consists in ;

328
this they knew to be the great question, and yet
they say nothing at all about it. Dr. Pusey and
Mr. Newman could not possibly make such an omis
sion, in their Articles and declarations ; but the An
glican Reformers most singularly did. The very
point on which their Article was most needed, for a
rampart against the corruptions of the Schoolmen,
and the decrees of Trent, is just that on which it is
silent as the grave.
Now this of course is wholly incredible, utterly
absurd. Not only does the face of the Article say
so ; but the whole condition of things in which, and
the whole object for which, it was constructed. What
then? How shall we explain this assertion of Dr.
Pusey? Most evidently, since it could not be pre
tended that the Article says any thing in favour of
the Oxford doctrine of Justification; the only refuge
was to deny that it said any thing against it; — hence
the necessity of maintaining that on the main ques
tion it is utterly dumb. The desperateness of the
refuge; the absurdity of the pretence is the settle
ment of the question. It cannot be that the Article
says nothing as to what Justification consists in. It
raust, it does, say something. What is it? Were it
on the side of the Oxford doctrine, would it not be
asserted ? Nothing of the sort is claimed ; and hence
the plain conclusion that its testimony is against
that doctrine.
If all that Oxford divines can pretend to is, that
the Articles of the Church say nothing, one way, or
the other, then they present nothing but this assertion
for us to answer. If we can show that they do say
something, it must be against them. If we can show

329
that both Articles and Homilies speak strongly and
earnestly to the point in question, it must be all
strongly against thern ; it cannot be for thera, or they
would never have taken this tame, negative ground.
The Articles in question are the following :
" XI. Of the Justification of Man.
" 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. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a
most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort; as more largely
is expressed in the Homily of Justification,
" 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 severi
ty of God's Judgment; yet are ihey pleasing and acceptable to God
in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively failh ;
insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known,
as a tree discerned by the fruit.
" XIII. Of Works before Justification.
" Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration ofhis
Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of failh
in Jesus Christ ; neither do they make men meet lo receive grace,
or, as the School Authors say, deserve grace of congruity : yea ra
ther, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded
them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin."
Mark the precision of the first of these Articles.
The righteousness which is by the faith of Christ,
and our own righteousness are here, according to the
example of St. Paul,' set in direct opposition: the
words " only for the me7'its of Christ," being evidently
the intended opposite of "for our own 7vorks" The
former excludes the latter. The two are incapable
of standing- to2:ether in this matter. Even faith
viewed as it is a work of personal grace is excluded,
I Phil, iii, 9,

330
and is considered only as an instrument of connection
with Christ.' But snch is the fulness of that meri
torious cause, unto all who believe, that they are ac
counted righteous ; in other words, righteousness is
accounted or imputed to them; righteousness as per
fect, as the merits of our Redeemer, because of those
raerits, it consists ; so that, to believers, God no more
imputes sin, than if they had never sinned.
The reader will here enquire, by what device it
can be made out, that the above eleventh Article does
not state in what our Justification consists. Does it
not distinctly say, that we are accounted righteous
before God only, for the merits of our Lord and Sa
viour, &c. — and is not this what Justification con
sists in, even the accounting of the righteousness of
Christ to the believer? No, says Oxford Divinity,
God first makes us righteous, and then, and on that
moral basis, accounts us righteous. The Article
speaks of the latter, not of the former. But which
is the more important of the two to be brought into
a confession of faith — the malmig, or the accounting,
the thing, or the name ; the reality, or its acknowl
edgment ? Of course the making is the great mat
ter. The accounting, on the part of God, follows of
course. And yet, according to these 'writers, the
Church, in her Article of Justification, has said not

' It is worthy of note how carefully, the merely instrumental office of faith is
exhibited in the Article ; as appears more plainly in the Latin form, which is
of equal authority with the English. "Tantum pboptee meritum domini ac
servatoris nostri Jesu Christi, peb fidem, non pkopteii opera et merita nostra,
justi coram Deo reputamur. Quare sola fide, nos justificari, doctrina est salu-
berrima," &c.
What is meant by sola fide, is shown by the use of per with fidem, ani prop
ter with meritum, and its antithesis, opera nostra.

331
a word as to how that is to take place ; but has spent
the force of her solemn Confession upon the raere
raatter of course that when God has made a sinner
righteous, however it may take place, then he ac
counts, or considers and deals with hira, as righteous.
This is incredible.
Now as the Article of Justification is known to
have been written by Archbishop Cranmer, his other
writings, when they speak on the same subject must
be considered the surest comment upon its meaning.
We have then, in his Catechism, the following ac
count of v/hat ensues upon the exercise of a lively
faith in Christ.
" Then God doth no more impute unto us our former sins; but he
doth impute ax\A give unto us the justice and righteousness of his
Son Jesus Christ. And so we be counted righteous, for as much as
no man dare accuse us for that sin for the which satisfaction is made
by our Saviour Jesus Christ."^
From this passage it appears that Cranmer used
the words account and impute for the same thing;
that to be accounted righteous, and to have righte
ousness imputed to us, was one matter in his view.
Then, if it be asked whether he does not use the
phrase to impute or account righteousness, in the sense
of the Oxford men, viz: as making one righteous;
let it be asked if he used the analogous phrase — im
puting sin in the sense of making one sinful. The
absurdity of the last, is the key, if any be needed, to
the whole phraseology. Imputing the righteousness
of Christ must mean the setting to the sinner's ac
count the righteousness of Christ, as his own, for
Justification. Then when the same writer uses the
> Cranmer's Catechism ; (Redemption.)

332
similar language of the Article, we must necessarily
understand him in precisely the same sense. So
that allowing the framer of the Article to explain
his own words, we have the utmost clearness of evi
dence that the constituent righteousness of Justifica
tion, is according to the Anglican Church, simply
the external and imputed righteousness of Christ.
The office of faith, as the above instrument of jus
tification, is also clearly contained in the same Arti
cle — its office of justifying, not as in itself a righte
ousness, but only as it is the appointed instrumental
medium of obtaininsr the rig-hteousness of Christ;
not as that on account of which, but through which,
we are justified. An inspection of the Latin word
ing of the Article, which is placed in the note, will
make this still more plain.' We there learn, au
thoritatively, that when our Reformers say by faith,
they raean through faith. And all doubt of the idea
which they intended to convey is effectually re
moved by the import of the preposition which they em
ploy to describe the efficacy and operation of Christ's
merits. Their language is : " We are deemed righte
ous before God, only on account of the merits of our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through faith, and
not on account of our own works and merits. Hence

1 "Tantum propter meritum domini ac servatoris nostri Jesu Christi, ^er fi
dem, non propter opera et merita nostra, justi coram Deo reputamur. Quare sola
fide, nos justificari, doctrina est saluberrima." &c.
Had the framer of this, confined himself to the expression sola fide (by faitli
only) which may mean either by faith, as a righteousness, or through faith as
only an instrument, they might have spoken obscurely. But all ambiguity is
prevented by the expression per fidem, {through faith,) in evident contradis
tinction from propter meritum {on account of the merits, &c.) Through faith
and on account of faith are widely different ways.

333
from the very force of the two diff'erent prepositions
employed, it is evidently the judgment of our Re
formers: that, in the sight of God, we are justified
meritoriously, on account of the sole righteousness
of Christ; while through faith, we are justified no
further than instnmientally or mediately."'^
Let us now turn to the Homily to which this Ar
ticle refers us for a larger explication of its doctrine.
That singularly clear declaration of the way of sal
vation was evidently prepared with special reference
to the peculiar errors of the Church of Rome, as to
the Justifying righteousness and the office of Faith.
Let us cite the following passage.
"And of this justice and mercy of God knit together, speaketh
St. Paul in the third chapter to the Romans (23 — 25) : " All have
offended, and have need ofthe glory of God ; but are justified free
ly by his grace, by redemption which is in Jesus Christ; whom
God had set forth lo us for a reconciler and peace-maker through
faith in his blood, to shew his righteousness." And in the lenth
chapter (4) ; " Christ is the end of the Law unto righteousness, io
every man that believeth." And in the eighth chapter (3, 4) ; " That
which was impossible by the Law, inasmuch as it was weak by the
flesh, God sending his own Son in the similitude of sinful flesh, by
sin condemned sin in the flesh ; that the righteousness of the Law
might be fulfilled in us, which walk not after the flesh, but after the
Spirit." " In these foresaid places, the Apostle toucheih specially three
things, which must go together io 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 ofhisbody, and shedding of his blood, with fulfiling
of the Law perfectly and thoroughly : and upon our pari, true and
lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ; which yet is not our's, but
by God's working in us. So that, in our justification, there is not
only God's mercy and grace, but also his justice ; which lhe Apos-
' Faber's Prim. Doc. of Justification.

334
tie caUeth the justice of God : and it consisteth in paying our ran
som, and fulfilling of the Law : and so the grace of God doth not
shut out the justice of God, in our justification; but only shutteth
out the justice of man : that is to say, the justice of our works, as to
be merits of deserving our justification. And therefore St. Paul de
clareth here riothing, upon the behalf of man, concerning his justifi
cation, but only a true and lively faith : which nevertheless is the
gift of God, and not man's only work without God.
"And yet that failh 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. So
that, although they be all present together in him that is justified,
yet they justify not altogether. Neither doth faith shut out the jus
tice of our good works, necessarily lo be done afterwards of duty to
wards God ; for we are most bounden lo serve God, in doing good
deeds, commanded by him in his Holy Scripture, all the days of our
life : but it excludeth them, so that we may not do them to this in
tent — to be made Just by doing of them. For all the good works
that we can do be imperfect, and therefore not able to deserve our
justification; but our justification doth come freely by the mere
mercy of God ; and of so great and free mercy, that, whereas all
the world was not able of themselves to pay any part towards their
ransom, it pleased our heavenly Father, of his infinite mercy, with
out any our desert or deserving, lo prepare for us the most precious
jewels of Christ's body and blood ; whereby our ransom might be
fully paid, the Law fulfilled, and his justice fully satisfied.
" So that Christ is now the righteousness of all them thai truly
do believe in him. He for them paid their ransom by his death.
He for them fulfilled the Law in his life. So that now, in him, and
by him, every true Christian man may be called a fulfiller of the
Law ; forasmuch as that which their infirmity lacked, Christ''s
justice hath supplied."^
In this passage, the reader will notice an express
commentary upon the passages quoted from St, Paul ;
especially upon the expression, " his 7'ighteousness,"
or " God's Justice ;" Christ " the end ofthe Law for.

^ Homily of Salvation, p. 2.

335
or unto, 7'ighteousness ; and the righteousness of the
Law fulfilled in us," These being the texts, the ob
ject is to show what is meant by God's Justice, or
righteousness, in our Justification, and how Christ is
the end of the Law, for righteousness, so that the
Law is " fulfilled in us,"
Now these are precisely the matters in discussion.
Mr. Newman expounds the passage, " to sheiv His
righteousness," by these words, " a righteousness qf
His own making,"^ as distinguished from a righte
ousness of our making; in other words, a righteous
ness wrought in us and by us, through the Holy
Ghost, in distinction from that of our own unaided,
unsanctified efforts of obedience. The latter, he
thinks, is what St. Paul calls, in Phil, iii., " the
righteousness which is ofthe law;" the former, "the
righteousness of God by faith." Now let us see
what the Homily calls this righteousness of God. It
says that what St. Paul calls " the Justice," or
righteousness " of God consisteth in paying our ran
som and in fulfilling of the Law." This same jus
tice or righteousness is before called " the price of
our redemption by the oflFering of the body, and shed
ding of the blood of Christ, with fulfilling of the
Law perfectly and thoroughly,"— and this is said to
be the Justice or righteousness of Christ, or that
which is Christ's part in our Justification. Now if
there be any possible sense in which such righteous
ness can be in us, instead of being external to us and
in Christ only, we cannot perceive it.
This righteousness is said to consist in " the most
precious jewels of Christ's body and blood." The
' Lecture on Justification, p. 54,

336
only thing "on man's part" which the Homily con
siders as having any part in his Justification, through
that external righteousness of Christ, is " a true and
lively faith." But this, it takes great pains to shew,
has not its influence, as constituting any part ofthe
justifying righteousness; for all good works it says,
(and faith is, in one sense, a 7Vork,) are excluded
from that office and are not to be done for the pur
pose of our being made righteous, or being justified
by doing them; so that the office of faith is simply
that of an instrument, whereby we embrace the righte
ousness of Christ. Thus the "justice" or righteous
ness " of man," that is to say " the righteousness of
our works," precisely that which we are told by Ox
ford Divines has "a satisfying and justifying quali
ty," and does fulfil the Law and constitute the
righteousness of our Justification, this, the Homily
says, is shut out ; nothing in us being connected
with our Justification, but simply our faith. So, by
the Ransom paid for us by Christ in his death and
the falfilment of the Law in his life. He is " the end
of the Law for righteou.sness," or he "is now the
righteousness of them that do believe in him." Then
if it be asked how "the Law is fulfiUed in us," the
Homily answers : "In him and by him, every true
Christian man," i. e. every one Avho has '¦ a true and
lively faith in Christ," "may he called a fulfiller of
the Law, for as much as that which their infi7'7nity
hath lacked, Christ's righteousness hath supplied."
Here then is the external and accounted righteous-
ness of Christ, in his Mediatorial office, asserted as
the Justification of the sinner, believing in him, to
the entire exclusion of all other righteousness for
that end.

337
To show how exceedingly careful is this Homily
lest it should be supposed that any thing in us, even
our faith, can make up any part of the righteousness
of our Justification, let the following extract be read.
"First, you shall understand that, 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 ;
for man cannot make himself righteous by his own works, neither
in part nor in the whole : for that were the greatest arrogancy and
presumption of man, that Antichrist could set up against God, to af
firm that a man might by his own works lake away and purge his
own sins, and so justify himself. But 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 lo him : but which we take
of him by his free mercy, and by the only merits ofhis most dearly
beloved Son, our only Redeemer, Saviour, and Justifier, Jesus Christ.
So that the true understanding of this doctrine — We be justified
freely by faith, without works, or that we be justified by faith in
Christ only — is not, that this our own act, to believe in Christ, or
this our failh in Christ, which is within us, doth justify us, and de
serve our justification unto us — for that were to count ourselves to
be justified by some act or virtue that is within ourselves — but the
true understanding and meaning thereof is, that although we hear
God's word, and believe it; although we have fail!), hope, charity,
repentance, dread, and fear of God within us, and do never so many
good works thereunto: yet we must renounce the merit of all oui
said virtues, of faith, hope, charily, and all our other virtues and
good deeds, which we either have done, shall do, or can do, as things
that be far too weak and insufficient, and imperfect, to deserve re
mission of our sins, and our justification : and therefore we must
trust only in God's mercy, and that sacrifice which our High Priest
and Saviour Christ Jesus, the Son of God, once offered for us upon
the cross, to obtain thereby, God's grace and remission, as well of
our original sin in baptism, as of all actual sin committed by us
after our baptism, if we truly repent and turn unfeignedly to him
again. So that, as St. John Baptist, although he were never so virtuous
and godly a man, yet in this matter of forgiving of sin, he did put
43

338
the people from him, and appointed them unto Christ, saying thus
unto them, " Behold, yonder is the Lamb of God, wbich taketh
away the sins ofthe world" (John i. 29): even so, as great and as
godly a virtue as the lively faith is, yet it putteth us from itself, and
remiiletti or appoinlelh us unto Christ, for to have only by him re
mission of our sins, or justification. So that our faith in Christ, as
it were, sailh unto us thus : It is not I that lake away your sins, but
it is Christ only; and to him only I send you for that purpose, for
saking therein all your good virtues, words, thoughts and works,
and only pulling your trust in Christ."'
Let it be remarked how carefully and strikingly
the simply instrumental character of justifying faith
is here exhibited ; how, as a grace, or work, its effi
cacy is excluded; so that we are made to consider
faith, in the sinner's coming to Christ, to be justify
ing, only as the faith of Bartimeus was instrumental
in opening his eyes — that is, only as it leads us to
Christ. Should we regard faith as, in any other
way, concerned in this great office, we should then
be counting ourselves, says the Homily, to be justi
fied " by some act or virtue that is ivi thin ourselves."
Any departure from the doctrine of the very simplest
and merest instrumental office of faith, not of a faith
that does not work by love, but of a faith that does
not bring its love or other attendant graces into the
work of Justification, is considered, by the Church,
as inconsistent with the putting of our trust singly in
Christ, and as partaking of a reliance upon something
inherent in ourselves.
That Faith is not only the instrument, but the only
instrument, is prominently asserted in the following
extracts. "Truth it is, that our own works do not justify us, to speak pro-
' Homily of Salvation, p. 2.

339
perly of our justification : that is to say, our works do not merit or
deserve remission of our sins, and make us, of unjust, just before
God ; but God of his mere mercy, through the only merits and de
servings ofhis Son Jesus Christ, doth justify us. Nevertheless, be
cause 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 the Scripture useth to
say, that faith without works doth justify. And forasmuch as it is
all one sentence in eflx;ct to say, faith without works, and only failh,
doth justify us ; therefore the old ancient fathers of the church, from
time to time, have uttered our justification with this speech. Only
faith justifieth us; meaning no other than St. Paul meant, when he
said, ' Faith without works justifieth us.'
" And because all this is brought to pass through the only merits
and deservings of our Saviour Christ, and not through our merits, or
through the merit of any virtue that we have within us, or of any
work that cometh from us; therefore, in that respect of merit and
deserving, we forsake, as it were, altogether again, failh, works, and
all other virtues. For our own imperfection is so great, through the
corruption of original sin, that all is imperfect that is within us — failh,
charity, hope, dread, thoughts, words, and works — and therefore not
apt to merit and deserve any part of our justification for us. And
this form of speaking use we, in the humbling of ourselves to God,
and to give all the glory to our Saviour Christ, who is best worthy
to have it.
" The right and true Christian faith is, not only to believe that
Holy Scripture, and all the aforesaid articles of our faith, are true;
but also to have a sure trust and confidence in God's merciful pro
mises, to be saved from everlasting damnation by Christ ; whereof
doth follow a loving heart to obey his commandments. And this
true Christian faith neither any devil hath ; nor yet any man, which
in the outward profession of his mouth, and in his outward receiving
of the sacraments, in coming lo the church, and in all other outward
appearances, seemeth to be a Christian man, and yet in his living
and deeds sheweth the contrary."'

I Homily of Salvation, p, 3.

340
In the first of these paragraphs, there is an express
distinction made, between the agency of faith, and
that of all other graces and works. The meaning of
the expressions, "only faith justifieth," "faith without
woi'ks justifieth," &c,, is clearly declared to be, not
that a faith which is not fruitful in good works, jus
tifieth, but that a living faith does, what "none other
of our virtues, or ivorks properly doth." "It doth
directly send us to Christ for remission of our sins,"
and "by it, we embrace the promise of God's mercy,
and ofthe remission of our sins." This none other
virtues or works can do.
The nature and instrumental office of Justifying
faith is expressed, if possible, more prominently in the
following extracts from the Homily of the Passion.
" Now it remaineth that I shew unto you, how to apply Christ's
death and passion to our comfort, as a medicine to our wounds ; so
that it may work the same effect in us wherefore it was given,
namely, the health and salvation of our souls. For as it profiteth a
man nothing to have salve, unless it be well applied to the part af
fected ; so the death of Christ shall stand us in no force, unless we
apply it to ourselves in such sort as God hath appointed.
"Almighty God commonly worketh by means ; and in this thing
he hath also ordained a certain mean, whereby we may take fruit
and profit to our souls' health. What mean is that? Forsooth it is
faith. Not an unconstant or wavering faith : but a sure, stedfast,
grounded,and unfeigned failh. " God sent his Son into the world,"
saith St. John, To what end? "That whosoever believeth in him
should not perish, but have life everlasting." (John iii. 16.) JVIark
these words, " that whosoever believeth in him." Here is the mean,
whereby we must apply the fruits of Christ's death unto our deadly
wound. Here is the mean, whereby we must obtain eternal life;
namely, faith. ' For,' as St. Paul teacheth in his Epistle to the Ro
mans, ' with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the
mouth confession is made unto salvation." (x. 10.) Paul, being de
manded of the keeper of the prison, ' what he should do to be saved,

341
made this answer : ' Believe in the Lord Jesus, so shalt thou and
thine house both be saved.' (Acts xvi. 30, 31.) After the Evange
list had described, and set forth unto us at large, the life and death
of the Lord Jesus, in the end he concludeth with these words :
'These things are written, that we may believe Jesus Christ to be
the Son of God, and through failh obtain eternal life,' (John xx. 31.)
To conclude with the words of St. Paul, which are these: ' Christ
is the end of the law unto salvation, for every one that doth believe.'
(Rom. X. 4.)
"By this then you may well perceive, that the only mean and in
strument of salvation, required of our parts, is faith.'
" Therefore I say unto you, that we must apprehend the merits
of Christ's death and passion by failh ; and that wilh a strong and
stedfast failh, nothing doubling but that Christ by his one oblation
and once offering of himself upon the cross, hath taken away our
sins, and hath restored us again into God's favour, so fully and per
fectly, that no other sacrifice for sin shall hereafler be requisite or
needful in all the world.
" Thus have you heard, in few words, the mean whereby we must
apply the fruits and merits of Christ's death unto us, so that it may
work the salvation of our souls ; namely, a sure, stedfast, perfect,
and grounded faith. For, as all they which beheld stedfastly the
brazen serpent were healed and delivered, at the very sight thereof,
from their corporal diseases and bodily stings (Num. xxi. 9 ; John
iii. 14;) even so all they, which behold Christ crucified with a true
and lively failh, shall undoubtedly be delivered from the grievous
wounds of the soul, be they never so deadly or many in number.
" Therefore, dearly beloved, if we chance at any time, through
frailty of the flesh, to fall into sin — as it cannot be chosen but we
must needs fall often — and if we feel lhe heavy burden thereof to
press our souls, tormenting us with the fear of death, hell, and dam
nation ; let us then use that mean which God hath appointed in his
word ; to wit, the mean of faith, which is the only instrument of sal
vation now left unto us. Let us stedfastly behold Christ crucified
with the eyes of our heart. Let us only trust to be saved by his
death and passion, and to have our sins clean washed away through
his most precious blood ; that, in the end ofthe world, when he shall
come again to judge both the quick and the dead, he may receive us
into his heavenly kingdom, and place us in the number of his elect

342
and chosen people ; there to be partakers of that immortal and ever
lasting life, which he hath purchased unto us, by virtue of his bloody
wounds : to him therefore, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, be
all honour and glory, world without end. Amen."'-
Here we have faith distinctly called the "mean
and instrument of our salvation;" " the o?2/y instru
ment of salvation now left unto us ;" that " by which
we apply Christ's death and passion to our comfort,
and as a medicine to our wounds;" by which we
"stedfastly behold Christ crucified with the eyes of
our heart."
Now let us make a brief summary of the points
which have been distinctly made from the Articles
and Homilies. They are chiefly the following, viz.
That the righteousness whereby we are justified, is
exclusively the righteousness of Christ ; that it con
sists in his obedience to the law for us, and his pay
ing, by his death on the cross, the penalty of our sin ;
that this righteousness is what St. Paul calls the
righteousness of God ; that when accounted or im
puted to the sinner, he is accounted righteous before
God for Christ's sake, perfectly righteous so that he
is regarded and treated as, in Christ, a fulfiller of the
Law; that the only mean or instrument by which
we can apply or obtain the imputation of this righte
ousness is that of a living faith ; that such faith act
ing thus, as the instrument of applying the righteous
ness of Christ, is not justifying because of any justi
fying efficacy in the love and other holy fruits with
which it is attended, but solely as it leads the soul to
Christ Now let the reader compare these necessary con-
1 Second Homily of the Passion.

343
elusions from the standards of our Church, with the
main features which have been exhibited of the Ox
ford doctrine on these heads. What the Articles and
Homihes so distinctly teach, that system directly de
nies, most earnestly condemns, and most indignantly
casts away. A more singular pretence was never
penned, or conceived, than that such representations
of Christian truth, as those of Mr. Newman and Dr.
Pusey, are capable of being squeezed, by any force
of systematizing pressure, or any skill of critical
management, into any thing but a perfect contradic
tion of the plainest and most repeated declarations of
their own Church.
But have these writers no way of defending them
selves against such charges of contradiction ? Surely
they have. How far they are sufficient we will attempt
to show. The first way is the following. They first
assert, as we have seen, that the Article of Justifica
tion says nothing of what Justification consists in.
The absurdity of such an idea, considering the ac
knowledged object, and all the circumstances in, and
for, which the Article was made, we have already
shown, and turned against its advocates. Whether
the Homily declares what Justification consists in,
we are not told. But the reader is intended evi
dently by Dr. Pusey, in his Letter to the Bishop of
Oxford, to take the impression that neither in the
Article, nor in the Homily constructed expressly for
its larger explication, has the Church pronounced
upon " the nature and essence of the medicine with
which Christ cureth our disease " — the nature of the
justifying righteousness. Then what does the Church
pronounce?

344
" The Article (says Dr. Pusey) opposes the merit of Christ to any
thing which we have of our own, to our own works and deservings,
as the meritorious cause of our salvation ; and thus far, we believe,
little is imputed to us. It is so plain a truth, and has been so often
inculcated by us, that every sin of man vvhich is remitted, is remitted
only for the sake of his meritorious Cross and Passion ; every good
and acceptable work is such through his power working in us, that
liltle, I believe, has thus far been objected."'
All this is very plausible. But precisely such lan
guage is used by the Church of Rome, as was
showed in the fifth chapter of this work. She makes
the Lord Jesus Christ the only meritorious cause.
She ascribes every good and acceptable work to the
grace of God through the merits of Christ. She
holds that the first Justification, that of a sinner's
first coming to God, and necessarily without any
works, must be of the mere mercy of God remitting
sins for Christ's sake. But the Church of Rome and
the Oxford men agree that even in that case the re
mission consists, not in the accounting to that sin
ner of the righteousness of Christ, as the Homilies
describe it ; but in the expulsion of sin from his soul,
and the infusion of righteousness for Christ's sake ;
so that when they speak of such a person's receiving
remission of sins for Christ's sake, their meanino-,
and that of the Articles and Homilies, are entirely
different. When, however, they come to what con
stitutes the subsequent acceptableness of that sinner,
in all his future course ; while, with the Anglican
Church, as above, that acceptableness is simply the
being accounted righteous, through the imputation
of the righteousness of Christ, from the first to the
'Letter, p. 41.

345
last of the Christian life, no virtue or work or grace
of ours constituting any part of the ground of our ac
ceptance, at the end, any more than at the beginning,
of our race; with Oxfordists and Romanists, it is
just the reverse. Acceptance, with them, is wholly
founded upon our own righteousness. The Law is
considered as fulfilled in our obedience. We are
justified raore and more as we grow in grace. The
merits of Christ are only connected, as it is through
them that any good work is wrought in us. But the
whole process may go on without our ever looking
to the cross of Christ; or even knowing enough of
what he did for us, to be capable of "an explicit be
lief in his atonement." Now with such a doctrine,
the Papists and the Oxfordists may profess to as
cribe all merit to Christ. The Papist may be sorae-
tiraes more candid, than the Oxfordist, in sometimes
ascribing in terms a modified merit to man's inhe
rent righteousness, while, at other times, he professes
to give all merit to the Saviour. But the difference
is only in words. Do any men of Oxford divinity
employ stronger language than the following : "He
that could reckon how many the virtues and merits
of our Saviour have been, might likewise understand
how many the benefits have been that are come to
us by hira, for so rauch as men are made partakers
of them all by means of his passion; by him is given
unto us reraission of sins, grace, glory, liberty, praise,
salvation, redemption, justification: — merits and all
other things which were behoveful for our salva
tion."' Again: " All grace is given by Jesus Christ.

• Lewis of Granada, in Hooker on Justif. § 33.
44

346
True, but not except Christ Jesus be applied. He
is the propitiation for our sins ; by his stripes we are
healed — all this is trae, but apply it. We put all
satisfaction in the blood of Jesus Christ; but we hold
that the means which Christ hath appointed for us,
in the case, to apply it, are our penal works. "'^
Beyond this language our Oxford men cannot go.
Thus far they may go. But notwithstanding all this,
the Council of Trent has decreed that the Justified
can and do merit eternal life. Bellarmine has la
boured to prove that good works are necessary to
eternal life, not only necessitate prcBse7iticB, as the way
to God's kingdom ; which all confess ; but also ne
cessitate efficentice, as causes of eternal life. And
" the most learned of the Papists hold that there is a
due proportion between the works of the faithful pro
ceeding from charity, and the heavenly reward, and
that they condignly merit eternal life, not only in re
spect of God's promise, but also for the worthiness
of the works, which are so dignified, they say, by the
merit of Christ that they become t7'uly merito7"ious,
and do in Justice, according to their worth, deserve
the heavenly reward."^
Now such language, as this, the Oxford writers
have not used. But they have used the equivalent.
They constantly contend that our own righteousness
has a justifying quality, does fulfil the law, is the
basis of our acceptance with God. They call it the
only wedding garment in which the soul can be
invested. But that which constitutes our Justifica
tion is our merit, call it what else they please. "If it
' Paulgarola, in Hooker on Justif. § 33. ^ Bishop Downame on Justf. p. 549.

347
be a righteousness in us; (says Hooker,) it is as
much our righteousness as our souls are ours." It is
then a righteousness of works, as distinguished from
the accounted righteousness of Christ. Differ as
Romanists and Oxford-men may, as to the use of the
word merit, in this application; when the former
say that "our wo7'ks are so dignified by the merits of
Christ that they become truly meritorious," they mean
no more than Mr. Newraan raeans, when he says
"that, through the merits of Christ, our indwelling
righteousness is our justification ; that the righteous
ness in which we are to stand at the last day, is not
Christ's imputed obedience, but our good works."^
In this harmonizing, we do not diminish the ex
cessive error of the Romanist; but we unveil the
real error of the Oxford divines. Both are upon a
system of human merit, under different language,
because both looking to ivithin themselves, instead of
to Christ, for righteousness before God; while both
speak of ascribing all to the merit of the Saviour's
passion, applied through the Sacraments, and by in
fusion of righteousness.
Thus it is obvious that the entireness of the con
tradiction between the doctrine of this divinity and
that of the Articles and Horailies, concerning the
basis of our acceptance, is not in any wise dimin
ished by the profession of ascribing all merit07~ious
causation to Christ.
But another effort of escape from the evident con
demnation at the bar of the Articles and Homilies, is
in reference to the sole instrume7itality of faith. When
> Lectures on Justification, p, 60.

348
accused of taking away from faith the office assigned
to it in those standards as "the only instrument and
mean of applying the death of Christ," as the " only
thing upon the behalf of man, concerning his justifi
cation," we hear that the instrumentality of Faith
as the only internal instrument is not taken away.
"When Faith (they say) is called the sole instru
ment, this means the sole internal instrument ; not
the sole instrument of any kind,"
" There is nothing inconsistent then, in Faith being the sole in
strument of Justification, and yet Baptism also the sole instrument,
and that at the same time, because in distinct senses ; an inward in
strument in no way interfering wilh an outward instrument,"'
Now let us see how the language of the Horailies
concerning this sole internal instrument will sound,
according to the Oxford doctrine of the sole external
instrument. It will be remembered that this external instru
ment (Baptism) is made absolutely necessary to sal
vation by Oxford Divines — there is no regeneration,
no justification, and therefore no entrance to Heaven,
without it ; before it is applied, faith is dead and in
capable of any instrumentality, except as it prepares
for, or leads to Baptism, or except as "Restitution"
of stolen goods, on the part of a thief, would be in
strumental in Justification.^ In Baptism, and by the
sole instrumentality of Baptism, while Faith is in
the act of being made alive and regenerate and jus
tified, and therefore before it is capable of any justi
fying agency; in and by Baptism, we are fully jus
tified from all original and all actual sin. After Bap-
1 Pusey's Letter, p. 44, Newman on Justification, p, 259, ^Newman
on Justification, p. 376,

349
tism. Faith, which as yet has been no instrument at
all, only " a Forerunner," becomes "the symbol"
and " Representative" of Baptism, sustaining only
what, by that sole external instrument, has been al
ready accomplished. But even now its instrumentali
ty is " not that of conveying but only of symbolizing"
the sole external instrument. Let the virtue of Bap
tism cease, and Faith is dead. Thus its sole inter
nal instrumentality is strictly " secondary and sub
ordinate" to that of Baptism. It is a sole instrument
so far as the tools of the apprentice, working for his
Master, are the sole instruments of that Master.
The instrument of the Master, and the only one to
be mentioned, is the apprentice. The instruments of
the Apprentice are his chisel, saw, plane, &c. And
so according to Oxford Divinity, the sole instrument
of God in our Justification is Baptism, The sole
instrument of Baptism is Faith, But no ; the paral
lel is more complete. Faith, in this system, is no
raore the sole instrument of Baptism, than the saw
or plane is the sole instrument of the carpenters' ap
prentice. He must use divers tools — one is no more
the instrument of his trade than others; and so of
faith in Oxfordism, It is expressly denied to have
any distinction in the office of Justification, after
Baptism, which all other graces have not, "We
are saved by Christ's mercy and that, not through
faith, but through faith and all graces."^ Thus love
may as well be called the sole instrument, as faith ;
and so of "joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness,"
and every other of the fruits of the Spirit.
' Newman on Justification, p. 281,

350
Such then being the amount of the sense in which
Faith is considered, in this divinity, as " the sole in
ternal instrument ;" and such being the eminent su
periority of Baptism, in every respect as an instru
ment ; what shall we sav of the wisdom, sufficiency,
propriety, common decency of the three Articles
connected most nearly with this subject, viz : on
"Justification," on "Good Works" which arethe
fruits of Faith, and on " Works before Justification,"
when they speak so particularly cf " Faith only"
in Justification, and do not so much as advert to the
existence of any other instrument? what shall we
think of the Homily to which we are referred, in the
eleventh Article, for a fuller explanation of the sub
ject of Justification, when we find it so full of
earnest preaching on the sole instrumentality of
faith, as the only thin'g which St. Paul "declareth,
upon the behalf of man concerning his justification,"
and yet scarcely the least mention of Baptism, and
that, not in any way as making it an instrument of
Justification? How can we believe in the common-
sense, not to speak of the common truth and faith
fulness of our Reformers that, while professedly un
folding all that is necessary to the " Salvation of all
Mankind," whether baptized or unbaptized, in a hea
then, or a christian land; especially when setting
themselves particularly to the answering of the ques
tion "what is the mean whereby we must apply the
fruits of Christ's death unto our deadly wound," the
very question which. Hooker says, lies at the begin
ning of the controversy with the Church of Rome,
on the subject of Justification, and when they so
earnestly and frequently repeat that " the only mean

351
and instrument of salvation required of our pa7'ts is
faith ;" and when, if Oxford representations be true,
that same faith is no sole instrument at all, and Bap
tism is the only efficient instrument in any peculiar
sense ; what shall we think of our Reformers when
all this language concerning Faith is left entirely
unchecked, unexplained, and Baptism, as in any
sense an instrument of Justification, is not men
tioned ? The utter absurdity of supposing them capa
ble of such representations had they believed the
doctrine of Oxford Divinity, on this subject, is suffi
cient evidence that between this systera and theirs,
there is truly a great gulf fixed.
Another raethod of escape from the plain doctrine
of the Church-standards concerning Faith, is seen
in the following extract from Mr. Newman on Justi
fication. Ofthe Homilies, he says:
" These are addressed, not to Heathens but lo Christians, they are
practical and popular exhortations to Christians. They inform a
baptized congregation, or, as they speak, ' dear Christians,' ' good
Christian people,' how they may be saved, not how God will deal
wilh the heathen. They are not missionary discourses ; directing
pagans how lo proceed in order to be justified, but are composed for
the edification of those who through God's mercy are already 'dear
ly beloved in Christ,' And as regards the point before us, they lay
down ' what the lively and true failh of a Christian man is.' Clear,
however, as this is, at first sight, 1 will make some extracts from
them, to impress it upon the mind.
"Take for instance the very passage I quoted in the opening, in
which faith is called the sole instrument of justification ; it will be
found the writer is teaching a Christian congregation what they
must do. He does not, cannot say with St. Peter, ' Be baptized —
every one of you, for the remission of sins;' that sacred remedy
has been long ago applied and may not be repealed. What is left,
then, after sinning but, as it were, to renew their Baptism, or at least
its virtue, by faith, as 'the only instrument of salvation noiv left un-

352
to us.' And this is why stress is laid upon a 'steadfast, not a waver
ing faith;' he does not simply say lively, but steadfast, because faith
is to be the abiding, sustaining means of justification, or, in the
words ofthe text, 'By failh we stand.' All this, shows that when
the Homily speaks of faith as an instrument, it means a sustaining
instrument ; what the primiary instrument is, being quite a separate
question. Those who now speak of faith as the sole means of justi
fication, too commonly consider the mass of Christians unregener
ate, and call them out of their supposed heathen slate, through failh,
as the sole initiation into Christ's kingdom.
" But it may be said there is nothing about Baptism here; let us
then turn to the Homily on Salvation or Justification, to which the
Article refers, where we shall find that doctrine clearly stated,
though it does not enter into the scope of the Homily already cited.
' Infants, being baptized and dying in their infancy, are by this Sacri
fice washed from their sins, brought to God's favor, and made His
children, and inheritors of His kingdom of Heaven. And they,
which in act or deed do sin after their Baptism, when they turn
again to God unfeignedly,' that is, come to God 'w faith, as the Ho
mily directly goes on lo say, ' they are likewise washed by this Sa
crifice from their sins.' Here is distinct mention of faith justifying
a/Jer Baptism, but no mention of its justifying fte/bre Baptism ; on
the contrary. Baptism is expressly said to effect the first justification.
The writer proceeds : This is that justification or righteousness
which St, Paul speaks of, when he saith, « No man is justified by
the works of the Law, but freely by faith in Jesus Christ.' So it
seems that St. Paul too, when he speaks of justification through
faith, speaks of faith as subordinate to Baptism, not as the immediate
initiation into a justified state."*
Now the meaning of this desperate leap from out
ofthe difficulties with which the Homilies surround
the doctrine of these gentlemen is this, viz: The
Homilies are addres.sed to Baptized persons, conse
quently to Justified persons. The whole application
therefore of all their strong language, as to faith be
ing " the sole instrument" of Justification, applies
1 Newman on Justification, pp, 260 — 263,

353
exclusively to persons already justified, to whom
therefore faith can only be justifying, as a sustai nin,
not as an oi'iginating , instrument. Such being its
restricted application, we are forbidden to infer one
word from the Homilies, as to faith having any sole
justifying office, or any such office in any sense, but
as "repentance and restitution" also have, in the case
of persons repenting and believing, but as yet un
baptized. To them it is not the sole instrument, or
any instrument : but Baptism is the only instrument
of their Justification. All this proceeds upon the as
sumption that the faith of the unbaptized is necessa
rily dead, not having the love of God shed abroad in
the heart; while the faith of the baptized is living ;
that the first therefore is inspirative ; the second jus
tifying and Baptism makes the infinite difference.
Now all this is encumbered and crushed by the
weight of the following grave difficulties,
1. The Homilies know of but two kinds of faith,
the one a living faith, the other such as devils and
ungodly men have in comraon. For example :
" That faith which bringeth forth, without repentance, either evil
works, or no good works, is not a right, pure, and lively faith; but a
dead, devilish, counterfeit, and feigned failh, as St. Paul and St. James
call it. For even the devils know and believe that Christ was born
ofa virgin ; that he fasted forty days and forty nights without meat
and drink; that he wrought all kind of miracles, declaring himself
very God: they believe also, that Christ for our sakes suffered a
most painful death, to redeem us from everlasting death ; and that
he rose again from death the third day : they believe that he ascended
into heaven ; and that he sitteth on the right hand of the Father ; and
at the last end of this world shall come again, and judge both the
quick and the dead. These articles of our faith the devils believe ;
and so they believe all things that be written in the New and Old
Testament to be true : and yet for all this faith they be but devils,
45

354
remaining still in their damnable estate, lacking the very true Chris
tian faith.
" The right and true Christian failh is, not only lo believe that
Holy Scripture, and all the aforesaid articles of our failh, are true ;
but also to have a sure trust and confidence in God's merciful pro
mises, to be saved from everlasting damnation by Christ ; whereof
doth follow a loving heart to obey his commandments. And this
true Christian faith neither any devil hath ; nor yet any man, which
in the outward profession ofhis mouth, and in his outward receiving
ofthe sacraments, in coming lo the church, and in all other outward
appearances, seemeth to be a Christian man, and yet in his living
and deed sheweth the contrary."*
Thus it follows that when a person comes to be
baptized in adult years, as the Jailor of Philippi, the
three thousand on the Pentecost, Cornelius and his
household, who had already received the Holy Ghost;
when according to the requisitions of the Church he
has true " repentance whereby he forsakes sin, and
faith whereby he steadfastly believes the promises
of God," so that the officiating Minister can speak
of hira as " truly repenting and coming unto God by
faith," that, with all this, his faith is as dead as that
of the devils, he hath not the love of God shed
abroad in his heart ; his repentance consequently is
dead also, not the godly sorrow, which worketh re
pentance to salvation, since this cannot be where
true love is not. No doctrine can bear such an ab
surdity as this.
Again. If all that is said about believing unto
Justification, or any thing also in the Homilies, has
reference to those who are already Justified, then we
have the singular phenomenon of a whole volume of
discourses upon all the great doctrines and duties of

' Homily of Salvation, p. 3.

355
religion, especially a whole discourse on "the Salva
tion of all Mankind," intended to teach of course how
all mankind are to be saved, the baptized and the
unbaptized being alike parts of all mankind, and
yet not a word in this discourse, or any other of this
volume which teaches how any are to be saved but
the baptized, who may be about one tenth of the
whole population of the globe. We continually
meet the unbaptized; we have thera always in our
congregations; we are commanded to go and preach
the gospel to all the hundreds of millions of the hea
then, yet our Church has entirely omitted to say a
word in her Homilies, as to how any of these are to
be saved, on the principle, as is expressed in a late
British Critic, that "the Church is out of her place
converting in a Christian country."
But again, another difficulty. The Homily of
Salvation is referred to, by the Article of Justifica
tion, for a larger explication of its meaning, in these
words : " That ive are justified by faith only, is a
most wholesome doctrine, SfC, as is more largely ex
pressed in the Homily of Justification." Hence it is
manifest that the Article and the Homily are on pre
cisely the same doctrine, and of course must be ad
dressed to the sarae persons, or the sarae condi
tion of raan, or else the one would not be an ex
pression of the other. But the Oxford Divines are
forced to apply them to precisely opposite conditions
of persons, and make them teach entirely different
doctrines. The Homily, as we have seen, is restricted
to the Baptized, and teaches Justification and Faith,
only as they are concerned. But as to the Article in
question, Dr. Pusev savs. "it does not speak of a

356
state in which we ever actually ivere ;" "it does not
apply to us" "who have been born within the
Church and who were never left to our mere natural
powers, having been in infancy justified and cleansed
from all sin, and had the grace of Christ given, and
fresh supplies pledged to us," Mr, Newman also
distinguishes between the faith of the Article as
"only the common belief of the Articles of our Faith"
and that of the Homilies as "also a true trust and
confidence ofthe mercy of God," &c, — in other words
a justifying faith,' So then the Article refers only
to the faith of the unbaptized ; but its expository
Homily, to the baptized ; the former to the unregen-
erated and unjustified, the latter to the regenerate
and justified ; the one teaches of faith in those who
are yet in their sins; the other of faith in those who
are children of God ; and these two descriptions of
faith are said to be as radically different as the faith
of devils and the faith of true Christians, and yet the
Homily is a larger expression of the doctrine of the
Article, and both are on the Salvation of all Man
kind, the Homily having the title in full, the Article,
in the expression — "Justification of Man." How
can these things be?
Again, another difficulty. In the second Homily
on the Passion of Christ, where the sole instrumen
tality of faith is so much insisted on (and in the ex
tracts before given therefrom,) the only example se
lected in illustration of the " how we are to apply
Christ's death and passion" is the case ofthe unbap
tized Jailor of Philippi. " Here is the mean, (says
' Newman on Justification, p. 296.

357
the Homily,) whereby we must attain eternal life;
namely faith. For as St. Paul being demanded of
the keeper of the prison ' what he should do to be
saved,' made this answer, ' Believe in the Lord
Jesus, so shalt thou and thy house be saved.' " Thus
the instrumentality of faith, in an unbaptized jailor ;
a faith, which according to this system, was "dead,"
" vague," " inoperative," and " as diff'erent from that
of the baptized, as that of devils is from a living
faith, is taken, in a discourse, addressed, we are told,
exclusively to the baptized and justified, and set up
as an example of the faith by which, as with " a sole
instrument," they are to apply the death of Christ.
It is of consequence to note that the Homily, in
this reference to the direction of the Apostle, as to
how the unbaptized Jailor was to apply the death of
Christ, does not mention Baptism, either in this part,
or elsewhere, although the fact that the Jailor was
baptized is so immediately connected with the cited
passage. Again, another difficulty. Mr. Newman, in the
extract, from his pages, last given, dwells upon the
use ofthe word, "steadfast," as designating the dis
tinctive nature of the Faith of which the Homilies
speak. " He, (the author of the Homily,) does not
simply say lively but steadfast faith, because faith
is to be the abiding, sustaining means of Justifica
tion" to the baptized. Hence we are of course to in
fer that its steadfastness is an evidence and quality
of its living and justifying nature. But does the
Church speak of no other faith but that of the bap
tized as steadfast? What does she require of persons
to be baptized? The Catechism answers : " Repent-

358
ance whereby they forsake sin, and faith whe7'eby
they steadfastly believe the promises of God." To
have a faith that steadfastly believes and to have a
steadfast faith, we suppose are the same thing. So
then, as the Jailor's faith is made, bythe Homily, an
illustration of the faith of the baptized, so does Mr.
Newman, in making steadfastness the characteristic
of justifying faith, identify it with that of the unbap
tized. We need not go into a proof, as raight easily be
made, from the Baptismal and Communion Offices,
that our Church employs substantially the sarae lan
guage for the repentance and faith required for Bap
tisra, and those required for the Eucharist; and con
sequently that she knows nothing of any difference
between the sole instrument of Justification to the
unbaptized and the baptized. But it is making too
much of such a refuge as this of ou.r Oxford divines,
to be spending so rauch tirae upon it. A greater
condemnation they could not write upon their sys
tem than to show that it cannot be sustained without
making this awful difference between the best faith
before Baptism, and the weakest faith after Baptism ;
between what the unbaptized but penitent Jailor
must do to be saved, and what the baptized infidel
must do; on the mere ground that the latter, no
raatter what his present blasphemy, was once regen
erate and justified, the possession of " an angelic na
ture," the temple of God's presence, the wearer of
the Shekinah the wedding garment of God's in
dwelling glory ; while the former, though repenting
and believing, has not been baptized.
Again, another difficulty. When the plain mean-

359
ing and application of the Homilies on the subject of
faith cannot otherwise be escaped, we are told that
our Homilies are "popular Discourses." Thus, when
it is said that our Homilies speak of Faith " as a
mere trust, or a fiduciary apprehension of God's
mercy," Mr, Newraan answers : " Certainly they
do, but they are popular addresses. It is quite ano
ther thing when statements which have a true and
impressive bearing, are taken as adequate and accu
rate definitions of the matter in hand." "The Ho
milies being popular discourses speak of it practical
ly."' Mr, Knox was compelled by the same system
to resort to the same expedient for its protection
against the plain dealing of the Homilies. " The
Homily of Justification, (he says,) whatever may be
the case with the other Homilies was written not to
lay down theological definitions, but rather to furnish
useful popular instruction."^
Now here is a singular position. The Article of
Justification, being necessarily brief, refers for a
more extended expression of its doctrine to the Ho-
raily on the same subject. The latter is popular in
its cast; but still it is the larger explication of the
Article. Now what sort of explication is it, if when
it expressly tells us, for example, that Faith is " trust
in God's mercy," or "an apprehension of God's mer
cy," through Christ and "the sole instrument on the
behalf of man in his Justification," instead of receiv
ing it as it is, we are to consider it only as having
"a true and impressive bearing;" and not as con
taining " adequate definitions" of the truth; bearing
I Newman on Justification, p. 298. 2 Remains, vol, 1, pp, 293, 294,

360
upon the truth indeed but not declaring it plainly ;
so that instead of an explication, it needs itself to be
so expounded as to show that, when it defines faith
to be trust, and a fiduciary apprehension of God's
mercy, and when it says that " faith is the only mean
of applying the merits of Christ," it is not to be taken
in any such sense,
" I have always thought, that Useful Popular Instruction, in the
matter of Christian Doctrine, was a faithful communication, in a
familiar and popular form, of lhe Doctrinal System maintained by
any particular given Church ; So that the difference between such
communication, and communication made in a scholastic form,
should consist, not in a departure from the Doctrinal System in
question, but merely in a delivering of it through the medium of
familiar and popular and unscholastic language,"^
What marvellous facility this consideration of the
popular character of the Homilies affords, in making
what they declare a mere saying and of no manner
of weight, appears from the following most remarka
ble passage of Mr. Newman :
"Lotus then now turn lo the first book of Homilies; which will
be found clearly to teach, that, whereas faith never is solitary, il is
but said to be the sole justifier, and that wilh a view to inculcate
another doctrine not said, viz: that all is of grace,
" This sentence that we be justified by faith only, is not so meant
by them,' the Fathers, ' that the said justifying failh is alone in man,
without true repentance, hope, charity, dread and the fear of God,
at any time or season.'' Again in a passage which has been already
cited, we are told, ' Faith doth not shut out repentance, love, dread
and the fear of God, lo be joined with faith in every one that is justi
fied, but it shutteth them out from the offce of justifying,'
" What is the office here spoken of? not the ofiice of conveying,
but of symbolizing justification. For instance. As great and godly
a virtue as the lively faith is, yet it putteth us from itself and re-
' Faber's Prim, Doc. of Justification, p. 68.

361
mitteth or appolnteth us unto Christ, for to have only by Him, re
mission of our sins or justification. So that our faith in Christ (as
it were) saith unto us that, ' It is not I that takeaway your sins, but
it is Christ only, and to Him only I send you for that purpose, for
saking therein all your good virtues, words, thoughts, and works,
and only putting your trust iu Christ.' Il is plain that ' faith only'
does not apprehend, apply, or appropriate Christ's merits; but it
only preaches them ; and thus surely conveys a 'most wholesome
doctrine, and very full of comfort.'
" The doctrine, then, on this interpretation, is not a practical rule
but an abstract principle. Accordingly it will be observed, the Ho
milies do not attempt to explain its wording literally, but declare it
to be a sentence, saying, or form. of speech, one too, which, when
drawn out, assumes quite a new shape, as far as its letter is con
cerned. " For instance — ' This saying, that we be justified by faith only,
freely, and without works, is spoken for to take away clearly all
merit of our works, as being unable to deserve our justification at
God's hands ;' the drift is given, not an interpretation. The writer
proceeds, ' and thereby most plainly to express the weakness of man
and the goodness of God; the great infirmity of ourselves, and the
might and power of God ; the imperfectness of our own works, and
the most abundant grace of our Saviour Christ ; and thereby wholly
to ascribe the merit and deserving of our justification unto Christ
only, and His most precious blood-shedding.' Can words be clearer
to prove that faith is considered to justify not as an instrument, but
as a symbol ; it is to do nothing, but it is to ' say,' to ' express,' to
' ascribe,' to 'glory,' to warn, to bring good tidings.
• In like manner in the third part of the same Homily : ' The very
true meaning of this proposition or saying, we be justified by faith
only (according to the meaning of the old ancient authors,) is this,
we put our failh in Christ, that we be justified by Him only. Jus
tification by faith only is here said to be a saying ; consider how
astonished and pained we should be, were the doctrine ofthe Atone
ment, or of Christ's divinity said to be a proposition, saying or form
of speaking."^ In a note to some of these passages, we read that
1 Newman on Justification, pp. 282 — 285.
46

362
such an expression as faith alone justifies, is " the
emblem of a principle, not a literal statement," that
when faith is said to "send us to Christ," it means
only that it "preaches Christ," and again, that " the
Homily does not so much affirm that faith only does
justify, ' but is said io justify.' "
The following passage is still more curious.
" Faith is said to justify, not that it really justifies more than the
other graces ; but it has this peculiarity, that it signifies in its very
nature, that nothing of ours justifies us, or it typifies the freeness of
our justification. Faith heralds forth divine grace, and its name is
a sort of representation of il, as opposed to works. Hence it may
well be honoured above the other graces, and placed nearer Christ
than the rest, as if il were distinct from them, and before them, and
above them, though il be not. It is suitably said to justify us, be
cause it says itself that it does not, so to speak, as a sort of reward
to it. In so determining, the Reformers are not laying down a prac
tical direction how to proceed in order to be justified, what is re
quired of us /or justification, but a large principle or doctrine ever
to be held and cherished, that in ourselves we deserve eternal ruin,
and are saved by Christ's mercy, and that not through failh only,
but through failh and all graces."'
Now what have we here, in illustration of the
popular EXPLICATION given in the Homily of Sal
vation, of the Article to which is is attached ? " The
di'ift is given, not an interpretation I" There is
no attempt "to explain literally the wording of
the doctrine of faith in the Article." Singular
explication! That doctrine is declared to be only
a "sentence, saying or form of speech" which " whe7i
drawn out assumes quite a neiv shape" from that of
its literal meaning. " Faith is but said to be the
sole justifier." It " does not justify as an instrument,
' Newman, p. 281.

363
but as a sy7nbol." Its whole office, as the only mean
and instrument, of applying the merits of Christ,
consists in its preaching them; itis to do nothing,
but it is to "say," to "impress," to "ascribe," to
" glory," to "warn," to " b7'ing good tidings." Faith
is made to have about as much justifying efficacy as
any preacher of the gospel who tells the sinner of
Christ and his salvation. " Justification by faith on
ly " is treated as a mere " saying." More indeed
than any other graces, " Faith is said to Justify ; but
not that it really justifies more than the other graces."
Its only peculiarity is that " it typifies the freeness
of our justification." " Its name is a sort of repre
sentation of divine grace." On this account, alone,
is it so honoured in the Scriptures, and the Articles,
and Homilies, above the other graces ; as if it were
distinct from, before, and above them ; though it be
not. It is rewarded for this single peculiarity of be
ing in name a type or symbol of grace, by being
" said to justify us," because " it says it does not."
Thus all the labour and earnestness of the re
iterated declarations of the Scriptures, and Articles,
and Homilies, conceming the sole instrumentality of
faith, are evaporated into a mere laudatory saying ;
a distinction of words; an ascription in terms of what
exists not in reality. And thus is all sober, grave,
dignified interpretation put to shame. Thus are the
Standards of our Church brought into contempt.
And thus is the common sense of every man, of the
most ordinary understanding, outraged. The neces
sity of such refuges is condemnation absolute.

CHAPTER X.

THE DOCTRINE OF OXFORD DIVINITY AS TO BAPTISMAL JUSTIFICA
TION, COMPARED WITH THAT OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH.
Recapitulation of the Oxford and Romish Doctrines, — Difl'erence between re
mission of Original Sin as held by the Anglican Church, and the Oxford
Divines — Testimony of Jackson — Baptismal Justification of Adults — A priori
reason for believing that the Anglican and Oxford doctrine are diverse on
this head — Silence of the Articles and Homilies unaccountable if the Oxford
doctrine were that of the Church, Language of the Articles and Homilies ir
reconcilable with tbe Oxford doctrine — Language of Scripture, Fathers,
English divines needs explanation — Evidence of necessity of other interpre
tation than Oxfordism gives — Barrow — Beveridge — Hooper — Froth — Hook
er — Hall — Homilies — Usher — Beveridge — Inconsistencies in English divines,
according to the Oxford Interpretation — Barrow — Hooker — St, Bernard —
Jewel, Inconsistencies of Augustine and other Fathers according to the Ox
ford doctrine — True doctrine shown from Bishops Hooper, Beveridge, and
Taylor — Mode of Interpreting the strong language of the old divines, &c. —
Bishop Bethil's mode rejected as too low — Strange inconsistencies of Oxford
divines — Mode of interpretation illustrated from Augustine, Jewel, from lan
guage of Hooker, &c, — Concerning the membership of infants in the Church
before Baptism; common language concerning a call to the ministry and
language of Scripture as to the baptism of Christ — Further illustration from
common law-terms — application to [language of Nowell's Catechism — Pas
sages from Whitgift, and Dr, Haddon — Concluding observations — Extract
from Bishop Hopkins on the Doctrine of Baptism.
It will be borne in mind that the doctrine of Oxford
Divinity, on the subject of this Chapter embraces
the following particulars, viz :
1. That Justification is so inseparably connected
with Baptisra, as its instrumental cause, or mean of
conveyance, that before its reception there can be no
justification before God ; and, upon its reception,
whoever does not impede its efficacy by hypocrisy,
or infidelity, is corapletely justified.

366
2, That this Baptismal Justification, consisting m
the expulsion of sin, by the infusion of righteous
ness, takes quite away all original and actual sin.
In these propositions the Church of Rome and the
divines of Oxford entirely unite. We will consider
the last, first, because it will be most readily dis
posed of
First, Is it the doctrine of the Anglican Church,
that Justification takes away all Original, as well as
Actual Sin ?
We answer, Yes, unquestionably I " There is now
no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus,"
But we shall find no evidence, but, on the contrary,
express denial, in the standards of our Church, that
Justification is held to do this, in any degree, accord
ing to the sense in which the proposition is used by our
Oxford Divines and the Chwch of Rome.
Only two passages are quoted by these writers in
evidence of conformity on their part to the teaching
of the Church, in this particular, — both from the
Homily of Salvation, The first as follows. The
Homily has been speaking of the fulfilling of the
Law and the suffering of its penalty by Christ for us,
and thus proceeds :
" Insomuch that Infants being baptized and dying in their infan
cy, are by this sacrifice (of Christ) washed from their sins, brought
to God's favour, &c. And they which in act or deed, do sin after
their baptism, when they turn again to God unfeignedly they are
likewise washed by this sacrifice from their sins, in such sort that
there remaineth not any spot of sin that shall be imputed to their
damnation. This is that Justification which St. Paul speaketh of
when he sayeth. No man is Justified by the works of the Law, but
freely by faith in Jesus Christ. "^
'Homily of Salvation, Part 1,

367
Again, on the same subject of Justification the Ho
mily says :
" We must trust only in God's mercy and that sacrifice which
the Son of God once ofiered for us on the cross to obtain thereby
God's grace and remission, as well of our original sin, in baptism,
as of all actual sin committed after baptism, if we truly repent."' &c.
Now it is manifest that both of these passages are
upon Justification — they speak of Justification from
Original Sin and from Actual Sin in precisely the
sarae language. But we have already showed that
Justification, in the sense of this Homily, consists in
the non-imputation of sin, through the external and
imputed righteousness of Christ embraced by faith ;
and not through a righteousness imputed and inhe
rent. It has also been seen that since Original Sin,
is defined by our Article to be an " infection of na
ture," which is not all taken away, but "remains
even in the Regenerate," and "in them has the proper
nature of sin," it is evident, that its remission, spoken
of in the above extracts, is to be understood simply
in reference to a judicial pardon, and cannot refer to
its actual removal. In other words that though it
remains, even in the unregenerate, nevertheless
through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ,
it is not imputed to them for condemnation.
But very far from this is the sense in which these
passages are quoted by our Oxford divines. Their
doctrine is not that Original Sin is not imputed, but
does not exist after the Baptism of Infants and Adults.
It is quite taken away in fact, as well as in imputa
tion. It is remitted by being expelled. " There re-
I Homily of Salvation, Port, 2,

368
maineth not any spot of sin," not raerely that is im
puted, but that can be said to be. How directly this
contradicts the Article on Original Sin, and obliges
them to imitate the refuge of Romanism, in chang
ing- the whole doctrine of Original Sin so as to suit
their doctrine of Jvistification, has been already
showed. Now that Original Sin, as an "infection of na
ture," is not taken away in Baptism, our Oxford di
vines, if they will not hear the Article of the Church,
will perhaps listen to the words of one whom they
profess so highly to estimate, as the learned Dr.
Jackson, He says that the Romish Church and " some who
HAVE PROFESSED THEMSELVES MEMBERS OF THE PRE
SENT ENGLISH CHURCH, tcacli that Original Sin is ut
terly taken away, or that our Regeneration is instant
ly and fully wrought by the Sacrament of Baptism.
That children (he replies) rightly baptized are truly
regenerated by the Spirit of God, we deny not. And
in case, being so baptized, they die before they come
to the use qf reason, yet ought we not to doubt of
their salvation, because they have, by baptism, been
made partakers of Regeneration in such a measure as
is requisite and sufficient for their salvation 7vhilst
they are Infants. But that Original Sin, the Lust
of the flesh, or the old man, should be utterly extin
guished in them before their death, ive must deny."
" If Original sin, or the Old Man, with his members,
be utterly extinguished in young Infants by Bap
tism, I demand how possibly they could revive in
the same parties, as soon as they corae to the use of
reason?" So that Baptism is rather a Sacramental

369
Consec7'ation qf us to undei'take the fight with the
Works of our fiesh, or corruption of our nature, than
an utter extinction or absolute drowning of those ene
mies."'^ Thus we see that a writer than whom none is
more confidently claimed by the advocates of this
divinity not only condemns this, its doctrine, as un
true, and not the doctrine of the Church of England,
but as the peculiar property of the Church of Rome.
The truth manifestly is that our Church, in the
Homilies, above quoted, speaks of Original Sin be
ing remitted in the Baptism of Infants, precisely as
it is remitted in that of penitent and believing
Adults; and she speaks of its reraission in both these
cases, precisely as she speaks of the remission of the
actual sins of Adults, It is the removal not of the
moral being, but of the judicial condemnation of that
which "has the nature of sin." In infants. Original

- Jackson's Works, iii. pp, 99, 100. Bishop Hopkins speaks of the origin of
this notion of the removal of original sin by baptism as a novelty among Pro
testants of his time — " Regeneration (he says) begins now to be decried by as
great masters in Israel as ever Nicodemus was — they think, if they are but
baptized, whereby as they suppose, the guilt of original sin is -washed a-way,"
&c. The above extract from Jackson is of the greater force because elsewhere,
in divers places, he speaks strongly of" the remission q/original sin in Baptism,"
as for instance — " Only original sin is remitted in such as are not guilty of actual
sins, as in Infants," vol. iii. p. 297. Evidently then he distinguishes between
the remission and the extinction of Original Sin in Baptism. The latter is the
doctrine of Oxfordism and Popery, not only because their Justifying righteous
ness is infused grace and to be justifying it raust leave no original sin remain
ing, but because such are the express declarations of both. "The Council of
Trent to obviate the possibility of doubt on this subject has added its own dis
tinct declaration, by pronouncing anathema against those who should presume
to think otherwise, or should dare to assert that " although sin is forgiven in
baptism, it is not entirely removed or totally eradicated, but is cut away in such
a manner as to leave its roots still firmly fixed in the soul." — Catechism of
Council of Trent, p. 168.
47

370
Sin is thus remitted on account of the imputed
righteousness of the " Second Adam," without their
personal faith, just as, they have been brought with
out any act of theirs, under the curse of the sin of
the first Adam. When Baptized Infants come to be
capable of what is called actual sin, that is, sin after
Baptism, then they must personally "repent and be
lieve on the Lord Jesus Christ," or else they can
not be saved ; but their baptism, as to all participa
tion in God's mercy, will be then as if they had not
been baptized; just as the circumcision of the Jew
was made, by unbelief, "uncircumcision."
Secondly : Is it the doctrine of the Anglican Church
that Justification is so inseparably connected with
Baptism, as its only Instrumental Cause that without
it no sinner can be justified before God? This we
unequivocally deny — and on the contrary, we posi
tively assert that it is the doctrine of our Church
that whenever a sinner repents and believes in the Lord
Jesus Chi'ist, before Baptism, at Baptism or after
Baptism, his sins are freely and perfectly remitted,
he is freely and completely justified, through "the
righteousness which is of God by faith."
The proof of this is already half made by the shew
ing in our preceding pages of the entire opposition
between the nature of Justification as held by the
advocates of its inseparable dependance on Baptism,
and its nature as held by our Church.
Since Justification, in the judgraent of our Church,
consists in the iraputation, or accounting, of the
Righteousness of Christ's Mediatorial obedience and
death, to us, as if we had perfectly fulfilled the law ;
while in the scheme of Oxford Divinity, it consists

371
in no such thing, but in an infused and inherent
righteousness, a moral righteousness abiding in us ;
it is not probable that the dependance of the former
upon an external ordinance, will be found to resem
ble that of the latter.
With these preliminary observations we proceed
to a more direct enquiry.
If our Church does teach that Baptism is the only
Instrument of Justification, so that no one, however
penitent, and believing before baptisra, can be Justi
fied ; then surely we must expect to find so grave a
doctrine asserted in those documents, in which our
Church professes to state her doctrine on the subject,
as well of Baptism, as of Justification, The Church
of Rome does not publish her canon of Justification
without declaring expressly that Baptism is the only
Instrumental Cause of Justification and that without it.
Justification can come to no one. Dr, Pusey does not
draw up either his Article of Justification or of Bap
tism without being equally express. Mr. Newman
can hardly write a page on Justification without in
dicating his views as to its connection with Baptism,
Now if our Church is of the same mind, surely her
Articles on the subject of the Sacraments in General,
on Baptism in Particular ; her three Articles relat
ing to Justification, or else the Catechism, in those
parts relating to the Sacraments, might be expected
to say something on this subject. In examining in
to the doctrine of the Church in this matter, it is the
same question essentially whether a person, possessed
of true repentance and a lively faith, may be consi
dered as spiritually born of God or regenerate, though
not yet baptized : for though Justification as in
scripture-divinity is altogether a different matter from

372
Regeneration, yet as the two are inseparably con
nected, or that none are justified who are not also
Regenerate, and none are Regenerate, who are not
also Justified, whichever way the question may be
determined with regard to the one, it must be also
as to the other.
Then do the standard documents of the Anglican
Church pronounce that no man, however penitent
and believing, is either born of the Spirit, or Justi
fied, except he have been baptized ?
The Article of Justification which is applied by
Oxford divines, exclusively to the case in hand, viz :
the justification of the unbaptized contains not a
Word about Baptism. The only instrument it knows
is faith. But that Article refers for a larger expli
cation of its doctrine to the Homily of Salvation,
That Homily enters at much length, into the subject
of Justification by faith, and yet only in the two ex
tracts given at the commencement of this chapter is
one word said about Baptism ; and in those passages,
not a word about the penitent and believing, but un
baptized adult, but only about children incapable
of believing, and persons repenting after Baptism,
Now this looks very strange indeed, if there be no
Justification without Baptisra,
But what says the Article expressly given to Bap
tisra? " Baptism is — a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as
by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into
the Church : the promises of forgiveness of sins and of adoption to
be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost are visibly signed and sealed,
faith is confirmed and grace increased by virtue of prayer to God,"^
' Article xxvii.

373
These words evidently refer to the baptism of
adults, or persons having what, the Catechism says,
is necessary to a right receiving of Baptisra, viz :
repentance and faith. This Article says that Bap
tism is the sign of regeneration. It goes no further.
But the sign and the thing sig-nified are not the sarae,
or inseparable. The sign may be alone as in Simon
Magus ; it may follow after, as in the baptism of Cor
nelius and the Eunuch. To say that in Baptism
"the promises of forgiveness are visibly signed and
sealed," is just as consistent with the idea that for
giveness has already taken place, as the signing,
sealing and delivering of a deed of conveyance of an
estate is consistent with the estate having been for
some time already in the actual possession and en
joyment of him, to whom the deed is made.
The same will hold with regard to the definition
of a Sacrament in the Catechism, that it is " an out
ward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual
grace given to us, ordained by Christ himself, as a
means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge
to assure us thereof" The time of the giving of
that " spiritual grace," which is said to bo " a death
unto sin and a new-bii'th unto i'ighteousness," is no
more restricted to the time ofthe sign, than the time
of entering on the use of an estate is restricted to the
time of signing and sealing the title deed. But Bap
tism is not only a sign and seal and pledge, but an
effective sign. It is " a mean whereby we receive,"
the grace signified, as well as " a pledge to assure us
thereof" In the case of Infants we doubt not it is a
means whereby they may, and do often receive the
beginnings, of that grace; though even upon infants

374
unbaptized, the prayer of faith may, and we doubt not
does, sometimes bring down the grace of the Holy
Ghost. But we are now on the case of adults. The
language of the Catechism by no means teaches that
the grace signified is first received by them when they
receive its visible sign. The very nature of the Re
pentance with which they are supposed to come, is
that of "a death unto sin and a new bi7-th unto righte
ousness." The grace signified is therefore begun be
fore. Baptism is the 9neans of receiving more of it,
and therefore the equivalent expression in the 27th
Article is that in Baptism, "faith is confirmed and
grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God," both
being already begun.
Now as we have said that neither in the Articles,
Catechism, nor Homilies, is it ever hinted that Justi
fication is limited to Baptism, as its only instrument;
we add the assertion that, in the Articles and Homi
lies, it expressly is limited to faith, as its only instru
ment of reception.
For the illustration and support of this position,
the reader must be referred to the evidence of faith
being made the "sole instrume7it ," " the only mean"
required "in behalf of man for his Justification," as
it is given in the review taken of the Articles and
Homilies in the 9th Chapter of this work.
We cannot consider it necessary to go any further
in vindicating the eminently evangelical doctrines of
those standards from the charge of teaching that
though a sinner have truly repented, and is humbly
believing in Jesus, and so Las that very inward and
spiritual grace of which Baptism is the sign, yet, if
some cause, not involving a sinful disobedience, or

375
neglect on his part, have prevented or delayed his
baptism, he cannot be now "justified by faith," and
so has not peace with God. Yet this is the doctrine
of Dr, Pusey — and this is the doctrine of Rome. If
it be a good objection to the Romish doctrine of the
necessity of the Priest's intention to the validity of
the Sacraments, that thus, a poor penitent soul will
be dependant for his dearest privileges upon the ca
price of men who may be ungodly and caring nothing
for his soul, why is it not just as much against this
dependance of justification upon Baptism, that thus
a sinner may be kept out of the peace of God, and
out of heaven, by the indifference, indolence or ab
sence ofa Minister?
The plain testimony of the word of God is that
"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is
born of God." "Every one that loveth, is born of
God." "He that believeth in the Son hath everlast
ing life." Then as true repentance and faith are re
quired for adult Baptism, and where there is true
repentance towards God, there must be true love, it
follows that the Church considers that whosoever is
truly prepared for adult-baptism is already born of
God — and already justified.
One would suppose that such truths could not be
hid from any common reader of the Scriptures. And
here we should drop the subject, but that passages
occur in the Scriptures, in the service for Adult
Baptism, in the Homilies, and in standard writers of
our Church on the subject of Baptism, which many
minds, of correct views, find great difficulty in re
conciling with the doctrine just exhibited. The
passages in the Scriptures are such as that of Ana-

376
nias to Saul, "Ai'ise and be baptized and wash away
thy sins;" that concerning John's baptism, which is
called the "Baptism of repentance for the Remission
of sins -f that also of St. Peter on the day of Pente
cost — "Repent and be baptized, &i,G., for the remis
sion of sins." The passages in the office for adult
baptism are similar. According to such passages.
Baptism is called, in the Homilies, "the fountain of
our Regeneration" — '"the Sacrament of our Regenera
tion, or New Birth." We are said to be "washed in
our Baptism from the filthiness of sin." We say in
the Nicene Creed, that we "believe in one baptism
for the remission of sins." Such language is followed
out with great strength of language in the ancient
Fathers, and is found, every where, in the writings
of the old English Divines, as well as in those of
Continental Reformers. A few examples will suf
fice for the whole.
Cranmer says : "The second birth is by the water
of Baptism, which Paul calleth the bath of regenera
tion, because our sins be forgiven us in Baptism, and
the Holy Ghost is poured into us as into God's be
loved children, so that by the power and working of
the Holy Ghost, we be born again spiritually and
made new creatures.
Again: "By Baptism, the whole righteousness of
Christ is given unto us that we may claim the same
as our own,"^
Bradford says, that " in Baptism is given to us the
Holy Ghost and pardon of our sins — the old man is
put off' the new man is put on."^
'Sermon on Baptism, 2 Sermon on the Lord's Supper,

377
Such language is common in Hooker, " This is
the necessity of Sacraments. That saving grace
which Christ originally is, or haih for the general
good of His whole Church, by Sacraments he sever
ally deriveth into every member thereof" Again,
" we receive Christ Jesus in Baptism once, as the first
beginner ; in the Eucharist often, as being by con
tinual degrees, the finisher of our life." Again,
" Baptism is a Sacrament which God hath instituted
in his Church, to the end that they which receive
the sarae raight thereby be incorporated into Christ,
and so through his raost precious merit obtain, as
well that saving grace of imputation which taketh
away all former guiltiness, as also that infused virtue
of the Holy Ghost which giveth to the powers of the
soul their first disposition towards newness of life.'"
Such are faithful examples of the strongest lan
guage to be found on the subject — and without doubt,
it need not be any stronger, to meet the meaning of
Scripture. But is it not manifest that the writers of such pas
sages did believe that no man is born again, made a
new creature, regenerated by the_, Holy Ghost, justi
fied by the imputation of Christ's righteousness till
he is baptized ? Let us examine the case.
A few considerations will show that these expres
sions cannot be thus literally and strictly interpreted.
Let it be premised that it is maintained by our Ox
ford Divines and we have no^disposition to dispute
it, that, in the times of the Reformers and of those
men of strength who imraediately succeeded them,
' Hooker's Eccl. Pol. 1. .. % 57 and 60.
48

378
there was no difference of opinion on this subject.
Whatever therefore may appear in one, will be a va
lid explanation of the general doctrine of the rest.
Now if Cranmer did hold literally and strictly that
Justification cannot take place until we are baptized,
how happens it that he writes the Homily on Justi
fication which is referred to in the Article of Justifi
cation, for a full explication of the doctrine of Justi
fication — a Homily in three parts, in which the con
nection of repentance and faith with Justification is
fully treated, and the latter is represented as the only
means, the former as absolutely necessary to Salva
tion ; and yet Baptism, as having any such relation,
is not hinted at, and the only two places in which
Baptism is mentioned at all, are those already quo
ted, where the remission of Original Sin, in the
baptism of infants and of post-baptismal sin, in adults,
is spoken of in a few lines.
Again, the same Cranmer writes, or aids in writing,
another Homily on Faith, which speaks largely of
its nature and saving influence, and notes that v/ho-
soever believeth is born of God, but there is not a
word in all the Homily, about Baptism. Can it be
supposed that such an omission would have ap
peared, had Cranmer believed that Faith is always
" secondary and subordinate to Baptism," dead with
out it, and repentance so defective that a sinner repent
ing and believing cannot be justified or at peace
with God till he has been baptized? Could the
Church of Rome have made such an omission? Could
Dr, Pusey or Mr, Newman have kept Baptism so
in the shade? This certainly is unaccountable on
such a supposition.

379
Again, Bishop Hooper (Martyr) writes a Sermon
on Justification, in which he speaks freely and very
strongly of faith as the only mean of Justification, as
in the following passage: "Though sole faith ex
cludes not other virtues from being present at the
conversion of every sinner, yet sole and only faith ex
cludes the merits of other virtues and obtains solely
remission of sin for Christ's sake herself alone." The
good Bishop in this Sermon speaks of the Lord's
Supper, and gets so near to Baptism as to speak of
Nicodemus, whose case is so associated with Baptis
mal Regeneration, and yet not a word about Baptism
occurs in the whole Sermon.
Again, Hooker has a long and learned Discourse
of Justification in which he is exceeding clear and
point edas to the office of faith, as well as divers other
cognate subjects. He says " Faith is the only hand
which putteth on Christ unto Justification," and " by
faith ive are incorporated into Christ." In one place
he expressly sets himself to show what is required
in us, as absolutely necessary to salvation ; he goes
over divers particulars, yet in all the discourse, not a
word is said of Baptism, except to mention, as charac
teristic of Popery, precisely what our Oxford divines
so earnestly contend for, viz: "that Romanists hold
that the infusion of grace is applied to infants
through Baptism, without either faith or works," and
that "in them really {substantially,) it taketh away
Original Sin and the punishment due unto it — that
"it is applied to infidels and wicked men in the first
Justification, through Baptism without works, yet
not irithout Faith, and it taketh away both sins Ac
tual and Original together." — Section v.

38U
Now certainly such omissions of Baptism in such
discourses are very singular, if the authors held the
doctrine which makes Mr. Newman and Dr. Pusey
so earnest and reiterated and emphatic for Baptisra,
whenever they speak of Justification or Faith,
Precisely the same might be said of many other
standard authors. For example. Bishop Andrews,
who writes a masterly discourse on Justification —
full of imputed righteousness and faith, but not a
word of Baptisra. But the case of Bishop Bever
idge is peculiarly strong. No writer employs the
language which we have quoted from Cranmer,
Bradford and Hooker, concerning- Baptism with more
fulness and force than Beveridge.' At first reading
one would suppose that without Baptism there could
not possibly be either a new creature, the pardon of
sin, or a hope of salvation. But the same admirable
divine has a series of sermons on Faith and Repent
ance, nine in all, in one of which he treats of Faith
as Pwifying the heart; in another, as Overcoming
the Woi'ld; in another, as the Only Title to Sonship
in Chi'ist ; in a fourth, on the Profession of such
Faith, which brings one Sacrament, the Lord's Sup
per, unto prominent view ; in a fifth, on the same :
in a sixth, on Repentance ; in a seventh, on Repen
tance as a certain and the only method of obtaining
Pardon; inan eighth, on Repentance; in the last, on
" Repentance and Faith, the two great branches of the
Evangelical Covenant" — and yet in no part of these
discourses is the subject of Baptisra even mentioned
except, once or twice, in the most incidental manner.
' See Sermon, No, 35,

381
But the case is stronger still in regard to two other
discourses, expressly on the way of salvation, and enti
tled " Salvation wholly owing to Faith in Christ."
The text is the answer to the Philippian Jailer, "Be
lieve in the Lord Jesus Chi'ist," &c.' Now here was a
fine opportunity to show the dependence of faith on
Baptism and its entire subordination, for Regenera
tion and Salvation — ¦because it immediately follows
that the Jailor "ivas baptized, he and all his, straight
way." How could Mr. Newman have handled the
faith of the Jailor, without his baptism ; the 7V07'd of
faith from St. Paul, without the Sacrament of faith
which he administered? But Bishop Beveridge
while he is full and glorious on the former, does not
so much as mention the latter, exce|)t just to say that
doubtless the Jailor received effectually the preach
ing ofthe Apostles, because "it is expressly asserted
that he and all his were presently baptized and that
" he believed in the Lord with all his house." Such is
the only mention of Baptism — all the rest is of faith.^

'Such passages as the following occur continually in these Sermons, "It
is to failh and faith only, under God, that all things relating to our future state
are ascribed all the Bible over, not only our Pardon, Justification, Reconcilia
tion," &c, " By the same faith whereby we are accounted righteous before
God, through the Merits ofhis Son, by the same we are made sincerely righte
ous in ourselves, through the power of His Holy Spirit," " It is by Faith that
we are engrafted into Christ and made members of his body, and so partake of
that Holy Spirit who proceeds from him.''
2 The contrast between this entire passing over of the baptism of the Jailor,
on the part of Beveridge, and the prominence assigned to it by Dr, Pusey, is
very striking. Bishop Beveridge dwells exclusively upon the required faith,
Dr, Pusey sees nothing scarcely in that faith but baptism, as necessary to the
very life of faith. Thus says the latter : " Paul says, ' believe on the Lord
Jesus Christ,' &c., but a part of that belief ivas his Baptism, -without -ivhich
his belief HAv been tead," — Tract, No, 67, Am, Ed., p. 173. Now if Bever
idge had believed, with Dr. Pusey, as is contended, that the Jailor's faith was

3-S2
Certainly these omissions are singular on the sup
position that those venerable authors did agree with
those of Oxford, as to our absolute dependence for
being born again of the Spirit and Justified, upon
the receiving of Baptism,
But again, if the strong passages which we have
quoted from Cranmer, Hooker, &c,, are to be taken
literally, they ivill prove far too much for any theolo
gian.
For example, Cranmer says that in Baptism we
are "horn spiritually," and made "new creatures''
Bradford, that "the old man is put off, and the new
ma7i put on; yea, Christ is put on." Now even Mr.
Newman thinks the expression "put on Christ" too
strong to be accomplished in Baptism, because "bap
tized persons do notso put on Christ as to be forthwith
altogether different men from what they were before."
Again, Hooker says that in Baptism we are incor
porated into Christ, and obtain that infused divine vir
tue of the Holy Ghost which giveth to the powers qf
the soul the first disposition towards newness of life."
Now since it is required of those who come to
adult Baptism that they have repentance and faith
before they come, a literal interpretation of that pas
sage would teach that one may repent and believe
not only without being a new creature, without put
ting off the old man, but even without "the first dis-
dead till Baptism gave it life, how was it possible that in expounding the way
of salvation, as exhibited in the case of the Jailor, he should have expended two
whole discourses, the one on Salvation by faith in general, the other on Justi
fying Faith in particular, without even alluding to any dependence of Faith on
Baptism or any connection between them, and yet Beveridge is one of the exam
ples given by the Oxford Tracts of those English Divines who teach their doc
trine of baptismal justification.

383
position towards newness of life." But Repentance
and Faith are "that death to sin (says Barrow) and
resurrection to riorhteousness, that being buried with
Christ and rising again with him, so as to walk in
newness of life, ivhich the baptismal action signifies."^
Here the very grace of which Baptism is the visible
sign, and which is said to be conveyed by it is de
clared to be that with which we must come to Bap
tism. Again Beveridge, in illustrating the doctrine
ofthe Church on Baptism, quotes Augustine thus:
" In the baptismal washing, not only the pardon
of such sins as are committed, but of such as shall af
terwards be committed, is granted to such as believe
in Christ." Now that sins are forgiven before they
are committed is, a doctrine which Oxford Divines
are not prepared to hold. But the literal interpreta
tion for which they are so strenuous will make this,
as well, that past sins are strictly remitted in Bap
tism, to have been the doctrine of Augustine.'
Again, while Hooker says that " by Baptism we
are incorporated into Christ," and Cranmer, that in
Baptism " the whole righteousness of Christ is given
unto us;" both these divines ascribe in other places,
this same blessing only to Faith as the sole instru
ment of Justification, "By Faith ive are incorporated
into Christ." It is impossible therefore to suppose
that in the judgment of these writers, an adult in
Baptism receives any new creation, any putting off
of the old man, any death to sin or new birth to
righteousness, any spiritual union to Christ which,

' Barrow on the Doctrine ofthe Sacraments. 2 Beveridge on Articles —
Art. xxvii.

384
as a penitent believer, he had not while unbaptized.
We therefore find in their writings express decla
rations that all the inward and spiritual blessings
signified and conveyed in Baptisra, are effectually
enjoyed before Baptism by such as are prepared to
be baptized. For example. Bishop Hooper says :
" Such as be baptized must remember that repentance and faith
precede this external sign ; and in Christ the purgation was inwardly
obtained before the external sign was given. So that there are two
kinds of Baptism, and both necessary. The one interior, which is
the cleansing of the heart — the operation of the Holy Ghost: and
this baptism is in man, when he believeth."^
And thus John Frith, (Martyr) :
" If the Spirit of God and his grace were bound unto the Sacra
ments, then where they were not ministered should be neither Spirit
nor grace. But that is false; for Cornelius and all his household
received the Holy Ghost before they were baptized. Here we may
see that as the Spirit lighteth where he will, neither is he bound to
any thing. Yea, and this example doth well declare that the sacra
ments are given to be an outward witness to all the congregation of
that grace which is given privately before to every man." " We
require faith of a man before he be baptized (which is the gift of
God and cometh of grace) and so it is an outward sign of his invisi
ble faith, which was before given him of God."^
Hooker says : " We grant that those sentences of
Holy Scripture which make Sacraments most neces
sary to eternal life are no prejudice to their salvation
that want them by some inevitable necessity and
without any fault of their own." Now what does
this amount to ? A sinner repents and believes. He
desires and determines to obey all God's will. That
will includes Baptism. But by the appointment of
his Minister, he is not to be baptized till the ensuing

1 Fathers of the English Church, v. p. 169. « Ib. 1, pp. 386, 408.

385
Sunday. The delay is no fault of his own. Does
this delay cause him to be unjustified and unregene
rate when both are necessary to peace with God?
Would such delay on the part of the Church be ex
cusable in such a case ? But take a stronger case.
The ancient Church for general Baptism made choice
of two chief days in the year — Easter and Pentecost.
Suppose a heathen soon after Pentecost becoming
truly penitent and believing, and desiring to be bap
tized, as part of the will of God. His baptism, ac
cording to the custom, would be deferred till the fol
lowing Easter, " without any fault of his own." It
is not possible that the Church believed that all that
while he was not born of the Spirit nor Justified, and
would not be till Easter. How could he have been
left in such a state, not at peace with God, when a
Minister could at once have baptized him? So that
Hooker's admission is simply this, that whenever a
person professing repentance and faith remains un
baptized, out of a spirit of disobedience to the will of
God, he is not justified, because that disobedience is
evidence that his repentance and faith are not genu
ine ; and when his want of baptism does not argue
any thing against his repentance and faith, he is jus
tified — or, in his own words, quoted from St. Ber
nard, " his religious desire of baptism standeth him
in the same stead," which amounts to the admission
that however Baptism is said to incorporate us into
Christ; to give us the Holy Spirit; to make us new
creatures ; gives us remission of sins, &c.; whoso
ever truly repents and believes is already incorpora
ted into Christ, born of the Spirit, and has received
remission of sins — so that Baptism is not in this
49

386
sense the instrument of Regeneration or Justification.
Hence is cited Augustine as saying: "He is not de
prived from the partaking and benefit of the sacra
ment (though he be not baptized) so long as he find-
eth in himself that thing, that the sacrament signi
fieth," And Ambrose also writing concerning Val-
entinianus, a Christian Emperor, who died unbap
tized, says: "I have heard that you are grieved be
cause he took not the sacrament of Baptism, Tell
me what other thing is there in us but our will and
our desire — He 7vhich was endued ivith thy Spirit, O
God, how might it be that he should be void of thy
grace!" Bishop Jewel having instanced these opinions of
Augustine and Ambrose, and having mentioned that
Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, was not
baptized until his death ; that the thief on the cross
was received into Paradise without Baptism, and
that Jeremiah and John Baptist were sanctified in
their mother's womb, proceeds to say: "By these
few it may appear that the Sacrament maketh not a
Christian, but is a seal and assurance to all that re
ceive it, of the grace of God, unless they make them
selves unworthy thereof The Church hath always
received three sorts of Baptisra — the baptism ofthe
Spirit, or of blood, {martyrdom) or of water." Thus,
according to Jewel, the Church has always held a
baptisra of the Spirit independently of the outward
sacrament of Baptism by water, ^ Thus therefore
writes Bishop Hall:
" No man that hath faith can be condemned ; for Christ dwells in
' Jewel on the Sacraments— Fathers ofthe Enghsh Church, vol, vii, pp, 500, 501,

387
our hearts by faith, and he in whom Christ dwells cannot be repro
bate. Now it is possible that a man may have a saving faith before
Baptism. Abraham first believed to Justification, then after received
the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of that faith
which he had when he was uncircumcised. Neither was Abraham's
case singular: he was the father of all them also which believe, not
being circumcised. These as they are his sons in failh, so in righte
ousness, so in salvation. Uncircumcision cannot hinder where faith
admitteth. Baptism therefore without failh cannot save a man ; and
by faith doth save him. And faith without Baptism where it can
not be had; not where it may be had and is contemned. That
Spirit which works by means, will not be tied to means."*
Regeneration being thus, in the view ofthe Church,
and her standard divines, a spiritual and inward birth,
which is not so inseparable from Baptism that there
may not be this new birth without that Sacrament,
or that Sacrament, without this new-birth; the
Church, in directing her members to examine them
selves as to their having this grace, does not say,
^'look to your Baptism, take that for evidence;" but
" here is now that glass wherein thou mayest dis
cern whether thou have the Holy Ghost within thee.
If thou see that thy works be consonent to the pre
script rule of God's word savouring and tasting not
of the flesh, but of the Spirit; then assure thyself
that thou art endued with the Holy Ghost; other
wise — thou dost nothing else but deceive thyself"^
But this is precisely what our Oxford Divines
most pointedly ridicule, as Ultra Protestant and
vain. Dr. Pusey says that "Ultra Protestants have
been taught that Justification is not the gift of God
through his Sacraments, but the result of a certain
frame of mind, of a going forth of theraselves and
' Bishop Wall's Works, vol. vii. pp, 236, 237, z Homily for Whitsunday,

388
resting themselves upon their Saviour ; this is the
act whereby they think themselves to have been justi
fied;" certainly — that acf is faith. " He that believ
eth on Clmst is Justified from all his sins" saith the
Scripture. " If, says our Church, we rise by repent
ance, and with a full purpose of amendment of life,
do flee unto the mercy of God, taki7ig sure hold there
upon, th7'ough faith in his Son Jesus Christ there is
an assured and infallible hope of pardon and remis
sion" of our sins.^ "Faith is the only hand that tak
eth hold upon Christ,"^ "In this doubtless (says
Beveridge) consists the very essence of Justifying
faith, even in trusting and relying upon Christ alone
for pardon and salvation, so as to expect it from him
and from none but him,"^
But Dr, Pusey continues, " So, as another would
revert to his Baptism and his engrafl&ng into Christ
(at his baptism) and his thus being in Christ, so do
they, to this act whereby they were justified.""' Now
here is indeed precisely the difference. The Oxford
system, like Romanism, so identifies Baptism with
Regeneration and Justification, that we are not, as
the Homily, above quoted, directs, to look to our
works, our walk, our conformity with God's will in
His word, the savour and taste of our minds, as "the
glass" in which we are to see whether we be in faith,
in Christ, &c. ; but we are to "revert to our baptism"
— that is the glass by which we are to examine our
selves whether we be in the faith — that is the evi
dence of our union to Christ by faith.

1 Homily of Repentance, P. i, « Hooker, 3 Beveridge's Ser
mons, No. 89, " Letter to Bishop of Oxford, pp, 47, 48.

389
Nothing could more plainly or more impressively
display the "great gulf fixed" between this divinity
and that of the Scriptures, our Church, her standard
divines, than simply this — that while the evidence of
Justification which the Scriptures refer to continual
ly, is that of faith, and the evidence of faith is the 7valk,
the fruits, the being led by the Spirit, the purifying of
the heart, overcoming the world, &c,, and never our
having been baptized ; on the contrary, the evidence
of Oxfordism like that of Romanism, is simply and
exclusively our Baptism — our "being thus in Christ."
The general benefit of Baptism is thus stated by
Archbishop Usher :
It is " the same, (he says) as was the benefit to the Jew, outward ;"
(Rom. ii. 28; iii. 1, 2,) "there isa general grace of baptism which
all the baptized partake of as a common favour, and that is their ad
mission into the visible body of the Church, their matriculation and
outward incorporating into the number of the worshippers of God by
external communion. And so as circumcision was not only a seal
of the righteousness which is by faith, but as an overplus, God ap
poinlelh it lo be a wall of separation between the Jew and the Gen
tile; so is baptism a badge of an outward member ofthe Church, a
distinction from the common rout of heathen, and God thereby seals
a right upon the party baptized to his ordinances. Yet this is but
the porch, the shell, the outside. All that are outwardly received
into the visible Church are not spiritually ingrafted into the mystical
body of Christ. Baptism always is attended upon by that general
grace, but not always by that special." Again : " Some have the
outward sign and not the inward grace ; some have the inward grace
and not the outward sign ; we must not commit idolatry by deifying
the outward element."
"As baptism, administered to those of years, is not effectual un
less ihey believe; so we can make no comfortable use of our bap
tism administered in our infancy until vve believe. The righteous
ness of Christ, and all the promises of grace, were in my baptism
estated upon me, and sealed up unto me, on God's pari ; but then I

390
come lo have the profit and benefit of them, when I come to under
stand what grant, God in baptism hath sealed unto me, and actually
to lay hold upon it by faith,"
Those excellent Bishops, Hopkins and Reynolds,
would furnish us with abundant matter in point, but
as Bishop Beveridge is especially strong, and is par
ticularly referred to in the Oxford Tracts for the use
of language which seems to indicate the inseparability
of Regeneration and Justification from Baptism, we
will now show that he ascribes all saving mercies to
faith without naming Baptism.
" When a man believes in Christ, the second
Adam, and so is made a me7nber of his body, he is
quickened and anointed by his Spirit, which being
the principle of a new life in him, he thereby becomes
a new creature — another kind of creature from what
he was before, and therefore is properly said to be
horn again, not of blood, &c., but of God. His whole
nature is changed. He hath a new set of thoughts
and affections — and whereas other men are born only
of the flesh, such a one is Regenerate or Born again
of the Spirit, Hence all such are called the Sons of
God, and are really so." These passages are from a
sermon on Regenei'ation, in which Baptism is not
mentioned.' The identity of the language with that
of the Homily for Whitsu.nday is striking — "Such is
the power of the Holy Ghost to regenerate men and as
it were to bring them fo7-th anew, so that they shall be
nothing like the me7i they ivere before."
We will now show by the comparison of passa
ges of the same authors, how impossible it is to

' Beveridge's Sermons, No. 73.

391
save thera frora self-contradiction, if the Oxford as
sertion, conceming their meaning, be true.
Barrow is one of the Catena Patrum, furnished in
the Oxford Tracts, in support of their doctrine of
Baptismal Regeneration and Justification, Their ci
tation quotes him as saying :
" No man can enter into the kingdom of heaven (that is become
a Christian or subject of God's spiritual kingdom) without being re
generated by water, and by the Spirit ; that is without Baptism, and
the spiritual grace attending il, according as Si, Peter doth imply
that the reception of the Holy Spirit is annexed lo Holy Baptism ;
'Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins,
and ye shall receive the gift ofthe Holy Ghost,' "'
" That the justification which St, Paul discourseth of, seemeth in
his meaning, only or especially to be that act of grace which is dis
pensed to persons at their baptism, or at their entrance into the
Church; when they openly professing their faith, and undertaking
the practice of Christian duly, God most solemnly and formally doth
absolve them from all guilt, and accepteth them into a state of favour
wilh him : that St, Paul only or chiefly respecteth this act, consider
ing his design,- 1 am inclined to think, and many passages in his
discourse seem to imply. "^
Now, from all this, one would conclude that Bar
row had no idea of such a thing as Justification be
fore Baptism. But how will this agree with the fol
lowing passage of the same sermon of Justification ?
In Baptism St, Paul saith " we die to sin (by resolution and en
gagement to lead a new life in obedience to God's commandment,)
and so dying we are said to be justified from sin (that which other
wise is expressed, or expounded, by being freed from sin :) now the
freedom from sin obtained in baptism is frequently declared to be the
remission of sin then conferred, and solemnly conferred by a visible
seal. " Whereas also so frequently we are said to he justified by faith,
' Sermon of tho Holy Ghost. 2 Qf Justiiication by Faith,

392
and according to the general tenor of Scripture, the immediate con
sequent of faith is baptistn ; therefore dispensing the benefits con-
sit^ned in baptism; is coincident wilh justification ; and that dispen-
salion is frequently signified lo be the cleansing us from sin by the
entire remission thereof,"
Now here is justifying faith, going before Bap
tism ; Baptism made its consequent. But in Oxford
doctrine, this order is directly reversed. Justifying
Faith is there the consequent of Baptism. The bene
fits of Baptism are said by Barrow to be " co-incident
with Justification," not productive ofit. They come
by faith, and are "consigned" by Baptism; "con
ferred, and solemnly confirmed by it, as "a visible
seal," just as an estate, which has been long since
purchased and possessed, is conferred by a deed of
conveyance, and confirmed by a visible seal. The
death unto sin which Paul speaks of as being con
tained in baptism is here said to be " by resolution
and engagement to lead a new life" — no "inward,
spiritual" change. Dr. Barrow considers that as hav
ing been already wrought in repentance and faith.
He expressly says that repentance and faith which
are required as preparatory to adult baptism are
"that death to sin and resurrection to Righteous
ness, that being buried with Christ and rising again
with him, so as to walk in newness of life, which the
baptismal action signifies."'^
Here then, according to the Oxford view, is a per
fect contradiction, rendered the rnore manifest be
cause Barrow considers the Oxford doctrine of Jus
tification by inherent righteousness to be an interpre
tation of St. Paul, " arbitrarious and uncouth."
' On the Doctrine ofthe Sacraments.

393
We will show the same thing in Hooker, who in
the Oxford Catena Patrum is cited as follows ;
" As we are not naturally men without birth, so neither are we
Christian men, in the eye of the Church of God, but by new birth ;
nor according to the manifest ordinary course of divine dispensation
new born, but by that baptism which both declarelh and maketh us
Christians. In which respect, we justly hold it lo be the door of
our actual entrance lo God's house, the first apparent beginning of
life, a seal perhaps to the grace of election before received; but to
our sanctification here, a step that hath not any before it."^
Now this will seem to many to be as strong as
possible, on the side of Oxford doctrine. But a little
reflection will show that we must look for some other
sense of such words than such as their unconnected
prima facie appearance would teach. Hooker speaks
of Baptism being " the door of our entrance to God's
house," "the first apparent beginning of life;" but
elsewhere he ascribes all this to faith. "By faith
(he says) we are incorporated into Christ." And
the Homily of the Passion does likewise. "Faith is
the first entry into the Christian life," not Baptism.
" Faith is the I'oot and well-spring of all newness of
life, as well in praising God and loving our neighbour,
as purging our conscience from filthiness."
Besides Hooker, as we have seen already, is ac
knowledged by Oxford Divines to have believed a
doctrine of Justification entirely different from theirs
of infused righteousness. Moreover to take him liter
ally would be to make him teach that when one re
pents and believes, before Baptism, he has not " the
first beginning of life," has not taken a single step to
sanctification, which would be too much even for

2 Eccl. Pol. l.v, ^ 60.
50

394
Mr. Newman and Dr. Pusey, for they consider re
pentance and faith before Baptism to be a step at
least to sanctification; and Bishop Bethell whom they
commend as a standard writer on this subject, ex
pressly says, that " Renovation" the being renewed
by the Spirit, w^hich we suppose is "a first beginning
of life" and at least "a step to Sanctification," does
precede adult Baptism. Thus, should Hooker be
strictly interpreted, he would be too strong even for
Oxford divinity.
Now, let us compare him with himself We are
indebted to Mr, Keble's late Edition of Hooker for
the following expressions of that standard writer.
" Let it therefore suffice us to receive sacraments as sure pledges of
God's favour, signs infallible that the hand ofhis saving mercy doth
thereby reach forth itself towards us, sending the influences of his
Spirit into men's hearts, which maketh them like to a rich soil, fer
tile wilh all kinds of heavenly virtues, purgeth, juslifielh, restoreth,
the very dead unto life; yea raiseth even from the bottomless pit to
place in thrones of everlasting joy.
" They pretend that to Sacraments we ascribe no efficacy, but
make them bare signs of instruction or admonition, which is utterly
false. For Sacraments with us are signs effectual ; they are the
instruments of God, whereby to bestow grace, howbeit grace not
proceeding from the visible sign, but from his invisible power.
God by sacraments giveth grace (sailh Bernard) even as honours
and dignities are given — an abbot made by receiving a staff, a doc
tor by a book, a bishop by a ring ; because he that giveth these pre
eminences declareth by such signs his meaning, nor doth the receiver
take the same but wilh effect ; for which cause he is said to have
the one by the other ; a-lbeit that which is bestowed proceedeth wholly
from the will of the giver,^ and not from the effcacy of the sign."^
This quotation from St. Bernard is directly in the
face of the Oxford doctrine of the efficacy of Bap-

' Keble's Hooker, vol. ii. p. 702.

395
tism. The idea evidently is that Baptism is said to
convey the benefit of the Gospel precisely as an Ab
bot is made an Abbot by receiving a staff. And no
further than the delivery of that staff implies a change
in the personal fitness of the receiver for his office,
does the receiving of the visible sign and seal of Bap
tism imply a spiritual change in the personal fitness,
of the recipient, for the privileges of the Gospel.
But the following from St. Bernard carries out his
meaning still further :
" The fashion is to deliver a ring, when seizin ^nd possession of
inheritance is given ; the ring is a sign of possession, so that he
which takes it may say, ' The ring is nothing, I care not for it : it is
the inheritance that 1 sought for.' In like manner when Christ our
Lord drew nigh to his passion, he thought good to give seizin and
possession of his grace to his disciples, and that they might receive
his invisible grace by some visible sign: for this end all sacraments
are instituted,"^
Now here we have the visible mode of conveying
an estate, produced by St, Bernard, as an illustra
tion of the conveyance of remission of sins by Bap
tism, Does it follow, when a deed is signed, sealed
and delivered, that the person to whom it is made,
and who, in law, is said then to receive the " convey
ance," has not before that been in the real and equita
ble possession and enjoyment of the estate ? Certain
ly not. Then, according to the above illustration of
St. Bernard, it no more follows that because remis
sion is said to be " conveyed" or " consigned" by
the sign and seal of Baptism, that the person re
ceiving it has not been before that, in the actual
possession before God, of remission of sins. Such is
' Sermon de Can, Dom,

396
the sentiment which Hooker makes his own by quo
tation, and which must therefore explain the pas
sages previously adduced from him.
But it will illustrate still further the sentiments of
St. Bernard, thus adopted by Hooker, to see how
they were understood by his contemporaries.
Aquinas, in the 13th Century, quotes frora St.
Bernard the sarae passage that Hooker does, con
cerning the book, staff, and ring, &c., and criticises
it as conveying precisely the meaning which our
Oxford divines so earnestly repudiate,
" Whoever (he says) rightly considers that passage will perceive
that the mode of conveyance expressed does not transcend that of a
mere sign. For the book is nothing but a certain sign by which
the delivery ofthe office of Canon is designated. And according to
this, therefore, the Sacraments of the new law would be nothing
more than signs of grace. "^
Here then we have an interpretation of St, Ber
nard, and of the expression which Hooker adopts
from him, made by the great Schoolman of the 13th
Century and the chief founder of Romanisra. The
fact that St, Bernard, who is styled the last of the
Fathers, and head of the Biblicists in his day, one
of the last champions in the Romish Church for
the plain letter of the Bible, against the Schoolmen,
did thus express himself, and was thus found fault
with by the Angelic Doctor of the following Cen
tury, is a strong evidence what sort of doctrine of the
Sacraments was then expiring with all biblical the
ology, and when the present Romish and Oxford
doctrine came in.
' Aquin, Summa, P. iii. Q, 62, A. 1.

397
The views of St. Bernard are further seen by such
passages as the following :
"A man may be saved by faith, without Baptism, when he
has a pious desire of receiving il, if death or some other invincible
cause should prevent." For this he quotes Ambrose, Augustine and
Cyprian. He reads Mark xvi. 16, ' He that believeth and is bap
tized shall be saved,' &c., as teaching that " sometimes faith alone
suflSces for salvation, and without it nothing is sufficient. Although
martyrdom, as it is conceded, supplies the place of baptism, it is
plainly not the pcena (the suffering) that does this, but faith itself
[sed ipsa fides). And the effusion of one's blood for Christ is a
strong proof of a certain great failh, nevertheless not a proof to God,
but to men."'
Thus we see by what opinions of the efficacy of
Baptism, and the irapossibility of Justification and
Regeneration before Baptism, Hooker would have
his own language explained.
We will now illustrate the difficulty in which the
Oxford doctrine is placed, as to all consistent inter
pretation of ancient and standard divines, by passa
ges from Bishop Jewel.
This raost erainent Bishop and Reformer is cited
in the Catena Patrum of the Oxford Tracts as sup
porting their doctrine of Sacramental Justification.
The following is a part of their extract:
" Such a change is made in the sacrament of Baptism. Through
the power of God's working the water is turned into blood. They
that be washed in it receive the remission of sins ; their robes are
made clean in the blood ofthe Lamb. The water itself is nothing;
but by the working of God's Spirit, the death and merits of our
Lord and Saviour are thereby assured unto us."°
Jewel quotes and professes to adopt the very
strongest language ofthe Fathers on this subject,'
'Epistles of St. Bernard, ' Treatise on the Sacraments, p, 266.
3 Eeply to Harding, p. 249.

398
But in the Second Part of Froude's Remains,
which is but a collection of what may be called Ox
ford Tracts, we have the following passage frora
Jewel, given in evidence that he did not hold the
right (the Oxford) doctrine of the Sacraments.
" Another fantasie JVIr. Harding hath found, ' that the Sacraments
ofthe New Law work the thing itself that they signify, through vir
tue (as he saith) given unto them, by God's ordinance, to special
effects of grace.' This, as I said, is but a fanlasie." " When Au
gustine saith ' Our Sacraments give salvation,' his meaning is, 'Our
Sacraments teach us that salvation is already come into the world.' "'
Thus, in one Oxford publication, we have Jewel
cited in favour, and in another against, their doc
trine of Sacramental Justification.
How little Augustine agreed with our Oxford di-
vines as to the inseparability of Sanctification from
Baptism may be judged from the following concern
ing the Baptism of Cornelius,
"In Cornelius there preceded a spiritual sanctification in the gift
ofthe Holy Spirit, and this Sacrament of regeneration was added in
the wasliing of Baptism."
Having instanced the pardoned thief as a case
v/herein Baptism had been of necessity dispensed
with, he adds:
" Much more in Cornelius and his friends might it seem superflu
ous, that they should be bedewed with water, in whom the gift of
the Holy Spirit had appeared conspicuously, by that sure token, viz.
that they spake with tongues. Yet were they baptized, and in this
event, we have apostolic sanction for the like. So surely ought no
one in whatever advanced state of the inner man, to despise the Sa
crament which is administered ix the body, by the work of the
ministers, but God thereby spiritually operates the consecration of
the man," ' Froude's Remains, Part Second, vol. 1, p. 408.

399
How is it possible to suppose that Augustine writ
ing such a passage could have believed that sanctifi
cation and its commencement — Regeneration — did
not, could not, precede Baptism! What is plainer
than that he contemplated the case of adults, unbap
tized, like Cornelius and his friends, as, nevertheless
in an advanced state of the inner-man, or of the new-
birth! What is plainer than that he considered Bap
tism in such cases as in the body, the conferring of
an external sign by human ministers, of an inward
grace which God had already wrought in the soul,
by the Holy Ghost? Miserable indeed is the shift
by which Dr. Pusey evades the whole case of Cor
nelius, as well as this testimony of Augustine. One
while he positively asserts that though Cornelius
had "faith, love, self-denial and power to pray," and
though the Scriptures tell us that before he was bap
tized he received both the preaching of Christ from
St. Peter, and the Holy Ghost from God, yet, "he
had not Christian faith, nor love, nor self-denial, nor
prayer; for as yet he knew not Clwist." Afterwards,
he seems to be sensible of the absurdity of maintain
ing that persons to whom Peter said, "the word
which God sent unto the children of Israel preach
ing peace by Jesus Christ — that word ye know;" that
persons to whom he immediately preached that
" through his name whosoever believeth in him shall
receive remission of sins;" that such persons could
not have Christian faith before Baptism, "because
they knew not Christ," that persons on whom imme
diately upon their receiving the words of Peter, con
cerning Christ, was poured out the Holy Ghost,
"could not call God the Father because they knew not

400
the Son." He resorts therefore to the idea of the
case being miraculous and solitanj, and complains of
its being drawn into precedent, and thus really ac
knowledges what before he had endeavoured to es
cape, viz., that in the Baptism of Cornelius and his
household and friends, that is, of the first congrega
tion of believing Gentiles, the Grace of Regeneration
preceded the Sacrament of Regeneration; which is
virtually an acknowledgment that since Augustine,
in the passage above quoted, alludes to the case of
Cornelius and his friends, to show that in similar
cases. Baptism ought not to be omitted, it was Au
gustine's opinion that the case of Cornelius was not
alone, but was repeated, and not uncommonly in
subsequent examples of believing, but unbaptized
adults.' What that Father raeant then by Baptis
mal Regeneration or Justification is plain by a com
parison of the above quotation with the following on
the same case of Cornelius and his friends. He says :
" They were accounted, by St. Peter, as of those ' animals ' pointed
out in that vessel (the great sheet) whom yet God had now cleansed
(before Baptism.) They were then lo be ' slain and eaten,' i. e.
their forepassed life, wherein they had not known Christ, was to be
destroyed, and they were to pass into his body, as it were, into the
new life ofthe society of the Church."^
Now did "their forepast life remain undestroyed
until they were baptized, when it is said they were
previously cleansed, previously believers in Christ,
and partakers of the Holy Ghost and of "spiritual
sanctification?" What then could its destruction in
¦ For the quotation from Augustine, and the treatment of tho case of Corne
lius by Dr, Pusey, see his Views of Holy Baptism, Am, Ed, p, 177—183,
^ Augustine quoted in Pusey's Views of Holy Baptism, Am, Ed, p, 183,

401
Baptism have been but the adding to it the outward
sign and seal, the sacramental destruction accompa
nied by confirming and increasing grace? And
what could the passing "into tlie new life and society
of the Church," by Baptism have meant but an incor
poration into the visible society and fellowship of the
Church, which is the mystical body of Christ ?
Precisely according to Augustine, is Cyprian's
proof of the necessity of Baptism.
" We find (says he) in the Acts of the Apostles that this was
carefully observed by the Apostles — so that when in the hou.se of
Cornelius the Centurion, the lloly spirit had descended on the Gen
tiles who were there, kindled with the glow of faith, and believing
in the Lord with the whole heart, filled wilh whom they blessed
God wilh divers tongues," {and yet Dr. Pusey says they knew not
Christ, and had no Christian faith or love, because unbaptized),
" still nevertheless the blessed Apostle Peter, mindful of the Divine
and evangelic command, commanded those same persons lo be bap
tized, who had already been filled wilh the Holy Ghost, that nothing
might seem lo be omitted, or the Apostolic authorities to have failed
of keeping universally the law of the divine command and of the
Gospel,'"^ Now since the baptism of Cornelius is thus em
ployed by the Fathers for an example to us, it can
not be granted that it was, in any wise, so mir
aculous and singular as to furnish no example on
which the doctrine of the receiving of the Holy
Ghost before Baptism, by those who come to it with
repentance and faith, may be founded. Certainly
there is nothing in it raore miraculous, than in the
conversion and baptizing of the three thousand on
the day of Pentecost, or in the conversion and bap
tising of Saul. But we apprehend it would be

I Cyprian quoted in Pusey's Views of Holv Baptism, .\m. Ed. p. 182.
51

402
thought a great stretch of propriety to attempt to
evade the reasoning of Dr. Pusey from the language
of Scripture in connection with these cases, should
we say they were too miraculous to be drawn into
precedent. But the language and doctrine of the Fathers is
further illustrated in the case of Simon Magus, with
which Dr, Pusey is exceedingly perplexed, not know
ing whether to hold that Simon's faith was true and
that he was Regenerate in Baptisra, "but in ti7ne of
temptation fell away" or that he was hypocritical
from the beginning, and received Baptism, without
Regeneration or Justification. If the latter then he
says:
" It gives no disclosure as to God's general dealings in his Sa-
cramenis. It is an excepted case, in which God restrains the over
flowings of his goodness, and not to be stretched beyond the limits
which He has pointed out. It is no proof that God withholds His
grace from his Sacraments, except when man disqualifies himself
from receiving it — closes his own soul against God's gift."^
But let US hear some of the language of the Fa-
thers concerning the case of Simon Magus, Augus
tine says, "he was baptized with Christ's Baptism" —
that "his sins were forgiven him;" that he " was born
of water and of the Spirit;" that he "received the
gift of the Sacrament, in Baptism," " The Church
BORE Simon Magus by Baptism." Jerome speaks
of Simon as having been made by Baptism " one of
the faithful."^ Now here is the strongest language
of Baptismcd Regeneration and Justification, used by
Augustine concerning the Baptism of Simon the
Magician, who was '' yet in the gall of bitterness and
> Pusey's Views of Baptism, Am. Ed, p, 187. 2 Ib. p. 186.

403
the bonds of iniquity." Does it mean that he was
spiritually, or only sacramentally born and forgiven ?
Did the Church bear him in a spiritual and inivard
birth ; or only in the signing and sealing of the out
ward ordinance? Now if such language means no
more than the latter, in the case of Simon, there is
no reason to interpret it as meaning more in any
other case.
Hear then St. Jerome. Speaking of those who
receive not Baptism in full faith, he says ;
" Of whom it must be said, that they received the water, but re
ceived not the Spirit, as that Simon Magus also, who was baptized
indeed wilh water and was not baptized to health."
Hear also St. Cyril:
"Even Simon Magus once came to the door of Baptism ; he was
baptized but not enlightened ; his body he dipped in water, but ad
mitted not the Spirit to illuminate his heart — his soul was not
buried with Christ, nor with him raised."
Hear also St. Augustine. Having just said that
the Church bore him or brought him forth in Bap
tism, but that still he had no part in the inheritance
of Christ, he asks :
" Was Baptism, was the Gospel, were the Sacraments wanting
to him? But since love was loanting, he was born in vain, and per
haps it had been better for him not to have been born."
What sort of new-birth was that in which love was
not, except a mere sacramental regeneration ? What
can be more manifest than that the Fathers in apply
ing the strongest language of Baptismal Regenera
tion and Justification to a case in which they ac
knowledge there was neiiher spiritual health, enlighten
ing, illumination, burial, nor resurrection ivith Christ,
no love, a birth in vain, did not intend to be under
stood as so applying that language as to teach that
spiritual regeneration and remission of sins are so

404
tied to Baptism that they can neither precede nor fol
low it, but except in case of infidelity or hypocrisy
are always confarred by it.
In reading the Fathers on Baptisra as on other
subjects, it is necessary to remember what even Bel
larmine says of them that " they speak sometimes in a
way of excess, less properly, less warily, so as to need
benign exposition;" that according to Bishop Barrow
they had their " hyperbolical fiashes" and "did some
times overlash;" that, according to Jackson, they
had " a superfluity of rhetorical inventions or ejacu
lations of swelling affections in panegyrical passages."
" In all ages, (said Latimer) the devil has stirred up some light
heads to esteem the sacraments but lightly, as to be empty and base
signs; whom the Fathers have resisted so fiercely, that in their fer
vour they seem in sound of words to run too far the other way, and
to give too much to the sacraments, when they, in truth, did think
more measurably. And therefore they are to be read warily, with
sound judgment."^
Now it is reasonable here to ask, what are we to
understand to be the true doctrine of the Church on
this subject. We answer by extracts from three
writers, whose standing cannot be questioned; the
first. Bishop Hooper, one of the Reformers and Mar
tyrs of the days of our Articles, when, as Dr. Pusey
says, there was no difference of opinion on this sub
ject; the second. Bishop Beveridge, expressly ex
pounding the Article on Baptism ; the third. Bishop
Taylor. HOOPER — BISHOP, REFORMER AND MARTYR.
" And of Baptism, because it is a mark of our Christian Church,
this I judge, after the doctrine of St. Paul, that it is a seal and con
firmation of justice, (Righteousness or Justification) or of our accep-
' Conference with Ridlev.

405
tation into the grace of God for Christ ; for his innocency and jus
tice, by faith, is ours, and our sins and injustice, by his obedience,
are his ; whereof baptism is the sign, seal, and confirmation. For,
although freely by lhe grace of God our sins are forgiven, yet the
same is declared by the Gospel, received by failh, and sealed by the
sacraments, which are the seals of God's promises, as it is to be
seen by the failh of faithful Abraham."'
" They (the Fathers) thought it best lo name the sacraments by
the name of the thing that was represented by the sacraments. Yet in
many places of their writings, they so interpret themselves, that no
man, except he will be wilfully blind, can say but they understand
the sacrament to signify, and nol to be the thing signified ; to con
firm, and not exhibit grace ; to help, and not to give faith ; to seal,
and not to win the promise of God, (Rom. iv.) ; to show what we
are before the use of them, and not to make us the thing we declare
to be after them, lo show we are Christ's ; to show we are in grace,
and not by them to be received into grace ; to show we are saved,
and yet not to be saved by them ; to show we are regenerated, and
not to be regenerated by them; thus the old doctors meant.'"'
BEVERIDGE, BISHOP.
" As it was by circumcision that the Jews were distinguished
from all other people in the world, so it is by baptism that Chris
tians are distinguished both from Jews and others: for all that are
baptized are Christians, and none are Christians but such as are
baptized, and so baptism is a mark of difference, whereby Christians
are discerned from such as be not christened. But though this be
one effect of baptism, it is not all. For it is not only a sign of our
profession, but also of our regeneration, and therefore is it called
'the washing of regeneration,' Til. iii. 5. So that by it we are
grafted into the Church, and made members of that body whereof
Christ is the head ; for ' we are baptized into one body,' 1 Cor. xii.
13., have a promise from God of the forgiveness of those sins we
have committed against him. And therefore Peter said unto them
' Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus
Christ, for the remission of sins,' Acts ii. 28, That so ' being justi
fied by his grace, we should be made (not only sons, but) heirs,
' Hooper's Confession of Failh, 2 fiftij Sermon on Jonah,

406
according to the hope of eternal life,' Tit. iii. 7. And so in baptism
our failh is confirmed, and grace increased, by virtue of prayer to
God, not by virtue of the water itself, but by virtue of prayer, where
by God is prevailed with lo purify our souls by his Spirit, as our
bodies are washed wilh the water : that as the water washeth ofT
the pollutions of our bodies, so his Spirit purgeth away the corrup
tions of our souls. "^ TAYLOR, BISHOP,
No one is stronger in his expressions concerning
Baptism than Bishop Taylor. He quotes the most
panegyrical language of the Fathers as expressing
his views — and yet in concluding his account of its
benefits, he uses this language :
" Because Baptism consigns it and admits us to a title to it (viz.
resurrection with Christ,) we are said, with St. Paul, to be risen
wilh Chr'\st in baptism : buried with him in baptism, &c. Which
expression I desire to be remembered, that by it we may the better
understand those other sayings ofthe Apostle, of 'putting on Christ
in Baptism — putting on the new man, &c., for theie only signify,
S'7ri,5(;6i^il(;ia or the design on God's part, and the endeavour and duty
on man's. We are then consigned to our duty and reward. We
undertake one, and have a title to the other. And though men of
ripeness and reason, enter instantly on their portion of work, and
have present use ofthe assistances and something of their reward in
hand, yet we cannot conclude that those who cannot do it presently,
are not baptized rightly because they are not in capacity to 'put on
the new man' in righteousness, that is in an actual holy life; for
they may 'put on the new man' in Baptism, y«s< as they are risen
with Christ; (that is as he has before said, prospectively, Hhe real
event in its due season ') which because it may be done by faith,
BEFORE IT IS DONE IN EEAL EVENT, and it may be done by Sacra
ment and design before it be done by a proper faith; so also may
our putting on of the new man be ; it is done sacramentally, and
that part which is wholly the work of God, does only antedate the
' Beveridge on the S7th Article.

407
work of man, which is to succeed in its due time and is after the
manner of preventing grace."^
Now it is reasonably asked if such be all the doc
trine of the Church and the Divines whom we have
quoted, viz., that Baptism is a sign of separation from
the world, and consecration to God; a seal of the
Promises of God to those who truly repent and be
lieve; an effectual sign and seal, whereby the grace
of repentance and faith is confirmed and increased,
how can such strong language as we have before
quoted be explained and shewn to be consistent with
"truth and soberness."
To this we proceed to direct our attention. But
we cannot in conscience profess to get round the lan
guage, by such a device as that contained in the fol
lowing extracts from Bishop Bethell on Regenera
tion, a great and standard work with Dr. Pusey, Dr.
Hook, &c. — the device of making an entire distinc
tion between Regeneration and Renovation, as if the
latter were an internal and spi7'itual change, which
precedes as well as follows Adult Baptism, and is not
necessarily implied in Infant Baptism, while the for
mer, after all the immense weight of strong language
laid upon it by the Fathers and the Reformers, and
in our Oxford Divines, par excellence, were only a
> The following is from Archbishop Whitgift:
"I must tell you, that I make the holy sacrament of Baptism no other kind of
passage than God himself hath made -it, and the Church of Christ hath ever
held it. Good and evil, clean and unclean, holy and profano, must needs pass
by it, except you will indeed in more ample and large manner tie the grace of
God unto it, than even did the Papists, and say that all that be baptized be also
saved; or else join with the Anabaptists in Ihis, that after baptism a man can
not sin. Who can tell whether he be holy or unholy, good or evil, clean or
unclean, elect or reprobate, of the household of the Church or not of the
Church, that is baptized, be he infant, or at the years of discretion 1"

408
change of state, excluding a change of disposition,
heart and temper.
^•¦Regeneration, (says Bishop Bethell as quoted by Dr. Hook) is
the joint work of water and the Spirit, or to speak more properly,
ofthe Spirit only; Renovation is the joint work of the Spirit and the
man. Regeneration comes only once, in or through Baptism. Reno
vation exists before, in and after Baptism, and may often be re
peated." — "This is what is meant by those divines who maintain
that Regeneration is in the strict sense of the word the inward and
spiritual grace of Baptism. The identity, if I may so express my
self, of Baptism and Regeneration, is a doctrine which manifestly
pervades the writings of the Fathers. It is moreover evident that
they did not imagine that Baptism produces any saving effect in
adults without faith and repentance, or, in other words, without
some previous reneival of the inward frame. Nor do they appear
to have supposed any positive or active renewal of the soul takes
place in infants. Hence it follows that they must have maintained
this distinction between regeneration and renovation or conversion,
which, in the present day, has been styled, by a strange fatality, a
novel contrivance."^
Now here is confession indeed — viz., that the Fa
thers did not imagine that Baptism regenerated without
previous renewal, that is without previous putting off
the old man, and putting on of the new ; a previous
new creation, a previous conversion, or new birth, a
previous sanctification of the Spirit, what others call
a previous "spiritual Keg ener ation. "^
'Bishop Bethell on Regeneration, p. 16, quoted in Hook's call to Union.
2 Thus in one place, as we have seen, Hooker is quoted by these writers as
saying that Baptism is "the first apparent beginning of life," anA "a step
to our sanctification -ivhich hatii not any before ir," and we are expected to take
his words in the fullest and most literal meaning; and then we are recom
mended to a standard writer who tells us regeneration takes place in the bap
tism of adults -without some pr.jvious rene-wal of tiie in-ward frame, &c. Re-
neioal means a making ne-w. So then there is no regeneration in Baptism that
is not preceded by a spiritual new birth or new creation, .\nd is this no be
ginning of life, no step to sanctification 1

409
Another confession — "Nor do they (the Fathers)
appear to have supposed a7iy positive or active renewal
of the soul takes place in infants." No "positive re
newal l" no positive creating anew; no positive put
ting off of the old man, &c. But still Baptism is
Regeneration and nothing else is. What then is Re
generation? The doctrine of Bishop Bethell is that
adults, before Baptism, are converted and renewed,
but not regenerated; that Infants, in Baptism, are re
generated, but not renewed or converted. What then
is Regeneration, according to this doctrine, but a
mere outward work, a relative change, not an in
ward, an ordinance of profession, and confirmation ; a
mere signing and sealing, with no renewing, convert
ing, spiritually regenerating power; for what is
there that is spiritual in Regeneration which is not
contained in conversion, in repentance, in faith —
words equivalent, says Bishop Barrow, to "death
unto sin, and a 7%ew birth unto righteousness"
Hence in the Sermon of Dr. Hook, to which the
above extracts from Bishop Bethell are appended,
we have the following summary of what he consi
ders the difference between Regeneration and Reno
vation, which he charges the foreign Reforraers
with confounding, the former he says is, " a change
of spiritual state and relations, the latter is an election
of grace, with a subsequent change of disposition,
heart and temper" This he says is taking the ex
pressions of our Church services " in all the simplicity
aud fulness of their meaning."^
Thus, while Bishop Bethell says, " Regeneration

I Hook's Call to Union, pp. 22, 23.
52

410
is in the strict sense of the word the inward and
spiritual grace of Baptism ;" Dr. Hook interpreting
him says, it is not " a change of disposition, heart
and temper," but only of "spiritual state, circum
stances and relations," so that the doctrine of the
Church catechism that "the inward and spiritual
grace" of Baptism is "a death unto sin a7%d a new
birth unto Righteousness," when taken "m all the
simplicity and fulness of its meaning" is nothing
more than a change of state, circumstances and- rela
tions, no change of heart or disposition or temper.
Now this we must style, though it shou.ld be by " a
strange fatality," "a novel contrivance" indeed. Is it
thus that our Oxford divines would arise above the
low and rationalistic and poverty-stricken interpre
tations of modern theology, (as they speak,) and con
duct us back to the fulness and depth and hidden
mystery and awful grandeur of the doctrine of the
Fathers concerning the relations of Baptism to Re
generation and Justification ; making that which,
one while, they represent to be " the inwrapping and
conveying ofthe whole soul of religion," "the Sanc
tification and the Remission and the Adoption and
the Life," to be a mere change of relations and cir
cumstances ! We cannot in any way reconcile such
statements with those contained in Dr, Pusey's
"Views of Baptism;" but nevertheless they are
taken from a work which he pronounces a standai'd
on this subject, and they go strongly to shew that,
after all the prodigious accumulation of spiritual and
mystical and wondering language, which Dr. Pusey
and Mr. Newman, &c., employ to express the change
wrought in and by Baptism, which they say is a

411
spiritual regeneration, a neiv-cr cation, a new birth;
they still mean a something which is spiritual in lit
tle else than that it is mystical, a change of which
repentance and faith are not a part, because they go
before in the Adult, a something therefore which
if it be really any thing more than a change of state
and circumstances, must be a sort of tertium quid, a
change neither of inward disposition nor outward re
lation, neither of heart nor of circumstances, a some
thing which may be worthy indeed of the Quodlibets
of the Schoolmen, but is wholly unworthy to be used
as embracing "the fulness" of the meaning of the
Scriptures, the Fathers, the Reformers and the Offi
ces of our Church.
In justice to these authorities, we must reject all
this vain device of a distinction so vital between
Renovation and Regeneration. Unquestionably the
former is a term of more extensive meaning, as ap
plicable to the continuance, as well as the beginning,
of spiritual life : while the latter is applicable more
strictly to the beginning. The former includes, but
is not diverse from the latter. A glance at the ex
pressions of the Fathers and Reformers and our
standard Divines will show that by Regeneration,
Renovation, Conversion, New Birth, putting off the
old man. Repentance, &c. they meant the same great
inward and spiritual change, viz : " a death unto sin
and a neiv birth unto righteousness," the grace of which
Baptism is the sign and seal — and they certainly do
speak of all these as being, by the Spirit of God, ef
fected, in some sense, in Baptism, If Hooker, in a
passage above quoted, ascribes to Baptism " the in
fusion of that grace which giveth to the soul the first

412
disposition towards future newness of life," then surely
he ascribes to it Repentance, Faith, Renovation, Con
version, since none of these can take place without the
first disposition towards newness of life. In the Ho
mily for Whitsunday to. be 7'egenerate, born anew,
new men in Chi'ist Jesus, to have godly motions, agree
able to the rvill of God, stirred up by the Holy Ghost
in our hearts, are equivalent expressions, Cranmer
in his Sermon on Baptism, says that by the second
birth in Baptism we mean that which is spiritual,
whereby our inivard man and mind are renewed by
the Holy Ghost so that our hearts and minds receive
new desires, &c. — that in this baptismal regeneration
"the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts" — and
" we are made new creatures" — and this is " a mar
vellous alteration and reneiving of the inward man,"
so that " new affections and spiritual motions are in
the souls of such as are born again by Baptism," In
stances of the same use of terms might be multiplied
indefinitely. One from Bishop Beveridge is at hand,
and will suffice. He calls " spiritual Regeneration
the reneivincf the Spirit of our minds and so in
fusing into them a principle of new life, whereby
they become new-creatures,"^ &c. In another sermon
he says of Repentance, precisely the same, viz : that
it is that "whereby a man is quite changed from
what he was and therefore is called a new ma7% and
a neiv creature, because old things are passed away and
all things are become 7iew in hira,"^ And this, which
Beveridge says is Repentance, the Horaily for Whit
sunday says, is Regeneration — " Such is the power
' Sermon, No, 81, 2 lb. No, 84,

413
of the Holy Ghost to regenerate men and as it were
to bring them forth anew, so that they shall be nothing
like the men that they ivere before."
Such then being the evident convertibility of the
terms Regeneration, Renovation, Conversion, New-
Creature, Repentance, &c., as connected with Bap
tism, in the use of those who speak of the effects of
Baptism in the strongest terms, we must wholly re
ject the distinction between Regeneration, as only
" a change of spiritual state, relations and circum
stances," and Renovation as "a change of heart, dis
position ancl temper," which Bishop Bethell, and
those who call his work a standard, would teach;
we must speak of spiritual Regeneration as being
the "inward and spiritual grace" of which Baptism is
" a sign,"" and that spiritual grace or death unto sin
and new birth unto righteousness, as being neither
more nor less than a change of heart, disposition and
temper, whereby, men are so changed " that they be
nothing like the men they were before." We must reject
their doctrine, who contend that a sinner repenting
and believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, is not spirit
ually regenerate nor justified before God, until he re
ceive the Sacrament of Justification and Regenera
tion, although confessedly renewed, and having that
repentance which is a change of heart ; in other words
that he cannot with a renewed inward frame and a
change of heart, be justified until he receive the out
ward sign, cannot have peace frora God till he have
the seal of that peace from man. The fact that this
hard doctrine could not be maintained without doings
' Art. xxvii.

414
such utter violence to all ideas of Spiritual Regenera
tion, robbing it of all real spirituality, giving all the
real glory to Renovation, as being quite another thing
in its nature, is one of the strongest evidences that
Baptismal Regeneration or Justification, in their
sense cannot explain the language of our Church
and of her standard Divines, cannot be the doctrine
ofthe Fathers, or the Scriptures.
What then is the explanation of the strong lan
guage of our old Divines, and of the Fathers before
them, as to the benefits connected with Baptism?
We answer, precisely that which the Homilies quote
frora St, Augustine.
" Writing to Bonlfacius ofthe Baptism of Infants, he (Augustine)
saith, ' If sacraments had not a certain similitude of those things,
whereof they be sacraments, they should be no sacraments at all.
And of this similitude, they do for the most part receive the names
of tlie self-same things they signify."'^
These words of Augustine, are thus applied by
Bishop Jewel:
" Therefore after a certain manner of speech {and not otherwise)
the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is called the Body of Christ ;
so the Sacrament of faith is faith."
And of course also, the Sacraraent of Regeneration
is, after a certain manner of speech, and not otherwise,
called Regeneration. Again in another place :
" We must consider that the learned Fathers, in their treatises of
the Sacraments, sometimes use the outward sign instead ofthe thing
signified; sometimes they use the thing signified instead ofthe sign.
As for example, sometimes they name Christ's blood instead of the
water. Sometimes they narae the water instead of Christ's blood —
this exchange of names is much used among the learned, specially
speaking of the sacraments. St. Augustine, using the water (in
' Homily on Common Prayer, &c.

41S
Baptism) in place of the blood of Christ, saith thus — '/if breaketh
the bond of sin — it doth renetv a man in one Christ.' Again Bi
shop Jewel quotes from Augustine to the same point, ' Now ye are
clean through the word that I have spoken lo you,' But why saith
he not (Augustine) — Now ye are clean, because of the Baptism
wherewith ye are washed ; saving that because in the water, it is
the word that maketh clean? Therefore Augustine sailh, 'The
water giveth us outwardly the sacrament of grace.' 'And this
(says Jewel) is the power and virtue of the Sacraments.' "
Thus, in the estimation of Jewel, the use of the
thing signified, instead of the sign, calling Baptisra
Regeneration, instead of "the sign of Regeneration;"
precisely as when we say the body of Christ, instead
of the sign thereof, explains the whole language of
the Fathers on this subject,^
Now then let us apply the language, of Augustine.
The Sacraraent of Baptisra, since it has ^ certain si
militude of that which it signifies, does for the most
part receive the name of the self-same thing it signi
fies. This it has received in the Scriptures, and so
is called the "Baptism for the remission of sins," be
cause it signifies remission of sins; it is called "the
Washing of Regeneration," because it signifies that
washing ; it is called by the Fathers and our Re
formers, &c., the new birth, the new creation. In
Baptisra they say we receive remission of sins, the
righteousness of Christ, and even the first motion of
soul towards divine things; because in Baptism these
are signified, and the promises of them are sealed, —
the actual grace which is signified, being considered
as already possessed in the required repentance and
faith of the catechumen.
1 Jewel on Sacraments — Fathers of the English Church, vol. vii. pp. 484, 5,
Defence of the Apology, vii, 698, 9,

416
Now if any one will reflect, he will perceive that
we have precisely a similar mode of speech with re
gard to other matters in religion, in regard to which
it is well understood, and occasions no difficulty, or
misunderstanding. For example, it is universal araong
divines to speak of Baptisra as the admission of a per
son into the Church of Christ — and until baptized he
is not considered as a member of the Church. But
it is also very common to speak of the children of be
lievers being in the Church from their birth. Thus
Usher speaks of children "being born in the bosom of
the Church,"" and Hooker says "we are plainly taught
of God that the seed of faithful parentage is holy from
the very birth." "^ And so Bishop Jewel: "Infants are
a part of the Church of God. Why should they not
bear the mark of Christ — why should they not par
take of the Sacrament (Baptism) together with the
faithful?"^ Now here are children made members of the
Church by Baptism, ivho were already holy, and mem
bers by birth. How is this? The answer is plain.
The one membership was real, but not visible, not
sacramental, not signed and sealed by visible ordi
nance, so as to be professed before men. When they
were made members by Baptism, they were no more
really in the Church than before; but they became
visibly members; their membership had a sacramen
tal sign and seal upon it, which made it a matter of
profession and vow, and gave them access to the visi
ble ordinances of the house of God.
Now precisely as the Baptism of adults is said to
1 Body of Divinity, 391. 2 Eccl. Pol, v, § 60, 3 Jewel's Writings
as quoted in his Life by Le Bas, p, 336,

417
give Regeneration, when it is supposed to have been
possessed before, so is the Baptism of infants said to
give membership in the Church when it is considered
as having been possessed before. The sign, in both
cases, receives, as Augustine says, the name of the
self-same thing which it signifies.
The same language is common with regard to the
Lord's Supper,
The Lord's Supper is called the Sacrament of the
body and blood of Christ. In it, the true believer
is said to receive by faith and spiritually the Body
and Blood of Christ to his soul's health. Just as
much as Regeneration is anywhere ascribed to Bap
tisra, is this receiving of Christ ascribed to the Eu
charist; and just for the same reason that we should
infer that regeneration is not received but in Bap
tism, must we infer that the body and blood of
Christ are not received but in the Lord's Supper. But
all our old divines and all the Fathers held that the
body and blood of Christ are received elsewhere than
in the Eucharist. Bradford, for example, quotes Au
gustine and Jerome, &c., as follows:
"St. Augustine writes that Christ is received sometimes visibly,
and sometimes invisibly. The visible receiving he calls that which
is by the Sacrament; the invisible, that which is by the exercise of
our faith with ourselves. And St, Jerome affirms that we are fed
wilh the body of Christ and we drink his blood, not only in mystery
(Sacrament) but also in the knowledge of Holy Scripture, wherein he
plainly shows that the same meat is offered in the words of Scrip
ture as in the Sacraments, so that Christ's body and blood is no less
offered by the Scriptures than by the Sacraments."
Bradford also quotes Jerome as saying that where
Christ says, "He that eateth my flesh, &c., it is raore
true to take Christ's body and blood for the word of
53

41 s
the Scriptures and the doctrine of God." Bradford
denies that a man may ordinarily receive Christ's
body by faith in the hearing of his word, with so
much sensible assurance as by receiving the Sacra
ments; but adds, "Not that Christ is not so much
present in his word preached, as he is in or with his
sacrament, but because there are in the perception
raore windows (more senses) open for Christ to enter
into us, than by his word preached.'"
The same doctrine is thus expressed by Dr. Jack
son :
" They are said to eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood spiritu
ally which rightly apprehend his death and passion, which by Faith
meditate and ruminate upon them, &c. He which thus eateth
Christ's flesh, and drinketh his blood hy faith, although he do not
(for the lime present) eat his body or drink his blood sacramenfat-
ly, hath a true interest in this promise (^He that eateth my flesh, &c,
dwelleth in me, and I in him,) so he do nol neglect to eat his body
and drink his blood, sacramentally when occasion requires and op
portunity serves. So that spiritual eating and drinking Christ
by faith is the trite preparation for the worthy receiving of his
body and blood sacramentally."^
Now here is expressed, by an authority which
Oxford divines cannot but respect, the important
distinction between receiving really and sacramen
tally ; inwardly by faith, visibly by ordinance : sav
ingly by the former ; pi'ofessedly by the latter ; the
two united when the Sacrament is properly received ;
but not so inseparable but that the true believer re
ceives the grace signified in the Sacrament before
the sig7i, the unbeliever cannot receive the grace sig
nified 7vith the sign.
' Sermon on the Lord's Supper. 2 Jackson's Works iii. p. 334.

419
Now let it be reraerabered that precisely the sarae
definition is given by the Articles to both Sacraments.
The relation of the sign to the thing signified, which
is all that concerns us now, is defined in one precise
ly as in the other. We may therefore just change
names, and the above language of Dr. Jackson,
which is none ether than what is common elsewhere,
will be equally suitable to Baptism and to the Eu
charist. With such change it will thus read :
' They that repent and believe are regenerated
and justified spiritually, though (for the time pre
sent) they be not (by Baptism) regenerated and jus
tified sacramentally ; yet they have a true interest
in the promise he that believeth shall be saved, so they
do not neglect to be regenerate, &c., sacramentally,
when occasion requires and opportunity serves. So
that spiritual Regeneration and Justification are
the preparatives for the worthy receiving the sacra
mental'
Thus, as in the Lord's Supper, " the signs receive
the name of the self sarae thing which they signify,"
and we call the spiritual and sacraraental by pre
cisely the sarae narae of " eating and di'inking the
body and blood of Christ," and yet without confusion
or raisunderstanding ; so did our old Divines, and so
may we speak in regard to Baptism. We may say
that adults coming in repentance and faith receive
remission of sins in Baptism; because they do re
ceive it as they have not before, viz: sacramentally ;
under a form whereby the promises which they have
previously embraced by faith, are " visibly signed
and sealed;" so that what they have been before
really before God, they are now professedly before

420
men; what before they had promised only in the
sight of Him who searcheth the heart, they have
now stipulated before his Church which can only
look upon the outward vow; what before entitled
them to the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven,
being now sacramentally signed and sealed, enti
tles them also to the communion and fellowship of
the Church on earth.
Whoever will now examine the 27th Article on
Baptism, with the above explanation will perceive
that we have exactly expressed its meaning,^
We might carry this analogy further and shew
that throughout the ordinances of the Gospel — this
language which seems so strong in regard to Bap
tism, is used, mutatis mutandis, without confusion or
difficulty. The outward and visible call ofthe Church
to the ministry and its relation to the inward and
spiritual call of the Holy Ghost, which is required
to precede it; and the use of the same language for
the outward, as for the inward, as if the former was
not till the latter come, and as if the latter always is,
where the former is professed, would be a case in point.
The instance of our blessed Lord being anointed
invisibly by the Holy Ghost, fully and perfectly for
his ministry, but not being anointed in one sense,

' " Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby
Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened ; but it is also a
sign of Regeneration, or New Birth ; whereby, as by an instrument, they that
receive Baptism rightly, are grafted into the Church ; tbe promises of forgive
ness of sin, and onr adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visi
bly signed and sealed ; faith is confirmed ; and grace increased, by virtue of
prayer unto God. The Baptism of young children is in any wise to be re
tained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ." Art.
xxvii.

421
viz: outward and visibly or sacramentally, till his
baptism, when the Holy Ghost descended in visible
sign upon him, not conferring new powers, but only
adding the outward siern of an unction which he had
had from his birth; might well be used for illustra
tion — seeing that when Jesus is said to have been
anointed for his work on earth, as a Prophet, Priest
and King, that visible anointing in the river Jordan,
is referred to as if no other had preceded it.
But it is not merely in religious things that such
language is common. It is of notorious use and clear
comprehension in the most common transactions of
life. For example, A man purchases an estate,
pays the price, enters on the possession, but for some
reason or other he has not yet received the title deed.
When that deed is executed, signed, sealed and de
livered, then the estate is said in law, to be conveyed.
The title is then said to become vested in him,
precisely as if he had had none before; and this
simply because, as the law knows no evidence of
title but the visible instrument, it can recognize no
title as existing without it. But shall we take this
language of the law and in our private judgments
conclude from it that there was no previous actual
and equitable title ? We say no ; that language
refers only to the title before a human tribunal which
must depend on such an instrument. A court
of law cannot go into any other investigation than
that of the signed and sealed document. But before
the judgment of equity ; of Him who searcheth the
secrets of men there may have been a true and
rightful title long before that deed was executed.
All this is familiar. Men when they hear the law

422
pronounce an estate, which long before was pos
sessed, to be first conveyed, when the deed is deliv
ered; see nothing difiicult to be explained. The
difference between the real and the visible ; the re
ception truly and the reception formally; the title
before God and the title before a human tribunal,
of the same thing, is so notorious in a civil com
monwealth that it occasions no misunderstanding.
Let it then be considered that the Church is a
Commonwealth, with her laws and privileges of citi
zenship and modes of ascertaining citizenship pre
cisely as other Commonwealths have ; that all her
visible administration on earth is by the agency of
raen as incapable of looking beyond the outward ap
pearance and the visible sign and seal and convey
ance and profession, as those who sit in the high
places of other commonwealths^then the keeping in
mind of the two following simple principles, will
render the language of the Church as to the posses
sion of grace, just as plain as the language of the
State in regard to the title of earthly tenements.
First, that the Church can know no private history,
nor speak of any one on the ground of his private ex
perience of religion; but can only know him as a
Christian through fd^ public profession of repentance
and faith, and his public entering upon the vows of
consecration to God : so that though an unbaptized
person may have been a new-creature for a long tirae,
and affectionately treated as such by the individual
members of the Church, yet he cannot be known as
such by the Church collectively and formally till the
moment when he makes a credible profession of re
pentance and faith in the appointed Sacrament, and

423
thus marks himself, visibly, as a Christian, and draws
the open line of separation from the world. The
time therefore of his doing this is properly called by
the Chu.rch, the time of his repenting and believing,
the time of being regenerated and justified; just as
the place where a stream of water issues from the
ground is called the place of its beginning, though it
have been running a long distance before that, in the
secret channels of the earth. This idea is precisely
expressed by Bishop Jewel when he says :
" If any be not baptized, but lacketh the mark of God's fold, we
cannot discern him to be one of the flock. If any take not the seal
of regeneration, we cannot say he is born the child of God."
But he has just before said that " God knoweth
who are his" — that is He needs no seal of Regenera
tion to distinguish them. And thus says Jewel, "the
Sacrament of Baptism is the badge and recognizance
of every Christian.' ' "
Secondly : as the Sacrament of Baptism is, ac
cording to our Article, a "sign of Regeneration or New
Birth, whereby as by an Insti'ument, they that re
ceive Baptism rightly, are grafted into the Church,
and the promise of the forgiveness of sin and of their
adoption to be sons of God, by the Holy Ghost, is
visibly signed and sealed;" till that instrument, with
its signing and sealing be executed, a person can no
more be regarded by the Commonwealth of the
Christian Church as in possession of forgiveness of
sins, and of the adoption of sons of God, however truly
he may have been inwardly and spiritually regene
rated and justified, than the state can regard a per-
1 On tho Sacraments — Fathers ofthe English Church, vii. p. 501.

424
son as entitled to a property, unless he can shew the
title deed. And therefore that person is rightly said
by the Church not to have come to those blessings,
until he has been baptized, because she has no evi
dence of the title ; while at the same tirae, as by the
supposition he is not wilfully neglecting or despising
Baptism. He who judgeth not by the outward ap
pearance, and needs not signs and seals, but looketh
iipon the heart, may say to him, "Son he of good
cheer, thy sins be forgive7i thee."
There is one important difference indeed between
the signing and sealing in civil transactions and in
those of the Sacraments of the Gospel. The former
are only signs — without any accompanying force, but
as they are evidence of a certain fact. The latter
however are said to be "not only badges or tokens,
but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual
signs of grace and of God's good will toward us, by
the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not
only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith
in him."" In other words, that good work which
God hath begun in his people, he by the Holy Spirit,
through the Sacrament, doth carry on in them, so
that "Faith is confirmed and grace increased by vir
tue of prayer unto God."
The application of this common-sense method of
interpreting the Scriptures, the language of the Fa
thers and Reformers, when they speak of the efficacy
of Baptism, and the absolute necessity of such me
thod, unless we would charge them with numerous
and glaring contradictions, may be illustrated by the
' Art. xxv.

425
language of Nowell's Catechism. The authority of
that Catechism as representing the doctrines of the
Church was of the highest grade in the age of
Elizabeth, as will be seen in the next Chapter, where
its evidence will be adduced on the nature of justi
fying righteousness and faith. On the subject of
the Sacraments, its definitions are only an enlarge
ment upon the language used in our present Articles
and Catechism. Take one set of expressions in that
work in relation to Baptism, and it would appear,
just as we have shown of other writings, as if the
highest degree of regenerating and justifying effica
cy were ascribed to that Sacrament; as if those who
come to it were not spiritually regenerate, or justi
fied, till baptized, and as if all the baptized were, in
the act of Baptism, spiritually both regenerated and
justified. For example. Speaking of the two Sa
craments Baptism and the Holy Supper, the Cate
chism says "by thefo7'mer we are born again." "As
in Baptism God i-^sAj deUvereth us forgiveness of sins
a7id 7iewness of life, so do we certainly receive them."
Thus it would seem to be taught that before Bap
tism, we are not born again; and in Baptism we are
born again and receive remission of sin and newness
of life, in the strictest sense.
But let us see how this interpretation will hold
with other language of the same Catechism, con
cerning Baptism. In answer to the question "in
what the use of Baptism consisteth," the Catechism
answers: " In faith and repentance ." In other words,
in failh and repentance consists the inward and spir
itual grace of which the Sacrament is a sign and
pledge and which it is effectual in promoting. Of

426
course — a godly sorroiv and a living faith or else they
would not be benefits of Baptism. But immediately
proceeds the Catechism, to speak of that very repent
ance and faith, as "required in persons grown m
years before they be baptized." But certainly such
repentance and faith cannot exist where there is no
" newness of life." And yet " neivness of life" was
before said to be given us of God in Baptism, to
gether with remission of sins. Here then is the ap
parent contradiction. Newness of life granted in
Baptism, and yet required as a preparation for Bap
tism. But there can be no newness of life without
being born again of the Holy Ghost — spiritually re
generate. Therefore we have it in substance stated
that "by Baptism we are born again" and yet before
Baptism and for it, we are required to be born again.
How can these things be? Certainly there is no real
contradiction. But where lies the explanation? Ox
ford Divinity can furnish none, since it supposes the
faith that precedes Baptism to be not living because
unbaptized, and so of course there is no spiritual new
ness of life. It is therefore essentially contradictory
to the language we are attempting to explain. Where
then is the solution? Why most manifestly in the
recollection of the difference between the sacramental
and the spiritual; between receiving the body and
blood of Christ (the inward and spiritual grace of the
Lord's Supper) sacramentally or merely by the signs,
which the wicked do, to their condemnation; and
receiving the same spiritually, by faith of the heart,
as the righteous do, and are nourished to their soul's
health; between receiving "the washing of Regen
eration" sac7-amentally, in the outward emblem of

427
Baptism, and spiritually in the faith of a contrite
heart. Thus when wc speak sacramentally, it is
right to say of those in general who are baptized,
that in Baptism they are born of God, because then
the profession of newness of life is made; then, the
seal of the Church is set upon that profession ; then
the promises of God to those who embrace them are
visibly pledged and assured; then the man is re
ceived into visible fellowship of the household of
faith, and communion with the people of God, Then
therefore his Christian life as one of the children of
God, visibly and professedly begins. It could not
be known and recognized and spoken of by the
Church till then, though before God it was indeed
begun. Most properly therefore is he said by the
Church, speaking in reference to her Sacraments, to
have then, in Baptism, received of God " remissio7i
qf sins and newness of life," precisely as in the de
livery of a deed, a man is said to have received the
conveyance of an estate, which he has been long en
joying, and of which before God he has long been
the rightful owner.
Now that such is the meaning of the apparently
contradictory language of the Church, as expressed
by the Catechism in review, will be manifest from
a few citations.
In answer to the question : " Do all generally and
without difference receive this grace ?" (viz: of Bap
tism) it is answered :
" The only faithful receive this fruit ; but the unbelieving in refus
ing the promises offered them by God, shut up the entry against
themselves and go away empty. Yet do they not thereby make
that the Sacraments lose their force and efficacy."

428
So then we see that Baptism loses not its force
and efficacy even where the receiver goes away
empty. Why? Because its force and efficacy, as a
sacrament, are those of a visible sign and seal. These
the unbeliever can receive, as truly as a believer,
though to his greater condemnation. If the "force
and efficacy" consisted in a spiritual regeneration
and justification, how could the language of the
above citation be explained ? But again, "the only
faithful receive this fruit." What fruit? The con
text says regeneration and the forgiveness of si7is.
But who are the faithful? This word is exclusively
used in the Catechism for the possessors of a living
faith, as for example: "The true faith goeth further.
For thus far not only ungodly men, but also the very
devils do believe; and therefore neither are they in
deed faithful, nor are so called." So that only they
who come to Baptism with a living faith, receive re
generation and remission of sins. But even Oxford
Divines will not pretend that living faith can be
where regeneration and justification are not. So
that it comes to this, that only those do receive
regeneration and remission, in Baptism, who have re
ceived them before. What can be the meaning, but
that while the unbaptized adult, who truly repents
and believes, is before God, spiritually regenerate and
justified, so that, were he to die in that state, without
any sinful neglect of Baptism, he would enter into
full coramunion with the Israel of God, in the Church
on high ; yet in regard to the fellowship of the visi
ble Church on earth, he cannot be treated as regene
rate and justified till he has received the sacramen
tal sign and seal, and made the visible profession of

429
regeneration and remission of sins. To him, in re
ceiving that sign and seal of God's favour towards
the true believer, there will be given the witnessing
Spirit, and grace to deepen his repentance and con
firm his faith, so as to make the visible Sacrament
fruitful, in a sense in which the ungodly cannot par
take, though to them the Sacraments, not designed
for them, yet in respect to their nature as signs and
pledges, "lose not their force and efficacy,"
Now let us, with these thoughts in remembrance,
quote a little more of the Catechism under review.
" Ma. Do we not obtain forgiveness of sins by the outward wash
ing of water?
" Schol. No. For only Christ hath with his blood washed and
clean washed away the spot of our souls. This honour therefore it
is unlawful to give to the outward element. But the Holy Ghost,
as it were, sprinkling our consciences wilh that holy blood, wiping
away all the spots of sin, maketh us clean before God. Of this
cleansing of our sins we have a seal and pledge in the Sacrament.'
Here the Sacrament has assigned to it no connec
tion with the reraission of sins but as "a seal and
pledge." Thus it is that by seal and pledge God, in
that ordinance, "delivereth unto us forgiveness of
sins and newness of life." And therefore, in answer
to the question, why God would have us use sacra
mental signs, the highest efficacy assigned to the
Sacraments is expressed in the following extract:
" By this mean therefore God hath provided for our weakness,
that we which are earthly and blind, should in outward elements and
figures, as it were in certain glasses, behold the heavenly graces,
which otherwise we were not able to see. And greatly for our be
hoof it is, that God's promises should be so presented to our senses,
that they may be confirmed to our minds without doubting,
" The Lord did furthermore ordain his mysteries lo this end, that
they should be certain marks and tokens of our profession : whereby.

4.30
we should, as it were, bear witness of our faith before men, and
should plainly show that we are partakers of God's benefits with the
rest of the godly, and that we have all one concord and consent of
religion wilh them, and should openly testify, that we are not
ashamed of the name of Christians, and to be called the disciples of
Christ. "To lighten and give bright clearness to men's minds and souls,
and lo make their consciences quiet and in security, as they be in
deed, so ought they to be accounted the proper work of the Holy
Ghost alone, and to be imputed to him, and this praise not to be
transferred to any other. But this is no impediment but that God
may give to his mysteries the second place in quieting and slablish-
ing our minds and consciences, but yet so that nothing be abated
from the virtue of his Spirit; wherefore we must determine that
the outward element hath neiiher of itself nor in itself inclosed the
force and efficacy ofthe sacrament, but that the same wholly floweth
from the Spirit of God, as out of a spring head, and is by the divine
mysteries which are ordained by the Lord for this end, conveyed
unto us.
" Whereas by nature we are the children of wrath, that is, stran
gers from the Church, which is God's household. Baptism, is as it
were, a certain entry by which we are received into the Church,
whereof we also receive a most substantial testimony, that we are
now in the number of the household, and also of the children of God ;
yea, and that we are joined and grafted into the body of Christ, and
become his members, and so grow into one body wilh him.
" As the uncleannesses of the body are washed away with water,
so the spots ofthe soul are washed away by forgiveness of sins. The
beginning of regeneration, that is, the mortifying of our nature, is
expressed by dipping in the water or sprinkling of it. Finally, when
we by and by rise up again out of the water, under which we be for
a short time, the new life, which is the other part, and the end of our
regeneration, is thereby represented." — Nowell's Catechism.
The Catechism above quoted appeared in the time
of Archbishop Whitgift, under the approval of the
Convocation, and the sanction of the Archbishops and
Bishops. Whitgift, in particular, (see next chap.)
commended it as of eminent value. In connection

431
with it therefore we will give the opinions of that
learned divine, expressed in circumstances which re
quired unusual care and accuracy.
The following passages from his Defence against
Cartwrigbt contain evidence of the doctrine of the
Sacraments, as held in the Church of England, in
that age, the more conclusive against the views of
Oxfordism, because the Archbishop was defending
the Church against the accusation of the Puritans,
that she made too much of the outward Sacraments.
Had it been the doctrine of the Church as then held
that Baptism does ipso facto really and substantially
regenerate and justify, how as an honest man could
he have avoided its plain declaration. He defines the
Sacraments as follows :
" Sacraments in the proper signification be mystical signs where
by he keepeth in man's memory and sometimes renewelh his large
benefits bestowed on his Church, whereby also he sealeth or assur-
eth his promises and sheweth outwardly, and as it were layeth before
our eyes, those things to behold, which inwardly he worketh in us."
What does he work in us?
" Yea by them he slrenglheneth and increaselh our failh, by the
Holy Ghost working in our hearts,"
Thus a true and living faith is supposed to be in
our hearts before Baptism,
" And to be short, by his Sacraments, he separatelh us from all
other people, consecrating us and binding us to him only, and signi
fieth what he requireth of us to be done," — p. 618,
Then when the opponent had said that the doc
trine of the Church " attributed to the sign that ivhich
is proper to the 7Vork of God in the blood of Christ,"
Whitgift being now called to a full declaration of
sacramental doctrine, answers :
" You know very well that we teach far otherwise, and that it is
a certain and true doctrine of all such as profess the gospel that the

432
outward signs of the Sacrament do not contain in them grace, nei
ther yet that the grace of God is of necessity lied unto them, but only
that they be seals of God's promises, notes of Christianity, testimo
nies and effectual signs ofthe grace of God and of our redemption in
Christ Jesus, by the which the Spirit of God doth invisibly work in
us, not only the increase of faith, but the confirmation also."
Here is no new-creature or regeneration of faith to
make it alive, but only its increase.
" Y'ou have learned that there is such a similitude between the
signs and the thing signified that they are in Scripture usually called
by the names of those things whereof they be Sacraments, as bread,
the body of Christ, and water, regeneration — and therefore Christ
saith, ' Except a man be born of water,' &c.
"These things being considered it is no superstitious toy but a
godly and true saying ihat Christ hath sanctified all water used in
Baptism lo the mystical washing away of sin, nol ascribing washing
away of sin lo external element any otherwise than instrumentally
or in any other respect than for the similitude that Sacraments have
with the things whereof ihey be Sacraments : for we know that wick
ed men may receive these external signs and yet remain the mem
bers of Satan." — p. 738.
Thus does Whitgift deliver the highest doctrine of
the efficacy ofthe Sacraments in his day. He takes
it for granted, all the way, that the adult coming to
Baptism has the faith of the heart or a justifying
Faith. He ascribes no further operation to the grace
of Baptism than the increase and confirmation of
such faith. Oxford Divines could not have written
so, especially in answer to Puritans.
The book of Haddon, against Osorius, in the age of
Elizabeth, is called by Strype a State Book, and said
by him to have been next to Jewel's Apology, an
authentic vindication of the Anglican Reformation.
See next Chapter under head of Fox against Osorius.
" You say our divines do place naked images instead of sacra
ments. How naked, my lord, I pray you? We do agree with St.

433
Augustine, that sacraments are signs of holy things; or thus, that
sacraments are visible signs of invisible grace. I trust you will per
mit me the sameliberty of words, which you use to lake to yourself.
We do grant, that we are by baptism regenerate to eternal life ; we
do also yield, that in the holy eommunion our Lord Jesus is truly
received ofthe faithful in Spirit by failh ; whereby it appeareth, that
our divines do not account the sacraments as bare naked signs, but
for things most effectual, rnost holy, and things most necessarily ap
pertaining to our comfort; they be sacred mysteries of our religion ;
they be assured pledges of heavenly grace ; and yet God the Father,
which made us of clay, is not tied to his workmanship, nor bound to
his creatures ; ' but taketh mercy of whom he will have mercy, and
forgivefh our sins for his own sake' (Exod. xxxii, Rom. ix), not for
the sacrament's sake,
" Lastly, ' Life everlasting is the giftof God through Jesus Christ'
(Rom, vi), not through operation of th6 sacraments. And therefore
we do refuse and detest such naked and falsely-forged images, as
dreams of your own drowsy brains, and use the true sacraments as
most sacred things, as pledges of our faith, and seals of our salva
tion ; and yet we do not attribute so much unto them, as though by
the means of them the grace of God must of necessity be poured out
upon us, by the works wrought, as through conduit pipes. This
impiety, we turn over to your schoolmen, the very first springs of
this poison. 'For inheritance is given of faith according to grace'
(RoiTi. iv).
" The sacraments are reverend signs of God's grace unto us, are
excellent monuments of our religion, are most perfect witnesses of
our salvation. If you canliot be satisfied with these commendations
of the sacraments, heap you yp more unto' them at your choice, we
shall be well pleased withal, so that you bind not the grace of God to
the signs of very necessity. For we are not saved by^the receiving of
these sacraments : ' But if we confess wilh our mouth our Lord Jesus
Christ, and wilh our hearts believe that God raised him again from
death' (Rom. x), this confession only will save us."
The force of these passages from Nowell's Cate
chism and the contemporaneous divines, Whitgift
and Haddon, is greatly illustrated and strengthened
by the following declaration of John Frith, one of
55

431
the most learned Reformers of the Marian age. They
are taken from his Mirror of Baptism, and being writ
ten expressly against the sacramental doctrines of
the Romish Church, are the more to our present pur
pose. On the baptism of Cornelius and his friends
he says :
" Here you may see, that as the Spirit of God lighteth where he
will, neiiher is he bound to any thing. Yea, and this example doth
well declare unto us, that the Sacraments are given to be an outward
witness unto the congregation of that grace which is given before
privately unto every man." "Baptism tothe adult is an outward
sign of his invisible faith which was before given him of God," " It
giveth not grace, but doth testify unto the congregation that he which
is baptized had such grace given him before," " He is not a Chris
tian man which is washed with water; neither is that baptism {effec
tually) which is outward in the flesh ; but that is the very baptism
which God alloweth, to be baptized spiritually in the heart, that is to
subdue and weed out the branches of sin, &c., of which our baptism
is but a sign. And there are many, I doubt not, which are thus
spiritually baptized, although their bodies touch no water, as there
were Gentiles thus spiritually circumcised," "Thus is St. Paul to
be understood when he sailh, 'All ye that are baptized into Christ,
have put on Christ ;' that is, you have promised to die with Christ
as touching your sins and wordly desires past, and to become new
men, or new creatures or members of Christ. This have we all
promised unto the congregation, and it is represented in our baptism ;
for this cause it is called of Paul the fountain of the new birth and
regeneration, because it signifieth that we will indeed renounce and
utterly forsake our old liR- — vea, it is a common phrase to call the
Holy Ghost water and fire, because these two elements express so
lively his purging operation."
"If thou be baptized a thousand times with water, and have no
faith, it availeth thee no more towards God, than it doth a goose
when she duckeih herself under the water Therefore if thou wilt
obtain the profit of baptism, thou must have faith, that is thou must
be surely persuaded that thou art new born again — and that thy sins
be not imputed thee, but forgiven through the blood and passion of

43.')
Christ. This faith have neither the devils, neiiher yet the wicked."
" Besides that baptism is an outward figure or witness unto the
congregation of the invisible promise given before by grace unto
every private man, and by it doth the congregation receive him open
ly, to be counted one of them, which was first received hyf , h, ir
through the grace ofthe promise; also it putteth in remembrance,
&c, — otherwise it giveth no grace, neither hath it any secret virtue."
— John Frith's Declaration of Baptism, Russell's Ed. pp. 285 —
292. Precisely according to the doctrine, of the above
citations is that of the eminent Reformer and holy
Martyr, Bishop Hooper. In his " Confes.sion of
Christian Faith," he speaks of " three principal signs
and marks" ofthe true Church, viz: "the word, the
sacraments and discipline." As to the efficacy of
the Word and Sacraments he puts the former at least
upon a level with the latter, Ofthe Word, meaning,
he says, that which is " contained within the canonical
books ofthe Old and New Testaments," he says:
" By the which word we are made clean, and thereby do receive
the selfsame thtng, and as much as we do by ihe Sacraments; that
is to say, Jesus Christ by his word, which is the word of faith ; who
giveth and communicateth himself unto us, as well as by the Sacra
ments, albeit it be by another manner and fashion."
Far from making the Traditions of the Church of
concurrent authority with the word, Hooper says
"I believe that the same word of God is of a far
greater authority than the Church" Far from think
ing that word should be preached with reserve and
that men should rather be referred to the creeds of
the Church, than to it. He says:
" I believe that the reading of the same word and Gospel ought
not, neither can it be prohibited and forbidden from any manner of
person, what estate, sortjor condition soever the same be of; but it
ouo-ht to be common unto all the world. And therefoi'e Antichrist

436
and his members do e.\ercise great and cruel tyrany upon the faith
ful children of God, in that they take from them and utterly do for
bid them to read the same word, and instead thereof, set before them
dreams, lies, canons, and damnable Irad'itions."
Then of the Sacraments avhich he has already
said do communicate Christ only as does the Word
but " in another 7nan7ier and fashion," he writes :
" I believe the Holy Sacraments to be the signs of the reconcilia
tion and great atonement made between God and us, through Jesus
Christ. They are seals of the Lord's promises, and are outward
and visible pledges and guages of the inward faith — not void and
empty signs but full: that is to, say, they are not only signs, where
by something is signified, but also they are such signs as do exhibit
and give the thing thai they signify indeed.
" I believe that Baptism is the sign of the new league and friend
ship between God and us, made by Jesus Christ ; and it is the mark
of Christians, now in the time of the Gospel, as in time past. Cir
cumcision was a mark unto the Jews which were under the law. Yea
Baptism is an outward washing done with water, thereby signifying
an inward washing ofthe Holy Ghost wrought through the blood of
Christ. I believe also that baptism is the entry of the Church, a
washing unto a new birth, and a renewing of the Holy Ghost, where
by we do forsake ourselves, the devil, the flesh, sin and the world,"*
Also in Hooper's other Tracts entitled " A Godly
Confession and Protestation of the Christian Faith,"
and dedicated to Edward VI. , we read :
"Of Baptism, because il is the mark of our Christian Church, this
1 judge, that it is a seal and confirmation of justice or of our accep
tation into the grace of God, For Christ's innocency and justice,
by faith" (not by Baptism) " is ours and our sins and' injustice, by his
obedience are his whereof baptism is the sign and seal and confirma
tion. For although freely by the grace of God our sins are forgiven,
yet the same is declared by the gospel, received by faith and sealed
by the sacraments,"^ &c.
' Hooper's Confession of Christian Faith — in Fathers of the English Church,
vol. v.pp. 459—463. = Fathers, &c, pp, 220, 221, See also the same
doctrine in Tyndale in Fathers ofthe English Church, v, p, 277,

437
The Reader will compare these last words, " re
ceived by faith and sealed by the Sacraments'' with
those of Mr. Newman, adopted by Dr. Pusey, in
conformity with Rome. " Justification comes through
the Sacraments, is received by faith." What then
Bishop Hooper considers to be only signed, sealed
and confirmed by the Sacraments, Oxford Divinity
makes to come through the Sacraraents and in no
other way. In Bishop Hooper's " Declaration of
Christ," we read again :
" Although Baptism be a Sacrament lo be received and honour
ably used of all men, yet it sanct'ifieth no man. And such as at
tribute the remission of sins unto the external sign do offend. This
new life cometh not until such time as Christ be known and received.
Now to put on Christ is to live a new life. Such as be baptized
must remember that faith and repentance precede this external sign,
and in Christ, the purgation was inwardly obtained, before the ex
ternal sign was given. So that there are two kinds of baptism and
both necessary. The one inferior which is the cleansing of the
heart, the drawing of the Father, the operation of the Holy Ghost ;
and this baptism is in man, when he believeth and trusteth that
Christ is the only actor of his salvation."
No words could more plainly express that the bap
tisra of the Holy Ghost, where there is the repent
ance and faith required of the catechumen, precedes
the baptism of water. Of the latter, says Hooper, im
mediately after: " Though it have no power to purge
from sin, yet it confirmeth the purgation of sin, and
the act of itself pleaseth God, because the receivers
thereof obey the will of his commandment." Then,
to illustrate how truly one who repents and believes
before Baptism is a child of God, born of the spirit
and justified in Christ, and how the addition of the
sacramental regeneration and remission is only the
addition ofthe symbol, the giving of the ring to the

438
Abbot or the staff to the Magistrate, as St. Bernard
says. Hooper proceeds :
"Like as the King's IVIajesty that now is, immediately after the
death of his father, was the true and legitimate heir of England, and
received his Coronation, not to make' hiinscif thereby king, but to
manifest that the kingdom appertained unto him before. He took
the crown lo confirm his right and title. Though this ceremony
confirm and manifest a king in his kingdom, yet it maketh not a
King. The babe in the cradle hath as good a right and claim, and
is as true a king inthis cradle uncrowned, as his father was, though
he reigned a crowned king forty years. So it is in the Church of
Christ ; man is made the brother of Christ and heir of eternal life by
God's only mercy, received by faith, before he receive any cere
mony to confirm and manifest openly his right and title. Thus as
sured of God and cleansed from sin in Christ, he hath the livery of
God given unto him. Baptism, the which no Christian should neglect ;
and yet not attribute his sanctification unto the external sign."'
As to the identity of the Sacraments of the Old and
New Testaments, as to all spiritual efficacy. Bishop
Hooper says :
" As for those that say circumcision and baptism be like, and yet
attribute the remission of original sin to baptism, which was never
given to circumcision, they not only destroy the nmililude and
equality that should be betu-een them, but also lake from Christ re
mission of sin and translate it unto the water and element of bap
tism."^ "T believe that the holy fathers. Patriarchs, Prophets, and
all the faithful and good people that are gone before us, and have
died in the failh, through the word and faith, saw Him beforehand,
which was lo come.^, and received as much and the same thing that
we receive by the sacraments. For ihey icere of the self same
Church, faith, and law that we be of. They were as well Chris
tians as we, and used the same sacraments in figure, that we use in
truth."' The necessary precedence of spiritual regeneration.

' Fathers of the English Church, vol, v. pp, 168-170, 2 Confession
of Faith, Fathers of lhe Enghsh Church, vol, v, p, 222, 3 j(,. p. 467.

439
before Baptism, where the required preparation in
the adult is complied with, is thus stated by Dr.
Hammond, in his Practical Catechism, one of the
writers whom Oxford Divines are specially fond of
quoting. Of Repentance, required before Baptisra,
he says itis "A change of mind or a conversion from
sin to God. Not sorae one bare act of change, but
a lasting durable state of new life, which I told you
was called also regeneration." Then when the
scholar asks : " But is not regeneration an act of
new birth?" he answers:
" Not only thai, but it is also the state of new life, (called the new
creature,) living a godly life, &c. For the scripture phrase, to be
regenerate, or born again, or from above, is all one with being a
child of God."^
Thus does this great writer not only discard the
distinction so insisted on by the advocates of baptisraal
regeneration in the raost literal sense, between re
generation and renovation, but expressly pronounces
that spiritual regeneration, or new birth, does go
before Baptism, in every case in which there is re
pentance before Baptism,
We have completed what we have now to say
on baptisraal justification. We have showed that
the Oxford doctrine of the opus operatum, the abso
lute tying of Justification to Baptisra, so that where
the latter is not, the other cannot be, and where Bap
tisra is, there Justification must be, except there be
the impediraent of downright hypocrisy or infidelity,
while it is precisely the doctrine of Rome, is not the
doctrine of the Anglican Church, whose language in
her standard documents, as well as that of her stand-
I Hammond's Works, vol. l.p. 19.

440
ard writers not only may be otherwise interpreted,
but must be or they do seriously contradict thera
selves. It has appeared also that not only is there in every
adult prepared for Baptism, the reality of spiritual
regeneration and remission of sins; but that there
may be, in Baptism, the reality of sacramental re
generation and remission without the spiritual.
In having showed this, concerning adult Baptism,
it has necessarily been showed concerning infant
Baptism, since there is not a line in the Scriptures
nor in the articles or other standard documents of
the Church, in regard to the spiritual efficacy of
the one which does not alike refer to the other.
And indeed the true way to get at the nature and
benefits of infant Baptism is to begin with that of
adults, and reason through the latter to the former,
since it is to the class of adult Baptism that all the
cases specifically mentioned in the Scriptures belong.
The language ofthe New Testament was construct-
ed with reference to adult Baptism, which was al
most exclu.sively witnessed in the first conversions to
Christianity. To adult Baptism, it would have to be
again applied, were the Gospel to be now success
fully preached to all nations.
Were we writing a full account of Baptism we
should not cease till we had gone far into the great
value of Infant Baptism to Families, to the Church, and
to the children individually ; we should speak strong
ly of the great need of a much higher and more
solemn sense of the privileges and duties of Parents,
in regard to their children in this respect ; we should
urge more faith in God's blessing in the Baptism of

441
our children, and as a consequence of it, after their
Baptism, if we duly wait upon him therefor. We
should preach that the remedy of the present lament
able deficiency in duty would be, not in a higher sense
of the efficacy of the Sacrament itself, but of its obli
gation and privilege as an appointed and precious
divine mode of bringing little children to Christ, put
ting them into his arms, supplicating his blessing
upon them, consecrating them to his service, express
ing our determination to seek for them first the King
dom of God and his righteousness, and signing and
sealing their membership in the Commonwealth of
Israel, And all this, we should conclude with a solemn
caution against such an idolatry of the Sacrament of
Baptism, such a resting upon the outward seal, such
identification of the spiritual grace wilh its visible
sign, such a losing of the real nature of spiritual
Regeneration in our zeal the honour of its type and
shadow, as is shown in Oxford Divinity, to the great
peril of immortal souls, and the certainty, should that
system be carried out, of substituting a religion of
mere ritual, for that which makes us "worship God
in the Spirit and rejoice in Christ Jesus and put no
confidence in the flesh."
In concluding this chapter we would direct the at
tention of the reader to the abridgment of some parts
of the admirable sermon of the well known Bishop
Hojokins, of Raphoe, on the Doctrine of Baptism, con
tained in the annexed note. "
^ BISHOP HOPKINS ON THE DOCTRINE OF BAPTISM.
"To be sanctified, imports, in the proper signification ofit, no other than lo
be appointed, separated, or dedicated to God.
56

442
" There are two ways of dedication unto God, whereby his title takes place,
and what is so devoted becomes his,
" The one external, by men, as in the instances before cited ; whereby there
was no change at all wrought in the nature of the thing thus dedicated, but
only a change in the relation and propriety ofit,
" The other dedication is internal, and wrought by God himself. And thus
he is said to separate or dedicate persons to himself, when by the effectual ope
ration of the Holy Ghost upon them, he endows them with those habits which
enable them to do him service.
" As there is this twofold dedication or separation, so there is also a twofold
sanctification, " There is an external, relative, or ecclesiastical sanctification, which is no
thing else, but the devoting or giving up a thing or person unto God, by those
who have a power so to do.
" There is an internal, real, and spiritual sanctification ; and in this sense, a
man is said to be sanctified when the Holy Ghost doth infuse into his soul the
habits of divine grace, and maketh him partaker of the divine nature, whereby
he is inwardly qualified to glorify God in a holy Ufe,
" In applying this distinction to Baptism, and to show you how it is that
Baptism doth sanctify, I shall lay down these following propositions.
1, " Baptism is the immediate means of our external and relative sanctifi
cation unto God.
" By this Holy Sacrament, al! that are partakers ofit are dedicated and sepa
rated unto him.
"There are, if 1 may so express it, but two regiments of men; the one is of
the World, the other is of the Church, And, in one of these, all mankind are
listed and do march,
"This Church of Christ may be considered, either as visible or invisible.
The visible Church of Christ on earth, is a sort of people who profess the name
of Christ and own his doctrine ; joining together in a holy Society and commu
nion of worship, where it can be enjoyed. The invisible Church of Christ on
earth, is a number of true believers, who have internal and invisible communion
with Jesus Christ, by their faith and his spirit. The Visible Church is of a
much larger extent than the Invisible ; for it comprehends hypocrites and too
many ungodly persons; yea, all those who have given up their names unto
Christ, and make a visible profession of his doctrine, though by their lives and
practices they deny it. And therefore the Church, which is frequently in Scrip
ture called the Kingdom of Heaven, is compared to a net cast into the sea,
gathering of every kind of fish, both good and bad ; Mat. xiii. 47, both sorts
are embraced in the bosom of this net, and no separation can ordinarily be made,
until it be drawn ashore at the Day of Judgment; and then the good shall be
gathered into vessels, and the bad cast away, as it is there expressed.
" The World, out of which this Church of Christ is taken, is the whole com
pany of those persons who belong unto the Devil, the God of this World.

443
" AU that are of the Visible Church of Christ Jesus, are taken out of the
World, so that it may truly be said of them, that they are not of the World,
"Hence it follows, that all those who are members of the Visible Church,
may truly be called Saints, and members of Christ, and the children and people
of God; because, by being taken into the Church, they are taken out of the
World ; and so become God's portion, and the lot of his inheritance, Deut, 32,
9, The Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is tlie lot of his inheritance. Not
that they are all so in an internal, spiritual, and saving manner ; would to God
they were ! and that all that are of Israel were of Israel ! as the Apostle speaks,
Rom. 9, 6, but only, because, though many of them are hypocrites, and many
more profane ; yet they may have these titles from the external relation where
in they new stand to Christ, by making profession ofhis name and religion.
" I look upon lhe Christian Church, now under the times of the Gospel, to
be in the same capacity, and to stand in the same relation towards God as the
Jewish Church did under the Law, But, clear it is, that in the most corrupt
slate of the Jewish Church, God still owned them for his people; Jer, 4, 22.
' My people is foolish ;' ' they have not kno-wn me ;' and Isaiah 1. 3, 4. " My
people doth not consider.' ' Ah ! sinful nation, a people laden -with iniquities,
a seed of evil doers !' And yet, notwithstanding these great complaints of
their universal wickedness, as you find throughout that whole chapter, yet are
they God's people ; and yet ' a people laden -with iniquity.' My children ; and
yet ' a seed of evil doers, cluldren that are corrupters'
"Yea, and in the New Testament we find sanctification and holiness as
cribed to those who were never otherwise Sanctified than by their external
separation from the world, and profession of the doctrine of Christ. St, Paul
directs his Epistles to the whole Church of Corinth, as to Saints; ' To them
that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, and called to be Saints;' 1 Cor, 1, 2, and
it was the common beginning of all his Epistles, Yet were there some in thia
Church of Corinlh, that had not the knowledge of God, that denied the resur
rection, and were grossly guilty of foul and flagitious crimes ; as he himself
witnesseth against them, and for which he sharply reproves them in that Epis -
tie; Saints they are called, only because they were visible Church members,
and made a profession of the Christian faith and name,
" Again, to be members of the Church Visible is sutficient to style men mem
bers of Christ, So our Saviour himself speaks of some branches in him that
bear not fruit, John 15, 2, and so Rom, 11, 17, the branches of the true olive
are said to have been broken off, and others engrafted in their stead. Certainly
this Vine, and this Olive, is Christ; and these barren, and therefore broken
branches, are members of his Body ; not indeed living members united unto him
by the band of a saving faith, whereby they might draw sap and nourishment
from him, for such shall never be broken off, nor burnt ; but yet they are in
Christ, and belong unto Christ, as his members by an ecclesiastical or political
incision, as they are parts and members of the Visible Church,
" And thus I suppose, I have made it sufficiently clear unto you, that all who

444
are taken out of the World into the Visible Church of Christ, may, according to
the phrase and expressions of Scripture, be called Saints, the Children and
People of God, and members of Chiist,
" But, to bring this home to our present subject of Baptism; from all this it
evidently follows, that those who are baptized, may, in this ecclesiastical and
relative sense, be truly called Saints, the Children of God, and Members of
Christ ; and thereupon, ' Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven,'
" Doubtless, so far forth Baptism is a means of Sanctification, as it is the
solemn admission of persons into the Visible Church ; as it separates them frora
the World, and from all false religions in it, and brings them out of the Visible
kingdom of the Devil into the Visible kingdom of Jesus Christ, For, if all, that
are admitted into the Visible Church, are thereby, as I have proved to you, dig
nified with the title of Saints and the Children of God ; then by Baptism, which
is the solemn way of admitting them into the Church, they may, with very
good reason, be said to be made Saints, the Children of God, and Members of
Christ, But this is only a relative Sanctity, not a real; and many such Saints
and Sanctified men there are, who shall never enter into heaven, but by their
wicked lives, forfeit and lose that blessed inheritance to which they are called.
Many there are who are Saints, by their separation from Paganism and Judaism
into fellowship with the Visible Church ; but they are not Saints by their sepa
ration from wicked and ungodly men into a Spiritual fellowship with Christ.
And yet, to such Saints as these, all the Ordinances of the Church are due,
till, for their notorious wickedness, they be cut off from that body, by the due
execution of the Sentence of ex-communication. Such a Baptismal Regenera
tion as this is, must needs be acknowledged by all, that will not wilfully shut
their eyes against the clear evidence of Scripture ; from which I have before
brought plentiful proofs to confirm it. Yet let me add one more, and that shall
be. Gal. iii. 36, 27. ' Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus'
i. e, by believing and professing his doctrine; -For as many of you, (saith the
Apostle,) as have been baptized into Christ^ i, e. baptized into the religion of
Christ, and in his name, ' have put on Christ,' i, e, have professed him, and
thereby put upon yourselves his name, being called Christians ; and this putting
on of Christ in Baptism, the Apostle makes a ground to assert them to be all
the children of God. But still it must be remembered, that this Sanctification,
Regeneration, and adoption, conferred upon us at our admission into the Visi
ble Church, is external and ecclesiastical,
" And thus much forthe First Position, that Baptism is a means of our Exter
nal and Relative Sanctification unto God ; because, by it, we are separated from
the Visible Kingdom of the Devil, and brought into the Visible Kingdom of
Christ, and are devoted by vow and covenant unto the service of God,
2, •¦ Another Position is this. That Baptism is not so the means of an internal
and real Sanctification, as if all, to -whom it is administered, -were thereby
spiritually rene-wed, and made partakers of the Holy Ghost in his saving
graces.

445
" Though an external ecclesiastical Sanctification be effected by Baptism, ex
opere operato, by the mere administration of that Holy Sacrament; yet so is
not an internal and habitual Sanctification ; and that, whether we respect adult
Persons or Infants.
" The Baptismal Regeneration of infants is external and ecclesiastical.
They are regenerated, as they are incorporated into the Church of Christ ; for
this is called Regeneration, Mat. xix, 28. ' Ye, -which have folio-wed me in the
Hegeneraton  shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the t-welve
tribes of Israel,' where, though some read the words otherwise, in the Regene
ration ye shall sit upon t-welve thrones, meaning thereby the Day of Judgment
and the last renewing of all things ; yet I see no enforcing necessity to alter the
common and usual reading. Ye, -which have folio-wed me in the Regeneration,
i, e, in planting my Church, which is the renewing of the World, And, there
fore the Apostle, 2 Cor, v. 17, saying, that ' oW^/un^s a?'e /)««««</ arKaj; 
all things are become ne-w,' is thought to allude unto the Prophet, Isaiah, Ixv,
17, * Behold I create ne-w heavens and a ne-w earth ; and the former shalt not
be remembered.' And this state of the Gospel was by the Jews, frequently call
ed ' The world to come,' and so likewise it is called by the Apostle, Heb, ii. 5,
' Unio the angels hath he not put in subjection the -world to come -whereof -we
speak.' To be admitted, therefore, by Baptism into the Church of Christ, is to
be admitted into the Slate of Regeneration, or the renewingof all things, called
therefore ' the Washing of Regeneration,' Tit, iii, 5,
" But how then are infants said, in Baptism, to be regenerated by the Holy
Spirit, if he doth not inwardly sanctify them in and by that ordinance ?
" I answer: Because the whole economy and dispensation of the Kingdom
of Christ is managed by the Spirit of Christ; so that those who are internally
Sanctified are regenerated by his effectual operation ; and those who are only
externally Sanctified, are regenerated by his public institution. Infants, there
fore, are in Baptism regenerated by the Holy Ghost, because the Holy Spirit of
God appoints this ordinance to receive them into the Visible Church, which is
the regenerate part and state of the world,
" That is the second Position, that Baptism is not so the means of Sanctifica
tion, that all, to whom it is administered, must thereby be made partakers of
the Holy Ghost in his Saving Graces.
3, " It is not so the means of Sanctification, as if none could be internally
and really sanctified, ivho are necessarrily deprived of that holy ordinaiice.
" Yea, indeed, all that are converted from other religions unto Christianity,
must first believe and make profession of that faith before they can be admitted
unto the Sacrament of Baptism; and doubtless, many thousands were by the
Apostles converted, not only to the Christian profession, but to a Christian and
holy life, before they were baptized,
" We well know, that in the primitive times, very raany did delay,their Bap
tism till their declining age, out of an erroneous opinion, that all voluntary sins
after Baptism were unpardonable ; and yet it would be very uncharitable to

446
judge, that none of these were sanctified and inwardly renewed by the Holy
Ghost. " Baptism, then, is not of such absolute necessity as a means, that none can
be saved without it ; neither doth our Saviour so assert it. For we must distin
guish, between being inevitably deprived of the opportunity of Baptism, and a
wilful contempt of it. And of this latter, must the Words of Christ be under
stood. He that contemns being born again of Baptism, and out of that con
tempt finally neglects it, shall never enter into the Kingdom of Godj but, for
others, who are necessarily deprived of that ordinance, the want of it shall not
in the least prejudice their salvation ; for it is a stated rule, Non absentia, sed
contemptus sacramentorum, reum facit,
4. " The last Position is this, that Baptism is an ordinary means appointed
by Christ for the real and effectual sanctification of his Church.
" For this is the great end of all Gospel Ordinances, that, through them, might
be conveyed that grace which might purify the heart and cleanse the life. And
though I do not affirm, that Baptism doth effect this in all to whom it is rightly
applied; yet this I do affirm and maintain, that there is no reason to doubt the
salvation of any, who, by this holy ordinance, are consecrated unto God, until,
by their actual and wilful sinning, they thrust away from them these benefits
which God intends them by it. And, indeed, whoso doth but seriously con
sider the vows that are upon him, and the solemn engagements which he hath
made to be the Lord's, will find a pressing force upon his soul, unless he be lost
to all modesty and ingenuity ; urging him really to fulfil what he hath so justly
and so sacredly promised ; no argument can be more prevalent to enforce a
holy life than when the Spirit of God shall bring home to our consideration the
oath that we have taken, to be God's, and to oppose all the enemies that oppose
his glory and our salvation ; when we shall be reminded that, so long as we
continue in a state of sin, we live in perjury, having given our most serious
promise to God, to yield obedience to his will and laws, and to live as becomes
his servants and soldiers," — Bishop Hopkins on the Doctrine of the Sacraments,

CHAPTER XI.
THE DOCTRINE OF OXFORD DIVINITY AS TO THE RIGHTEOUSNESS
OF JUSTIFICATION AND THE OFFICE OF FAITH, COMPARED WITH
THAT OP STANDARD DIVINES OP THE ANGLICAN CHURCH.
Majorities in such a question of no avail — Laud's testimony — Divines of the
17th Century especially relied on by the Oxford writers. — The same mainly
employed in this Chapter — Testimony of Oxford writers to the eminent au
thority of Hooker — His views acknowledged to be in entire opposition to
those ofihis divinity on Justification — Force of the confession — Singular at
tempt to escape its force — Citations frora Hooker — Tyndale — Barnes — Cran
mer — Bishop Hooper — Bishop Latimer — Edward VI, Catechism — Confes
sion of Martyrs and Divines in Prison — Nowell's Catechism — Haddon and
Fox against Osorius — Perkins — Bishop Downame — Bishop Andrews —
Mede — Bishop Hall — Bishop Nicholson — Archbishop Usher — Bishop Hop
kins — Bishop Beveridge.
Our Oxford writers, in appealing to the doctrines of
the Anglican Divines, as agreeing with their own,
speak of majorities. As for example : " The Angli
can doctrine (of justification) or that which we con
ceive to have been the teaching of a majority of our
Church."' Their own favourite, Archbishop Laud,
would have taught thera how little is gained in fa
vour of a doctrine when it has gained a majority.
Fisher the Jesuit pleaded majority. Laud answered :
"As for the number and worth of men, they are no
necessary concluders for truth. Not number ; for who
would be judged by the many? The time was when
the Arians were too many for the orthodox."^
The time may be when there shall hardly be
" found faith in the earth." The majority will be
' Pusey's Letter, p. 46. ^ Conference with Fisher, p, 303,

448
fearfully against it. But a faithful remnant will
stand fast in their noble minority. Who does not
know that one such name as that of Hooker is worth
ten thousand of lesser note in proof of the doctrines
of the Church in his day, and as handed down from
the Reformers? Who knows not that in the cjues-
tion, what is the doctrine of the Articles and Homi
lies of the Anglican Church, one plain testimony
frora Cranmer and his colleagues, by whom those
instruments were constructed is worth all that could
be collected from the writings of all the Non Jurors
of 1688, and of those their contemporaries whom our
Oxford Divines are so fond of quoting ?
In citing the Ancient Anglican Divines we shall
proceed on the principle of selection furnished in
Tract, No. 71, p. 29, where it is said that the Di
vines of the 17th Century are considered as distinct
ly propounding and supporting the doctrines of the
Fathers. " Nor could a more acceptable or impor
tant service be done to our Church at the present
moment, than the publication of some systematic in
troduction to theology, embodying and illustrating
the great and concordant principles and doctrines set
forth" by those divines. We take for granted that
this is meant only to place the divines of tliC 17th
Century in a place of preference as authorities, above
those of the following Century. Certainly it could
not have been intended that writers ofthe 16th Cen
tury, contemporaneous with the framers ofthe Articles
and Homilies, and some of them those framers them
selves, should not be considered as at least as good ex
pounders of those documents as men of a subsequent
period. If it be true that the Fathers who lived nearest

449
the Apostolic age are to be considered as worthy of
special deference when they testify to the doctrine of
the Apostles, for the same reason must we conclude
that in the question before us, a question of evidence,
(what doctrines were the Articles and Homilies con
sidered as teaching by those who framed them?) the
most direct appeal is to the writings of the age in
which they were constructed. Beginning therefore
with the Reformers we shall not descend lower than
those writers of the 17th Century whom the Oxford
Tracts have pronounced to be of such special value
in ascertaining the doctrines of the Church.
But there is one writer whose testimony may be
considered, as of such final authority upon this ques
tion, by the acknowledgment of Oxford divines them
selves, or of those who belong to that school, that
we might be justified in going no further than his
writings. We mean the judicious Hooker.
" Of honoured names (says Dr, Hook) the Church of England
holds none more highly in honour than thai of lhe judicious Hook-
er."i Adopting the language of Wordsworth the same
writer proceeds :
" Hooker may justly be regarded as the genuine lineal descend
ant of the most enlightened English Reformers; and possessing
learning equal lo any of them, wilh more opportunities of meditation
and the accumulated advantage of their labours and experience, he
may perhaps not improperly be considered as exhibiting in his writ
ings a model of the true, settled, most approved, mature and Catho
lic principles ofthe English Reformation. "'^
Now it is not pretended by Oxford Divines that
this most erainent authority was of the same mind
1 Call to Union, p. 70, » Wordsworth's Biography, iv, 269.
57

450
with themselves, on the question of justifying right
eousness, whether it be inherent or imputed. On this
fundamental point of their whole system it is granted,
in Mr. Keble's introduction to his late edition of
Hooker's works, and by Newman in the appendix to
his Lectures on Justification, that Hooker's senti
ments were contrary to theirs. But this confession
of Mr, Newman is worth a little attention. He quotes
from Hooker the following passage :
" The Romanists profess that ihey seek salvation no other way
than by the blood of Christ; and that humbly they do use prayers,
fastings, alms, failh, charity, sacrifice, sacraments, priests, only as
the means appointed by Christ, lo apply the benefit of His holy blood
unto them ; touching our good works, that in their own natures, Ihey
are not meritorious, nor answerable to the joys of heaven; it cometh
of the grace of Christ, and not of the work itself, that we have by
well doing a right lo heaven and deserve it worthily. If any man
think that I seek to varnish their opinions, to set the belter foot of a
lame cause foremost, let him know that since I began thoroughly to
understand their meaning, 1 have found their halting greater than
perhaps it seemeth lo them which know not the deepness of Satan,
as the Blessed Divine speaketh." § 33.
"This passage," (Mr. Newman says) "it must be
candidly confessed, is by implication contrary to the
sentiments maintained in the foregoing pages," i. e.
in his Lectures on Justification, the authentic voucher
for Oxfordism on that subject, according to Dr. Pusey.
Now what is the scope of this passage of Hooker.
He had been all along charging the Church of Rorae
with perverting the truth of Christ and overthrowing
the foundations of the Faith by making the justifica
tion of the sinner to rest upon the merits of his own
works ; and this he grounded not upon their express
pretence of meritorious obedience, but upon their

^l.)l
making justification to consist in a righteousness
within us, and therefore our own as much as our souls
are our own. " Then, in the above passage, he cites
their strong professions of not considering their own
works as meritorious, but of seeking all merit in
Christ. But they did not in the least diminish the
weight of Hooker's condemnation. Deny the ascrip
tion of merit to their own righteousness as they
pleased, he still regarded their system as founded on
the basis of a meritorious obedience. Therefore said
he, " I have found their halting greater than perhaps
it seemeth to them which know not the deepness of
Satan. If there were no other leaven in the lump of
their doctrine but this, this were sufficient to prove
that their doctrine is not agreeable to the foundation
of Christian faith." Renounce the idea of merito
rious obedience as they would, this leaven of our own
righteousness for justification, he considered the same
thing as acknowledging that " we have received the
power of me7'iting, by the blood of Christ," and thus
he regarded the Church of Rome as " an adversary
to the merits of Chi'ist."
Now it is where Hooker is expressing such strong
condemnation of Romanism, that he is confessed by
Mr. N. to be contrary to the sentiments of his Lec
tures, which is no less than the acknowledgment
that the whole stress of Hooker's Discourse on Justi
fication is contrary to his Lectures, since it is all up
on the same principle. Here then we have the con
fession that the words which Hooker wrote against
Romanism are applicable also to Oxfordism; that

' Disc, of Justif. % 6.

452
where he charges the doctrine of human merit upon
the Romish system, in spite of the declarations of
Romanists that they ascribe all raerit to Christ, he
would alike ascribe the same to the Oxford system,
in spite of the similar protestations of Oxford Divines,
inasmuch as in one system as well as the other, the
basis of Justification is our own righteousness. Con
sequently it is acknowledged that what Hooker said
of the Romish, he would equally say of the Oxford
doctrine, that ii perverts the truth of Christ; is "an
adversary to Christ's merits," and " overthroweth the
foundation of the Faith."
The mode by which Mr. Newman attempts to do
away the effect of Hooker's opposition, is too curious
not to be noticed. Having confessed the contrariety
of Hooker's doctrine, he says :
" It does not avail in the least as authority against them (those of
his own Lectures) for the following plain reason : because this great
author, in the very treatise in which he so speaks, confesses he is
not acquiescing in the theology of ihe early Church."
Now who would not suppose, from this bold asser
tion, that Hooker had indeed confessed that on the
subject of justification, (which is the whole Subject
of his Discourse, and especially of the passage alluded
to by Mr, N,) he is not in agreement with the an
cient and universal Church ? It is startling indeed
to hear such views of Hooker, so praised in other
places by these writers for his Catholic doctrines;
and when he is in the act of defending the doctrines
of a Church which, in her homily on justification,
expressly claims the consent of "all old and ancient
doctors qf Christ's Chu7'ch, both Greeks and Latins."
But one at first supposes there must be such a con-

453
fession, or Mr. N, would not have asserted it. The
reader will be amazed to see in what the confession
consists. The passage extracted frora Hooker, as
containing the confession, is the following:
"The heresy of free-will was a mill-stone about the Pelagians'
neck : shall we therefore give sentence of death inevitable against
all those Fathers in the Greek Church, which, being misdirected,
died in the error of free-will?"
Now by what process does Mr. N. make out from
this passage that Hooker plainly confessed that his
views of Justification were diverse from those of the
early Catholic Church? Thus:
" The doctrines (he says) of grace (free-will) and justification are
too closely connected to allow of a Treatise judging rightly of the
importance of questions concerning the latter, which is not to be fol
lowed in its view of the former."
The reasoning then is this : because Hooker con
sidered some Fathers of the Greek Church to be in
fected with errors concerning free-mill, therefore we
are to consider him as plainly confessing that he dif
fered with those Fathers concerning the righteous
ness of Justification. But Hooker speaks only of
sorae Greek Fathers. Yes, but Mr. N. says: "To
accuse a number of Greek Fathers of raistake, is to
accuse all." Well, but should we grant even that,
he only accuses the Greek Fathers, not the whole
Catholic Church. But, says Mr. N.: "To accuse
the Greek Fathers is virtually to oppose the whole
Catholic Church." It comes to this; to accuse some
of the Greek Fathers of error is to accuse the whole
Catholic Church of error. To confess that we differ
from sorae Greek Fathers on free-will, is a plain con
fession that we differ from the whole Catholic con-

454
sent, both Latin and Greek, on justification I Thus
the authority of Hooker, against Oxford doctrine, is
made of no account! Let us see how such reason-
iuff will answer ! It is common for the Tract Di-
vines to acknoAvledge some things to have been be
lieved by S07ne Fathers, and not by the whole Church;
and therefore to be not of Catholic verity. Thus
they accuse some Fathers of error. But to accuse
some, according to Mr. N. is to accuse all; therefore
their own opinions, where they are opposed to the
some, are opposed to all and of no manner of avail.
This is a singular illustration of what the Oxford
Doctrine of Tradition comes to, and what a nose of
wax it is when they find it convenient to elongate or
depress it, for the sake of ruling out of court an unac
ceptable witness.
Such then being the acknowledged doctrine, and
such the acknowledged eminence of Hooker's autho
rity, we will station our citations from him as a sort
of centre around which shall be assembled those of
the age immediately before him, such as we shall
produce from the 17th Century; thus obtaining the
evidence that, what Hooker so earnestly maintained
as the doctrine of the Anglican Church, was univer
sally received among the great lights of that Church,
from the Reformation to his day, and for a long time
after he had gone to his rest.
In all the passages to be produced in this Chapter,
the reader will note the bearing on the following fun
damental points.
1. That the righteousness by which we are Justi
fied before God is no other than the Righteousness
of Christ, external to us and imputed.

455
2. That the only mean whereby we apply, em
brace or apprehend that righteousness, is a hving
faith ; no external ordinance, no internal grace hav
ing any part with faith in its office of justifying.
3. That in this office, faith acts not as having in
itself any justifying virtue or quality, nor as it is but
a name for obedience and all religion, but only rela
tively and instrumentally, as the hand by which we
put on the righteousness of Christ.
With these points in view, we will cite frora
Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity; his Discourse on Jus
tification, and his Sermons on St. Jude.
THE JUDICIOUS hooker: eccl. POL.
"Thus we participate Christ, partly by impulation, as when those
things which he did and suffered for us are imputed unto us for
righteousness; partly by habitual and real infusion, &c. That
wherein we are partakers of Jesus Christ by imputation consisteth
in such acts and deeds of his, as could not have longer continuance
than while they were in doing, nor at that very time belong unio
any other, but to him from whom they come ; arid therefore, how
men, either then, or before, or since, should be made partakers of
them, there can be no way imagined, but only by imputation." —
Eccl. Pol. I. V. § 56.
HOOKER ON JUSTIFICATION.
" Christ hath merited righteousness for as many as are found in
him. In him God findeth us if we be faithful; for by faith we are in
corporated into Christ, Then, although in ourselves we be alto
gether sinful and unrighteous, yet even the man which is impious in
himself, full of iniquity, full of sin ; him being found in Christ through
faith, and having his sin remitted through Repentance; him God be
holdeth with a gracious eye, putteth away his sin by not imputing it,
taketh quite away the punishment due thereunto, by pardoning it,
and accepteth him in Jesus Christ, as perfectly righteous, as if he
had fulfilled all that was commanded him in the Law ; shall I say

456
more perfectly righteous, than if himself had fulfilled the whole
Law. I must lake heed what 1 say : but the Apostle sailh, God
made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made
the righteousness of God in him. Such we are in lhe sight of God
the Father, as is the very son of God himself. Let it be counted
folly, or frenzy, or fury, whatsoever, it is our comfort and our wis
dom : we care for no knowledge in the world but this, that man haih
sinned and God hath suffered; that God hath made himself the son
of man, and that men are raade lhe righteousness of God. You
see, therefore, that the Church of Rome, in leaching justification by
inherent Grace, doth pervert the truth of Christ; and that by the
hands ofthe Apostles we have received otherwise than she teacheth.
Now concerning the righteousness of sanctification, we deny it not
to be inherent; we grant that unless we work, we have it not; only
we distinguish it as a thing different in nature from the righteousness
of justification, we are righteous the one way by the failh of Abra
ham ; the other way, except we do the works of Abraham, we are
not righteous. Of the one, St, Paul, To him that worketh not, but
believeth, faith is accounted for righteousness; of the other, St.
John, Qui facit, justilian, Justus est. He is righteous which worketh
righteousness. Of the one, St. Paul doth prove by Abraham's ex
ample, that we have it of failh without works; of the other, St.
James by Abraham's example, that by works we have it, and not
only by faith. St. Paul doth plainly sever these two parts of Chris
tian righteousness one from the other. For in the sixth to the
Romans thus he writeth, Being freed from sin, and made servants
to God, ye have your fruit in holiness, and the end everlasting life.
Ye are made free from sin, and made servants unto God; this is
the righteousness of justification ; ye have your fruit in holiness;
this is the righteousness of sanctification. By the one we are in
terested in the right of inheriting ; by the other we are bronght to
the actual possession of eternal bliss, and so the end of both is ever
lasting life. § 6.
" We ourselves do not teach Christ alone, excluding our own
faith, unto justification ; Christ alone, excluding our own works, un
to sanctification ; Christ alone, excluding the one or the other un
necessary unto salvation. It is a childish cavil wherewith in the mat
ter of justification our adversaries do so greatly please themselves,

457
exclaiming, that we Iread all Christian virtues under our feet, and
require nothing in Christians but Failh ; because we leach that Faith
alone justifieth; whereas by this speech we never meant lo exclude
either Hope or Charity from being always joined as inseparable
males wilh Faith in the man that is justified ; or works from being
added as necessary duties, required at the hands of every justified
man ; but to show that Failh is the only hand which putteth on Christ
unto justification ; and Christ the only garment, which being so put
on, covereth the shame of our defiled natures, hideth lhe imperfec
tion of our works, preserveth us blameless in the sight of God, be
fore whom otherwise the weakness of our Faith were cause sufficient
to raake us culpable, yea, lo shut us from the kingdom of heaven,
where nothing that is not absolute can enter." § 31.
hooker's second SERMON ON ST. JUDE.
" It is true, we are full of sin both original and actual ; whosoever
denieth it is a double sinner, for he is both a sinner and a liar. To
deny sin is most plainly and clearly to prove it, because he that
saith, he hath no sin, lieth, and by lying proveth that he haih sin.
" But imputation of righteousness hath covered the sins of every
soul which believeth ; God by pardoning our sin hath taken it away:
so that now although our transgressions be multiplied above the
hairs of our head, yet being justified, we are as free and as clear as
if there were no spot or slain of any uncleanness in us. For it is
God that juslifielh ; And who shall lay any thing to the charge of
God's chosen ? sailh the Apostle in Rom. viii.
" Now sin being taken away, we are made the righteousness of
God in Christ: for David, speaking ofihis righteousness, sailh.
Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven. No man is
blessed, but in the righteousness of God ; every man whose sin is
taken away is blessed : therefore every man whose sin is covered,
is made the righteousness of God in Christ. This righteousness doth
make us to appear most holy, most pure, most unblamable before
him. " This then is the sum of that which I say; faith doth justify;
justification washeth away sin; sin removed, we are clothed with
the righteousness which is of God ; the righteousness of God maketh
us most holy. Every of these I have proved by the testimony of
58

458
God's own mouth ; therefore I conclude, that faith is that which
maketh us most holy, in consideration whereof it is called in this
place our most holy faith.
"To make a wicked and a sinful man most holy through his be
lieving is more than to create a world of riothing. Our failh most
holy ! Surely, Solomon could not show the Queen of Sheba so
much treasure in all his kingdom, as is lapt up in these words. O
thai our hearts were stretched out like lents, and that the eyes of our
understanding were as bright as the sun, that we might thoroughly
know the riches of the glorious inheritance of the saints, and what
is the exceeding greatness of his power towards us, whom he ac
cepteth for pure, and most holy, through our believing! O that the
Spirit of the Lord would give this doctrine entrance into the stony
and brazen heart of the Jew; which foUoweth the law of righteous
ness, but cannot attain unto the righteousness of the Law I Where
fore? sailh the Apostle. They seek righteousness, and not by failh;
wherefore they stumble al Christ, they are bruised, shivered to pieces,
as a ship that hath run herself upon a rock. O that God would cast
down the eyes ofthe proud, and hunible the souls ofthe high-minded !
thai they might at the length abhor lhe garments of Iheir own flesh,
which cannot hide their nakedness, and put on the faith of Christ
Jesus, as he did put it on which haih said. Doubtless 1 think all
things but loss, for the excellent knowledge-sake of Christ Jesus
my Lord, for whom I have counted all things loss, and do judge
them to be dung, that 1 might win Christ, and might be found in
him, not having my own righteousness which is ofthe law, but that
which is through the faith of Christ, even the righteousness which
is of God through faith. O that God would open the ark of mercy,
wherein this doctrine lielh, and set it wide before the eyes of poor
afflicted consciences, which fly up and down upon the waters of their
afflictions, and can see tlolhing, but only lhe gulph and deluge of
their sins, wherein there is no place for ihem to rest their feet!"—
§§ 24—28.
We have said before that the contrariety of Hook
er's doctrine of justification to that of the Oxford
School is granted by the leading men of that frater
nity. But, as if his Discourse on justification were
the only work in which Hooker has bequeathed his

459
doctrine on that subject, we find in Mr. Newman and
Mr. Keble, an attempt to evade his testimony which
cannot go unnoticed. " There is enough (says Mr.
N.) in Hooker's writings and history to show that
this valuable treatise, written before his views were
fully matured, and published after his death, is not
to be taken in all points as authority." ' In the same
strain, writes Mr. Keble in his Edition of Hooker's
Works. " Hooker's compositions upon this subject"
(justification,) "are mostly of an early date, when he
hardly seems to have acquired that independence of
thought which appears in the Polity."
Thus it is attempted to take away the strong testi
mony of "the glory of the English Priesthood," by
the consideration that he delivered it in immaturity
of raind. But let us hear another writer, whose as
sertions, if.his name be not as weighty as that of Mr.
Newman or Mr. Keble, are too undeniable to need
the weight of any name. Speaking of Hooker's Dis
course on Justification, he says :
" It was written upon a most important occasion, under circum
stances which rendered il necessary lo bestow the most careful con
sideration upon every word, was elaborated wilh the utmost sedulity,
and transcribed by the author himself, for the purpose of having it
attentively examined by his friends. So far frora betraying any
symptoms oC a dependent mind, it was composed in defence of what
some of the greatest theologians of the lime were startled at as a no
vel and dangerous paradox; (but having no reference lo lhe present
question) and it is inferior lo none of his other writings in originality
of conception, vigour of thought and energy of diction. But suppose
that Ihis sermon actually was written before its author was quite out
of leading strings, is there any evidence lo show that in this particu
lar his raore robust judgment corrected the weak conclusions of the
I Lectures on Justif. p. 443.

460
youth? Not a particle. On the contrary, in the very latest legacy
which he bequeathed to the Church, the Fragment ofa reply to 'The
Christian Letter,' (vol. ii. p, 700 el seq, of Keble's Edition) he has
incorporated an abstract of this very sermon, and repeated, almost
in the same words, his former profession of belief in the imputa
tion of Christ's righteousness and Ihe justification of sinners by
faith only."^
With the citations from Hooker, which might be
greatly multiplied, we consider the question as to the
conformity of the Oxford views of justification and
faith with those of the Anglican Church, to be real
ly settled, for it is out of the question to suppose hira
to have been the divine they say he was, and yet to
have been so egreglously mistaken upon the most im
portant features of Church doctrine, as he must have
been if the doctrines of the above extracts were not
those of the Church for which he was writing.
But we proceed to show how very prominently and
earnestly and generally these same views were pro
fessed and urged by the Reforraers before hira.
TYNDALE, REFORMER AND MARTYR.
"In opening the Scriptures (says Fox of Tyndale) what truth,
what soundness can a man require more, or what more is to be said
than is to be found in Tyndale? Not unrighlly he might be then,
as he is yet called, the Aposlle of England, for as the Apostles in
the primitive ^ge first planted the Church in truth ofthe Gospel; so
the same truth being again decayed and defaced by enemies in this
our latter time, there was none that travailed more earnestly in re
storing the same in this realm of England than did William Tyn
dale." In Tyndale's exposition of Matt. vi. we read :
" When I say failh juslifielh, the understanding is that failh re
ceiveth the justifying. God promiseth lo forgive us our sins and lo

1 Episcopacy, Tradition and the Sacraments, by Kev. W, Fitzgerald, B, A,

461
impute us for full righteous. And God justifieth us actively; that, is
to say, forgivelh us and reckoneth us for full righteous. And Christ's
blood deserveth it and certifielh the conscience thereof. Failh chal-
lengeth it for Christ's sake, which hath deserved all that is promised,
and cleaveth ever to the promise and truth of the promiser, and pre
tendeth not the goodness of her work, but acknowledgeth that our
works deserve it not, but are crowned and rewarded wilh the deserv
ings of Christ. Our works which God commendeth, and unto which
he has annexed the promise that he will reward them, are as it were
very sacraments, and visible and sensible signs, tokens, earnest obli
gations, witnesses, testimonies, and a sure certifying of our souls,
that God hath and will do according to his promise, to strengthen
our weak faith, and to keep the promise in mind. But they justify
us not, no more than the visible works of the sacraments do. As
for an example, the work of Baptisfn, that outward washing, which
is the visible sacrament or sign, justifieth us not. But God only jus
tifieth us actively, as cause efficient or workman. God promiseth
to justify whosoever is baptized to believe in Christ, and to keep the
law of God, that is to say, to forgive them their fore-sins and to im
pute righteousness unto them, to lake them for his sons and to love
them as well as though they were full righteous. Christ hath de
served us that promise and that righteousness, Ani faith doth re
ceive it, and God doth give it and impute it to faith, and not lo ihe
washing. And the washing dolh testify it and certify us of il, as the
pope's letters do certify the believers of lhe pope's pardons. Now
the letters help not nor hinder, but Hiat the pardons were as good
without them, save only to establish weak souls thai could not be
lieve, except they read lhe letters, looked on the seal, and saw the
print of St. Peter's keys." — Fathers of the English Church, vol. v.
pp. 236, 237, 238.
" Hereof ye see that I cannot be justified without repentance, and
yet repentance justifieth me not. And hereof ye see, that I cannot
have a faith to be justified and saved except love spring thereof im
mediately: and yet love juslifielh me not before God. And when
we say, faith only justifieth us, that is to say, receiveth the mercy
wherewith God justifieth us and forgivefh us, we mean not faith
which hath no repentance, and failh which haih no love unto the
laws of God again and unto good works, as wicked hypocrites falsely
belie us.  Hereof ye see what failh it is that juslifielh us. — The failh

462
in Christ's blood, of a repenting heart towards lhe law dolh justify
us only, and nol all manner of faiths — We raake good works sure
tokens wheieby we know that our faith is no feigned imagination
and dead opinion, made wilh captivating our wits after the Pope's
traditions, but a lively thing wrought by lhe Holy Ghost. — And
when Paul sailh faith only justifieth,' and James, that ' a man is
justified by works, and not by faith only,' there is a great difference
between Paul's only and James' only. For Paul's only is to be under
stood that faith justifieth in the heart and before God, without help
of works, yea, and ere I can work. For I must receive life, through
failh, to work wilh, ere I can work. But James' only is this wise lo
be understood that faith doth not so justify that nothing justifieth save
failh. For deeds do justify also. But faith justifieth in the heart
before God, and the deeds before the world only, and moke the
other seem." — Tyndale on Justification, in answer to Sir Thomas
More's Dialogue, published in 1530. Fathers ofthe English Church,
pp. 285--292.
ROBERT BARNES, D.D., REFORMER AND MARTYR.
This Reformer is one of the three, Tyndale and
Frith being the others, whom Fox calls "chief ring
leaders" of the English Reformation. They "sus
tained the first brunt and gave the first onset against
the enemies." Bishop Bale, a learned and zealous
contemporary Reformer, in his Catalogus Scriptorum
illust7'ium Britanniarum, says of him that "with great
firmness and sincerity, he maintained the justification
of a sinner through faith alone, in the work of Christ
our Saviour, against the ungodly preachers of human
works." He was martyred by fire in 1541. In an
swer to the argument that " faith is a work, but works
do not justify; therefore faith doth not justify," he
says: " Truth it is, that we do not mean, how that failh for his own dig
nity, and for his own perfection, dolh justify us. Bui the Scripture
dolh say, that faith alone justifieth, because that it is that thing alone.

465
whereby I do Bang, of Christ. And by my faith alone am I par
taker of the merits and mercy purchased by Christ's blood; and
faith it is alone that receiveth the promises made in Christ. Where
fore we say wjth blessed St, Paul, that failh only justifieth imputa
tive; that is all the merits and goodness, grace and favour, and all
that is in Christ to our salvation, is imputed and reckoned unto us
because we hang and believe on him, and he can deceive no man
that dolh believe in hira. And our justice is not (as the Schoolmen
teach) a formal justice which is, by fulfilling of the law, deserved
of us; for then our justification were not of grace and of mercy, but
of deserving and of doty. But it is a justice that is reckoned and
imputed unio us, for the failh in Christ Jesus, and it is not of onr de
serving, but clearly and fully of mercy imputed unto us.
" Then cometh ray Lord of Rochester (Fisher, Romish Bishop of
Rochester) and he sailh that failh dolh begin a Justification in us but
works do perform it and raake it perfect. I will recite his own
words: 'Justification is said to be begun only by failh, but not to
be consummated, for consummate justification can no otherwise be
attained than by works, wrought and brought forth to light.'
This is precisely the Oxford doctrine of Justifica
tion increasing according to the degrees of sanctifi
cation — or of Fides Formata, faith made perfect by
love and other works and therefore justifying.
" What christened man (says Barnes) would think that a Bishop
could thus trifle, and play wilh God's holy word ? God's word is so
plain, that no man can avoid il, how that faith juslifielh alone; and now
cometh my Lord of Rochester, wilh a little and vain distinction invent
ed ofhis own brain, without authority of Scripture, and will clearly
avoid all Scripture, But, my Lord, say to rae of your conscience, how
do you reckon lo avoid the vengeance of God since you thus trifle
and despise God's holy word? Dolh not St. Paul say that our Jus
tification is alone of faith, and not of works? How can you avoid
this same, Non exoperibus? (not of works Eph. 11,) If that works
do make justification perfect, then are not St, Paul's words true ;
also St. Paul saith that ' we are the children of God by faith.' And
if we are the children, we are also the heirs. Now what imperfec
tion find you in children and in heirs? Christian men desire no
more but this, and all this they have by failh only. Aud will you

464
say that faith dolh but begin a justification?" — Treatise on Justifi
cation, entitled " Only Faith justifieth before God." Fathers of
the English Church, vol. v. pp. 577 <^ 587.
ARCHBISHOP CRANMER, REFORJIER AND MARTYR.
The doctrine of this celebrated witness of the truth
is fully declared in the eleventh, twelfth, and thir
teenth articles on Justification by Faith, and on Works
preceding and following Faith, together with the
Homily of Salvation, raore largely expounding them ;
all which are of his composition. But the following
passages from his other writings will not be useless
in further testimony,
" The gracious and benign promises of God by the mediation of
Christ show us, and that to our great relief and comfort, whensoever
we be repentant and return fully to God in our hearts, that we have
forgiveness of our sins, be reconciled to God, and reputed just and
righteous in his sight, only by his grace and mercy, which he doth
grant and give unto us for his dearly beloved Son's sake Jesus
Christ ; whose sanctified body, offered on the cross, is ' the only sac
rifice of sweet and pleasant savour,' as St. Paul saith ; that is to say,
of such sweetness and pleasantness to the Father, that for the same
he accepteth and reputeth, of like sweetness, all them, that the sarae
offering doth serve for. These benefits of God whosoever expendelh
and well ponderelh in his heart, and thereby conceivelh a firm trust
and feeling of God's mercy, whereof springeth in his heart a warm
love and fervent heat of zeal towards God, it is not possible but that
he shall fall to work, and be ready to the performance of all such
works as he knoweth" to be acceptable unio God; and these works
only v/h'ich follow our justification, do please God; for so much as
they proceed from an heart endued wilh pure failh and love to God.
Now they thai think to come to justification by performance of the
law,- by their own deeds and merits, or by any other means than
1 It will be remembered that in Oxford Divinity, we are justified by fulfilling
of the law. " Christiansy?^//?^ the la-w in the very sense of pleasing God." " A
Christian's life is availabe, justifying." See pages 74 and 7.5,

465
is above rehearsed, they go from Christ, they renounce his grace;
(Christ is becorae of none effect unto you whosoever of you are jus
tified by the law, ye are fallen from grace,) They be not partakers
of the justice that he hath procured, or lhe merciful benefits that be
given by him. For St. Paul sailh a general rule for all ihem that
will seek such by-paths ; those (saith he,) which will not acknowledge
the justness or righteousness which cometh by God, but go about to
advance their own righteousness, shall never corae to that righteous
ness which we have by God ; which is the righteousness of Christ,
by whom only all the saints in heaven, and all others that have been
saved, have been reputed righteous, and justified." — Annotations on
the King's Book, in Fathers of the English Ch. vol. iii. pp. 110
—112. " Moreover seeing that Christ was not overcome by death, &c.,
hereby we may evidently perceive that the great wrath and indigna
tion of God to us haih an end, that by our lively faith in him our
sins be forgiven us, and that vve be reconciled into the favour of God,
made holy and righteous. For then God doth no more impute unto
us our former sins, hut he doth impute and give unto us the justice
and righteousness of his Son Jesus Christ, which sufl"ered for us.
For likewise as when another man doth pay my ransom and satisfy
or suffer for me, I myself am judged to pay the same, and no man
after can accuse me thereof; and when anoiher is bound for me, if
he be by any means discharged, 1 myself am counted lo be discharged ;
even so for as much as Christ himself took upon him the band of
death for us, and to satisfy for us, and so did indeed by his death;
we ourselves, for whom he was thus bound, justly be delivered and
discharged from death and damnation. And so we be counted
righteous, for as much as no man dare accuse us for that sin forthe
which satisfaction is raade by our Saviour Christ." — Catechism in
Fathers of the English Ch. vol. iii. p. 227.
" By failh, we be justified before God, (for faith maketh us par
takers of the justice of Christ and planteth us in Christ,) and he
that by true failh dolh receive the promise bf grace, to him God
giveth the Holy Ghost, by whora charity is spread abroad in our
hearts which performeth all the comraandmenls. Therefore he that
believeth in Christ, and truly believeth the Gospel, he is just and
holy before God, by the justice of Christ, which is imputed and
59

466
given unto him, as Paul sailh : ' we think that man is justified by
faith without works,' He is also just before the icorld, because of
the love and charity which the Holy Ghost worketh in his heart.
Faith worketh peace and quietness in our hearts and consciences.
For, by faith, we be certain that our sins be forgiven. This peace
bringeth unto us a great and singular joy in our hearts and con
sciences, and maketh us for this exceeding benefit of God's mercy
and grace towards us fervently lo love him, gladly to laud and praise
him, to honour his name, and to profess the same before all the
world, and to be swift and ready lo do all things that may please
God, and to eschew those things that may displease him." — Cate
chism, <^c. p. 254.
BISHOP HOOPER, REFORMER AND MARTYR.
" In his doctrine (says Fox) he was earnest, in
tongue eloquent, in the Scriptures perfect, in pains
indefatigable." "Of all those qualities required of
St. Paul in a good Bishop, I know not one in this
good Bishop lacking." In citing from Hooper we
have the advantage of virtually citing the contempo
raneous Reformer and Martyr, Bishop Ridley, inas
much as while both were in prison, for the testimony
of Jesus, the latter wrote to Hooper in these words :
" For as rauch as I understand by your works, that
we thoroughly agree and wholly consent together in
those things which are the grounds and substantial
points of our I'eligion, against the which the world
doth so furiously rage in these our days, &c. Thus
then writes Hooper, in his " Declaration of Christ,"
of Justification :
" St. Paul when he saith that we be justified by faith, meaneth
that we have remission of sins, reconciliation, and acceptance into
the favour of God, To be justified by faith inChrist is as much as
to say, we obtain remission of sin and are accepted into the favour
of God by the merits of Christ. To be justified by works, is as

467
much as to say, to deserve reraission of sin by works.» Failh doth
not only show us Christ that died and now sitteth at the right hand
of God, but also applieth the merits ofihis death unto us, and maketh
Christ ours." (Oxford Divinity says Baptism, nol failh, does this.)
" It dispuleth not what virtues it bringeth (wretched soul) lo claim this
promise of mercy ; but forsaking her own justice, offereth Christ dead
upon the cross, and silting al God's right hand. It maketh nothing
to be the cause, wherefore this mercy should be given, saving only
the death of Christ, which is the only sufficient price and guage for
sin.^ And although it be necessary that in the justification of a sin
ner, conlritio.n be present, and that necessarily charily and virtuous
life must follow; yet dolh the Scripture attribute the only reraission
of sin unto the mercy of God, which is given only for the merits of
Christ and received only by faith. And mark this manner of speech ;
'we are justified by faith,' that is 'we are just through the confi
dence of mercy.' This word failh, doth comprehend as well persua
sion and confidence, that the promise of God appertainelh unto us,
for Christ's sake, as the knowledge of God. For faith, thourrh it
desire the company of contrition and sorrow for sin, yet contendeth
it not in judgment upon the merits of any works, bul only for the
merits of Christ's death. We must therefore only trust to the merits
of Christ, which satisfied the extreme jot and uttermost point of the
law for us. And this his justice and perfection, he imputeth and
communicateth to us by faith. Such assay that faith oraZy justifieth
not, because other virtues be present, they cannot tell what ihey say.
Every man that will have his conscience appeased must mark these
two things, how remission of sin is obtained, and wherefore il is ob
tained. Failh is the mean whereby it is obtained, and the cause
wherefore it is received is the merits of Christ. Although failh be
the means whereby it is received, yet hath neiiher failh, nor charily,
nor contrition, nor the word of God, nor all those knit together suffi
cient merits wherefore we should obtain remission of sin. Let the
raan burst his heart with contrition, believe that God is good a thous
and times, and burn in charity, yet shall not all these satisfy the
law, nor deliver man from the ire of God, till such time as failh let-
1 According to Oxford doctrine we are justified by our obedience or -works.
Hooper says this is to say that we deserve remission of sin. So that while the
Oxford system rejects merit in the name, it espouses it in the thing.
2 For the formal cause wilh Oxfordism, see page 158.

468
teth fall all hope and confidence in the raerits of such virtues as be
in man, and say, ' Lord behold thy unfruitful servant ; only for lhe
merits of Christ's blood give me remission of sins.' As the fathers
ofthe Old Testament used the brazen serpent, so must those of our
Church use the precious body of Christ, They looked upon him
(the serpent) only wilh the eyes of faith, they kissed him not, they
touched him not with their hands, they ate him not corporeally, nor
really, nor substantially ; yet by iheir belief, they obtained health.
So Christ himself teacheth us the use of his precious body; to believe
and look upon the merits of his passion suffered upon the cross, ^ and
so to use his precious body against the sling of original and actual sin ;
not to eat his body transformed into the form of bread, or in the bread,
witli the bread, under the bread, behind the bread, or before the
bread, corporally or bodily, substantially or really, invisible, or any
such ways, as many men, to the great injury of Christ's body, do
teach. " They that will justify themselves any other way than by faith,
do doubt always whether their sins be forgiven or not; and by rea
son of this doubt they can never pray unto God aright." — Bishop
Hooper's Declaration of Christ. Fathers of the English Church,
pp. 141—149. BISHOP LATIMER, REFORMER AND BIARTYR.
Christ was " a Lamb undefiled, and therefore suffered not for his
own sake, but for our sake, and with his suffering hath taken away
all our sins and wickedness, and hath made us, which were the chil
dren ofthe devil, the children of God, fulfilling the law for us to the
uttermost, giving us freely, as a gift, his fulfilling to be ours. So
that we are now fulfiUers "ofthe law by his fulfilling, so that the law
may not condemn us. For he hath fulfilled it, so that we believing
in him, are fulfiUers of the law, and just before the face of God.
Wherefore we must be justified, not through our good works, but
through the passion of Christ, and so live by a free justification and
righteousness in Christ Jesus. Whosoever thus believeth, mistrust
ing himself and his own doings, and trusting in the merits of Christ,
he shall get the victory over death, the devil and hell. Therefore

1 See all this very differently represented by Mr. Newman— page 76 of this
work.

469
when thou art in sickness, and feelest that the end of thy bodily life
approacheth, and that the devil with his assaults cometh to tempt
thee — saying ' Il is written in the law that all those which have not
fulfilled the law to the uttermost shall be condemned. Now thou
hast not fulfilled it, therefore thou art mine, &c.' Against such
temptations and assaults of the devil, we must fight in this wise and
answer : ' I acknowledge rayself to be a sinner most miserable and
filthy in the sight of God, and therefore, of myself, 1 should be
damned according lo thy saying. But there is yet one thing behind ;
that is this, I know and believe without all doubt that God hath sent
his Son into the world, who suffered a most painful and shameful
death for me, and fulfilled the law wherewith thou wouldst condemn
me. Yea, he hath given me, as a gift, his fulfilling, so that I am
now reckoned a fulfiller ofthe law before God, therefore avoid
thou most cruel enemy, avoid, for I know that ray Redeemer liveth,
who hath taken away all my sin and wickedness, and set rae at
unity wilh God, and made me a lawful inheritor of everlasting life."
— Sermon on St. Luke, ii. 42. Fathers of English Church, vol.
ii. pp. 451 — 453.
" When we believe in Christ, it is like as if we had no sins. For
he changeth wilh us; he taketh our sins and wickedness from us,
and giveth unto us his holiness, righteousness, justice, fulfilling of
the law, and so consequently, everlasting life. So that we be like
as if we had done no sin at all ; for his righteousness standeth us in
good stead, as though we of our own selves had fulfilled the law to
the uttermost." — Sermons on the Lord's Prayer. Fathers, SfC,
vol. ii. p. 485.
" Therefore, let us study to believe in Christ. Let us put all our
hope, trust and confidence only in him. Let us patch him wilh
nothing. It is his doing only. God hath given him unto us to be
our deliverer, and lo give us everlasting life, O ! what a joyful
thing is this? what a comfortable thing is it? that we know now
that neiiher devil, hell, nor any thing in heaven or earth shall be
able to condemn us when we believe in Christ." — Sermon on St.
John's Day. Fathers, SfC.,p. 677.
" The preacher hath a busy work to bring his parishioners to a
right faith, as Paul calleth it — to a faith that embracelh Christ and
trusteth to his merits ; a lively faith, a justifying faith, a failh that

470
maketh a man righteous, without respect of works, as ye have it very
well declared and set forth in the Homily,— Sermow ofthe Plough.
Fathers, <Sfc., p, 646.
" Failh is a great lady, and she haih ever a great company and
train about her. First she hath a gentleman-usher that goeth before
her, and where he is not there is not Lady Faith, This gentleman-
usher is called knowledge of sin. Now as the gentleman-usher goeth
before her, so she hath a train that cometh behind, they be all of
faith's company, they are all wilh her — her whole household; and
those be the works of our vocation, when every man considereth
what vocation he is- in, and doth the works of the same, as to be
good to his neighbour, lo obey God, &c, Failh is never without
her train ; she is no anchoress ; she dwells not alone, she is never
a private woman." — Fourth Sermon before King Edward. Fathers,
Sj-c, p. 652.
Of one ofthe above train of faith, viz., love, which
Paul says is greater than faith and hope, Latimer
says: "Though love be the chiefest, yet we must not attribute unto her
the office which pertaineth unto faith only. Like as I cannot say,
The IMayor of Stamford must make me a pair of shoes, because
he is a greater man than the shoemaker is I For the IMayor, though
he be the greater man, yet it is not his office to make shoes; so
though love be the greater, yet it is not her office to save." — Sermon
on the 3d Sunday in .Advent. Fathers, ^c, p. 677.
The Homily on Justification, which is but the au
thorised exposition of the Article of Justification, was
written in the reign of Edward VI. In the same
brief reign appeared, by authority, a Catechism, which
is now known as King Edward vi's. Catechism.
" In this (according to Archbishop Wake,) tfie complete raodel of
our Church Catechism was laid.' It was published by the King's
authority, having been examined (as the injunction of the Council,
for its use, declares,) by ' certain bishops and learned raen ;' it was
subscribed by Cranmer and Ridley, as well as others, and passed by
the same Synod of London 1552, by which the Articles were framed
and concluded." — Strype's Memorials.

471

CATECHISM OF EDWARD VI.
" Js oft, therefore, as we use to say that we are made righteous,
and saved by only Faith, it is meant thereby, that Faith, or rather
trust alone, doth lay hand upon, to understand, and perceive, our
Righteous-making to be given us of God freely ; that is lo say, by
no deserts of our own , but by the free grace of the Almighty Father.
Moreover faitli doth engender in us the love of our neighbour and
such works as God is pleased withal. For, if it be a lively and
true faith, quickened by the Holy Ghost, she is the mother of all
good saying and doing. By this short tale, it is evident, whence,
and by what means, we attain to be made righteous. For, not by
the worthiness of our deservings were we either heretofore chosen
or long ago saved ; but by the only mercy of God and pure grace
of Christ our Lord, whereby ice are in him made to those good
works that God hath appointed for us to walk in. And although
good works cannot deserve to make us righteous before God ; yet do
they so cleave unto faith, that neither can faith be formed without
them, nor good works be any where without faith."
CONFESSION OF MARTYRS AND DIVINES IN PRISON.
"A brief confession has comedown upon us, drawn up by certain
Bishops and Divines imprisoned for the failh under Queen Mary. It
was signed by Robert Ferrer, Bishop of St. David, Rowland Taylor,
John Philpol, John Bradford, Lawrence Saunders, John Hooper,
Bishop of Glouceslter, Edward Crome, John Rogers, and Edward
Lawrence, It is dated May 8th, 1554, and it has annexed the sub
sequent declaration. To these things aforesaid, do I, iVIiles Cover-
dale, late Bishop of Exeter, consent and agree, with these mine af
flicted brethren being prisoners — 3f ine own hand. Miles Coverdale."
" We believe and confess concern'mg justification, that as it cometh
only of God's mercy, through Christ, so il is perceived and had of
none, which be of years of discretion, otherwise than by faith only ;
which faith is not an opinion, but a certain persuasion wrought by
the Holy Ghost in the mind and heart of man, whereby as the mind
is illuminated, so the heart is suppled to submit itself to the will of
God unfeignedly, and so showeth forth an inherent righteousness
vi'hich is to be discerned in the article of justification, from the right
eousness which God endueth us withal in justifying us, although in
separably they go together.

472
This we do not for curiosity or contention sake, but for conscience
sake; that it might be quiet, which it can never be, if we confound
without distinction, forgiveness of sin, and Christ's justice imputed
to us,- wilh regeneration and inherent righteousness." — Strype's
Memorials — Cat. of Originals, No. 17.
nowell's CATECHISM.
This Catechism was cipproved and allowed by the
Convocation in the reign of Elizabeth; after laying
sometime unpublished in the hands of Secretary Ce
cil, it was called for by both Archbishops, for publi
cation, and was at length issued from the press in
1572, under a dedication to the Archbishops and all
the Bishops of the Church of England. Such was
the standard value set on this work, in that age, that
"it was thought fit that Ministers should converse in
this Catechism and learn true divinity from it,"
Archbishop Whitgift said ofit: "I know no man
so well learned, but it may become him to read
and learn that sacred and necessary book." To
these testimonies, Strype, in his Annals, adds the
following :
" JMany years afler, concerning this Catechism thus it was writ by
a great Bishop, in answer to IMartin Mar, Prelate : ' For a Catechism
I refer them to that which was made by the learned and good man,
Mr, Nowell, Dean of St. Paul's, received and allowed by the Church
of England, and very fully grounded and established upon the word
of God, There may you see all the parts of true religion received,
the difficulties expounded, the truth declared, the corruptions of the
Church of Rome rejected.' " — Strype's Annals of the Reforma
tion, p. 212.
This Catechism may therefore be received as a
most authentic voucher for the doctrines of the
Church as understood in the reign of Elizabeth.

473
After declaring in part the difference between a
true or lively faith and a dead faith, the Catechism
proceeds : CATECHISM.
" The true faith, as it nothing doubteth that all things taught rn
the word of God are most certainly true, so doth it also embrace the
promises made concerning lhe mercy of God the Father, and the for
giveness of sins to the faithful through Jesus Christ, which promises
are properly called the Gospel ; which faith whosoever have, they do
not only fear God as the most mighty Lord of all, and the most
righteous Judge (which we have already said that the most part of
the ungodly and the devils themselves do,) but also they love him as
their most bountiful and merciful Father, whom as they travail in all
things to please (as becometh obedient children) wilh godly endea
vours and works, which are called the fruits of failh, so have they a
good and a sure hope of obtaining pardon through Christ, when, as
men, they swerve from his will. For they know that Christ, (whom
they trust upon) appeasing the wralh of his Father, their sins shall
never be imputed any more to them, than if the same had never been
committed. And though themselves have not satisfied the law, and
their duty towards God and men, yet believe they that Christ, with
his most full observing ofthe law, hath abundantly satisfied God for
them, and are persuaded that by this his righteousness and observing
ofthe law of God, themselves are accounted in the number and stale
ofthe righteous, and that they are beloved of God, even as if them
selves had fulfilled the law. And this is the justification which the
Holy Scriptures do declare that we obtain by faith."
In answer to the question, what way we must take
to be received into God's favour, the Catechism an
swers :
" We raust flee to the mercy of God, whereby he freely embracelh
us wilh love and good-will in Christ, without any our deserving or
respect of works, both forgiving us our sins, and so giving us the
righteousness of Christ by Faith in him, that for the same Christ's
righteousness he so accepteth us, as if it were our own. To God's
mercy therefore through Christ we ought to impute all our juslifica-
tioD. 60

474
Master. How do we know it ought to be thus?
Scholar. By the Gospel, which containelh the promises of God
by Christ, to the which when we adjoin faith, that is to say an as
sured persuasion of mind and steadfast confidence of God's good
will, such as hath been set out in the whole Creed, we do, as it were,
take slate and possession of this justification that I speak of.
Ma. Dost not thou then say, that faith is the principal cause of
this justification, so as by the merit of faith we are counted righteous
before God ?
Schol. No: for that were to set faith in the place of Christ. But
the spring-head of this justification is the mercy of God, which is
conveyed to us by Christ, and is offered to us by the Gospel, and
received of us by faith as with a hand.
Ma. Thou sayest then that faith is not the cause, but the instru
ment of justification, for that it embracelh Christ, which is our justi
fication, coupling us wilh so strait bond to him, that it maketh us
partakers of all his good things?
Schol. Yea, forsooth.
Ma. But can this justification be so severed from good works, that
he that hath it can want them?
Schol. No: for by failh we receive Christ such as he delivereth
himself unto us. But he doih not only set us at liberty from sins
and death, and make us at one with God, but also wilh the divine
inspiration and virtue of the Holy Ghost doth regenerate and newly
form us to the endeavour of innocency and holiness, which we Call
newness of life.
Ma. Thou sayest then that justice, faith, and good works, do natu
rally cleave together, and therefore ought no more to be severed,
than Christ, the author of them in us, can be severed from himself?
Schol. It is true.
Ma. Then this doctrine of faith doth not withdraw men's minds
from godly works and duties?
Schol. Nothing less. For good works do stand upon faith as
upon their root. So far, therefore, is failh from withdrawing our
hearts from living uprightly, that, contrariwise, it doth most vehe
mently stir us up to lhe endeavour of a good life; yea, and so far,
that he is not truly faithful that dolh not to his power shun vices and
embrace virtues, so living always as one that looketh to give an ac
count.

475
Ma. What thinkest thou of those works which we, after that we
be reconciled to God's favour, do by the instinct of the Holy Ghost ?
Schol. The dutiful works of godliness, which proceed out of faith,
working by charity, are indeed acceptable to God, yet not by their
own deserving ; but that for he, of his liberality, vouchsafelh them
his favour. For though they be derived ofthe Spirit of God, as lit
tle streams from the spring-head, yet of our flesh, that minglelh itself
with them in the doing by the way, they receive corruption, as it
were by infection, like as a river, otherwise pure and clear, is trou
bled and mudded with mire and slime, wherethrough it runneth.
Ma. How then dost thou say that they please God ?
Schol. It is faith that procurelh God's favour to our works, while
it is assured that he will not deal wilh us after extremity of law, nor
call our doings lo exact account, nor try them as il were by the
square ; that is, he will nol, in valuing them and weighing them, use
severity, but remitting and pardoning all their corruptness, for Christ's
sake and his deservings, will account Ihem for fully perfect.
Ma. Then thou slandest still in this, that we cannot by merit of
works obtain to be justified before God, seeing thou thinkest that all
doings of raen, even the perfectest, do need pardon ?
Schol. God himself hath so decreed in his word; and his Holy
Spirit dolh teach us to pray that he bring us not into judgraent. For
where righteousness, such as God the judge shall allow, ought to be
thoroughly absolute, and in all parts and points fully perfect, such as
is to be directed and tried by the most precise rule, and, as it were,
by the plumb-line of God's law and judgment; and sith our works,
even the best of them, for that they swerve and differ most far from
the rule and prescription of God's law and justice, are many ways
to be blamed and condemned ; we can by no means be justified be
fore God by works.
Ma. Doth not this doctrine withdraw men's minds from the duties
of godliness, and make them slacker and slower lo good works, or
at least less cheerful and ready to godly endeavours?
Schol. No ; for we may not thererefore say that good works are
unprofitable or done in vain and without cause, for that we obtain
not justification by them. For they serve both to the profit of our
neighbour and to the glory of God; and they do, as by certain testi
monies, assure us of God's good will toward us, and of our love again
to God-ward, and of our faith, and so consequently of our salvation.

476
And reason it is, that we being redeemed with the blood of Christ
the Son of God, and having beside received innumerable and infinite
benefits of God, should live and wholly frame ourselves after the will
and appointment of our Redeemer, and so show ourselves thankful
and mindful lo the author of our Salvation, and by our example, pro
cure and win others unto him. The man that calleth these thoughts
to mind raay suflicienlly rejoice in his goqd endeavours and works," —
Nowell's Catechism, in Fathers of the English Church, vol. vii.
HADDON AND FOX AGAINST OSORIUS.
In the latter part ofthe 16th Century, a Portuguese
Divine, named Osorius, published a work against the
English Reformation, by way of a letter to Queen
Elizabeth. Her Secretary, Cecil, fixed on Dr. Wal
ter Haddon, a raan of great learning, for the answer
er. Haddon's book is called, by Strype, " a State-
Book;" " a public vindication the like to which he kneiv
none, except Bishop Jewel' s Apology ." Tothis, Osorius
replied in a work of three books, transferring his at
tack to Luther and his associates. While answering
this and defending the Continental Reformers, Had
don died in Flanders, 1566. John Fox, the cele
brated author of the Martyrology, was chosen to com
plete his unfinished work, which he did in three
additional parts, under the special directions of Sec
retary Cecil. This joint work, a large part of which
is on justification, must be considered a most accurate
exhibition of the doctrines of the English Reforma
tion and of those precise points on which the Angli
can Church protested against the doctrine of Rome.
Whoever will consult it, as given in Richmond's col
lection of the English Reformers, or in the " Fathers
of the English Ch." vol. viii. will perceive two things
very distinctly, viz.— that the precise doctrines of

477
justification and faith, in their several ramifications,
as maintained by Mr. Newman, Dr. Pusey, &c., and
exhibited in this volume, are precisely those against
which, in Osorius, the' sternest rebukes of Haddon
and Fox are levelled, as the essence of Romanism,
and directly at war with the Gospel, and also that in
stead of the doctrine of the English Church being
then in any iraportant sense, a Via Media between
that of Luther and the Continental Reformers gene
rally, on the one side, and Romanism on the other,
as to Justification, the doctrine of Luther and those
other Reformers is entirely assumed by these English
champions, as without a question, their own and that
of the Reformation universally, and the defence of
the doctrine of the one is necessarily the defence of
all the rest. It is difficult to make selections where
a great part of the book is precisely in point. There
is roora only for the following. In answer to the
Popish argument, that lively faith is not alone with
out charity ; ergo, not faith only, but faith as coupled
with charity, doth justify, we read :
" If all things that go commonly after a certain manner together,
and be done together, must be coupled and applied to one and the
self-same operation, by this reason il must come to pass, thai he that
hath feet, eyes and ears, shall be supposed to go not upon his feet
only, but lo walk upon his eyes, and to see wilh his ears. For the
matter goeth none otherwise in failh, hope, and charily, which three
heavenly jewels, albeit ihey be instilled into us by the free liberality
of God, wilh remission of sins, and cleave fast wilh one subject, yet
every of them is distinguished by its several properties and func
tions nolwilhstanding.
" As for example, if a question be demanded what thing it is that
dolh justify us in the sight of God ? I do answer, that it is faith,
yea, and failh only. If you demand by what means ? I do answer,
through Jesus Christ the Mediator. Again ; if you ask what kind of

478
faith that is ? I do answer, not an idle, nor a dead faith, but a lively
failh and a working failh. If you will demand further, by what
marks you may be able lo discern a true faith from a false faith?
St, Paul will make answer unto you, ' The true failh is that which
worketh by charity,' If you will demand further yet, what this
faith worketh? I do answer, according to the several properties
thereof, two manner of ways, faith worketh salvation through Christ,
and it worketh obedience of the law, by charily. What ! absolute
obedience? I do not think so. What then ? Imperfect obedience?
But such a failh must needs be insufficient to the full measure of ab
solute righteousness and perfect felicity.
"And where is now that solemn decree of the Tridentine Council,"
(we add, that confident doctrine of Oxfordism) " which doth ascribe
the only beginning of our justification to failh, but maketh the for
mal cause thereof only charily, as a certain new kind of obedience,^
(which they call a righteousness cleaving fast within us) whereby
we are not only accounted righteous, but be both truly called right
eous, and be also truly righteous in the sight of God ?
"They do discourse and determine upon Justification, but none
otherwise than as they might argue in Aristotle's school, about natu
ral causes, or powers ofthe soul. Which consideration of doctrine,
if it must be holden for an infallible foundation, then let us be bold,
and blush not lo root out withal the whole nature and essential sub
stance of all mystical (spiritual) divinity, and let us raze out the
very foundations of all our religion.
" For if the stale of our salvation be come to this pass, that it must
be established by merits and not by free imputation only, where then
is that righteousne.ss, which is called the righteousness of faith?
the force and power whereof is so highly and often advanced
by Paul ?^ What shall become of the difference between the law and
the Gospel? Moreover, what shall become of that antithesis of Paul
betwixt the righteousness ofthe law and of faith? betwixt the grace
and merit? and what shall become of all that excluding of glorious

' See pp. 73, 80, 149 of this work of this " new kind of obedience," under
Protestant auspices.
2 The reader will observe that in all the writers we have cited, it is assumed
that between Justiiication by a righteousness imputed, and by our own works
or merits there is no medium. A half-way plea of a righteousness m us for
justification, not involving the doctrine of human merit, they knew nothing of.

479
boasting upon works? where is that faith imputed lo Abraham for
righteousness? Moreover, how shall this saying of Paul agree wilh
these Tridentine law givers, to wit. 'Not to him that worketh, but
unto hira that believeth on Him that doth justify the ungodly, faith is
imputed for righteousness.' Moreover, what shall become of those
exceptive and exclusive sentences of St. Paul, wherein all the con
sideration of our salvation being taken away from confidence in
works, is ascribed wholly to imputation ? Finally what shall be
come of all those sweet and most amiable promises of God, if ac
cording to the rule of this doctrine, we shall be excluded from our
assuredness of salvation and God's free imputation?
" Weare made the righteousness of God through Christ by the very
same reason whereby Christ was made sin for us.
" But Christ was not made sin but by imputation only ; ergo,
neither are we made righteous in the sight of God, but by imputation
only. " In the whole work, the mercy of the Lord doth bear the whole
and full praise and palm, not our works which do but follow God's
reconciliation as fruits, and not make atonement with God.
" None otherwise than as Osorius, when he doth consecrate, when
he doth wear his mitre, he doth not these to the end he would be
made a Bishop, but because he was made a Bishop before; there
fore he dolh execute the duties appertaining to a Bishop ; and as the
servants of noblemen are known by their several badges, but do not
wear noblemen's badges, because they shall become those noblemen's
servants. In semblance wise; Christian faith, albeit it work always
by love, and doth show a special demonstration of pure and true
faith, doth not therefore procure salvation because it worketh, but
because it doth believe in Christ Jesus, — Fathers of the English
Ch. vol. viii. pp. 777 — 784.
WILLIAM PERKINS, FELLOW OF CHRIST's COLLEGE,
CAMBRIDGE.
This eminent writer died in 1602. His works, in
three volumes folio, have been deemed worthy to be
translated into divers languages, as Latin, Dutch,
Spanish, &c. He connects the Reformers with the
writers of the 17th Century. It was a high eulo-

480
gium for such a man as the profoundly learned Jo
seph Mede, Fellow of the same College (Christ's Col
lege, Cambridge) of which Mr. Perkins had been a
member, to say of him concerning some matter con
nected with the satisfaction and intercession of Christ,
as represented in the Eucharist:
" This a reverend and famous Divine of blessed memory, once of
this society, and interred in this place, saw more clearly, and ex
pressed more plainly, than any other Reformed writer I have yet
seen,"i From his "Refoi-med Catholic, a Declaration shew
ing how near we may come to the present Church of
Rome, in sundry parts of rehgion; and ivherein we
must forever depart from them," are taken the follow
ing extracts:
"Justification stands in two things — first, in the reraission of sins
by the merit of Christ's death ; secondly in the impulation of Christ's
righteousness, which is anoiher action of God whereby he accounteth
and esteeraeth that righteousness which is in Christ as the righteous
ness of that sinner which believeth in him. By Christ's righteousness,
we are lo understand two things, first, his sufferings, specially in his
death and passion ; secondly, his obedience in fulfilling the law ;
both which go together; for Christ in suffering obeyed; and obeying,
suffered. And the very shedding of his blood, lo which our salva
tion is ascribed, must not only be considered as il is passive, that is,
a suffering; but also, as it is active, that is, an obedience, in which
he shewed his exceeding love both to his Father and us, and thus ful
filled the law for us.
" A raan is justified by faith alone, because faith is that alone in
strument, created in the heart by the Holy Ghost, whereby a sinner
layeth hold of Christ's righteousness and applieth the same unto hira
self. There is neither hope, nor love, nor any other grace of God
within man, that can do this but faith alone.
" We grant that the habit of righteousness, which we call sancti-

' Mode's works, b. 11, u, vi. p. 365.

481
fication, is an excellent gift of God, and hath its reward of God, and
is the matter of our Justification before man, because it serveth to de
clare us to be reconciled to God and to be justified ; yet we deny it
to be the thing which maketh us, of sinners, to become righteous be
fore God, And this is the first point of our disagreement in the mat
ter of Justification, (wilh Papists) which raust be raarked; because
if there were no more points of difference between us, this one alone
were sufficient to keep us from uniting of our religions; for hereby
the Church of Rome doth raze the very foundation.
" All, both Papists and Protestants, agree that a sinner is justified
by faith. This agreement is only in word, and the difference be
tween us is great indeed. And it may be reduced lo these three
heads. First, the Papist, saying that a man is justified by faith, un
derstandeth a general or a catholic faith, whereby a man believeth
the articles of religion lo be true.^ But we hold that the faith which
justifieth is a particular faith, whereby we apply to ourselves the
promises of righteousness and life everlasting by Christ. The se
cond difference touching faith, is this : the Papist says we are jus
tified by faith, because it disposeth the sinner to his justification.'
We say otherwise ; that failh justifieth because it is a supernatural
instrument created by God in the heart of man, at his conversion,
whereby he apprehendeth and receiveth Christ's righteousness for his
justification. The third difference is this : the Papist saith that a
raan is justified by faith, yet not by faith alone, but also by other
virtues, as hope, love, the fear of God,^ Failh (he says) is never
alone, therefore it doth not justify alone. They might as v/e\\ dis
pute thus : the eye is never alone from the head, and therefore it
seeth not alone, which is absurd. And though in regard of sub
stance, the eye is never alone, yet in regard of seeing, it is alone;
and so though faith subsist not without love and hope, and other
graces of God, yet in regard of the acts of justification, it is alone
without them all. Now the doctrine which we teach is that a sin
ner is justified before God by faith, yea by failh alone. The mean
ing is, that nothing within raan, and noil ing that raan can do, either
by nature, or by grace, concurreth to the net of justification before
' This is the dead faith, until it be made ahve in Baptism, as found in Oxford
Divinity, see chap, vi, 2 This is precisely the language of Dr, Pusey and
Mr. Newman — see chap, vi, ' See p. 206 of this work,
61

482
God, as any cause thereof, either efficient, material, formal, or final,
but failh alone; all other gifts and graces, as hope, love, the fear of
God, are necessary to salvation as consequents of faith. And failh,
itself, is no principal, but only an instrumental cause, whereby we
receive, apprehend and apply Christ's righteousness for our justifica
tion,"' — Perkin's Tf'orks, vol. i. pp. 567 — 572.
We come now to the Divines of the 17th Century,
beginning with Downame, Bishop of Derry, whose
learned Treatise of Justification, with special refer
ence to the writings of Cardinal Bellarmine, in de
fence of Romanism, was published in 1633,
DOWNAME, BISHOP.
" Which doctrine"(viz. of imputed righteousness, as appears below)
" is so inviolably and incorruplibly to be held, that if an Apostle, if an
Angel from Heaven shall teach any other gospel, that is any other
doctrine whereby to be justified and saved, than by the only merits
of Christ apprehended by faith, he ought to be held accursed. But
by how rauch the more necessary and comfortable this doctrine is :
by so much the more it is oppugned by Satan ; — who hath opposed
it by all means, as namely by raising, not only other false teachers
in the Apostles' times and since, but even Antichrist and his adhe
rents in these later times, who have not only perverted this doctrine,
but also subverted it, and have as it were, taken away the subject of
the question ; for by confounding the law and the gospel, the cove
nant of works, and the covenant of grace, the benefits of justification
and sanctification, and of two making but one; they have wholly
abolished that great benefit of the Messias about our justification,
whereb)' we are freed from hell, and entitled to the kingdom of
Heaven, and consequently they are fallen from grace, having disan
nulled the covenant of grace, and made the promise of none effect.
For whosoever seeketh to be justified by inherent righteousness, he

- Not only does the " Reformed Catholic " of Perkins contain a very clear
exhibition ofthe Romish doctrine of justification — but under several of its heads
it is a singularly clear exhibition of Oxford Divinity, under the name of Ro
manism.

483
is under the curse, he is a debtor to the whole law, and therefore to
him Christ has become of none effect." p. 2.
" The formal cause of justification is the imputation of Christ's
righteousness, because by imputing it the Lord dolh justify; which
I expressed in the definition. And this necessarily followeih upon
that which haih been said ofthe raatter. For it cannot be iraagined
how we should be justified by that righteousness of Christ which is
out of us in hira, otherwise than by imputation. For even as we
were made sinners by Mam's personal disobedience; so we are
made righteous by the obedience of Christ. But how could we either
be raade sinners by Adam's disobedience, or justified by the obedi
ence of Christ, whether active or passive, unless they were commu
nicated unto us. How could they possibly be communicated unto
us, being both transient and having now no being? For true is that
saying ofa learned Philosopher, mo tus non est nisi dum fit; post-
quam f actus est, non est: A motion (whether it be action or pas
sion) hath no being but whiles it is in doing or suffering; after it is
done, it hath no being. Adam's transgression was transient, and is
past and gone, so many thousand years past : the active obedience
of Christ was transient, and so was his passive obedience, which had
a being in rerum natura, no longer than they were in doing and in
suffering. How then can either Adam's disobedience or Christ's
obedience, be communicated unto us? I answer, in respect of both,
as Bellarmine answereth in respect of the former, Communicaiur
eo modo, quo communicari protest, id quod transiit, nimirum per
imputationem : It is communicated afler that manner, whereby that
may be communicated which is transient and gone, to wit, by im
putation." — p. 21.
" And yet we deny not, but that as they to whom the guilt of
Adam's transgression is imputed, are also by sin inherent transfused
from him by carnal generation formally made sinners : so they, to
whom the obedience of Christ is imputed unto justification, are also
made formally just by an inchoated righteousness received by infiu
ence from Christ, and infused by his Spirit in their spiritual regene
ration." — p, 40.
"The first capital error of the Papists is, that they confound jus
tification and sanctification, and by confounding of them, and of two
benefits making but one, they utterly abolish, as shall be shewed,
the benefit of justification; which notwithstanding is the principal

484
benefit which we have by Christ in this life, by which we are freed
from hell, and entitled to the kingdom of Heaven. And this they
do in two respects : for first, they hold that lo justify in this question,
sio-nifieth to make righteous by righteousness inherent, or by infu
sion of righteousness, that is, to sanctify. Secondly, they make re
mission of sin, not to be the pardoning and forgiving of sin, but the
utter deletion or expulsion of sin by infusion of righteousness. Thus
they raake justification wholly to consist of the parts of sanctification."
— p,50." For if they should hold that justification consisteth partly in re
mission, that isthe forgiveness, or not imputation of sin, and partly
in renovation or sanctification, then they must confess, that there are
two formal causes of justification, vvhich Calvin objected against the
Council of Trent, (and may truly be objected against such of the
Fathers as held justification to consist, partly in remission, and partly
in renovation) and consequently should be forced to acknowledge
two ways of making men just, by one and the same act of justifica
tion ; the one by imputation of that righteousness, by which being
without us we have remission of sin; the other, by infusion of right
eousness inherent, by which sin is expelled. — p. 82,
" The Papists, by remission of sin, understand the expulsion or
extinction, the utter deletion or abolition of sin, which is not a distinct
action (as they teach) from infusion of righteousness, but one and the
same action, which is the infusion of righteousness expelling sin.
And is an action of God, not without us as the other, but within us,
working in us a real and positive change. And therefore remission
of sin in the Popish sense, belongeth not to justification, but to perfect
sanctification, as being a total mortification of sin, which none attain
unto in this life; but of this point I have already treated in the second
question of the fir.st controversy. Secondly, the Fathers ofientimes
use the word justification in the same sense that we do according to
the Scriptures, as implying the forgiveness of sins, and acceptation
unto life by the satisfaction and merits of Christ communicated unto
us. As namely, when they teach, as very oft they do, that we are
justified by faith alone; which they could not have taught, if by jus
tifying they had meant sanctifying; for we are not sanctified by faith
alone, as all confess. Thirdly, the Fathers did not look lo be justi
fied before God by any righteousness inherent in themselves or per
formed by them, but renounced it, as being unperfect and stained

485
with the flesh. And therefore where they speak of justification by
inherent righteousness, they meant sanctification, and not justification
before God, whereof our question is. For they profess that by in
herent righteousness, no man living can be justified in God's sight,
as I have showed in this third controversy, and in the fifth and sixth.
—p. 258.
" Whereas, they deride imputed justice, calling it putatitiam, as if
it were an imaginary righteousness only ; which also, they say, dolh
both derogate from the Glory of God, lo whom it were raore honor
able to make a man truly righteous, than to repute him righteous,
who, in himself is wicked, and also detract frora the honour of Christ's
Spouse, who is only arrayed with her Husband's righteousness, as
it were a garment being in herself deformed ; I answer first, whom
the Lord doth justify, he doth indeed and in truth, constitute and
make them righteous by imputing unto them the righteousness of
Christ, no less truly and really, than either Adam's sin was imputed
to us, or our sins to Christ, for which he really suffered. Secondly,
whora God justifieth or maketh righteous by imputation, them also
he sanctifieth, or maketh righteous by infusion ofa righteousness be
gun in this life, and to be perfected when this mortal life is ended.
And further, that it is much more for the glory both of God's justice
and ofhis mercy, when he juslifielh sinners, both to raake ihem per
fectly righteous by imputation of Christ's righteousness ; and also
having freed them frora hell by the perfect satisfaction of his Son,
and entitled them to the kingdom of Heaven by his perfect obedience ;
to prepare and to fit them for his own kingdom, by beginning a right
eousness inherent in them, which by degrees groweth towards per
fection in this life, and shall be fully perfected so soon as this life is
ended, rather than to justify, or to speak more properly to sanctify
them only by a righteousness which is unperfect and but begun,
which in justice can neiiher satisfy for their sins, nor merit eternal
life,— p, 290.
"The Papists do not only hold that justifying faith may be with
out knowledge, but that also it may better be defined by ignorance
than by knowledge. This faith, which is without knowledge, they
call implicit failh ; because they believing some one common princi
ple as namely, I believe the holy Catholic Church do thereby be
lieve implicite, whatsoever is to be believed, that is, whatsoever the
Catholic Church believeth and propoundeth to be believed. And

486
therefore this ihey call also an entire faith ; because thereby, a man
doth not only believe the written word, but also unwritten verities,
which are the traditions of the Church of Rome, and both of them,
not for themselves, bul for the authority of the Church propounding
them tobe believed — p- 315.
" The other question is, whether faith doth justify formally, as
they speak, as being a part of inherent righteousness ; or instrument-
ally only, as the hand to receive Christ who is our righteousness.
The Roman Catholics hold the former ; the true Catholics, the latter.
But the former I have sufficiently disproved before, and proved the
latter. For if we be not justified by any grace or righteousness in
herent in ourselves, or performed by ourselves, which 1 have before
by many undeniable arguments demonstrated ; then it foUoweth ne
cessarily, that we are not justified by faith, as it is a gift of grace, an
act, or habit, or quality inherent in us, or performed by us. And if
we be justified by the righteousness of Christ only, which being out
of us in him is imputed lo those who receive it by faith, which also
before I invincibly proved ; then also it followeih by necessary con
sequence, that we are justified by failh, only as it is the instrument
or hand to apprehend or receive Christ, who is our righteousness.
Wherefore where faith is said to justify, or to be imputed to righteous
ness, it must of necessity be understood relatively, and in respect of
the object, to which purpose, justification and all other benefits, which
we receive by Christ, are attributed to faith, as I have showed be
fore. Not that faith itself worketh these things, but because by it we
receive Christ, and with him, all his merits and benefits. And for
the same cause, the faith of all the faithful, though unequal in de
grees, in some greater, and in some less, is alike precious in the
righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, 2 Pet. i, 1,
which is an evidence, that faith dolh not justify in respect of its own
dignity or worthiness, but in respect of the object, which it dolh re
ceive ; which being the most perfect righteousness of Christ, unto
which nothing can be added, is one and the same to all that receive it.
" Here now the Papists, because we deny faith to justify in respect
of its own worthiness and merit, take occasion to inveigh against us,
as if we raade it, Titubum sine re, and as it were a matter of nothing,
which is a malicious, and yet but a frivolous cavil. For first in re
spect of justification ; we acknowledge il lo be the only instrument or
hand to receive Christ, tobe the condition ofthe Covenant of Grace,

487
to which the promises of remission of sins and of salvation are made,
without which the promises of the gospel do not appertain unto us,
and without which our blessed saviour doth not save us. Secondly,
in respect of Sanctification, we attribute all that and more, which the
Papists ascribe unto it, in respect of their imaginary justification.
That it is the beginning, foundation, and root of all inherent right
eousness; the mother of all other sanctifying graces, which purifieih
the heart, and worketh by love, without which, it is impossible to
please God, without which, whatsoever is done is sin.
" Yet, howsoever, here the Papists would seem to plead for faith,
yet the truth is, that as ihey have abolished the benefit of justification,
as it is taught in the holy Scriptures, so wilh it, they have taken
away the justifying faith. For though they retain the name, yet in
their doctrine there is no such thing. For first, lo failh they do not
ascribe the power to justify, but only to be a disposition, one among
seven, even such a one as servile fear is, of a man unto inherent
righteousness, or to the grace of sanctification, itself being not as yet
a justifying or sanctifying grace. Secondly, that faith, being infused,
becometh the beginning, and a pan of formal inherent righteousness.
But so small a part they assign unto it, that they say, that the habit
of formal righteousness differeth nol from the habit of charity ; so
that in justification it hath no use at all, and in sanctification, charity
is all in all ; which is a manifest evidence, that the Church of Rome
is fallen away from the ancient doctrineof the faith. For both Scrip.
tures and Fathers, everywhere ascribe justification to faith and not
to charily ; to failh, and not lo works ; but the Papists ascribe the
first justification to charity, which they make lo be the only formal
cause of justification, which as themselves teach, is but one; and the
second justification they assign to works. — p. 369.
ANDREWES, BISHOP.
This great divine is called in Oxford Tracts, "one
of our wisest doctors and rulers." — No, 71, p. 26, Am.
Ed. The following is from his Sermon on Justifi
cation, on the text Jehovah our righteousness.
" That it is our righteousness, in the abstract; and not in the
concrete; not our justifier or maker of us righteous, but our justice
or righteousness itself.

488
" For thus delivered, I make no doubt it hath more efficacy in it;
and raore significant it is by far to say Jehovah our Justice, than
Jehovah our Justifier. I know St. Paul sailh much : That our
Saviour Christ shed his blood, to show his righteousness, that lie
might not only be just, but a justifier of those ivhich are of his
faith. And much more again in that when he should have said,
' To him that believeth in God,' he chooselh thus to set it down, to
him that believeth in him, that justifieth the ungodly: making these
two to be all one; God, and the Justifier of sinners. Though this
be very much, yet certainly this is most forcible, that he is made
unto us, by God, very righteousness itself. And that yet more;
that he is made righteousness to us, that we be made the righte
ousness of God in him, which place St. Chrysostome, well weigh
ing, this very word, (saith he) the Aposlle useth to express the un
speakable bounty of that gift, that he hath not given us the opera
tion or effect of righteousness, but his very righteousness, yea, his
very self unto us. ' Mark (saith he) how every thing is lively, and
as full as can be imagined, Christ, who not only that had done no
sin, but that had nol so much as known any sin, hath God made
(not a sinner, but) sin itself, as in anoiher place (not accursed,
but) a curse itself: sin, in respect of the guilt, a curse, in respect
of the punishment. And why this? To the end that we might
be made, (not righteous persons; that was not full enough, but)
righteousness itself: and not every righteousness, but the very
righteousness of God Himself. What can be further said ; what
can be conceived more comforlable? To have him ours, not to
make us righteous, but to make us righteousness, and that not any
other but the righteousness of God, The wit of raan can devise no
raore. And all to this end : that we might see there belono-elb a
special Ecce to this name; that there is more than ordinary comfort
in it : that therefore we should be careful to honour him with it, and
to call him by it ; Jehovah our Righteousness.
"There is no Christian man iharwill deny this name, but will call
Christ' by it, and say of him, that he is Jehovah Justitia nostra,
without taking a syllable or letter from it : but it is not the syllables,
but the sense that maketh the name; and the sense is it, we are to
look unto : that we keep it entire in sense as well as in sound, if we
mean to preserve this name of our Righteousness full and whole
unto him. And as this is true, so is it true likewise, that even

489
among Christians, all take it not in one sense: but some, ofa greater
latitude than others. There are that take it in that sense which the
Prophet .£sa2/ hath set down: In Jehovah Justitia mea, that all
our righteousness is in him, and we to be found in hira not having
our own righteousness, but being made the righteousness of God
in him. There are sorae other, that though in one part, of our
righteousness they take it in that sense ; yet in another part, they
shrink it up, and in that, raake it but a proposition casual, and the
interpretation thereof to be, A Jehovah justitia mea, from Jehovah
is my righteousness : which is true too. First, whether we respect
him as the cause exemplary, or pattern, (for we are to be made
conformable lo the image of Christ), Second, whether we respect
him as the cause efficient. This meaning is true and good ; but not
full enough. For either it taketh the narae in sunder, and giveth
him not all, but a part of it again; or else, it raakelh two senses,
which may not be allowed in one name.
" For the more plain conceiving of which point, we are to be put
in mind, that the true righteousness (as saith St. Paul) is not of man's
device, but hath his witness from the Law and Prophets, which he
there proceedeth to shew out, of the example, first of Abraham, and
after of David. In the Scripture then there is a double righte
ousness set down, both in the Old and in the New Testament.
In the Old, and in the very first place that Righteousness is named
in the Bible: 'Abraham believed, and it was accounted unto
him for righteousness.' A righteousness accounted ! And again,
(in the very next line) it is mentioned, ' Abraham will teach his
house to do righteousness.' A righteousness done! In the New
Testament, likewise. The former, in one chapter, (Rora. iv.) no
fewer than eleven tiraes ; Repuiatum est illi ad justitiam — 'It is
acccounted to him for righteousness ' — a reputed righteousness I
The latter in St, John — ' He that doeth righteousness, is righteous'
— a righteousness done J Of these, the latter. Philosophers them
selves conceived, and acknowledged ; the other is proper to Chris
tians only, and altogether unknown in Philosophy. The one is a
quality of the parly. The other an act of the Judge declaring or
pronouncing righteous. The one, ours by influence or infusion;
the other, by account or imputation. That both these there are,
THERE IS NO QUESriON."
62

490
The Bishop then says the question is, " whether of these two
righteousnesses, the Prophet principally meaneth in this name —
whether, (he says,) it is the righteousness that will stand against the
Law, or conscience, Satan, sin, the gates of hell, and the power of
darkness ; and so stand, ihal we may be delivered by it, from death,
despair and damnation; and entitled, by il, to life, salvation, and
happiness eternal ; that is righteousness indeed ; that is it we seek
for, if we may find it ; and that is not this latter, (righteousness in
fused) but the former only, (righteousness imputed,) and therefore
this is the true interpretation of 'Jehovah our Righteousness."'
"And indeed to do them no wrong, it is true, that at his judg
ment seat, so far as it concerneth the salisfaclion for sin, and our
escaping from eternal death, the Church of Rome taketh this narae
aright ; — and that term which a great while seemeth harsh unto
them, now they find no such absurdity in it. That Christ's righte
ousness and merits are imputed to us.
" Thus Ihey understand this name, in that part of righteousness,
which is satisfactory for punishment.
" But in the positive justice, or that part thereof, which is meri
torious for reward ; there fall they into a phantasy ; they may give
it over ; and suppose, that a righteousness (frora God, Ihey grant
yet) inherent ia theraselves, without a righteousness that is in Christ,
will serve them, whereof they have a good conceit, that it will en
dure God's justice ; and standeth not by acceptation. So by this
raeans, shrink they up the name Jehovah our righteousness ; and
though they leave the full sound, yet take they half the sense from
it. This nipping at the narae of Christ is for no other reason, but
that we may have some honour ourselves, out of our own rigtheous-
ness." — Andrewes' Sermons, pp. 724 — 726
" As from the Brazen Serpent no virtue issued to heal, but unto
them that steadily beheld it — so neither doth there from Christ, but
upon those, that wilh the eye of failh, have their contemplation on
this object, who thereby draw life from him; and without it may
and do perish, for all Christ's passion." — Sermon p. 222.
' Our eye then, is the eye of our mind, which is faith : our look
ing lo him here, is our thinking on him there ; and him and his pas
sion over and over again, Donee lotus fixus in corde, qui totusfixus
in Cruce, till he be as fast fixed in our hearts, as ever he was to his

491
Cross ; and the same impression made in us of him, as there was in
him for us."— p. 242.
" There is a theory medicinal, like that of the Brazen Serpent ;
and it serveth for comfort to the conscience stung and wounded with
the remorse of sin. For, what sin is there or can there be so execra
ble or accursed but the curse of the cross ; what so ignominious or
full of confusion but the shame of it, what so corrosive to the con
science but the»pain ofit; what of so deep or so crimson a dye, but
the blood of it, the blood of the cross will do it away ? What sling so
deadly, but the sight of this serpent will cure it?
" And sure as the Church under the Law needed not, so neiiher
doth the Church under the Gospel need any other precept than this
one, Inspice etfac, see and do, according to the theory shewed thee
in the Mount. To them in Mount Sinai ; to us in Mount Calvary."
—p. 243.
"Now, if faith be to touch, that will touch him no less in heaven
than here. One that is in heaven may be touched so — no ascend
ing can hinder that touch. Failh will elevate itself, that ascending
in spirit, we shall touch him, and take hold of him. It is a touch,
to which there is never a noli : fear it not.
" So do we then, send up our faith, and that shall touch him, and
there will virtue come from him ; and it shall lake such hold on
hira, as it shall raise us up to where he is, bring us to the end ofthe
verse, and to the end of all our desires ; to a joyful ascension to our
Father and his, and to Hiraself, and to the unity of the Blessed
Spirit."— p. 367.
" So was it meet for crimson sinners to have a crimson Saviour :
a Saviour of such a colour it behoved us to have. Coming then to
save us, — off went his white, on went our red : laid by, his own
righteousness, to be clothed wilh our sin. He lo wear our colours,
that we, his — he in our red, that we, in his while. So we find our
robes are not only washed clean, but dyed a pure white in the blood
ofthe Lamb."— p. 367.
" Of all the words in the text, not one was meet for the teeth of
the Rhemits, save this only : here you have a perilous note close in
the margin : Good works are a foundation. A Foundaiion, very
true, who denies it? but whether a foundaiion in our graces, as
Christ is without us, that is the point. The ground whereon every
building is raised, is termed fundamentum. The lowest part of the

492
building immediately lying on it, is so termed too. In the first
sense Christ is said to be the only foundation : yet the Apostles,
because they are the lowest row of stones, are said to tie foundations
in the second. So among lhe graces within us, faith is properly in
the first sense, said lo be the foundation ; yet in the second, we do
not deny, but as the Apostle calleth them, as the lowest row next
to faith, charity and the works of charity raay be called founda
tions too. Albeit, the margin might well have been spared at this
place ; for the note is here, all out of place. For being so great
schoolmen as they would seem, they must needs know, it is not the
drift of the Aposlle here, in calling ihem a foundation, to carry our
considerations into the mailer of justifying, but only to press his
former reasons of uncertainty there, by a contrary weight of certain
stability here, and so their note comes in like Magnificat at Matins-"
—p. 693.
" If you shall have grace to make use of God's plot, which he
hath here levelled for you to raise upon, that will be worth all the
world in that day: the perfect certainly, sound knowledge, and pre
cious assurance you shall then have whereby you shall be assured
to be received, because you are sure you are Christ's, because you
are sure you have true faith, because you are sure you have framed
it upon good works. And so shall they be a foundation to you-ward,
by making evident the assurance of salvation: not, to God-ward,
in bringing forth the essence of your salvation." — p. 693.
JOSEPH MEDE, B. D.
This profoundly leamed and eminently pious di
vine of the 17th Century, so well known for his
works on the Prophecies, was an intimate friend of
Dr. Jackson and Bishop Andrewes. In the 31st of
his pubhshed Discourses, on Matt. xi. 28, 29, we
read:
" This coming unto Christ, is the approaching unto him by faith;
which is manifested by those places of Scripture where coming and
believing are interchangeably used as one and the same thing. 'He
that cometh to me shall never hunger; he that believeth on me shall
never thirst.' Here coming is expounded by believing.
"Here therefore observe that a saving faith, a faith which

493
makes Christ our own, and hath promise of ease by him, in a word,
that faith which gives us an interest in Christ Jesus, is more than a
bare assent, or persuasion that the Gospel is true. — It is a coming
belief, a coming faith; that is an assent inclining the soul to Christ,
to be made partaker of the benefits through him — such an assent as
not only believes the promises made in Christ, but goes unto him,
relies upon him, clings unto him for them. Saving faith, though it
begins with what is usually called historical faith, yet it stays not
there. It stands not only gazing upon Christ, but is effectual and
powerful upon the soul to raake it apply and betake itself unto him.
" The motion or flight of the soul is desire. He that out of a
true sense and feeling of his sin (for no other can do it in good ear
nest) desires Christ, he goes unto hira. And Christ requires no
more, but that all those who are weary and heavy laden, should thus
come unto him, and he will ease them. And this is the first degree
of a faith which is justifying, and gives interest in Christ Jesus;
for this faith is not barely historical and in speculation but afaith
in motion, and able to walk and to go unto Christ Jesus, whom it
believeth ; which, if cherished, will in time gather such further
strength as will fill the soul wilh a full and stedfast confidence.
" Now follows lhe benefit, ease and rest to thy soul. 'Iwill give
you rest;' that is, I will ease you of your sin, I will acquit you.
And this is what we call justification of a sinner, which is an abso
lution or remission of sins, by the only merits and satisfaction of
Christ, accepted for us and imputed to us : an acquitting and can
celling of all bonds and obligations of transgression for Christ's sake.
For he that hath right to Christ, hath right in Christ, to be partaker
of his righteousness and of whatsoever satisfaction he hath undergone
for the sins of mankind; whereby he is justified, that is acquit
before God ofthe guilt of sin and of the punishment, according to the
Law due for the same.
"As in coming unto Christ, you had faith in the ease by him,
acquittal or justification; so in the taking his yoke, ye have sanc
tification or holiness of life. All which are so linked together, that
neither must they, nor can they be put asunder. No raan coraes
to Christ by faith, but shall be eased ; but no man can ever truly
and seriously come unto him to be eased by him, but he must lake
his yoke upon him. No man puts on Christ to be justified, but he
takes on his yoke also to be sanctified. True it is, and nothing

494
more true, that no works of ours in this life can abide the touch-stone
of God's law, and therefore not able to justify us in the presence of
God but lo condemn us. But it is true also that we are therefore
justified through failh in the blood and righteousness of Christ, that
in him we might do works pleasing and acceptable to Almighty
God, which out of him we could not do. For as the blood and suf
ferings of Christ, imputed to us, through faith, cleanseth us and ac-
quittelh us of all the sins whereof we stood guilty before we believed ;
so the imputation of his righteousness, when we believe, makes
our works (though of themselves far short of what they ought to be,
yet) to be acceptable and just in the eyes of the Almighty; Christ
supplying out ofhis riches, our poverty, and by communication of
his obedience, continually perfecting ours where we fail, that so we
might receive the reward of the righteous of him that shall reward
every man according lo his works.
"Unto whomsoever Christ is given for justification, through the
imputation of his merits and righteousness, in him God creates a neiv
heart and renewelh a right spirit." — Mode's Works, pp. 154 — 157.
HALL, BISHOP.
" That there is an inherent righteousness in us is no less certain,
than that it is wrought in us by the Holy Ghost. For God doth not
justify the wicked raan, as such ; but of wicked, makes him good,
not by mere acceptation, but by a real change ; while he justifies
him whom he sanctifies. These two acts of mercy are inseparable;
but this justice being wrought in us by the Holy Spirit — is not so
perfect that it can bear us out before the tribunal of God. It must
be only under the garment of our elder Brother that we dare come
in for a blessing: his righteousness made ours by faith is that where
by we are justified in the sight of God ; this doctrine is that which is
blasted with a tridentine curse."
" It is not the logic of this point we strive for — it is not lhe gram
mar, it is the divinity: what that is whereby we stand acquitted be
fore the Righteous Judge; whether our inherent justice or Christ's
irapuled justice apprehended by faith. The Divines of Trent are
for the former : all antiquity with us for the latter, A just volume
would scarce contain the pregnant testimonies of the Fathers to this
purpose,"^

' Works, 8vo, ix. pp. 338 — 240.

495
" Scripture every where teacheth as, on the one side, the imper
fection of our inherent righteousness; so, on the other, our perfect
justification by the irapuled righteousness of our Saviour, brought
home to us by failh,
" The latter is the sura of St, Paul's Sermon at Antioch : ' Be it
kriown unio you, men and brethren, that through this man is
preached to you forgiveness of sins; and, by hira, all, that believe,
are justified.' They are justified : but how ? ' Freely, by his grace.'
What Grace? Inherent in us, and working by us? No : ' By grace
are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift
of God.' ' Not of works, lest any raan should boast.' Works are
ours; but this is 'righteousness of God, which is by the faith of Jesus
Christ to all them that believe.' And how dolh this become ours?
By his gracious imputation. ' Not to him that worketh, but believeth
on him who justifieth the wicked, is his faith imputed for righteous
ness.' " Lo, it is not the act, not the habit of faith, that justifieth: it is
He that justifies the wicked, whom our faith makes ours, and our
sin his, ' He was made sin for us, that we raight be raade righte
ousness of God in hira.' Lo, so were we made his righteous
ness : as he was made our sin, Impulation doeth both. It is that,
which enfeoffs our sins upon Christ, and us in' his righteousness;
which both cures and redresses the imperfection of ours. That dis
tinction is clear and full. ' That I raay be found in him, not having
mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is
through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by
faith.' St. Paul was a great saint : he had a righteousness of his
own; not as a Pharisee only, but as an Aposlle; but that which he
dares not trust lo, but forsakes, and cleaves to God's — not that essen
tial righteousness, which is in God, without all relation to us ; nor
that habit of justice, which was remaining in him ; but that righteous
ness which is, of God, by failh made ours.
" Thus, ' being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through
our Lord Jesus Christ.' For what can break that peace, but our
sins? and these are remitted; for 'who shall lay any thing lo the
charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth,' And, in that re
mission, is grounded our reconciliation ; ' for God was in Christ, re
conciling the world to himself, not imputing their sins unto them;'

496
but contrarily, imputing to them his own righteousness, and their
faith for righteousness.
" Let the vain sophistry of carnal minds deceive itself with idle
subtleties, and seek lo elude the plain truth of God with shifts of wit.
We bless God for so clear a light, and dare cast our souls upon this
sure evidence of God, attended wilh the perpetual attestation of his
ancient Church." — Hall's 'Works, 8 vo. ix. 242 — 244.
NICHOLSON, BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER.
This learned divine was made Bishop of Glouces
ter in 1660. While Archdeacon of Brecon, he pub
lished a series of discourses on the Apostles Creed,
from which the following extracts are made ; a work
of the soxmdest divinity, and of a vigorous style.
During the storm under which the Church of Eng
land was so cast down in the earlier part of the cen
tury, he was one of her faithful defenders ; and after
it had passed, one of her brightest ornaments. " His
works (says Nelson in his life of Bishop Bull,) show
hira to have been a person of great learning, piety,
and prudence, particularly his Apology for the Dis
cipline of the Ancient Church, and his Exposition of
the Apostles Creed. Not only for his knowledge of
the Fathers and Schoolmen, but also for the great
share of critical learning whereof he was master;" he
was much consulted by Mr. Bull, afterwards Bishop
Bull, who, while engaged in his Harmonia, was a
Presbyter of the Diocese of Gloucester,
" By righteousness we are to understand, 1. That which is in
herent. 2. Then that which is imputed. Theinherent is imperfect,
proportionable to our estate, consisting in true sanctification and holi
ness, enabling a man to mortify his sins and lusts, and to bring forth
the fruits of repentance, and lo beautify his soul with the virtues of
failh, hope, and charily ; so that there be none truly a.i(i^ei£, but they

497
who are a/!fsi6eis, none unbelievers but the disobedient. And happy
is the soul that hungers and thirsts after this righteousness.
" But because this righteousness, in what degree soever, is imper
fect, necessary it is, that we hunger and thirst afler another, which is
the righteousness of Christ arising out of his obedience, whereby he
fulfilled the law, and satisfied the punishment in his life, and in his
death for us ; which obedience both merited the remission of our sins,
and effectually wrought the righteousness of the law, and acceptation
of our persons in Christ. For the deriving whereof lo us, two things
must be done, one in God's behalf, the other in ours.
" That which God doth, is called impulation ; that which we do,
is called, believing in Christ, and so receiving that which God of
fereth. And happy is that soul to whom this righteousness is im
puted." " To cleanse us from all iniquity. It is the Apostle's meaning,
that there is not only upon confession a free pardon granted, but
there is a purgation that goes along wilh it, that carries away the
malicious filth of sin. The pardon is available for our justification
but the purgation hath an influence upon our lives. By it we come
to be new creatures, and are by little and little freed from the polu-
tion of sin. For together with the action of God in forgiving sin,
concurreth another action of divine grace, enabling a man to forsake
and mortify every greater sin which God pardonelh. The filthiness
ofthe flesh and spirit is taken down.
"That we may understand this point the better, and be practition
ers in it, know we must that there is a twofold purging ; one that is
made by the blood of Christ, this is perfect even now ; for they lo
whom the merit of Christ is imputed, have instantly the guilt of their
sin remitted, so that it haih no power to condemn.
" The other, purging away sin, is by the Spirit of Christ, which
will never be brought lo perfection while it works upon this our flesh.
For his Spirit begins only this work in this life by the mortification
of our earthly members, weakens and subdues the power of sin; so
that, though il remain in motion and act, yet fhe dominion is re
moved ; for not any one sin reigns in us to coramand as it was wont
to do, — Exposition of the Apostles' Creed, delivered in several
Sermons, by William Nicholson, Archdeacon of Brecon, pp. 40,
and 607. 63

t«!^

ARCHBISHOP USHER.
Early in life, this acatholicorum doctissimus, (as the
Jesuit Fitzsymonds pronounced him, themost learned
person out of the Catholic Church) commenced "to
read the Fathers all over and trust none but his own
eyes in the search of them." This stupendous un
dertaking he was spared to accomplish. He read a cer
tain portion every day in chronological order, till at the
end of eighteen years he had completed the task, be
ginning with the Fathers of the 1st Century, and
"observing the doctrine of the Ancient Church."
From this divine, thus thoroughly furnished, we
have the following lucid statement of the doctrine of
justification and faith.
"The word justify dolh not signify in this place, (Rom, viii. 30,
33, 34,) lo make just by infusing a perfect righteousness into our
natures; (that comes under the head of sanctification begun here in
this life, which being finished, is glorification in heaven :) but here the
word signifieth lo pronounce just, to quit and lo discharge from guilt
and punishment: and so it is a judicial sentence opposed lo condem
nation. Rom. viii. 34, 35. Who shall lay any thing (saith Paul)
to the charge of God's elect ? It is God that justifieth; who shall
condemn? Now, as to condemn is not the pulling any evil into the
nature of the party condemned, but the pronouncing of his person
guilty, and the binding him over unto punishment: so justifying is
the Judge's pronouncing the law lo be satisfied, and the man dis
charged and quilled from guilt and judgment. Thus God imputing
the righteousness of Christ to a sinner, doth not account his sins unto
him; but interests him in a state of as full and perfect freedom and
acceptance, as if he had never sinned, or had himself fully satisfied.
For though Ihere is a power purging the corruption of sin, which
followeih upon justification ; yet it is carefully to be distinguished
from it: as we shall further show hereafter,
" This for the name of justification : but now for the thing
itself; what is the matter first of our justification?
"The matter of justification, or that righteousness whereby a sin-

499
ner stands justified in God's sight, is not any righteousness inherent
in his own person and performed by hira; but a perfect righteous
ness inherent in Christ, and perforraed for him.
" What righteousness of Christ is it whereby a sinner is justi
fied? "Not the essential righteousness ofhis divine nature: but,
First, the absolute integrity of our human nature, which in him,
our head, was without guile, Heb. vii. 26.
" Secondly, the perfect obedience which in that human nature of
ours he performed unto the whole law of God ; both by doing what
soever was required of us (iMatt. iii; 25) and by suffering whatsoever
was deserved by our sins, (1 Pel. ii. 24). For he was made sin
and a curse for us; that we might be made the righteousness of
God in him, 2 Cor. v. 21.
" What is the form or being-cause of our justification, and that
which makes this righteousness so really ours, that it doth jus
tify us?
" The gracious imputation of God the Father, accounting his Son's
righteousness unto the sinner, and by thaf accounting, making it his,
to all effects, as if he himself had perforraed il.
"But how can Christ's righteousness be accounted ours? is it
not as absurd to say that we are justified by Christ's righteous
riess, as that a man should be fed with the meat another eats? or
be v)armed with the clothes another weareth? or be in life and
health wilh the life and health of another?
" No, doubtless, because this righteousness is to Christ, not as in
a person severed frora us, but as in the head of our common nature,
the second Jidam: from whom therefore it is communicated unto
all, who being united, as members unto him, do claim thereunto, and
apply it unto themselves, Rom. V. 19; x. 4, For if the sin of ./Stfam
being a man, were of force to condemn us all, because we were in
his loins, he being the head of our common nature : why then should
it seem strange, that the righteousness of our Saviour Christ, both
God and man, should be available lo justify those that are interested
in him especially considering that we have a more strict conjunc
tion in the Spirit wilh him, than ever we had in nature with Adam 7
" TFhat gat/ier you from the doctrine of justification by
Christ's righteousness?
" To condemn the proud opinion of Papists who seek justification

500
by their own works and righteousness inherent in themselves :
whereas though being accepted, we must in thankfulness do all we
can for God ; yet when all is done, we must acknowledge ourselves
unprofitable servants: the only matter of our joy and triumph both
in life and death, must be the impulation of Christ's righteousness.
Not our persons nor the best actions ofthe holiest men, dare appear
in God's presence, but in his name and merit who consecrates all,
the Lord Jesus.
" But how is this great benefit of justification applied unto us,
and apprehended by us ?
" This is done, on our part, by faith alone: and that, not consid
ered as a virtue inherent in us, working by love; but only as an
instrument or hand of the soul stretched forth to lay hold on the
Lord our righteousness, Rora, v, 1 ; x, 10. Jer. xxiii. 6. So that
failh juslifielh only relatively, in respect of the object which it fas-
tenelh on ; to wit, the righteousness of Christ, by which we are justi
fied : failh being only the instrument lo convey so great a benefit
unto the soul, as the hand ofthe beggar receives the alras.
" What is that which you make the object of saving faith ?
" The general object of true saving failh, is the whole truth of
God revealed ; but the special object of faith as it justifieth, is the
promise of remission of sins by the Lord Jesus. For as the Israelites,
by the same eyes by which Ihey looked upon the brazen serpent,
saw other things ; but they were not healed by looking upon any
thing else, bul only the brazen serpent; so, though by the same
faith whereby I cleaveto Christ for remission of sins, I believe every
truth revealed; yet I am not justified by believing any truth but the
promise of grace in the Gospel.
" What gather we from hence ?
"First, the folly of Popish Doctors, who persuade the multitude
to rest iu a blind failh, which they call implicit and folded up ; tell
ing them that it is enough for Ihem to believe as lhe Church believes,
though they know not who the Church is, whereas the Scripture
teacheth us that failh comes by hearing; that is, by hearing the
blessed promise of grace offered to the people, Rom. x, 14, 17." 
Usher's Body of Divinity, pp. 194, 198.
The Doctrine of imputed righteousness, expressed
in the above extracts of Usher's Body of Divinity, is
given in precisely the same substance, and with equal

501
plainness, throughout his Sermons on Justification,
preached at Oxford, where he says raore than once of
the doctrine: " This is imputative righteousness, as it
IS IN THE Articles of the Church of England."
HOPKINS, bishop.
" It is very wonderful, (says Bishop Hopkins, of venerable mem
ory) that the Papists should so obstinately resolve not lo understand
this doctrine of imputed righteousness, but still cavil against it, as a
contradiction. It being, say they, as utterly impossible to becorae
righteous through the righteousness of another, as to becorae health
ful through another's health. And some, besides this slander of a
contradiction, give us this scoff into the bargain ; that the Protestants
in defending an imputative righteousness, show only an imputative
modesty and learning. But they raight do well to consider that
some denominations are physical, others only legal or juridical. To
be righteous may be taken, either in a physical sense, and so it de
notes an inherent righteousness, which in the best is imperfect; or
else in a forensic or juridical sense, and so the perfect righteousness
of anoiher who is our Surety, may become ours, and be irapuled for
our justification. Il is the righteousness of another personally ; ours
juridically ; because by failh we have a right and title lo il; which
accrue to us by the promise of God, and our union to our Surely." —
Works, vol. ii. pp. 323, 4.
" Justification is a gracious act of God, whereby through the right
eousness of Christ's satisfaction imputed, he freely remits lo the be
lieving sinner the guilt and punishment ofhis sins; and through the
righteousness of Christ's perfect obedience imputed, he accounts him
righteous, and accepts him into love and favour, and unto eternal
life. This is justification, which is the very sum and pith of the
whole Gospel, and the only end of the Covenant of Grace." — Doct.
of the Two Covenants. Works, vol. ii. p. 382.
BEVERIDGE, BISHOP,
On the Article of Justif cation — Eleventh.
" Whatsoever we lost in the first, we gained in the second Adam,
Are we accounted sinners by Adam's sin imputed to us? We are
accounted righteous by Christ's righteousness laid upon us. Are
we made sinners also by Adam's sin, inherent in us ? We are made

502
righteous also by Christ's righteousness imparted to us; his Spirit
being our's for the sanctification, as well as Adam's sin, our's for the
corruption of our nature ; and his merit our's for the justification, as
well as Adam's transgression our's for the condemnation of our per
sons. " By this merit it is that we are accounted righteous before God ;
where we may take notice by the way, how our being justified is
here expressed by our being accounted righteous, and not by our
being made righteous. For il is nol by the inhesion of grace in us,
but by the impulation of righteousness lo us that we are justified ; as
it is not by lhe imputation of righteou.sness to us, bul by the inhesion
of grace in us, that we are sanctified. Thus we find the Aposlle
speaking of lhe justification of Abraham, saying, ' Abraham be
lieved God, and it was counted fo him for righteousness !' Rora, iv. 3 ;
and again, 'but lo him that worketh not, but believeth on him that
justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.' And if
faith is accounted for righteousness, we must needs be accounted
righteous by faith, and so we be justified by faith, that is, it is ac
counted for righteousness to us by grace, nol as a principle of right
eousness in us. Which also further appears in that justification is
here said to be of the ungodly, ' who juslifielh the ungodly.' For
so long as a man is ungodly, he cannot be said lo be justified by any
inward and inherent, but only by an outward and imputed righteous
ness ; so that justification is properly opposed to accusation. So, St.
Paul plainly, ' who shall lay any thing lo the charge of God's elect?
it is God that juslifielh, who is he that condemneth ? it is Christ that
died,' Rom, viii. 33, 34. Who shall accuse or lay any thing lo the
charge of God's elect ? The devil, their own consciences ; but it is
God that will justify and pronounce ihem righteous. How? Be
cause they are righteous in themselves ? No; but because Christ's
raerits are imputed lo them, who is therefore said, ' lo be made sin
for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,' 2
Cor. V, 21. How was Christ raade sin for us? Not by our sins in
herent in him, that is horrid blasphemy ; but by our sins imputed to
him, that is true divinity. And as he was made sin for us, not by
the inhesion of our sins in him, but by the imputation of our sins lo
him, so are we made the righteousness of God in hira, by the impu
tation ofhis righteousness to us, not by the inhesion ofhis righteous
ness in us. He vfas accounted as a sinner, and therefore punished

for us ; we are accounted as righteous, and therefore glorified in him.
Our sins were laid upon him, and therefore he died for us in lime;
his righteousness is laid upon us, and therefore we shall live wilh
him lo eternity. Thus was the innocent punished, as if he was
guilty, that the guilty raight be rewarded, as if they were innocent.
And thus we are accounted as righteous in him, as he was accounted
as a sinner for us.
"He was accounted as a sinner for us, and therefore he was con
demned ; we are accounted as righteous in him ; and so we are justi
fied. And this is the right notion of justification as distinguished
from sanctification. Not as if these two were ever severed or divi
ded in their subjects; no, every one that is justified, is also sancti
fied, and every one that is sanctified is also justified. But y-et the
acts of justification and sanctification are two distinct things : for the
one denotes the imputation of righteousness lo us; the other denotes
the implantation of righteousness in us. And therefore, though they
be both the acts of God, yet the one is the act of God towards us,
the other is the act of God in us. Our sanctification is in God only,
not in ourselves ; our sanctification is in ourselves as well as God,
By our sanctification we are made righteous in ourselves, but not
accounted righteous by God ; by our justification we are accounted
righteous by God, but not made righteous in ourselves. And we are
thus justified or accounted righteous before God only for the merit
of our Lord Christ, and not for our own works. As it is not by
our own strength that we can be sanctified in ourselves, so it is not
by our own works that we can be justified before God. But as it is
onl)' by the Spirit of Christ that our natures can be made holy, so it
is only by the merit of Christ that our persons can be accounted
righteous. And seeing this merit of Christ is raade over unto us by
our failh in hira, we are therefore said ' to be justified by failh ' not
as it is an act in us, but as il applies Christ to us. We are therefore
said to be justified by failh in Christ, because we should not be jus
tified by Christ without faith. Wherefore, that we are justified by
faith only, is wholesorae doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more
largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification, whither I refer the
reader for raore satisfaction in that particular."
We have now presented a chain of testimony to
the great Protestant and Gospel-doctrine of Justifica-

504
tion by the imputed righteousness of Christ; that
righteousness consisting in Christ's active obedience
in fulfilling the law, as well as in his passive in suf
fering its penalty; that righteousness applied, em
braced, or apprehended only by faith; and faith in
this act, though necessarily a lively and working
faith, and working by love, yet not effectual in this
application of Christ's righteousness, because it is a
virtue or works by love, but simply because it is the
empty hand of an unworthy beggar reached out unto
and taking hold on Christ. We have presented a chain
of testimony from Tyndale and Barnes, morning
stars of the Anglican Reformation, down through
the most distinguished of the Reformers, to the time
of the admirable Beveridge, whose days reached into
the eighteenth Century. A few things must be no
ted as conspicuous in these extracts. First, they are
from the most learned, conspicuous, influential and
eminently holy divines of their several ages, to whora
especially the Church of England looks for her no
blest sons, and the Church of succeeding ages will
look for her most venerable Fathers. Secondly, they
are too plain, pointed, reiterated, concurrent, unva
ried and homogeneous to admit of a supposition
that their appearance of doctrine, in this work, is
owing to their being seen in a disconnected form.
No context can change the testimony of such passa
ges. Third. They all speak precisely the same lan
guage. Just what Tyndale and Cranmer and Lati
mer said in the early part of the 16th Century; An
drewes and Mede and Downame said in the early
part of the 17th, and Usher and Beveridge in the
latter part of the same. If there be an increase of

505
clearness and precision in such raen as Usher and
Hall, over those of the early Reforraers, there is no
variety of doctrine. Fourth. There is, in all these
writers, the raost thorough conformity, and the most
minute similarity, of doctrine, to that of the Articles
and Homiles of the Church of England, none either
stretching beyond or falling short of those standards in
any degree, as regards justification. Fifth. Wherever
any persons are mentioned by these great writers as
opposing their doctrines on this head, they have no
reference to any but Romanists, or Socinians; the
idea not having arisen in their minds that the denial
of justification by a righteousness imputed, and the
substitution of a righteousness inherent, could spring
from any other source than Popery, or Socinianism.
Sixth, Wherever the doctrine comraon to Popery
and Oxford Divinity, as to justification and faith, is
treated in the extracts above given, it is invariably
regarded as a fundamental error, of the very first im
portance, a doctrine of merits in opposition to grace,
of works in opposition lo faith, destructive of the sin
ner's peace, subversive of the foundations of the Gos
pel, by all means to be rooted out, unheard of in the
Church, till " the spawn " ofthe Schoolmen, (as Usher
says,) brought it forth, and the arts of the Jesuits
nourished it up — a doctrine considered in England's
Reformation, precisely as in that of the Continent,
articulus cadentis ecclesice. Let this " abomination of
desolation" be once admitted into the Temple of God,
and instantly will be heard, therein, as before the de
struction of the Teraple of Jerusalera by the Roraans
— voices, the voices of all the precious messengers of
gospel consolations, saying "Let us remove hence,"
64

CHAPTER XIL
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS.
After all that has been developed in the preceding
chapters, it seems hardly possible that any person,
whichever side he may sympathise with, can suppose
that the amount of difference between the system of
Oxford divinity, and that which has been shown to
be the doctrine of the Anglican Church, and of her
Reformers, and standard Divines, is little else than
a difference of words, or is not, in sober and solemn
verity, a difference of vital importance to the interests
of Christian truth, a difference upon grand primary
questions, involving all that was so nobly contended
for by the martyrs of the Reformation, and all that is
precious to the sinner in the gospel of Christ,
One thing is certain. To the divines at Oxford, at
least the difference between their system of faith, in
regard to the way of justification, and all the hopes
and consolations, and duties, and ordinances, con
nected therewith, does seem of most radical and fun
damental importance, however it may seem to others.
On no one subject of all their voluminous writings,
has so much labour, care, learning, diligence been
expended as upon that of justification. Justly con
sidering it as the corner stone of their system of di
vinity, according to which every thing else must be
conformed, Mr, Newraan has devoted a whole volurae
of elaborate lectures to the establishment of the pe-

508
culiar views ofhis school on that head. Dr. Pusey
has done the same. The close and exceedingly earn
est volume of this writer on Baptisraal Regeneration,
is substantially a treatise on justification, these two,
in Oxford Divinity, being one; " different aspects of
the same divine gift." The entire engrossment of
energy and zeal with which these writers have la
boured the proof of their doctrine of inherent right
eousness for justification, as communicated by the
sole instrumentality of Baptism; the strong and un
mitigated condemnation which they pronounce upon
the doctrine of an external and imputed righteous
ness, apprehended only by faith; their declarations
that such righteousness is unreal, except as a corrup
tion, a bondage to shadows, a substitution of husks
and shells for the bread of life, an arbitrary tyranical
usurpation in place of the rich grace of the gospel ;
the tone of contempt in which they cry " away ivith
it f the contrast drawn between the effects of the
preaching of justification through the accounted
righteousness of Christ, by faith alone, upon men's
consciences, to wean them from holiness, and those
ofthe wretched systera of indulgences, and "the stale
dregs of the ancient medicine" in the Church of
Rome, giving decidedly the preference, in point of
moral influence, to the latter ; the positive statement
that the departure of Romanism from the ancient
faith, is only " external and objective," while that of
common Protestanism is "internal and radical;" the
express declaration that the doctrine of justification
by imputed righteousness is "another gospel" ; the
very intelligible intimation that it brings its advocates
under the anathema pronounced in Scripture upon

509
whosoever should preach any other gospel than
preached by St. Paul — all this, so like the anathe
matising language of the Council of Trent, in the
same cause, for precisely the same doctrine, and
against the same opposers, most impressively teaches
that if it be the idea of any that the difference be
tween their views and those exhibited in this work,
as the doctrines of the Anglican Church, is of subor
dinate importance, it is very far from being the idea
of the divines of Oxford, With the Church of Rome
they consider their common doctrine of justification
as of such fundamental importance that if this be not
established their cause fails, their restorations are null
and void. They are perfectly right. The difference
is at least as great as they represent it. Their mode
of representing the way of salvation is indeed " an
other gospel" to us; another to the Church to whose
doctrines we are pledged. The whole ground-work
on which they teach the sinner to rely for justifica
tion and acceptance before God, is the very reverse
of that which we have learned from the Scriptures,
and which our Fathers have declared unto us. Their
righteousness, on which their hope of acceptance is
based, is their own, as much as their intellects are
their own. That on which we rely for all hope of
present mercy or final acceptance is exclusively the
righteousness of Christ. To them justification con
sists in being made personally holy. To us, it con
sists in being accounted righteous through the obe
dience and death of our Redeemer. They satisfy the
law by their own obedience ; we have no hope of its
fulfilment and satisfaction in our behalf, but as it re
ceived its full demand in the obedience of our Surety.

510
While professing to have no idea of any merit but that
of Christ, they look to it, not for direct acceptance
with God, but for the power of divine grace to enable
them so to work and walk, that in themselves they
shall be acceptable. We, entirely rejecting such a
scheme, as equivalent to a righteousness of works,
and believing it to be precisely that of the law in
which St. Paul so earnestly desired that he might
not be found, do look directly unto Jesus, the author
and finisher of our faith, not only for the Holy Spirit
to make us meet for the presence of God, but for all
the righteousness on which the title to that presence
must be founded. Thus as to " the nature and es
sence ofthe medicine whereby Christ cureth our dis
ease," we are as wide apart as two opposite descrip
tions of remedy can make us.
Precisely as complete as is the change required by
this system in all our ideas ofthe sinner's only ground
of reliance for acceptance with God, is the transfor
mation it demands in all that we have been taught,
by the standards of our Church, of the way of apply
ing the only remedy in the Gospel, for the sinner's
ruin. Justifying faith is literally nothing in this sys
tera but a name, a pretence to something which it is
not. According to the old way of the Apostles, faith
is every thing in the application of the righteousness
of Christ ; as faith was every thing in the coming of
blind Bartimeus to have his eyes opened by the power
of Christ. It was Christ that opened his eyes. But
the blind man's faith was that which alone brought
down upon his dark eye-balls those benevolent and
wonder-working hands. Such precisely is the agency
of faith, in bringing the soul to Christ, and in obtain-

511
ing that wedding garment of his perfect righteous
ness ; an agency so essential, so peculiar, so solitary ;
not as if any but a living faith could thus avail ; but
that while as a living faith, it contains within itself
the whole essential life of all love and active obe
dience it comes not to Christ with the price of that love
and obedience wherewith to recommend the penitent
soul to God's acceptance ; but renouncing all thought
of itself and of the love it practically works by, holds
out the empty hand ofa poor, miserable, worthless beg
gar, crying mercy to unrighteousness, only through the
righteousness of Christ's obedience and death for sin
ners. But no such peculiar office has faith in the appli
cation of the Gospel remedy, according to the new
divinity of Oxford. There, when a sinner who was
baptized in infancy, applies to know "ivhat he must
do to be saved," he is told that he has been already
spiritually and savingly regenerated and justified,
that he has been made "the temple of the Holy
Ghost," has had "the indwelling of God," "the
Shekinah" of the Holy One, abiding in him and in
vesting his soul " with the only wedding garment ;"
that, in his baptism, all original sin was taken away
from him, and he received " an angel's nature," and
was raade pure and spotless before God. " But," an
swers the enquirer. " I have sinned. Ever since I
became capable of knowing good from evil, I have
had to confess, as in the language of the Church, that
I have erred and strayed from God, as a lost sheep,
and there is no health in me. My enquiry is not, what
I was when an infant, but how I may become what
a sinner must be before he can see God in peace.

512
What must I do to be saved from the condemnation
ofmy past and present sins?" Oxford Divinity an
swers, by enquiring whether his sins belong to the
class of mortal or venial. They are " sins after Bap
tism'' It is an immense matter for the enquirer to
settle in his mind, if he would drink of the consola
tions of this divinity, to which class his -sins belong.
If they have all been venial — that is, if they have not
been mortal, then they say to him, " go in peace," thy
sins be forgiven thee. The virtue of your Infant Bap
tism remains. Faith which proceeded therefrom,
whether you have ever been conscious of its opera
tion or not, faith, as the symbol and representa
tive of Baptism, has not lost the life which it received
in Baptism, since nothing but mortal sin can slay it.
Therefore the cleansing from all sin, as well actual,
as original, which Baptism conveys, still abides.
You are still regenerate and justified ; the cross is
still erected within you ; still have you " an indwell
ing God ;" " the righteousness of the law is fulfilled"
in you, and so are you accepted in God's sight.
"But," answers the enquirer, " My conscience cannot
be satisfied in this way. What is my faith ? I am no
infidel indeed. I receive the Christian religion as
true. But I have never considered why I receive it.
It has corae to rae as a sort of inheritance. It is the
faith of the Church in which I was baptized, and that
is about all the reason I have known for retaining it.
Experience of its power, internal evidence from its
effects, I know of none. Besides, I ara ignorant of
its great and peculiar doctrines. There is the death
of Christ, as set before me in the cross which is erect
ed in the Church, and marked on my forehead. I

513
really do not know any thing about it, except what
that naked cross can tell rae. I have heard of some
thing called the atonement, as a great doctrine of the
Gospel, but what it means I know not. Certain Pro
testants say that I raust look unto Jesus, embrace his
cross by faith, put all my trust in what he did for rae,
and that, without this, I can have no peace with God ;
but this I have never done, Christ has never been
directly in my thoughts when I have sought to be
reconciled to God. I have attended Church, kneeled
and bowed, and made the sign of the cross; I have
kept my eye very much upon the image of the cross,
over the altar, and have regularly taken the Holy
Supper, and led a good moral life ; I have not been
profane, nor licentious, nor a bad neighbour. I have
fasted when directed by the Church, and kept her
feasts, and given alms to the poor ; but still I have
not been directing my mind, and heart, and trust, at
all to what Christ did for me on the cross, and for a
very good reason, because I do not know what he
did, and yet you tell me that because I have commit
ted no deadly sin, I am still as entirely clear and jus
tified before God, as I was when baptized in infancy,
though I daily confess that I have erred and strayed
like a lost sheep." " Yes," answers Oxford Divinity.
" Your case is uncommon. We do not often meet
with a person so ignorant of what Christ did for us
on the cross. But that does not hinder you from
having a true and living faith. ' Explicit ya?VA m
the atonement' is not necessary to justification. You
believe the Church, and whatever the Church de
clares. In this way, you may be considered as be-
65

514
lieving in tbe atonement, not waiting to know what
the Church teaches in regard to it, nor presuming to
ask why she teaches it. Thus you have an implicit
faith .And this knowledge is enough to enable it to
act as the representative of your baptism, and as sus
taining the justification which your baptism com
municated. Distinct reference to the cross of Christ
is not required of your faith. A cross was erected
-.vithin you at your baptism. Look to that, and all
will be right. Ton have had a living fiiith ever since
you were baptized, even in your unconscious infancy.
All you have to do is just to go on in the course you
have so well begun; not to destroy, by mortal sin, that
'divine gift,' that glorious ' Shekinah of the Word In
carnate,' that ' angelic nature' which you received in
baptism, and are now ennobled by. We must remind
you, however, that all depends upon the accuracy of
your knowledge ofthe difference betv/een sins that are
mortal, and sins that are not mortal. A mistake here
is fatal. One mortal sin is death to all your baptis
mal blessings, and hopes, and dignities, and gifts, —
Consider well, then, whether you have ever commit
ted a MORTAL sin,"
"But how shall I know? (says the enquirer,) Give
me some rule by which to judge,"
"A rule which shall so accurately guide youiu all
circumstances (says Oxford Divinity of necessity,)
that you shall be at no loss to determine, in each par
ticular case, whether the sin wat; mortal or not, and
especially a rule by which you shall be able so to
determine as to all those sins which it is now impossi
ble for you lo remember, we cannot furnish you.

515
Nothing but a general definition can be given, sub
ject in its application to circumstances."^
" But (answers the enquirer,) I have now been living
some sixty years. How can I call up all my sins,
with all their circumstances, and bring them to the
trial of a rule so general, and thus ascertain of each sin,
out of those of every day and hour of my life, whether
it was of one class, or the other ? And yet on this,
'The following passage from Dr. Pusey contains a raost painful showing of
the impossibility of distinguishing between sins venial and mortal, and the con
sequent necessiiy of every baptized person either concluding that he has com
mitted mortal sin, since his baptism, and has thus lost justification, or else of
being in a stale of uncertainty which cannot but destroy all confidence of peace
with God, "A question (says Dr. Pusey) will probably occur to many; what
is that grievous sin after baptism which involves the falling from grace? what
the distinction between lesser and greater — tenial and mortal sinsl or if
MOHTAL sins be ' sins against the decalogue,' as St. Augustine says, are they
only the highest degrees of those sins, or are they the lower alsol This ques
tion, as it is a very distressing one, 1 -would gladly ans-wer if I could or dared.
But, as with regard to the sin against the Holy Ghost, so here also. Scripture
is silent. I certainly, much as I have laboured, have not yet been able to de
cide any thing. Perhaps it is therefore concealed, lest men's anxiety to hold
onward to the avoiding of all sin should wax cold. But now since the degree
of VENIAL iniquity (venial iniquity ! .') if persevered in, is unknown, the eager
ness to make progress by more instant continuance in prayer is quickened, and
the carefulness to make holy friends ofthe mammon of unrighteousness is not
despised." Some who were disposed to go to a considerable length wilh the school of
Dr, Pusey, have been aroused into indignant opposition by thrse and kindred
perversions and abominations. Of this class, is the writer of "Letters on the
Kingdom of Heaven, &c.," who asks: " Where is the minister of Chriat in
London, Birmingham or Manchester, whom such a doctrine, heartily and in
wardly entertained, would not drive to madness 1 He is sent to preach the
GospeL What Gospel? Of all the thousands whom he addresses, he cannot
venture to believe that there are ten who, in Dr. Pusey's sense, retain their bap
tismal purity. All he can do, therefore, is to tell wretched creatures, who spend
eighteen hours out of the twenty four in close factories and bitter toil, corrupt
ing and being corrupted, that if they spend the remaining six in prayer — he
need not add fasting — they raay possibly be saved. How can we insult God
ond torment man with such mockery!" — Letters on the Kingdom of Heaven,
&c. vol. 1,

516
all my consolation, from my baptismal justification,
depends," "True, (answers Oxford Divinity,) we do not pre
tend to any better consolation. To enable you to
know your precise state before God, so that you may
have any thing better than an uncertain hope, is not
our profession,"
"Well then, (says the enquirer,) the safest way is
to believe the worst; that during my sixty years of sin
ning and confessing, in the midst of so much respon
sibility, required of God to love Him with all my
heart and strength, and my neighbour as myself, I
have, by thought, word, or deed, by omigsion or com-
raission, coraraitted, at least, one mortal sin, one sin
that deserves God's wrath and indignation. What
then?" " Your case is entirely and awfully changed. That
one sin destroyed your faith. It is now dead. There
remains no representative of baptism to sustain its
efficacy. Consequently your regeneration and justi
fication have ceased. There is now no cross erected
within you, ' The Shekinah of the Word Incarnate '
has passed away. Your sin is conderaning to the
soul, and abideth on you."
" O tell me then what must I do to be saved? I
ara old and grey-headed. The grave waits for me.
The wrath of God is upon me. What can I do?"
(Oxford Divinity says,) " Repent of this thy wicked
ness!" "But how can I repent? (answers the enquirer,) I
have been taught that there is no true repentance
without love to God, and that the love of God is shed
abroad in the heart only in baptism, and as I cannot

517
be baptized again, how shall I get the love of God,
and how can I truly repent? Besides, what sort of
repentance is necessary for this mortal sin, and of
what avail will it be? Do help ray aching heart,"
Dr, Pusey answers : " Who truly repent (for such a
sin) ; what are helps towards true repentance; when
a man who has been guilty of ' deadly sin wilfully
committed after baptism may be satisfied that he is
truly repentant for it; whether and to what degree he
should all his life continue his repentance for it;
whether he be altogether pardoned; wherein his
penitence should consist ; whether continued repent
ance would efface the traces of his sin in himself;
whether he might ever in this life look upon himself
as restored to the state in which he had been, had he
not committed it; whether it affect the degree of his
future bliss {after being repented of): whether it
shall appear again at the day of judgment; these are
questions upon which a modern popular theology has
decided very peremptorily,' ' but on which our bet
ter Divinity of Oxford, the Catholic verity, does not
presume to speak to you with any definitiveness,"
"Then, (answers the enquirer,) am I to be left
here on the brink of the grave, uninformed as to
what is true repentance, what are its effects, and
how I am to get it, for this one mortal sin after bap
tism?" Oxford Divinity replies, "we have no more light
to give."
"But, besides repentance, (says the enquirer,) I
cannot be saved without a living faith; and now all the
' Pusey's Letter, p. 55,

5Ib
faith I ever had is dead, because of this one sin.
How can I ever have it made alive again?"
Dr. Pusey answers, " ' The Church has no second
baptism to give,' and therefore, as vve know of no
way for the regeneration of faith but in that Sacra
raent, the Eucharist being only for those whose faith
is living, we must decline any further answer to that
question." "Then what shall I do ? I have lost my regenera
tion and justification ; I cannot be saved unless I can
regain them : baptism is the only instrument of both.
It cannot be repeated — what shall I do ? To go to
the grave in such a state of awful uncertainty is in
tolerable." Dr. Pusey answers, "Friend, be not surprised that
we can give you no better consolation. ' Romanism
as well as Ultra Protestantism would readily consult
for this your feverish anxiety to be altogether at
ease.' Our Oxford Divinity considers it her special
excellence that she leaves you in all this uncertainty.
She 'sets you in the way in which God's peace may
descend upon you, but forestalls not his sentence.
She has no second baptism to give, and so she can
not pronounce you altogether free ' from that mortal
sin. " There are but two periods of absolute cleans
ing — baptism and the day of Judgment. She there
fore teaches you continually to repent that so your
sins may be blotted out, though she has no commis
sion to tell you absolutely that they are."^
" But is this the whole consolation the Gospel
brings to me a poor, dying sinner ? Soon shall I be
' Pusey's Letter, p. 62. This doctrine is kept up through the Tracts,

519

upon my death-bed. I have sinned once after bap
tism, and for that, the provision of the Gospel is so
limited, that I must die in the awful uncertainty whe
ther I have repented for it, as sin after baptism re
quires, and whether it will not meet me, and return
upon me, at the judgment, even if I have truly re
pented. Is there no better peace than this?"
"Friend, (answers Dr, Pusey,) should we endea
vour to remove your trouble, it would be consulting
for your 'feverish anxiety to be at ease.' This un
certainty which we administer, as part of the bene
fits of our system of divinity, is no other than ' the
bitterness of the ancient medicine.' This is 'the
deep and searching agony, whereby God, as in a fur
nace of fire, is purifying your whole man, by the
Spirit of judgment and the Spirit of burning.'
There are two other ways indeed. The one is that
of our Holy Mother, the Church of Rome," which
system as to the present matter is precisely the same
as ours, except in this that, for sin after baptism, it
provides a Sacraraent for its express remission. The
sacrament of Penance in the Romish Church takes
the repentance and faith of him whose conscience is
defiled with such sin; and those defici ences which
we cannot supply, since baptism cannot be repeated,
and because we have adopted, as yet, no substitute,
she supplies by the sacramental absolution of the
Priest, with expiatory penances and satisfaction.
This is her way of comforting troubled souls. We
object to it because it is consulting ' man's feverish
anxiety for ease ' of mind. The other way is that of
Ultra Protestants, which tells you that repentance

520
for sin after baptism is no other than that for sin be
fore baptism, just the sorrow of a contrite heart;
that a living faith can be obtained as well after bap
tism, as by baptism; and with such repentance and
such faith, it directs you immediately to Christ, al
lowing of no necessity of any sacrament to intervene
between you and the Saviour, but promising you
entire release from the bond of your sin, the moment
you embrace, with a true penitent heart, the cross of
Christ, as'all your hope. Now if you are deter
mined not to be content with such consolation as it
is consistent with our system to offer you, and ask
which of these two other systems you should choose,
we have no hesitation in saying that the way of the
Romish Church, even should you take up with her
system of Indulgences, is the better. ' The abuse
of the doctrine of Justification, in the other system,
sears men's consciences as much as the Indulgences
of the Romish system,' If this has 'but the dregs
of the system of the ancient Church, stale and un
profitable as these often are, they have yet something
of the strength or bitterness of the ancient medicine'
— ' Romanism in practice as well as in doctrine, is de
cayed' — 'yet there is often reality in it, to those who
would find it,'^ while the way of peace proclaimed
by the Ultra Protestant, that of the imputed righte
ousness of Christ, embraced only by faith, is 'un
real' — 'a real corruption' and 'another gospel.'
Alas ! reader, what shall we do to be saved, so as to
have any consolation in Christ, if all our refuge is in
such a system as that which we have thus so imper-
' Pusey's Letter, p. 56 & 57.

521
fectly, and yet most truly and accurately, so far as
we have gone, exhibited. It is not a change of mere
names from what we have learned of Christ ; it is not
a departure frora the usual doctrine, by a few shades
of difference only. It does not deraand of us, a raere
bending, and shortening, or lengthening of our accus-
toraed views of truth, so as to raake them fit the mould
presented to us. It is a change of great fundamental
doctrines ; a new creation of our whole belief of the
way of salvation; old things must pass away; all
things concerning the nature oT the Gospel remedy,
its application to the sinner, the number and efficacy
ofthe means of that application, must become new.
The cross of Christ lifted up on high for every soul
to be ever looking at, as the single object of his justi
fying faith, and foundation of his only hope, raust be
borne away from its central position in the grand
panorama of gospel truth, and laid down almost out
of sight, and Baptism be set up in its stead, having
for its symbol a name of faith, and for its virtue, a
cross within, Christ' crucified, only in the sense of
self-mortification. Thus must we change our hopes
and desert our consolations, and bring a cloud of dark
uncertainty over our eternal prospects, and refuse to
rejoice in Christ, and fear, as presumption, a confi
dence of plenary justification through the blood of
Jesus, except we can persuade ourselves, as never a
mortal being could, with truth, that since our baptism
in infancy, we have never committed a mortal sin.
We need go no further in showing how completely
this Via Media is an abandonment of all that we have
been taught by our Church to believe, to be the true,
the narrow, the onlv way that leadeth unto life; how
66

522
entirely it is the very soul and strength of all that is
evil in the Romanism against which our Reformers
protested to their last breath out of the furnace of fire
To whomsoever this system may seem to involve lit
tle else than a very tolerable difference of opinion, we
call up the venerable Bishop Hall, who, himself, had
to war with precisely such latitudinarian ideas ofthe
importance of the question, to deliver his testimony.
Hear him !
" The grossest of the Popish heresies and the most venomous
opinions of Rome are conversa-nt about justification, free will, merit
of our works, &c.
" That point of justification of all other is exceeding important, in
somuch that Calvin was fain lo persuade that if the one might be
yielded safe and entire, il would nol quit the cost to make any great
quarrel for the rest. (Because the truth would not then out.) But
while the Tridentine Fathers take upon Ihem to forge the formal
cause of our justification, to be our own inherent justice, and thrust
faith out of office; what good man can choose but presently address
himself to an opposition? Who would not rather die than suffer the
ancient faith of lhe Church to be depraved with these idle dreams?
In the meantime we cannot bul scorn to see the souls of men so
shamefully deluded, while we hear the Spirit of God so often redou
bling without works; not by works, but by faith, being justified free
ly by his grace.
" But some perhaps may think this a mere strife of words, and not
hard to be reconciled, for that which to the Papists is inherent justice,
is no other to the Protestants than sanctification ; both sides hold this
equally necessar}'. True, but do both require it in the same man
ner? do both lo the same end? I think not. Yea, what can be more
contrary than these opinions lo each other? The Papists raake ihis
inherent righteousness the cause; the Protestants the effect thereof.
The Protestants require it as the corapanion or page. The Papists
as the usher, yea, rather as the parent of jusiificalion,
'• ' But what matters il (say they,) so both ascribe this whole \\ork
lo God? as though it comes not all lo one lo pay a sum for me, and
to givp it me to pay for mvself.' I know how these things seem so

523
little dissonant to men's ears, which the Spirit of God hath made ut
terly incompatible, • To him that workethis tlie reward not imputed
of grace, but of debt. If by grace, then not of works; or else grace
should be no more grace.' 'For neiiher is it grace any way, if it
be^ nol free every way,' saith Augustine, But these men say,
' Therefore of grace because of works.'
" To be imputed therefore, and lo be inherent differ no less than
God and man, Trent and Heaven.
" Bul say our raodern Papists, Christ hath raerited this merit of
ours; neiiher can any other work challenge this to themselves, but
tho.se which are done in God, as Andrada speaks. But what is this
but to cozen the world, and to cast a mist before the eyes ofthe un
skilful ? Our sins are dyed in the blood of Christ, not our merits. —
' What I do is mine, what I merit is mine; whosoever gives me
either to do or to merit.' " '¦
Precisely the doctrine of Romanism and of Ox
fordism which this good and faithful witness of the
truth thus declared to be, as far asunder from the
Protestant and Anglican doctrine, of imputed right
eousness, as God and man, as Trent and Heaven is
considered, by the learned Dr. Jackson, as "unroof
ing the edifice and defacing the walls of Christian
faith, leaving nothing thereof but loose altar stones
for the idolatrous sacrifices of Romanists." The
good Bishop Andrewes, granted that Roraanists went
so far as to allow imputation "in that part of Christ's
righteousness which is satisfactory for punishraent;"
yet because they allowed it not " in that positive right
eousness of Christ which is meritorious of reward,"
viz, their active obedience to the law for us, said
" they did shrink up the name of Christ as the Lord
our Righteousness," and " spoil him of half his name,"
What the Judicious Hooker thought of the impor-

1 Bishop Hall's No Peace with Rome,

5'i4
tance of the question none can be ignorant who have
ever looked into his admirable discourse on this very
subject. That the principle of justification, by in
herent righteousness — in other words, what he calls
it, " the attributing unto ivorks a power of satisfying for
sin," as Rome does, and as Oxford Divinity does,
while both alike declare that the power cometh only
through the merits of Christ, because he doeth the
works in aud by us; that this principle "overthroweth
the foundation of faith,'" though it is not "a direct
denial thereof," was the main object of the writing of
that Discourse,
We have been aware all the while of the prepara
tion of this book, that it may be said, and probably
will be, by some reader, that some of the features of
doctrine which we have been ascribing to Romanism,
are not peculiar to the Church of Rome, but have
been always held by some Protestants, here and
there, and are now to be found, in more or less de
velopment, in writers, or preachers, or divisions, of
almost all Protestant Churches.
If, by this, be meant that any bodies of Protestant
Christians, united together under the sacramental
seals of the Gospel, have made such doctrines the
subjects of solemn confession, and adopted them into
creeds, or articles of faith, as Romanists have done ;
we deny the assertion. It has been the peculiar
honour of Rome to take the self-gratifying doctrines
of man's self-righteous nature, and with their several
ramifications, and defences of man's unsanctified wis
dom, to set them up on high, in one of the uppermost
' Disc, on Justification, § 32,

525
seats of her synagogue, as her solemn Church doc
trine, sealed with the seal of infallibility, and com
manded to be received of all people and kindreds,
and tongues.
But if it be meant that such, in more or less de
velopment, have been the doctrines of individuals m
all sections of the Protestant world, we have no dis
position to deny it. On the contrary, it is precisely
in evidence of what we desire earnestly to irapress
on all minds, that the essential principal of Roman
ism, justification by our own righteousness, so far
frora having the least reserablance to th^t of the doc
trine of the apostles, which was " to the world fool
ishness," and "an offence," is precisely the very prin
ciple most akin to man, most congenial to his natural
mind, most likely to spring up and bud and blossom,
and only to be kept down by the positive over-bear
ing of the Gospel. There is unquestionably a pow
erful tendency in the human mind, feeling, as it does,
the want of some religion, but desiring a religion as
little spiritual as possible, to take up with the radical
principles of the Romish divinity, even while the
name of the Church of Rome is execrated, and her
overt corruptions are abhorred, and the profession and
boast of Protestantism are loud and high. There
are ingredients of Romanism under all names of Pro
testantism, Almost every form of error has affinity
to some parts of the body of that divinity. But this
certain fact, instead of making the true and systema
tised and developed Romanism, as it has been exhi
bited in these pages, the less to be feared, only sets
its dangerous presence in the more impressive light.
If it be but the carrying out of the natural tendencies
of the human mind, in all circumstances, in proper-

526
tion as it is uncorrected by the Gospel; then the more
we see ofthe power of those tendencies everywhere,
the more should we be afraid of that which, by call
ing them out and giving them the dignity of solemn
doctrine, and the force of embodied association, whe
ther it take the name of Romanism or not, does but
strengthen the resistance of man to the power and
wisdom of God in the cross of Christ, When phy
sicians are alarmed at the appearance of a formidable
disease coming forth in, a full array of complex symp
toms, you will little diminish their anxiety by assur
ing them that there are, everywhere, evidences of the
atmosphere being genial to it, and of a partial opera
tion of its latent principles, without its name. If they
give it a name of its own, and set themselves to alarm
a careless community against it, under that distinctive
name; it would be strange indeed should some one
tell them, as a reason against their zeal, that certain
partial features of that malady have long been known,
and are now often seen without being marked by a
name so alarming. The answer would be, and is
ours; the name is not the evil. Call the latter what
you will, it is the same. As long as the several parts
that make up the whole are scattered, and threaten
not to unite for more associated and conspicuous in
fluence, they are comparatively harmless, and may
go unnamed. But when they come together, and
the system is being set up, and the several joints and
sinews compacted, for united onset, then is the time
to fear ; and then, for the more distinct disclosure of
the danger, and making of the evil, we fix on it the
corporate name, that all may know it for what it is,
and take the warning.
We are well aware of the efforts which writers in

527
behalf of Oxford Divinity have raade to stop the ef
fect of the charge of Romanism, by saying that it is
an old charge which sundry advocates of truth, since
the Reformation, whom none now suspect of Roraan
ism, have had to be patient with. The inference
they would have us draw is that such will, by and
by, be the clearing of the Oxford Divinity, in the
judgment of a better reasoning community. The
premises are acknowledged. The desired inference
is not. Hooker was charged with Popery, because
he did not go far enough in the condemnation of the
Romish Church, for her doctrine of an inherent
righteousness for justification, though he charged
her with, therein, overthrowing the foundations of
faith. And because he was innocent of the charge,
it is desired that we should adjudge those also to be
innocent who not only do not grant that Rome does
what Hooker charged, but entirely unite with and
defend her in that very thing, as sustaining the truth
of God. We cannot be so conciliatory as this. If
men have cried Popery when there was no danger,
it does not follow that whenever the cry shall be
raised again, we should remain at ease. Many
groundless alarms of fire are heard in our cities. In
cendiaries would be glad to persuade us hence, that
all future alarms are so likely to be groundless that
we need not heed them. So would Satan rejoice in
his work, and have free course to inflame the city of
God with his fiery darts, could he only persuade us
that because such men as Hooker and Whitgift, &c.,
were falsely accused of Popery, therefore we need
be under no apprehension of Popery from the men
of Oxford. We are not to be put asleep by such

528
opiates, nor blinded by such dust. Popery is on
the alert. Satan is about his work. The Church of
England is his strong antagonist. Her citadel he
longs to possess. Secret mines are to be expected,
under the very feet of her garrison. Wisdom is to
fear alway.
Let it not be supposed that the system of Oxford
divinity, and of its resulting practice, has now
reached its full maturity either in the minds and
plans of its holders, or in the fulness of its manifest
ramifications. It must of necessity go onward, or
deny itself and retire from the ground it stands on.
In its originating principle of Justification, by a
righteousness within, its tendency is either to a cold
and naked Socinianism, in which the cross of Christ
is moved out of sight for a self-righteousness of un-
mystified morality, or else to a complex Romanism
in which that cross is also moved out of sight, to
make room for a self-righteousness of mystic pseudo-
spirituality combined with a cumbrous system of
external observances and works. To which of these,
by no means, opposite results, the radical principle will
tend, depends altogether upon circumstances within
and around the mind of its holder. In the atmos
phere of Germany, it is a philosophic theologism. In
the circumstances of the early Quakers, it was to a
spiritualized, but unitarian mysticism, resulting, in
the present age, in a lamentable harvest of naked
Deism. In parts of Oxford, it is to entire Popery,
Circumstances determine to which gulph the same
fountain shall send its streams. The stream of Ox
fordism has been already well determined. Its bold
tide is straight onward and downward, regardless of

529
obstacles, proud of overleaping them, rejoicing in its
bounds, constantly becoming capable of greater and
bolder. Now it mu.st go on Emd reach the last level
— the dead-sea of fixed, infallible Popery, or else be
lost in some intervening sands whose friendly graves
shall save it frora raore extreme disgrace. More and
more developments are continually to be expected.
There is unquestionable evidence that when its pre
sent chief representatives began to be known in such
connection, they had little idea of eventually arriving
at their own present attainments in what they dignify
as Catholic restorations. The germ has been growing
and expanding in their own minds, and they have been
seeing further and further into "the depth and rich
ness" ofthe Roman and Parisian Breviaries, and the
excellence of "the bitterness of the ancient medi
cine," and getting more and more knowledge of what
ought to be restored in the "degraded" Church of
England, in order to raise her to the condition of the
King's daughter, in proportion as they have exer
cised their power, by use, to discern the Via Media
in all its length and breadth, as it runs here and there
amid the thorns of the Schoolmen and the mazes of
tradition. Success is a wonderful help to sight, in
such enterprises. Whoever will look back to the
state of Dr, Pusey's mind in 1828, when he wrote
his book on the Rationalism of Germany, in reference
to the discourses of H, J. Rose, on German Protest
antism, will see that since then there has been a
wonderful progress in his opinions from, what he
would now call, Ultra Protestantism, towards its op
posite. There we read ofthe "endless straw-split
tings of the Schoolmen" who are now so earnestly
67

530
praised and studied, " Scholastic definitions (he says)
buried the hardly won evangelical truth of the Ger
man Reformers."' The system which succeeded to
that of Luther "could not endure, (he says) a re-ac
tion was unavoidable unless some one or some suc
cessor of men gifted with Luther' s pious and discrimi
nating mind appeared."'^ Luther's lesser Catechism
is "a full and clear exposition of the sum of Christian
faith, in reference to Christian life, with well selected
Scripture proofs."^
" Had the German Reforraalion been perfected in the spirit in
which its great instrument might have corapleted it, if permitted tran
quilly to finish his work, or supported by others acting on his
own principles and surveying the whole systera of Revelation, wilh
the coraprehensive and discriminating view of his raaster-mind, the
history of the German Church had probably been altogether differ
ent. The fruitless attempts lo satisfy an uneasy and active con
science by the meritorious performances of a Romish convent had
opened his eyes to the right understanding of Scripture, in whose
doctrines alone it could find rest ; and the clear and discerning faith
which this correspondence of Scripture wilh his own experience
strengthened in him, gave him that intuitive insight into the nature
of Christianity which enabled him for the most part unfailingly to
discriminate between essentials and non-essentials, and raised him
not only above the assumed authority of the Church, and above the
might of tradition, but above the influence of hereditary scholastic
opinions, the power of prejudices, and the dominion of the letter.
Unfortunately, however, the further expansion of his views necessa
rily yielded to the then yet raore iraportant practical employments,
to which this great apostle of evangelical truth dedicated the most
of his exertions ; — the instruction of the young, the care of all the
churches, the necessary struggles with the Romish Church, or wilh
those seceders from it, who maintained tenels inconsistent with the
first principles of the Reformation, as in the opposed tenets of the
Anabaptists and of Zuingli. 'P. 16. 2P, 50, 3P, 75,

531
His successors in developing to the utmost subordinate but con
tested points of his syslera, neglected the great views which lay be
yond the sphere of their polemics. Few, comparatively, in the large
mass of the active agents in the Reformation, were led to the rejec
tion of the errors of the Church of Rome through the same school
of experience, by which the master-mover had been conducted.
Many had been merely theoretically convinced of its errors, others
sought a freedom from intellectual tyranny, others political advan
tages, some finally followed, but half-consciously, the mighty impulse.
The number ofthe noble band, who were actuated by the same spirit
which impelled Luther was diminished, and their agency disturbed
by the troubles of the times; by which e. g. Melancthon and Chy-k
traBus became for some time wanderers in Germany; Burer acquired
among ourselves a new scene of evangelical exertion."'
What perfect opposition to this is now displayed
in all Dr. Pusey's sentiments concerning Luther,
his associates, the tendencies of his work and princi
ples and all the Reformation ! Now, the results in
Germany are the direct consequence of Luther's
system. In 1828, they were considered as the di
rect result of a departure from his system. Now he
is the Prince of Ultra Protestants ; then he was the
master-raind ofa noble band who "set aside the im
practical formulse of the school, for other language,
but especially that which came fi'om the pure and
rich fountain of Luther."'' But let us proceed a lit
tle further,
Mr. Rose had ascribed the decline of theology in
Germany, in a great degree, " to the neglect of a
controling superintendance, and of adherence to the
letter of the symboHcal books," Dr, Pusey, in 1828,
"could not but think that this view involved the
abandonment of the fundamental principles of Protes-
'P, 8. 2P, 102,

532
tantism and derogated from the independence and the
inhere7it po7ver of the 7vord of God."
" That scripture needs no such adscililious means lo preserve gen
erally its healthful truths from such corruption as would neutralize
their efiicacy, appeared to result from the history of the early Church,
in which for above two centuries no symbols were at all received,
and even when heretical speculation did render such safe-guards ne
cessary in individual cases, they were extended no further than the
emergency of such cases required ; the rest ofthe body of Christian
doctrine was committed lo the keeping of unauthoritative tradi
tion, expounding the word of the Scripture : that a recurrence to
Scripture is sufficient to regenerate the system when corrupted, in
dependent of, or in opposition to, existing symbols, resulted from
the various portions of lhe history of the Reformation, It must be
repealed that il is not intended by the maintainance of these views to
derogate from lhe value of articles, generally, much less of such, as
are drawn up wilh so much judgment and moderation as our own ;
their value is certainly very great both to individuals, as presenting
a test by which to examine the character of their own faith, and to
the Church, as enabling it to exclude those, who depart from the
principles upon which itself was founded. The view, in which, the
author felt it impossible to participate, was not a supposed probabili
ty that lhe Church might suffer frora individual deviations, but the
supposition that the whole or the greater part of the body raust ne
cessarily decline, unless it were voluntarily to bind its hands by the
resolution never to deviate from the letter of the faith of its earlier
state."^ After this exhibition of the rapid progress which
the views ofthe Oxford Divines, have already made,
having the boundless field of Tradition from which
to gather their resources, and all the treasures of the
School-men, no longer regarded as so full of hair
splittings, (especially in distinguishing between a
righteousness in us and within us) at their command,
it is natural to suppose that their system, will con-
' Pref, p. A.

533
tinue to grow with greatly increased vigour. The
seminal principle of Invocation of Saints; the partially
developed duty of praying for the dead ; the half-way
step to image-worship, in the present reverence to
the image of the cross ; the approach to a disuse of
preaching, and to a service in an unknown tongue,
found in the urgent inculcation of " Reserve in com
municating religious knowledge ;" the almost-doc-
trine of Transubstantiation, in the doctrine of the
real, substantial Presence of the Body of Christ in
the Eucharist; the preparation for further restora
tions, in the adoption of the whole body of unwritten
Tradition, as proceeding frora the sarae fount of In
spiration as the Scriptures, and as the authoritative
Interpreter of Holy Writ; the additional preparation,
in the doctrine of Iraplicit Faith, viz. taking articles
of faith implicitly from the Church, because the
Church declares them ; afford too much ground for
the fear that Oxford Divinity will soon make good
this promise of its further growth.
The facility of growth in the one doctrine of Pur
gatory, may be judged of, frora what Dr. Pusey tells
us of its history among early Christians situated, in
regard to it, precisely as he is. In his account ofthe
rise of that Doctrine in Tract No. 79, we have the
following statement.
" The very circuraslance that no second instrument of a plenary
and entire cleansing from sin was given after baptisra, such as bap
tism, led Christians to expect that that unknown means, when ac
corded, would be of a more painful nature than that which they
had received so freely and instantaneously in infancy, and confirmed,
not only the text already cited, ' He shall baptize you with the Holy
Ghost and with fire,' but also St. Paul's announcement ofthe ' judg.
ment and fiery indignation' which awaits those who sin afler having

534
been once ' enlightened,' and by Christ's warning to the impotent
man to sin no more lest a worse thing come upon him.
"Lastly, the universal and apparently apostolical custom of praying
for the dead in Christ, called for some explanation, the reason for it
nol having corae down lo posterity wilh il. Various reasons may be
supposed quite clear of this distressing doctrine, bul it supplied an
adequate and a most constraining motive for its observance lo those
who were not content to practice it in ignorance.
" Should any one for a moment be startled by any thing that is
here said, as if investing the doctrine with some approach lo plausi
bility, I would have him give God thanks for the safeguard of
Catholic Tradition, which keeps us from immoderate speculation
upon Scripture, or a vain indulgence ofthe imagination, by authorita
tively declaring the contents and the limits ofthe Creed necessary to
salvation, and profitable lo ourselves. "»
Let any one, after reading the above, just ask hira
self : if this be true, why not expect the sarae results
from the same circumstances, now as well as then ?
The way is as well prepared, the need is as much
felt, the dead are alike prayed for, passages of Scrip
ture are just as favorably interpreted. Where is the
barrier? InTradition, answers Dr. Pusey. Scripture,
he thinks, instead of furnishing any protection, must
be interpreted, on the other side, unless defended from
such conclusions by its Interpreter, Tradition. All
the whole Church, learned and unlearned, after get
ting to precisely the same sense of the need of Pur
gatory as the ancient Christians had, to comfort
them under a sense of sin after Baptism ; to make the
Scriptures consistent, and to furnish a good reason
why they should all be praying for the dead ; all are
to be held fast, where the ancient Church drifted up
on a lee-shore, by the single anchor of Tradition, let

' Tract No. 79, pp. 536 and 7.

535
down into the shifting sands of men's whims, and
caprices, and prejudices, and corruptions, assaulted
on all sides by " the Prince of the Power of the Air."
But had not the ancient Church that anchor better
than we have it ? Was not Tradition, in their dayj
raore accessible, because they were so rauch nearer
its head-springs ; more simple and uncomplicated,
and easily settled and readily used ? How then if
they were not held fast from driving upon the dark
mountains of Purgatory, are we ever to be held to our
moorings? Oh, no! Prayers for the dead, and the
denial of a plenary absolution for sin after baptism,
and the granting of a purification in another world,
all of which are attained already in the race of this
divinity, pressing on to the prize of its high calling,
must soon cross the invisible line that separates from
Popish Purgatory, and carrying Tradition along, bid
it raise its voice, as it will easily find the excuse for
doing, as the bold preacher of the doctrine, of which
it was before the appointed antagonist.
A few lines more and we shall conclude the Chap
ter and the book. We hear much of the eminent
holiness of the divines who are zealously urging
on this system and of the holy tendency of much of
their writings; and much hope is entertained by
sorae that in spite of some serious errors of doctrine,
the result of their labours will be a great increase of
holy living in the Church.
Of the personal attainments of the divines alluded
to, in the beauty of holiness, we have nothing to say.
We trust it is all that it is said to be. God forbid
that we should tread on such ground, with any but
the respectful and affectionate consideration of the

536
highest Christian charity and kindness. But, of the
system, we must speak in this regard. If Roman
ism has any special tendency to the increase of holi
ness ; if its history bears testimony to the efficacy of
its shallow principles, its captious observances, its
reserve of preaching, its opus operatum of sacra
ments, its penances, its unctions, its prayers for the
dead, &c., to promote holiness of heart and life; if,
where it is best tried, in its monasteries of old Papal
States, men are most spiritually minded, best in
structed in the way of salvation, most pure in mo
rals, most elevated in the worship of God, in spirit
and in truth; in a word, if to "overthrow the foun
dations of faith ;" to substitute our own righteous
ness for the righteousness of God ; to keep out of
view the atonement of our Lord, so that sinners can
not look to it and live; to preach a cross within, for
us to glory in, instead of the cross of our crucified
Redeemer; in a word if the wisdom of man, in
stead of "the foolishness of God"; if Sacraments,
set up instead of the direct looking unto Jesus, for
" wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemp
tion," be the better way of promoting holiness in
God's Church and in man's heart, then will Oxford
Divinity fulfil its promises. But we must take heed.
" What God hath joined, let no man put asunder."
Holiness cannot live but in connection with the
true doctrine of justifying faith. It draws life
from Christ, the True Vine, through no other branch
than that of a justifying faith. The righteousness
of Christ, accounted unto the sinner for justification,
through the instrumental agency of a living faith,
this is the foundation of all that ministry out of

537
which grew the permanent blessing of true righte
ousness of life. Under any other system, there may
be individual examples in spite of its tendencies, in
virtue of a better education, and because of seeds of
truth which the Scriptures have planted, " out of sea
son," when the keeper of the system slept. So do
we see souls converted and sanctified under modes
of rainistry which all of us would acknowledge to
be eminently wrong, and in their exhibitions of doc
trine, exceedingly defective. We speak now of the
permanent and general results — what is called in
homely phrase, the long-run. And in this view of
the tendencies of Oxford Divinity, we cannot ques
tion, that its certain results, if time and room be al
lowed it, will be the driving of true godliness from
God's house and the surrounding of its altars and
the crowding of its courts with the " wood, hay and
stubble" ofa dead formality, which the Lord, when
he cometh, will destroy with the breath of his raouth.
That the doctrine of Justification as maintained in
these pages in contrast with that of Oxford divinity
and Romanism, when unreservedly preached, is liable
to be abused by those who are ever ready to draw
encouragements to continuance in impenitence, from
the mercies of God, cannot be questioned. " It is
impossible to preach the gospel, but that a carnal and
sinful heart may wrest it so as to suck poison, instead
of honey frora it ; such being apt to take all occasions
of turning the grace of God into wantonness. And
therefore the Apostle himself, when he treated upon
this subject, even our justification by faith in Christ,
was still forced to prevent this object by a peremp
tory denial of the consequence." Precisely the evils
68

538
which by many are supposed to result frora the un
reserved exhibition of this doctrine, were laid to the
charge of the same, as preached by St, Paul, He
denied the charge, but not the doctrine. He denied
that the accuser had rightly interpreted its proper in
ferences and effects; but persisted, through evil re
port and good, in preaching still the same doctrine.
The abuses were of man's corruption ; the doctrine
was of God's wisdora, and grace, and holiness. He
might as well have ceased to declare the plenteous
goodness — the wonderful long suffering — the infinite
mercy of God : for out of all is extracted, by the
subtle devices of human depravity, the very poison
that makes men sleep so securely in their sins. But
while we must faithfully imitate the example of St.
Paul, in suffering no consideration to prevent us from
assigning to this doctrine a most prominent place in
our ministry, as emphatically "the word of recon
ciliation" which, as Ambassadors of Christ, we are to
proclaim to all people ; we are bound, like St. Paul,
to see to it, most anxiously, not only that it be so de
livered as to be as much as possible protected from
misunderstandings and perversions, but so also that
it may be productive, through the Spirit of Christ,
of true holiness of heart and life in those who profess
to embrace it. We must take care that in our own
hearts, in all our words, we do manifestly insist, as
zealously, and with as much sense of necessity, upon
personal holiness, to make us "meet," as upon a jus
tifying righteousness, not personal, to give us a title,
" to be partakers with the saints in hght." Justifi
cation, by faith without works, is no more to be
preached than sanctification, which embraces faith

539
and all good works. The righteousness of Christ,
imputed, is one part of salvation. It delivers us from
the condemnation of sin. The righteousness of Christ,
dwelling in us, by His Spirit, is another, and equally
important part of our salvation. It delivers us from
the dominion of sin, " We are far frora that liber-
tinisra to conclude, that because Christ hath obeyed
the whole law for us therefore we are exempted from
obedience. He hath done for us whatever was re
quired in order to merit and satisfaction; yet he
hath not done for us whatever was required in order
to obedience and a holy conversation ; he hath done the
work of a Mediator and Redeemer ; yet he never did
the work of a sinner, that stood in need of a Redeem
er, so as to excuse him frora it. And, therefore,
though men may be justified by a surety, yet they
cannot be sanctified by a surety ; but still holiness,
obedience, and good works, must be personal and not
imputative." Christ is become the Author of eternal
salvation unto all them that obey him. His people
must be " a peculiar people, — a holy nation, — puri
fied unto himself — zealous of good works." St. Paul
preached that we are saved " by grace through faith,
not of works," but not without immediately adding
that we are " created in Christ Jesus unto good works,
which God hath ordained that we should walk in
them." "Herein, (said the Lord,) is my Father
glorified that ye bring forth much fruit, so shall ye
be my disciples."
We come far short of the spirit of our minis
try, if our hearts be notintently fixed upon the pro
motion of personal holiness in the lives of our peo
ple ; we fail entirely in the effect of our ministry if

540
our doctrine be not successful in securing it. But
how is this blessed result to be secured ? How shall
we preach the way of a sinner's justification by faith,
so as the most successfully to proraote in him " the
sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience ?"
I answer, not by any resei've, on the subject of jus
tification, exhibiting that doctrine only partially and
fearfully, in reduced terms, and in a background po
sition, as if afraid of the fulness in which the Scrip
tures declare it to all who read or hear them. Re
serve here, is reserve in preaching " Christ, and him
crucified." Our grand message, every where, is: —
"Be it known unto you, men and brethren, that
through this man is preached unto you the forgive
ness of sin : and by him all that believe are justified
from all things from which they could not be justified
by the law of Moses," St, Paul waited not till men
were well initiated into christian mysteries, before
he unveiled the grand subject of atonement and jus
tification through the blood of Christ. No — the gos
pel plan of promoting sanctification is just the oppo
site of holding in obscurity any feature of the doctrine
of justification. It is simply to preach that doctrine
most fully, in all its principles and connexions ; in all
its grace, and all its works ; in its utmost plainness
and simplicity ; so that whatever leads to it, v/hatever
is contained in it, and whatever legitimately results
from it, whether it be sin and condemnation, as need
ing an imputed righteousness ; the love of God, as
providing that righteousness in his only begotten Son;
the blessed Redeemer, as offering up himself a sacri
fice to obtain it ; faith, as embracing it freely ; hope,
as resting upon it joyfully ; the promises, as assuring

541
the believer perfectly ; the sacraments, as signing and
sealing them effectually to those who duly receive
them ; a new heart, as the essential companion of a
living faith ; unreserved obedience, as the necessary
expression of a new heart ; obedience springing frora
the love of God, in Christ; keeping its eye of faith,
for motive, strength and acceptance, upon the cross,
and embracing in its walk, all departments of duty ;
all this, as coming legitimately within the embrace
ofthe full preaching of justification by faith, is the
way to promote, through the effectual working of the
Spirit of God upon the conscience and heart of the
sinner, his sanctification through the truth.
We cannot preach the righteousness of Christ, for
justification, with any propriety, unless, as the first
thing, to show the sinner's need thereof, we preach
the righteousness of the law in the condemnation of
every soul that sinneth. No more can we preach
the righteousness of Christ, for justification, with any
justice, unless, beside its need and nature, v/e preach
its fruits, and trace thera out in all their branches,
and show how they all spring out only and necessa
rily of a true and lively faith. Thus does the doc
trine of faith embrace, in one hand, the righteous
ness of the law in the condemnation of the sinner,
bringing him to Christ that he may be justified by
faith, and in the other, that same righteousness, in
the sanctification of the believer, witnessing that he
is in Christ, and is justified by faith.
Does St. Paul describe the blessedness of those
" who are in Christ Jesus'^' — witnessing that "to them
there is no condemnation ?" He adds immediately —
" who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit,"

542
thus insisting on the essential connexion between a
justifying faith and a spiritual hfe. Let this text be
carried out by the preacher. Let him show how
Christ, if ever "made unto us, of God, by imputation,
righteousness," raust also be made unto us, by the in
dwelling of His Spirit, sanctification ; both equally,
though differently, necessary for final redemption ; —
both equally, though diflferently, derived from Christ,
through his obedience unto death ; both obtained by
the same faith, at the same time ; distinct in office,
but, like the water and the blood from the side ofthe
Lamb of God, inseparable ; so that by the blessed
union of justification and holiness, peace and purity,
in all the way of the believer, he may be complete in
Christ. Let the preacher dwell minutely upon the
developments, as well as the principle, of personal
sanctification. The planting of the root of faitli does
not supercede the necessity of training and pruning
the branches of obedience. It follows not in this
husbandry, any more than in any other, that if the
root be good, the branches will all take, of themselves,
precisely the right direction. We must copy the
ministry of the Apostles in the minute tracing out of
the fruits of faith in all the ways of holy living — in
the affections, desires, tempers, habits, conversation,
and all relative duties. To expect the issues of life
without seeing to the indwelling of the pi'inciple of
life, is an error only next worse to that of being con
tent with the latter, without attending carefully to all
its processes in the former. Parental care is not sat
isfied when the child is evidently governed by a filial
love. It brings line upon line, to guide, instruct, ad
monish, remind, and exhort that love. So is "the

543
nurture and admonition" by which the minister must
seek to lead out the great principle of "faith that
worketh by love" — bringing the various and minute
applications of that love, " seasonably to the remem
brance' ' of the believer, holding up continually to an
eye, prone to dullness, and a heart, prone to negli
gence, the law ; the precept of holiness, "as it is in
Jesus," coraraended by his authority, illustrated in
his example, expounded in his word, enforced by his
love, and fulfilled in us by the indwelling of His
Spirit. If we have it not to urge, as a motive to obe
dience, that it will obtain or promote the sinner's
justification, what matters it? We have it to urge,
that without obedience, there can be neither the liv
ing faith that justifies, nor the true holiness that
makes us raeet for the presence of God ; we have the
duty also, as well as the necessity of unreserved obe
dience, to urge upon the heart and conscience, with
just as much authority as if works, instead of faith,
were the only way of justification ; we have more ;
we have also the love of God in Christ, preparing for
our ruined souls, his only begotten Son to be the
sacrifice for our sins, and the amazing love of Christ,
bringing him to be obedient unto the death of the
cross for us raiserable sinners. And thence, frora his
agony and bloody sweat, his cross and passion,
springs the constraining motive to a diligent, devoted,
cheerful, filial, zealous obedience, in all things. —
" The love of Christ constrainethus," said Christians
of old, " because we thus judge that if one died for
all, then were all dead, and that he died for all, that
they which live should live not unto theraselves, but
unto Hira that died for them and rose again." Here

544
is love fulfilling the law, banishing the living unto
ourselves; substituting devotedness to Christ; dis
cerning its conclusive reason, obtaining its all-pow
erful motive by the eye of faith which beholds the
love of Christ dying for the ungodly, and thence be
gins immediately to work by love, and keep his com-
raandraents. Such is the inseparable connection between the
faith which looks unto Jesus and justifies the soul,
through a righteousness iraputed, and the love that
equally looks unto Jesus and bears witness to the
living power of that faith, and glorifies God, by a
righteousness, personal and inherent, doing whatso
ever he hath coraraanded.^
Let the writer be allowed to conclude by direct
ing the reader's attention to the note, which closes
this work, and contains the earnest exhortation of his
honoured friend, and that faithful servant of God,
the present Bishop Wilson, in reference to all the
evils against which this book has been written.^
1 Bishop Mcllvaine's Charge.
2" The best preventive or remedy for all these evils is the old doctrine of our
Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus, fully and scripturally developed, and accompa
nied with that affectionate pastoral care, and that mild discipline and order,
which our Protestant Episcopal Church has provided,
" Teach, then. Brethren, more determinalely than ever, the ruined and fallen
state of man as the Holy Scriptures reveal it. Unfold the unspeakable malig
nity of sin as committed against God — the deep, and, in a proper sense, totai
corruption of our nature in all its powers — our inability of ourselves to do any
thing spiritually good — our moral responsibility — our guilt, demerit, ruin, con
demnation, helplessness, — the inconceivable value of the soul — the nearness of
eternal judgraent — the everlasting duration ofthe miseries ofa lost state. And
point out the remedy for all this, with the simplicity ofthe inspired Apostles, in
'liepentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ,'
"Teach the atonement and satisfaction made to the Divine justice and go
vernment by the incarnation and obedience unto death of the consubstantial

545
and co-equal Son of God. Clearly explain that justiiication is the penitent
sinner's being accounted and dealt with and treated ' as righteous in God's sight
by faith only in the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and not for
his own works and deservings ;' distinguish, as Hooker did, between justifica
tion and sanctification, and boldly preach as he did, that God ' hath made him
who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of
God in him.' Account this as Luther, the Articulus stantis ant cadentis ec-
clesiie. Read again I entreat you, the incomparable treatise of that great Re
former on the epistle to the Galatians, which it seems will be once more as re
quisite and appropriate in our Protestant Churches now, as it was three centu
ries since.
" Teach also the personality, divinity, andin-ward-work of God the Holy Ghost,
the Lord and Giver of life, in all Scriptural fidelity, as infusing the righteous
ness of sanctification ; as renewing man after the divine image ; creating him in
Christ Jesus unto good works ; raising him from spiritual death, inscribing the
law of God upon his heart ; transforming him in the spirit of his mind ; as com
mencing first, and then carrying on that new birth and life of holiness, which is
the preparation and qualification for serving and loving God both on earth and
in heaven; and in developing this, shun the fatal error of limiting, or appearing
to limit, the determined commencement of all this mighty transformation to the
change of state and attendant grace — important and blessed as they are — re
ceived by the infants of the faithful in the sacrament of baptism.
" Teach, again, the indispensable necessity of good -works, in all their rami
fications, as ' the fruit of faith and folio-wing after justification ;' ' so that by
them a lively failh may be as evidently known as a tree is discerned by the
fruit.' Enter into all the details of duty as opened by our Lord in his sermon
on the mount, and by the Apostles in the practical division of their epistles.
Enforce the perpetual obligation of the moral law upon every human beiiig.
Explain the interior life of communion with our heavenly Father, reconciled to
US in Jesus Christ; the duties of private and family prayer; of diligent study
of Holy Scripture ; of separation from the follies of the world, and of ' growth
in grace and the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,' to the last
hour of life.
" Teach, further, in connexion with all this, the constitution ofthe Christian
Church, the dignity and importance of the public worship of Almighty God,
the grace and efficacy of the Sacraments, the divine authority and perpetual
obligation of the Lord's Day, and the duty of reasonable subjection to the order
and discipline of the Church as ordained by Christ, its Divine Head, Finally
instruct men to ascribe the whole of their salvation in its purchase, its offers, its
application, to the merciful will and choice of God in Christ Jesus,
" Forgive my warmth, my honoured brethren, I speak as a father. The
Gospel will soon slip from our hands, should this new rule of faith be for one
single moment acquiesced in.
69

546
"If abuses of the weighty principles I have been referring to should arise, as
they will, oppose them, I pray you, not by over-statements of tne truths them
selves  much less by calling in aid from a new rule of faith ; bul by taking into
your view the whole compass and amplitude of each truth as it lies in Holy
Scripture: and using it in the proportion, and for the em's, and in the spirit in
which it is there revealed, with a wise and discriminating adaptation of your in
structions to each passing emergency. This is theology. This is the Gospel.
This is to follow our Reformers, This is to unite the inspired wisdom of St,
Paul and St, James, This is to avoid all unfaithfulness to truth on the one
hand, and all insidious perversions of it on the other.
"Instruct your flocks, for example, in all those texts of inspired Writ which
describe or imply the entire fall and corruption of man ; and also those which
insist on his accountahleness, and his duty to use those means to which God
attaches the promises of grace; and prench on both these series of passages in
order to produce, and in a manner calculated to produce, and for no other object
but to produce, contrition of heart for sin, both original and actual, and earnest
prayers for the aid of the Holy Ghost. Let these lexis appear in your dis
courses, as ihey do in Scripture, not as abstract dogmas, but as humiliating argu
ments for nuLE .4T ALL. Give, then, to the witnesses and writers of each age
all reasonable weight and influence, but yield nol to them any part of ihat para
mount authority vvhich appertains only to the revealed Word of God. Use
them as advisers, bow not lo them as sovereigns. Honour them as attendants
around the footstool, but allow them not to self-knowledge, confession, peni
tence, faith and heart-felt returns to God. No abuse can then arise,
" Preach justification by faith only, but that not by a dead, notional belief — a
mere presumption — the faith of devils — hut by a living, heart-felt, holy principle
of reliance upon Christ, springing from an awakened and contrite spirit, and
necessary to the consolation of the penitent's mind, when sinking under the
consciousness of guilt and unworlhiness. Let justification be employed in your
discourses, as it is in the writings of St. Paul, as the remedy against despair,
and the motive of love to God, and of filial and unreserved obedience. Thus
you shut out all perversions,
"Preach the influences of the Holy Ghost — but operating in a manner not
to supersede, but aid our endeavours ; not to exclude, but magnify lhe inspired
Word of God ; not by sudden illapses or sensible movements, but in a way
agreeable to our moral and accountable nature; not appearing in animal fer
vours and over-confident claims, but in the meek and solid fruits of all good- ¦
ness, righteousness and truth.' This is wholesome doctrine.
" Preach the merciful will and election of God in Christ Jesus; but not to
lead men to rush into the secrets of the Almighty, but in order to gather
grounds of gratitude in the results of the Divine dispensations in providence
and grace ; whilst, in our doings, that will of God is to be followed, which we
have expressly declared unto us in the Word of Goi."— Bishop IVilson'^
Charge, 1838,

00483 3118

-- -' fc" ^ ^ t """s-lIpSV^

i !i

lit' ^

^F

tt-"
^^11
! •'¦ .,tf®jfef^!'*t,--iri'"''