and by all the other Reformed Churches, may be thus arranged and tabularly exhibited. 1. Clement of Rome. A. D. 70. 2. Ignatius of Antioch. A. D. 106. 3. Polycarp of Smyrna. A. D. 106. 5. The Author of the Epistle to Diognetus. circ. A. D. 140. 6. Irenèus. A. D. 170. 7. Clement of Alexandria. A. D. 200. 8. Cyprian. A. D. 250. 9. Athanasius. A. D. 340. 10. Hilary of Poictiers. A. D. 360. 12. Basil of Cesarèa. A. D. 370. 13. Ambrose. A. D. 370. 14. Ruffinus or Origen. A. D. 390. 15. Jerome. A. D. 390. 16. Chrysostom. A. D. 400. 17. Augustine. A. D. 410. 18. Theodoret. A. D. 430. 20. Ennodius of Pavia. A. D. 510. 22. Pope Gregory I. A. D. 600. 23. Anastasius Sinaita. A. D. 640. 24. Bede. A. D. 720. 25. Haymo Halberstaltensis. A. D. 840. 26. Smaragdus, A. D. 950. 27. Anselm of Canterbury. A. D. 1080. 28. Bernard of Clairvaux. A. D. 1130. The above citations, with many others to the same effect, will be found in Abp. Usher's Answer to a Jesuit's Challenge. chap. xii. It may be observed, that, of twelve successive centuries, from the first to the twelfth inclusive, not one is without its witness. NUMBER V. MR. NEWMAN AND THE AUTHOR OF THE PRIMITIVE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. In the Appendix to his Lectures on Justification p. 428—439, Mr. Newman has done me the honour to animadvert upon the evidence, which, in support of the doctrine of Justification as taught by the Church of England and as expounded by the judicious Hooker, I have produced from Primitive Antiquity: or rather, as in strictness I ought to say, upon the single evidence which I produced from Clement of Rome. I. My respected friend (if, on the strength of an amicable correspondence associated with a personal interview, Mr. Newman will allow me to call him so) commences with representing me, as considering, if he understands me rightly, that our holiness and works can, IN NO SENSE, be said to justify us in God's sight. Lect. on Justific. p. 428. 1. By the expression, in no sense, I conclude, that Mr. Newman means, in no sense of the word JUSTIFY. If such be his meaning, I am at a loss to comprehend the drift and object of his remark: for it would seem to intimate, that I had first given various definitions of the single word JUSTIFY, and that I had then asserted the impossibility of our being justified before God, by our own holiness and works, in any one of the several senses which I had ascribed to that word. This, however, was in no wise the plan, which, in the composition of my Treatise, I have thought it good to adopt. 2. Doubtless, there is a sense, in which our holiness and works may correctly be said, to justify us, though not in God's sight if, by the expression in God's sight, we mean to intimate, that our holiness and works may constitute THE GROUND OF OUR ACCEPTANCE WITH GOD. Let the word JUSTIFY be taken to import the MAKING a man just, rather than the ACCOUNTING a man just and then, cer tainly, he will, though not in God's sight, be justified by his holiness and works: for holiness and good works, as far as they go, are the precise things which MAKE a man personally just or righteous. See above, chap. i. § III. i. 3. But, with this sense, in treating of Justification as the doctrine is set forth in Scripture and as it was ever understood until corrupted by the Schoolmen and their followers the Tridentines, we have no concern. For, as Mr. Newman himself has excellently shewn, the technical or theological sense of the term JUSTIFY is, not the MAKING, but the ACCOUNTING, a man just : and the term respects, not man's communicated FITNESS for, but his acquired RIGHT to, the kingdom of heaven. 4. Accordingly, throughout my whole volume, instead of mentioning various senses which the term may be thought abstractedly capable of bearing, I invariably propound: that the word JUSTIFY, when by the writers of the New Testament it is used technically or conventionally, is strictly a forensic term, bearing the sole and single sense of ACCOUNTING AND THENCE PRONOUNCING A MAN RIGHTEOUS. 5. Consequently, since, as our Article well expresses it, we are accounted righteous before God, ONLY for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through Faith, and NOT on account of our own works or deservings: I thence contend, calling in Antiquity as my voucher, that our holiness and works, however necessary under the aspect of duty, have no concern in our Justification before God, and therefore cannot be said to justify us in God's sight. 6. Thus really stands the case: and, as I thus ascribe only a single theological sense to the word JUSTIFY, I am unable to comprehend, what Mr. Newman, by the wideness of his phraseology, would intimate to my disparagement. II. For the purpose of shewing that the scheme of Justification, originally (I believe) introduced by the Schoolmen, afterward ratified by the Council of Trent, and finally borrowed and defended by Mr. Knox, was directly opposed by the harmonious voice of Antiquity, I had introduced, at the head of my citations from the Fathers, a striking passage of the Roman Clement, the friend and fellow-labourer of St. Paul, which, even in itself alone, I deemed amply sufficient to overturn that heterodox novelty. The passage in question I shall here repeat for reasons which will soon become abundantly obvious. * Ημεῖς οὖν, διὰ θελήματος αὐτοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ κληθέντες, οὐ δι' ἑαυτῶν δικαιούμεθα, οὐδὲ διὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας σοφίας ἢ συνέσεως ἢ εὐσεβείας ἢ ἔργων ὧν κατειργασάμεθα ἐν ὁσιότητι καρδίας, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς πίστεως. Clem. Rom. Epist. ad Corinth, i. §32. This I translated as follows. We therefore, being called through his will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or WORKS WHICH WE HAVE DONE IN HOLINESS OF HEART, but through Faith. That Clement is here speaking of Forensic Justification or Justification in its theological sense of ACCOUNTING RIGHTEOUS, is quite evident from the very necessity of his phra seology. For if Justification in its colloquial sense of MAKING RIGHTEOUS, had been intended; he would never have said, that We are NOT justified by works which we have done IN HOLINESS OF HEART: because such works are the precise works which Do make us personally righteous. Clearly, therefore, he is speaking of Justification, in its forensic or technical or conventional, sense of ACCOUNTING RIGHTEous. This being the case, nothing, I should think, is more certain, than that the testimony of Clement is absolutely fatal to the Scheme of Mr. Knox and the Romanists and the Schoolmen. Proceeding, in a sort of climax, through our human wisdom and understanding and piety, the venerable Prelate finally declares that we are not justified through that precise inherent holiness, which, when communicated or infused by the Spirit of God, Mr. Knox and the Romanists pronounce to be the very cause or ground of our Justification. : We are NOT justified says Clement, through works which we have done in holiness of heart, BUT through Faith. The proof appeared to me at once so conveniently brief and so beautifully perfect, that, considering both Clement's very highest antiquity and his immediate connection with St. Paul, I might with some reason, have well saved myself the trouble of adducing any other evidence. Yet, to my no ordinary as tonishment, I find, that Mr. Newman not only deems it insufficient to set aside Mr. Knox's speculation, but actually would make Clement teach the very doctrine which he EXPLICITLY renounces: the doctrine, to wit, that Man is accounted and declared righteous in the court of heaven, NOT through Faith simply, BUT through Faith and the Moral Virtues conjointly. p. 436, 437. Since Mr. Newman has arranged his objections and arguments under several distinct heads, it will be requisite to follow him after the same fashion. 1. That Clement, like our own admirable English Homilist, teaches, that The various gifts and graces of holiness are all, with Faith, present in a justified man, requires no proof: and Mr. Newman might have spared himself a copious irrelevance of quotations from Clement to this effect. His business was to shew that Clement disagrees with our Homilist, when that same Homilist goes on to teach, that Those various gifts and graces of holiness, though all PRESENT with Faith in a man who has been justified, yet do not JUSTIFY altogether; the special OFFICE of instrumentally justifying being limited and appropriated to Faith, simply and alone. But this Mr. Newman has NOT shewn; and that, for the very best possible reason: because, to wit, Clement has afforded him no materials wherewithal it might be shewn. The only passage, which bears even a semblance of proof, is one which he has cited from the thirtieth Section of the Epistle : and this, in all fairness, I shall exhibit and notice. Ἐνδυσώμεθα τὴν ὁμόνοιαν, ταπεινοφρονοῦντες, ἐγηρατευόμενοι, ἀπὸ παντὸς ψιθυρισμου καὶ καταλαλιᾶς πόῤῥω ἑαυτοὺς ποιοῦντες, ἔργοις δικαιούμενοι καὶ μὴ λόγοις. Let us put on unanimity, with humble-mindedness and continence, keeping ourselves far from all whispering and calumny, BEING JUSTIFIED BY WORKS AND NOT BY Words. This is the passage on the strength of which we are invited to make Clement contradict all that he subsequently says in the thirty-second section: the passage, namely, which I have given above as cited evidentially in my Work, and which Mr. Newman is labouring toto corpore regni to emasculate and invalidate. In the one place, that cited by myself, Clement, with much |