Page images
PDF
EPUB

us

ly implying no more than an honest principle; others, merely an assent to the truth of Christianity; while others maintain that it justifies not as it unites to Christ, or is the instrument through which we apply his merits to ourselves; but as it implies true holiness in the nature of it, and includes the other evangelical graces as constituent parts of it. But that the Church means by justifying faith more than a mere assent to the truth of Christianity appears, the author says, from the definition just quoted; and that she considers this faith as perfectly distinct from love and obedience, and yet always productive of them, he says, is equally clear, because she teaches that they pro ceed from and follow it.

Mr. Overton confirms these sentiments from various parts of the Homilies, from the writings of Cranmer and Nowell, from the Confession of the Bishops and Martyrs, and from the Augsburgh Confession; and, as to the MANNER in which Faith is directly concerned in our justification, he also quotes the Homilies, Nowell, Bp. Jewell, and Hooker, to shew that they regarded it as the "mean," the "instrument,' whereby we lay hold of, and are united to Christ.

[ocr errors]

He then produces similar quotations to prove, in opposition to Mr. Ludlam, that our Church maintains the reality of a spiritual union between Christ and true Christians, and asks how these sentiments of the Church, concerning the nature and province of Justifying Faith, can be reconciled with their ideas on the subject, who are confident we may be good Christians, and sure of heaven, whatever be our persuasions; or who represent this faith as consisting only in an honest principle, or in a barren assent to Christianity, or as implying both belief and practice, and as jusrifying only as it thus comprehends obedience in its nature. (p. 198.)

"But our principal inquiry on this head," says the author, "yet remains; namely, through what MEANS, or on what ACCOUNT, we obtain Justification before God." (p. 198.) And here he argues from the XIth Article, that the plain doctrine of the Church on this point is, that "Christ only is the meri

[ocr errors]

torious cause of our Justification, and that Faith only is the mean by which we apprehend, and apply, and become interested in his merits for this Justification. (p. 199.) In proof and illustration of this position, he enters upon an analysis of the Homily on Justification, which is known to have been written by Cranmer, and is allowed by Dr. Hey to express "these things fully and clearly," and wherein Bp. Horsley testifies "these doctrines are delivered with admirable perspicuity and precision;" quoting also other Articles and Homilies, as well as the writings of many of the Reformers, to which references have been already made. He likewise refers to Bp. Horsley as testifying "that man is

JUSTIFIED BY FAITH, WITHOUT THE WORKS OF THE LAW, WAS THE UNIFORM DOCTRINE OF THE FIRST REFORMERS," and to Bp. Warburton, as asserting that the redemption of mankind by Christ, "together with its consequent doctrine of JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE, were the great gospel-principles on which PROTESTANTISM was founded." (p. 207.)

Mr. Overton proceeds to shew, from the concessions of the persons whom he opposes, that they cannot reconcile all this with their notions upon the subject. With respect to the boasted adherence of his opponents to the doctrine of the Church, he endeavours to point out the absurdity of this pretension in those who hold the Socinian notion of two justifications, and that all the justification attainable in this world is synonymous to baptism, or our admission into the profession of Christianity; and, having quoted Dr. Carr, Mr. Clapham, Dr. Hey, Mr. Daubeny, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Fellowes, and Mr. Benson, as explicitly including our own works in the matter of justification before God, he asks,

How can any persons, endowed with ordinary integrity and discernment, who use this language, pretend to agree with the standard writings of our Church? If it is not clear from the above extracts, that all MERIT, DESERT, and WORTHINESS, on the part of man, in all senses, is there excluded, in respect to his acceptance with God, there is certainly no meaning in words. (p. 212.)

He further affirms, that a large class of these professed adherents to our Ar

ticles, depart from them so widely as even to teach the doctrine of Justification by Works; and to maintain, that faith in the merits of Christ supplies the defects of our obedience; and in proof of this he refers to many of the writers already mentioned.

After stating the doctrine of the most orthodox of these divines, at their most orthodox moments, to be that we are justified by faith and good works together, or, as they express it, that faith and good works are the conditions of our Justification, and quoting upon this subject, Mr. Gray, Mr. Foley, Mr. Daubeny, and his great oracle, Bp. Bull, Mr. O. thus closes this important inquiry:

But is this indeed the doctrine of our Church? Is this language congenial with what we have produced from her writings on the subject? Surely it must require no ordinary courage to maintain this. If her doctrine indeed is, that we are thus justified by faith and good works; or that faith and good works are thus the conditions of justification, is it not very strange that in none of her express writings on the subject she should have affirmed this And is there a single expression that sounds like it, or that can be fairly construed into it, either in her Articles or Homilies on the point? Let the Advocates of the doctrine produce it. On the contrary, does she not in the most explicit, uniform, positive, and earnest manner, reject this system, and maintain the very opposite one? In respect to merit, she places, we have seen, Faith and Works precisely on the same footing; and ascribes this, wholly, in all senses, to our Redeemer: and then, when treating directly on the means, or condition, or whatever it is called, by which we obtain justification, she says, "It is BY FAITH ONLY;" "by faith WITHOUT WORKS;" by faith as it is perfectly distinct from obedience to the law, namely, "as it directly sends us to, and embraces Christ." She affirms, express ly and repeatedly, that in this act of approach ing the Saviour for justification, "we must forsake, or leave behind us, all our supposed good virtues ;" "that we must not do good works to the intent to be made just by doing of them;" that whatever good works are joined with faith in every man that is justified, "it

SHUTTETH THEM OUT FROM THE OFFICE

[ocr errors]

OF JUSTIFYING;" that "however good works and faith be present together in him that is justified, yet that THEY JUSTIFY NOT ALL TOGETHER. She shows, that she considers it as impossible for good works to be a condition of justification, as it is for the effect to precede its cause, by constantly representing these works as the fruits and effects of justifi

cation.

But we must not here repeat the whole body of her evidence to the same purport. Enough must have been said to convince vourable ground of our opponents is not fairly all impartial judges, that even this most fatenable; and that on this most important of all doctrines, they do not, as they would pretend, teach, as it is taught in the standard writings of our Church, and was taught by our Reform

ers.

Whether regard is had to the nature of justification, to the nature and province of justifying faith, or to the means by which justification is obtained, their deviation from this acknowledged standard, and our strict adherance to it, are thus equally conspicuous.————Our position therefore, we conceive, is again established on a double basis; and that of our opponents doubly overthrown. But whether our premises warrant this conclusion; or whether, at any rate, our claim to Churchmanship on this point is not the best founded of the two, let every competent judge decide. (p. 218, 219.)

CHAP. VII.

THE author pursues his investigation in respect to the doctrine of GOOD WORKS, or Christian morality, vindiCates the tenets of his friends on this head, which is one, he remarks, on which they are supposed to be most vulnerable; the most frequent charge against their system being that it depreciates good morals. But he contends, that it is as absurd to conclude that they either deny the necessity, or under-rate the value of good works, because they exclude them from the office of justifying, as it would be to assert that they denied the necessity, or depreciated the value of our eyes, because they maintained that these cannot perform the functions of the hands. If it were true that their doctrines, in their natural tendency and effect, encouraged men in sin, no reprobation, he thinks, could be too severe for them. His business, however, being merely to investigate, not to vindicate, the dcctrines of the Church, and to shew whose opinions most resemble them, he quits this point, and proceeds to state what the standard or rule of morality is which she prescribes; viz. the whole moral law of God, from an obligation to which she allows no Christian man to be free. This law she considers as comprising the duties of supreme love to God, and devotedness to his service, as well as

the duties which for his sake, and in obedience to his command, we owe to our neighbour. She insists not on outward and partial obedience, but on a conversion of the heart to God on an uniform respect to every command

ment.

In short, the morality which our Church requires, is, an exact conformity of heart and practice to the holy will of God as revealed in his word; or, that "we be made like the image of his Only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ." (p. 224.)

That the subjects of his vindication perfectly accord with the Church in this view of the matter, Mr. O. endeavours to shew by various quotations from their writings; and he defies any one to disprove his statements. Their opponents, on the other hand, whose words are as usual adduced in support of his assertions, are represented as substituting sincerity for perfect obedience, and as teaching that the new covenant furnishes a new and more lenient rule of morals, softens the rigour of the law of works, and admits of a defective obedience. The renovation of the heart, which our Church considers as essential to Christianity, he states them to be so far from inculcating, that they commonly treat it with ridicule and contempt; and as to the immediate duties of the first table of the Law, they either make little account of them, or they consider all zealous regard to them as a mark of enthusiasm. "The relative duties," says one, "are of all the most indispensable." "Too much," says another, "is made of faith and devotion." "The highest offence," observes a third, "men can possibly commit against God, is, to hurt themselves." "The happiness of men is the end and the measure even of our duty to God;" (p. 236.) thus making the first and great commandment a mere subsidiary to the second.

But taking the matter on their own grounds, and confining his view to the second table of the Law, Mr. O. maintains, that their claim to superior strictness of morality must be relinquished; and he supports his argument by-a detailed comparison of the sentiments of cach party respecting the duties we owe to ourselves, as temperance, soberness, chastity, &c. and those which re

.

spect our neighbour, as loyalty to the King, and subjection to Government, the duties of the pastoral office, veracity, candour, benevolence, and beneficence; and the conclusion he draws from the whole is, that the divines to whom he is opposed have no good ground for congratulating themselves, and censuring those he vindicates, in regard to the RULE OF MORALS; the latter prescribing a perfect standard even the whole moral law of God, and maintaining the duty of perfect conformity in heart and conduct to this Law; while the former substitutes some vague and indeterminate rule which they call sincerity, do not insist on the necessity of a renovation of the heart, make comparatively little account of the first table of the Law, and are far from being strict either in those points which respect their own conduct, or in those branches of morality which concern their neighbour.

In the second Section, which treats concerning the SANCTIONS of morality, it is Mr. O.'s object to shew, that though he and his friends maintain that good works are neither the meritorious cause, nor the appointed condition of Justification, they do not on that account destroy the sanctions, or dispense with the necessity of morality; but that, on the contrary, they, in common with the Church of England, enforce the one, and inculcate the other, with far more earnestness than their opponents. With respect to the Church he shews, that she secures the interests, and inculcates the necessity of morality, by considering good works as the natural fruit, and necessary effect of that faith which justifies; (p. 273.) on which point, both in her Homilies and Articles, she is very full and decisive. The persons who come within the line of his vindication are represented as universally concurring in this opinion, while it is strenuously opposed by their assailants, particularly by Mr. Daubeny, and the Anti-jacobin Reviewers, whose sentiments are exhibited by the author at some length.

He also shews, that our Church enforces the necessity of good works, by considering them as the only satisfactory evidence of faith and a justified

state; in other words, by making Sanctification the necessary evidence of Justification (p. 283,); and he maintains that this is not defining faith by its effects, these effects being referred to, not in order to ascertain the nature of faith, but the reality of its existence; an expedient which, Bp. Cleaves shews, is constantly resorted to with respect to" all active principles."

The other grounds on which, according to Mr. O., the church enforces the necessity of holiness, and stimulates our endeavours after the greatest possible eminency therein, in which also he represents himself and his friends as perfectly agreeing with her, are, that God has commanded us to be holy; that our restoration to holiness is a grand end of the Christian dispensation; that those good works which are the fruits of faith are pleasing and acceptable to God through Christ; that we are bound by the highest obligation of gratitude to obey his will, and to live unto him who hath died for us; that holiness is absolutely necessary in order to qualify us for spiritual exercises here, and the enjoyment of heaven hereafter; and, lastly, that our eternal state of felicity in heaven will be proportioned to our degree of fruitfulness in good works. And are there, can there be, adds Mr. O.

Any more powerful motives to obedience, than those which have been mentioned? What principles can bind the consciences, interest the feelings, and influence the conduct of Christ's professed disciples, if considerations like these do not? Have our opponents any more exalted or more efficacious incentives to virtue? (p. 296.)

Is this setting up "faith in opposition to a good life ?" Is this teaching "something very averse to morality, and meriting the very heavy charges with which we are loaded on this subject?" (p. 295.) He endeavours to shew at the same time, by a reference to their writers, how much lower are the motives to holiness, which the divines whom he opposes are in the habit of inculcating.

Mr. O. employs the remaining part of this section in shewing, how much stronger are the motives to repenChrist. Observ. No. 4.

tance, and to an earnest application to Christ for mercy, which the Church, in common with those whose cause he pleads, holds forth to the impenitent and unbelieving, when compared with the motives insisted on by his opponents. By the former, the penalty annexed to disobedience, and the punishment awaiting the finally impenitent, are spoken of in the most awful terms; for which, he observes by the way, they are holden up to ridicule as "interlarding their discourses with slices of hell and damnation;" &c. &c. while the latter labour to mitigate the apparent severity of the threatened punishment, and make as little as possible of the awful representations of Scripture respecting it; and in proof of this charge, he refers to passages in the writings of Mr. Fellowes, Dr. Paley, Mr. Polwhele, Dr. Hey, and others. As therefore, he oberves in conclusion,

It has been before proved that our system exhibits the strongest incentives to love, gratitude, and every principle that can influence the better part, and better passions of men, so it must here be confessed, that as far as the fear of punishment can operate as a guardian of morals, we also have clearly the advantage. (p. 305, 306.)

The first part of the third Section is occupied in the vindication of certain individuals, whom the author considers also as objects of his general defence, from specific charges brought against them by Mr. Ludlam, the Anti-jacobin Reviewers, and Mr. Daubeny; but as our review of this work has already extended to a great length, and as the main argument is not materially affected by this vindication, we shall not enter on any particular analysis of it.

The author then endeavours to shew, from general experience, as well as from the concessions of those whom he opposes, that notwithstanding the instances to the contrary, which disingenuously, he conceives, though with great apparent triumph, are brought forward by Mr. Daubeny, Mr Polwhele, Dr. Croft, &c. the sincere adherents to the doctrines for which he contends, "taken mass for mass," exhibit "a more marked abnence."

2 K

From gross vice, and voluptuous dissipation; a more regular observance of religious ordinances; a more habitual sense of divine things, and gratitude towards the Saviour; a more characteristic regard to the will and authority of God in their proceedings; more strenuous exertions to mend and bless mankind; in short, more real godliness, soberness, and righteousness, than are to be found among the opposers of these doctrines. (p. 321.)

And he refers for fuller evidence on this point, to the history of the Church by Mr. Milner, to the "approved and unanswerable work of Mr. Fuller," and to several other authorities.

But Mr. O. does not rest here. He endeavours to make it appear, that it is not the laxness, but the strictness of

the morality inculcated by the subjects of his apology, which has excited so much complaint, opposition, and invec tive; and "this," he says, "is plainly expressed in the whole catalogue of their objections against the strictness of our standard of morals, and their attempts to substitute "a more lenient rule," and is also implied in their slight requisitions as to the evidence of a Christian state."

But if all this is so undeniably the fact, how could Mr. Clapham, before a learned bishop and a congregation of divines, appeal to the day of judgment, solemnly pledge himself to lay aside every prejudice," and to consider the matter "fairly and impartially," as he "believes it will appear, when the secrets of

all hearts shall be disclosed," and then exclaim concerning us ; "The regulation of the moral temper, and the extinction of the malignant passions, do not alas! seem to be essential, or even subordinate parts of their system!" How could the grave prelate "command" such gross calumny to be published With what face can Mr. Fellowes affirm, that we make " Christianity itself an instrument for the propagation of vice and the diffusion of misery;” ... that our "doctrines tend to deter even good men from the practice of virtue, and powerfully impel bad men on in the career of wickedness?" With what regard to fact does Mr. Haggit insinuate, that "the obvious effect of our doctrine is, to cut asunder the bonds of all moral obligation, and to put every man's life and property at the mercy of every fanatical audience?" How can so many persons, under a profession of zeal for truth and justice, load us with such palpably false and ignominious charges on this subject! How groundless are the apprehensions which are pretended to be entertained by the more respectable and moderate of those who differ from us! How little must all these per

sons know of our doctrines, or how wilfully must they misrepresent them! From this full and extensive view of the subject of morality it appears,

That we hold equally the necessity of Sanctification as of Justification, and consider these blessings equally provided for in the covenant of grace: that we enforce the practice of good works precisely on the same grounds which our Church does: and that, whether regard is had to the rule of morality, or to its sanctions, or to the degree of it absolutely insisted upon as the evidence of a Christian state; whether we argue a priori from the natural tendency of the doctrines themselves to promote genuine virtue, or whether a posteriori we have recourse to the effects actually produced by them, our moral far more efficacious, than those of our opposystem is far stricter, and our doctrines nents are. (p. 331, 332.)

which influence Mr. Overton, and his friends, in adhering to the genuine doctrines of our Articles, Liturgy, and friends, in adhering to the genuine Homilies, are stated to be as follows:

In the VIIIth CHAPTER the reasons

"First, We cannot on any other ground justify our SUBSCRIPTION to these forms of doctrine and worship." (p. 333.)

"Secondly, We very highly value our established forms of doctrine and worship." (p. 347.)

tablished forms exhibit the plain and "Thirdly, We conceive that our esgenuine doctrine of the Scriptures." (p. 368.)

On each of these heads the author

expatiates pretty largely in speaking of the first, he endeavours to expose the various reserves and equivocations, whereby Dr. Paley, Dr. Balguy, and Dr. Hey would justify a departure the Articles; contrasting therewith the from the original and obvious sense of language of the royal declaration, of the Canons, of Abp. Secker, and Bps. Conybear, Barrington, and Prettyman.

In treating of the second, he labours to rescue our established forms from the charge of enthusiasm advanced by Dr. Croft; and from the objections which have been urged against them, as containing mysterious and difficult doctrines.

That, he adds, upon which we would particularly rest our vindication of this part of the established forms, is, their moderation, caution, and modest acquiescence in the plain letter of Scripture, on these deep points. They de cide not, where the word of God is not deci..

« PreviousContinue »