Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

and christian teacher. But how does it favour Mr. Newman's project of dilution?

St. Paul, like Clement, tells us that We are not saved, and therefore not anteriorly justified, from WORKS THAT ARE IN RIGHTEOUSNESS which we have done.

Clement, like St. Paul, tells us that We are not justified, and therefore not ultimately saved, through WORKS DONE IN

HOLINESS OF HEART.

The Apostle's WORKS THAT ARE IN RIGHTEOUSNESS (pywr tãy év dikaioσúvŋ), and the Roman Bishop's WORKS DONE IN HOLINESS OF HEART (ἔργων ὧν κατειργασάμεθα ἐν ὁσιότητι καρδίας), are plainly and palpably identical; for they are each alike works performed in what Hooker calls the Righteousness of Sanctification.

Now both Paul and Clement agree that, however valuable such works may be in their proper place, and however intrinsically pleasing and acceptable to God; still their office is NOT to justify.

But Mr. Knox and the Romanists, treading in the devious footsteps of the Schoolmen, declare that Justification Is their office.

Therefore Mr. Knox and the Romanists and the Schoolmen stand flatly opposed to St. Paul and his interpreter Clement. Whether Mr. Newman has a hankering after the same unscriptural and novel speculation, is best known to himself. If it be among his cherished delicia: then, of course, he has placed himself in the unenviable predicament of Mr. Knox and his Tridentine teachers.

III. Mr. Newman goes on to say: What has been explained of St. Clement's Epistle, might, it seems to me, be easily applied to the rest of Mr. Faber's Extracts. p. 438.

By a sort of side-wind, my friend evidently wishes to discredit my citations from the other Fathers, in the way of their being insufficient to set aside the unauthorised dogma of Mr. Knox and the Tridentines.

I doubt, whether this mode of warfare, however convenient to him who employs it, be quite legitimate. A dexterous insinuation may tell the more effectually, because it is incapable of being answered. If an attack be made in the dark, the as

sailed cannot parry, because he cannot see, the weapon of the

assailant.

Ποίησον δ ̓ ἀίθρην, δὸς δ ̓ ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ἰδέσθαι·

Ἐν δὲ φάει καὶ ἔλεσσον.

As Mr. Newman has not carried on to my other extracts, his easy application of his exposition of Clement, I, of course, am precluded from offering any specific remarks upon it; however, by controversial courtesy, I am bound to believe its facility. His victory and my defeat are, at present, alike conjectural. More fortunate than the oriental Barmecide, Mr. Newman can administer his airy viands, secure from the practical pugnacity of his sorely tantalised guest.

NUMBER VI.

MR. NEWMAN'S LECTURES ON JUSTIFICATION.

Mr. Newman's Lectures on Justification are composed on such an entirely different plan from my own Work on the Primitive Doctrine of Justification, that nothing, save the circumstance of his discussing the use which I have made of the Roman Clement, could have given me any reasonable warrant to offer even the slightest remark upon them. But, since he has done me the honour to notice my production, were I totally silent respecting his, my silence might be misconstructed, either into a want of courtesy where I would fain shew all courtesy, or into a tacit acknowledgment that his System, because Scriptural, was impregnable. The latter would be the most natural construction which might be put upon my silence: because, while my own Work professed to investigate and exhibit the primitive Doctrine of Justification, that so we might be morally sure as to the real apostolic view of that Doctrine; the Work of Mr. Newman professed to deduce its System from Scripture exclusively, which, in truth, means only, from Scripture according to Mr. Newman's own private construction of Scripture. As he himself lucidly propounds his plan: while the points, from

which he starts, are different from those of Mr. Faber; so too are his arguments, as being drawn, NOT from Primitive Christianity, BUT from Scripture. Advert. to Lect. on Justific. p. vii.

As Mr. Newman thus professes to deduce his arguments from Scripture exclusively, throwing aside that historical testimony to the true sense of Scripture which may be afforded by the existing documents of Primitive Christianity: it is obvious, that his System, whether abstractedly correct or abstractedly incorrect, rests altogether upon his own private judgment; and, thence, can claim no authority beyond that which is communicated to it by the insulated seffrage of a very excellent individual. Under these circumstances, were I silent, it might be thought, that I so assented to Mr. Newman's private judgment, in regard to the sense of Scripture, as to feel and confess internally that his System could not be gainsaid, although I might not think it necessary or expedient publicly to give in my adhesion.

It is, however, with great reluctance, that I at all prosecute this matter, and that most especially, for a reason of no small cogency. Mr. Newman, it is true, cannot exactly say with the poet Brevis esse laboro; obscurus fio. But his readers, I fear, will complain : that, although his Work is in no wise short, it is painfully difficult, if not absolutely impossible, of comprehension. Perhaps my amour propre leads me to say readers in the plural number: for it is more comfortable to exclaim, Nos turba sumus, than, in the consciousness of solitary dulness, to be left alone in one's glory. Many times have I perused Mr. Newman's Work with as much closeness of attention as I can command but, though his arguments claim to be drawn exclusively from Scripture, and though, touching the doctrine of Justification, I find no difficulty whatever in understanding Scripture as expounded by the Primitive Church and the Church of England; I find so great difficulty in understauding the System which he professes to have deduced from Scripture exclusively and NOT from Primitive Christianity, that, even after having been assisted by the privilege of his correspondence, I will not venture to represent myself as having carried off any very clear and distinct idea what the System really is. To my vanity, the confession is mortifying enough for others

may easily have a better headpiece, than what appertains to my own body; and thus may easily comprehend, what to myself is well nigh incomprehensible. But, still, it is an honest confession. Where I cannot understand my excellent friend, I will presume him to be sound and orthodox juxta Ecclesiam Anglicanam.

A Lecture strange he seem'd to read to me:

And, though I did not rightly understand
His meaning, yet I deemed it to be

Some goodly thing.

A better example, than this offered to me by Henry More, I cannot easily follow.

Certain of the difficulties, which cross my path, I will first briefly propound and then consider them more at large in their order.

1. When, in borrowed words, I said, that I did not rightly understand his meaning; let me not be misapprehended. Some of Mr. Newman's separate propositions, no doubt, I can readily understand: but then, when I wish to build up from his volume a compact and consistent and intelligible System, such, for in stance, as either that of Knox or Bull or Hooker, I am unable to reconcile them with other propositions, the import of which, when in like manner taken separately, I seem equally able to catch.

2. Here lies my chief difficulty; but it is not my sole difficulty. In Mr. Newman's Lectures I encounter propositions, which even in their separate state, are, to myself at least, totally unintelligible. They convey no idea whatever to my mind; and, hence, I am unable to pronounce, whether they do, or do not, harmonise with intelligible propositions, when propositions of this latter description are happily found to occur.

3. Occasionally, moreover, I find an assertion hazarded, which Mr. Newman himself substantiates not, and respecting which I have been unable to supply his lack of duty.

4. Add to this, that I perpetually meet with a very odd misrepresentation of the views of those who differ from him: which views, for some reason or another that I, a plain Protestant-Catholic, find it impracticable to fathom, he distinguishes or denounces by the apparently hateful name of LUTHERANISM:

much perhaps in the same manner as Mr. Froude, in the ripe wisdom of his youth, has poured out the vials of his unaccountable wrath, upon Cranmer, Ridley, Jewel, Peter Martyr, Bucer, Luther, Melancthon, and, in short, the entire Reformation.

With all these intellectual difficulties before me, I have great fear lest I should misrepresent Mr. Newman purely from my want of capacity to apprehend him.

I. Agreeably to my program, I shall begin with exhibiting two distinct classes of separate propositions: each of which respectively is, no doubt, quite intelligible and I shall then make a few natural observations upon them.

1. My first business is to exhibit the two classes in ques

tion.

(1.) The one class comprehends the following propositions. God justifies BEFORE he sanctifies: or, in exact propriety of language, Justification is COUNTING righteous, not MAKING righteous.

Justification is the glorious voice of the Lord DECLARING us to be righteous. That it is a DECLARATION, not a MAKING, is sufficiently clear from this one argument: that It is the Justification of a sinner, of one who has been a sinner; and the past cannot be reversed, except by ACCOUNTING it reversed.

If once it be granted to mean an IMPUTATION, it cannot mean any thing else: for it cannot have TWO meanings at once. The subject matter may be double but the Act of Justification is ONE.

Justification is a PERFECT ACT, a great and public deed in the sight of heaven and hell.

The idea of Justification is strictly forensic: for it supposes a JUDICIAL PROCESS; that is, an accuser, a judgment-seat, and a prisoner. Lect. on Justific. p. 70-79.

(2.) The other class comprehends the following propositions. Justification is a CONTINUAL work.

We can have no righteousness BEFORE God justifies us: but our righteousness AFTER Justification is such, as to be a ground ON WHICH God MAY justify us. In other words there are Two Justifications.

There are TEN THOUSAND Justifications.

« AnteriorContinuar »