Page images
PDF
EPUB

tution and Erudition, had been equally divine and catholic, with out" any leven of affected composition;" although it is surely bold in a Protestant divine, to say he wished that Cranmer had been as divine and catholic in his new Homilies under King Edward, as he had been in the older ones, composed by the help or sanction of Gardner and the Papists. To ask the most conclusive question, unresolved by Mr. Todd; How comes it that the new Homilies, if they are to be construed by the old, have omitted the actually popish good works of the latter; for example, the seven sacraments, the ave-Maria, prayers for the dead, holy water, and so great a mass of the will-worship set up by idolatrous Rome herself in her worst times ? We have here a dilemma to propose to those who have their own way of expounding the doctrine of justification by faith without works; and who think that our Homilies meant only that we are justified by faith without the popish works of human invention, but not without really good and Christian works. If our Homilies meant to exclude only popish works from justification, and not all works; then, according to Mr. Todd, the Institution and Erudition meant to exclude those said popish works also: and to prescribe only bona fide good and Christian works as availing to justification. But if so, how is it that these very popish works are prescribed in the Institution and Erudition as availing to justification? Either, then, our Homilies are essentially different from the old, in rejecting the popish works which the latter recommend: or else neither the one nor the other, in rejecting the merit of good works, as valuable to justification, means popish works exclusively, but all good works alike. The real fact is, both the old and the new Homilies alike, in words, reject the merit of all good works. But the old only verbally reject them, with CHRIST. OBSERY, No. 219.

new

the utmost inconsistency taking them again into favour, as "meritorious to salvation;" while the new, containing Cranmer's real sentiments and our own genuine Protestant doctrines, consistently reject them in toto, as having any meritorious claim whatever, either to our first justification or our final salvation.

After all, it may perhaps be said that these distinctions are without a difference, since both the old and the new Homilies equally assert the necessity of good works; a necessity which we ourselves, in common with Mr. Todd, not only fully admit but earnestly contend for. To this we reply, that if these distinctions have been made the ground of a great diversity in the respective formularies, the onus lies on Mr. Todd to shew, that this great diversity is only apparent, and not real; that both the old and the new formularies meant the same thing; and that although they thus meant the same thing, there still were wise reasons for introducing so remarkable a diversity of statement. Thus far we conceive we have a just claim on Mr. Todd: and we can by no means admit that he has in any adequate degree discharged this claim by printing a series of documents, and assuring us, on his own word, that they really all mean the same thing; while it is evident, as we conceive, on the slightest inspection, that the diversities are both numerous and important. only proof Mr. Todd has attempted to give, that the two varying statements involve no real difference, and are, in short, quite the same, is confined to three or four general quotations from Shelford, 1635; John Wallis, D.D. 1682; the late Dean Tucker, and the present venerable Bishop of Durham. The statement of the last on justification, in his never to be forgotten Charge, has always been to us inter delicias. Wallis is made to tell us, contrary to the "Institution" and "Erudition," 2 C

The

but in perfect agreement with Scripture, and our own Homilies," that good works are as necessary as faith, or justification [connecting justification with faith only], to bring us to heaven; and that our church owns none for a true or lively faith, but what is attended with good works as the necessary fruit thereof." Shelford seems to us equally correct, " acknowledging faith to be the only beginning in the preparation of fin preparing] our justification." The Jesuit Campian is here intermediately brought in by Mr. Todd, as "absurd enough to state it as one of the monstrous opinions of the English Church, that God doth not regard our works,' appealing to a passage in the Apology of Bishop Jewell, which proves the very reverse." Mr. Todd here seems not to be aware that others besides the Jesuit Campian were equally absurd;" witness the Jesuit Harding, through a folio of controversy with the same Bishop Jewell; and Bishop Gardner of old, in dispute with Cranmer; and the whole body of Papists against the whole body of Protestants, particularly the former, as speaking through the decrees of the Council of Trent. There must have been something very puzzling to popish ears in the doctrine of justification by faith, to have so betrayed all these Papists into "absurdity" as respects the Protestants; and we find it difficult to believe that they were all at issue upon points of distinction without difference. Of this, however, we are sure, that if the true and real Protestant doctrine had been framed and set forth, as it appears in the "Institution" and "Necessary Erudition," Papists and Jesuits could not have fallen into the mistake under which they seem to have laboured; nor would they have been "absurd" enough to state that "the Church of England monstrously asserted that God doth not regard our works."" It was because Bishop Jewell expressed himself in a man

[merged small][ocr errors]

We had intended to have enlarged more particularly upon Mr. Todd's quotation from DeanTucker, but time forbids us. We much approve of the strong disclaimer against human merit, which, quoting our present Homilies, he puts into the mouths of the Reformers. We cannot equally applaud, however, the sophistry (it deserves no better term, while it has the additional demerit of being really and at bottom unintelligible,) by which he endeavours to connect this disclaimer with the doctrine taught in the earlier formularies, of the necessity of good works, as actually pre-existent in order of time, and preparatory to justification. We were also surprised to find Mr. Todd designating the opposition between faith and works, in the matter of justification, attributed (falsely as he would hold) to the Homilies, as the Calvinistic system. We never before heard that Calvin, however peccant on the subject of predestination, held wrong notions of faith; nor that he carried his views respecting the doctrine of justification to any extravagant lengths. We had imagined he was far more moderate than Luther in his statements on that point, and at least as moderate as the Augsburg and Saxonic Confessions cited by Mr. Todd.

We are not at all concerned to defend the Calvinism of Calvin; but perhaps Mr. Todd, and many more, may not be aware of such passages as the following, in the works of that Reformer. In his Commentary on Col. iii. 12. "Put on, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, &c." he observes, " Elect I here understand as set apart; as if the Apostle had said, With this condition God elected you to himself, sanctified

you, and received you to his love, that ye should be merciful, &c. Whoever has not these virtues vainly boasts of being holy and beloved; vainly enrols himself amongst the number of the faithful." Yet, according to Mr. Todd, the Calvinistic system is " an opposition between faith and works"! This eminent Reformer has borne the blame of many an erroneous opinion, both doctrinal and practical, which he spent his life in opposing; and of which no confutation could be found, in the whole circuit of theology, more masterly than in his own Scriptural Commentaries. Dr. Winchester, Mr. Todd tells us, has found in Calvin's opinions of 1535, the prototype of Cranmer's on Universal Redemption ; "which might, upon reflection, have taught him more moderation towards those who differed from his later system." Calvin then, it appears, neither understood his adversaries nor himself. But Dr. Winchester did; and discovers Calvin's system to be self-contradictory, and self-destructive; and his latter system (when men usually cool on the more rigid predestinarian tenets, and Calvin, it is said, amongst others) to be "worse than the first." Dean Tucker, likewise, helps Calvin to some light on the opposition between faith and works." Is all this from a calm and dispassionate view of his writings? Had these gentlemen read his works? Did they know or understand them? Yet, if not, how are we ever to come at truth? And what is theology made by these crude and absurd attacks, but an arena, and often a disgraceful arena, for the mere display of polemical tactics, and the dishonourable shouts of party-triumph?

"

For the present, we take our leave of Mr. Todd. We hold ourselves indebted to him for a much larger and deeper investigation of the points at issue between us and the semi-papists of the reign of King Henry VIII. than we had at first contemplated; as well as for

abundant confirmation to our own minds of the true doctrine of justification by faith, not only as it is so admirably set forth in our Homilies, but as it is there accompanied by such a noble compendium of Christian practice, as must for ever relieve that doctrine from the "absurd" imputation of being inimical to good works. For purity of practice, no less than of doctrine, we boldly offer our Homilies to a rigid comparison with the Institution and Erudition, as well as with all other semi-popish or more entirely popish productions. And for all these graduated and unhallowed approximations to the merit of good works, so calculated to keep up the pride of the human heart, and at bottom to weaken the demands of holiness, we can most unfeignedly say with our immortal champion, "If any man think that I seek to varnish their opinions, to set the better foot of a lame cause foremost, let him know, that since I began thoroughly to understand their meaning, I have found their halting greater than perhaps it seemeth to them which know not the deepness of satan, as the blessed divine speaketh." [See Hooker's Discourse immediately following the very statement, in other words, of the Institution and Erudition.]

Hooker's words, describing the popish doctrine, are these. "Our countrymen at Rheims [say] that they seek salvation no other way than by the blood of Christ: and that humbly they use prayers, and fastings, alms, faith, charity, sacrifice, sacraments, priests, only as the means appointed by Christ, to apply the benefit of his holy blood unto them; touching our good works, that in their own natures they are not meritorious, nor answered to the joys of heaven; it cometh by the grace of Christ, and not of the work itself, that we have, by well-doing, a right to heaven, and deserve it worthily." Could the "varnished opinions" and

"lame cause" of the Institution and Erudition have been better delineated? Yet this, according to Hooker, was Popery. Are we to blame for annexing the same heavy charge to the divinity or King Henry VIII.?

If a further reference to names be necessary, we will set before the advocates of the meritoriousness, either in whole or in part, of good works, as conducing to our justification, the choice of two examples equally eminent in their way, to either of which they may, as they shall see fit, have respect. The amiable and pious Dr. Redman "one of the solidest and best read divines in the land, and to whose judgment great deference was paid by all, and therefore who was appointed one of the divines to compose the Common Prayer Book," (Strype's Memorials of Reformation, Vol. III. Oxford edition)-on his death-bed, and in the most solemn manner, before many witnesses, declared his last judgment on several points of Christian doctrine.-"Finally, of his own voluntary will, no man (as far as I can call to remembrance), demanding of him, he shewed his opinion concerning justification by Christ. I lament,' said he, and repent, beseeching God forgiveness of the same, that, too seriously and earnestly, I have withstood this proposition, That only faith doth justify; but I al ways feared that it should be taken to the liberty of the flesh, and so should defile the innocency of life which is in Christ. But that proposition, that only faith doth justify, is true,' quoth he, sweet, and full of spiritual comfort, if it be truly taken and rightly understood.' And when he was demanded what he thought to be the true and very sense thereof, 'I understand,' quoth he, that to be the lively faith, which resteth in our only Saviour Jesus Christ, and embraceth him; so that in our only Saviour Jesus Christ all the hope and trust of our salvation be surely fixed. And as concerning good works,' saith he, they have their crown and merit, and are not destitute of their reward; yet, nevertheless, they do not merit the kingdom of heaven, For no works, said he, could purchase and obtain that blessed,

happy, and everlasting immortality; no, nor yet those things which we do under grace, by the motion of the Holy Ghost. For that blessed and immortal glory is given and bestowed upon us mortal men, of the heavenly Father, for his Son our Saviour Christ's sake, as St. Paul testifieth, The gift of God is eternal life.'" (See "Letter of Master Young to Master Cheke, concerning Doctor Redman," in Fox's Acts and Monuments, Vol. II.)

The second person in the same contemporary history whose example shall be adduced, is Bishop Gardner, who also lay dying, having been mortally seized, just after hearing the report of the execution, under his own advice and direction, of Bishops Latimer and Ridley. "At four o'clock," says the able and interesting biographer of Bishop Ridley, qnoted above, "the wretch was made happy [by the report of the execution being brought to him] and went to dinner: he was not disappointed of his lust; but while the meat was yet in his mouth, the heavy wrath of God came upon him. He was seized... [with the deadly symptoms of a mortal disorder, thought to be the effect of a dissolute life]. He felt all the bitter remorse of conscience, without being able to mingle with it that salutary sorrow which can alone make it supportable. I have erred,' says he, with Peter, but I have not wept like him.' The Bishop of Chichester, visiting him, would have comforted him with the assurance of justification through the blood of Christ: Gardner acknowledged the truth in private, and thereby assented to the Reformers; but desired him politically to suppress it, saying, He might speak of that to him, or others in his condition; but if he opened that gap again, and preached that to the people, then farewell altogether."" We proceed not with the dreadful relation, given on the authority of Strype, as we apprehend the former part is on that of Fox. But we con

elude, with no uncertain impression on our minds, as to which of the two authorities, on the point of justification by faith, our readers would choose to have recourse. We have little doubt which of the two modes and motives, chosen by these two men respectively, for a death-bed confession, would be most congenial to the feelings of all. Far less have we any design in placing the two together, to raise an invidious suspicion against the character of any modern, even though mistaken, doctrinist. And, with regard to Mr. Todd himself, of whom we now take our leave, we are disposed to hope, from his work itself, and the quotations be has given, that his own views of justification by faith are those of the true Protestant, and are to be sought for, not in the Institution and Necessary Erudition by which he has vainly (we conceive) attempted to illustrate our Articles and Homilies, but in those other quotations both in his work and in the Introduction to it, to which he has as vainly endeavoured to assimilate the Institution and Erudition of a popish age

(To be continued.)

Instructions for the Relief of the Sick Poor, in some Diseases of frequent Occurrence: addressed to a Parochial Clergyman, residing at a distance from Professional Aid. By a PHYSICIAN. 12mo. Pp. viii. & 43. Gloucester: Walker and Sons. London: Seeley, 1819,

THE circumstances under which, as detailed by the author, this tract has been offered to the consideration of the public, and particularly of the clergy, are these:-" A clergyman of the Established Church, the author's particular friend, residing in a part of the country where medical assistance cannot always be promptly and punctually obtained for the poorer inhabitants, when suffering from sickness, hav

ing expressed a wish to be provided with some instructions, by which he might be enabled to afford relief on such occasions, the contents of the following pages (some subsequent additions excepted) were communicated to him in writing, for his own private accommodation. Ou perusing them, his friend thought they might, if printed, be useful to many parochial clergymen similarly circumstanced with himself. They have, therefore, been committed to the press."

In addition to the above representation, the fidelity of which our personal knowledge of the parties enables us to authenticate, it ought to be stated, that the author, having at first only printed his Instructions for private circulation, has been since persuaded to publish them. His compliance with the solicitations of his friends to that effect will be found highly beneficial, we are convinced, to all clerical practitioners in medicine, as well as to such practical friends of the poor, separately from any advantages indirectly derived to themselves in general cases of indisposition, as combine with a wish to assist their sick dependants, a prudential care not to venture beyond their depth into the mysteries of medical science. There are those, both lay and clerical, who, with very kind intentions, have darkened the walignity of disease in certain instances, where the patient, from the first hour of its attack, ought to have been exclusively superintended by a professional person. A great measure, we suspect, of the evil productive of such a consequence has arisen from familiarity with what are called complete systems of physic. These, as the reader will anticipate, are useful or injurious, according to the caution or temerity of the persons who study them; and if it be no libel on the present generation of the charitable world to affirm, that "the majority are

"

not "wicked," but still unfit to be trusted with the administration of

« PreviousContinue »