"fruits of faith, and follow after justification." From whence it is argued, that, according to this Article, good works cannot be previous conditions, but only fruits and consequents of justification.

But a distinction is here to be made between good works of faith, internal and external. The internal works are repentance, hope, charity, &c. The external works are these virtues of the mind reduced into outward acts. Now that these latter works only are the works meant in the Article, which are said to follow after justification, I prove

thus.

The works which are said to follow after justification, are the same works which are said, in the same Article, to be the fruits of faith, by which such faith is as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit: but the works which are said to be the fruits of faith, by which such faith is as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit, must be external works, external signs of faith, as the fruit is the external sign of the tree: therefore the works which are said to follow after justification are only the external works, i. e. the internal works of the mind reduced into outward acts.

That by the works which are here said to be fruits of faith are meant external works, is evident by their being said to be such by which a lively faith is as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit. Faith cannot be evidently known by internal works or virtues, since they cannot be signs of it; for signs must be external and outward; otherwise they cannot make our faith evidently known to others: but these internal virtues are all secret, and as remote from the eyes of men as faith itself, till it be made known by external works. If it be said, that the Church here speaks of our faith being evidently known, not to others, but to ourselves; besides that it is a construction which the words of the Article will not bear; it will still be the same thing: for this would be to show one thing which is unknown, by another equally unknown; since these internal virtues are equally as unknown to ourselves, as our faith is e.

I conceive therefore, that this Article is sufficiently vindicated from teaching any such doctrine, as that we are so justified by faith only, as to exclude good works from being previous, necessary conditions of justification. The works

Vid. Whitefield's Answer to the Bishop of London, p. 25.

• Vid. Bulli Harmon. Apostol. diss. ii. cap. 18. sect. 8. p. 116.

said in the Article to follow after justification are external works only; and such works we allow do follow after it. But nevertheless the internal works may, for all that is said in this Article, and do, precede and are necessary conditions of justification: and they are these internal works only, which we assert to be such necessary, previous conditions.

The truth of the case is, internal works are necessary, and must be previous to what is called the first justification; and external works, which follow after the first justification, are equally necessary to the second, if opportunity permit. Habitual righteousness, consisting of the internal works of faith, (such as repentance, hope, charity, and the like,) is a necessary condition of justification, and goes before it. Actual righteousness, consisting of external acts, are necessary to be done after justification, and follow it; follow the first justification, and are necessary to be done in order to the second, or to preserving the first. That is, the first righteousness is necessary for the reception of the grant of justification; the latter righteousness is equally necessary for preserving the same grant. And this appears to be the doctrine of the Homily of Justification, to which the compilers of the Articles do, in the foregoing Article, refer for a more full explication of their doctrine, on the point of justifications. Or, perhaps, by good works

f Hæc quæ de absoluta bonorum operum disseruimus, certissima sunt. Nihilominus et hic etiam cautione aliqua lectori Christiano opus erit, ut accurate distinguat inter justificationem primam ac secundam, adeoque inter bona opera, quæ ad hanc illamque necessario requiruntur. Atque hic statuendum omnino est, ad primam justificationem opera tantum interna fidei, pœnitentiæ, spei, charitatis, &c. esse absolute necessaria; cætera vero erterna opera, quæ in factis externis, sive in actuali singularum virtutum, quas modo enumeravimus, exercitio conspiciuntur, signa tantum esse fructusque pietatis internæ, et justificatione posteriora, eaque demum lege præstanda, si non desit opportunitas. Hoc dubio procul illud est, quod voluit Ecclesia nostra in articulo duodecimo, in quo dicit opera esse fructus fidei, et veluti signa quibus fides dignoscitur, quæque justificationem hominis consequuntur. Per opera enim hîc intelligi omnino debent opera externa, &c.— Bulli Harmon. Apostol. diss. ii. cap. 18. sect. 8. p. 115, 116. Conf. sect. ix. x. p. 116-118. Ibid. cap. iii. sect. 2. p. 38. Ibid. cap. xii. sect. 28. p. 90. Apolog. pro Harmon. sect. vi. §. 7. p. 37.

Bishop Bull, after quoting a passage from the Homily, proceeds thus: Author distinguens habitualem (ut dici solet) justitiam nostram virtutibus internis fidei, spei, pœnitentiæ, charitatis, &c. constantem, ab actuali justitia operum bonorum, sive factorum conspicuorum. De priori docet, quod necessario requiratur in omni homine qui justificatur; de posteriori, quod postea (nempe post justificationem) necessario præstanda sit. Nimirum prior justitia requiritur (ut diximus) ad gratiam justificationis accipiendam ; posterior ad eandem gratiam conservandam. Apolog. pro Hurmon. sect. v. §. 4. p. 29. conf. §. 5. p. ibid.

The

following after justification, in this Article, may be meant good works following after grace: for even the internal good works, which we say must precede justification, as necessary conditions of it, do not precede grace, as I shall show under the next Article. And there may be reason to think, that the compilers might not here perhaps accurately express the distinction between grace and justification; because they appear not to have done it in the following Article, by comparing the title of it with the Article itself; the title being, "Of Works done before "justification;" and yet the Article speaking only of works done before grace; as I shall have occasion to observe under that Article.

Dr. Waterland hath well observed, in the tract now published, that since "all of us, or nearly all, are bap"tized in infancy, and therefore regenerated and justified "of course; good works must, in this case at least, (which is our case,) follow after justification and regeneration, if they are at all:-and we need not so much as " inquire whether good works precede or follow justifica"tion in the case of adults, since it is not our case h." But if forward men will raise these unnecessary disputes,

66

teaching things which they ought not," and thereby "subverting whole houses;" it becomes proper and necessary that their "mouths should be stopped," by declaring and defending the true and sound doctrine.

ARTICLE XIII.

Of Works before Justification.

Mr. Whitefield hath printed this Article, together with the other two, at the end of his Answer to the Bishop of London: but I do not find that he draws any argument in particular from this Article. However, the use I suppose to be made of it is, to conclude from it, that since the Article teaches that "works done before the grace of "Christ, and the inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant "to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus "Christ;-yea rather, for that they are not done as God

The famed maxim of St. Austin, that good works follow after justification, and do not precede it, Dr. Waterland interprets of Baptism; viz. that men must be incorporated in Christ, must be good Christians, before they could practise Christian works, strictly so called, Summary View, p. 449. i. e. external Christian works. Bishop Bull interprets it another way. Harmon. Apostol. diss. ii. cap. 3. sect. 2. p. 38. et Grabii Annot. ibid. p. 39.

Summary View, &c. p. 463.

"hath willed and commanded them to be done,—they "have the nature of sin;" therefore the same Article must teach that good works cannot be done before justification.

But I apprehend, that one short answer will suffice to vindicate this Article from teaching any such doctrine.

Though works done before the grace of Christ are not pleasant to God, but rather, not being done as God hath commanded, have the nature of sin; that is, though such works may be materially good, they are formally evil; yet, works done before justification may be pleasant to God, and not have the nature of sin; may be good works, and previously necessary, as such, to justification. For it is one thing to say, that good works precede grace; and another to say, they precede justification. The former we say not: the latter only we maintain. Grace and justification, which are really distinct, should not be confounded together. No work truly good can precede grace; because, without grace, no such work can be performed: but good works may and do precede justification; for grace is given before justification, that good works may be performed, by which we attain justification.

I am aware that the title of the Article is, " Of Works "before Justification." But the Article itself says not a word of works before justification; but only of works before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his Spirit: and the title must be explained by the Article, and not the Article by the title. And therefore the doctrine of the Article being only about works done before grace; we must conclude, that by Works before Justification, in the title, are meant only works before grace; as the meaning is explained to be in the Article itself.

I have thus given a brief vindication of the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth Articles of our Church, from teaching any such doctrine, as that we are so justified by faith alone, as to exclude good works from being previous, necessary conditions of justification. And if they who are

i Vid. Vitring. Observ. Sacr. lib. iii. cap. 12. tom. ii. p. 622. Bull. Harm. Apostol. diss. ii. cap. 5. sect. 4. p. 44. Burnet's Exposit. of the Thirty-nine Articles, art. xiii. Sharrock de Fin. et Offic. p. 52. Clarke's Posth. Sermons. Serm. 13. vol. iv. p. 317, &c. Bennet's Directions, p. 78.

* Res est, nulla opera vere bona præcedere posse gratiam Dei, cum sine gratia illa ne præstari quidem possint. At possunt opera bona præcedere justificationem, imo et revera præcedunt; quippe datur gratia ante justificationem, ut præstentur ea, quibus ad justificationem perveniatur. Harmon. Apostol. dissert. ii. cap. 12. sect. 28. p. 90.

vending about this false doctrine, and claiming these Articles as on their side, had more of that letter learning they despise, and less of that assurance they are noted for, they would be wiser men themselves, and fitter to teach others, than they at present appear to be. But ignorance, the greater it is, is always the bolder.

II.

The other tract is on the subject of Infant Com

munion.

The Author, in his Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, vol. vii. p. 135. observes, that the Fathers, both in the Greek and Latin churches, for the first four centuries, or somewhat more, never interpreted John vi. directly of the Eucharist: but that, by the frequent applying the general doctrine of spiritual feeding, there spoken of, to the particular case of the Eucharist, many, among the Latins especially, came, about the beginning of the fifth century, to interpret it directly of the Eucharist, and so to think that John vi. 53. was as decisive a text for the necessity of the Eucharist, as John iii. 5. was for the necessity of Baptism. Having observed this, he proceeds to say, that "hereupon ensued a common practice of

giving the Communion to mere infants. Pope Inno"cent I. is believed to have been the first or principal 66 man that brought up such doctrine of the necessity of "communicating infants." In the margin, after referring to Wall and Bingham, he says, "Compare Mr. "Pierce's Essay on Infant Communion, who carries it "much higher than others, upon suggestions which bear "a plausible appearance, and are worth examining by "some person of learning and leisure. But in the mean "while, I acquiesce in Dr. Wall's account, as one that "was well considered, and which, in my opinion, cannot "be far from the truth." And in another marginal note, after referring to Wall and Vossius, for St. Austin's being supposed to have interpreted John vi. 53. of the necessity of the Eucharist to salvation, he adds, "But Thorndike "disputes it with some show of reason."

From the manner of expressing himself in these passages, it appears, though he followed the common opinion, that the doctrine of the necessity of Infant Communion, founded on John vi. 53. and the practice consequent thereupon, prevailed in the fifth century; yet, that he was not clear in his judgment about it, but had some scruples in relation thereto. For though he acquiesced in Dr. Wall's