We shall have occasion to recur to faith in another point of view, when we come to the head of justification. 2. But we are interrupted in our natural progress to that subject by an intercalary article of the "Erudition," to which we shall now briefly turn; namely, the second, on free will. We say briefly; for were we in a lighter mood, we might be tempted to allude to a remark of Dr. Johnson, on a certain chapter in a description of Ireland. It was the shortest chapter, he said, in any book he ever met with: "On venomous reptiles." "There are no venomous reptiles to be found in any part of the island!" We have in the "Neces sary Erudition," a very long, and, as Mr. Todd calls it," a fine description" of free will. But we turn to the Homilies: we proceed to King Edward's Reformatio, his Forty-two Articles, and his Short Catechism; to Jewell's Apology; and to the Augsburg and Saxonic Confessions; and we find not one word upon the subject! The fact is, the Augsburg Confession, "the pride and glory of the Reformation," was more or less the fountain and found. ation of all the Protestant creeds. It appears further, as we have already observed, from Mosheim, that the matter of the Augsburg Confession was furnished by Luther; and even its form, though it proceeded from the pen of Melancthon, yet had the sanction of the great German Reformer before it was rather interrupt and let the right course and phrase of the paraphrases, and obscure the same rather than make it clear. In this part I have spoken the more large ly, because I do refer unto the fourth note all other places, like to the same matter appertaining." (Fathers of the English Church, vol. iii. p. 84.)-The application of this fourth note is made wide indeed, when in the tenth annotation we read" I being christened, and in will to follow his precepts."-Annot. "He that hath the true faith is christened! and [is] in will to follow his precepts." See the fourth annotation above, p. 85. finally authorized and published. Now it is well known, that Luther had his own notions, "De Libero Arbitrio;" but they were such notions as would have led him to give another title to this part of our fallen nature; nay, he actually thought of composing a book, "De servo Arbitrio;" or "concerning the slavery of the human will." Experience and self-knowledge would perhaps teach the humble Christian that there is but too much reason for such an appellation. But looking even to the "fine description" given of this said "free will" in the "Erudition" itself, we think that Luther's proposed title might, with just as much propriety, have been placed at the head of the chapter: and we must confess, that of all the definitions ever drawn up on any subject, that of "free will" in the " Necessary Erudition," appears to us the most self-contradictory. We are fully sanctioned in our utter "reprehension" of its unintelligible terms, by its total exclusion from the works of our real reformers; and also by their absolute, wise, and most Christian silence upon that mysterious subject. We shall not enlarge further on this article, though we are conscious much might be said on it, having still to treat of the more important article to which we now turn. 3. On justification.-We have We are willing to consider " absolute silence" as the line chosen by our wise reformers on this subject; because though we find, in an article of King Edward, a short protestation against free will, and a plainer denial of it in toto, in our own article so entitled; yet we are prepared to allow, that these are chiefly disclaimers of the Pelagian heresy, and that with respect to the contradictory attempts of the" Erudition" to reconcile free will and free grace, they chose to maintain an entire and most cautious reserve; perhaps concentrating all they had to say dogmatically upon it, in their cautiously poized articles on predes tination and election;" the counterpart of which we look for in vain, in the "Necessary Erudition." 66 here much to say; but we must endeavour to say it as shortly as possible. In Protestant divinity this article may be justly considered as the most important. And yet we have to note, that Mr. Todd is not the first of modern Protestant divines who has been content to learn this most important article at the feet of our ancient semi-popish Gamaliels, the authors of the "Institution" and "Necessary Erudition." We very much doubt whether his friend and authority, Dr. Laurence, whom be quotes with the highest satisfaction on all possible occasions, would wholly concur with him on the present. If he did, we presume we should have found in Mr. Todd's Introduction expressions of approbation quoted from Dr. Laurence, similar to those which we find quoted from Deans Martin and Tucker, and Dr. Nichols. But Mr. Todd has another precursor in this view of things. We mean Mr. Glocester Ridley, the descendant and biographer of the eminent martyr of that name, of whom more hereafter. Mr. Glocester Ridley, in his interesting piece of biography, has condescended to draw out at full length this doctrine, as taught in the "Pia et Catholica Institutio;" we wish we could say without that approbation of it of which, in our opinion, it is utterly unworthy. But, such as it is, we shall give it entire, for the further assistance of our readers, in comparing its views with those of genuine Protestantism. works; acts of penitence, and acts of righteousness. Of the first kind are assent to the Gospel revelation, with sure faith, believing God's righteous judgment and severity against sinners, his mercy through Christ to them that repent, sorrow and compuuction of heart for their past offences, resti-. tution and satisfaction for injuries done to others, earnest and fervent prayers for acceptance, with serious resolutions of future amendment. These are required before, and in order to our first justification, which is sealed and confirmed to us in the sacrament of baptism; to adults, after these works of penitence testified to the church, and to infants on the faith of their sponsors. But this first justification is the free gift of God, although in adults these works of penitence are required to precede; for these works could not have been produced without preventing grace setting the will free to make choice of them, and assisting in their production. Good works, after this justification called works of righteousness, are required of us to confirm and increase this justification; which are, persisting in our good resolutions, and producing the fruit of them; that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we may live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world. (Titus in. 12.) All those good works done in charity from a pure heart and good conscience, and faith unfeigned' (1 Tim. i. 5.); in the production of which we must not be. "Justification," says Mr. G. remiss, but use great diligence in Ridley, referring to and quoting them, otherwise we shall forfeit the "Pia et Catholica Institutio,' the grace received, cancel our for" is considered as the effect of mer justification, and relapse into three several causes: the mercy the servitude of sin. Such reof God, the satisfaction of Christ, lapses may be again restored by and man's faith and repentance penitence, a hearty conviction of by which he voluntarily accepts their guilt, unfeigned shame and the mercy, and applies to himself sorrow for it, a confidence of parthe satisfaction. And it has don for Christ's merits, with full three degrees or states; begin- purpose of amendment. Thus jusning, progressive, and perfect.-tified, whether by baptism, or peOur free-will, in concurrence with nitence, after relapse," [when theregrace, produces two sorts of good fore by faith?] "we must proceed and improve in the works of righteousness above described; and although these may be rendered imperfect through human frailty, and we may daily fall into sins of infirmity and surprise, yet if we consent not to deadly sin we shall not for feit the grace of God, or fall from justification; but may, notwithstanding, receive greater measures of grace, proceed to further degrees of good works, and increase our justification. This is the progressive state of it. These works of righteousness, although imperfect, God will graciously accept in his last judgment, through the imputed merits of Christ, as a discharge of the law, and as a title to the reward of eternal life, which is our complete and perfect justification. Yet have we nothing to glory in on the account of these good works, as if they were our own, and deserved of themselves the reward. It is grace through Christ that discharges our original obligation to punishment; it is grace that restores the freedom of the will to choose good; it is grace assisting that enables us to perform good works; it is grace that supplies the defects of our best works; it is grace that bestows an over-proportioned reward."-See Gloucester Ridley's Life of Ridley, 4to. 1763, pp. 346-349. We shall just remark, in elucidation of our next quotation, that in this exposition of "pious and Catholic doctrine," or necessary erudition," not only is the term justification taken, as it always is more or less in such statements, as a personal state of the sinner himself, a quality spiritual indeed, and divinely infused, but according to the increase or diminution of which the man is, for Christ's sake, more or less justified; but also this justification is so far from being free without works, that it rests wholly upon them;-works, indeed, partly owing to God, as done by his grace, but partly to ourselves as using that grace, and, when kept up to a certain pitch of virtue, then admitted to the high honour of finally and completely justifying us for Christ's sake. Now the extract from G. Ridley, which we consider the fairest possible statement of the doctrines respectively contained both in the "Institution," and the "Necessary Erudition," on the whole question of justification, and which will be found substantially exhibited in our former Number (p. 40), we shall first confront with another statement of the same doctrine made by another Protestant divine, and as it might have been from the same "Institution" and "Necessary Erudition;" but certainly for a purpose very different from that of recommending it to his readers. The name of this other Protestant divine is Hooker, and his delineation of what is in substance the doctrine of these two works on the important article of justification, is to be found in his invaluable discourse on that subject. It is as follows: "Christ hath merited to make us just; but as a medicine which is made for health doth not heal by being made, but by being applied, so by the merits of Christ there can be no justification without the application of his merit. Thus far we join hands with the Church of Rome. Wherein then 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 the power of means which God requireth in us, for the effectual applying thereof to our soul's comfort. When they [the Papists] are required to shew 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 were born of God, and, secondly, endue it with power to bring forth such works as they do that are born of him.........that it maketh the soul amiable and gra cious 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 eternal 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 warm by the heat which is in the body, so the soul might be righteous by inherent grace; which grace they make capable of increase as the body may be more and more warm, 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. 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. Inasmuch, therefore, as it is needful in the one case to repair, in the other to recover, the loss which is made, the infusion of grace hath her sundry after-meals; 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; is applied to infidels and wicked men in the first justification, through baptism without works, yet not without faith, and it taketh away both sins 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, the 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 have lost it through mortal sin, it is applied by the sacrament (as they call it) of penance, which sacrament hath force to confer grace anew; yet in such sort, 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 temporal 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 for 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 followers to tread, when they ask her the way to justification. I cannot stand now to unrip this building, and sift it piece by piece; only I will pass it by in few words; that that may befal Babylon, in the presence of that which God hath builded, as happened unto Dagon before the ark !"--(Discourse of Justification, Hooker's Works, Oxford, 1793. vol. iii. pp. 434-436.) We have no hesitation in affirming, that there is a fundamental agreement of the above two statements from G. Ridley and from Hooker's description of papistical doctrine, both with each other, and with the "Institution" and "Necessary Eru. dition." At the same time, we as readily grant, that a few of the grosser adventitious particles of the system have been clarified and purged off by Mr. G. Ridley; and some by the Erudition itself, as compared with unmixed Popery. But the substance remains the same. The tin purified is tin still, and is essentially different from the gold of Protestant, or rather let us say of Scriptural verities. This, however, we are conscious, must be made to appear, not by the authority of Hooker, or by any other authority than that to which Mr. Todd himself refers, the documentary extracts which he himself has given us. To these we now turn. Our own First Book of Homilies, as we have said, is before our readers, and they can judge of it for themselves. But we will just remark, for their guidance, that both in our Homilies and in every Protestant document quoted by Mr. Todd, justification differs essentially from that described in the Erudition in two ways; as to its nature and essence, and as to the means of its attainment. 1. Its nature in our Homilies is described shortly, not as a state of man but as "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 to him, but which we take of him by his free mercy, and by the only merits of his most dearly beloved Son, our only Redeemer, Saviour, and Justifier, Jesus Christ." It is, in fact, here as elsewhere, represented as a judicial act on the part of God only, for Christ's sake acquitting the sinner, and looking on him and making him "of unjust, just before God." Consequently this justification is no more capable of increase, or diminution, first, and second, than the act of acquitting a prisoner at the bar, can be so, or than a man can be more or less pardoned. And hence, not only does no trace of a first or second, a waxing or waning, justification (which is of the very essence of the Necessary Erudition"), appear in our Homilies, but it is essentially impossible there should be any such vestige. To suppose such a varying justification, necessarily supposes it to be a quality in ourselves which does so vary; as Hooker states the Papists to believe, a divinely infused spiritual quality. This indeed our Homilies strongly assert to be the necessary consequence of our justification before God, when truly obtained, but never either its essence, or the means of its attainment. 2. The means of attaining justi fication are, with equal clearness, denied in our Homilies to be what they are asserted to be in the "Erudition;" that is to say, our faith and works conjointly. "Faith doth not exclude repentance, hope, love, &c. to be joined with faith in every man that is justified: but it excludeth them from the office of justifying. So that although they be all present together in him that is justified, they justify not all together." Again: "Truth it is, that not our works [nor our faith] do justify us, to speak properly of our justification; that is, our works do not merit remission, and make us, of unjust, just before God."........ "Nevertheless, because faith doth directly send us to Christ for remission of sins, and by faith, given us of God, we embrace the promise of God's mercy, (which thing none other of our virtues or works properly doth,) therefore Scripture useth to say, that faith without works doth justify.” Words cannot be found in more express contradiction to the whole tenor of the "Necessary Erudition." We turn to this latter work, and we find it said, in near conformity with Mr. Ridley's better, and with Hooker's truer, delineation of it; "Wherefore it is necessary for the keeping and holding of this justification once conferred and given in. baptism, or recovered by penance, through the mercy of our Saviour Christ, and also for increasing the same justification, and final consummation thereof, to take good heed, and to watch, that we be not deceived by the false suggestion and temptation of our ghostly enemy the devil; 'who,' as St. Peter. saith, 'goeth about like a roaring. lion, seeking whom he may devour.'" pp. 32, 33. This is in very truth the "Medulla Patrum " (as we could almost think Dean Martin had sarcastically called it) upon this subject of justification; given in baptism, recovered by penance, increased and |