mmmm
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 latf^f 
 
 ^ •>• A 
 
 m 

 
 SERMONS 
 
 UPON THE NATURE AND THE EFFECTS 
 
 OF FAITH.
 
 NIHIL NOVI DOCEMUS, >EI> VETERA ET QV.T. ANTE EOS APOSTOLI 
 
 iMKEri I'll DOCTORES DOCCERUNT, INOULOAMTJB HI BXASZLDCUB. 
 
 LT ITINAM BINE POSBBMUB QTCULCABE ET STABILIRE, XT NON SOLUM 
 
 IN ORE, 9ED IN PROFUNDO CORPE EA BENE MEPITATA HABEREMUS, 
 
 ET PRJBOIPUE IN AGONE HORTIfl I'TI P08SEMTJ8. 
 
 LUTHER. IN El'. \I> QALATT. CAP. t.
 
 AN ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN AND ESTABLISH THE 
 DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH OXLY. 
 
 IN TEN SERMONS 
 
 UPON 
 
 THE NATURE AND THE EFFECTS 
 
 OP 
 
 FAIT H, 
 
 TREACHED IN THE CHAPEL OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN. 
 
 BY 
 
 JAMES THOMAS O'BRIEN, D.D. 
 
 FORMERLY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, AND ARCHBISHOP KING'S DIVINITY LECTURES 
 
 IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN, 
 
 NOW BISHOP OF OSSORY, FERNS, AND LEIGHLIN. 
 
 THIRD EDITION. 
 
 ?iont)cm ant) CTambrtogc : 
 MACMILLAN AND CO. 
 
 AND WILLIAM ROBERTSON, DUBLIN. 
 1863.
 
 (Tambrfogr : 
 
 PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, MA. 
 a i 1UE DCTVBBSITY H
 
 
 ADVERTISExMENT 
 
 TO THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 The volume which is now reprinted appeared first 
 so long ago as the year 1833. The edition then 
 published was very speedily sold; but I thought it 
 better not to send out another at once. I was 
 painfully aware of manifold deficiencies in the work, 
 and I hoped that, by keeping it back for a little, 
 I might be able to supply some of them; and 
 so to make it — not materially less unworthy, in- 
 deed, of its great subject, but — somewhat better 
 fitted for the important practical purpose for which 
 it was written. It did not seem that the additions 
 and improvements which I planned would delay 
 the Second Edition long. And, no doubt, a little 
 time ought to have enabled me to effect at least 
 the most important of them. But the fact is, that 
 when, not very many months ago, I resolved to 
 republish the volume, they were not merely still 
 unfinished, but, though materials for them to a 
 considerable amount had been laid up from time to 
 time, they could scarcely be said to have been begun. 
 
 b 
 
 611762
 
 \ 1 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 11 ,\v it was that tor so long a period I was, year 
 after year, prevented altogether from taking the 
 work in hand, or obliged to lay it down almost as 
 18 1 ha J t a ktii it up, I do not mean to make 
 any attempt to explain. Such an explanation 
 would have no interest for those to whom the 
 work is entirely new. And even those who arc 
 already acquainted with it are much more con- 
 © rned to hear what they have to expect in the 
 edition, than why it has been so long de- 
 lav. .1. I may, therefore, confine myself here alto- 
 gether to the object of giving information upon 
 the former point. And as the Preface (retained 
 from the first edition) contains an account of the 
 plan and contents of the volume, as it was ori- 
 ginally published, I need only state the alterations 
 it has since undergone, and the purpose for which 
 they have been made. 
 
 In keeping it back at the first, I had no inten- 
 tion of making any addition to the Sermons, or 
 indeed any alterations in them beyond whatever 
 
 bal corrections they might, upon revision, ap- 
 pear to require. However imperfect they w T ere, I 
 
 lived, lor reasons given in the Preface, to leave 
 that part of the work in the state to which it had 
 
 ii brought in preparing it for publication. But 
 I felt it to be very desirable to do something to 
 improve the other part. There were not a few 
 
 ata connected with my subject — some of them 
 of special importance to my object in selecting 
 it — which could not find a place in the text, but
 
 TO THE SECOXD EDITION. vii 
 
 which would be naturally looked for in the Ap- 
 pendix. I could not bat be conscious, however, 
 that, while several of these points were left un- 
 noticed there, others were very insufficiently treated. 
 And it seemed that, by enlarging some of the 
 Notes, and adding some others, the book might 
 be better fitted to accomplish its purpose of ren- 
 dering assistance to Divinity Students in coming 
 to right views upon the fundamental Doctrine which 
 I had ventured to take in hand, and of impressing 
 upon them a due sense of its great importance. 
 
 This plan has been executed but in part. The 
 Sermons and the Appendix have been corrected 
 throughout. The principal object of all the cor- 
 rections which have been made in both has been 
 to render my meaning clearer. But, though I have 
 taken considerable pains to attain that object, I do 
 not natter myself that I have always succeeded. 
 The corrections, in fact, were made, not in a con- 
 tinuous revision of the volume, but from time to 
 time, as I took it up at leisure moments. And as 
 one's impression of the clearness or obscurity of 
 a sentence or a phrase often varies with his own 
 mood at the time of reading it, I shall not be sur- 
 prised if I should see reason hereafter to think 
 that of the alterations which I have made for the 
 sake of clearness, some were unnecessary, and that 
 some have rendered the sense more obscure. Still, 
 I trust that, for the most part, they will not be found 
 to have been made unnecessarily or entirely without 
 success.
 
 \ in 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 In tin revision of the Appendix, besides some 
 
 . matter, introduced here and there, which I 
 
 should find it hard to specify, substantial additions 
 
 have been appended to two of the Notes (B and N). 
 
 The additions to the latter have run out to unex- 
 
 • .1 and undesirable length — such length, indeed, 
 
 1 Fear, even the great importance of the subject of 
 
 the Note will be hardly held to excuse. And there 
 
 are six additional Notes, (I, O, P, R, X, Z,) to the 
 
 two la^t of which, the same remark applies. 
 
 I have little doubt that this part of the work 
 might have been brought within narrower limits, 
 it" I had been able to revise it carefully with a 
 view to abridging it. But, without being disposed 
 to depreciate the importance of the object, I did 
 not think that, under all the circumstances, I ought 
 to expend more time upon the chance of securing 
 it. I did not feel warranted, indeed, in delaying 
 the publication longer, even for the more important 
 object of reviewing the works which have been 
 published upon Justification, or upon kindred sub- 
 jects, since this volume first appeared. There is 
 no one of the omissions in the work which is more 
 likely to be felt by others, and none which I 
 was myself so reluctant to leave without doing 
 more towards supplying it. One of the publica- 
 tions referred to — the one which, upon various 
 •jT'iunds, seemed entitled to the first place — has 
 been considered. But I found that I could not go 
 farther. The length to which the Note containing 
 the not i<-e of thai single work (Note X) ran made
 
 TO THE SECOND EDITION. ix 
 
 it probable that a review even of the most im- 
 portant of the remainder would have rendered it 
 impossible to keep the volume within reasonable 
 compass, or to bring it out within any moderate 
 time. And though I may, perhaps, be able to do 
 something to repair this defect hereafter, I felt that 
 for the present it must remain. 
 
 There is another work, published in the interval, 
 — though not exactly of the class alluded to above, 
 — to which reference is often made in the new 
 matter in the Appendix : I mean Dean Alford's 
 valuable edition of the New Testament. I could 
 not doubt that it was extensively used by Di- 
 vinity Students and by the Clergy, who can no- 
 where else, within the compass of a single work, 
 find so much of the help they need, both in the 
 way of information and of criticism, in the most 
 important part of their studies. And in discussing 
 particular texts, I felt it right to refer to it, rather 
 than to other recent commentaries, which were less 
 likely to be in the hands of those for whom, chiefly, 
 the Notes were intended. The work is too well 
 known, and estimated too highly, to need any tes- 
 timony to its merits. But, as I have sometimes 
 been obliged to express my dissent from particular 
 parts of it, I am anxious, if only for my own sake, 
 to say, that few even of those who have no such 
 differences with the respected author can think more 
 highly than I do of his ability, industry, and honesty, 
 or set a greater value upon the important contribu- 
 tion which he has made to the illustration of the 
 New Testament.
 
 ADVERT* TO THE SEC01TD EDITIOX. 
 
 1 nKa.11 only add that in all that has been done 
 in tills Dew edition, the chief object of the original 
 work — which was to aid Theological Students, 
 whether in my own University or elsewhere — has 
 been kept steadily in view. I am aware that the 
 result is, that not a little has been introduced of 
 which more advanced scholars will not unnaturally 
 be impatient. But it will be enough, I hope, to be- 
 
 ;k the forbearance of such readers — if I should 
 have any such — to remind them, that what is un- 
 Qecessary and useless, as regards them, may be very 
 
 ssary and very useful for the class for whom 
 the book is chiefly intended. For these, I have 
 little fear that too much has been done. On the 
 contrary, indeed, though, since I set about re- 
 viaing the volume for the press, I have laboured 
 it as diligently as many engagements and many 
 interruptions, ordinary and extraordinary, would 
 allow, I feel that much less has been done for 
 them than 1 should have desired, and than 1 hoped 
 would have been done. Still, I trust that if the 
 volume, as it was originally published, were cal- 
 culated to give them any aid, it will be found 
 somewhat more useful to them in its present form. 
 And. however I may regret that more has not 
 beeu done, I feel that, if I have been enabled to 
 do even so much, 1 ought to be content and 
 thankful. 

 
 TO 
 
 THE STUDENTS 
 
 OF 
 
 TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN, 
 
 FOR WHOM IT WAS WRITTEN, 
 
 AND FOR WHOM, CHIEFLY, IT IS NOW PUBLISHED, 
 
 THIS COURSE OF SERMONS 
 
 IS INSCRIBED.
 
 PREFACE 
 
 TO THE FIEST EDITION. 
 
 I do not believe that any topic will be found in the 
 following Discourses, for which their title ought not 
 to prepare my readers; but it is not unlikely that 
 several may be looked for in them which they do not 
 contain. Some of these omissions possibly occur 
 through inadvertence, or ignorance; but those that 
 will probably be thought the most important have 
 no such excuse. I have been most anxious to omit no- 
 thing really essential to the great truth which I have 
 undertaken to establish and explain : but I have 
 designedly avoided every reference to other doctrines, 
 which, however easily and commonly connected with 
 the Scriptural Doctrine of Justification, are not, in 
 my apprehension, necessary to a right understanding 
 and full belief of it. I have not adopted this plan
 
 PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 from want of fixed views upon most of those dis- 
 puted points, or from any reluctance to state dis- 
 tinctly my views upon them to the congregation 
 that I add] . or to any other, when I thought 
 
 the di in of tin in likely to be useful. But, 
 
 through this course of Sermons, I resolved, from 
 t, to abstain steadily from such discussions; 
 partly from a desire to avoid embarrassing myself 
 ami my hearers by a needless multiplication of sub- 
 
 3, when we had such abundant occupation in the 
 one which I was professedly treating; but chiefly 
 
 tusr I am sure that they who differ, and who are 
 perhaps always to differ, widely, upon those more 
 doubtful, and, I think, far less important points, 
 may agree cordially upon this certain and funda- 
 mental truth: and I was anxious to avoid throwing 
 any obstacles in the way of this agreement, by the 
 unnecessary introduction of questions upon which 
 it could not be reasonably hoped for. 
 
 But even upon the subject to which I have con- 
 fined myself, I believe I have to account for some 
 omissions: some arguments in support of this truth, 
 which arc highly valued by its advocates, are passed 
 lightly over in these Sermons, and others wholly 
 omitted. I cannot, of course, enter into a detailed 
 
 ace of the line that I have taken throughout; 
 but I desire, in general, to obviate the impression,
 
 PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xv 
 
 that I disapprove of all the arguments of which I 
 make no use. Some certainly have been left out, 
 because I was not able to ascribe to them the 
 force which they appear to many to possess. But 
 I have omitted some merely because I found it 
 difficult, within my limits, to manage them so as 
 to give them their due force: while some do not 
 appear, because they were too familiar to my hearers ; 
 and not a few, I doubt not, because they were un- 
 known to myself. In those that I knew and ap- 
 proved, however, there was sufficient variety to 
 make selection absolutely necessary. I have, of 
 course, no right to presume that I have always 
 made a wise choice; but I may venture to say that 
 I have not often chosen carelessly : and even where 
 different arguments seemed to me of nearly equal 
 value, I, in general, endeavoured to consider my 
 hearers and myself in comparing them, so as to 
 select what I was capable of doing most justice to, 
 and what was likely to impress them most. 
 
 The plan of the Sermons is very simple, and it 
 will be found steadily adhered to throughout. I 
 begin by attempting (Sermons I. and II.) to ascer- 
 tain the Scriptural meaning of Faith ; how the prin- 
 ciple is wrought in the mind ; and what is the 
 whole preceding or accompanying change of mind 
 which is essential to the existence of genuine faith. 
 
 c2
 
 xvi PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 I a Sermon 111.), in the same way, to fix 
 
 tla- of Justification in the Bible: and then to 
 
 determine (Sermon IV.) what is the connexion 
 which the Scriptures declare to exist between this 
 change of mind which God has wrought in us, and 
 this change of our condition before Him. This 
 ought to end in the establishment of the doctrine 
 of Justification hy Faith only; with a clear under- 
 standing of its meaning. And to this are added, 
 in the way of confirmation, a review of the chief 
 corruptions of this doctrine (Sermon V.) and an 
 answer to the chief objections against it (Ser- 
 mon VI.). Regarding this great truth, then, suffi- 
 ciently explained, established, and guarded, I pass, 
 in the remaining Sermons, to a consideration of the 
 other effects of faith : — its operation in the sanctifi- 
 cation of believers; — how it moves and restrains 
 them ; and how it calls into exercise and sustains all 
 the other natural forces by which God designs to 
 restrain and to move His people. 
 
 This is the outline of my plan. And upon the 
 full re-consideration of it, which has been forced 
 upon me while this volume has been passing through 
 the press, I see nothing in the plan itself which I 
 desire to alter; while I can add unfeignedly, that, 
 in the execution of it, every reference to what I have 
 written discovers to me some new defects. Many
 
 PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xvii 
 
 of these, I know, arise from want of power and skill : 
 and these would, of course, remain or be replaced 
 by similar defects, were I to re-write the book now. 
 There are others, however, which I should certainly 
 hope to remove, if I could devote more time to 
 revision. But there must be some limit to the pro- 
 cess of correcting; and, whatever be my success in 
 it, I am more inclined to apprehend that I have 
 expended too much than too little time upon it. 
 
 I have found it necessary to add some Notes. 
 They are intended to supply explanations and en- 
 forcements of my reasoning, which could not easily 
 be comprised in the Sermons; — which, at least, I 
 found myself unable to introduce there, without 
 awkwardness and confusion. But their leading 
 object is to sustain the doctrinal statements in the 
 Discourses, by authorities from the Confessions of 
 the Protestant churches, and the writings of the 
 eminent Protestant divines of the period of the 
 Beformation. They are, in both ways, chiefly fitted 
 to assist or direct students in Divinity: but some 
 of them, and parts of almost all, will be intelligible 
 to every one to whom the Discourses are intelligible ; 
 and will interest all whom they interest. 
 
 In stating the opinions of others, and in main- 
 taining my own, whether in the Sermons or the 
 Notes, I am not conscious that I have neglected
 
 PREFACE TO THE FIRST r.DITIOX. 
 
 any reasonable, or indeed any practicable pains to 
 avoid errors; but I am fully prepared for finding 
 that T nave not always sine, i ded. It would be very 
 false humility to express any anticipation that I shall 
 shown reason to change my views, in any respect, 
 11 p. .11 the main points of the volume; but, upon sub- 
 ordinate matters, I not only hold myself open to 
 fcion, but I shall not be surprised if it should 
 appear that I have left much room for it: that I have 
 made some hasty assertions ; admitted some over- 
 statements, or some under-statements ; pressed some 
 arguments too far, and refrained from carrying others 
 as far as I ought. These, and similar lapses, not- 
 withstanding my anxiety to avoid them, I may, no 
 doubt, have committed: and though I am unable 
 to detect any of any importance myself, many may 
 disclose themselves to a keener and less partial eye. 
 I shall always hold myself ready to receive any 
 proofs of such mistakes. They must be offered, in- 
 deed, with a very great want of courtesy, if they do 
 not find me ready to receive them thankfully. But, 
 in whatever spirit or tone they may be offered, I 
 hope I shall always weigh them fairly, and endea- 
 vour to profit by them. 
 
 >me will, I am sure, be disappointed that I have 
 Qot carried the proofs given in the Notes much 
 higher, and added authorities from the Fathers of
 
 PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xix 
 
 the Christian Church, to those which I have sup- 
 plied in such abundance, from the illustrious re- 
 storers of true religion in the sixteenth century. It 
 would have been very easy to have made this addi- 
 tion, if I had thought it necessary. For however 
 I may be myself in rat rum scriptis plane hospes*, 
 the early divines from whom I draw so largely were 
 certainly at home there ; and they were led to con- 
 
 * This has been commented upon as a confession on my part of 
 ignorance of the views of the Fathers upon the Doctrine of Justifi- 
 cation. Whether I could have made such a confession truly, or not, 
 I need not say : it is enough that I did not intend to make it. 
 Having stated that there was to be no attempt in the following 
 pages to prove that, upon this great Doctrine, the Reformers 
 agreed with the Fathers no less than with each other, I was 
 anxious to make it clear that whatever were my reasons for 
 declining the task, a dread of its difficulty could not have been 
 among them ; fur that even if I were unable to draw proofs of 
 their agreement from the proper sources for myself, they were 
 provided to my hand in abundance by the great divines of the 
 Reformation. And I did not like to refer to them in connexion 
 with such a question, without doing justice to their eminent claims 
 to be heard in speaking upon it. As to the form in which this 
 was done, it was borrowed from Bishop Bull. If the sentence of 
 that eminent scholar which suggested mine had been in the me- 
 mory of my Critic, he would probably have understood that it was 
 not my object to make any confession or profession about myself, 
 but to bear testimony to the Patristic learning of the Divines of 
 whom I was speaking. And as it may perhaps be a safeguard 
 against simdar misinterpretations, I subjoin the sentence referred 
 to : " Si mihi hie non credat D. Tullius, quern putat in Patrum 
 Scriptis plane hospitem esse, saltern fidem habeat duobus testibus, 
 in veterum monumentis extra controversiam versatissimis, iisque 
 viris integerrimis." Apol. fro Harm. Sect. vii. Subsect. 19.
 
 Vl. :: TO THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 duel the great contest which they maintained for 
 i vital truth. BO ELS to famish any one who desires 
 to make an array of ancient authorities in support of 
 it, with an ample Btore of citations, and with great 
 facilities for enlarging it. 
 
 Bui Romish controversial writers produced coun- 
 authorities from the same sources; and, though 
 I am far from believing that upon this, any more 
 than upou the other points which divide the Church- 
 es, there is room for reasonable doubt about the 
 opinions, or. at least, the principles of the ancient 
 Fathers ; yet to fix with precision the meaning of 
 writers who, confessedly, (at least, before the Pela- 
 gian controversy), wrote somewhat loosely upon this 
 doctrine, would require much reading and thought. 
 I -hould not, I hope, decline any labour to which I 
 was equal, if I believed it to be necessary for clear- 
 ly apprehending, or successfully maintaining, the 
 true doctrine of Justification. But I confess that I 
 shrank from a task to which I was not led by any 
 such sense of its necessity, either as regarded my- 
 silt" or others. For myself, in all such conflicts of 
 ancient opinions, I feel ready heartily to adopt 
 tin- spirit of Calvin's summary decision of one of 
 them : — Seio eos posse Origenem et Hieronymum 
 re, suae expositions suflragatores : posseni et 
 illis vicissim Augustinum opponerc : sed quid ill i
 
 PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION". xxi 
 
 opinati sint nostra nihil referfc, si constat quid 
 voluerit Paulus. — And I think, in the present case, 
 that I have shown, — I am sure I see, — that we are 
 able to make out Paul's meaning very clearly with- 
 out their assistance. 
 
 In this matter — infinitely the most important, 
 doubtless — we are not less independent of the other 
 authorities, about which I take so much pains. But 
 even one who does not feel differently towards them, 
 must allow that we bear a very different relation 
 to them. I acknowledge that, where the great 
 doctrine which I have undertaken to treat is in 
 question, I entertain for the Martyrs and Confes- 
 sors to whom, under Him who raised them up, 
 and enlightened and strengthened them, we owe 
 the Reformation of the sixteenth century, a far 
 deeper feeling of reverence than for any guides 
 which the Church has had since the Apostles*. 
 
 * In writing this, I was very well aware that I was express- 
 ing myself more strongly than many even of those who hold the 
 doctrines of the Reformation would choose to do. And it was 
 therefore with much pleasure that I saw the same view stated 
 several years after, with no less distinctness and strength, by 
 Archdeacon Hare, who was certainly as well qualified by exten- 
 sive reading and deep thought to pronounce upon such a question 
 as any divine of his day. In the Notes to his Mission of the 
 Comforter, the learned author has often occasion to contrast Pa- 
 ti'istic and Reformation Divinity, — especially in the interpretation 
 of the parts of Holy Writ which relate to the scheme of re- 
 demption, — and he does not hesitate to ?tate that, in simplicity,
 
 PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 M the importance of the citations which I give 
 from these illustrious men does not rest entirely 
 upon this feeling, in which my readers may not 
 prepared to Bhare. As a Protestant, I cannot 
 be entirely indifferent about my agreement with 
 the views of the early Protestant Churches and di- 
 vines upon every doctrine on which they are all 
 shown to aorree among themselves. And as a 
 member and a minister of the United Church of 
 England and Ireland, I feel that I have a more 
 direct interest in proving my agreement with her 
 recorded principles upon this fundamental doctrine 
 of tip- I rospel. Upon every ground, therefore, both 
 of feeling and principle, I confess to a real anxiety 
 to establish, that the doctrine of Justification by 
 Faith only, as it is maintained in these Discourses, 
 was the Doctrine of our own Church, and of all 
 
 spirituality, and depth, the latter generally very far excels the 
 former, — that, if voe '/■■■•■ire to see the living power of the xiords of 
 - ' set forth in their spiritual simplicity and depth, we 
 must come down to the age of the Reformation. His view upon 
 the whole question is fully stated in an interesting passage in 
 Note W", beginning with the Bentence : "Yet in the foregoing 
 notes I have several tines had occasion to point out how inferior 
 en the chief among tie' Katie is were in their understanding of 
 Scripture, with regard to certain heads of Evangelical truth, to 
 the great divines of the Reformation." And in what follows 
 (pp. 705—712), this strong statemenl is explained and vindicated 
 with a full mea are of the ability and Learning which are exhi- 
 bited in the whole of the very vali able Note referred to.
 
 PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xxiii 
 
 the great Protestant Churches at the period of the 
 Reformation, and of all the great Protestant divines 
 by whom their reformation was effected. 
 
 And, accordingly, this point is laboriously pur- 
 sued in the Notes ; and proofs of it are multiplied 
 and reiterated, so as, I fear, to try the patience of 
 those who, coming to the question with a mode- 
 rately fair spirit themselves, can hardly form a due 
 estimate of the extent to which it is necessary to 
 provide here against evasions of the plain force of 
 the plainest language. But I am sure that they 
 who know best the way in which this controversy 
 has been conducted, will be least likely to complain 
 of any precautions against misrepresentation, as 
 superfluous. I have not, however, multiplied and 
 guarded these proofs in the vain expectation of 
 rendering misrepresentation impossible, but with 
 the hope of lessening its force. And I do enter- 
 tain some hopes that what I have done will be 
 found sufficient to convince all who are accessible 
 to evidence upon the point : — that all Protestant 
 churches, however separated by differences in dis- 
 cipline and doctrine, and all early Protestant di- 
 vines to whom any reverence is due, whatever were 
 their differences upon other points, agreed in main- 
 taining the doctrine of Justification by Faith only, 
 as it is maintained in these Discourses. This strong
 
 
 PREFACE TO Till: FIRST EDITIOX. 
 
 rtion is made in the body of the work; and 
 if the Notes • stablish it. they have, as I have said, 
 attained their chief end. To those who are better 
 qualified for the task, and who have more time 
 and more inclination for it, I leave willingly the 
 office of tracing tins doctrine to remoter times. If 
 1 have proved that the doctrine of Justification, 
 which I have found in the Bible, was found there 
 by the Reformers of the Continent and of Britain, 
 I have traced my views of the doctrine to the only 
 human parentage which I feel very solicitous to 
 establish for them.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 SERMON I. 
 
 The Nature op Faith. 
 
 PACK 
 
 " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." 
 
 Acts xvi. 31 1 
 
 SERMON II. 
 
 The Source of Faith axd the Repentance essential 
 to True Faith. 
 
 " Now faith is the substance of things hoped for ; the evidence of 
 
 things not seen." — Heb. xi. 1 27 
 
 SERMON III. 
 
 The Nature and the Grounds of Justification. 
 
 " Be it known unto you, therefore, men and brethren, that through 
 this man is preached unto you forgiveness of sins ; and by 
 Him all that believe are justified from all things from which 
 ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." — Acts xiii. 
 38, 39 49 
 
 SERMON IV. 
 
 The Connexion between Faith and Justification. 
 
 " Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without 
 
 the deeds of the law." — Rom. iii. 28 77
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 RMON A'. 
 
 'Ji: - 0* Tin: DOOTBXNI OF JUSTIFICATION 
 
 by Faith only. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 ma iii.28 103 
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 Objections against the Doctrine of Justification by 
 
 Faitii only. 
 
 Romans iii. 28 127 
 
 SERMON VII. 
 
 Moral Effects of Faith. 
 
 " And this is the victory that overcometh the Vforld, even our 
 
 faith."—] John Y.4 153 
 
 SERMON VIII. 
 
 Mural Effects of Faith {continued). 
 1 John v. 4 173 
 
 SERMON IX. 
 
 Moral Effects of Faith {continued). 
 1 John y. 4 197 
 
 SERMON X. 
 
 Mural Effects of Faith {concluded). 
 
 ' We love him because he first loved us." — 1 John iv. 19 223
 
 CONTENTS. xxvii 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Note A, page 10. — On the Correspondence between the Romish 
 
 and Sandenianian Notions of Faith 253 
 
 Note B, page 15. — On the Scripture Proof of the Meaning of 
 
 Faith 255 
 
 {Addition on Pearson and S nicer.) 
 
 Note C, page 21. — On the meaning of Mo-rao-is, Heb. xi. 1 274 
 
 Note D, page 23. — On the Examples in Heb. xi 288 
 
 Note E, page 25. — Protestant Declarations of the Nature of Faith 291 
 
 Note F, page 30. — On the difference between Faith and Hope 304 
 
 Note G, page 30. — On Desire, as an Element of Faith 306 
 
 Note H, page 32. — An Objection obviated 307 
 
 Note I, page 33.— On Eph. ii. 8 308 
 
 Note J, page 44. — On the Repentance which is essential to 
 
 Faith 311 
 
 Note K, page 46.— On Prayer for Faith 318 
 
 Note L, page 58. — On the Hebrew and Greek Verbs which are 
 
 rendered by the Verb to justify in our Version 319 
 
 Note M, page 61. — Protestant Declarations of the Meaning of 
 
 Justification 330 
 
 Note N, page 74. — On Imputed Righteousness 337 
 
 {Additions I. and II.) 
 
 Note O, page 85.— On Rom. iii. 28 379 
 
 Note P, page 88— On Rom. iii. 25 380 
 
 Note Q, page 95. — The Reformers' Declarations of the Doctrine 
 
 of Justification by Faith only 385 
 
 Note R, page 95. — On the title The Homily of Justification 399
 
 WTENTS, 
 
 •—On the true connexion of Faith with Justifi- 
 
 405 
 
 ■ 111. — Origen 417 
 
 • 11." — Evasions <>f the Proof famished by Art. xi. 
 
 xii. and .\iii. of our Church's views of Justification 419 
 
 146. — On the Objection to the Doctrine of Justi 
 
 Gcation by Faith only which i- «U'rive«l from James ii 429 
 
 W. page 149.— On the Objection— Faith is itself a Work 433 
 
 Note X. page 151. — Knox's Remains 436 
 
 •J l >*>.— ' to the Gospel Doctrine of Reward 464 
 
 '/., page 221. — On the word AiKatoavvt] 469
 
 SERMON I. 
 
 ON THE NATURE OF FAITH.
 
 I a i rgo est fiducia constans misericordia? Dei erga nos, in corde vivens, 
 et efficaciter ageiis, qua projicimus nos toti in Deum, et pL-nnittimus nos Deo, 
 qaA certo Ereti nun dubitemus millies mortem oppetere. 
 
 Luther, Prctfat. Method, in Ep. ad Rom. 
 
 Fayth is, then, a lively and steadfast trust in the favour of God, wherewith 
 we commit ourselves altogether unto God, and that trust is so surely grounded, 
 and sticketh so fast in our hartes, that a man would not once doubt of it 
 _ -!i he should die a thousand times therefore. 
 
 Tyndall, On the Epistle to the Romans.
 
 SERMON I. 
 
 Acts xvi. 31. 
 Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shall be saved. 
 
 I DO not mean to spend any time now, in recalling to your 
 minds, my brethren, the circumstances under which these 
 memorable words were spoken. It is probable, indeed, that 
 the striking narrative from which they are taken is dis- 
 tinctly in the recollection of most of my hearers. Sufficiently 
 remembered for my purpose, it must be by all. For, for 
 my purpose in bringing forward the passage, it is quite 
 enough that you remember, that it is an authoritative 
 answer to the demand of an alarmed conscience, earnestly 
 desiring to be satisfied upon the only subject that an 
 alarmed conscience feels to be of any importance: — that it 
 is the answer made by God's ambassadors to a sinner, who, 
 in an agony of newly-awakened terror for his soul, demands 
 of them, What must I do to be saved? 
 
 Since this fundamental doctrine of the Gospel of Christ 
 was thus simply and distinctly promulgated, many centuries 
 have passed away, And during all the time, the Church 
 of Christ, through severe and varied trials — through the 
 hard trials of the times of its tribulation, and the harder 
 trials of the times of its wealth — has been going on unceas- 
 ingly extending itself, until it has now obtained some footing 
 
 1—2
 
 4 THE NATURE OF FAITH. [Seem. 
 
 in almost < v. r\ part of the habitable globe, and is to be 
 found, in Borne form, in almost every nation, and kindred, 
 and ■ dpeople. During its entire progress, wherever 
 
 tli.- Gospel I. - en preached, this doctrine, however cor- 
 rupted ;m-l neutralized it maj In fact have been, has always 
 - rms preached Wherever the Gospel is professed, 
 
 . in tli.' Redeemer is professed; and wherever it is truly 
 embraced, there men trulj <m the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Everywhere there have been, and their arc true followers 
 of the Lord, upheld through all the trials of life, and cheered 
 under all its afflictions, by the peace, mid hope, and j<<>i, which 
 are fruits and marks of this l><H<t' in Him. Sea, there are 
 daily Borne whose warfare is accomplished, — who, having 
 
 fhi a good fight, and finished their course, and kept the 
 faith, are by it enabled, in pain, and weakness, and decay, to 
 triumph over man's last man//, and to depart from this scene 
 of our cans and affections, in the humble but undoubting 
 hope which, in that trying hour, belief in the Lord Jesws 
 I Ihrist, and it only, is able to sustain. 
 
 Y •. notwithstanding this wide profession of faith in 
 CHRIST, and the extent, too, to which men truly believe in 
 Him, if we ask, What is faith! — What is believing on the 
 Lord Jesus Christ! — we are met continually by answers the 
 most vague or conflicting. The notions annexed to these 
 words appear as unsettled, as it' the words themselves had 
 lH.w for the first time been introduced into religious Ian- 
 guage. And, in consequence, questions arc dow raised con- 
 tinually, and controversies continually carried on, concerning 
 the real import of the emphatic declaration in my text, and 
 of the similar publications of the Gospel with which the 
 I mi. nt abounds; which yet, at their first delivery, 
 were addressed to all. without distinction — to Jew and Gen- 
 tile— to bond and free — to learned and unlearned alike — 
 without any apprehension of misconception— without expla- 
 nation given, or a deed, or needed '
 
 ].] THE NATURE OF FAITH. 5 
 
 This is very strange; and, at first sight at least, very 
 Repressing. Where there is such wide variance, there must 
 be much uncertainty and much error. And, whatever faith 
 be, it lias a degree of prominence in the Scripture plan of 
 salvation which can hardly allow us to regard uncertainty 
 about it as comfortable, or error, safe. 
 
 In abatement of such apprehensions, it is true that it 
 may be remarked, that as the healthful exercise of our 
 bodily organs, fortunately for us, does not require an ac- 
 quaintance with physiology or animal mechanics, so the full 
 enjoyment and use of our mental powers are equally inde- 
 pendent of any knowledge of the nature or modes of opera- 
 tion of the mind. They whose feelings are all in a sound 
 .state, and all exercised upon their proper objects, may em- 
 ploy language the most confused in endeavouring to describe 
 them. Even the mental states with which we are most 
 familiar, are, by one little accustomed to reflect carefully 
 upon the movements of his own mind, recalled with great 
 difficulty and very indistinctly: and they, of course, assume 
 still more distorted forms, when it is attempted to put 
 them into words. Though there may be, therefore, in the 
 world, much gross and dangerous error upon this important 
 subject, we are not obliged or warranted to beheve that 
 there is quite as much as there appears to be, — that true 
 faith is at all as rare as just notions or correct statements 
 concerning it. 
 
 This is no doubt true, and it is of some importance too. 
 But, while there is much error to which it does not profess 
 to apply, how far is it from showing that the misapprehen- 
 sions to which it is really applicable are wholly without 
 danger! For even in this, the most mitigated form in 
 whioh such error can exist — where the faith, that is, of an 
 individual, is sound, and where his erroneous views of the 
 nature of faith result entirely from his inability to present 
 distinctly to himself or others the real state of his own
 
 THE NATURE OF FAITH. [Skrm. 
 
 mind — would it no< be rash to represent his error as of no 
 practical importance? We can easily conceive various ways 
 in which his false views may react unfavourably npon such 
 a one; and they may certainly produce ill effects upon 
 him, in wax- that we cannol conceive, and to an extent 
 that we are quite incapable of appreciating. But, supposing 
 th.'ir entire innocence with respect to himself, is it not plain 
 thai they may be introduced into the minds of others, where 
 the principle does not already exist, to neutralize their 
 injurious influence, and that there they may produce all 
 the ill effects that such error is capable of producing? For 
 how different the two cases are, and how greatly the dis- 
 advantage and the danger lie on the side of the latter, it 
 cannot, 1 suppose, be necessary to expend time in point- 
 ing out. 
 
 Ind.ed, even if we were at liberty to consider the prin- 
 ciple of faith as of little importance in religion, and this 
 question concerning it as purely a speculative one, we 
 should still have but a suspicious excuse for indifference 
 about it. When any earthly object thoroughly engages the 
 mind, the interest that we feel about it is, certainly, not 
 often confined so strictly to fundamentals and essentials as 
 to allow of no care for anything beyond them. On the 
 contrary, in the very degree in which the main object in- 
 terests us, do matters remotely or accidentally connected 
 with it derive attractions from it which secure to them a 
 measure of attention, to which, of themselves, they would 
 be felt to have but slender claims. And we seem to have 
 good cause to distrust the reality of our concern about re- 
 ligion, when we find it bo much more easily regulated than 
 our interest about anything else* 
 
 But to leave the subject in this state would be to do 
 great injustice to its importance. In religion, faith surely 
 cannot be spoken of as a thing subordinate or accessory. It 
 holds, as all who know anything of the Bible must know,
 
 I.] THE NATURE OF FAITH. 1 
 
 a prominent and a most important place in that scheme of 
 redemption which was designed to display the character of 
 God in new lustre both to men and angels. And it would 
 seem eminently weak and presumptuous in us to speak or 
 think lightly of any errors which have a direct tendency to 
 disfigure or to obscure, in any degree, that glorious mani- 
 festation of the divine nature. I may add too, without en- 
 tering prematurely upon a consideration of the effects of 
 revealed truth upon the character, that to regard as purely 
 speculative any errors which tend to alter our apprehensions 
 of the object of our adoration, of our relation to Him, and 
 of His dealings with us, betrays a strange ignorance of the 
 design and mode of operation of all religion. 
 
 In engaging your attention, therefore, my brethren, for 
 a plain attempt to state and establish the true Scriptural 
 doctrine concerning the nature and the effects of faith; 
 and to point out some popular errors upon both these im- 
 portant subjects, I have no apprehensions that I shall be 
 regarded as misemploying this opportunity of addressing you. 
 It ought no doubt to be felt, that the main business of the 
 Preacher is to win men to accept the offers of mercy held 
 out in the Gospel; or to stir up, by way of remembrance, 
 the pure minds of those who have already embraced these 
 gracious offers, that they may ivalk worthy of their calling. 
 But it can hardly, I should hope, be thought beside his office, 
 anywhere, to labour to supply correct views upon an import- 
 ant part of that message of reconciliation which is designed 
 to draw men to God, and to keep them in the course that 
 He has appointed for them. And least of all can this be 
 thought, when he is addressing a congregation, whence so 
 many chosen vessels to diffuse divine truth are to be taken ; 
 and in which truth and error assume new and awful import- 
 ance from the certainty that, whichever be taught here, it 
 will not lie idle, but will be widely propagated through the 
 land.
 
 THE NATURE OF FAIT//. [Serjt. 
 
 Among old errors concerning the nature of faith — old, 
 that is, among the errors of Protestants upon it — are to be 
 placed all those representations which, in Borne shape or 
 other, more or less important, make obedience to God's law 
 a part of the notion for which faith stands. There are, do 
 doubt, different ahades of misrepresentation which would thus 
 
 classed together] and elsewhere, ami for other purposes, 
 it might be important to consider them distinctly. But dis- 
 criminating between them carefully, or examining them in 
 detail, is not n< a ssary for any concern that I have with them 
 Whatever points of difference they have, they agree 
 in what may be shown to he an error; and whatever, there- 
 fore, he their differences, they may be overthrown together. 
 To include obedience in the notion expressed by the term 
 faith is to deviate manifestly from its meaning in common 
 language, ;ts 1 presume all who contend tor this as its Scrip- 
 tural Mil-.- would ho ready to acknowledge. That it is no 
 a deviation ii»m its Scriptural sense will speedily. 1 
 trust, appear, by the investigation upon which I am about 
 
 ater to establish that sense. And this, for my immediate 
 purposes, ought to be enough. 
 
 But there are some who would be inclined to grant this 
 also — w],,, would grant that, of its general signification in the 
 Bible, obedience tonus no part — and yet would maintain that, 
 in certain important texts where faith is found in connexion 
 with, justification, it is necessary, in order to avoid gross and 
 dangeron- error, that nhnliritce should be understood as a 
 part, at least, of the meaning of the word. That is, instead 
 of employing the meaning which faith bears elsewhere in the 
 Bible to fix the sense ot the texts referred to, they propose 
 to determine the signification of faith by the sense which 
 they think lit to assign to the texts; and so they in effect 
 derive the signification of the word, in the cases in which its 
 signification is most important, from their own doctrinal 
 \iew- conC( nun.: the mode of reconciling sinners to God.
 
 I.] THE NAT CHE OF FAIT II. 9 
 
 To enter upon a discussion of these views now would be 
 to invert the course, — the fairer, I think, and more natural 
 course, — which I have laid down for myself. I shall have 
 to examine them in the progress of this inquiry, and I trust 
 that I shall show, that they differ no less widely from the 
 doctrine of Scripture, than the meaning which those who 
 uphold them assign to faith does from the sense which its 
 common use in Scripture establishes: — that they are all 
 opposed to express and reiterated statements of the Apostle 
 to whom we owe the most copious and exact information 
 which the Bible furnishes upon the subject; and not less to 
 the whole current of his reasoning about it: — so that the 
 interpretation of the texts in question for which this unusual 
 meaning of faith is required, sets them in direct opposition 
 to the clearest authoritative declarations of Holy Scripture, 
 and to reasoning no less authoritative and clear. 
 
 All this, which many of my hearers, I trust, already know, 
 I expect to be able to prove distinctly by and by ; insomuch 
 that it is not easy to conceive how any inquirer, resorting 
 to the Bible with the simple object of obtaining truth, 
 could find there either this erroneous view of the nature of 
 faith, or the false doctrine with which it is connected. Nor 
 do I believe that either of these errors has often arisen in 
 so humble and honest a course. It appears rather, as I 
 said, that some who have drawn their views of the nature, 
 design, and mode of operation of the Gospel, not from Holy 
 Scripture, but from their own false conceptions of the nature 
 both of God and man, have found it necessary to modify 
 the meaning of faith, in order to accommodate such Scrip- 
 tural declarations of the way of salvation as my text con- 
 tains, to their own misrepresentations of the Gospel. When 
 the motives are the best that are compatible with such a 
 mode of dealing with Revelation, this, I believe, is the 
 account that is to be given of the proceeding. Ill-grounded 
 fears of the moral consequences of proclaiming, as the
 
 10 THE NATURE OF FAIT II. [Serm. 
 
 I full and gratuitous pardon to all Believers, 
 
 ad men persona in search of conditions to clog the five- 
 of mercy, or to limit its fulness. Faith, 
 in its true Scriptun is ill fitted to Berve such a pur- 
 
 found in tin- I'.ible to be tin- unfailing 
 characteristic of Believers; and this, which .should in fair- 
 
 iiow that God has himself guarded effectually against 
 
 the consequences apprehended, is misused to suggest the 
 human safeguard of enlarging the meaning of faith, and 
 to supply some of the weak sophistry by which the pro- 
 is defended. But this is matter for future consi- 
 deration. 
 
 Similar principles of inquiry, if this should be styled in- 
 quiry, have led others into directly opposite errors. Some, 
 who are uo less zealous for God'"s honour, but who regard 
 Eis honour as chiefly involved in the maintenance of the 
 freenesa of the Gospel, seem in the same way to consider 
 themselves at liberty to fix upon such a notion of the nature 
 of faith as may consist best with their view of what the 
 freenesa of the Gospel is, and what it requires. Were their 
 vieWB on this point in all respects unimpeachably correct, 
 it i- plain that they would not be secure from error, in 
 attempting to derive from them the meaning of faith. And 
 I think it is curious to observe that, in fact, this course has 
 Led these theorists to the same representation of its nature 
 that i- giveu bythe Church which is most opposed to the free- 
 in -- of the Gospel; and that the account of faith for which 
 these an!' m assertors of ( rospel-freeness contend concurs 
 with that of the Romish Church in representing it as a pro- 
 
 38 purely intellectual ; and ends in describing it as a belief 
 
 of the truth of the history of our blessed Lord, as contained 
 
 in the Bible; or an intelligent assent to certain propositions 
 
 fncerning Bis incarnation, life, and death.* 
 
 Bui whatever may be thought of this curious coinci- 
 
 • Note a.
 
 I.] THE NATURE OF FAITH. 11 
 
 dence, it is, I think, very certain, and I am sure that it 
 deserves to be noticed, that though this view of the nature 
 of faith has been maintained by divines of different schools 
 among Protestants, it in none wears any appearance of 
 having been originally found in the Bible, or sought for 
 there. It seems, as I intimated, to have been taken up 
 under an apprehension that we cannot ascribe to faith a 
 (.•loser connexion with the affections without impairing the 
 simplicity of the Gospel, or prejudicing the doctrines of free 
 grace, or leading to some form of self-righteousness. 
 
 As this misrepresentation, however, only errs in defect, 
 the progress of the inquiry into the true meaning of faith 
 will sufficiently exhibit the extent of it. I am, therefore, 
 here only concerned with the principle of the proceeding. 
 And this is plainly the same as that which has led to the 
 former class of errors, though the results are so widely dif- 
 ferent. In both cases the plain statements of the Word of 
 God are modified, from a fear of the consequences to which 
 it is supposed that they will lead, — of licentiousness, on 
 the one hand, and of self-righteousness, on the other. Thus 
 both alike manifest a forgetfulness of man's relation to divine 
 truth, and make him teach where it ought to be his desire 
 humbly to learn. Both therefore require, and both equally, to 
 be denounced as presumptuous attempts to supply safe- 
 guards which God has seen fit to omit. And the issue is 
 in both cases as unhappy as might be anticipated from a 
 principle of investigation so preposterous. All attempts to 
 guard the purity of the Law at the expense of the freeness 
 of the Gospel, end, as, by the wise connexion between the 
 Law and the Gospel, they must end, in the overthrow of 
 both. Nor are human devices for the protection of the 
 freeness of the Gospel, more justifiable in their nature, or 
 likely to be more innocent in their results. God's servants 
 are, indeed, to be zealous for His honour. But the carnal 
 pride and blindness of our fallen nature make it needful
 
 THE NATURE OF faith. [Serm. 
 
 thai we should be continually reminded, thai God's honour is 
 to I-- maintained bj the right use of the safeguards which 
 II,. Eimseli has provided for it. not by our devising new 
 
 liiuiiiu. I i- its protecti 
 
 In\ • upon sounder principles, in 
 
 a i,. tient course, and in a humbler spirit, you, my 
 
 thren, will find, I am persuaded, that of the true mean- 
 ing of faith, where we are most concerned to ascertain the 
 meaning of the word, TRUST is an essential and leading 
 , rostituent; ami tint the true meaning of faith in Christ, 
 or in God through Christ, is not merely or properly belief of 
 the truth of tin' Scripture narrative concerning our Lord ; 
 m of the understanding to certain propositions 
 derived from that narrative, however true and however im- 
 portant they be; l»ut that it is trust in Christ, or in 
 < k)D THROUGH ( Ihrist, founded upon such a belief or assent ; 
 .n entire and unreserved confidence in the etm-icy of what 
 Christ has done ami suffered for us; a full reliance upon 
 Him and upon His work. 
 
 Then- are several significations of the word which we 
 may Barely pass over with little notice. It sometimes sig- 
 nifii 3 fidelity t<> engagements, sometimes honesty or sincerity 
 
 general, sometimes reliance upon the veracity of another; 
 
 ami tracing out the connexion of these and other senses of 
 
 tip- word might be in various ways pleasant ami profitable. 
 
 But, it is not m . to dwell upon any of these mean- 
 
 s, in order to determine the sense of the word in thai 
 
 -I' it in which ii is my immediate object to fix and 
 
 ■ iin i; — ] mean in the use of it in which it 
 
 for the saving principle which unites us to Christ, and 
 
 us partakers of nil the benefits of His life ami death ; 
 
 lies us before Clod, and reconciles us to Him. And
 
 !.| THE XATrilE OF FAITH. 13 
 
 that the faith by which all this is said to be done is faith in 
 Christ 1 , faith in His name 2 , faith in His blood 3 , or faith 
 in God 1 through Him, must be too well known to every 
 reader of the Bible to require distinct proof. 
 
 Now, whatever diversity of meaning the word may have 
 in its other uses, that, in these and all such like uses of it, it 
 naturally expresses trust or confidence, seems to admit of veiy 
 little question. That faith in any being, or in any quality of 
 any being, is confidence in him or it, can hardly, I suppose, be 
 questioned by any one. Faith in a person (and the same is 
 true also of faith in a thing) stands so naturally for trust in 
 him, as the sure instrument by which something desirable or 
 useful is secured to us, or trust in him, as the certain source 
 from which such benefits are to flow, that reliance upon the 
 procurer or the bestower of good would be by most persons, 
 I presume, expressed indifferently by faith in- him, or trust 
 in him. 
 
 There is, it is true, a limited meaning of the phrase, in 
 which faith in a man, is used to express reliance upon his 
 veracity. But even there it is clearly distinct from belief in 
 his testimony, of which it is properly the foundation. Belief 
 in a mans testimony may spring from faith in him, in this 
 more confined meaning of the phrase ; or may give rise to 
 fat tli in him. in its more enlarged meaning ; but it is plainly 
 distinguishable from such fii <ith, in either sense: as distin- 
 guishable as it is from any other species of evidence upon 
 which belief is grounded, or any other emotion to which be- 
 lief gives rise. 
 
 Tims, to apply these general principles to the case before 
 us, faith in the truth of God is the fit foundation of belief 
 in his testimony*, while that belief might, according to the 
 
 1 Rom. iii. 22; Eph. i. 15; Col. i. 4, ii. 5; Gal. ii. 16, 20, iii. 26. 
 
 2 John i. 12 ; i John iii. 23; v. 13. 
 
 3 Rom. iii. 25 ; see Note P. 
 
 4 Rom. iv. 5 ; 1 Thess. i. 8; 1 Pet. i. 21. 
 6 John iii. 33; 1 John v. 9, 10.
 
 H THE NATURE OP FAITH. [Sebm. 
 
 natuiv of the thing to which the testdmony is given, call 
 into various feelings and affections of the mind; 
 
 might i or joy, or sorrow, or aversion, or Love, 
 
 ,„- 1. . might render God Himself, or any other 
 
 being, an object of dread <>r an object of confidence. No 
 i ofound things so manifestly distinct as the simple 
 state of mind in which we acquiesce in the evidence for a 
 truth which we understand, and the state of feeling which 
 - ilta from an application of this truth to ourselves, our 
 own im or our own desires. But what I wish here to 
 
 impress upon you is, that, in the case before us, common lan- 
 guage keeps distinct these very distinct states of the mind. 
 And that while faith in a truth, means not merely jinn belief 
 of that truth, but also the emotion of hope which the appli- 
 cation of it to ourselves adds to belief of it; faith in a 'person 
 includes; in addition to both, the notion of a particular being 
 as tli'' instrument by which the thing hoped for is to be 
 procured, or as the source from which it is to flow. So that 
 you must see that, when we interpret faith in Christ, or 
 faith in God through Christ, as trust in Christ as the pro- 
 curer "t salvation, or trust in God as the giver of salvation 
 for < Jurist's sake, we have all the advantage which belongs to 
 tin- interpretation that makes the Bible employ words in their 
 common meaning, in a case which seems to furnish no occa- 
 - i . . 1 1 for departing from the common use of language, and in 
 which no intimation of any design to deviate from it is given. 
 
 But if there In- ;i doubt about the meaning of a word 
 i in Scripture, the question must be ultimately deter- 
 mined by an appeal to Scripture itself. And though I am 
 confined, by tin' circumstances of this inquiry, to a very 
 limited portion of the Bible, I am persuaded that a fair exa- 
 minationevenof th it portion will be abundantly sufficient for 
 my purpose I avoid all reference to the Old Testament;
 
 [.] THE NATURE OF FAITH. 15 
 
 not because it would be difficult to find there very certain 
 instances of this use of the word, but because the applica- 
 tion of them would require more preliminary discussion than 
 we could find time for now. And from a large proportion of 
 the texts in the New Testament, in which the word occurs, 
 I am excluded, obviously, by the course of investigation which 
 I have laid down. But the remainder will, I think, supply 
 abundant materials, when fairly considered, for the satisfac- 
 tory determination of this question*. 
 
 The Bible, however, is, as you know, a book of a cast so 
 little formal and didactic, that you can hardly expect to find 
 tin re regular definitions of the terms employed in it, but 
 must be content, for the most part, to collect their meaning 
 from their use. Of the examination required in the present 
 case, I can, of course, give but an outline : but it will, I hope, 
 be defective in few points which there can be any difficulty 
 in supplying. 
 
 When, for example, you find our Lord thus addressing 
 His disciples, " Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the 
 field, which to-day is and to-morrow is cast into the oven, 
 bow much more shall he clothe you, O ye of little faith 6 !" 
 you can have no doubt, I presume, of the sense in which 
 He employs the word faith. No one can, I suppose, question 
 that He means by it, that confidence in God's protection, 
 which their observation of His care for the lowest parts of 
 His creation ought to imprint upon the hearts of His chil- 
 dren — who should feel that they are objects of far warmer 
 love and of far tenderer care. A glance at the whole pas- 
 sage will show that it is designed to condemn, in God's chil- 
 dren, all that unreasonable solicitude about life and its wants 
 in which they are so prone to indulge — to banish a doubtful 
 mind concerning the supply of our necessities, by the recol- 
 lection that our heavenly Father knoweth that we have need 
 
 « Note B. 
 * Matt. vi. 30; Luke xii. 38.
 
 16 77//; NATURE OF FAITH. [Serm. 
 
 • dispel all vain anxieties and too curious 
 
 . n A merely by the depressing reflection that they ran 
 
 really do nothing for us, but by the more cheering thoughl 
 
 thai Iter than those animals which are harassed 
 
 mch anxieties, and can exercise ao such care, and yet 
 
 which He wl vr Father amply provides. You will 
 
 that in tin- reproof which I have quoted, it is so little 
 
 the ! se to charge those to whom Ee speaks with 
 
 of God's providential care, or disbelief of it, that, 
 
 mi the contrary, the justice of His reproof of their want 
 
 aith rests chiefly upon the impossibility of their being 
 
 i .nit of, or doubting, the facts upon which such confidence 
 
 in God oughl to 1"' grounded. 
 
 Again, when the wild alarm to which they all give way 
 at the approach of danger draws from Him the rebuke, 
 • Why are ye so fearful, O ye of little faith' ?' or, "Why 
 are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith*?" or, 
 "Where is your faith 9 ?" — you have plain instances of a 
 similar use of the term. The rebuke is here addressed to 
 all the Apostles; but, upon another occasion, there is re- 
 con l.-.l a touching reproof of one of them, in particular, 
 which furnishes a clear example of the same kind. One 
 of the ( delists relates that, upon a stormy night, when 
 M disciples were in the midst of the sea, tossed with the 
 waves, the Lord was seen coming to them, walking upon 
 ■: that when He drew nigh to the ship, and made 
 Himself known to them, Peter intreated that lie might be 
 commanded to go down to Him upon the water; and that, 
 being commanded, His ardent follower at once went down. 
 But when he sav. himself surrounded by the dangers which 
 he had voluntarily encountered, his heart died within him. 
 II confidence in his Lord's power and in His love was 
 Btrong enough bo make him dare peril, but too weak to 
 
 7 Mitt. \iii. 7f,. S M :ir k ; v 40 9 L u ]. e vi jj , c
 
 1. 1 THE NATURE OF FAITH. 17 
 
 keep him tranquil when it came; "and beginning to sink, 
 he cried, saying, Lord, save me! And immediately Jesus 
 stretched forth His hand, and caught him, and said unto 
 him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt 10 ?" 
 — And to these striking instances, to fix the sense of the 
 word, your own memory will probably add others of the 
 same class. 
 
 Now, on the other hand, look at any of those instances 
 of faith which draw forth the Lord's gracious approbation' 
 and analyze the state of mind that He commends. Take, 
 for example, the notable case of the Syrophenician woman, 
 whose faith He seems to have regarded as especially 
 worthy of remark; and see in what it consists 11 . Believing 
 that He had come from God, and that He was invested 
 with miraculous powers to execute God's gracious purposes, 
 she had sought Him out to engage His assistance on behalf 
 of her child, whose disease was beyond all human aid. She 
 is received by Him, as you remember, in a way calculated 
 to extinguish all the hopes of relief which she had cherished 
 — " He answered her not a word." But she perseveres, under 
 this heavy discouragement, in earnestly supplicating His 
 compassion; so earnestly, indeed, that the disciples inter- 
 pose in her behalf, but less, as it would seem, from sympathy 
 with her in her distress than from impatience of her urgent 
 entreaties for relief. They ask Him to grant her petition, that 
 she may go away, and no longer follow them with her out- 
 cries. In answer to them, the Lord speaks, though He had 
 refused to vouchsafe any reply to the supplicant herself. But 
 His words are more discouraging than His silence. " I am 
 not sent," said He, " but to the lost sheep of the house 
 of Israel." I lis mission did not extend to the outcast race 
 to Vhich this heartbroken mother belonged. Of what avail, 
 then, can it be to press her petition upon Him any more ? 
 
 10 Matt. xiv. 2$ — 31. 
 11 Matt. xv. i\ — 28 ; Mark vii. 25 — 29. 
 
 2
 
 18 THE NATURE OF FAITH. [Sekm. 
 
 press it -till upon Him with deeper humility, 
 but with greater earnestness than before. And when, at 
 
 th, her importunity wrings from Him an answer addret 
 i , herself, it is even harsher and more disheartening than 
 the one given to her through the disciples: — "It is not 
 He says, "to take the children's bread, and to cast 
 it unto d< \ 
 
 To confidence less steadfast, such an answer would have 
 i a final repulse; but hers was too genuine ami too 
 strong to be repelled. Her incnn t;i1 >1< ■ reply shows at once 
 thf nature, the foundation, and the strength, of the principle 
 which urged her to prayer, and sustained her in it. It showed 
 that she confided in the Ruler of the world, not because 
 sin- was insensible to the great and perplexing inequalities 
 of human condition which He has established here; but 
 use >he had been enabled to see in all the arrange- 
 ments of His providence, the gracious character which per- 
 vades them all — to see that His tender mercies are over aU 
 His works — that nothing, however humble, is overlooked or 
 neglected by Him, hut that He has wisely and kindly ac- 
 commodated the circumstances to the nature even of the 
 meaner animals, so as to secure a due provision for the 
 wants of the very lowest of the beings that He has made. 
 Hi reply, I say, proves that she had been enabled to discern 
 all this, ;,nd enabled too to draw-, from all that she saw. the very 
 ■it of humble confidence in (rod which the Lord's touching 
 filiation, just now adverted to, was designed to teach 
 to those who were so much more favourably circumstanced 
 for collecting it. "Truth, Lord," she replies; "yet the dogs 
 
 I u of the crumbs that Tail from their masters' table." 
 
 L it uol the conviction thus affect ingly expressed — that 
 however low were the place that she occupied among man- 
 kind—however far removed she was from the high privi- 
 - which she unrepiningly saw others enjoying, — she was 
 not scorned or neglected by her Creator; but that, tilling the
 
 I. J THE NATURE OF FAITH. 19 
 
 station assigned to her by His wisdom, she was still the 
 object, in the proper degree, of which He alone was the 
 proper judge, of His love and care: — is it not manifest, I 
 say, that it is this humble and steadfast confidence in God, — 
 acquired under circumstances so untoward, and retained 
 under a trial so severe — that moves the admiration, and 
 wonder (if we may so speak) which appear in the Lord's 
 reply, "O woman, great is thy faith!" 
 
 I need hardly direct your attention to the importance of 
 this example, as confirmatory of the conclusion which we 
 drew from those which we looked at before. Those instances, 
 rightly considered, seemed not only to fix the true nature of 
 the principle-, but sufficiently to overthrow both the erroneous 
 notions of it. For we saw that, when the Lord reprehends 
 the want of faith of those to whom He speaks, there is not 
 anything in what draws forth His reproof which can be 
 fairly described as a failure in obedience — or a want of belief 
 in any specific proposition proposed as the object of belief — 
 or a want of belief, in any sense which does not identify 
 belief with trust: — it is plainly want of trust that he con- 
 demns. And you must see how strikingly this last example, 
 which is of a different kind, confirms the conclusion as to 
 the proper sense of the word, to which the former examples 
 led. For here His emphatic commendation of faith is 
 drawn forth by no signal act of obedience — by no act of 
 obedience of any kind ; and as little by any act of belief, as 
 distinguished from trust. It is manifestly, as I have before 
 lid, an. exhibition of trust in God, every way deserving of 
 wonder; but of trust, it is to be remarked, not manifested 
 in believing what the Lord said, but in disbelieving it, when, 
 in its apparent sense, it contradicted her views of God's cha- 
 racter, and tended to shake her confidence in Him, by rcpre- 
 nting Him as careless about her sufferings, and indisposed 
 io relieve them. 
 
 Here, then, is as strong a confirmation as could be 
 
 2—2
 
 Tin: NATURE OF FAITH. [Sbrm. 
 
 red of the which the former cases seem bo clearly 
 
 jn to the word And if you examine, in the same 
 other instances, you ^n ill find, 1 think, just the same 
 elements in the state of mind commended h\ our Lord 
 under tin- name of faith. Not merely will you find in all 
 i.t' tin in. strong desire for some benefit, and a strong lope 
 ..t' obtaining it ; but, moreover, firm confidence that the Being 
 applied i" could and would bestow it. appears clearly to all. 
 
 lint I must Leave it to private invest igat ion to establish 
 this; and must pass over all intermediate instances of the 
 
 of this word, in the Acts and the Epistles, thai we may 
 have time for considering a passage which it is impossible 
 
 t ait, and which -.-ems to rentier the consideration of 
 
 other- superfluous: I mean the well-known account of faith 
 which occurs in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 
 The Apostle, as you know, there describes it as "the 
 substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not 
 seen And though there may be felt to be, at first, a 
 
 little obscurity in the word "substance," yet, I suppose 
 most persons understand the sentence as conveying, that it 
 i* the character or property of faith to give to things future 
 and hoped for all the reality of actual existence — all the 
 effect upon the feelings and the conduct of substantial 
 realities. And this is so easy a figure, and so fairly iv- 
 presents what is most important in the Apostle's meaning, 
 thai 1 do not know whether it be worth mentioning here, 
 that the original probably expresses his meaning more 
 directly. For while "substance" (taken in its common si<_mi- 
 fication) is one of the primitive meanings of the Greek word, 
 tor which it 3tandsinour translation, that word has, among its 
 
 red meanings, confident expectation; and is, in fact, used 
 
 » Heb. xi. i.
 
 l.j THE XATURE OF FAITH. 21 
 
 familiarly in that sense both by sacred and profane writers* 
 And when you recollect that, in this way of writing, the 
 things not seen, in the second clause, of which faith is the 
 evidence (or conviction), are the things hoped for in the first, 
 von must see that this character of faith, — which de- 
 scribes it as the confident expectation of the things for which 
 we Impe, and a conviction that though unseen they are real 
 ami sure, — coincides with the r account which I have at- 
 tempted to give from other sources: and the entire of what 
 follows falls in perfectly with this account, and strongly con- 
 firms it. 
 
 I do not mean to go through, in detail, all the instances 
 of the force of faith in God, which the Apostle takes from 
 the lives of Patriarchs, and Prophets, and Martyrs, to illus- 
 trate his general account of the principle. But, by refer- 
 ring to the place, you will easily see that, in all these ser- 
 vants of God, the principle, — though existing doubtless in 
 different degrees, — and though tried and exhibited in very 
 different ways, and upon very different occasions, — is every- 
 where the same: that it is confidence in God, grounded 
 upon such a manifestation of His character as He saw fit 
 to make; — a reliance so deep and sincere upon His power, 
 Hi- goodness, and His truth, as enabled them to hope un- 
 doubtingly for all that He promised, and in hope, to endure 
 patiently all that He appointed, and to perform resolutely 
 whatever He enjoined. 
 
 The Apostle points to Noah, for example, sustained by 
 this principle amidst the scoffs of a faithless generation, in 
 his patient preparation of the appointed refuge against the 
 day of God's wrath: — to the severely tried father of the 
 faithful, in the strength of the same principle, raising his 
 hand to slay his son — his only son Isaac, whom he loved 13 , 
 at the command of Him who had given him that son by a 
 
 " Note C. 13 Gen. xxii. 2.
 
 B NATURE OF FAITH. [Serm. 
 
 and in whom he trusted as able and true to restore 
 him by a mira< I M 3, in faith abandoning the 
 
 luxuri Inful court ; choosing ratlin- to suffer afflic- 
 
 11 with tl >f God, and esteeming the reproach of 
 
 han all tli. treasures of E^ypt, in cer- 
 
 11 hop future recompense of rerun/; and fearlessly 
 
 the vindictive rage of an earthly monarch, 
 
 under a of the presence of Him who is invisible: — to 
 
 Jephthah, and Gideon, and the other heroes of Jewish hi — 
 
 ry, who in faith renounced the arm of flesh in peril, and 
 
 irlessly trusted in Him who is mighty to save: — yea, 
 
 en to the heathen Rahab, in faith, severing so many of 
 the stroi _ ■• human ties, forsaking her country and her 
 ami taking her portion with the people of 
 the true God. 
 
 But arc these exercises of faith in Christ? Some excel- 
 lent persons maintain that they all are; but I think, with- 
 out sufficiently weighing the nature of some of them, or the 
 i of the Apostle in bringing the whole forward. They 
 have probably been led into the error (for such I cannot 
 help regarding it) by a desire to uphold the certain and 
 important truth that " the fathers looked not only for trans- 
 
 ry promisi But that sound doctrine does not require 
 
 thai we Bhould strain the meaning of any passage of Holy 
 Writ in it- sup port. And I certainly think that we are 
 doing this, and very obviously too, when we take some of 
 these instances as anything more than evidences of the 
 extent to which reliance upon God was able to sustain Hh 
 
 rants of old. We cannot take some at least of th< 
 instances for anything more than this, without offering great 
 violence to very plain language. And there seems to be 
 no purpose in forcing them to speak more. For, under this 
 view of them, arc they not all pertinently brought forward 
 by the Apostle, both as illustrating his general account of 
 the principle, and as supporting the 1 shortations to the same
 
 I.] THE NATURE OF FAITH. 23 
 
 (•nurse of persevering obedience which lie addresses to those 
 win) professed a reliance upon promises far more glorious, 
 and whose trust rested on a foundation so much more 
 secure*? 
 
 All these instances are, I say, in this view of their nature, 
 pertinent to the purpose of the Apostle; because the prin- 
 ciple, by which those whom he addressed ought to be ani- 
 mated, is the same as that exhibited and exercised in all 
 th«' eases to which he directs them. It is still trust in God ; 
 hut under larger information and with better support. The 
 distinction being, as he intimates, that of the Christian's 
 faith CHRIST is "the author and the finisher 14 " — He be- 
 stows it and perfects it, and is Himself its foundation and 
 consummation. It is trust in God; but it is trust in Him 
 through our Lord Jesus Christ, "through whom we have 
 boldness and access, with confidence, through the faith of 
 Him 15 ." It is still grounded upon the manifestation of God's 
 character; but its foundation is that brighter manifestation 
 of all His infinite perfections as they shine concentered in 
 Him in whom "dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily 16 ." 
 We are not left to collect God's lovingkindness and tender 
 mercies from the predominant indications, certain as they 
 are, of a benevolent design, amidst the conflicting appear- 
 ances of the course of his providence, — we have the infi- 
 nitely stronger and more persuasive proofs of benevolence 
 which the mysteries of redemption supply — proofs, which 
 seem framed to meet and satisfy every movement of dis- 
 trust in the human breast, and to fill it with confidence 
 and good hope towards God. The appeal, indeed, which 
 the Apostle founds upon them, — "He that spared not His 
 own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not 
 with Him also freely give us all things 17 ? — seems to address 
 
 * Note D. 
 14 Heb. xii. 2. » Epb.es. iii. 12. 
 
 ir ' Col. ii. 9. W Rom. viii. 32.
 
 THE NATURE OF FAITH. [Skr.m. 
 
 If with equal force to the understanding and to the affec- 
 18, — to challenge the scrutiny of the reason for the claims 
 • it makes upon the confidence of the heart. But the 
 s of the appeal may be distinctly felt, while this 
 ace is withheld : and, until it be yielded by the heart, 
 !i. is not ] 1. Nor will the firmest 
 
 belief hi the S pture narrative, with the clearest appre 1 - 
 f the Gospel scheme, and the soundest views of 
 Christian doctrine, constitute faith in Christ, until, t<> this 
 ;• conviction "t the sufficiency of His atoning sacrifice, 
 added a t .1 desire tor its fruits, and heartfelt corni- 
 ce in it- efficacy; until the Spirit has enabled us to cast 
 ours in humble reliance, tor time and tor eternity, upon 
 
 th<- in- rev and the truth of a reconciled <!<>d. 
 
 Bow entirely those admirable men, the Martyrs and Cou- 
 
 i-. t" whom we owe the Homilies of our Church, agree 
 
 in this view of tin- nature of faith, none can need to he 
 
 informed who are at all acquainted with that valuable body 
 
 ■ liiid scriptural divinity. They declare that "true lively 
 
 faith i- n >i only the comirmn belief of the articles of our 
 
 faith, 1 nit it i- also a true trust and confidence in the mercy 
 
 if (;<></ through our Lord Jesus Christ ; and a steadfast hope 
 
 od things to be received at God's hands." They tell 
 
 us that "the right and true Christian faith is not only to 
 
 believe that Holy Scripture and all the articles of our faith 
 
 are true, hut also to have <> swre trust and confidence in (i<></'s 
 
 rciful promises" And they, in substance, deny that any 
 
 Hedge or belief until it has issued in such trust, deserves 
 
 'A, — iu any other sense than that in which 
 
 clear apprehensions and linn belief of devils are styled 
 
 tli. 
 
 And to this decisive testimony of our own Church, 1 could 
 
 add, if tin- occasion allowed such details, declarations equally 
 
 - of the same views, from the public acts of ALL Pro- 
 
 'i't ('hue |,,- ;,,,,] fiMin the writings of all the early 
 
 J
 
 I.] THE NATURE OF FAITH. 25 
 
 I !i formers to whose names those Churches still attach most 
 and best-deserved weight*. 
 
 But it will be said, supposing all this to be true, of what 
 real importance are these distinctions ? Upon the one hand, 
 you maintain that good works are the certain fruits of faith, 
 in the believer's life; why then labour so much, to prove 
 thai they are not included in the notion of that saving grace ? 
 [s tlii- a | m iii it of any practical importance ? On the other 
 hand, many of those who hold that faith is a process purely 
 intellectual would allow, and even maintain, that, from the 
 nature of the truths revealed, and from their relation to us, 
 trust in God must be the result of genuine belief in them; 
 how is it then practically of so much moment to establish 
 that, instead of being thus among the necessary results of 
 faith, such trust is really an essential part of the proper 
 signification of the word? 
 
 Objections of this kind are constantly heard to discus- 
 sions of the nature of that in which I have sought to engage 
 you. In the present case, they certainly admit of a sufficient 
 reply of the description that they ask for. To give that reply, 
 however, fully now, would require an anticipation of doc- 
 trinal views, which would be a deviation from my plan, even 
 if it did not demand details for which no time remains. But 
 I trust that grievously misconceived and abused as the word 
 practical is in religion, there can be few of my hearers who 
 will be inclined to doubt, that differences concerning the 
 mode of reconciling sinners to God, if they be not themselves 
 practical, must at least lead to momentous practical results. 
 And I trust, indeed, that some who hear me would feel that, 
 even were we unable to point out any such consequences, 
 these objections would deserve but little attention — that we 
 are departing widely from that modesty which, in matters of 
 
 " Note E.
 
 THE NATURE OF FAITH. [Serm. L] 
 
 this nature, is surely our true wisdom, when we presume 
 determine the value of revealed truth by our power of 
 distinct] rtaining its value, [f there be, as there plainly 
 
 d intelligible distinction between these accounts of the 
 trith, is it ii"! manifestly the very height of arro- 
 gant folly in us to pronounce, that ii is of little consequence 
 irmine which of them is the Scriptural account? 
 
 me, 1 trust, this reflexion would be enough. To 
 others, 1 can only say, that, if this principle of filing the 
 importance of revelation were as sound and safe in the gene- 
 mi. as I am sure it is unsound and dangerous, the pres m 
 offers no fair occasion for the application of it. For that 
 practiced differences resulting from these differ- 
 ent statements of the nature of faith; and see too that they 
 are of no small moment. These differences, which, for the 
 ■ii assigned above, I can only glance at now, will pro- 
 bably appear more distinctly when I am ahle to pursue the 
 nd part of my subject — the effects of faith; which I 
 hope to be able to do at some future opportunity.
 
 SERMON II. 
 
 ON THE SOURCE OF FAITH, 
 
 AND ON THE REPENTANCE WHICH IS ESSENTIAL 
 
 TO TRUE FAITH.
 
 I>e oontritione praeeidinms illas otiosas et infinitas disputationes, quaudo ex 
 dilectione I »• i, quando ex timore poenge doleami S d dicimua contritiones 
 
 ■ ■ntiae qua? Deum sentit irasci peccato, et dolet se 
 
 pecc&sse. Et haec contritio ita fit quando verbo Dei arguuntur peccata, quia 
 
 • rt Bomma praedicationis Evangelii, arguere peccata, et offerre remissionem 
 
 I itornm et jufltitiam propter ('hristum; et Spiritum Sanctum, et vitam 
 
 nam : et at renati benefaciamuB. 
 
 Apologia Augcstan.e Confessionis
 
 SERMON IT. 
 
 Hebrews xi. i. 
 
 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things 
 
 not seen. 
 
 Before I begin, as I proposed when I last addressed you, 
 my brethren, the consideration of the effects of faith, I shall 
 have something to say to you of its source. But I must 
 firsl employ a moment in bringing back to your minds, what 
 we were then able to collect from Scripture concerning its 
 nature. 
 
 Declining all merely curious investigations of the various 
 senses of the word and their connexion, and inquiring simply 
 into its meaning where it stands for a saving principle, we 
 saw, you will remember, that the leading part of the notion 
 which it is then employed to convey is TRUST. 
 
 The Apostle's account of the nature of the principle in 
 general is, that it is a confident expectation of the things for 
 which we hope, and a conviction of their existence though thei/ 
 be not seen. This coincides sufficiently exactly with the sense 
 which the common use of language assigns to it. And he 
 proceeds to illustrate the particular exercise of the principle 
 with which he is more immediately concerned, by striking 
 instances of the force of faith in God, taken from the 
 lives of the most remarkable charact' "° in Jewish his- 
 tory. In these, as might be expecte m his purpose,
 
 77//: SOUBCS 0F FAITH. [Serm. 
 
 there is great variety In the objects hoped for; and the 
 
 of the expectations entertained are as different, as 
 
 the ,1. »f acquaintance with God's character and designs 
 
 which tli' J individuals \ ssed were different But 
 
 principle unequivocally manifested in all is the same — 
 it is the confident expectation of some benefit a1 God's hands, 
 
 by Hi- appointment— it is firm trust in Him for some 
 
 ..1 that i> desired— it is reliance upon the faithfulness and 
 the loving-kindness of the Most High*. 
 
 - ,,|, is tli.' genera] account which this remarkable pas- 
 supplies of the nature of faith in God. 
 
 And, with this account, we found that several important 
 , }es of it- use in other parts of Scripture, which were 
 abundantly char, ami which might very easily have been 
 multiplied, perfectly concurred. 
 
 Now faith in God through Christ — the exercise of this 
 principle with which we have to do — differs plainly from any 
 of faith in God only in the grounds upon which it 
 rests, and the object about which it is exercised: not at 
 all -manifestly not at all — in tin- state of mind which the 
 words are intended to express. The distinction is, that the 
 benefit hoped for from God is salvation; and the foundation 
 of the hope, the merits and the sufferings of Christ. It in- 
 cludes, — a- every other case of fait Ii in God (or, I may add, 
 in any being) does, — desire of something to be received from 
 Hunt, and trust that we shall receive it. And to this con- 
 fidence in Him who is to bestow the benefit upon us, it adds 
 ■ mfidence in Him who has earned it tor us. It is grounded 
 upon the testimony of Coil's word, and requires, of course, 
 ;i belief in that testimony; but it is manifestly distinct from 
 such belief. It leads, we learn, 1 « > obedience to God's will; 
 but it is .•Neii more manifestly distinct from such obedience. 
 
 Of the two misrepresentations of the meaning of faith. 
 
 which the true account of the nature of the principle thus 
 * Note V. t Note G.
 
 II.] THE SOURCE OF FAITH. 31 
 
 equally overthrows, that which makes it more belief in the 
 testimony of the Bible is the one against which I felt, and 
 fed, especially solicitous to guard you. The opposite error, 
 in which obedience to God's will is made a part of the no- 
 tion for which faith stands, is easily exposed; even inde- 
 pendently of any exact knowledge of the true meaning of 
 the term. But against this more dangerous error there is, 
 I think, no effectual security, except in clear views of the 
 true nature of the principle which it misrepresents. I call 
 it more dangerous, not because I regard it as more injurious 
 in its effects, or in itself more opposed to divine truth. On 
 the contrary, though I cannot avoid ascribing to it, much of 
 what is most to be condemned in the heartless and paralys- 
 ing religions system of which it forms a part, I am sure 
 that it is much less at war with the principles of the Gospel 
 than the other. But it is far more dangerous, as being far 
 more likely to mislead. In fact, the other, as I said, rests 
 exclusively upon doctrinal views, which assume generally 
 the form of such gross and palpable misrepresentations of 
 Scripture as can deceive, only so long as a spirit of party, 
 deference to authority, or utter carelessness about the mat- 
 ter, prevents men from, bringing them to the test of God's 
 word. And even in their best form, when then opposition 
 to it is most carefully softened down and best concealed, a 
 moderately diligent examination of the Bible, under the 
 direction of moderate honesty, can hardly, I think, fail to 
 provide any inquirer with a satisfactory refutation of them: 
 while further study will certainly only serve to show more 
 clearly, how entirely irreconcilable they are to the funda- 
 mental principles of the scheme of mercy which it is the 
 object of the Bible to reveal. 
 
 But the error which makes faith stand for belief in the 
 truth of the facts and doctrines contained in the Word of 
 God, docs not admit of this direct refutation from the first 
 principles of the Gospel : it seems, on the contrary, to asseri
 
 77/ OF I'M I'll. [Sekm. 
 
 e principles in their fullest extent. Ti seems, too, to 
 exhibit the characteristic simplicity of the Gospel, no Less 
 than the truer statement ; and, under favour of the ambi- 
 guities of languag ems sometimes to have the support 
 i Holy Scripture. All these advantages it 
 
 - to the tart to which 1 before adverted— of its erring 
 • S long as a misstatement of the nature o£ faith 
 makes do addition to the real constituents of that principle, 
 it is plain that it cannot oppose the freeness or the simpli- 
 city of the GospeL And it requires but a little consideration 
 e how such a system is likely to secure the other ad- 
 vantage also; 1 mean the advantage of apparent support in 
 some j, of Holy Scripture. Supposing our account of 
 
 the principle correct, you could not, upon reflexion, be sur- 
 
 d to find faith sometimes employed to express a belief 
 of those Scripture truths upon which our trust in God is 
 founded; or to find such belief sometimes used for faith. 
 For you must be aware that this occurs constantly, with 
 respect to our complex ideas, in all writings whatsoever. 
 Where but a pari of the notion is wanted, the word which 
 > thi' entire is sometimes used for that part ; and, 
 on the other hand, when the whole, is required, it maybe 
 occasionally conveyed, too, by expressing an important part 
 and Leaving the rest to be implied. And this, as every one 
 knows, occurs familiarly, in writings far more artificial and 
 
 Cl than the books of the New Testament, and without 
 rise to mi-take or uncertainty*. 
 
 Bui the instances in the liiUe, to which we are called 
 upon to apply this fair and obvious principle, are of a kind 
 that makes the application peculiarly easy. They are cases 
 in which belief in the record that God has given of His Son is 
 
 i as equivalent to saving faith. Now this record compre- 
 hends all the promises which form the foundation of all our 
 hop. - And that /«//'/ in the.-.- promi.-es should be employed 
 
 • Note II.
 
 II.] THE SOURCE OF FAIT/I. 33 
 
 for trust in Him who has promised, though it furnishes an 
 occasion to apply this principle, seems among the simplest 
 cases that could offer themselves for the application of it. 
 
 And, on the whole, when you have once fixed the true 
 sense of the term, by completing the Scriptural investiga- 
 tion of which I gave you an outline, — if you apply discreetly 
 the remark which I have just made, and remember too the 
 fair rule of interpretation — to explain the parts which are 
 doubtful by those which arc clear — I do not think that there 
 is in the Bible any latitude in the use of this term which 
 can create any considerable or permanent embarrassment. 
 
 It might be thought unnecessary here to add anything of 
 the source of this important principle; for all who profess 
 submission to the authority of God's word must agree — and 
 do, in fact, agree — in representing it as the gift of God 1 . 
 But under this agreement in words, there lies, as might be 
 expected, a real and very wide difference; a difference which, 
 for various reasons, it seems important to exhibit clearly. 
 
 Those who hold the view of the nature of faith which I 
 have endeavoured to support, find an obvious necessity for 
 the operation of the Spirit of God to produce it. Who that 
 knows his own mind, indeed, can doubt that the agency 
 of that omnipotent being is needed to convince the sinner 
 of his sin — to awaken in him a lively sense of his guilt and 
 danger — to inspire a real desire for deliverance, and prompt 
 the repentant cry, "What must I do to be saved?" — and 
 then to extinguish all self-dependence — to repress all self- 
 righteous strivings, and effectually to teach that in confi- 
 dence and quietness is our strength 1 ; — to tranquillize the 
 fears of the awakened sinner by the efficacy of the atoning 
 
 1 John xvi. 7-1 r ; Kom. xii. 3 ; Gal. v. 22 ; Eph. ii. 8, vi. 23 ; 1 Tim. i. 
 14; 2 Pet. i. 1 ; Note I. 
 
 2 Is. xxx. 15. 
 
 3
 
 77//; SOURCE OF FAITH. [Serm. 
 
 r fc oft] - [our;— and, what is harder still, to cleanse 
 
 noe and silence its reproaches by the sufficiency 
 
 of the lous offering for sin? All this must be 
 
 done before the heart can truly feel thai confidence in God 
 
 1 rt, which we maintain to be an essential pari of 
 
 og faith. And to effect this change in all the natural 
 feelings of the heart, will, assuredly, by all who know the 
 heart, be easily admitted to be the work, not of maris might 
 or of hie but of the Spirit of the Lord of Hosts 3 . 
 
 But 1 who hold thai view offaiih to which I have so 
 
 i adverted — who represent it, that is. as merely an intel- 
 :it to the testimony of the Bible concerning our 
 
 i. profess to believe, no less than we, that to the produc- 
 tion of FAITH the operation of God's Spirit is essential. They 
 must, therefore, — and I think the necessity adds plainly to the 
 difficulties with which their system is pressed, — they must 
 represent that divine agency as required to enable us to 
 estimate the evidence tor the divine authority of revelation, 
 or to apprehend the tonus in which it is conveyed. 
 
 Now tlii-, is ;i subject upon which I hope I should be 
 most anxious to speak guardedly. And, no doubt, as there 
 are many cases in which the first direction of the mind to the 
 consideration of religion in any shape is due to the secret 
 influences of the Spirit of God, so is it possible that there are 
 many where, iii the wisdom of God, the same agent is em- 
 ployed in I g the mind to yield assent to the force of 
 the evidence for the divine origin of revelation, and in open- 
 ing the understanding to the perception of its meaning. This 
 i- doubtless to be confessed; but this is plainly not enough 
 for this position. And to maintain all that the position re- 
 quires—to pronounce tins agency in all cases essential to 
 
 ts which seem such proper results of man's unassisted 
 
 seems certainly a groat sacrifice to system. 
 That the evidence for revelation is so essentially differ- 
 
 8 Zech. iv. 6.
 
 II.] THE SOURCE OF FAITH. 35 
 
 ent from all other evidence, that it is only by the aid of the 
 Spirit of God that a man can ever properly estimate its force ; 
 that the Scripture narrative of our Lord's life and death, 
 or the Scripture statements concerning His Atonement, which 
 we are required to believe, contain notions so different in 
 kind from those with which we come to be furnished natu- 
 rally, that the same higher aid is always necessary to enable 
 us to apprehend them : these are positions so plainly taken 
 up and maintained, because a narrow view of the nature 
 of faith makes it necessary to maintain them, that I do not 
 feel called on to point out in detail the mistakes on which 
 they are founded, and the inconsistencies to which they lead. 
 
 But it is retorted, 'Does not a desire for the objects of 
 faith necessarily flow from a correct apprehension of them? — 
 and is not trust in Christ thus a necessary result of a true 
 belief of what -He is recorded to have wrought for us? — And 
 does not faith thus, even in your view of its nature, seem 
 attainable by man without the necessity of spiritual aid?' 
 This would no doubt follow, if the foundation of the infer- 
 ence were granted; but it is denied, and I think, too, denied 
 on very sufficient grounds. That the salvation which Christ 
 lived and died to secure is an object of real desire to man, 
 so soon as he knows what it is, seems certainly not true in 
 any sense which is important to the question before us. 
 Happiness is no doubt universally desired, and salvation is 
 certainly happiness. But it is not presented to the mind as 
 happiness in the abstract. It is happiness of a particular 
 kind, and bestowed in a particular way. Present pardon and 
 restoration to God's favour are no doubt offered in the gospel 
 to ALL, freely, — without any of those limitations and qualifi- 
 cations with which we are so disposed to restrict and encum- 
 ber that gracious offer. But this pardon and reconciliation 
 are only objects of real desire to those who feel their need of 
 them deeply. Have men naturally this deep feeling of their 
 real wants? None, it is said, can believe the truth without 
 
 3—2
 
 THE SOURCE OF FAITH. [Serm. 
 
 feeling this and consequently this desire. But this is 
 
 the \< tv point at issue, or a most importanl part of 
 it; it Lb assuming thai a man cannol believe a truth without 
 molting auch an application of the truth to himself, as to feel 
 all the emotions to which his relation to it ought to give rise 
 ! Dot know many positions which 1 believe to be more at 
 war with the common experience and common judgment of 
 
 mankind 
 
 it may be said that, whatever becomes of the general 
 principle, the objects in this case are too plainly of moment- 
 ous importance to allow one who truly believes the Scrip- 
 testimony concerning them not to feel a real desire 
 for them. Be it bo. Let it be supposed that belief in the 
 truth in this case necessarily generates some feeling of desire. 
 II - the desire for deliverance no difficulties to overcome 
 bet'.. iv the heart submits itself to the righteousness of God*, 
 and trusts, not in profession, but truly, not in part, but alto- 
 er, in the blood and merits of the Redeemer? Is man's 
 moral pride an inconsiderable obstacle to this trust in ano- 
 ther: or is it the same thing to be convinced that this pride 
 is wrong, or injurious, or destructive even, and to cease to 
 
 feel it j 
 
 Suppose, however, that this obstacle too is overcome, it 
 is not the only one which the corruption of the human heart 
 offers to trusting in the Redeemer, even under the fullest 
 knowledge and firm. >t l.elief of the truth. I said, that of 
 the salvation which Christ died to secure us, pardon of all 
 sin and full acceptance with God are but a part; a deliver- 
 anee from the power of sin is no less fully secured, and no 
 
 distinctly premised. And may not this latter promise be 
 
 an object of dread to one to whom the former is an object 
 
 of •; 1 think this is not handy conceivable; but I am 
 
 liiat. in fact, an apprehension of the fulfilment of this 
 
 ■ of the promise, — under a knowledge of the way in 
 
 ' Rom. x. 3.
 
 II.] THE SOURCE OF FAITH. 37 
 
 which it is to be fulfilled, — often abates effectually the desire 
 that men feel for the blessings held out in the former part ; 
 disposes them, — not to relinquish all hopes of obtaining these 
 blessings, or to renounce their conviction that they are to 
 be obtained but in one way, but — to postpone seeking for 
 them in that way. I am sure, I say, that, even when we 
 tremble at judgment to come, a corrupt dread of righteousness 
 ami temperance often prevails to make us defer to a more 
 convenient season the commencement of the course, which we 
 feel commences with our acceptance of God's free justifica- 
 tion of us in Christ ; and that this is among the most potent 
 of the causes why we will not come to Him that we might 
 have life. 
 
 All who believe or understand the truth must see that 
 it is distinctly declared to us, that to fit those who embrace 
 God's offers of mercy for the blessings which He has prepared 
 for them, it is essential that they be freed from the domi- 
 nion of sin, and conformed to the image of their Redeemer. 
 And they see too that, in God's ordinary dealings, this change 
 of character is effected by a course of discipline, and they 
 learn that upon this course they are entering when they be- 
 come believers in Christ. All know that His word declares, 
 that without taking His yoke and burden upon us, denying 
 ourselves daily, taking up the cross and following Him, re- 
 nouncing the friendship of the world, which is enmity against 
 God ; turning in heart and affection, not from its vanities and 
 vices merely, but, at His call, from its most allowed enjoy- 
 ments; abandoning at His command everything dear to 
 man's natural heart — wealth, and ease, and reputation — love, 
 and friendship, and kindred affections — we cannot be His dis- 
 ciples 5 . They hear in the Bible reiterated warnings that, in 
 coming to Christ, this is the profession in which we are 
 engaging, that we are engaging in a warfare in which we 
 
 5 Mark viii. 34, x. 21 ; Matt. x. 38; Luke xiv. 26, 27, 33, ix. 23.
 
 THE SOURCE OF I'M Til. [Seek. 
 
 Insss as His soldiers*, that God scov/rgeth 
 whom he th 1 , and that ft is «/</// through much 
 
 t r .., thai ■ "i 1 "" the promised bliss 8 , if we 
 
 i follow liim who entered not into His reward, 
 
 i i i here nothing formidable in the pro- 
 
 such a «• I do not ask, Do all men desire 
 
 this kind of happiness : — but, Do they desire any kind of 
 rhich is i" 1"- bestowed in this way? 1 believe 
 that the power, which all confess to be essential to sustain 
 - in such a course, is no less necessary to vanquish our 
 repugnance to entering npon it. 
 
 do I mean that men cease to desire to be recon- 
 cile! to God, from apprehending that this arduous course of 
 to His will is demanded of them, as the price or 
 condition .4' that reconciliation. I do not suppose in the 
 ay such gross misconception of the true nature of the 
 3pel, or any misconception of any kind. On the contrary, 
 i supp se that they fully understand that they are pressed 
 t" I"- reconciled to God now; that they are now offered, 
 upon ili> part, pardon of all their offences, and free accept- 
 in Chrisl as dear children; and that they know, too, 
 thai t') enable them to walk as becomes children, a power 
 is s _ d which can and will support them in this most 
 arduous course. But 1 .-mi sure that, from this message thus 
 understood, fallen man until rally recoils with an aversion 
 just proportioned to the degree in which he understands it. 
 And it' this be the case— if it be that, when this message 
 of mercy is best understood, it is naturally most distasteful — 
 there is plainly an obstacle to trust in the Redeemer which 
 no of knowledge, and no strength of conviction, can 
 
 ot then overcome; which nothing but the power of 
 
 1 Spirit can effectually subdue. 
 
 There is doubtless no part of the mysteries of our faith 
 
 " 2 Tim. ii. 3. • II. 1,. xii. 6. 8 Acts xiv. 22.
 
 11.] THE SOURCE OF FAITH. 39 
 
 upon which it less becomes us, that are but dust and ashes, to 
 dogmatize, than the mode of operation of the Infinite Spirit, 
 who deigns to take upon Him the work of our conversion to 
 God. But I hope there is nothing in these views which 
 makes them fairly liable to the charge of such presumption. 
 We say that we find in Scripture the most express reference 
 of faith to the power of God upon the heart ; but that we 
 find there no assertion that this supernatural agency is in 
 • til cases exercised to produce belief in the testimony of the 
 I 111 ilc which we have proved to be but a part of faith ; and 
 tli.it reason does not show, in the nature of the thing, a 
 necessity for such influence. But we add, that, whether this 
 influence be thus exerted or not, to enable us to appreciate 
 the evidence for revelation, and to understand its meaning, 
 we do see a necessity for influences from above, to fill our 
 hearts with a genuine desire for salvation, and to enable us, 
 in entire self-renunciation, to trust for it unreservedly to the 
 work of the Redeemer, and to it alone. 
 
 If the aim of dwelling upon the difference, in this respect, 
 between the two views of faith which I have been consider- 
 ing were merely to confirm the refutation which I have given 
 of the one that I hold to be erroneous, it might be more 
 easily attained. It would be enough for this purpose to ask, 
 with respect to the desire which the truth is said to pro- 
 duce, When is it produced in the mind ? If it be said to 
 follow that belief in the testimony of the Bible which in this 
 view constitutes faith, then may you be assured that this 
 faith is not the faith of St Paul ; for, according to him, faith 
 is the confident expectation of tilings hoped for 9 . No ex- 
 pectation of an event, therefore, until the event be an object 
 of hope, and therefore, of desire, in his view of the principle, 
 constitutes faith. If it be said that a belief in a part of 
 the truth produces this desire, and that belief in the remain- 
 
 9 Heb. xi. i.
 
 40 THE REPENTANCE WHICH IS [Serm. 
 
 - it, then you must remark that this statement 
 
 ,.,„!. j„ | desire and belief not merely as actually 
 
 !H . r in the Believer's mind, but as necessa- 
 
 9 
 
 ,-ilv existin ther there before he can be styled a Be- 
 
 Uever. and bo far as this coincides with the account of 
 that character which the Apostle gives, it is plainly an aban- 
 donment, for all practical purposes, of the view of the nature 
 oi faith whirh I have been opposing. 
 
 But the controversial bearing of what I have been say- 
 is but incidental to its main design, and of far inferior 
 importance. My chief purpose was to show that what we 
 know of the nature of our own minds furnishes a sufficient 
 reason for what the Bible *o distinctly reveals — for the neces- 
 sity of the influence of the Spirit to effect that change of 
 heart which ends in a joyful and humble acceptance of 
 redemption in the way which God has appointed. And 
 I hope that, for this object, what has been said is enough, 
 it' it be but fairly considered. 
 
 I hop . too, that, at the same time, a sufficient account 
 been given of what that change of heart includes; and 
 that thus materials are supplied for an answer to a ques- 
 tion which i- often asked, though not always, perhaps, with a 
 sincere desire i'or information, namely, How far is repent- 
 sential to faith! For, if l»y repentancebe meant the 
 whole change of mind which a sinner undergoes under the 
 • it i . .it of divine grace, it is only necessary to recal what 
 we have established about the natwre of faith, to be enabled 
 give to this question a sufficient reply; since just so much 
 of that change as is necessary to render faith real, is to be 
 pronounced Btrictly essential to it, and no more. 
 
 Faith in Christ, as we have said, is trust in Him and 
 in Bis work. But that this trust should be genuine, it is 
 plainly accessary that wo should feel truly our need of re- 
 demption, and truly desire it ; a- well as truly believe that 
 Chi I to redeem us. Faith, then, is not the act of
 
 II.] ESSENTIAL TO FAITH. 41 
 
 one careless about the interests of his immortal soul, and 
 therefore consenting easily to confide any where or in any 
 one a charge in which he feels but little concern ; but of 
 one alive to the soul's infinite value, and to the momentous 
 importance of eternity. It is not the act of one at ease 
 about the safety of his soul, with little sense of guilt and 
 little fear of punishment ; but of one who feels himself con- 
 demned by God's righteous law, and, by its sentence, a sin- 
 ner in thought, and word, and deed ; and who feels, too, 
 the certainty of his danger as well as the reality of his 
 guilt ; and who seeks relief from this terror and remorse 
 in none of those refuges of lies by which such salutary alarm 
 is so often mitigated and finally extinguished; but who, feel- 
 ing the nothingness of them all, and renouncing them all, 
 has, under this sense of sin, and danger, and helplessness, 
 come in sincerity to Christ for everything, — for safety and 
 innocence, and strength. When we say that Faith in Christ 
 is trust in Him, this is the trust that we mean, — trust 
 founded upon the Word of God by one who has thus entirely 
 received and believed its testimony concerning sin and the 
 Saviour. A serious impression, therefore, of the importance 
 of eternity and its interests — a real conviction of sin and of 
 its exceeding sinfulness — a heartfelt sense of our own guilt 
 and depravity — a heartfelt sense too, of our helplessness, 
 of our weakness, and our wants — must be felt by all who 
 can be truly said to trust in Christ ; as knowing in whom 
 they trust, and knowing, also, what they are confiding to 
 His care. 
 
 This part of repentance, therefore, is implied in faith 
 rightly understood, and is, strictly speaking, essential to it. 
 
 And this reply to the question, in its more important 
 sense, offers a sufficient answer to it in what is perhaps its 
 more common meaning, in which repentance is used in the 
 more confined signification of sorrow for sin. It is plain 
 that, by all who really apprehend and believe the state to
 
 4 ;i THE REPENTANCE WHICH IS [S ERM - 
 
 which sin has brought them, sorrow for Bin must be felt 
 And, though the pr^ominant feeling is likely to be that 
 
 w which an apprehension of punishment produces, yet 
 
 ne who knows anything of the human mind ran imagine 
 that this is the only sorrow that it feela under such convic- 
 tions. However '1 it is, conscience has survived the 
 
 general degradation of our nature in the fall, and the further 
 depravation of it in each of us, b\ his own iniquity. And 
 thoueh it is too weak to restrain man from yielding to his 
 evil propensities, yel when he does yield to them, it still 
 
 3 it. voice within him, to reproach and to condemn him. 
 And it does this with authority, — making itself felt to be de 
 jure the ruling principle of his nature, even while de facto 
 other principles are exercising dominion over him. No one 
 can be entirely at ease when what he feels to be the highest 
 part of his nature, oven when it is the weakest, thus autho- 
 ritatively testifies against him, as sinful, guilty, blameworthy. 
 Compunction and remorse must, from time to time, more 
 or less, hara-s and disturh his mind. Wherever therefore 
 the convictions of sin which 1 have described as essential 
 to genuine faith exist, there too will be found those pain- 
 ful emotions which the conscience has still a power of pro- 
 ducing. And as they include a measure of sorrow for sin 
 independently of its consequences, such sorrow for sin must 
 
 felt in some measure by all whom the Spirit brings 
 through such com ictions to faith. 
 
 Hut there is ;i sorrow tor sin which is the portion of 
 God's reconciled children, and which cannot be felt by the 
 unreconciled. Sorrow for sin, as rebellion against the right- 
 ful Lord of our hearts, as ingratitude to our gracious Saviour, 
 
 displeasing t" our merciful Father, as shaming the pro- 
 
 ion of the Gospel, and grieving the Spirit of grace — this 
 is manifestly the feeling of those who have received from 
 Him. by faith, the Spirit of adoption, and is to be looked for 
 only in those hearts in which the Iwe of (tod has been sited
 
 11.] ESSENTIAL TO FAITH. 43 
 
 ah road by the power of the Holy Ghost 10 . The graces of 
 filial love, and of that filial fear that is its inseparable com- 
 panion, from which spring a genuine desire to obey, and 
 genuine sorrow at all our failures in obedience, are them- 
 Belves (as will, I trust, hereafter more distinctly appear) 
 wroughj by the Spirit of God mainly through the instrumen- 
 tality of the faith which Be has bestowed, and under that 
 sense of entire reconciliation with God which faith supplies. 
 And bo require the actual possession of these graces as essen- 
 tia! to the genuineness of faith, is to mistake the nature of 
 faith, to misrepresent the order of the Spirit's gifts, and in 
 its direel tendency to overthrow the principles, and to frus- 
 trate the whole design, of the Gospel. 
 
 In what ways the Spirit of God, in bestowing faith, 
 scatters, too, the seeds of all those graces which by faith 
 He afterwards brings to maturity, we cannot without great 
 presumption determine. And any attempt to fix strictly 
 the order in which they appear, the relative rapidity of their 
 advancement, and their relative strength as constituents of 
 the Christian character, is not only a presumptuous limita- 
 tion of the free Spirit by whom they are wrought, but a 
 weak forget fulness of those wide diversities of natural cha- 
 racter and disposition, by which all the effects of religion 
 upon men are so extensively modified. The first operations 
 of the Spirit upon the heart, with which alone I have at 
 present any concern, are of course liable to be considerably 
 affected by such differences in the subjects of His opera- 
 tion. In one mind alarm at the divine threatenings, in 
 another desire of the promises, may strikingly predominate 
 over all the accompanying feelings : in another the leading 
 feature may be remorse ; while another may be penetrated 
 and melted down, by the unmerited love and generous com- 
 panion which the Gospel displays. And in all the state- 
 ments that I have made of the change of mind which is 
 
 10 Kom. v. 5.
 
 PRATER FOR FAITH. . [Serm. 
 
 ntial to faith, I desire to be understood to speak, not 
 only with a full allowance for such variations as these in 
 the work of the Boly Spirit upon man; bu1 also with a 
 rvation for all further variations which, in the perfect 
 lom of His ways, thai Omniscienl Agenl may see lit to 
 introduce. Such reservations being made, however, I think 
 this question has hem truly answered, and thai our know- 
 : the human mind allows us, with great confidence, 
 to say, thai the trust in the Redeemer for which faith stands, 
 1 1 1 . i \ be fell by any ln-art which the Spirit of God has, by 
 the Word of God, brought to a true sense of its lost state 
 before Eim ; and in which the same Spirit has also wrought 
 a real desire of deliverance from the destruction which it 
 dreads. There is in such convictions, and in such desire, 
 plainly a sufficient foundation for genuine trust in the Re- 
 deemer— a reliance upon Him not blind or careless, but 
 intelligenl and cordial ; and wherever such trust is felt, there 
 is genuine faith*. 
 
 When questions of this kind are raised by man's per- 
 se or contentious spirit, it seems necessary to settle them, 
 the preaching of the truth, which takes the Word of 
 God for it- example, will not often have a tendency to engage 
 the mind in such inquiries. The Bible does little to lead 
 a sinner from a contemplation of that work which is the 
 proper foundation of faith, to a scrutiny into the state of 
 his own mind in repenting and believing. It calls upon all 
 t i l.peiit and to believe; and brings to act upon all, forces 
 fitted to move in all remorse and alarm. But it treats our 
 sorrow and fear nol as means of propitiating an offended 
 Deity; but as the course through which sinners are to be 
 broughl to confide in a reconciled God. To all it presents 
 the same grounds of trust, and gives no warrant to any 
 to delay faith, or to disquiel the peace of believing, by the 
 old inquiry, 'Have I repented enough to believe?' And as 
 
 • Note J.
 
 II.] PRAYER FOR FAIT If. 45 
 
 little does it countenance the new one, by which, in the 
 same spirit, the professors of a very opposite Bystem impede 
 or disturb the communion of the soul with God, — ' Do I 
 believe correctly enough to be alloyed to pray?' 
 
 Knowing that the Spirit works in and by means, he who 
 preaches the truth in simplicity wil] employ appointed means, 
 in humble reliance on the secret agency by which they are 
 rendered effectual to the salvation of souls — will seek to 
 abase the sinner's mind by the terrors of the Law, and to 
 raise it again by the mercies of the Gospel. And if there 
 
 any, whose solicitude about their soul is awakened, and 
 who can find no rest — who feel strong convictions, but whose 
 confidence is cold — to them he will net hesitate to say, — 
 Persevere. However imperfectly we can trace it, there is 
 doubtless connected with the mysterious dispensations of 
 God's grace, a constitution as regular as that by which His 
 providence administers the affairs of the natural world. And 
 they who, in the humble use of appointed means, are pre- 
 senting their hearts to the influence of the source of spiritual 
 may trust that that life will spring up within them, 
 and go on to perfection ; as he who casts his seed into the 
 ground, relies on an influence no less unseen and uncon- 
 trollable to bring it to maturity 11 . And above all, remember 
 that the Bible directs us to prayer, as the prevailing in- 
 strument by which these transforming influences are to be 
 brought down from on high ; assuring us that our heavenly 
 Father is ready to give his Holy Spirit to them that ask 
 him 12 . Ask, therefore, and it shall be given you 13 . 
 
 'What !' the class of religionists to whom I have alluded 
 are ready to exclaim, upon every such exhortation as this, 
 'desire a man to pray before he has faith?' No, we do 
 not desire a man to pray before he has faith. The Apostle 
 sufficiently guards us against such an error, if it were possible 
 
 11 Mark iv. 26. 12 Luke vii. 13. 
 
 13 Matt. vii. 7 ; Luke vii. 9.
 
 PRATER FOR FAITH. [Si 
 
 to tall into one which is bo like a contradiction in terms. 
 Be tells us that it is impossible to approach God accept- 
 ably without faith; hut he at the same time declares ex- 
 kind of faith which i- necessary to enable us to 
 draw niffh to Him: ami we should surely beware how we 
 add to the conditions. "Ho that cometh to Him," saith 
 h.-. •■ must believe that 1\<- i-. ami that He is a rewarder of 
 them that diligently Beet Him 14 ." Now. is not prayer to 
 i „1_, I ,1,, i„,t m. an a repetition of a form of words, but 
 real prayer) — the proper expression of this kind of faith, 
 presupposing it and prerequiring it? And i^ not a mean, 
 who i-> convinced upon the evidence of the Bible that faith 
 
 < IHBIST i^ the gift of God, and that He is ready to bestow 
 it upon all who ask it, in a condition to offer this prayer, 
 which is of faith and for faith.* 
 
 Doubtless lie is. And of all the errors of this religion of 
 the intellect — ami they are many — the inter] losing of bar- 
 riers between God and a soul, which, wrung with remorse, or 
 
 bened by affliction, or shaken by terror, is about to cast 
 
 itself upon Him for pardon, and strength, and succour, seems 
 
 the worst. — the nio-t presumptuous, and the most pernicious. 
 
 But prayer i- too extensive a subject to be entered upon 
 
 incidentally, and too important not to make me anxious to 
 
 return To it. Meanwhile, I have no apprehensions — none at 
 
 all — that I am misleading yon. my brethren, when I say, — 
 
 If any of you be convinced, by GodV Word, that you are 
 
 lo~r sinners, ami that it is only by faith in Christ that you 
 
 can bo saved; and if you feel that your faith in Him falls 
 
 far short of that entire trust in Him which He deserves and 
 
 demands; and if you believe, on the same evidence, that 
 
 faith is the ejft of God, and that God is a hearer of prayer ; 
 
 — thrust from yon the frigid system, — as shallow 7 and false as 
 
 it i- cold,— which would bar your access to the throne of 
 
 and stifle the cry of spiritual distress from rising to 
 
 14 Heb. xi. 6. " Note K.
 
 IT.] PRATER FOR FAITH. 4 7 
 
 Him before whom it never rose in vain. In the self-ab 
 ment of conscious guilt, — in the self-renunciation of conscious 
 helplessness, — with the fervour of heartfelt poverty, and 
 nakedness, and blindness, and misery, implore Him who 
 
 th to all liberal!'/, and upbraideih not, that He would help 
 your unbelief, and increase your faith, and it shall be unto 
 you, even as yon will. 
 
 I have been led away from the subject which I proposed 
 — the effects of faith — too far to return to it now; but I 
 hope t i be able to pursue it when I have next an oppor- 
 tunitv of addressing you.

 
 SERMON III. 
 
 ON THE NATURE AND THE GROUNDS OF 
 JUSTIFICATION
 
 Justificare ergo nihil aliud est, quam eum qui reus agebatur, tanquam ap- 
 probata innocentia a reatu absolvere. Quum itaque nos Christi intercessione 
 justifh-et Deus, non propria? innocentiae approbatione, sed justitiae imputatione 
 nos absolvit : ut pro justis in Christo censeamur, qui in nobis non sumus. 
 
 Calvin. Inst. lib. in, cap. u, § 3. 
 
 In pig i Bcn tiarnm vero breviter dico, credere m peccatora sola Christi oUili- 
 
 justos constitui: it gvod justitia Christi, sola meritoria causa sit, propter 
 
 quam Ihu.< eredentibia peccatitm condonet, eosque fro justis reputat; non aliter 
 
 perfeeU implevissent. Quoniam vero Deus justitiam Christi nemini 
 
 fidelibus, statuo hoc sensu bene et proprie clici, fidem homini cre- 
 
 denti, in justitiam, ex {/rati a imputari: ijuatcnus Deus Ji fin Christum Filium 
 
 suum proposuit tribunal gratia- si > propitiationem per fidem in sanguiru ipsius. 
 
 Sed quidquid hie sit, mea sententia non usque adeo discrepat a sentcntia Calvini, 
 
 quem tamen nemo nostrum reprehendit atque male in hac re sentientem, quin 
 
 paratus estem manus mea subnolatione svbscribere ill is, quee in tertio libra I 
 
 tulionum suarum de hac re dicit, Usque calcuhun meum adjicere. 
 
 Akmlnios. Declaratio Sentential sua, dc.
 
 SERMON III. 
 
 Acts xin. 38, 39. 
 
 Be it "known unto you, therefore, men and brethren., that through this man is 
 preached unto you forgiveness of sins; and by Him all that believe are 
 justified from all things from which ye coxdd not be justified by the laio of 
 
 Moses. 
 
 Every one must, I suppose, have noticed how strong and 
 how widely spread the impression is, that we ought to 
 ascribe to the leading terms of Scripture some sense different 
 from that which they bear in other writings, or in common 
 discourse. And if it were important, it would not be veiy 
 difficult to assign some, at least, of the causes which may 
 have given currency to this strange impression. It leaves 
 almost indefinite room for evasion in argument, which an- 
 swers the purposes of some who entertain it. It favours 
 vague notions in matters of religion, which to most minds 
 are far more comfortable than more exact ones. And it in- 
 dulges that passion for the mysterious in theology, which, in 
 some degree or other, is, I believe, natural to us all. 
 
 It might be possible, perhaps, to add to these reasons 
 for its easy reception; but we are much more interested in 
 its truth than in its origin. Upon that, however, I can at 
 present only stop to say, that, whatever foundation such a 
 view may have in general — and I cannot help thinking that 
 it has in all cases much less than is usually supposed — it 
 
 4—2
 
 NATURB AND EXTENT [Sekm. 
 
 . 
 
 manifestly can have none at all. where these terms stand for 
 state* of the human mind All the processes of man's intel- 
 • and all the varieties of his affections, are manifestly 
 the same in kind, whether they be employed about things 
 temporal or things eternal— about this world or the next 
 Whether we reason, and judge, and believe, concerning law, 
 or politics, or religion, no one can, I suppose, doubt that we 
 • u. and judge, and believe, in the same way. And, 
 surely, just as little -round is there for questioning that, 
 whether our hopes and fears, our desires and aversions, be 
 excited by the passing shadows of the present scene, or by 
 the permanent realities of the invisible world, they are essen- 
 tially the same emotions. They differ wdien exercised about 
 objects of those widely different spheres, it is true; but only 
 as they differ when employed about different objects of the 
 one which surrounds us, and acts upon our senses. — They 
 differ, that is, in duration and in intensity, — in the facility and 
 certainty with which they answer the calls fitted to draw 
 them forth, — in the degree in which they enter into man's 
 character, — in the extent to which they regulate his con- 
 duct: in these and such like ways they differ, but in no 
 other. They are essentially the same affections, whether 
 they be lavished, as they so often are, upon some of the 
 transitory objects which engross and debase them; or find a 
 worthy exercise in what tasks and baffles the faculties of 
 I — in God and in His law, — in the mysteries of redemp- 
 tion, — in the bounties of grace, — in heaven and in hell, — in 
 judgment, and eternity! 
 
 The truth of this is, I presume, too evident to make 
 any confirmation of it necessary. It might rather appear, 
 perhaps, that Borne excuse was required, for putting forward 
 a principle bo obvious, in so detailed a form. For you, how- 
 ever, my brethren, this, too, would be superfluous. The 
 class of truths, of any value, of which men do not require 
 sometimes to lie reminded is a very scanty one; and you
 
 III.] OF JUSTIFICATION. 53 
 
 cannot think that this is among them, when you recollect 
 that we have been engaged in combating some errors con- 
 cerning one important Scripture term, which could not 
 easily have existed, if this principle were not sometimes 
 either disbelieved or forgotten. 
 
 You will, however, also, I hope, remember that, neither 
 in the refutation of these errors, nor in the investigation 
 of the true meaning of the term, was any assistance bor- 
 row nl from this principle, indisputable as it is; but that 
 it was ascertained, by direct examination of the Bible, that 
 the sense in which faith (the term with which we had to 
 do) is used there is, in no respect, different from that which 
 it bears in the ordinary use of common language with re- 
 ference to the affairs of this life. So that they who know 
 what is me.ant by faith in a promise know what is meant 
 by faith in the Gospel; — they who know what is meant by 
 faith in a remedy know what is meant by faith in the blood 
 of the Redeemer ; — they who know what is meant by faith 
 in a physician, faith in an advocate, faith in a friend know, 
 too, what the Scriptures mean to express when they speak 
 of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Where this is held, and remembered, the sense of this 
 important phrase is fixed, with all the exactness that is prac- 
 ticable or desirable. No one who bore it in mind could 
 easily, for example, be led into the gross error of those who 
 regard fulfil in the Redeemer as standing for that combina- 
 tion of spiritual graces and active virtues which forms the 
 Christian character. Nor would he readily be beguiled even 
 into the opposite mistake of those who understand by it 
 simply a belief in the truth of the statements — whether 
 historical or doctrinal — which the Holy Scriptures contain 
 concerning our blessed Lord. For though the error in doc- 
 trine which this interpretation involves is more covert than 
 that which is embodied in the other, yet the interpretation 
 itself is no less widely at variance with the common mean-
 
 NATURE AND EXTE& /' [Seek. 
 
 of the word. Such a misuse of common Language, in- 
 
 i. as it ascribes to the Sacred Writers would hardly be 
 committed by any one in relation to matters of common life; 
 and if it were fallen into accidentally by a speaker, it would 
 
 at once fell and detected by all who heard him. 
 
 It' a man. for example, expresses his faith in a physician, 
 or a lawyer, or a statesman, or a general of his own country 
 and his own times, uo one is surprised at what he says, or 
 feels any difficulty as to what he means. But who is there 
 who would not be startled, if we professed our faith in a 
 physician, or a lawyer, or a statesman, or a general of ancient 
 Greece or Rome? And what is the difference between tin- 
 two cases, which makes the profession in the one, natural 
 and intelligible, and in the other, harsh and improper? The 
 evidence tor the skill, or the probity, or whatever be the 
 appropriate merit or good quality of the individual, may be 
 just as unimpeachable in the case of the ancient as in that of 
 the modern; and our belief of all to which the evidence 
 testifies may he equally firm in both cases. If, therefore, 
 tin- common phrase conveyed nothing- more than such belief, 
 it might he used in one case just as properly as in the 
 other. And the true reason why it cannot be so used is, that 
 it is universally felt that the word does convey something 
 more, —that, besides a state of belief concerning the indi- 
 vidual of whom it is used, it expresses a state of feeling 
 towards him This state of feeling is trust. Now any of 
 our contemporaries, otheial or professional, may he an object 
 of this feeling. And if we professed to have faith in any of 
 
 them, it would be presi -d thai we were really trusting in 
 
 him, -that, in regard to our persona] interests or to other 
 interests, public or private, which we regard as our own, we 
 trusting in \am.,—-rdyvng upon him, — for the benefit 
 which it belongs to his office or profession, to bestow or pro- 
 Bui it is plainly impossible that we can so trust in one 
 who ha- passed out of life, and can exercise no influence
 
 III.] OF JUSTIFICATION. 55 
 
 upon its concerns ; and therefore it would be felt universally, 
 that in speaking of faith in such a one, we were using a false 
 and vicious mode of expressing the state of our mind to- 
 wards him. This sense of the impropriety of the phrase 
 would arise in every mind ; not merely in the minds of those 
 who can see clearly and explain clearly where the impro- 
 priety lies, but in the minds of many who might find it hard 
 to render any satisfactory account of it. But the correctness 
 with which such persons use the phrase themselves, and 
 their instinctive detection of any departure from the proper 
 use of it, show how widely diffused and how firmly fixed is 
 the true impression, namely, that a profession of faith in any 
 object, whether person or thing, is equivalent to a decla- 
 ration of trust in the object, as the source of some good 
 which we desire, or as the instrument in procuring it. 
 
 What is true, and universally felt to be true, of such 
 language, when applied to common life and its concerns, we 
 found, as I said, on examination of the Bible, to hold true 
 also in religion. And it is its connexion with the conscience 
 and the heart, which belongs to this element of the prin- 
 ciple, that constitutes, as we saw reason to believe, the proper 
 necessity of the operation of the Spirit of God to produce 
 in us faith in Christ. We did not presume absolutely to 
 affirm or to deny the actual exercise of this mysterious 
 agency, in aiding the intellectual part of the process ; but we 
 were able to see that in effecting the remaining part, that 
 agency was essential. To feel the reality of the danger and 
 of the guilt of sin, — the certainty and the justice of God's 
 condemnation of it, — without which redemption may indeed 
 be sought in words, but can hardly be sought in sincerity 
 and truth, — certainly cannot be sought as a deliverance from 
 a righteous as well as a sure sentence, and therefore cannot 
 be sought as God has willed and commanded that it should 
 be sought ; — to submit the heart to God's humbling plan for 
 forgiving and for restoring us — to abjure all trust in our-
 
 our purity of conduct, 
 
 it) of purpose, in our 
 
 wholly iu the Saviour, in 
 
 for sinners— and in Him 
 
 ttural alienatiorj from God 
 
 pushed, and tobeenabled, 
 
 wander* d from Hun, to 
 
 bumbl ■ frmg ,,,lt repentant 
 
 : !1 this is too hard for flesh 
 
 lg of the constitution of 
 
 ofirmfl the testimony of the Bible upon the 
 
 i BEIST, i" which all this is essential, 
 
 l L*. 
 
 • ] that it M-i-ins to represent as essential 
 
 principle only in its bigheet stage of ad- 
 
 ;..-. But I am much more an- 
 
 r application of such an objection, supposing it to 
 
 that there is no foundation for it. It can- 
 
 rinciple enumerated above, as 
 
 which might be, and therefore ought to be, left out. 
 
 application of the objection, because the 
 
 a from the very first. The 
 
 ,vth and corroboration of the elements of which 
 
 addition to their Dumber. The number therefore 
 
 of its advancement. And moreover, as 
 
 !•■ developed and strengthened, con- 
 
 une, the objection cannot apply to 
 
 of any of them. The only way in 
 
 ch an objection is, that the individual 
 
 of in language which is rather ap- 
 
 ■ ■ d than to the earlier stages of the 
 
 to th( impression that, in those earlier 
 
 ruly as in its highest stage. I 
 
 ther what ] aaj is naturally calculated to 
 
 Bu< I am quit< sure that there is enough in the 
 
 r that in whatever degree it does so, it mis- 
 
 ind Sermon, quite enough is said 
 
 that faith mi. lit be very weak, without being 
 
 Ai,.l it is no! unlikely that the conscious- 
 
 ;. just before, may have rendered me less 
 
 • the language in the passage than 1 
 
 If bo distinctly, and
 
 III.] OF JUSTIFICATION. 57 
 
 Having seen so much of the nature of faith, and of its 
 source, we are now to inquire, my brethren, into what alone 
 gives to either all that it has beyond speculative interest for 
 us, — into its effects. And these divide themselves so easily 
 into effects upon the sinner's state before God, and effects 
 a /inn his character; and there is such an obvious conve- 
 nience in employing so simple and natural a division of the 
 subject, that, in all that I shall say to you upon it, I will 
 endeavour to keep these two heads distinct. 
 
 As to the first, then, — the effect of faith upon our state 
 before God — the Bible is upon it so clear and copious that 
 I do not think it too much to say, that a plain man, who had 
 read no other book on the subject, would find it hard to 
 conceive how any difficulty about it could have ever arisen. 
 It is there very expressly, and in a great variety of forms, 
 asserted that, in the matter of justification before God, faith 
 is, by His gracious appointment, counted for righteousness ; — 
 — that it is by faith that we are restored to that state of 
 favour and acceptance with Him, in which the perfect 
 righteousness of His law would have sustained us, had we 
 been able to have attained to that righteousness, and to 
 have preserved it. 
 
 This fundamental doctrine of the gospel of Christ — the 
 doctrine of JUSTIFICATION by FAITH only — the undoubted 
 doctrine of our Church, and of all pure Reformed Churches, 
 — I have been anxious to state thus, — as simply and as 
 unequivocally as I am able to state it : mainly, I hope, 
 because I regard it as of vital importance to true religion ; 
 but certainly, in some degree also, I acknowledge, because 
 vague apprehensions of its tendency have often led to a 
 reluctance to state it in distinct terms, and that in this 
 reluctance I should be most sorry to be understood to share. 
 I do not share, in any degree, in the apprehensions that give 
 
 so recently, upon the point in question. See also what is said in the addition 
 to Note B, on the word Treiroldrjais.
 
 NATURE AND EXTENT [Smut 
 
 1 trust, I shall be able to satisfy you that 
 
 ipon , nceptions of the 
 
 oi \.rv hasty inferences from 
 
 therwise, — if my own reason suggested 
 
 , a . strongly, 1 certainly should not 
 
 led any warrant or excuse for holding 
 
 r qua! any doctrine bo distinctly and so pro- 
 
 G -\ - word. 
 
 \ • n, however, for enlarging on this question, 
 
 when the truth of the doctrine shall have been 
 
 I And to the proofs by which it may, I think, be 
 
 stablished, 1 should at once proceed to direct 
 
 Mention, but that, for understanding its full import, it 
 
 will orient to fix first the true sense of the im- 
 
 rin JTUSTIFN ATI"N. 
 
 ait, for the pr< sent, any notice of the different senses 
 
 i to th rd, by those who have set themselves to 
 
 r the doctrine with which it is connected. Some of 
 
 I shall have occasion to advert to as I proceed ; 
 
 and all as in the case of the important term ftiitli) will 
 
 rthrown by establishing the true meaning of the 
 
 Negl cting then, as in that case, the kindred and 
 
 which, in common with every important word 
 
 j language, it has, to justify will, I think, be found to 
 
 and usual meaning, to declare judicially the 
 
 ■ n just 
 
 I hi' .in to support this sense hy any arguments 
 
 Eowever useful etymology may be in 
 
 meaning of words, it rarely affords much 
 
 rmining their exact force; and scarcely ever 
 
 any, where the question lies between kindred senses. 
 
 • •. it might be fitted to give in the present 
 
 uo place to avail ourselves of. But the best and 
 
 the final mode of establishing the meaning of a 
 
 " Not I.
 
 III.] OF JUSTIFICATION. 59 
 
 word lies open to us even here. And a brief consideration 
 
 of the use of the word in question in the sacred writings 
 will, I hope, leave no reasonable ground for doubting that its 
 meaning has been correctly stated. I must premise, how- 
 ever, that in looking for texts for this purpose we must have 
 recourse to the Old rather than to the New Testament. The 
 texts in the latter in which the word in question occurs 
 are, for the most part, connected with controverted doctrine ; 
 and are, in fact, the very texts for the interpretation of 
 which, we want to have the sense of the word determined. 
 They cannot, therefore, be used for our immediate purpose. 
 But in the Old Testament there are numerous texts against 
 which no such objection lies ; — texts wholly unconnected 
 with doctrine, the interpretation of which is therefore open 
 to no objection on controversial grounds ; and which, more- 
 over, are so framed as to make the sense in which this word 
 is used in them perfectly clear. I shall proceed to give some 
 examples of the texts to which I refer. 
 
 Thus, in warning against sin, God declares of Himself 
 that "He will not justify the wicked 1 ;" which is explained, 
 if it need explanation, by the corresponding declaration, that 
 He "will by no means clear the guilty 2 ." He commands the 
 judges of His people, who were to decide between litigants, 
 to justify the righteous and to condemn the wicked 3 . He 
 expresses abhorrence alike of those who "justify the wicked" 
 and of those who " condemn the just 4 ." And in other places 
 in which His Word testifies against such unrighteous judg- 
 ments, periphrases occur for the word in question which can 
 leave no shadow of doubt as to its meaning. "It is not 
 good to accept the person of the wicked, to overthrow the 
 righteous in judgment 6 " "He that saith unto the wicked, 
 Thou art righteous, him shall the people curse ; nations shall 
 abhor him 6 ." And, "Woe unto them which justify the 
 
 1 Ex. xxiii. 7. 2 Ex. xxxiv. 7. 3 Deut. xxv. 1. 
 
 4 Prow xvii. 15. 5 Prov. xviii. 5. 6 Prov. xxiv. 24.
 
 NATURE AND EXTENT |S £KM - 
 
 td, and take away the righteousness of the 
 
 :u him 'How," it is elsewhere asked, "can 
 
 with GodT and the exegetical clause is 
 
 r d he be clean [Le. with Ghd] that is born 
 
 E\ i\ day you hear an unequivocal use of 
 
 rd in the Bame a use, in that humble petition of the 
 
 which • well the frame of mind that 
 
 ! drawing near to God, and which forms, 
 
 Buitable an introduction to our daily prayer, 
 
 ■ with tli\ servant, O Lord ! for in thy 
 
 ball ii" man living be justified'-*." And, finally, the 
 
 ' n osic sense appears with etuial distinctness in that 
 
 ■as,'!- in the suhlime supplication of Solomon, "Hear 
 
 in heaven, and do, and judge thy servants, con- 
 
 ■i the wicked, to bring his way upon his head, and 
 
 the righteous, t.i give him according to his 
 
 • 
 
 I bould hope that tin- ion-going texts must be felt to be 
 
 mdantly Bufficienl to show that the sense in which the 
 
 used in the Old Testament agrees with the definition 
 
 which I haw given of it. 1 have already explained why the 
 
 '"'"' cannot be made to furnish any considerable 
 
 to them. It contains some, however, which do not 
 
 disputed doctrine, and winch may, therefore, be 
 
 in the same way. The text, " By thy words thou shalt 
 
 and by thy words thou shalt be condemned" ;' 
 
 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's 
 
 God that justified 'V (or, " Is it God that justi- 
 
 '" be char examples of this kind. Other 
 
 lually unexceptionable might perhaps be found, but 
 
 ' aumerous. When onee the true doctrine of 
 
 Wished, indeed, copious confirmations of 
 
 - "' foe definition of the word may be drawn 
 
 r. 4. > Ps. cxliii. *. 
 
 " -Matt. xii. 37 . » Rom. viii. 33.
 
 III.] OF JUSTIFICATION. HI 
 
 from the New Testament ; but the proofs of its correctness 
 beforehand must be derived almost entirely from the Old 
 Testament. Nor need we regard that which is the main 
 point — that is, the sense in which the word is used in the 
 New Testament — as, therefore, insufficiently or unsatisfac- 
 torily proved. For, not only is there no ground for sup- 
 posing that it has different senses in the two great divisions 
 of the Bible, but we have direct evidence that such is not 
 the case ; for important texts in the Old Testament in which 
 the word occurs are referred to in the New Testament in 
 such a way as to show very clearly that it is used in the 
 same sense in both 13 . 
 
 I shall be content, therefore, with the texts which I have 
 quoted from the earlier portion of the Sacred Volume. You 
 will find no difficulty in adding to them. But they seem to 
 be sufficiently numerous ; and they are, I think, sufficiently 
 clear. Whether you derive the meaning of the word from 
 the clauses in which it stands, taken in their natural sense, 
 or in the sense assigned to them by the clauses with which 
 they are contrasted, or by the clauses by which they are 
 explained, you will be led to the same result ; and cannot, I 
 think, reasonably doubt that it was used — and in the most 
 unforced and familiar manner too — to express, as I before 
 said, a judicial act by which the innocence of the person justi- 
 fied is established or declared*. 
 
 And the proper sense of the word being once established, 
 its derived meanings, — when it is used so as to include some 
 of the consequences of such a declaration ; or when it is 
 employed to express a mental decision by a judge ; or a 
 similar decision by one who is not a judge ; or in such 
 phrases as a man justifying himself; his works, or anything 
 else, justifying him (in the sense of pleading, or proving, or 
 
 13 See references in Rom. iv., and James ii. ; to Gen. xv. 7; also in Rom. 
 i. 17; Gal. iii. 11 ; Heb. x. 38; to Hab. ii. 6. 
 * Note M.
 
 NATURE AND EXTENT [Seril 
 
 blishing, or constituting his innocence, so as to cause or 
 in. rit auch a declaration of it);— these or any such, like de- 
 rived meanings, 1 say, can hardly create any difficulty that 
 requires distinct explanation. 
 
 It is evident, then, thai in the Justification with which 
 
 bo do in which man is the party and God the 
 
 judge — we have only to Look to the law to which man is 
 
 - 
 
 amenable, to Bee what his Justification means — what this 
 iration of his innocence by his all-seeing Judge includes. 
 And finding that that law contains clear precepts, to which 
 exact obedience is required, no less than strict prohibitions 
 enforced with equal rigour; finding that any failure in per- 
 forming every part of all that it enjoins to be performed as 
 effectually overthrows innocence, as the open commission of 
 all that it toil. ids to be done"; we seem warranted and 
 obliged to conclude, that the sinner's justification compre- 
 hends, not only his acquittal from having violated the divine 
 
 but his acceptance also, as though he had perfectly ful- 
 filled it. 
 
 The various devices that have been resorted to, to evade 
 the force of this fair inference, would be well worth a de- 
 tailed consideration, on various grounds; but I can only 
 afford now to advert to some of them, and very cursorily. 
 
 I presume, however, that it cannot be necessary to dwell 
 long upon the one which it is natural first to notice — the 
 ; those who deny thai justification (in those places 
 where we are most concerned in determining its significa- 
 tion means a judicial act at all, — asserting that justifying a 
 sinner is not declaring him to be righteous, but making hvm 
 
 I do not advert here to the Romish view of the nature 
 of justification, but to a kindred error which boasts the sup- 
 
 of an eminent Protestant oame*. Among Protestants, 
 
 r, it OUght hardly to be inrr-;irv to set about a 
 
 xx\ii. id, xxviii. i 4 Beqq. ; Gal. iii. 10: James ii. 10. 
 1 o:"i i' I., towards the end.
 
 III.] OF JUSTIFICATION. 63 
 
 formal confutation of a view which confounds the justifi- 
 cation of sinners with their sanctification. When even so 
 flagrant a misrepresentation as this of God's plan for the 
 redemption and restoration of fallen man obtains currency 
 among those from whom the Holy Scriptures are withheld, 
 one cannot be surprised. But that it should be received by 
 any who have free access to the Bible is as wonderful as it is 
 painful. I trust that this great error finds no place in the 
 congregation which I now address. But if, unhappily, it 
 should be otherwise, and that any among you have been 
 beguiled into the adoption of it, I hope they will find a 
 decisive refutation of it in the development of the divine 
 plan of Redemption to which the progress of our course is 
 soon to lead us. It will be seen, not only that justification 
 and sanctification are distinct, and that the latter follows the 
 former, as a matter of fact, but that this must be so by the 
 connexion which the wisdom of God has established between 
 them : that He has made the sinner's justification to such an 
 extent the source of his sanctification, that the order by 
 which the former process precedes is not accidental or ar- 
 bitrary, but necessary and immutable. I will not, however, 
 anticipate this proof any farther, but will proceed to glance 
 at some other attempts which have been made to tamper 
 with the meaning of this important word. 
 
 Many who feel the impossibility of denying that justifica- 
 tion is an act of God, not as our Sanctifier but as our 
 Judge, hold still that it ought to be applied to that final act 
 of judgment, by which all Believers in Christ, who have been 
 sanctified by the Spirit of God, and have kept a course of 
 consistent obedience to the end, are at the last, for Christ's 
 sake, accepted by the righteous Judge of all, and received 
 into the kingdom prepared for the Lord's true followers. 
 
 Now you will remark that the question is not, Whether 
 justification might be used to express this act; or even, 
 Whether it is ever actually employed in Scripture to express
 
 NATURE AND EXTENT [Skr* 
 
 ■ vV ther tlii- is its signification in the great majority 
 
 . which it re; and these, too, the very pas- 
 
 ulv pa with which the argument is 
 
 \:.i ] hope n cannol be necessary to spend 
 
 \..u thai it is ii' <t . Thai Christians are 
 
 - ripture as actually justified, whatever justi- 
 
 .,1 in actual enjoyment of its fruits, what- 
 
 be known to every reader of the Bible. 
 
 • justified... .we shall be saved from wrath, 
 
 through him — Being justified, we have peace with God 16 " 
 
 — • y washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are 
 
 which are among the iirst passage* that must 
 
 . mind, of themselves ought to leave no <kml>t 
 
 • 
 
 rdingly, there arc a Large class of persons who 
 the whole testimony of the Bible upon this 
 
 • who yel bo far receive it as to reject both the former 
 
 _ the nature of justification, and this i. 
 ned one, aboul the period a1 which it takes place. 
 r. make a last struggle to retain for man a 
 work of his own redemption, which God's plan 
 How him, maintaining that justification is pardon 
 u. and ii" more; and thai a man is not accepted 
 mil he becomes 
 Thi be found stated variously, and supported va- 
 
 in the writings of many divines, who, whatever may 
 their claims to attention on other subjects, exhibit 
 misconceptions concerning the Gospel as must 
 
 • • their authority of all weighl upon a point which is so 
 
 p with righl views of thai gracious scheme. And 
 
 ■ for this restriction of the meaning of jusUfi- 
 
 ' of little mere than statements of such erro- 
 
 iboul the principles of the Gospel as are irre- 
 
 ible with the true * use of the term. 
 
 "' v. r. i7 , Cor. vi. i i.
 
 III.] OF JUSTIFICATION. 65 
 
 To these erroneous views, I must hereafter call your at- 
 tention; and in overthrowing them, which I hope to be able 
 bo do, the chief support, as I said, in the way of argument 
 for this limited notion of justification, will be taken away. 
 But as I believe that some loose and ill-considered analogies 
 ret 'on i mend this notion to many who embrace it, and as the 
 same analogies lead often to inaccurate language, at least, 
 in some of those who oppose it, I think I may be doing- 
 some service in directing your attention, before I pass from 
 the subject, to the consideration of this fruitful source of 
 error upon it. 
 
 First, then, let me remind you, that when we describe 
 the sinner's justification as including, not only his acquittal 
 from the charge of having violated the divine law, but his 
 acceptance also as though he had fulfilled it; we are not to 
 be understood to intimate that, with respect to that law, 
 these are distinct acts, one of which is performed in any 
 case without the other: but, on the contrary, to maintain, 
 that, however distinct they are in conception, and however 
 they are actually separated in the case of other laws, the 
 nature of the Divine Law requires their union: that it pro- 
 vides for no distinct courses, by one of which a man may 
 escape its punishments, and by the other, earn its rewards; 
 and recognizes no intermediate state between the guilt of 
 violating it and the merit of obeying it: that a failure in 
 active obedience to any of its commands is sin, no less than 
 positive disobedience of any of its prohibitions; and that, 
 therefore, innocence with respect to the Divine Law requires 
 a performance of all that it enjoins, no less than an avoid- 
 ance of all that it forbids. So that, when we are charged 
 with making distinctions which the Bible nowhere makes, 
 we are actually engaged in an endeavour to prevent such 
 distinctions from being made: by showing that, for such dis- 
 tinctions, there is really no place in the Bible. We are 
 guarding against or combating errors that spring naturally 
 
 5
 
 
 NATURE AND EXTENT [Seem. 
 
 ilianty with prohibitory codes; under which, 
 
 m forbidden acta constitutes innocence, and 
 
 inishmenl is the proper result of innocence. 
 
 bown that justification is a declaration ofinno- 
 
 I to a law, we are merely explaining whal 
 
 must include, and whal it must secure, in a law 
 
 [lowed to be both prohibitory and manda- 
 
 ...1 w hich doea nol denounce punishment only, but 
 
 i rewards. 
 
 :„• do DOt merely limit unwarrantably tin- extent 
 
 . by this false analogy with human law; but 
 
 ,11 analogy with human tribunals, they persuade them- 
 
 thai there is a difficulty connected with the acceptance 
 
 sinner as righteous, which does not belong to the pardon 
 
 And here I think they commit a mistake 
 
 true state of the case to which they refer, and I 
 
 am sure they are wrong in supposing that any ground for the 
 
 »n exists. 
 
 seems to be this: — we are so accustomed to see 
 
 the punishmenl of offenders lightened in every degree, down 
 
 the virtual remission of it, by those who, as judges, are 
 
 charged with the administration of the law, that we are, not 
 
 unnaturally, led to think that the power of thus modifying 
 
 the punishmenl of the condemned, is nearly, if not alto- 
 
 much a part of the judicial office as ascertaining 
 
 It or innocence of the accused. Whereas it appears 
 
 be, properly, uo part of thai office; or, if it should be 
 
 thought that it is ami 1 lia\c oo intent ion of doing anything 
 
 moving a question upon that subject here), it is 
 
 lunds which are manifestly wholly inapplicable to 
 
 judicial proceedings of God For you must see, that, if 
 
 human legislators could anticipate all modes and circum- 
 
 ' crimi and comprehend all varieties of it under 
 
 riptions, there would be no reason for allowing the 
 
 offii i to exceed what at all times appears to
 
 JIL] OF JUSTIFICATION. 67 
 
 form his proper business, — that is, ascertaining the guilt or 
 innocence of the accused according to law, and pronouncing its 
 sentence. But men can exercise no such forecast; and, even 
 if they could, it would be impossible to devise descriptions 
 which would exactly designate the multiplied varieties of 
 actions to which it would be necessary that they should 
 extend. The most imperfect notion of the proper end of 
 human law is enough to show that the character of human 
 actions, as they are its objects, is so materially altered by 
 circumstances, that punishing with the same degree of se- 
 verity two actions comprehended under the same descrip- 
 tions, — even where legal descriptions are best and most 
 exact, — might be attended with the most opposite effects. 
 Hence arises an obvious necessity, in every country governed 
 by law, of reserving to the chief executive authority a power 
 of mitigating the rigour of legal enactments; and a por- 
 tion of this power is often, for convenience' sake, given to 
 those who represent the executive in the judicial office. It 
 does not, as I said, appear to belong to that office pro- 
 perly, or indeed to the executive either, but to the legis- 
 lative. But that is a point of minor consequence ; and, 
 whatever be settled with respect to it, it must be allowed, 
 for it is most manifest, that it is exercised by the judicial 
 office among men, upon grounds which can find no place at 
 all in the proceedings of the Deity. For what is establish- 
 ing an analogy here, but representing God as discovering, 
 when He comes to apply His law to individual cases, — that 
 its provisions are not suited to man's frailty, and require 
 relaxation, — that its sanctions are too severe to be enforced, 
 and require mitigation? 
 
 ' But God is legislator as well as judge.' Doubtless He 
 is, and it is that very fact that renders the analogy so utterly 
 baseless. For we have seen that the exercise of such power 
 as it is supposed so easy for God to exercise as judge — 
 
 5—2
 
 
 NATURE AND EXTENT [Serm. 
 
 • springs from, wanl of perfect forecast in 
 
 ! imperfection in his law. 
 
 thai thi - error Bometimes assumes a 
 
 iutation cannol in terms be applied 
 
 peak, and Borne, who would hardly 
 
 such thoughts distinctly, allow them- 
 
 ;,.. i, ared, to think, as if the Deity denounced 
 
 itiea which he uever designed to execute, 
 
 of perfection which He never meant 
 
 and thai so He stimulates to exertion and deters 
 
 rime by a device often employed among men to pro- 
 
 - , ffect. This certainly does not charge the 
 
 of the Divine Law with want of foresight, and I 
 
 I giving utterance to the charge that it seems 
 
 oat Him. The impiety or indecency of such 
 
 iay be explained away; and I have no intention 
 
 ther, in design, to those who use it. But see, 
 
 independently of all objections of that kind, how the scheme 
 
 the score of coherency. 
 
 It cannol be meant — I suppose it cannot be meant — that 
 
 I mywhere distinctly said, that this is the true pur- 
 
 ; of the rigid requirements and the awful sanctions of 
 
 II - holy law. \ •• to -peak of the total want of support for 
 such an assertion, it would not be easy to see how His threats 
 and command plained, were to produce the effect that 
 
 aid i" be designed to produce. And if He has 
 
 -aid, but the knowledge thai it is so is to be collected 
 
 fr-.m principles laid down in His Word; or upon general 
 
 ming and from the nature of the thing; or 
 
 in what a\ it i- to be attained by those who think they 
 
 the absurdity at all lessened? — Does it not 
 
 ither ii I, when (!od is thus represented as con- 
 
 I His purpose, and as designing to do so, 
 
 framing this important design that it is pene-
 
 III.] OF JUSTIFICATION. GO 
 
 t rated and baffled by the very beings upon whom it was 
 intended that it should operate ? 
 
 I do not know whether loose and in'everent talk of this 
 kind, upon such a subject, deserves any reply ; but I am sure 
 that time would be miserably misspent in giving it a more 
 detailed one. You, my brethren, are, I trust, but little 
 likely to be affected by such crude and presumptuous schemes. 
 You feel, 1 trust, the awful and certain truth, which we 
 are all so concerned to feel, that when God established His 
 righteous law, not the whole course of human conduct only, 
 but all the springs of human action, lay open to His view : 
 that the frailty of our nature, the snares of temptation, the 
 tyranny of passion, the corrupting force of evil education, the 
 seductions of evil example — all those palliations of crime 
 which our perverted reason urges to tranquillize our imvard 
 monitor — all stood before His sight ; and that, with this 
 omniscient knowledge of every offence and every offender, 
 He framed and consecrated His holy law ; limiting, strictly 
 limiting, its blessings to uniform and perfect obedience, and 
 denouncing, no less expressly, a curse against every violation 
 of it, 
 
 Well, it may be said, this was no doubt the case ; but 
 must it not be allowed to be a purpose of Christ's coming to 
 annul this law, and to substitute one less rigorous in its 
 room ? As this misconception of Christ's real work with 
 respect to the law, — which represents Him as promulgating 
 a relaxed moral code, — lies at the bottom of so many errors 
 concerning the Gospel, I ought, * perhaps, to bestow some 
 time in removing it. But I must confine myself to my im- 
 mediate subject ; and, for it, it is quite enough to inquire, 
 what shadow of ground is there for this assertion in Scrip- 
 ture ? When the Lord speaks of the law, we find Him con- 
 tinually endeavouring to show the carnal-minded people 
 whom He addressed, how far they were from understanding 
 its wide extent and true spiritual import ; opening out its
 
 .v.i 77 7.' A- AND EXTENT [Serm. 
 
 Bhowing how much higher is their aim and 
 
 . muc h their range than merely to restrain us from 
 
 which they specify ; and enforcing in 
 
 this larger Bense upon fcli« - reason and con- 
 
 1 1 
 
 these labours in detail to restore to their 
 eding broad aymmandrnents which try 
 v we find Him solemnly republishing 
 law in thai most beautiful but most awful form, in 
 which the <lut\ which comprehends all duties is pressed with 
 mphatic reiteration iipon as, - that duty which the 
 v human being acknowledges to be of impe- 
 ibligation, while it te-tities against him that he never 
 fulfilled it— "Thou shah love the Lord thy God with 
 all thine heart, and with all thy mind, and with all thy 
 soul, and with all thy strength 1 *." Would it not appear, 
 . that with much more >how of reason the Lord might 
 : as having added to the strictness of the law, 
 than as having detracted from it ? And as to annulling it, 
 II :- described to have done, does not His own impres- 
 declaration - em framed to meet directly the vain imagi- 
 nation ? 'Think in •t that I am come to destroy the law 
 the prophets; I am nol come to destroy, but to fulfil. 
 i I ,\ unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away. 
 
 one tittle of the law shall in no wise pass away till 
 all be fulfilled And is it the law, first solemnly esta- 
 
 blished by God, and then solemnly republished and declared 
 immutable by Bis Son, which is represented, sometimes as 
 le when it ought to be applied, — sometimes as 
 fied in the application of it,- sometimes as altogether 
 led by some unassigned and unassignable code, — 
 the one statemenl or the other seems to be 
 b) the exigencies of a bad argument? 
 
 u Matt. xxii. 37; Mark xii. 30. 
 Matt. v. i 7 .
 
 III.] OF JUSTIFICATION. 71 
 
 I have taken you very far in following out the exposure 
 of those misconceived analogies with human law and human 
 tribunals, which, as much as any other prejudice perhaps, 
 impede the general admission of the full and proper sense 
 of justification. But the time has not been ill-bestowed if 
 it has served to remove from any mind this serious obstacle 
 to just views upon this important subject. 
 
 But though this may remove some impediments to the 
 admission of the true meaning of the word, it does nothing to 
 soften the difficulties of the Doctrine. If the justification of 
 man be indeed a declaration of his innocence with respect to 
 the Divine law, how may sinful man be justified ? We have 
 seen what God's exceeding broad commandments require, and 
 we all know how we have answered their demands. The sen- 
 tence might be safely trusted even to our own corrupt hearts ; 
 but the express declarations of Holy Scripture spare us the 
 necessity of the appeal. It declares that whosoever shall keep 
 the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" ; 
 and it adds, what the least enlightened conscience must 
 assuredly confirm, that — not in one point only, but — in, 
 many things we all offend 21 . How then can a man be justified 
 with God? 
 
 This is the mystery of redemption, to which the Word 
 of God enables us to reply, — We are "justified freely by 
 God's grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus 22 . 
 He is set forth as the PROPITIATION 23 , through which God 
 is just when He is the justifier of them who believe in Christ 
 Jesus, — of them who believe on Him that justifieth the un- 
 godly 24 , for He died for the ungodly 25 . All have sinned 26 , and 
 death is the wages of sin 27 ; but He, by the grace of God, hath 
 tasted death for every man 28 . And now all who are found in 
 
 20 James ii. 10. 21 James iii. i. 
 
 22 Rom. iii. 24. 23 Rom. iii. 25. 
 
 24 Rom. iii. 25, 26; iv. 5. 25 Rom. v. 6. 
 
 26 Rom. iii. 23. w Rom. vi. :.;. 
 
 28 Heli. ii. 9.
 
 NATURE AND EXTENT [Serm. 
 
 pied I loth not 'impute unto them the sin 
 
 mmitted", for < teBisrhath come to takeaway 
 
 f Himself : they are fownd in Him\ 
 
 aI1( j // tethfrom aM sin* God doth impute to 
 
 which they have ao1 : . for they are 
 epted in the beloved . not having their 
 hich is of the law, but the righteousness 
 To the Church which He has purchased 
 tl . blood, the Lord is joined by a bond thai finds a 
 ,• in the closest and tenderesl of human tios :< ' ; 
 ith Hun. as members of that pure Church of 
 which He is the Bpouse 88 ; onewiih Him as members of the 
 ■ body of whirl. He is the glorious head"; one with 
 bers, in the Apostle's fervent language, of His 
 f 11 is flesh, and of His l"</n's 40 , yea, one with Him in a 
 union bo intimate thai it i- by Himself described as shadow- 
 in" His own ineflable union with the Father 41 . Tints one 
 WITH HlM, we share in His exaltation, as He deigned to share 
 in our abasement. Because we merited punishment, He 
 endured it ; and because He, in His humiliation, earned the 
 irdfi of perfect obedience, we obtain them. Such, the 
 tells ns. is God's gracious appointment, who/or us 
 sin, that knew no sin, that we might be 
 - -• of God in Him 42 . 
 In thus stating the grounds of the justification of sinners, 
 and declaring them to I"- justified by imputed righteous- 
 than by vicarious sufferings, we have something 
 le task thai we had to perform in guarding the 
 m of the nature of their justification. As then we 
 
 *• I • : : Rom. IV. s. :<" Hell. ix. 26. 
 
 32 1 John i. 7. 
 34 Phil. iii. 9. 
 I 36 Phil iii. 9. 
 
 k [bid. M Rom. xii. 5; 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13. 27; 
 
 4 Eph. v. 30. 
 I <',,r. v. 21. 

 
 III.] OF JUSTIFICATION*. 73 
 
 had to point out that what was said was designed to prevent, 
 not to institute, a separation between the acts of pardon 
 and of acceptance ; so here we have to explain (and the 
 caution is rendered necessary by some modes of supporting, 
 as well as by some of assailing the Doctrine) that we de- 
 sign no formal division of the Redeemer's reconciling work 
 
 o o 
 
 Into sufferings and obedience, one kind of efficacy being 
 strictly ascribed to the one part, and another kind to the 
 other. The scheme, rightly understood, requires no such 
 artificial divisions ; though in speaking upon the subject, for 
 distinctness' sake, and for an orderly consideration of it, 
 language which may seem to countenance such a separa- 
 tion must sometimes be used. But this only results from the 
 way in which our limited faculties oblige us to take in, 
 and to present to others, every subject which is too wide and 
 too deep for them. It occurs continually, in matters of reli- 
 gion : notably, in speaking of the atonement in reference 
 to the persons of the Trinity ; in which we often employ 
 a mode of explaining their agency which seems, at first 
 view, inconsistent with the orthodox belief that the whole 
 scheme of mercy to our ruined race had its source in the 
 love, no less than in the wisdom of the one eternal and indi- 
 visible Godhead. It is the same in this matter of justifi- 
 cation. Above, when we were setting forth its extent, we 
 were obliged, in entering into details, sometimes to speak in 
 a way which made it necessary to explain that we did not 
 mean that God pardons Believers first, and accepts them 
 afterwards, or declares them free from guilt, and possessed of 
 righteousness, by separate judicial acts. And now again, 
 having stated the grounds of justification, there is the same 
 necessity of explaining, that we do not mean to sever the 
 blessed Redeemer's sufferings and His obedience, but to 
 represent both as united in one mediatorial work. That 
 this, beginning with His birth, in this world of sin and sor- 
 row, and ending with His death upon the cross of shame,
 
 NATURE AND EXT KM' [Sekm. 
 
 ■•• which His Father gave Him to 
 
 itisfaction for man's violations of the 
 
 . obedience to all the law's demands, and 
 
 ,t that it so transcended all finite suffering 
 
 that by it all who are united to 11 i.m 
 
 m punishment, secured from danger, freed from 
 
 fully accepted, — in Him pardoned, and in Him 
 
 i be rash, and would show uivat ignorance of the 
 
 •hat this mod.- of dealing with us does not 
 
 • difficulties. Difficulties! — doubtless it does. 
 
 II the thoughtless arrogance to demand that all the 
 
 • ■ II _h and H"l\ One, who inhabiteth eternity. 
 ild be made plain to us? What Icings and prophets de- 
 
 \ vain —what oven the angels that surround 
 
 1 throne longed, we are told, to look into — has been 
 
 :•■ manifest t.> ua And. amidst this bright manifestation 
 
 • nature and His purposes, have we the perverseness 
 and the folly, instead of rejoicing in tin- light, to repine that 
 
 darkness remains? Wo. to whom there is nothing so 
 
 familiar that it does not contain much that i> obscure, — 
 
 who find in the meanest work of nature, — in the simplest 
 
 ent of our own minds, — in everything within us and 
 
 -.thin- around as— mysteries unfathomable, — are wo 
 
 ly impatienl that this law of our being is not suspended, 
 
 where beforehand we ought to expect to find it in its 
 
 - ,l|/ Do we require fairly, that in matters so 
 
 and m these only, aothing should remain to remind us 
 
 • rything but in pari is the condition, if not 
 
 " U1 lim '' certainly of their exercise, in tin. 
 
 i • imperii I I ,!.• ,,t' being? 
 
 11 •"• 'I'- difficulties alluded to are of this kind, how 
 
 ad to what extent they invito, investi- 
 
 "" "■'"• remains to inquire, even if my immediate
 
 III.] OF JUSTIFICATION. 75 
 
 purpose led naturally to the examination. But it does not. 
 All that I am at present concerned to say on the subject 
 may be said very briefly, and it is this: that the part of tin \ 
 doctrine of justification which is retained by all who make 
 any profession of receiving the doctrine of the Atonement, is 
 just as encumbered with difficulties, and with difficulties of 
 the same kind, too, as that which so many reject. All who 
 profess to receive that doctrine, in any form, hold the impu- 
 tation of our sins to Christ strictly, and in a sense of His 
 sufferings to us; and if He was made sin who knew no sin 45 
 — if the appointed mode of redeeming us from the curse of 
 the law was His being made a curse for us 44 — if He bare our 
 sins in His own body upon the tree 43 , and the Lord laid upon 
 Him the iniquity of us all 46 , so that with His stripes we are 
 healed, it does not appear easily how it can be .represented 
 as contrary to God's mode of dealing with man, that by His 
 obedience should many be made righteous 4 '' ; that to every one 
 that believeth He should be the end of the law for righteous- 
 ness 48 ; that we should be found in Him, not having our own 
 righteousness, but the righteousness which is of God 49 . 
 
 For the present, I must stop here. When I am able to 
 return to the consideration of the doctrine, you will, I think, 
 find, that, in spending so much time in establishing the true 
 nature and the true grounds of justification, I have not wan- 
 dered so far from the subject proposed as you might at first 
 imagine. For while right views upon both heads are essen- 
 tial to understanding fully, they will be found, I think, 
 greatly to facilitate the proof of the doctrine of our Church 
 which I proposed to establish and explain — the doctrine of 
 Justification by faith only. 
 
 43 1 Cor. v. 21. u Gal. iii. 13. 
 
 « 1 Pet. ii. 24. 4 « Is. liii. 6. 
 
 47 Rom. v. 19. 48 Rom. x. 4. 
 
 49 Phil. iii. 9.
 
 SERMON IV. 
 
 ON THE CONNEXION BETWEEN FAITH AND 
 JUSTIFICATION
 
 mus quod fidee justificet; ubi priinum hoc nionendi sunt 
 ■ hanc si-ntentiam tueri, quod Christ us sit Me- 
 
 i teaae sit defendere quad fides justified 
 
 :iiu!li fortassis cum dicitur quod fides justificet intelligunt de priu- 
 
 •^t itiitiuiu justificatiouis, seu pra?paratio ad justificationem ; 
 
 - illud quo accept] sumus Deo, sed opera qua; 
 
 I - imniant fidem ideo valde laadari quia sit principium. Noa 
 
 .timus. Sed hoc defendimus, quod proprie, ac vere, ipsa fide, 
 
 •aim. justi repatemnr, sc-u accepti Deo simus Apologia 
 
 ■• i - . 
 
 [Quod sola Fides in Christum justified.]
 
 SERMON IV. 
 
 Romans hi. 28. 
 
 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified hy faith without the deeds 
 
 of the law. 
 
 In resuming, as I promised, the consideration of the impor- 
 tant subject for which I have already more than once en- 
 deavoured to engage your attention, I find it necessary, my 
 brethren, to begin by reminding you, that what has been 
 done, or attempted, hitherto, has been, to fix from the Word 
 of God the nature and the source of faith, and to explain 
 the nature and the grounds of justification. 
 
 With respect to the former, it was shown, that, in the 
 Bible, faith in Christ is trust in Him, founded upon the 
 knowledge of what He has done for us. The two extreme 
 errors upon the subject, — the error of those who make it 
 mean much more, and that of those who maintain that it 
 means a good deal less, — were distinctly pointed out, and 
 shown to be as really opposed to the authority of Scripture 
 as they obviously are to the ordinary meaning of common 
 language. And the true meaning of the phrase was esta- 
 blished by direct examination of the Bible, at such length 
 as to forbid recapitulation, and, I hope, to render it unneces- 
 sary. And finally, from this account of the nature of faith, 
 some reasons, drawn from acknowledged principles concern- 
 ing the constitution of the human mind, were offered in
 
 THE CONNEXION OF [Seek. 
 
 mportant truth, which, whether we succeed 
 
 ■ it or not, is known to us by the sure tes- 
 
 )tun — namely, that faith in Christ 
 
 I id, and that it requires a change of mind, 
 
 •Mil ;\ Spirit. 
 to th< • fcation of man, it was shown, 
 irse of Scriptural proof, that it moans the 
 fhisi by < rOD, the judge of aM 
 
 ili respecl to that Divine law, to which 
 ind by which he is tried Certain erroneous 
 • d this subject, too, were stated ami exposed, 
 ind to resl chiefly upon ill-considered analogies. 
 : I think it important to add even now, in the way of 
 ition, that by Buch analogies we are here so surrounded, 
 that aim iy word which we use serves to introduce 
 
 : them. 
 Tim*, though justified sinners are, in one view of their 
 ami acquitted in another, we cannot, without 
 : mistake, speak of their justification as pardon or 
 For both terms are calculated to conceal from us, 
 though in different ways, the true grounds of the act, and 
 usl< ad us as to its extent. 
 
 ion." m the cases in which we are familiar with the 
 immediate result of commiseration, under no re- 
 ■ pt such as arises from a prudential regard for 
 ■ ty, the security of which is the proper 
 i human law. The remission of the punishment due to 
 no leas truly results from the tender compassion 
 B But, with respect to it, we learn (what 
 
 ' ' us, ■•'>'d what yet it is mostimpor- 
 ll "" 1 ' 1 bear in mind that this compassion 
 oonsiatently with His other perfections, proceed 
 " :i " mercy doeaj but that His law was to he satisfied, 
 could be show,, to those who had violated it; 
 ' been thus reconciled to justice, by the
 
 IV.] FAITH AXD JUSTIFICATION. 81 
 
 unimpeachable obedience and the bitter sufferings of the: Son 
 of God. When we speak, then, as with this caution we in.-i.v, 
 of our justification as pardon, and ascribe it, as we ought, to 
 the free mercy of God as its true source, we are not to forget 
 tint the grounds of it are the merits of another, and the 
 sufferings of another. 
 
 "Acquittal," in like manner, sends us, by all our associa- 
 tions with the word, to a scheme of prohibitory enactments, 
 some part of which a man is accused of having violated. 
 Whereas a sinner's justification has reference to the whole of 
 God's law — a law which is composed of commands, no less 
 than of prohibitions — which professes to regulate, not the 
 outward conduct merely, but the affections; — which, there- 
 fore, a man may disobey without performing any outward 
 act, and which no course of outward acts will of itself 
 satisfy. 
 
 Again, " pardon" not only presumes the establishment of 
 the offender's guilt, but it gives no intimation that his guilt 
 has been taken away: while of all the consequences of his 
 guilt, it only secures against the legal punishment to which he 
 is exposed, and so leaves him to suffer others which are often 
 still harder to be borne. Even " acquittal," — as from the im- 
 perfection of human tribunals it so often arises from a failure 
 of proof of guilt, where guilt really exists, — does not neces- 
 sarily suggest the notion of innocence; and in fact often fails 
 to restore us even to the outward advantages of innocence. 
 So that both terms greatly and almost equally fail to convey 
 to us the completeness of our reconciliation to offended 
 authority, — the perfect restoration to our lost estate and all 
 its high privileges, — and the entire recovery of the quiet con- 
 fidence and inward peace of innocence, — which justification 
 includes 1 . 
 
 Whatever words, then, it may at any time be found con- 
 venient to substitute for justification, we are not to lose sight 
 
 1 Eora. v. i ; viii. i, 33, 34.
 
 Ti. V OF [Sebm. 
 
 but to bear in mind that the justification 
 
 , judicial ad of Him who is a just God and a 
 
 .. for the sake of what Christ has done and 
 
 1!,- remits the punishment due to their 
 
 ■ them a< righteous— as though they had 
 
 i%\ which all have- violated. 
 
 Having tlni- seen the nature of faith and of justification, 
 
 connexion. I>y sotting forth that 
 
 Church truly styles "a wholesome doctrine, and 
 
 . full of comfort,''— the doctrine of justification by 
 
 i vi t ii only; — to show that, in the office of justifying die 
 
 i lith admit- no fellowship — that none of his acts or 
 
 qualitii s, none of bis gifts or . none of his virtues or 
 
 of whatever kind, — whether concomitants oifaitk 
 
 [ it, — share with it in this its office; but 
 
 it is bj i aii ii. and by it mil'/, that we possess that effi- 
 
 • -• in Christ's sufferings, and that availing title 
 
 Eifl obedience, which shield us from the 
 
 ■ the law, and Becure to us its blessings and its 
 
 l& 
 
 I hoped, as 1 believe 1 intimated, that explaining the 
 
 ition would prepare an easy admission for 
 
 pture account of the grounds of it. For if it be 
 
 i declaration of our innocence by an unerring judge, it 
 
 i plain that it cannot be our own performance of 
 
 which He contemplates. And I expected, also, that 
 
 iblishment of the grounds of the act might remove 
 
 hicb bar the way against a reception of 
 
 ; the mode of the procedure. For 
 
 ding, in it- whole nature and principles, so 
 
 I our experience, and above our conceptions, it 
 
 " a plain dictat a that it is our wisdom 
 
 1 of the matter from the Word of
 
 IV.] FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 
 
 God, without doubt or reservation. Nothing certainly but 
 the power of His Spirit can effectually subdue that in< lo- 
 cality of our proud and darkened reason, which is among the: 
 worsl parts of our sad inheritance; and bring us, in child-like 
 .simplicity, in all things to submit to the teaching of the 
 Most High. But, in the order of means, it would seem of 
 no small efficacy towards securing due attention to a voice 
 which addresses us upon an important subject, that we should 
 be convinced that it is, upon that subject, our only source 
 of information. And surely, if any where in religion, this 
 conviction ought to be felt here. If we really believe that 
 God forgives our sins, — that he views us as innocent, — that 
 He accepts us as righteous, — because another has suffered 
 punishment in our stead, — because another has fulfilled 
 what we were bound to perform, and have not performed, 
 — if we really believe this, surely we must feel that this 
 is a proceeding too wonderful in its nature — too much 
 beyond our reach and above our capacities — to make it wise 
 or rational for us to assume to prejudge the mode in which 
 it ought to be conducted. Surely we ought to feel that we 
 are, henceforth as hitherto, — in what remains to be known, 
 as well as in what we have already learned on this high 
 and mysterious subject, — wholly dependent upon the in- 
 formation which God deigns to communicate to us in 
 His Word. 
 
 And certainly, if a man be led to consult the Bible in 
 this fair and humble spirit, I do not think he can long 
 hesitate on this question. Objections to the doctrine, no 
 doubt, there are, and difficulties about it, — objections and 
 difficulties in abundance, — some of them old, and some new — 
 some of them devised by ingenious men, and some by men 
 of .slender ingenuity — some springing, no doubt, from a real 
 solicitude for moral purity, and some which it is not easy to 
 ascribe to a source so commendable, — these all, in different 
 ways and degrees, are calculated to affect the mind, and may 
 
 G— 2
 
 THE CONNEXION OF [Serk. 
 
 :,,-• real force, bo Long as men are kept from 
 tinned to such partial quotations from it as 
 to deal in. But all united will offer feeble 
 
 ■ to tli-' mass of evidence tor this doctrine, 
 
 - ripture will bring out With a 
 solicitude, which is not more than proportioned to 
 
 ■ the doctrine, and to die hostility with which 
 
 • red, but which is in some degree 
 _ oeral style of the Bible, it is presented there 
 . variety of form in which such a truth could appear, 
 may, therefore, be supported by every kind of evidence 
 hich such a truth could l>c sustained. It is asserted, — it 
 med, — it is defended, — it is explained; — formal state- 
 made of it in terms the most explicit, often ren- 
 1, if possible, still mere unequivocal by embodying 
 distinct bions of what may be styled the opposite doc- 
 
 trii. identaJ mention is continually made of it, often 
 
 v which shews it to have been familiar to those whom 
 writer addresses as well as to himself, and precious 
 both:— it is supported by reasoning as well as authori- 
 jserted;— objections are anticipated and answered 
 ffhich it i> apparently liable, but which by no possi- 
 bility seem to apply to any doctrine that has ever been 
 forward in opposition to it, as a representation of the 
 oing; — or abuses are guarded against to which 
 it appeal «ed, but for which, as before, no op- 
 
 ms to furnish any occasion. Not only 
 | •• i to satisfy all reasonable doubts, but 
 
 ■■••■in.- imp. i caprice to demand any kind or de- 
 
 ption of evidence, direct or indirect, which it is not in 
 ipply, and in abundance too. 
 plain that almosl anyone division of these proofs, 
 • into the detail that it would admit, and that, 
 ; ' might Beem to require, would exceed the limits 
 which 1 am obliged to prescribe to myself here. But, on the
 
 IV.] FAITH AXD JUSTIFICATION. 83 
 
 other hand, to leave these strong statements without any 
 kind of proof, would be to leave the doctrine itself in a 
 much less advantageous position than I hope to place it 
 in, even by such an outline of the proofs for it as my limits 
 allow. I shall attempt in this hope to present such an 
 outline; with the hope, also, that no one who hears me to 
 whom the subject is at all new, will content himself with 
 the imperfect review of the arguments for this important 
 truth, to which I am necessarily confined. 
 
 As to express statements of the Doctrine, there would 
 be no difficulty whatever in bringing forward many ; but of 
 all kinds of proofs for a doctrine, there seems least pur- 
 pose in multiplying this kind. For a fair enquirer, one 
 such unequivocal statement as that contained in my text 
 would seem enough ; and, on the other hand, the very de- 
 vices by which one such statement is explained away would 
 serve for a thousand. They who are able to find that when 
 the Apostle says, " that a man is justified by faith without 
 the deeds of the law 2 ," he really means that a man is justi- 
 fied partly by faith, and partly by the deeds of the lata, 
 must possess some principles of interpretation which would 
 enable them to dispose as easily of any other statement or 
 any number of statements on this subject, or on any subject. 
 
 Hear, however, another brief statement, containing a 
 comprehensive, exact, and even a minute account of the 
 whole proceeding. " Now unto him that worketh is the 
 reward reckoned, not of grace, but of debt; but unto him 
 that worketh not, but believeth upon Him that justifieth 
 the ungodly, his faith is counted unto him for righteous- 
 ness 3 ." This is language which I should feel myself idly 
 employed in endeavouring to explain. It might be possible, 
 doubtless, for human ingenuity to devise some form of ex- 
 pression more entirely free from ambiguity, but it would not 
 
 2 Rom. iii. 28; Note 0. 3 'Rom. iv. 4.
 
 THE CONNEXION OF [Serm. 
 
 and 1 am sure it could answer no ui eful 
 1 jure, that, If any one now desired to convey the 
 
 thai it is the ungodly whom God justifies, — 
 ■. | Eis law, no1 those who have obeyed 
 1 ,| i;it H of proceeding is to counl the faith 
 
 for the righteousness which they have not : 
 this purpose the language of the Apostle oceur- 
 iiiiu. "but unto him thai worketh not, but believeth 
 1! i that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted 
 i him for righteousness/' — 1 am sure, I say, that such 
 would never reject this statement, or add to it, or 
 it. or in any respect alter it, under an apprchen- 
 that his in- .miiiL:. when so expressed, could be mis- 
 taken by any fair mind. 
 
 ; to attempt anything beyond this by any statement 
 
 Tain, To se1 about fabricating forms of expression 
 
 shall baffle the pernicious ingenuity with which we 
 
 i.h- the natural force of plain language, when 
 
 to us what we do not like to hear, betrays an 
 
 alike of the imperfections of human language,' 
 
 the wiles of the human heart. The whole history 
 
 of 1< >n shows sutrieiently that no specifications, how- 
 
 curiously framed and laboriously multiplied, can anti- 
 
 the of the subtleties with which men are supplied, 
 
 when tl rch for them for Buch objects. And the Bible 
 
 Lake the attempt. It denounces this unfairness 
 
 pirit, it warns us against it. and supplies abundant rerne- 
 
 r ii : but it make-, no provision for this warfare in 
 
 it ;— a warfare so likely to be interminable, 
 
 i little likely to be profitable. When the Apostle 
 
 i through Christ "the forgiveness of sins," and dis- 
 
 red that, "by Eim, all that believe are justified 
 
 '■ from which they could not be justified by 
 
 N l • ' he probably knew, — the Being under 
 
 l \ , • . j ' ;
 
 IV.] FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 87 
 
 whose inspiration lie was speaking certainly knew, — thai 
 almost every word in this plain sentence would afford an 
 exercise to the perverted ingenuity of those who will not 
 receive the message that it conveys, or submit themselves to 
 the righteousness of God. But he does not therefore stop 
 to explain these terms, and to guard them from perversion ; 
 which could only be done by other terms no less liable to 
 be wrested from their natural meaning. He does not do 
 this; but by a solemn warning he commends his simple pub- 
 lication of the Gospel to that honest consideration winch 
 renders such precautions superfluous, while the want of it 
 renders all precautions unavailing — "Beware, therefore, lest 
 that come upon you which is spoken of in the Prophets; 
 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish : for I work 
 a work in your days, a work which ye shall in nowise believe, 
 though a man declare it unto you 5 ." 
 
 Time would fail me if I were to go through the less for- 
 mal statements of this truth, which are to be met with 
 everywhere in the sacred volume. I must be satisfied with 
 taking a few; and I shall select some that I think most 
 likely to affect a fair mind, as occurring where the immediate 
 object of the Apostle was not to communicate this doctrine, 
 but wdiere he pauses or turns aside to notice it in a way 
 which, while it sufficiently conveys the truth, evinces clearly 
 his sense of its importance, and the extent to which it occu- 
 pied his thoughts. 
 
 Thus, explaining how the Gospel shows forth the righte- 
 ousness of God without the law, he stops to mark the way in 
 which that righteousness is communicated, " even the righte- 
 ousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and 
 upon all them that believe 6 ." For the manifestation of this 
 righteousness, Christ is set forth by God, he tells us, as a 
 propitiation, but it is, he fails not to notice, a propitiation 
 
 5 Acta xiii. 40. ,; Rom. iii. 22.
 
 THE < ONNBXIOJS OF [Semi, 
 
 His blood*; and while he refers to this 
 bushing the justice of God in freely 
 he takes occasion to specify who are the 
 the objects of this free pardon, " to declare, 
 • me His righteousness, that Be might be just, 
 • him which believeih in Jesus 1 !' Is he 
 I [e finds room to notice how 
 |;. epace are ye Baved, through faith*." — Or 
 morating II eterna] purposes in Christ concerning 
 H a i ■ .•;,, The verj oame of the Redeemer forces him, as 
 nee at the benefits which wc owe to Him, and 
 be way in which the] have been secured to us: "Accord- 
 rnal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus 
 our Lord; iii whom we have boldness and access with confi- 
 the faith of Him 9 ." He does not extol the great 
 rument of salvation, the sacred Scriptures, as able to give 
 iu heavenly wisdom unto salvation, without subjoining that 
 " through faith which is in Christ Jesus 10 ." The 
 1 tiles, he tells as, attained unto righteousness, while the 
 with larger knowledge of God and of His will, failed to 
 in it: and the reason is given: "The Gentiles which fol- 
 ed not after righteousness have attained unto righteous- 
 ii the righteousness which is of faith; but Israel, 
 which followed alter the law of righteousness, hath not at- 
 the law of righteousness. Wherefore? because they 
 tl<t it > faith u . n ho Jews, however, as well as Gen- 
 
 is, believe in the Saviour? They do so. he tells us, 
 "knowing thai a man is qo1 justified by the deeds of the 
 iith of Jesus Christ™." And this, too, was the 
 • od under which he himself, be informs us, embraced 
 this despised profession, renounced all national privileges, and 
 1 persona] distinctions, and cast from him all his trust in the 
 
 P. " Rom. iii. 26. 8 Eph. ^ 8> 
 
 10 J Tim. iii. !.;. 11 Rom. ix. 30. 
 
 IS <;.■.]. ii. 16.
 
 IV.] FAITH AXD JUSTIFICATION. 89 
 
 righteousness of the law, which was so long his pride, treading 
 all under foot, and counting all but loss, that he migltt wm 
 Christ, "and be found in Him," he adds, " not having mine 
 own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is 
 through faith in Christ," — "the righteousness," he empha- 
 tically reiterates, "which is of God by faith™." 
 
 The Divine authority under which the Apostle taught is 
 the proper and ultimate proof of the truth of all his state- 
 ments. But in his writings, as in other parts of Holy Writ, 
 reasoning is often intermingled with authoritative declara- 
 tions of doctrine; and in reasoning on this subject, he always 
 treats God's method of justifying sinners by faith as a scheme 
 of free forgiveness. They who are justified by faith are jus- 
 tified by God's grace— justified freely by His grace. Indeed, 
 he distinctly states that one reason at least for appointing 
 faith to be the channel of communicating the promised 
 blessings was that they might be gratuitous, — "therefore it 
 is of faith, that it might be by grace 14 ." In answer to some 
 difficulties connected with this part of the subject, I shall 
 shall speak more fully upon this point hereafter. I only 
 notice it now, that you may perceive the application of some 
 of his arguments of which I shall attempt to give you a 
 brief abstract. 
 
 His arguments, indeed, in proof of this doctrine of free 
 forgiveness, as opposed to the schemes in which works have 
 a place in procuring it, are too various for anything beyond 
 an abstract; sometimes they are taken from man's nature 
 and condition, — sometimes from the nature of the Law, — 
 sometimes from the records to be found in Scripture of God's 
 past dealings with His servants, — and sometimes from the 
 prophetic declarations there concerning His future plans. 
 
 Of the principal and most detailed of these arguments I 
 have before spoken incidentally. It is that which forms the 
 opening of his Epistle to the Komans, where, antecedently 
 
 13 Phil. Hi. 9. 14 Rom. iv. 16.
 
 THE CONNEXi [Skkm. 
 
 i mode of redeeming man. he esta- 
 
 ■. man's guilt; shows thai the whole world, 
 
 i condemned bi ' tod — the Gentile, 
 
 • providence, blinding himself to the 
 
 I aaracter which Be has stamped upon 
 
 that law which Be has written upon 
 
 all: v. ■'• .. abusing more precious mercies, 
 
 ost blighter light; but both sinners, both 
 
 of G "I. This proof that Jew ami Gentile 
 
 is the foundation which he lays for the 
 
 d which follows, of God's gracious mode of justify- 
 
 h all have sinned and come short of the glory of 
 
 1 it must l>e plain that by the deeds of the law there shaU 
 
 H right; and so preparation is made 
 
 the declaration that all who are justified are justified 
 
 through the redemption that is in Christ 
 
 ■ I ; tl I God is the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus, 
 
 ■ Unn forth to be a propitiation through faith in 
 
 and that so all boosting is excluded, for that, as 
 
 i in my text, "a man is justified by faith without 
 
 ■ 
 
 indeed, he shows, what is sufficiently evident 
 
 ■ the nature of the Law. that it could have no justifying 
 
 who have offended against it. It leaves 
 
 - it finds them, or is the innocent cause of their 
 
 God's Law is no doubt perfect; but it is 
 
 °uly in reference to its end. It is no disparagement 
 
 that it does uo1 eflfect what it never was de- 
 
 tba-1 it should effect It is holy, ami just, and good; 
 
 tabli tandard of morals; a perfect rule of life. 
 
 But • object is to require righteousness, not to bestow it. 
 
 i ision to forgive the guilty, to sustain the weak. 
 
 ' II' 11. And for us, guilty, frail, and fallen, 
 
 F r all such, its true end is answered when 
 
 Rom. iii. 28.
 
 IV.] FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. <>l 
 
 it convinces them of their sin, of their danger, and of their 
 helplessness; and thus drives those who have fallen under 
 its curse, to take refuge with Mini who was made a cwrse 
 for them; "the law," saith he, "is a schoolmaster to bring us 
 unto Christ, that rve might be justified by faith 10 ." 
 
 That this was no new method of dealing with man, he 
 proves, by the record which is found in the Book of Genesis, 
 of God's justification of the father of the faithful, from whom 
 the Jews confessedly derived all their privileges. He dwells 
 upon this case, and recurs to it, as exhibiting most strikingly 
 that justification by faith which was the great subject of his 
 own preaching. First he appeals to the language of the 
 record, — Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him 
 for righteousness"" — as wholly inconsistent with the suppo- 
 sition that he was justified, by works, and as plainly declaring 
 that his faith was reckoned unto 1 dm for righteousness 19 . And 
 then he draws from the facts of the Patriarch's history a full 
 account of what his faith really was, he exhibits him to us 
 as against hope believing in hope, that he might be the father 
 of many nations; as being not weak in faith, nor moved to 
 distrust by any of the circumstances which rendered the ful- 
 filment of God's promise so improbable ; as not staggering at 
 the promise of God through unhelief; as strong in faith, giv- 
 ing the glory to God, and being fully persuaded that what 
 He had promised, He was also able to perform 19 . And after 
 thus establishing the nature of Abraham's faith, by showing 
 the reality and the strength of his t?'ust in God's promises, 
 the Apostle declares how it availed to his justification, " and 
 therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness 20 ." And 
 he then goes on to tell us, that the record of this procedure, 
 which the Old Testament contains, was designed to insure 
 to all Abraham's true children, — that is, to all who share in 
 
 16 Gal. iii. 24. I7 Rom. iv. 3; Gen. xv. 6. 
 
 18 Rom. iv. 5, 9. 19 Rom. iv. 18 — 20. 
 
 20 Rom. iv. 21.
 
 THE CONNEXION OF [Serm. 
 
 that they -hall also share in his justification. 
 
 \ oot written for hi- sake only that it was im- 
 
 nii. hut for us also, to whom it shall he imputed, 
 
 Urn who raised up Jesus our Lord from 
 
 ■ 
 
 ||. ■ \ as that it was not unknown to God's servants of 
 
 their tin.- dependence, — that He who i> of 
 
 than to behold iniquity should impute to them 
 
 - works*; — for that the man after God's 
 
 this a- man's rial happiness, saying, 
 
 they whose iniquities arc forgiven, whose sins 
 
 ssed is the man to whom the Lord doth not 
 
 impute sin"." And that the instrumentality of faith in this 
 
 it nl work was declared 1»\ Hi- prophet when he said, 
 
 •tic shall live by faith 25 ." And finally he testifies 
 
 G «pel which he was commissioned to preach is the 
 
 fulfilment of the gri :t promise of ancient prophecy, even the 
 
 \ 1 \\vr. in which God had engaged Himself to sway 
 
 I |ilc. oot by terror, hut by gratitude and love; to graft 
 
 in their hearts an unfailing principle of cheerful obedience; 
 
 and l. constrain them to a willing conformity to His will, by 
 
 g Himself unto them in His true character, as a 
 
 "This is the covenant that I will make 
 
 with the house of [srael after those days, saith the Lord: I will 
 
 put my laws into their minds, and will write them in their 
 
 and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me 
 
 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, 
 
 tnd - eery man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for all 
 
 ! know me from the Least to the greatest; for I wall be 
 
 • i to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their 
 
 iniquities I will rememb< r no more 20 ." 
 
 •:>. it. puum; Gr*L iii. 7—9. 22 Rom. iv. 23. 
 
 24 Ps. xxxii. 1. 
 '• L 17; <;.il. iii. 1 1 ; II, !,. x. 38; Hab. ii. 4. 
 
 11 ' ' ■■ '• ■"■ 'o ; .'• r. xxxi I . . k. xi. 19. xxxvi. 26.
 
 IV.] FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 93 
 
 Look now at the objections which lie notices, and you 
 must see, that they are plainly objections against this doc- 
 trine of the free forgiveness and unreserved acceptance of all 
 sinners who come to God by faith in Christ. He expressly 
 states that some slanderously reported that he said, (that is, 
 probably, that his doctrine amounted to this), "Let us do 
 evil that good may come 27 ." And if you look at the question 
 which conveys the same imputation upon the moral tendency 
 of his doctrine, " Shall we continue in sin that grace may 
 abound 28 ?" and read carefully the preceding passage, — which 
 the Apostle supposes to give rise to it, as his mode of intro- 
 ducing it very clearly intimates, — you will see the meaning 
 of this objection, in its connexion with the statements of the 
 doctrines of grace which precede it. You will see that he 
 supposes that it may be said, in the way of objection, If all 
 sin, both before the law and since, has been met by new 
 manifestations of God's mercy, which have not merely pro- 
 vided for the exigency, but have gone beyond its demands — 
 have showered down upon sinners, who ought to have been 
 looking for demonstrations of God's wrath, fresh and larger 
 measures of His love ; are we not laying a restraint upon this 
 chosen attribute of God — are we not casting an obstacle in 
 the way of a brighter display of His mercy, — when we depart 
 from sin which is the occasion of its exercise — shall we not 
 rather continue in sin that grace may abound? — If you take 
 the objection, I say, in this connexion, it is easily under- 
 stood. Unsound and wicked though it is, it is at least in- 
 telligible, when applied thus to the doctrines of free grace, 
 and growing out of a statement of them. But it seems 
 utterly without meaning, if it is regarded as urged against 
 the doctrine which represents us as reconciled to God by 
 that course of obedience which He has appointed for us. 
 Weak objections against the truth are as likely to be made 
 as strong ones; and may sometimes, in prudence, no less 
 
 '- 7 Rom. iii. 8. 5S Horn. vi. i.
 
 WNEXIOIJ OF [Serm. 
 
 Bui en the unfairest or dullest assail- 
 
 rould 1"- unlikely to make use of objec- 
 
 eivable application to it ; and it' 
 
 i- it forward, do defender of the 
 
 .]<l think that they merited am reply: still Less 
 
 likely himself to anticipate them for the pur- 
 
 : them. 
 
 aid an\ sane man, who had preached, as by 
 
 Apostle Paul is held to have preached, — that r/j 
 
 admitted int.. the Christian Church; hut that 
 
 ■ ; i <> od i- suspended upon obedience to 
 
 nmandm ents, would, I say, any sane man, who had 
 
 i this doctrine, <>r any such doctrine, think himself 
 
 I guard against the risk of its being abused to t'a- 
 
 isness, mi- of its being supposed to do so; — to 
 
 inst the ri>k of its conveying the false impression, 
 
 eith friends oi foes, that Believers were emancipated 
 
 i all moral restraints? Would he think himself bound, 
 
 plainly does, to anticipate and answer the 
 
 ion, "Shall we an because we are not under the law, 
 
 hilt HI, 
 
 II ■•••• be answers this, or the former question, it is be- 
 
 i.iv present purpose to notice. My business with them 
 
 only to show, that the doctrine which he 
 
 ... - actually assailed by such cavils, or that in his 
 
 '■' •' li; " 1 reason to fear such, and that it therefore 
 
 •■ apparent or conceivable ground for them. To 
 
 I shall probably return; and if you, meanwhile, 
 
 : ,l "- , »- you will Bnd that they do not, in the slightest 
 
 detract from the freeness and the fulness of his 
 
 a< lit- of the doctrines ot live -race. 
 
 ■ an imperfect sketch,— necessarily a very imper- 
 = Pture authority upon which this doc- 
 
 
 om. vi, 15.
 
 IV.| FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 95 
 
 trine rests. And the authority next in degree to Scriptural 
 is no less express in its support. Whatever were the differ- 
 ences among the first Reformers upon other points, they 
 were upon this agreed. All those venerable men to whom 
 God assigned the glorious task of overthrowing false religion 
 and establishing the true faith, have embodied this Doctrine 
 in the Confessions of the Churches which they were the 
 instruments of reforming; and by the prominence which 
 they have given it therein, and by the zeal with which 
 they maintained it in conferences, in debates, and in con- 
 troversies, they sufficiently proved how deep their convic- 
 tion was that, as the greatest of them emphatically declared, 
 if ii his Article be lost, all Christian Doctrine is lost. So that 
 it now stands distinctly in the Confession of Faith of every 
 reformed church in Europe, unless it be expunged in some 
 of those that have fallen from their first purity*. 
 
 We are, however, chiefly concerned with our own Church. 
 And in it certainly pains every way remarkable have been 
 taken to put the doctrine beyond the possibility of mistake, 
 or, as far as human precautions can effect such an object, 
 beyond the possibility of evasion. It is asserted, as you 
 know, in simple and distinct terms in an Article appropriated 
 to the subject 30 . Still further to secure that it shall be 
 thoroughly understood, reference is there made to one of the 
 Homilies as containing a fuller statement of it 31 . In that 
 Homily, in strict conformity with the mode adopted in the 
 sacred Scripture, the doctrine is distinctly stated, — clearly 
 explained, — supported by argument, — defended from cavils, 
 — and guarded against abuse. And finally an additional 
 precaution is taken, which must have secured the object 
 
 • Note Q. 30 Art. XI. 
 
 31 The third Homily of the First Book. The full title is, "A Sermon of 
 the Salvation of Mankind by only Christ our Saviour, from Sin and Death 
 Everlasting," but it is referred to in the Article as "the Homily of Justifica- 
 tion." See Note R.
 
 THE CONNEXION OF [Sebh. 
 
 , U K1 h iired it: that no doubt might 
 
 use in which we are said to he justified 
 
 do doubt of the extent to which our own 
 
 : from the office of justifying us before 
 
 i mother Article is added, in which it is expressly 
 
 that i. rka which we do are well pleasing in 
 
 ■a until after we be justified 88 . 
 
 I k well that a position established by such 
 
 • has often I i contend with a prejudice, spring- 
 
 : the \ aclusiven 38 of the evidence by which it 
 
 ipported. Persons are aj >t to say, ' This seems, no doubt, 
 
 oon< i\ something must be kept back, or this doc- 
 
 dd never have met the steady opposition that it has 
 
 • QcounterecL Men who hold opposite views so reso- 
 
 v must have Borne grounds for them, and this represen- 
 
 t&ti mis to Leave them none.' Such reflexions are 
 
 natural, and. perhaps, unavoidable; at least they cannot be 
 
 . . I of as unfair, except when they are used, as they 
 
 • n are, uot to Lead the mind to investigation, but 
 
 p it tolerably tranquil under unsettled views. If 
 
 should have arisen, in the case before us, in the 
 
 mind- of any of my hearers, they must, for the present, 
 
 i by my purpose of reviewing the principal ob- 
 
 bich this Doctrine has had to encounter since 
 
 • promulgation, — an examination in which I mean to 
 
 I consider the proper effects of the Doctrine 
 
 upon moral character. There is one difficulty, however, 
 
 which I wish to notice briefly before I conclude, not merely 
 
 often heard, and s.-.-ms to lie at the bottom of 
 
 but because what 1 shall say upon it is neces- 
 
 ►plete the view of the nature of faith, and of its 
 
 •"" with j ation, which I am anxious to leave 
 
 iui minds, 
 
 "Art. XI M Art. Xm.
 
 IV.] FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 97 
 
 You will often hear it asked, what is the peculiar excel 
 lence of faith, which secures to it this pre-eminence over 1 1n- 
 other graces of the Believer, of being, to the exclusion of all 
 of them, the sole instrument of his justification ? And some- 
 times, doubtless, this question is proposed under a feeling of 
 real embarrassment about the subject, and with a real desire 
 for information upon it. But you will more frequently, I 
 think, find it asked with a hostile purpose, and in a tone 
 that seems to intimate, that it contains a weighty difficulty 
 connected with this doctrine. 
 
 Now, I will not stop to enforce the obvious remark, 
 that if you are satisfied of the direct evidence for this 
 doctrine or any such doctrine, you ought not to be in any 
 way affected by such a difficulty. You may find yourselves 
 unable to answer satisfactorily many questions of this kind, 
 but your inability should not, in the slightest degree, impair 
 your confidence in the truth, if established by sufficient and 
 proper proof. For there is no probability (to confine our- 
 selves to the present case), not even the lowest probability, 
 that, because we are certain that God has appointed faith 
 to be the instrument of our justification, we should be able 
 to tell also why He has done so. Yet you see that it is only 
 upon the supposition that there is such a probability, that 
 your inability to answer such a question can be converted 
 into an argument or a presumption against the certainty of 
 the doctrine. 
 
 Though I cannot avoid making this remark, I do not 
 mean to dwell upon it; for the question, I think, in what- 
 ever spirit it be proposed, admits of an easy answer. And I 
 trust there are many who hear me, who would be able and 
 ready to reply to such an inquiry, that if by peculiar excel- 
 lence be meant peculiar 'merit, virtue, or deserving, faith has 
 none. It can neither under the law which God gave to his 
 Jewish people, nor under that larger code which he has 
 written on the hearts of all his intelligent creation, claim the 
 
 7
 
 THE CONNEXION OF [Sekm. 
 
 • obedience; and in this sens,' it has 
 
 either natural or conventional; nor 
 
 J, i it • \. It' it had, the Apostle's distinction, 
 
 faith, and justification by works, 
 
 m t.- have n" sufficient foundation; and boasting 
 
 luded by the law of faith, than by the law 
 
 1 ri.m has, in fact, in this sense, no appli- 
 
 to any true statement of the doctrine ; though to 
 
 about it, <>r louse statements of it, it may seem 
 
 pply. For the true v Lew of this doctrine does not, as the 
 
 d supposes, represenl that faith justifies us, as it is 
 
 or m> lit in ourselves, but as it unites us to Him 
 
 who i> the fountain of all grace and of all merit, and gives 
 
 I ppointment, title to what He has earned for us. 
 
 But if by peculiar <ce be meant, peculiar fitness 
 
 then I think we can see in faith — what no 
 
 doubt is in it, whether we can see it or not — a fitness for this 
 
 ■. justifying the Believer, which belongs to no other 
 
 part of his character. — God having, in His infinite wisdom and 
 
 mercy, appointed that we should be pardoned and accepted 
 
 the Bufferings and for the merits of another, seems most 
 
 fitly to have appointed too, that our voluntary and humble 
 
 ptance of this Hi- mode of freely forgiving and receiving 
 
 putting our trust in Him through whom these bless- 
 
 ■ be bestowed upon us, should necessarily precede 
 
 our full participation of all the benefits of this gracious 
 jcheme, an. 1 that nothing else should 1 designedly, accord- 
 to my plan, avoid Bpeaking here f the effects of faith 
 in forming the Believer's character. But, altogether inde- 
 i lently of any reasons for the selection of it, which these 
 '" to offer, does not the fitness of the choice suf- 
 ntly appear from what I have said? If for our justifi- 
 ■' lf ' itial, and sufficient, that we be united to 
 
 ,th Christ,—; fotmd in Christ, — does not the 
 ••1" i' by we take Him for our d< fence against that wrath
 
 IV.J FAITH AX J) JUSTIFICATION. 00 
 
 which we feel that we have earned, — the act whereby, ab- 
 juring all self-dependence, we cast ourselves unreservedly 
 upon God's free mercies in the Redeemer, with a full sense 
 of our guilt and our danger, but in a full reliance upon the 
 efficacy of all that He has wrought and endured ; — does not 
 this act, whereby we cleave to Him, and, as far as in us lies, 
 become one with Him, seem the fit act whereunto to annex the 
 full enjoyment of all those inestimable benefits, which, how- 
 ever dearly purchased they were by Him who bought them, 
 were- designed to be, with respect to us upon whom they are 
 bestowed, emphatically free? — With less than this, our part in 
 the procedure could not have been — what it was manifestly 
 designed to be — intelligent and voluntary. With more, it 
 might seem to be meritorious. Whereas faith unites all the 
 advantages that we ought to look for in the instrument 
 whereby we were to lay hold on the blessings thus freely 
 offered to* us: it makes us voluntary recipients of them, and 
 yet does not seem to leave, even to the deceitfulness of our 
 own deceitful hearts, the power of ascribing to ourselves any 
 meritorious share in procuring them*. 
 
 It is very true that it may be said, that it is not at all 
 uncommon to find this latter object frustrated: that among 
 those who are most zealous for this doctrine of justification 
 by faith only, we find not a few, who are really resting their 
 confidence upon their faith, and manifestly regarding it as a 
 personal quality entitling them, by its proper worth, to their 
 own approbation, and to the favour of God. 
 
 And this no doubt is the case. Among the various de- 
 vices of human folly and pride, for making void the Cross of 
 Christ, this strange one has certainly a place. But is this 
 any objection to what has been stated? A drowning man 
 rescued from destruction by the heroic self-devotion of a 
 friend may claim a part of the merit of his own preserva- 
 tion, because he clung to the hand of his preserver. One 
 
 * Note S. 
 
 7—2
 
 THE CONNEXION OF [Seek. 
 
 ilv distemper by the benevolence and 
 
 skil. in abatemenl of the claims upon 
 
 that had be obstinately rejected the remedies 
 
 • ir liiiii, ii" benevolence or skill could have availed 
 , v. T: • m to 1"'. absolutely, no limits 
 
 to the wayward perversions of the natural feelings 
 human heart But these feelings are, notwithstand- 
 d. It is irpoo them, and not upon the perversions of 
 :i. that we calculate in all our dealings with each other, — 
 in o Dings, in our threatenings, in <>ur promises. In 
 
 aa for the improvemeni of man, in laws to regulate his 
 luct, in everj human system designed for human nature, 
 common sense confines as to the sober aim of influencing 
 Stably tli.- natural principles of the human mind, — ex- 
 citing 01 restraining its natural movements, — and forbids the 
 chimerical attempt of anticipating, providing for, and com- 
 bating it> monstrous anomalies. Is it strange to find a re- 
 _ 1 1- ■< 1 for man framed upon the same rational and 
 practical principl 
 
 The question Es faith the sole instrument of man's jus- 
 n'. is to be determined by the authority of Holy 
 pture, and by it alone. Upon that authority it has been 
 answered The further question — Is it a fit instrument? if 
 Bhould be considered a1 all, is to be determined, not by 
 lability to be abused — which it shares with everything 
 that could have been chosen for that purpose — but by 
 its legitimate and natural effects. Now, that the act where- 
 by, feeling and confessing that we deserve God's righteous 
 indignation againsl sin, we renounce all merit of our own, 
 and put our whole confidence in another's— that the act 
 when by we abjure all trusl in ourselves, or in anything thai 
 or can perform, and put our whole trust in an- 
 other and in uh.ii he has done that this act should, by a 
 reflex operation of the mind, become itself a ground of de- 
 to the exclusion of the true ground, or in partici-
 
 IV.] FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 101 
 
 pation with it, — this, I think, must be felt (however possible 
 
 it be) to be about as natural and legitimate a result as that 
 a man (which is plainly possible too) should be proud of his 
 humility. And I do not fear to say, that upon a fair con- 
 sideration it must appear, that to object to preaching the 
 doctrine of justification by faith only, on the grounds that by 
 this curious perversion, it may lead to a form of self-right- 
 eousness, is not a jot more reasonable than it would be to 
 discountenance enforcing upon Believers the cultivation of 
 the Christian grace of humility, under an apprehension that 
 the possession of that virtue might engender pride. The 
 more closely scrutinized the cases are, the more perfect, for 
 all important purposes, will the analogy appear to be. But 
 I have gone too far to dwell on the comparison, and of all 
 the reflections that it suggests, I can add but one. That is, 
 that as you would conclude that there was something hollow 
 and false in a man's humility, if you found that while it 
 forbade pride in any other virtue, or good quality, it allowed 
 him to contemplate with self-complacency his lowliness of 
 mind ; even so, and with the same certainty, conclude against 
 the genuineness of your own faith, if you find it allow you to 
 put your trust in itself, or in anything but in Christ, and 
 Him crucified.

 
 SERMON V. 
 
 ON THE CORRUPTIONS OF THE DOCTRINE OF 
 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ONLY.
 
 1 • rruptelis liujus dicti, fide jnstificamuv, alii aliter locuti sunt, 
 
 . rmris omnibus, et eandem falsam sententiaiu omnes 
 
 agtruunt. Omnea intelligunt fid* tantum mgnificari notitiam historise, et 
 
 ■ philoeophice, habentem ipsas virtutes .... Hoc modo cum 
 
 •. affingunt deinde alienaa interpretationes, quaj tamen omnes 
 
 in su: ; volant;- in hue propositione synecdochen esBe, fide jusiificanmr, 
 
 ■is justificamur: seu fide praeparamur ut postea aliis 
 
 iu-:i -iin -..- UEonachi sic- locuti sunt, fide formata, scilicet dilectione, 
 
 ir, quod ric intellexerunt, propter dilectionem justi sumus. Alii sic 
 
 ii (iunt. 1 .. operibus Deo mandatis justi sumus, non operibus 
 
 .•mm) hnmanarum. Alii hoc modo depravant, fide, id est interiore 
 
 cultu nbus justi sumus. 
 
 Hi itit.-r|r omnes hoc volunt: homo est Justus, id est, Deo ac- 
 
 - ad \ it .mi atiTiiam, propter proprias virtutes et opera. Et hoc alii 
 .rdius, alii qua-darn absurda omittunt. 
 
 Melancthon. Arrj. in Ep. ad Romanos.
 
 SERMON V. 
 
 KOMANS III. 28. 
 
 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of 
 
 the law. 
 
 You will remember, I trust, my brethren, that the main 
 object of my last address to you from this place, was to 
 establish that important doctrine which is so distinctly stated 
 in my text — the doctrine of justification by faith only. 
 
 I showed you that when we receive, in their plain and 
 natural signification, this passage and the parallel passages 
 of the New Testament, we have unusual means of satisfying 
 ourselves that we are assigning to them the exact import 
 which the writer intended that they should bear. These 
 means are not derived merely, or principally, from the num- 
 ber of distinct enunciations of this doctrine which these 
 passages supply ; all testifying to the same truth under some 
 variety of form, and enabling us, by comparing them to- 
 gether, to fix with more certainty their common sense. 
 
 Great as this advantage is, we have in this case far 
 greater advantages. For these texts are not detached pro- 
 positions ; the interpretation of which may often, from the 
 imperfections of language, remain liable to some reasonable 
 doubt, and which can never, be they ever so reiterated and 
 express, be set beyond the possibility of unreasonable cavils. 
 They are but condensed publications of a system which is
 
 )RRUPTION& OF THE [Seem. 
 
 rth in full detail; and this system maybe 
 
 brief declarations of it, and com- 
 
 They are given sometimes as inferences 
 
 j ; and the argument may be sepa- 
 
 i. and its fair force employed, to ascertain the 
 
 iclusions from it Tiny profess to reveal 
 
 1 conciling Binners to Himself. Such a reve- 
 
 blished, would be likely to be judged, as 
 bj tin- Qotions thai men entertain of God's nature 
 •■ by their views of His designs concern inn- 
 id of the best mode of carrying those designs into 
 And crude objections, founded on seine discordance 
 nary, between such a revelation ami these pre- 
 rould be likely to be put forward then, as 
 ■ ow. Such objections by their tone and quality 
 try aid us, If we p — >sed them, in ascertaining 
 charact* r of the doctrine which they impugned; 
 till more, if we were also furnished with the answer 
 ' • them ly the first promulger of the doctrine. Now, 
 have in the present case; for the Apostle 
 from whom th< se pa are chiefly taken, states and dis- 
 
 Buch objectione to the doctrine which he preached. 
 
 <d confirmations, for such we found them all 
 
 >f the presumption which always lies in favour of 
 
 the interpretation that receives language in its natural 
 
 g branch ...it widely. And of the varied evidence 
 
 this doctrine, as a Scriptural truth, I then 
 
 'i the kind of abstracl that my limits allowed. 
 
 ted, what I certainly wanted nothing but 
 
 ' / ' /'• ,,1; " thifl clear doctrine of the Bible is do 
 
 !,l . v ,1 "' doctrine of all those reformed Churches. 
 
 and strength it \a thai the Bible is their religion. 
 
 ith ' '" '''■•'' pure Church to which it is our 
 
 belong, and to whose principles we have, there- 
 
 :; ' ' l""' 1 """"-' I showed yo„ that we are assured
 
 V.] DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 107 
 
 that she receives this truth simply as it is stated in her 
 brief but explicit declaration of it; in no qualified or decep- 
 tive sense of that statement; but in the plain meaning and 
 fullest force of the terms in which it is conceived. For that, 
 both in her Articles and Homilies, further precautions are 
 taken by her (of which I then gave you some account) which 
 have manifestly for their object, to fix such a meaning of 
 these terms, to establish the doctrine so explained, and to 
 guard it from misconception, evasion, or abuse. 
 
 To say that these precautions have not always been com- 
 pletely successful, is but to vindicate the wisdom by which 
 the necessity for precautions was foreseen. Doubtless, they 
 have not always succeeded in securing this truth from neg- 
 lect or perversion. No human means could effect this for a 
 doctrine so unpalatable to man's natural heart ; nor has it, 
 indeed, seemed fit to God to invest with such force any of 
 truth's safeguards, whether human or divine. But these 
 wise cares have been at no time wholly ineffectual. They 
 preserved sound doctrine for a better day, and mainly con- 
 tributed to hasten its coming. They have since supplied 
 ample materials for the propagation and defence of the truth. 
 And, even in the darkest season, there was doubtless a rem- 
 nant, to whom they served to attest the pure principles 
 which they were intended to guard. 
 
 I supposed, then, that the fair effect of this statement 
 of the evidence for this important doctrine might be some- 
 what impeded by a reflexion, to which it is, no doubt, 
 calculated to give rise. How, namely, is it, that among men 
 interested about religion, and professing to take their views 
 of it from God's Word, there have always been found many 
 in determined opposition to a doctrine which seems so clearly 
 and so prominently revealed there ? How is it that a 
 doctrine, so distinctly asserted by our Church in the most 
 solemn declaration of her principles, and guarded by her 
 with such multiplied precautions and such anxious care,
 
 I ORRUPTIONS OF THE [Serm, 
 
 old hai r fallen into disrepute among her mem- 
 
 :lv among those to whom she confides the 
 
 maintenance of her doctrines, and from whom (previously 
 
 _■ in them bo weighty a tnisl she exacts an ex- 
 
 leclaration of strict accordance with the principles 
 
 which they ai I to teach and to defend ? 
 
 T these inquiriee I promised to return an answer. But, 
 should be Borne misconception concerning the 
 nt of the engagement so formed, I think it right to 
 that it is not my purpose to offer any solution of 
 difficulty proposed, hut only to answer the objection 
 which it i- intended to convey. That is, I only mean to 
 the reasons which from time to time have been urged 
 support of the opposition which this doctrine has en- 
 countered, and to Bhow their insufficiency: without speaking 
 at all of the can-'- to which the opposition has owed its 
 I propose t" consider it solely as it suggests an objec- 
 ti"ii t" the adoption of the conclusion to which I have been 
 anxious t.» Nad you. And if this mode of answering the 
 questions referred to leaves untouched the difficulty which 
 they directly present, it must he felt that that is a difficulty 
 which I am not, so tar as respects my present purpose, 
 called upon to remove. 
 
 The difficulty, indeed, which I mean to answer, is also 
 
 thai I might easily hold myself excused from consider- 
 
 The only form in which such questions suggest any 
 
 objection t.. what 1 have stated is this:— If the direct evi- 
 
 dence '■> prove tin- i" !»• a doctrine of Scripture and of our 
 
 Church, be as conclusive as it i- a-d-ted to be, would it not 
 
 produced conviction more extensively than we see that 
 
 ' has done '. In reply to this, we might, as it seems, content 
 
 ■•• itli denying that such a difficulty, whatever be 
 
 -ht in other cast 3, is fairly urged here. If, in advo- 
 
 any doctrine, a man were to content himself with 
 
 that the position which he maintains is supported
 
 V.] DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 109 
 
 by irrefragable proofs; it might seem fair enough to qualify 
 or suspend our assent, by the consideration that the sue 
 which these proofs have had, seems hardly consistent with 
 such high pretensions for them. But is the same a fair 
 way of dealing with one who gives the argument on which 
 he means to rely ? 
 
 It would seem, in the present case, enough to say : ' The 
 evidence for this truth has been laid before you; the sources 
 from which it has been drawn are all within your reach ; 
 it is of a kind that you must be competent to examine : 
 and you are, surely, deeply interested in examining it fairly. 
 Will you rather avail yourself of a vague and precarious 
 presumption against it, to dismiss it without examination? 
 Surely a man who feels himself at liberty so to turn away 
 from a fair consideration of proofs fairly laid before him, and 
 pressed upon him, ought to feel that the effect which these 
 proofs have produced upon the world at large is but an in- 
 different test of their real strength. It would not be a 
 good mode of ascertaining their strength, or a mode that 
 any independent mind would voluntarily adopt, even if it 
 were certain that they had been brought fairly before every 
 individual who had ever judged of them, and had been 
 honestly and carefully weighed by him. But there appears 
 a peculiar inconsistency in relying so confidently upon this 
 test, at the very time that your own mode of deciding shows 
 it to be of so little value — by showing clearly how pro- 
 bable it is, that these arguments have been often reso- 
 lutely rejected by men who never troubled themselves to 
 ascertain fairly whether they were strong or weak.' 
 
 This, I think, is as full an answer as such an objection 
 could fairly claim. But I do not, of course, feel it right 
 here to confine myself to such a reply as the strict rules of 
 reasoning might adjudge to an adversary. To silence an 
 objector is not necessarily to remove an objection anywhere, 
 and least of all in religion. And to remove objections to the
 
 ERUPTIONS OF THE [Sekm. 
 
 truth which 1 have taughl is here my business, and my de- 
 
 1 shall, th '-'ii to give a more direct answer 
 
 [uestions,— but -till under the limitation of their 
 
 ; e already laid down 
 
 ler of the Bible must know that it is there 
 
 ■!aiv,!. thai we are justified by faith, without 
 
 ths law 1 . And it is no Less generally known, 
 
 tiurch has adopted this doctrine in the equivalent 
 
 tli.it we are justified by faith only 2 . The doctrine 
 
 iii. \ii->\ i;v faith <>m.y must then be in terms 
 
 i. by .-ill who do not deny the authority of Scripture, 
 
 hi- < ihurch as an expounder of its sense. The only 
 
 • •!■<■. op n to those who desire to oppose this 
 
 truth, and who yet are not prepared to do so by such a 
 
 denial, is to divert from it- natural meaning some oue of the 
 
 l words of such passages — to give some now sense to 
 
 uith, or to justification. And, however easy it 
 
 may 1"- to account for it upon consideration, it appears, at 
 
 'lit. remarkable, that upon every one of these terms, 
 
 ime time or other, has this dangerous process been tried. 
 
 Labourers have never been wanting to effect the main object 
 
 ich changes; though the ways in which they endeavoured 
 
 promote it were often not only different but inconsistent 
 
 ich other. Winn one mode, from any cause, lost its 
 
 efficacy, another has been tried. And so arguments have been 
 
 supplied to restrict the meaning of works, or to extend the 
 
 meaning of faith, or to -how that justification has nearly no 
 
 ning whatever; according as the genius of the writer, or 
 
 the temper of the times, or the good or ill success of the last 
 
 • cause, seemed to give advantage to the 
 
 in. thod or to the other. 
 
 { ,1 " of the first attempts in the Reformed Churches to 
 •■ rbal prof ssion of this doctrine with a real 
 
 iii. 28. 1 _\ r t \ |
 
 V.] DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. Ill 
 
 opposition to it, was by reviving the strange notion, first, 1 
 believe, promulged by Origen*, that the: Apostle, in speaking 
 of works here, and in the parallel passages of his Epistles, 
 means the ivories of the ceremonial law. As we know that 
 the father, from whom this exploded gloss was borrowed, was 
 a sincere and eminently gifted, though certainly most erring 
 divine, we must be content to regard it as one of the many 
 instances in which a love of system does the worst work of 
 ignorance or dishonesty. For to either, we should hardly 
 hesitate to ascribe such a position, if we were unacquainted 
 with its first author. Few would think it too much to say, 
 that if so audacious a misrepresentation did not spring from 
 gross ignorance of the Bible in him who made it, it, at least, 
 relied upon finding those upon whom it was pressed but 
 slenderly acquainted with the sacred volume. 
 
 Whether in some passages cited in support of this view, 
 the Apostle is really speaking of the ceremonial part of the 
 Mosaical code, exclusively of the moral, and how far these 
 passages have any bearing upon the question, it is quite 
 superfluous to inquire; because it is certain, and may be 
 easily proved too, that to limit in this way the sense of law, 
 in a variety of passages which undoubtedly do apply to the 
 question, is impracticable. 
 
 When the Apostle speaks of law, in connexion with this 
 subject, he sometimes means the whole Jewish law, both 
 ritual and moral; sometimes, the moral part of it especially ; 
 sometimes, as in my text, all divine law, both natural and 
 revealed. When he first introduces it, he treats it as corre- 
 sponding to the law written by God upon the hearts of the 
 Gentiles; which would of itself seem enough to fix its true 
 character. He goes on, however, to give a long and black 
 catalogue of offences against this law; all of which, without 
 even a single exception, are moral delinquencies. He de- 
 scribes it as a law in which he delighted according to the 
 
 * Note T.
 
 )RBUPTIO \ S OF Till: [Serjc 
 
 -:i law wliirh the consciences, even of those who 
 
 •, :ir«- constrained to acknowledge a- holy, and 
 
 - the law bj which we have the knowledge of 
 
 Lad it' all tin—- characteristics of the law of which he 
 
 .1.1 be reconciled to the belief thai In.* means by it 
 
 aonial observances, he seems to take away 
 
 sibility of such a misconception, by a |i;i^a-v in which 
 
 of this law a- containing the commandment, Thou 
 
 ••What shall wo say then? — is the law sin? 
 
 ' ; forbid Nay, 1 bad not known sin but by the law. For 
 
 1 had not known lust, excepl the law had said unto me, Thou 
 
 shall doI c 
 
 This ought, I think, to be enough to show how grossly 
 
 tin- Scripture is misrepresented by such a restriction 
 
 of the meaning of the deeds of the law: and that our Cliurch 
 
 aot Gallon into this error, I should proceed to prove di- 
 
 • v. hut that this will a|>|. oar incidentally under the next 
 
 :: t.. which J think it more important to proceed, without 
 
 ' irther on a view which is too easily exposed to 
 
 allow any defender of the truth to apprehend much danger 
 
 from it. 
 
 The term faith has been subjected to similar violence, but 
 
 in a much greater variety of forms. Sometimes it is settled 
 
 that it stands tor fidelity, which is itself a virtue, and no in- 
 
 considerable one too; and then there is no difficulty in the 
 
 - ptural statements— "God's counting faith for righteous- 
 
 uo1 counting it instead of righteousness, but as 
 
 al righteousness;" or faith and grace are, by a 
 
 v understood, pul for the Gospel, as by law and 
 
 world are meant the Jewish religion; and then being justified 
 
 • through faith, will mean that we shall, through 
 
 favour, he accepted upon "the terms of the Gospel; 
 Ulirh - including g I works, without a compliance 
 
 Bom. vii. 7.
 
 V.] DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 113 
 
 with the works of the Jewish law;" ox faith being the begin- 
 ning and the root of all evangelical righteousness, it is, by 
 St Paul, put for the whole of evangelical obedience, " by a 
 metonymy of the antecedent for the consequent, or rather of 
 the efficient cause for the effect." 
 
 All these misrepresentations of the true signification of 
 FAITH, and of its true place in the work of our justification — 
 and if there be any other — I may regard myself as having 
 sufficiently replied to already, in the proof which I gave you 
 of the sense which the word bears in Scripture, in that use 
 of it with which we are chiefly concerned to fix its meaning ; 
 and of the place in the justification of sinners which Scrip- 
 ture assigns to the principle for which the word there stands. 
 I showed you in full detail, and in a way liable to no fair 
 exception that I am aware of, that faith in Christ is like 
 faith in any other person, or in any other thing — that it is 
 trust in Him. And that the attempts of some to simplify 
 the meaning of the term, by confining it to an assent of 
 the understanding to evidence ; and of others to complicate 
 its meaning, by making it represent all Christian virtues, 
 whether in disposition or act, are equally discountenanced 
 by the Bible. And I showed you too, that to this faith, 
 when genuine — to it, distinct from all graces that accompany 
 it in the Believer's soul, and all the virtues which follow 
 it and spring from it in his life — to it, and to it only, is 
 the office of his justification assigned. 
 
 And may not all this be regarded as again proved in what 
 I have established, a moment since, in opposition to the 
 misrepresentation of the meaning of law ? For if law, in my 
 text, mean or include the moral law, and therefore deeds of 
 the laiv be moral virtues, or comprehend them, does the 
 assertion that we are justified by faith without the deeds of 
 the law, mean anything more or less than what I have now 
 stated ? 
 
 If you ask, however, whether this is the real, as it is 
 
 8
 
 114 COBEUPTION& OF THE [Serm. 
 
 doubtless the Datura! meaning of the assertion of our Church, 
 
 by faith only; you may sec that in the 
 
 which makes the assertion, our works and deservinga 
 
 Inded from s Bhare In our justification. If 
 
 it Lb sometimes curiously said, that they are 
 
 oolyexclud it- meritorious cause ; 1 answer, that they 
 
 doubtli :cluded as its meritorious cause, when that is 
 
 said to be, only the merit of owr Lord and Saviour Jesus 
 
 ■: but that they are no less clearly excluded as its 
 
 i in-,' when that is said to he faith only. 
 
 for removing all doubt upon that head (if any doubt 
 
 remain . l""k to tin- larger statement in the Homily to which 
 
 mitted in 1 1 1 « - Article, and you will see in what 
 
 . (press terms the office of justification is limited to faith: 
 
 And tin: Si Paul 1hi\' declareth, nothing upon the 
 
 ,lt' of man concerning his justification, but only a true 
 
 and lively faith Lnd yet that faith doth not shut out 
 
 utance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of God, in every 
 
 man that i- justified, BUT IT SHUTTETH THEM OUT FROM 
 ini: mi tii i: op JUSTIFYING. So that though they be all 
 apeth( r in him that is justified, yet they justify not 
 altogeth 
 
 Thi- would seem abundantly clear. But, in fact, con- 
 fining yourselves wholly to the Articles, you may arrive 
 with equal certainty at the same conclusion. First appears 
 an Article declaring expressly our justification to be by faith 
 '• To this succeeds another Article, assigning their true 
 ptural place and character to good works, describing 
 them as the fruits of faith, and as following after justifica- 
 And finally, we have an Article expressly denying the 
 character of good works, and ascribing a very different cha- 
 m.i works preceding justification 6 . 
 Thi ifi to leave nothing on the subject unprovided 
 
 -no inquiry concerning the principles of the Church 
 ' M \ : xrr. « Art. xni.
 
 V.] DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 115 
 
 without 'an answer — no doubt unsatisfied. Does any one 
 ask, Are we justified for our good works ? Nay, replies the 
 Eleventh Article, " not for our works or deservings, but only 
 for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by 
 faith." Are we justified by our good works ? Nay, again 
 replies the same Article, "we are justified by faith only." 
 What then, should an objector to the doctrine subjoin the old 
 interrogatory ad invidiam, What then, have good works no 
 place in the doctrine ? ' They have,' the following Article 
 enables us to reply, 'an essential place ; but a place wholly 
 irreconcilable with the office which you desire to assign them. 
 They are commanded by God ; and those whom He has 
 freely justified, with glad and grateful hearts obey His com- 
 mandments. Though unable to meet the severity of His 
 judgment, they are, when performed by His children, well 
 pleasing in His sight; and His reconciled children will de- 
 light to bring Him the offering. They are the necessary 
 fruits of true faith, and, therefore, will necessarily appear 
 in the lives of those whose faith is genuine. But they 
 manifestly cannot combine with it in the work of our justifi- 
 cation; for, springing from it, they follow after justification.' 
 And are there no other good works save these ? — should one 
 go on to ask. None, is the decisive testimony of the thir- 
 teenth Article. All man's works which precede his justifi- 
 cation, neither springing from the source nor possessing the 
 qualities that secure God's gracious acceptance of those which 
 follow it, are not pleasant in His sight, and we doubt not that 
 they have the nature of sin. Is not this an indissoluble chain ? 
 Even with the advantage of knowing all the devices that 
 have been adopted to evade these precautions, I do not see 
 how we could now suggest a reasonable addition to them*. 
 
 Some, however, when they can no longer deny the con- 
 clusiveness of this proof, contrive to render it useless to 
 
 • Note U. 
 
 8—2
 
 0RRUPTION8 OF THE [Serm. 
 
 [ves, and as far as they can to others, by under- 
 ling tin- importance of the point established For if it 
 can be shown that there is really no important difference 
 different statements of God's mode of justi- 
 fying in in. we may of course adopt whichever seems upon 
 any grounds most convenient or prudent 'And is not the 
 cent • .' it is Bometimea -aid. 'is not the controversy 
 
 when yon take in the whole doctrine on both sides, some- 
 tliii like a verba] one? Does not, for example, your 
 
 in- nt of the doctrine of the Church end, no less than 
 that which it opposes, m establishing, that works are as 
 • ntial to justification as faith is?' 
 
 If questions of this kind, which you hear so constantly, 
 i to have any force for their purpose, they owe it 
 entirely to the ambiguous terms in which they axe conceived. 
 Thia ambiguity may sometimes, doubtless, be attributable 
 to design; but it should oftener be ascribed to the confused 
 apprehensions on this subject which great carelessness about 
 the truth naturally generates. But, whatever be its cause, 
 it is here easy to exhibit and to correct it. 
 
 I- it then, we may ask in turn, is it meant to inquire 
 whether it has not been shown to be the doctrine of Scrip- 
 tun- and of our Church, that faith and works bear the 
 same relation to justification, or that it has the same depend- 
 ence upon both ? If this be meant, and less than this would 
 hardly Berve the purpose of the question, the simple an- 
 : is, that what has been established is the direct contrary 
 of this. What has been established to be the doctrine of 
 Scripture and of the Church is, that God has instituted such 
 mnexion between faith and justification, that those upon 
 whom Ee bestows faith, He also justifies; that He justifies 
 them when He bestows faith upon them; that He justifies 
 faith, counting this faith for righteousness, — that 
 isness which is the proper legal ground of justifica- 
 ■i i in \ ion of good works with faith and with
 
 V.] DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 117 
 
 justification is no less distinctly laid down. Those who are 
 so justified will certainly bring forth good works ; for such 
 obedience to God's will is the proper fruit of the principle by 
 which they have been justified ; while, before the change 
 in their condition before God, and the change of mind by 
 which faith has been given to them, they are incapable of 
 any work well pleasing in God's sight. This, I say, which 
 establishes so distinctly the connexion in nature, and the 
 order too, of faith, justification, and obedience, has been 
 proved to be the doctrine of Scripture and of the Church 
 to which we belong. And does this allow the authority of 
 either to be fairly pleaded, for any view which assigns the 
 same place in the work of man's justification to faith and to 
 obedience ? Does it show that justification is suspended upon 
 good works, as it is confessedly suspended upon faith? To 
 answer this question it is enough to point to the Article 
 which declares that no good ivork can be performed by the 
 sinner until his justification be accomplished 7 . 
 
 This is a sufficient answer to the question — Are not good 
 works and faith alike essential to justification ? in the only 
 sense in which it can be of any support to the views of 
 those who ask it. It shows that to assert that we are justi- 
 fied before God by good works, in any sense, is to contradict 
 the testimony of Scripture and of the Church, and to reverse 
 the order of the proceeding which both have distinctly laid 
 down. We have seen, at the same time, that both declare 
 such works to be necessary fruits of justifying faith, and so 
 essential marks of justified persons. And therefore, when 
 these fruits are wanting, we may collect the absence of that 
 internal principle which we can only discern in others by its 
 proper effects ; and collect too that the act of God, which 
 is only performed when that principle is really possessed, 
 has not been performed : and what may be a guide in the 
 
 7 Art. XIII.
 
 )RRUPTIONS OF Till: [Serm. 
 
 • . ,.. ra ill-- far more important end of a safe- 
 
 -,1 in our own. [f, therefore, the meaning of the inquiry 
 
 \ . • ,,il\ precedes justification, will not good 
 
 : '/,,„• a : the question, if this be what 
 
 lt , though cast in a form fitted to disguise its real 
 
 : ,,i to convey a false one, is to be answered in the 
 
 affirmative, and the affirmative to be strenuously maintained. 
 
 B • it is unnecessary to repeal how little, in this sense, it 
 
 promotes the real purpose, or rather how directly it frustrates 
 
 the real purpose of those who propose it. 
 
 ■ \\ 'hat then,' it is said, ' is this alter all the true use of 
 
 moral virtues? Can no higher end be assigned for that 
 
 which we are commanded to render, — for those 
 
 gifts and _ of the Spirit, which Christ died to secure 
 
 and which God has promised to bestow? Has Christ left us 
 
 in His life an example that we should follow His steps, and 
 
 did Be die that Be might purify to Himself a peculiar 
 
 people zealous of good works, merely that they themselves 
 
 and ..theis should be provided with evidence that theirs is a 
 
 auine faith V 
 
 There is a sort of perverse sophistry, which, if it ever 
 
 appear anywhere but in this controversy, it is certainly not 
 
 ■1 anywhere else thought necessary to answer. We are 
 
 told that in the Acts of the Apostles, that, "there sat a 
 
 tin man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple 
 
 from In- mother's womb, which never had walked. The 
 
 same heard Paul speak, who steadfastly beholding him, and 
 
 that he had faith to be healed, said with a loud 
 
 voice, Stand upright on thy feet ; and he leaped and walked"." 
 
 if there could be found any one who was disposed to 
 
 maintain that the Leaping and walking of this man pre- 
 
 d his restoration to strength; and that the recovery of 
 
 power over his limbs, depended upon these acts as the 
 
 \ • a v. 8 — 10.
 
 V.] DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 119 
 
 instrument, means, or condition of that recovery; and were 
 he to fortify his position by citing authorities to show the 
 dependence of health, strength, and activity, upon exercise 
 — or by any argument of any kind ; his argument ought 
 doubtless to be listened to patiently, and his error patiently 
 exposed. But if, — upon your pointing out that not reason 
 only, but the plain meaning of the narrative in the Bible, 
 showed that this man's cure had been effected by preter- 
 natural power, before he was capable of thus exerting his 
 limbs, — that these healthful acts could not have been per- 
 formed, until health had been restored, — that they proved 
 indeed the efficiency of the remedy, but in no sense wrought 
 or contributed to the cure, — if he were then to cry, 'Can 
 you speak thus coldly of the blessing of renovated health ? 
 Can you see a fellow-creature restored to the enjoyment of 
 it, with so little feeling for his happiness ? Do you think 
 decrepitude of no further consequence than as it shows 
 that a man has not yet been relieved effectually ; and the 
 activity bestowed on this impotent man of no higher value 
 than as it demonstrated the completeness of his cure V — 
 would you think that such weak and aimless declamation 
 required or merited a reply ? 
 
 If, however, for the sake of others, an answer ought to 
 be made, to what is said, though neither more wisely nor 
 more fairly, upon the subject immediately before us, I pre- 
 sume it would be felt to be abundantly sufficient to say, that 
 we have hitherto neither asserted nor intimated anything 
 of the value of good works ; that we have been endeavour- 
 ing to rectify errors with respect to their proper cause and 
 their proper effects ; but that the view which we maintained 
 was not derived from any disparagement of them, — that it 
 would be equally true or false, whatever were their import- 
 ance, — whether they were of great moment or of little, — 
 whether they served to promote higher ends or were them- 
 selves an ultimate end; and that therefore all this talk
 
 CORRUPTIONS OF THE [Sebjl 
 
 ■boot their importance, is altogether beside any purpose of 
 _: iim. nt on the subject 
 
 v who maintain that we are justified by faith only, 
 a,,,! that t • that we axe justified by faith and works is 
 
 in which the period of justification is misstated, 
 and the connexion between it and obedience misplaced, can- 
 be in any fairness represented as in this depreciating 
 
 the vain-- of g 1 worka They, in tins, assert nothing of 
 
 their importance; they intimate nothing of their import- 
 
 : they merely deny to th.m an office falsely assigned to 
 
 them They who say that such works are an evidence of 
 
 or of justification which is by faith, when they speak 
 
 thus of a legitimate use to be made of good works, cannot in 
 
 any f.iirn. — be art-used of asserting that these works serve 
 
 no oth< r What their other uses are is to be hereafter 
 
 shown. How tar they are secured by this system is also 
 
 a question for another time. And when that time arrives, I 
 
 not fear that I shall have much difficulty in showing, 
 
 that the order established in Scripture is better fitted to 
 
 secure g 1 works, than that which human wisdom has 
 
 always struggled to substitute for it: that God's humbling 
 plan of forgiving man, to make him good, is not only more 
 worthy of itfl Author, but founded upon sounder and larger 
 news of human nature, and more effectual in securing obe- 
 dience t«. the Divine will, than man's proud plan of becom- 
 1. to obtain forgiveness. 
 
 Whether for the reasons that I have given, or for others, 
 
 if matters little, bul certain it is, that some, who are well 
 
 affected t<> the objects proposed to be attained by tampering 
 
 thus with the term faith have despaired of effecting them 
 
 this way, and have not scrupled to confess unequivo- 
 
 "that the doctrine of St Paul is clear beyond a 
 
 namely, thai we are justified by faith, and that 
 
 without works of any kind, even works of moral righteous-
 
 V.] DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 121 
 
 ness." — And is not this to concede the doctrine in question ? 
 By no means. The words are on the contrary quoted from 
 one of its steady opponents. They make a large concession 
 doubtless, but a larger qualification is appended. There is 
 an effectual device in reserve, to nullify even this ample and 
 express admission of the truth. For you will observe, that in 
 this confession justification is spoken of simply. Now there 
 are (we are told) " two sorts of justification spoken of by 
 the Apostle, namely, a first and a final justification." — "The 
 first (and indeed that which is the chief subject of St Paul's 
 argument, when he treats of justification at all), is that by 
 which the unconverted are admitted into the fellowship of 
 Christ's church, or made members of the Christian com- 
 munity: the second, whereby they, who are thus become 
 Christians, shall after having duly qualified themselves for 
 it, be put into possession of eternal life." "The first is 
 going on always ; now, in this present time, as the Apostle 
 expresses it. The second does not take place until the last 
 day."..." To the first nothing is necessary but faith without 
 regard to works, even of morality... This is, therefore, the 
 acceptance which is intended by St Paul, when he speaks 
 so repeatedly as he does, of our being justified by faith with- 
 out the works of any law. He means that first kind of 
 justification or acceptance whereby converts, whether Jews 
 or Gentiles, whether of his own or any succeeding times, 
 should be admitted into the body of Christ's visible church 
 in this present world." 
 
 Of all the strange perversions of Scripture to which this 
 controversy has given birth, I am inclined to regard this 
 representation of the nature and extent of justification, as the 
 most extraordinary. I showed you in the proper place that 
 justification means generally, in Scripture, a declaration of 
 innocence with respect to some law ; and that God's justifica- 
 tion of sinners is His acknowledgment of their innocence with 
 respect to His holy law : whence follow all the consequences
 
 lS j IRRUPTIONS OF THE [Serk. 
 
 -immunity from punishment, and full and un- 
 Now, if any one will •-•all the solemn 
 
 • • judgment by which, at the last day, God receives 
 their reward all who are then found in His Sun, their 
 
 •/,,„, ti. ms i" be no impropriety in such 
 
 :i use of the term. 1 do not believe that that act is anywhere 
 
 styled; but if it were felt convenient so to 
 
 ite it, there could I"- ao objection t.> doing so: exr.pt 
 
 • ur as tli-- designation was made subservient to conveying 
 a false notion of what is thus styled, their first justification — 
 their justij by faith in the Redeemer That justifica- 
 tion is, — as I have sufficiently established and often re- 
 ted, — the act of our Almighty Judge, whereby He accepts 
 righteous all whom faith in Christ hath made one with 
 
 Him. And when we detract, in any degree, from the com- 
 plete ness of this gracious act of amnesty and reconciliation, 
 . however undesignedly, doing wrong to the infinite 
 which is its true source, and derogating from the all- 
 sufficiency of that work which is its sole foundation. Every 
 citation winch ascribes to this justification any imper- 
 fections or reservations is. >o tar, an inadequate and a false 
 one But when it is proposed to reduce it to a participation 
 in the outward privileges of Church communion, the mis- 
 representation amounts to a height that renders it hard 
 to meet it seriously: it becomes so gross and flagrant as 
 to make it matter of real amazement, how even the blindness 
 mtroversy could have been insensible to it. Why, justifi 
 faith is spoken of perpetually in the New Testa- 
 ment ; and whether you collect what it means from the 
 demands of the law of God, which it satisfies 9 , or from the 
 nature of that justification by works, to which it is equiva- 
 or from what is said of the change in the condition 
 and feelings of those who are so justified 10 , — or from the 
 
 '' '" '■'• - ' wqq. * See pp. 113, 124. 
 
 1 ■■ • '■ «& 33; BpL ii. iii. 12; Heb. x. 19.
 
 V.] D0CT1UXK OF JUSTIFICATION. 123 
 
 account given of God's mode of proceeding in justifying 
 them 11 — you will see how utterly without countenance from 
 tin' Bible is any such limitation of its nature and extent. 
 
 I have been too large upon this subject already, and 
 have too little time now remaining, to enter into the details 
 which would be necessary to show, that all these modes of 
 fixing the signification of this term, concur in establishing 
 the meaning that I have so often already assigned to it. 
 One of them, however, is so conclusive, and yet so brief, — 
 so easily apprehended too, and retained, — that I cannot, even 
 now, refrain from drawing your attention to it. It is that 
 furnished by the way in which St Paul introduces my text, 
 to which I have, for other purposes, before adverted. Having 
 established the guilt both of Jew and Gentile, he infers that 
 these violators of the divine law cannot be justified by it, — 
 that " by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified 
 in His sight." He goes on to show, however, that though 
 sinners cannot be justified in this way, yet God's wisdom and 
 goodness have devised another mode whereby they may be 
 justified : — for that the righteousness of God without the law 
 is manifested — even the righteousness of God ivhich is by faith 
 of Jesus Christ, which is unto all and upon all them that be- 
 lieve; and that thus, though all have sinned, yet are sinners 
 justified freely, by his grace, through the redemption that is in 
 Christ Jesus. And after a further setting forth of this free 
 justification, and of the propitiation which makes God just, 
 when he thus justifies the ungodly, he expressly declares, 
 "that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the 
 law." 
 
 The course of his- reasoning is clear. But my concern 
 here with the passage is this — that any one who looks at it 
 must see, that, to give it coherency, it is absolutely necessary 
 that we ascribe the same meaning to justification throughout. 
 
 11 Itoin. iv. 3 — 5.
 
 CORRUPTIONS OF THE [Suue. 
 
 .1 Min. a i [ON by the deeds of the law, and Justification by 
 p lainlv in it. not two different things, but the same 
 thii ted in two different waya That innocence, there- 
 
 which would be the result of a righteous fulfilment of 
 which man cannot possess, from his moral in- 
 ability to render to the Ian Its demands — that is precisely 
 what 1.. ■ •in. a his under the Gospel, by faith; — his iniquities 
 \e the following passage distinctly declares), his 
 1 : righteousness is imputed to him without works, 
 rhith being oovmtedfor righteousness. 
 That this is the view of our Church, concerning the na- 
 ture and extent of justification by faith, will appear to any 
 one simply upon a fair consideration of the eleventh Article, 
 and without going beyond it. The title of that article is, 
 •(it tht.- Justification of .Man;*' and in setting the doctrine 
 forth, in the body of the Article, we are counted righteous 
 ' i-; used instead of, we are justified, and as synony- 
 mous with it. And whether you regard the interchange of 
 phi - the result of a design to convey distinctly the 
 
 views of the Church upon the nature of justification; or as 
 mad. unconsciously, from the equivalence of the forms of 
 expression in the minds of the framers of the Articles; the 
 ' of the substitution is the same in determining their 
 viewa And this is enough, without pressing any other proof 
 the same point which the next Articles supply. 
 In what a variety of forms this view of justification is set 
 forth in the Bomiliea is too well known, even to the most 
 Lere of that volume, to require any detailed cita- 
 tions. Tak. a single brief one — "So that Christ is now the 
 righteousness of all them that do truly -believe in Him. He 
 for them paid their ransom by His death. He for them ful- 
 filled the law in His life. So that in Him, and by Him, 
 true Christian man may be called a fulfiller of the 
 rasmuch as what their infirmity lacked, Christ's jus- 
 i righteousness] supplied."
 
 V.] DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 125 
 
 Such is the language of the Reformers of the Church of 
 England. And in her best and purest days, her sons did not 
 shrink from maintaining the same precious truths, and in 
 language no less strong and explicit. Hear, for example, the 
 memorable words in which Richard Hooker has recorded his 
 confession of this foundation of the Believer's hopes. 
 
 "Christ hath merited righteousness for as many as are 
 found in Him. In Him God flndeth us, if we be faithful, 
 for by faith we are incorporated into Christ. Then, although 
 in ourselves we be altogether sinful and unrighteous; yet 
 even the man which is impious in himself — full of iniquity, 
 full of sin — him being found in Christ, through faith, and 
 having his sin remitted through repentance, him God be- 
 holdeth with a gracious eye; putteth away his sin by not 
 imputing it; taketh away the punishment due thereto by 
 pardoning it ; and accepteth him in Jesus Christ, as perfectly 
 righteous as if he had himself fulfilled all that was com- 
 manded him in the law. Shall I say, more perfectly righte- 
 ous than if himself had fulfilled the whole law? I must 
 take heed what I say ; but the Apostle saith, God made Him 
 which knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might be made the 
 righteousness of God in Him. Such are we, in the sight of 
 God the Father, as is the very Son of God himself*." 
 
 I have quoted this eloquent passage, not to derive au- 
 thority from it, nor even as adopting it to the letter; but 
 simply to show, what intrepid plainness of speech was then 
 employed on this momentous subject; and what intense 
 energy of expression was deemed not inappropriate to it, by 
 one whose sobriety of judgment was not among the least of 
 his high gifts. And I abstain from multiplying such cita- 
 tions, because I should be sorry to give any countenance to 
 the supposition, that I desire to make this discussion a war- 
 fare of great names. To the Bible, in a question of Scrip- 
 
 • 'Discourse of Justification,' § 6.
 
 OF THE DOCTRINE, &c. [Sehm. V. 
 
 .1 truth — to the Articles, Homilies, and liturgy, in any 
 
 ing the principles of our Church — I desire 
 
 myself I rarely wander from them toother au- 
 
 Au.l I Bhould be rery anxious to avoid referring 
 
 bhei authorities, however high, in such a way as to 
 
 the mistake thai they stand upon a level with 
 
 is the ultimate court of appeal upon all such questions, 
 
 II ring aow supported the direct proof which I gave of 
 this important doctrine,— by showing that the statements 
 I which are found in the Bible, and those which are 
 made by our Church admit of no other than the natural 
 meaning I should desire to pass to the consideration of the 
 f faith which I have so long been obliged to 
 tpona But there are other difficulties connected with the 
 trine first to be removed, and other objections of some- 
 what a different kind to be answered. And these I propose 
 osider, when I next have an opportunity of addressing 
 you.
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 ON THE OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF 
 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ONLY.
 
 Quan<|uam vero invisa sit multis sententia fide absque opcribm, vel sola fide 
 ■art croltntes, declarant multoruin in nos non tam calumniosa quam impia 
 :», nos auUm nihiloininus constanter asserimus fide absque operibus vel 
 sola tide 1 endeutea 
 
 T.iLLiNGEB. Dc gratia Dei justificante nos propter Christum per solam 
 n absque optribus bonis, fide interim exuberante in opera bona.
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 Romans hi. 28. 
 
 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of 
 
 the law. 
 
 Having explained, from the Bible, the nature both of faith 
 and of justification, I proceeded, you will remember, from 
 the same source, to point out their connexion. I stated the 
 true Scriptural Doctrine of justification by faith only, and 
 gave you some account of the leading arguments upon which 
 it rests. And finally, I confirmed the direct proof of the 
 Doctrine which they supply, by showing the entire failure 
 of the most important attempts that have ever been made 
 to set up a different doctrine of justification in its place. 
 
 Having done so much, if this truth were one of common 
 interest or of moderate importance, I should certainly hold, 
 that enough had been done for its security ; and I should 
 not seek to engage attention further, for those minor assaults 
 to which every truth is liable, and which no truth nearly 
 affecting man's interests, here or hereafter, has ever been long 
 before his unquiet mind without provoking. There is, on 
 the one hand, some danger lest protracting a discussion of 
 this kind, should exhaust the attention upon which its use- 
 fulness must mainly depend. And, on the other hand, it 
 may be thought, that there is some reason to fear, that fix- 
 ing the attention long upon an inquiry, which, from its 
 
 9
 
 [Sehm. 
 
 ! b the establishment of truth than 
 
 it, may have a tendency to lead us to 
 
 an ultimate end ; — that it may disp 
 
 in the establishment ofthe truth as the 
 
 . rlooking or th in king lightly, of those 
 
 aich truth itself is but subsidiary— the part 
 
 ■ . perform, in the discipline and improvement 
 
 1 ..in- 1: - and regulating the affections 
 
 — j, the heart, and elevating our fallen nature. 
 
 osible to either of these dangers; though I 
 do not suffer either to deter me from proceeding to compL te, 
 in i manner that I am able, the investigation whirl, 
 
 ipied u--" Long. I cannol allow myself to fear that 
 the interest which this momentous doctrine is fitted, upon 
 ii. nt of it. t<> excite, it is not also able to sus- 
 tain, through even a Longer investigation than the present. 
 I- is impossible that any mind, at all raised above the 
 
 sph can contemplate the Gospel plan of redemp- 
 
 tion, which this doctrine proclaims, without a measure of 
 the in - which it may fairly claim, were it only as ;i 
 
 matter of speculation Even those who feel little concern 
 the undying into which it secures, cannot regard 
 
 would think, merely as •■' wise contrivance for over- 
 l difficulties, without wonder. In the Gospel, God is 
 ling free forgiveness to sinners Avithout 
 ii j truth, or of His purity ; without encou- 
 sin, or tolerance of it. The Divine mercy and 
 offenders are seen, not reconciled to justice merely, 
 lained by it. All the attributes of the Most High 
 from which our sinful nature shrinks with 
 •i and fear, no less than those to Avhich, at times, it 
 rtain and transient hope — all alike are there, — 
 without strife or opposition, without compromise or accom_ 
 but all alik< — in full consent and unimpaired 
 I in the salvation of guilty man! It
 
 VI.] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 would seem impossible that any one could hear of a plan 
 which embraces such inexhaustible wonders, without feeling 
 that it merits, even as a matter of speculative interest, all 
 the labour that may be required to explain its nature and I • 
 establish its truth. 
 
 But there are, I trust, not a few among those who hear 
 me, who feel that they have in this Doctrine a nearer and 
 a deeper interest ; who not only contemplate the Doctrine of 
 the Cross of Christ, with amazement and awe, as the wisdom 
 of God and the power of God; but with minds awake to 
 its connexion with their own eternal happiness, and with 
 hearts subdued to love by the ineffable love which it dis- 
 plays. Such hearers will take a more cordial concern than 
 belongs to any speculative inquiry, in all investigations con- 
 nected with this sure charter of the sinner's hopes ; and 
 more especially in those which have it for their object to 
 restore it to scriptural simplicity — to free it from adultera- 
 tion — and to defend it from the assaults of its enemies. To 
 them, no means will appear superfluous which promise to 
 conduce to the purity and the stability of a truth, to which 
 all truth — even all revealed truth — must be felt to be sub- 
 ordinate in interest. For surely, until revelation has in- 
 structed a sinner how he may be reconciled to God, whom 
 he has offended, all the knowledge that it brings, however 
 high and wonderful it be, is but, at the best, matter of 
 mournful curiosity to him. 
 
 As to the danger of fixing attention exclusively and 
 long, upon what in itself forms but means to a higher end, 
 that is certainly a danger, in some degree, inseparable from 
 every detailed examination of the evidences for religious 
 or moral truth. And it is likely too, I may add, to 1 
 greatest, just in the case in which the necessity for sue!) an 
 examination is the most imperative: where the truth is 
 most assailed, or most corrupted, or most abused ; where it 
 is of such difficulty as to require minute investigation, and 
 
 9—2
 
 OBJECTIONS AGAINST [Seem. 
 
 ich importance as to deserve it. It would be but a bad 
 
 and a bad mode of escaping this risk, 
 
 abandon the def nee of truth, or to neglect 
 ,r; and hardly, if at all, better, to per- 
 cursorily and insufficiently. Suppose the 
 rays <>t' guarding against it. Suppose 
 tually incurred, there are means of remedying 
 i, ,,,, «av of supplying the efficacy of divine 
 
 truth l-v any human invention ; nor are there any means 
 endering man's corruptions of the truth innoxious in 
 tion We cannol hoi,!, doubtless, that even Divine 
 truth i- of itself necessarily efficacious, without losing sight 
 ot" that important pari of it which declares the corruption 
 <ir nature, and the necessity of spiritual influences to 
 ii- to receive it. and of spiritual aid to enable us 
 •t upon it. But on the other hand, to hold that its 
 trumentality can 1"- dispensed with, or its place supplied, 
 or even to think lightly ot' its intermixture with man's 
 i- a sure indication, it' not of absolute infidelity, at 
 • of that insidious latitudinarianism which is less cou- 
 nt, ami hardly less presumptuous and destructive than 
 infidelity itself. 
 
 Upon every view of the case, then, I feel far easier under 
 -••in.- appn hensions that I am dwelling too painfully and too 
 B upon objections to this important Doctrine, than I 
 iM be, it I thoughl there was reason to fear, that I had 
 missed any with insufficient notice. 1 had tar rather com- 
 mit the error of giving undue importance to feeble assaults 
 upon this truth, than the opposite one, of neglecting to repel 
 any which might, in the least, impair the cordial confidence 
 with which it is embraced by a -ingle Believer by whom I 
 m... be heard 
 
 When this Doctrine is presented upon its proper evi- 
 may be, and in fact it has been, assailed in the fol-
 
 VI.] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 133 
 
 lowing easily distinguishable ways. The plain interpretation 
 of the multiplied passages in which ii seems to be so dis- 
 tinctly expressed, may be denied, and a different meaning 
 assigned to them. Or, this sense which they are thus made 
 to speak may be independently derived from other parts of 
 Scripture. Or, lastly, without attempting either of these 
 objects definitely, difficulties of more or less weight may be 
 thrown out, which are supposed in some way to invalidate 
 the doctrine to be impugned. 
 
 I have already intimated that I regard objections of the 
 first of these classes, as in their nature far more important 
 than the others. In fact, while the authority of the pas- 
 sages, which seem so unequivocally to declare the Doctrine 
 of justification by faith only, is acknowledged, it appears 
 fruitless to proceed a step in the attempt to overthrow that 
 Doctrine, without first endeavouring to show that these pas- 
 sages will bear some meaning different from that which they 
 seem so distinctly to speak. If this attempt be moderately 
 successful, the other modes of proceeding may doubtless af- 
 ford it strong confirmation. But if it wholly fail, the others 
 united must be insufficient to overthrow a doctrine, which 
 will then remain distinctly and authoritatively taught in the 
 Word of God. 
 
 Now I think I am warranted in asserting, that such is the 
 present position of this question. For, I think I established, 
 in my last address to you from this place, the impossibility of 
 assigning, with any show of reason, a new sense to any of the 
 leading terms of the well-known enunciations of this truth. 
 And if we have in Scripture distinct and reiterated publica- 
 tions of this Doctrine, we may rest assured that no other 
 parts of Scripture can contradict these, however we may fail 
 to reconcile them; and that no difficulties with which the 
 doctrine may be pressed can be of any real weight, whatever 
 apparent importance they may have in our eyes. 
 
 But it may be said, ' Is not this true of every clear doc-
 
 [Serm. 
 
 : be sh -it it is 
 
 at. thai works 
 
 a man Hon, is not the 
 
 mow, thai the p \\ bich 
 
 the doctrine of justification by faith only 
 
 usly interpreted? At least, will nol 
 
 pie fully warrant all who desire to resl in a state 
 
 upon this , int, ami to forbear from 
 
 ly upon thi side or upon the other?' 
 
 remembered that it is ue< 
 
 this indecision, that whatever evidence 
 
 tion of those texts from which the 
 
 <;.. d, the same, or 
 
 evidence, we should have for the 
 
 of those passages by which it is to be over- 
 
 • Ldei ■ for the meaning assigned to 
 
 m, if t! to contradict it expressly; if to con- 
 
 ially, the same evidence for their 
 a. 
 
 \ think of the multiplied and varied evi- 
 
 which we have had to prove that this Doctrine is 
 
 lined in the i will hardly, I think, expect to 
 
 .. h<> maintain thai the Bible contains the 
 
 D i istain their assertion by proofs equally 
 
 For you must recoiled that this Doctrine is not 
 
 1 upon explicit and repeated texts of Holy 
 
 Writ ; bu1 thai it has been shown that the natural and 
 
 of these texts is the meaning required by 
 
 • of the Gospel plan of redemption 
 
 • en; by the arguments from which 
 
 inferences; by th< objections with which at its 
 
 the Doctrine was assailed; and by the 
 
 • i ■ to th< - ■ objections, by the writer whose mean- 
 
 ;it to ascertaia It can hardly be thought an 
 
 prejudice which will not allow those who have
 
 VI.] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 135 
 
 examined and approved such a mass of evidence for any 
 
 position, to expect to find the contrary position sustained by 
 evidence equally satisfactory. 
 
 And, in fact, when we come to look at the passages which 
 are put forward as furnishing such evidence, we find that 
 they consist chiefly of texts which establish some truth, that, 
 rightly understood, is in no respect inconsistent with this 
 Doctrine. — Thus texts of Scripture are accumulated to prove 
 the important truth, that in the solemn act of final judgment, 
 which is to close this dispensation of mercy, every man shall 
 be recompensed according to his works. With what design 
 such passages are brought forward, it is not difficult to see; 
 but what purpose they are fitted in fair reasoning to serve, it 
 would not be so easy to show. Where lies the inconsistency 
 between these two important truths? Between the truth 
 which teaches that God forgives and accepts us freely, for the 
 sake of the propitiation which He himself has provided; — 
 that He does so when His Spirit has so convinced us of our 
 sin, of our condemnation, and of our helplessness, that we 
 lay hold with gratitude and joy of the way of escape freely 
 offered to us ; that His forgiveness and acceptance of us 
 attend with certainty upon this our faith, — between this 
 truth, I say, and the truth, that men are finally distin- 
 guished at the last day, according as they have rendered 
 obedience to God's commands or withheld it, what inconsis- 
 tency can be shown? If we knew these, upon the same au- 
 thority, as separate truths, the right inference to draw from 
 both would be, that God enables those upon whom He 
 bestows faith to maintain the course of obedience which He 
 has prescribed ; and that those who do not possess that prin- 
 ciple do not render obedience to His commandments. 
 
 But the truth, that genuine faith will produce genuine 
 obedience; and that this free justification of sinners is itself. 
 through faith, efficacious in promoting God's will concert/ in g 
 them, even their sanctification, — this truth, I say, combines 
 those other truths into one coherent scheme. And that this
 
 S AGAINST [Serm. 
 
 .ho hold that we are justi- 
 
 i . i bardlj assert here, \\ here 1 hav< 
 
 ■. They hold, with the venerable framers of 
 
 \ -. tint those whom God thus draws to His Son, 
 
 ustifi ly; they be made sons of God by adoption; 
 
 made like the image of Bis only begotten Son Jesus 
 
 ... i sly in good works; and at length 
 
 ..•'■. attain everlasting felicity." Is there in 
 
 . nty, which affords any colour for the 
 
 ! that what Revelation toadies concerning the 
 
 pric G I's righteous judgment at the last day, and 
 
 le of conducting it, is in any respect opposed to the 
 
 -i [ficatioh by faith only* 
 
 B • ii' false reasoning that relies upon the carelessness 
 
 with which men hear, and the precipitancy with which they 
 
 a matt rs of religion, will he ever without a measure 
 
 to justify the calculation. And this application of 
 
 the common sophism, which establishes, with ostentatious 
 
 pain-, a position perfectly harmonious with the one that it is 
 
 ■ to overthrow, supplies a notable confirmation of the 
 
 When it is seen that such pains are taken by the 
 
 opponents of this Doctrine, to establish a truth which is 
 
 already generally acknowledged, it will be presumed by many 
 
 that so much labour would not be expend,. .1, if the truth 
 
 • one of great importance to the argument. And 
 
 then, if lo - of either or both truths can exhibit 
 
 any apparent discrepancy between them, it is enough. Care- 
 
 • will gladly take it as real, and as amounting just 
 
 • hat the argument requires that it should amount to, 
 
 rathei than engage in the task of inquiring into its true value. 
 
 This i- an unfair mode of warfare, which has been em- 
 
 ployed in this to an extent that forms something like a 
 
 I for the well-known use of it in the Socinian contro- 
 
 The class of arguments, which I have just now no- 
 
 "' ;i ' ifficient illustration of it; but it appears still 
 
 and, if possible, more unfairly, when the
 
 VI] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 137 
 
 texts which enjoin a holy life and conversation upon Chris- 
 tians are urged in opposition to this Doctrine: intelligibly 
 Conveying, and being designed to do so, that, according to it, 
 obedience to the will of God and conformity to the life <f 
 Christ are matters of little moment or none. 
 
 So far as this slander is directed against the professors 
 of the doctrine of justification by faith only, it has received 
 already the proper reply. They have lived it down. As far 
 at least as it is reasonable to expect, that anything which 
 has in itself the principle of life so strongly as slander has 
 should perish from want of food, it has, I think, died out. 
 And whenever and wherever it revives, it may be met fear- 
 lessly by a fair comparison of the actual effects of this 
 doctrine and of the opposite doctrine, so far as they are cog- 
 nizable by man. To God, the language, not of the lips only, 
 but of the heart of every true Believer is, "Behold, I am 
 vile, what shall I answer thee ? I will lay mine hand upon 
 my mouth 1 ." But to self-righteous opponents of His truth, 
 who seek to wound it, by vilifying those who maintain it, I 
 do not know that it is forbidden to us to say, that this 
 Doctrine has no reason to fear the result of a fair comparison 
 of what those who hold it have been enabled to do and 
 to suffer in the cause of Christ, with any sacrifices or any 
 labours which have been the fruits of any other view of 
 His Gospel. 
 
 The calumny, however, is perhaps more frequently level- 
 led directly at the Doctrine itself. And if it be meant that 
 it does not profess to enforce and to secure obedience to 
 God's will, a bare statement of the whole Doctrine is suffi- 
 cient to show the groundlessness of the charge. If it be 
 meant that it does not actually make a sufficient provision 
 for this purpose, the assertion (so far as it does not refer 
 to the matter of fact already noticed), is to be examined 
 hereafter ; when we come to the second division of the effects 
 
 1 Job xl. 4.
 
 [Serm. 
 
 , even against the 
 
 ,1 trU r serious and patient exami- 
 
 I who bri _ ■ • li charg rinst 
 
 trut |, . up 'ii other weapons than upon 
 
 I ms to be to take advantage of the 
 
 , :, from a commendable source, which 
 
 ch charges, whether well or ill sustained. 
 
 !i them is often therefore a matter 
 
 !V importance; and ends, upon examination, in 
 
 this—' If you do not »me place 
 
 i works, in your religious system, that they haw in 
 
 it is plain that you can feel but little solicitude to 
 
 ■i their necessity.' Or, ' [fyour representation of the 
 
 plan of salvation does not exact good works for the 
 
 aid enforce them upon the motives, that ours does, 
 
 plain that it makes no effectual provision for securing 
 
 :n.' This reasoning is rather imperious than convincing. 
 
 the tit time for discussing it will be, as I said, when 
 
 to the consideration of the moral effects of this 
 
 And as I have often before said, I do not fear 
 
 that, when that time arrives, 1 shall have much difficulty in 
 
 v, from all that we know with most certainty of the 
 
 -ntutic.n of our own minds, that the place which the 
 
 lom of God has assigned to good works in His plan of 
 
 mption, is better fitted to secure their performance, than 
 
 ■ which human wisdom has always struggled to raise 
 
 ai. 
 
 il \e said, 'Have we not at least the undoubted 
 
 authorit imea for assigning to works this place in 
 
 ition? Does he not denounce expressly the 
 
 ' by faith only, and ex- 
 A.braham was justified by worksV 
 \ th p alluded to forms, doubtless, the Scrip-
 
 VI.] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 139 
 
 fcural strength of the opponents of the Doctrine of justifi- 
 cation by faith only, it merits a careful consideration. I musi 
 first say, however, that, even if no probable meaning can 
 be found for it, but that which makes it directly contradict 
 that doctrine, it would seem to furnish but a very insufficienl 
 force for the overthrow of a principle collected from such 
 various declarations of Holy Writ, and confirmed by proofs 
 so multiplied and cogent. But, it may be asked, 'If we 
 cannot assign any consistent meaning to this language which 
 will reconcile it to the principles already established, what 
 is to be done ? Shall we imitate the rashness of that great 
 Keformer, who cut the knot, by denying the inspiration 
 of the Epistle of St James?' If this question be asked, 
 I reply, that I do not admire the hardihood of that illustrious 
 man, and that I should not follow it myself or recommend 
 it to the imitation of others. But I should in the case 
 supposed adopt a middle course. ' This, certainly,' I should 
 say, 'this certainly cannot be the meaning of an inspired 
 writer. Some cause which I cannot discern or remove pre- 
 vents me from penetrating into his real sense : I will there- 
 fore leave the passage, as I am obliged to leave some others 
 in the Bible, until God shall please to make manifest that 
 which He now sees fit to conceal.' 
 
 I do not, however, think that we are in a position which 
 renders this necessary ; for if we first fix the circumstances 
 under which St James was speaking, and then make a legi- 
 timate use of those circumstances in determining the force 
 of what he has said, it will, I think, appear that his autho- 
 rity cannot be fairly cited against the doctrine of justification 
 by faith only. 
 
 I need hardly remind you, I presume, how dependent we 
 are upon a knowledge of the circumstances under which the} 
 were spoken, for qualifying or explaining some large and 
 positive declarations in the Bible. A man ignorant of the 
 true principles of religion might imagine that Ave have the
 
 TECTIONS AGAINST [Seru 
 
 L I for ascribing to alms-gn 
 
 rt, in the words, " Give 
 
 :„1 behold, all t; re clean unto 
 
 Bis command, "Sell that thou hast and 
 
 •I. j ,1 thou shah have treasure in heaven 8 ," 
 
 _ ' i such g 1 deeds the power of 
 
 ternal rewards : and this, in the ease of the 
 ■ 1 unbelieving, for to Buch He was in both in- 
 g Himself. 
 r taught would know that it was impossible 
 I. uld thus contradict the doctrine distinctly 
 
 Himself, and the whole current of the Word of 
 i : and would find in the circumstances under which He 
 speaking, a satisfactory mode of clearing up the diffi- 
 8 iu are uot,' he would say, 'to treat our Lord here 
 down any general principles concerning alms- 
 II' is addressing a particular class in the one case, 
 Licular individual in the other. In all fairness, what 
 to be strictly limited to those to whom it is 
 rly addressed. And n >t only so, but in interpreting 
 oing, we ought, in prudence, to make use of all that 
 know of their circumstances and character. — Now, we 
 '. that they were both idolaters of mammon. We know, 
 upon Hi- own testimony, that there was no length of oppres- 
 sion, violence, and wrong, to which the Pharisees (to whom 
 the bortation was addressed) did not resort from the 
 
 " money : and the young ruler (to whom the other in- 
 ed showed ><n>u by his mode of answering 
 how much more he was a lover of riches than 
 I '• ■' Now that Christ should publish to these, 
 it they truly turned to God there was full forgiveness 
 full acceptance for them with Him, would be but to 
 11 Gospel of ivp.-Mtaiire and remission of sins; 
 may do, at all tine's, and to all. But that He, 
 1 LakexL 41. s Mark t 21 _
 
 VI.] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. Ill 
 
 a discemer of spirits, should see the condition of those 
 whom He addressed, so as to know that they could only 
 escape from the thraldom of this inordinate passion, in 
 effectually turning to God, — that He, to whom all hearts 
 were open, should know and name the particular outward 
 acts which were sufficient to show their emancipation from 
 its tyranny complete, and therefore their conversion accom- 
 plished, — this is plainly peculiar to Him and to them. It 
 does not warrant us in proposing a similar test, in any case 
 which we may conceive similar ; much less, in deriving from 
 His language any general principle applicable to all cases : 
 — except that principle which is elsewhere so distinctly set 
 forth, — that him that cometh to Him, He will in nowise 
 cast out 4 .' 
 
 This mode of fixing the meaning of the passages in 
 question would, I think, strike any candid mind as the pro- 
 per proceeding in this case, or any similar one. And I 
 only desire that the principles of the process may be borne 
 in mind, and fairly applied to the case before us. — It ap- 
 pears, then, easy to show, that the persons with whom St 
 James had to do, were in error in believing that they pos- 
 sessed the principle of faith; that they were in error with 
 respect to the true nature of that principle ; and, in con- 
 sequence, in error with respect to the true meaning of the 
 Doctrine of Justification by faith which they were abusing. 
 
 That they were destitute of the principle of which they 
 believed themselves, or professed to believe themselves, 
 possessed, seems abundantly evident. For you may remark 
 first, the language with which St James commences, " My 
 brethren, what profiteth it, if a man say that he has faith, 
 and have not works 5 ?" No language can more distinctly 
 intimate that the Apostle is dealing with a false profes- 
 sion of the principle than — "What profiteth it, if a man 
 say that he has faith?" even if what follows, "and have not 
 
 4 John vi. 37. s James ii. 14.
 
 AGAIHI [Se 
 
 ■ all who know the truth, 
 
 >ne. Ee is made in our 
 
 ■ i 'an faith save him (" And 
 
 | there would be any danger of 
 
 a in this mode of expressing it ; 
 I • that up ' the original you will be of 
 
 • more exactly marks it, and 
 
 rendered, — " Can this faith saw 
 
 hi: I him?" And this would be 
 
 a- acquainted with the characters he was 
 
 the matter is set in a still clearer light by two illus- 
 ions which he subjoins. The first is undoubtedly a case 
 in which there is a false pretence to the principle of bene- 
 //" a brother or sister have need, <£x. — and this is 
 •■• the pretence made to faith 1 >y those who say 
 that they have it, and who have not works. And secondly, 
 a parallel is intimate. 1 between the principle which they 
 and the belief of devils, which is necessarily 
 if the characteristic of true faith, and inspires 
 Dot confidence but terror. 
 
 I v -. and give them only their 
 
 id 1 think you cannot doubt that the persons 
 
 whoi Si addressed were careless or immoral pro- 
 
 who were destitute of faith, though they pretended t<> 
 
 : who, in fact, mistook that speculative conviction of 
 
 which may be arrived at by the natural 
 
 of the understanding, for thai trust in the Redeemer, 
 
 1 upon such convictions, but which is the 
 
 work of the Spirit upou the heart ; and who, furthermore, 
 
 thoi faith, that it was a principle which, not in the 
 
 1 '■'■ only,bu1 at every period of his course, 
 
 not leading to a desire to obey and supplying 
 
 bedience, bul in all cases to be pleaded as ,-, 
 
 • they who sought to be justified by
 
 VI.] J I T STIFICA TION B Y l\ I / Til. 1 43 
 
 works, .•nid they only, were bound by their principles to 
 render obedience to God's commands; while, on tin- other 
 hand, those who were justified by J'm/h were by their prin- 
 ciples exonerated from the obligation of obeying Him. 
 
 There was therefore, as I said, a two-fold error to be 
 corrected; one with respect to the individual himself, and 
 the other with respect to the Doctrine. The error, with 
 respect to the individual, was that he possessed the principle 
 of faith. The error, with respect to the Doctrine, was closely 
 connected with this — it was a mistake of the true nature 
 and certain effects of faith, and the true nature of justifi- 
 cation by faith. St James addresses himself to the correc- 
 tion of these errors in the practical way, which is so common 
 in the Bible; not laying down formally the exact doctrine 
 upon the subject, but showing, by instances, the true nature 
 of justifying faith, and the true nature of justification by 
 faith, so far as it was necessary to correct this gross error 
 upon the subject. And throughout, as is common in the 
 Bible, he uses the language of those whose errors he was 
 combating — calls the principle which they called "faith" 
 by the same name ; and adopts, too, their language concern- 
 ing justification by faith, without a formal exposure of their 
 misuse of terms. Read all that he says, remembering what 
 has been just remarked, viz., that he employs throughout, 
 the lansfua^e of those whose errors he is seeking to remove ; 
 using faith to express their notion of it — not the true one ; 
 and, in the same way, suffering justification by faith to stand 
 for their false view of the process, — read what he says, re- 
 membering this; and you will see that it really contains 
 nothing which you might not expect to hear from St Paul, 
 under the same circumstances. 
 
 Suppose that St Paul, — having preached the Doctrine of 
 justification by faith only, in all the freeness and fulness 
 in which I have represented him to have preached it, — saw 
 some of those who professed to embrace it, dishonouring
 
 U4 CTIONS AGAINST [Serm. 
 
 it in their lives, and pleading their gross misconceptions of 
 j t i„ ,;. of the liceDse which they allowed themselves, 
 
 m i,, feel Burprised at finding that he 
 add] them thus: 'Wha1 profit, my brethren, can there 
 
 ; ssion of faith which is contradicted by a man's 
 I a such faith save him '. What would you 
 oing the benevolence of those whom you heard 
 .•i brother in distress with kindly talk, but care- 
 fully abstaining from affording thai assistance which his 
 required, which their circumstances allowed, and which 
 would certainly have bestowed? Doubtless, 
 that their ion was a false one, and that the principle 
 
 had no nee in their hearts. Even so conclude concern- 
 
 uli.it you call your faith, when you find that the acts to 
 which faith naturally had.-, when genuine, have no place in 
 induct And. in fact, if you examine the principle 
 which you mistake (or faith, you will find that it is no more 
 than that speculative belief which devils have, and which 
 but augments their terror; not that comfortable assurance 
 conciliation with God, through the Mood of His Son, by 
 which thos< who are renewed in the spirit of their minds are 
 bled to him without fear. — But you refuse to show 
 
 by yov/r works; and think that works are only 
 i" I mired of those who arc justified by ivories; that 
 
 / - bt j stified by faith only, is to be relieved from all obliga- 
 te ndering obedience to God's commandments. Nay, 
 ■• if that i tit man who is justified, is justified by 
 
 and no man by faith only. Abraham, the father of the 
 thful, was justified by works; for he was called on to obey, 
 when obedience was hardest to flesh and blood, and he 
 promptly obeyed the call In this he was, in your view of 
 Jtification, , I by works; but those who know the 
 
 "•'«' mine faith, know that in this he only proved 
 
 truth of the declaration in the Bible, that he was justified 
 that he " believed God, and it was counted unto
 
 VI.] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 1-15 
 
 him for righteousness." — Justification by faith only, in 
 your sense of the proceeding, has never taken place, and 
 it is impossible that it ever should ; for it could only take 
 place if God were deceived in the principle by which lie 
 justifies a sinner. If to be required by God to obey Him, 
 and to render obedience to Him, when He demands it, — if 
 this be to be justified by works, then he that is not justified 
 by works has never been justified by faith. The separation 
 between faith and works, in the justification of a sinner 
 before God, is a wJiolesome doctrine, as well as very full of 
 comfort. The divorce which you make between them, in 
 the life of the Believer, is a vain imagination, which but 
 shows a corrupt heart, a stranger to genuine faith, and a 
 dark mind, in utter ignorance of the doctrine of justification 
 by faith' 
 
 That such an address from St Paul would be in nowise 
 inconsistent with the doctrine which I have represented him 
 to have preached, eveiy one would acknowledge : and I trust 
 that you will see, on comparing it with what St James has 
 actually said, that there is no real difference between them. 
 I have been obliged to expand considerably a part of the 
 Apostle's language, in order to exhibit the train of thought 
 which, I think, was in his mind. But this proceeding is, I 
 hope, fully explained and vindicated, by what I first established 
 concerning those whom he addressed, and by what I remarked 
 of the mode in which he pursues his object. And to those 
 who think these preliminary remarks well grounded, the 
 paraphrase which I have given will, I trust, upon a little 
 reflection, appear to be a fair representation of the Apostle's 
 meaning, and to do no violence to his language. And, under 
 this view of it, it is plain that this often-cited passage con- 
 tains no objection of any kind to the Doctrine which some 
 sanguine opponents have regarded it as overthrowing*. 
 
 * Note V. 
 
 10
 
 1-,.; OBJECTIONS AGAINST [Seum. 
 
 rid- takes away all force from the second class of ob- 
 aa And the two first classes being thus removed, the 
 thiitl n rather a matter of curiosity than ^i' any real 
 
 ni ,j ( i should not propose to you, <»r to myself) such 
 
 . : ii.-nt . — even had we more time for it, — as a der 
 t; ,i|, mination of all the difficulties connected with this 
 
 doctrine which perverted ingenuity, violent prejudice, or 
 i.'1-..s-i iiii-*-"inv|iti"iisof its oature, have from time to time, 
 devised and propounded This is uot the best mode of con- 
 tinuing the convictions of its friends, or disarming the 
 its enemies. Clear statements of the Doctrine 
 for either end, far m >re efficacious and more practicable 
 And under this impression, I shall only glance at 
 a few difficulties which spring from confused views upon the 
 Bubject, or which have a tendency to lead to them. 
 
 Some think thai they have discovered that as we are justi- 
 ■h. and as faith is an act of the mind, we are really 
 justified by a work, in such a sense as to render the dispute 
 erning justification by faith, and justification by work*, 
 purely a verbal one; while others, more alarmed by this rea- 
 soning than seems necessary, have hastened to obviate it, by 
 concluding thai as we are certainly not justified by works, 
 and as acts are works, the faith by which we are justified is 
 of the mind. And the jealousy for the freeness of 
 the Gospel, which lias Led to this questionable position in 
 metaphysics, seems to be carried to its utmost length by a 
 at writer, who holds, that that freeness is as much im- 
 paired by making faith, whatever it be, whether act, quality, 
 I the mind, the instrument of justification, as by 
 making a man justified by any or by all the deeds of the law; 
 and who, therefore, infers, that with justification, properly 
 speaking, faith has no connexion, as condition, preliminary, 
 preparation, or qualification! And while this amiable and 
 titer for such, aotwithstanding this extravagant re- 
 finemei ' '■ one must regard him) rejects this doctrine, as
 
 VI] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 147 
 
 requiring too much for justification, there are, I need not t . ■ 1 1 
 you, abundance of grave authorities who oppose it as exacting 
 too little; and who, though not agreeing perfectly in the amount 
 of the addition, or the rule by which it is to be determined, 
 agree all in thinking that some addition is absolutely essential. 
 
 How far the medley of inconsistent objections which this 
 doctrine has encountered, coming from extremes which sel- 
 dom unite except when it is to be weakened or assailed, 
 ought to have a tendency to confirm it, I will not stop to in- 
 quire. Doubtless, whether considered in their origin or their 
 quality, it would seem that they ought to have this tendency 
 in some degree; but in what degree, I will not attempt to 
 fix ; for I hope that what I have already said is sufficient to 
 show that none of them is of any real weight. 
 
 Thus, as to the two first difficulties, — what I said of the 
 part which faith really performs in a sinner's justification, 
 (in reply to the question, what is the peculiar excellence of 
 faith?) rightly considered, will be seen to afford materials for 
 a satisfactory answer to both. I showed you then, that when 
 Believers are justified by faith, their faith being counted for 
 righteousness, their faith does not justify them as a part, 
 .small or great, of their righteousness ; but as the appointed 
 means of uniting them to Him who has chosen, as the name 
 whereby He is to be called, the Lord our Righteousness 6 . 
 And I attempted further to show that this is a fit appoint- 
 ment, even according to what we can see of it ; for that if we 
 are to be justified altogether by the merits of the Redeemer, 
 and not in any degree by our own, then, cordial trust in Him, 
 and a hearty renunciation of all trust in ourselves would 
 seem to be the precise state of mind to which an efficacious 
 interest in His merits ought to be annexed*. Now whether 
 this be an act of the mind or not, would not seem of much 
 importance ; so long as it is so clearly fitted for its office in 
 
 d Jer. xxiii. 6, xxxiii. 16. " Sermon IV. 
 
 10—2
 
 OBJECTIONS AGAINST [Sj 
 
 oners, and bo clearly distinguished 
 
 "our own works and deservings" — whereby 
 
 ition is obtained, not of grace, but of debt For it is 
 
 • in all that St Paul says to exclude works from a 
 
 it justification, he does uot speak of works in gene- 
 
 . works which, being enjoined by God's law, 
 
 d, have a proper tendency to justify man. — 
 
 \ Qe who reads what he has written on this subject, with 
 
 ble ran. lour, can imagine that he had in view a 
 
 action so little to his purpose as one between active and 
 
 of mind or body. It never seems to have oc- 
 
 curred to him that by such miserable refinements a question 
 
 could be raised, as to whether Believers receive justification 
 
 when they receive it by their faith. And he lei 
 
 the case to the common sense and natural feelings of those to 
 
 whom he wrote, without j ging their attention, or his own, 
 
 in such artificial difficulties. God had established a particular: 
 
 nam with the Jewish people, by express revelation; and 
 
 a in s k ral one with the whole human race, by bestowing 
 
 q all men a nature capable of appi-eciating the mural 
 
 of actions — a faculty which, anticipating or exi 
 
 1 3 II right ius judgment, approves or disapproves of 
 
 linn iduct. Onder both covenants there was the notion 
 
 luty and sin, of nward and punishment, of merit and de- 
 
 m< rii ; but under neithi r could such faith pretend to merit 
 
 ■ ! dm reward Neither from the constitution of human 
 
 ire, nor from the provisions of Cod's express law, could 
 
 I..- regarded as meritorious who confessedly had failed 
 
 to perform their duty, and who confessedly had incurred the 
 
 penalti< lisobedience. Their trust in the obedience of 
 
 ther and in the sufferings of another, might become, bf 
 
 ther n relation, at once a clear duty, and effectual meana 
 
 nee. Bui that, even then, this acknowledgment* 
 
 which • 1 an abjuration of all merit in ourselves, an 
 
 it to another, left a reserve of some iui n't
 
 VI.] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. M9 
 
 to the acknowledgment itself, seems never to have or<> 
 the Apostle's mind, lie seems satisfied, thai all who knew 
 either the Jewish law, or the law of nature, would see thai 
 God, in annexing justification to faith, was justifying gra- 
 tuitously; that He was not paying wages, but making a free 
 donation. This is enough for his purpose; and this is surely 
 equally true, whether faith be or be not an act of the mind — 
 a question with which he seems never to have been dis- 
 turbed, nor need we. It is a question which belongs to me- 
 taphysieians, and which may be safely left to them: for 
 St Paul's purpose at least, it is plainly a matter of perfect 
 indifference how they determine it*. 
 
 The third difficulty opposes this doctrine as impairing the 
 freeness of the Gospel; and proposes, therefore, to regard all 
 as justified, whether they believe or disbelieve. The differ- 
 ence is, that those who believe undergo by faith a mural 
 change, which is essential to fit them for happiness, and that 
 being thus prepared for happiness they are admitted to the 
 enjoyment of it: while they who do not believe undergo no 
 such change; they remain unfitted for happiness, and are 
 therefore excluded from it. 
 
 I have no intention of exposing all the inconsistencies 
 with himself and with divine truth into which the support of 
 this strange scheme leads its author. And as to the scheme 
 itself, the arguments which I have employed to prove the 
 instrumentality of faith in justification, bear so directly upon 
 it, that they may excuse me from the task of reviewing it 
 formally now. While as regards the fear, lest this instrumen- 
 tality should impair the freeness of the Gospel, to which this 
 extreme theory appears to owe its origin, I have already, I 
 hope, said enough, to show that it is a fear by which the 
 Apostle Paul seems to have been but little affected. He, 
 without any such apprehension, distinctly declares the Doc- 
 
 • ^ote w.
 
 OBJECTH )N& -i GA IN& T [Semi. 
 
 trine, in tl ■ fonn in which the objection Beems most 
 
 pplj to it: describing God as counting faith for 
 
 and after having informed us that Abraham's 
 
 ■ '. isntsa", he describes the same 
 
 rumentality of faith in the case of all his children, not 
 
 ristent with the perfect freeness which is the 
 
 chai tic of the Gospel, but as unquestionably securing 
 
 that fin "therefore it is of faith, that it might be by 
 
 And t" take another instance out of many, — in the 
 
 ! stle to the Galatians, in which the freeness of justification 
 
 trenuously asserted, he describes the knowledge of this 
 
 dependence of justification upon faith as a motive for em- 
 
 _ tin- faith, in terms that seem to allow of no evasion: 
 
 "We who an- Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 
 
 / that a man i- Dot justified by the works of the law, 
 
 but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in 
 
 J< < brist that we might be justified by the faith of 
 
 Christ, and not by the works of the law 9 ." 
 
 I ' win) have accompanied me so far in this in- 
 
 _ Mon, cannot 1"- at a loss for arguments either against 
 
 reasoning of the writer or the conclusion to which it 
 
 leads. And I have adverted to an objection which seem 
 
 little likely to mislead many, chiefly as it affords so signal 
 
 and instructive an example of the danger of looking for novel tv 
 
 in the fundamentals of religion. Minds of a tender and 
 
 elevated cast are peculiarly liable to the danger of being 
 
 arch of something new, from that impatience of 
 
 common notions in theology, which such minds are more 
 
 than others under the temptation of indulging. But it is 
 
 a perilous and most unprofitable pursuit. It is looking 
 
 for novelty where little new is to be had that is not also 
 
 erroneous, and where we run grievous risk of losing in the 
 
 what is of real value, [ndeed, at the very outset of 
 
 r n. vf- ;• s Rom. iv. 16. 9 Gal. ii. 15.
 
 VI.] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 151 
 
 such a quest, we put out of sight the land-marks which 
 modesty and prudence alike enjoin us to keep in view in 
 religious inquiries, and so are liable to wander widely with- 
 out any means of being reminded how far we have strayed. 
 This scheme, which proposes to limit the effects of faith to its 
 moral influence upon the human mind, has really nothing in 
 the way of reasoning to support it, of a higher order than the 
 arguments by which the Socinian is able to show the ab- 
 surdity of ascribing to the sacrifice, which is the object of 
 faith, any other than the same moral efficacy. It is a scheme 
 opposed throughout by God's Word, and only to be main- 
 tained by doing the most open violence to the plain sense 
 of numberless passages in the Bible ; yet it is embraced with 
 good faith, and strenuously maintained, by a man whose 
 writings exhibit everywhere deep reverence for the Word of 
 God, a careful study of it, and extensive acquaintance with 
 it*! This contains an important lesson, and is fruitful in 
 matter for profitable reflection to you, my brethren ; and it is 
 therefore that I have occupied you with it so long. 
 
 The last, the oldest, and the most popular objection 
 against this Doctrine has already been fully answered, so 
 far as it proposes to substitute the doctrine of justification 
 by faith and works, for this doctrine of justification by faith 
 only. It has a place here, therefore, only so far as it arraigns 
 the moral tendency of the latter doctrine,— asserting that it 
 weakens or removes all moral restraint, and so leaves man to 
 indulge in that licentiousness which is so natural to his 
 carnal heart. This objection I defer considering now, partly 
 because I have already noticed incidentally some of the mis- 
 takes upon which it is grounded ; but chiefly because I 
 think it will find the best reply in the examination, upon 
 which I now mean to enter, of the moral effects of faith upon 
 character and conduct. 
 
 * Note X.
 
 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH, & c . [Serm. VI 
 
 N formed right apprehensions of llic diffi- 
 
 culty and thai pari of my subject, and at the same 
 
 rtain I f treating it worthily. I certainly 
 
 pectation. Bui I do hope thai I shall 
 low thai we do not make void the la v 
 lish the law: 10 that the system which 
 roured to explain and support supplies motives 
 which qo legal system could supj.lv; that it 
 exercise, develops, and perfects, principles over 
 ii law did nol 1 any power; that, while it ensures, 
 hom it gives the spirit of adoption, an inheritance 
 ■'■</ and that fadeth not away, eternal in 
 - ii isexercising upon them a moral agency, -which 
 tern to enjoy it: that it is the great instrument in 
 the hands of the Spirit of God to effect the renovation of our 
 fall. 11 nature, which, if it be not the only intelligible end of 
 lation, is doubtless, with respect to us, its highest and 
 • important end. 
 
 10 
 
 Rom. iii. , i.
 
 SERMON VII. 
 
 UPON THE MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH.
 
 
 < :. iuntur in liac victimA juslitia et ira Dei adversus peccatum, et im- 
 
 men- t amor in Filio erga genus humanum. Tanta est 
 
 ut Don sit facta reconciliatio, nisi poena persolveretur. Tanta 
 
 tudo ut eternus Pater non sit placatus, nisi deprecatione et morte 
 
 I Tanta misericordia, at Filius pro nobis datus sit. Tantus amor in Filio 
 
 in et ingentem iram in se derivaverit. Haram maxima- 
 
 nun et areanaram rt-rum conaiderationem in pectoribus accendito tu, Fili Dei, 
 
 Sancto, ul ivescamus agnitione irse, et rursus vera consola- 
 
 erigamur, a te in omni sternitate celebremus. 
 
 Conf. SAXON. [Ik ran. Pox. ct Just.]
 
 SERMON VII. 
 
 i John v. 4. 
 And this is the victor)/ that overcometh the world, even our faith. 
 
 When I was passing from an account of the nature of faith 
 to the consideration of its effects, I proposed, you will re- 
 member, to adopt, in treating of them, the simple and 
 obvious division, of its effects upon the sinner's state before 
 God, and its effects upon his character. Upon the former 
 of these I have already said all that I think it important 
 at present to say. I have shown from Scripture the true 
 nature and extent of justification; have stated the doctrine 
 of justification by faith only, in the simplicity and distinct- 
 ness in which it stands in the Word of God, and in the 
 formularies of our Church ; and, finally, have supported this 
 statement by proof, in as much detail as I thought it neces- 
 sary or useful to adduce proof here. I proceed now, there- 
 fore, to the second head of this branch of my subject, the 
 only part that according to my original plan remains to 
 be considered : and I propose to inquire briefly, how far we 
 can discover in this principle, a provision for promoting 
 God's further designs concerning those upon whom he be- 
 stows it ; how far we can find in it means to secure their 
 conformity to His will, to regulate their conduct and mould 
 their affections according to the standard of duty which He 
 has assigned them — that pure rule of life by which He leads
 
 )RAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Serm. 
 
 aid from strength to strength, 
 I - of moral advancemenl which 
 ippoinfc d, i" tii them for the immortality of 
 i v has made them heirs. 
 
 if spiritual influences were Less full and 
 than it i — if the work of the sanctification of Be- 
 lievers w I in some loose and general way 
 
 tion of the Spirit of God, — it would be needL 
 p to poinl out the entire consistency of such an inquiry 
 with a humble and hearty conviction of the truth 
 that important doctrine. Such general -tat. ■m.-uts would 
 appear to be sufficiently satisfied, by the distinct recognition 
 :. de, of the Spirit's agency in implanting the 
 pie of faith in the heart; and would seem to leave 
 at liberty to trace to the natural operation of that prin- 
 ple all the good thai is performed by the Believer, or 
 wroughl in him. Bui the true doctrine of Spiritual influ- 
 - much further. The Bible is express in referring 
 the sanctification, which it promises to those whom God 
 to the direct exercise of the power of His everlasting 
 Spirit continued to the wry end of their mortal career; 
 distinctly ascribing every advance in holiness which Believers 
 make— every act of obedience that they perform— every 
 Christian grace that they acquire — all holy desires by which 
 bed — all good counsels by which they are 
 directed— all good works thai they bring forth— all to the 
 tinued exercise of the same power by which it has been 
 Q to ih. hi to believe in the Redeemer. And they 
 ! Eis firsl work upon their hearts ought, with humble 
 i' nee, to look for the fiilfiknenl of His further promises, 
 i imperfectly they were able to trace the manner 
 operation in fulfilling them, or though they were 
 
 We to trace it at all. 
 
 when wi are told, a- we are distinctly told, that the 
 in the gracious work inwhichHe is engaged, 
 
 ■o"o"
 
 Y!1.| MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 157 
 
 the instrumentality of this principle which He has wrought 
 in us, we seem not merely warranted to undertake such an 
 inquiry as I have proposed, but naturally led to it, In ex- 
 amining faith for some means of operating upon man, ac- 
 cording to the ordinary mode of moving his feelings and 
 influencing his conduct, it would seem th.it we are only 
 looking for what we may feel assured that it contains. For 
 seme natural fitness for the work in which it is employed 
 seems included in the very notion of an instrument; though 
 the very highest degree of suitableness to its purpose, is 
 perfectly consistent with the belief, that it owes its efficacy 
 to the hand that wields it, and that it would be powerless 
 in any other. And under this view you will see that this 
 inquiry is so far from being discountenanced by the Scripture 
 doctrine of the influence of the Holy Spirit, that, on the 
 contrary, we are led to it by a part of that doctrine which is 
 as clearly revealed as any other part of it. 
 
 And while this fully justifies the inquiry, it points out 
 sufficiently what are its proper objects. For our actions are 
 subject to no external constraint; and, even if we hold thai 
 the will is irresistibly controlled by the influences of the 
 Holy Spirit, we must see, that the force which He exercises 
 upon it cannot be rendered palpable, or be subjected to 
 examination. All, therefore, that such an inquiry can pro- 
 pose is to discover, in the instrument which He employs, 
 'motives to act or feel in a particular way, — motives addressing 
 themselves to known principles of our nature, and operating 
 upon them in known ways ; — soliciting to activity those, the 
 active agency of which, religion requires,— imposing restraints 
 upon those which she seeks to control, — and tending to bring 
 the whole man, — all his thoughts, propensities, and facul- 
 ties, — all under her sure guidance and wholesome restraint. 
 
 Upon the tendency of these motives it is not likely that 
 much difference of opinion will exist; but very different 
 views may be taken of their force by those who are agreed
 
 \RAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Serm. 
 
 a the And if we are to consider thai queen 
 
 ■ juliarlj that we Bhould bear in mind 
 
 .v limil our faculties, and not absolutely to 
 
 elude that the instrument by which the Spirit acts upon 
 
 d i other forces to effect its end but those which 
 
 able to discern in it. But still more 
 
 member, that if we had good grounds fur be- 
 
 Instrument to ho defective, the Omnipotent 
 
 who wields it can — nol merely remove all obstacles 
 
 t<- rations, hm —abundantly supply all its defects. 
 
 I cannot help thinking that we speak rashly, and with- 
 out any Scripture warrant, when we assert that the Almighty 
 upon whom our spiritual life depends, draws supplies 
 for u- support only from the springs of life which are made 
 manifest to us; as though, beyond the forces supplied by 
 ealed truth, and by the principle whereby we effectually 
 the truth, there were, in His secret workings with 
 human heart, no others brought into action, to raise its 
 as, to ■ irruptions, to restrain, to soften, 
 
 and to subdue it. 
 
 Bui enough has. probably, been said, not only to show 
 
 the fitness of this inquiry, but to suggest its proper objects 
 
 and Limits, and to regulate the anticipations with which we 
 
 in it. And a moment will now serve to bring back 
 
 •llection what we have established concerning the 
 
 of the principle, the moral effects of which we seek to 
 
 Main. 
 
 Faith is trust: — reliance upon a promise — confidence in 
 
 ' Jecure —mo desirable cud — trust in some beim' 
 
 from whom, or through whom, some benefit is expected — all 
 
 • pressed bj FAITH in thai which inspires confi- 
 
 .'• ■ r it be. The particular exercise of the prin- 
 
 with which we haw to do, is that which the Bible calls 
 
 indifferently faith in ( Iheist, ox faith in God through Christ. 
 
 Christ as the author of salvation, grounded
 
 VII.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 159 
 
 upon God's testimony in His Word concerning Him; or trust 
 in God as the giver of salvation for Christ's sake. And it is 
 scarcely necessary to repeat, that the state of mind expre 
 by the phrase, is not merely belief in a truth, together with 
 tin- emotion of hope which our view of our own relation to 
 the truth adds to belief in it, but that it includes also the 
 notion of a particular being as the source of the benefits for 
 which we hope, and leads naturally to other emotions, which 
 connect themselves with that beiner. 
 
 To judge, however, of these feelings, that is, to determine 
 the probable effect of this trust in Christ, — it will be neces- 
 sary to consider briefly, the nature and quality of the truths 
 upon the belief of which it is grounded. It may be thought 
 that this is to complicate the inquiry unnecessarily, or per- 
 haps unfairly, and that the moral effects of the principle 
 ought to be derived from a consideration of its own nature, 
 and not of anything extraneous to it. A moment's reflexion, 
 however, will show such an impression to be a hasty one. 
 The effects of confidence or trust so depend upon its founda- 
 tion — upon the relation that we bear to the being in whom 
 we confide — upon the objects for which we hope — upon the 
 other principles of our nature with which it is combined — 
 that without some consideration of its origin, end, and other 
 concomitant circumstances, no one could venture to predict 
 anything of the moral quality of its consequences, or indeed 
 anything definitely of its consequences in any way. 
 
 Consider, for a moment, how totally the external conduct 
 to which trust or confidence leads is changed by a bare 
 change in the relation of the person confiding to him in 
 whom he trusts. In war, for example, a general relying upon 
 the valour and discipline of his troops — a soldier, upon the 
 skill of his leader — a citizen, upon both — are all under the 
 influence of the same principle. But, from the circumstances 
 of the parties, in the one, this confidence naturally leads to a 
 fearless exercise of authority; in the other, to unhesitating
 
 \L EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Sek.u. 
 
 mmand; while in the last, perhaps, it pro- 
 nothing beyond tranquillity of mind — a sense of se- 
 allowing him who enjoys it to pursue his ordinary 
 undisturbed. Sou may see enough of the firm* 
 - and fidelity of a friend to trust in him, as a valuable 
 iliary in the difficulties of a benevolent undertaking: an 
 rvatioa of firmness and fidelity may as manifestly give 
 ■ trust in their possessor, as a useful accomplice in dan- 
 crime. The confidence felt, regarded in itself, is the 
 of mind in both cases; but no one can think that 
 moral state of the person feeling it is the same, or its 
 ral consequences likely to be the same, in both. 
 
 it would be t riflin g to accumulate instances to esta- 
 blish a position so obvious. The state of a man under the 
 fullest influence of this principle of tru*t in another may ob- 
 viously be either virtuous or vicious; and the moral effects 
 of the principle itself salutary, pernicious, or neutral; so that, 
 by oeglecting .-it the outset all its concomitants, wo should 
 only arriw at misty abstractions of no practical application; 
 and tan only to learn its effects, in any useful form, 
 
 considering its source and objects; by inquiring how we 
 are led to trust in Christ, upon what this trust is grounded, 
 for what end it is entertained, and so forth 
 
 Indi ran if such considerations could not be thus 
 
 shown to be formally included in an inquiry into the nature 
 
 and offaith, they haw, at Least, such a connexion with 
 
 would make it until to pass them entirely over. For it 
 
 3 to be remembered, that the real importance of this inquiry 
 
 ing to ascertain the moral forces in actual exer- 
 
 up •!. the mind of the Believer. And, when this is recol- 
 
 I. it must be felt that it would be but a weak affectation 
 
 to bold ourselves excluded from considering 
 
 what, if it do uot form properly a part of the proposed sub- 
 
 the inquiry, is so manifestly fitted to secure its end. 
 
 I »m what I bave said offaith in the Lord, it must be
 
 VII.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FA 1 Til. 1G1 
 
 manifest that it involves necessarily a belief of all that God 
 has revealed to us of our nature, condition, and prospects. 
 Right apprehensions upon all these subjects are essential to 
 render the Scripture notion of a Redeemer intelligible ; and 
 upon firm convictions of the truth of the humbling and abas- 
 ing representations of Scripture concerning them, must trust 
 in the Redeemer be grounded. 
 
 Revelation then gives distinctness and certainty to all 
 those momentous truths of natural religion, which, even in 
 the way in which reason makes them known to us, are 
 so fitted to lead the thoughts beyond the visible and the 
 present ; and it gives new force and vividness to them all. 
 It enlarges our knowledge of our duty, and, in the same 
 measure, adds to our knowledge of our guilt ; it confirms 
 and increases all our apprehensions of God as a righteous 
 governor of the world ; and raises all our anticipations of the 
 severity of the judgment that awaits us at His hands. 
 
 Solemnly reminding us of the neglected truth, that it is 
 appointed unto men once to die, it proves to us the still more 
 momentous truth, that after death is the judgment 1 ; — it 
 proves to us, in the way in which such things can be proved, 
 that after death we shall all stand at the judgment-seat of 
 Him who made us, and render there an account of all our 
 acts, and words, and thoughts. Is there not enough in this 
 conviction to tame levity, and to make the most careless 
 sinner grave ? Barely to think, that after a few years of 
 the same course of unsatisfying enjoyments, of frivolous 
 amusements, or of grovelling cares, all must come to an end, 
 and be as though it had never been, is very saddening ; and 
 the thought, as often as it recurs, will embitter enjoyment, 
 and force a momentary seriousness upon mind-; least disposed 
 to serious reflection, — sometimes even in the midst of pur- 
 suits with which reflection harmonizes but ill. But how 
 much more solemnizing and saddening is it to know, that all 
 
 1 Heb. ix. 27. 
 
 11
 
 ■ HAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Serm. 
 
 , — to have the conviction forced upon us, thai 
 ihftll be set b before Him whom we have been 
 
 and offending; and to know too the awful char 
 f the account which He will exacl of our heed- 
 of folly and crime,— thai not only every vicious 
 • that we have committed, and every good art that wo 
 I i i perform, but that every idle word that 
 ;. :en -every uncharitable feeling that wo have 
 robed — every angry emotion that wo have indulged — 
 ry impure thought that wo have harboured,— all are 
 written in His book! — To know, further, that He has, by 
 a fonnal law, demanded of us that homage of the heart 
 which i- Hi- undoubted right; that Ho has commanded 
 11 mi with all our hen ft, and with all our soul, and 
 with all our mind, ai><! with all our strength; to know this, 
 and to feel who \s there that does not feci?) that, of our love, 
 much ha- been lavished upon objects with which it would be 
 rohemytospeak of God as holding a divided empire; that 
 d in it- most legitimate exercise, the whole energy and 
 warmth of our affections have been expended upon His gift-, 
 with no recollection at all of the higher claims of the giver 4 
 or, what 3eems worse, hut a casual, cold, or formal recogni- 
 . of them ; — to fi e] all this, and to know that for all (his. 
 Hi will bring us to judgment; that our corrupt and alien.-; 
 hearts, no Less than our vicious lives, are to abide the 
 amy of Him who chargeth His angels villi folly, and tic 
 in His sight! — What, upon the com- 
 monest principl aid ho the effect of the belief of such 
 truth-. 'i-i !. the conviction be wrought in any man 
 that this fiery trial awaits him, and that, while unending 
 ami unending misery rest upon its issue, he i> 
 gether unprepared to meet it, — and what is likely be 
 be 1 
 
 Why, the natural effect of such truths upon the mind 
 •able of conceiving, in any measure, what
 
 VII. J MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. L63 
 
 eternal happiness and eternal misery arc, is easily told. 
 But their full effect is not in general likely to be produced, 
 for (here are well-known causes in operation to diminish it. 
 It is well known, for example, that there is a striking 
 analogy between our visual and mental perceptions, — that 
 distance in time produces in the latter all the illusions which 
 ;nv the familiar effects of distance in space in the former, — 
 confounding or inverting the true proportions of things near 
 and remote, and causing us to be affected rather by the 
 proximity of objects than by their importance. This illusion, 
 so tar as it lies in the understanding, is doubtless corrected, 
 as we know better and believe more firmly the testimony 
 of Revelation concerning the future and the unseen. But as 
 regards the feelings, it is one which, from our very nature, 
 can never be wholly removed. Again, there is hardly any 
 iic. however ignorant he may be of the true way of escape, 
 who yet has not some surmise that there is a way. And 
 this is another impediment to the full effect of such con- 
 victions, however strong. But though, in this way, a real 
 belief in these awful truths may not, and probably will not, 
 produce those wild agonies of despair which would be its 
 natural effects, is it too much to say, that it must cause 
 lively, anxious, painful solicitude concerning the great reali- 
 ties of the unseen state, to supply the place of the strange 
 indifference with which we habitually regard them ? 
 
 But if Revelation stopped here — if it merely awakened 
 us from the spiritual lethargy in which we are sunk, and 
 forced us to contemplate the hopeless ruin in which sin has 
 plunged us, — it would have but slender claims upon our 
 gratitude. It would seem but vain wisdom to expose the 
 folly of those devices, by which we were contriving to escape 
 the pangs of anticipated misery, and to soothe, even for a 
 little, the remediless diseases of our nature. But Revelation 
 does not merely awaken this sense of guilt and danger, it 
 publishes too the way of escape. It not only unfolds the 
 
 11—2
 
 )RAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Serm. 
 
 of human corruption, the enormity of our guilt, and 
 
 appall.' tiny to which that guilt has consigned us; 
 
 it discloses also the stupendous means for our restoration 
 
 and security, which the infinite mercy of the Most Eigh has 
 
 1. It tells upon this a truth which is s.. wonderful 
 
 and mysterioi to require all the evidence by which 
 
 tion is verified, to render it credible; and which, 
 
 all thai evidence, has been ever, and will 
 
 mblingblock, and foolishness to our moral and 
 
 our intellectual pride. ]t tells us that when no other means 
 
 ould be found for our lost race, our Al- 
 
 tor himself descended from His throne of 
 
 ry, and took "/«'/< Him the form of a servant — that He 
 
 med tin- nature which we had polluted, obeyed the 
 
 law which we had violated, suffered punishment which we 
 
 ha.! incurred— that, despised and rejected, persecuted and 
 
 trayed, and crowning at the last His mysterious humilia- 
 
 * I • -ii by a death of ignominy and pain, He offered " a full, 
 
 and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for 
 
 .-in- of tin- whole world;" a sacrifice which reconciles 
 
 God's free mercy to sinners, to His truth in denouncing 
 
 -in — peace and good-will to guilty man, 
 Ih- spotless righteousness; a sacrifice which is the eternal 
 bond "1 that mysterious union under which JelTbvah delights 
 t" reveal Him- If. <.\'-AJust God, and yet a SAVIOUR. 
 
 It publishes that by the life and death of the Redeemer, 
 
 a way is i„,v. opened for all to l.e reconciled unto God; 
 
 and for all the -am.- way. That there is no continuance 
 
 1,1 sin, ho obstinate and prolonged — no degree of 
 
 guilt, however black and enormous, — that excludes the sin- 
 
 from the offered pardon, or even modifies — in the 
 
 test particular modifies— the offer of free pardon in 
 
 the Hi mi ml i: which the Gospel makes alike to all. That 
 
 u. -who hearing the call, turn to God, casting away 
 
 all other grounds of dependence, and trusting entirely and
 
 VII.] MORAL EFFECTS OF EM Til. |..:, 
 
 unreservedly in this alone, receiving salvation simply as 
 the work of the Redeemer, and as His gift, — unreserved 
 pardon, full acceptance, are freely promised in His name. 
 
 This is, in brief, that revelation of mercy, upon which 
 faith rests; upon an abiding conviction of these glorious 
 truths it is, that confidence in the Redeemer is grounded : 
 they who believe in Him know in whom they trust, and 
 that they that trust in Him shall never be ashamed. The 
 grounds of confidence cannot be laid broader or deeper: 
 The Lord is my light and my sal ration, saith the Psalmist, 
 whom then can I fear? The Lord is the strength of my 
 life, of whom then shall I be afraid 2 ? What can they 
 fear who are confiding in a crucified and risen Saviour ? 
 Which of the natural objects of dread can affright them? 
 He in whom they trust has abolished death 3 . The sting 
 of death is sin 4 , and lie hath put away sin by the sacrifice 
 of Himself 5 . The strength of sin is the law 6 , and He has 
 blotted out the hand-writing of ordinances ivhich was against 
 us, which was contrary to us, nailing it to his cross* 1 . He 
 that had the power of death is the Devil, but him the Lord 
 has, through death, destroyed 8 ; He has spoiled the prin- 
 cipalities and powers of darkness, making a shoiv of them 
 openly . What remains for them to fear who trust in Him? 
 What, indeed, as the apostle persuasively argues, — what, 
 or whom, can Believers fear? Do they dread an accusation 
 from God whom they have offended ? It is He who has 
 justified them. — Do they dread condemnation from Him 
 into whose hands all judgment is committed by the Father, 
 and who shall judge quick and dead at the last day ? 
 They know that He lived for them, died for them, and 
 rose again for them ; that He even now sitteth at the 
 right hand of the Father to plead for them ; they trust 
 
 2 Psalm xxvii. i. 3 2 Tim. i. 10. 4 1 Cor. xv. 56. 
 
 s Heb. ix. 26. 6 1 Cor. xv. 56. 7 Col. ii. 14. 
 
 8 Heb. ii. 14. 9 Col. ii. 15.
 
 H El S OF FAITH. [Slum. 
 
 g - representative, as a sufficient surety, 
 
 — what or whom can they 
 
 What are the natural i ■ upon the Belie 1 
 
 r( and in hi- life of a - of his new relation to 
 
 i the way in which it lias been established, I 
 
 cannot hope to present in detail without weakening the 
 this simple statement of the whole. But details 
 ,rv for my purpose: 1 proceed therefore to con- 
 sider, in some detail, the natural effects of faith: at first 
 
 operation as a restraining princi] 
 and 1 -hall inquire briefly how, in this way, — in the way 
 of restraint, — the vii vs on which it ^ of God and of 
 
 • upon us. 
 With respect to ourselves: no one can have read the 
 Bible ■ i cursorily, as no1 to have carried away some im- 
 ; »f the extent to which it labours to enforce upon 
 
 us, the guilt and danger of pride; and those who know it 
 how many of the seven-; denunciations and 
 ilemn warnings of the Sacred Volume are dire 
 nst this I o sin of our fallen nature— how strik- 
 
 ingly its folly ami ui nableness are exposed — how 
 
 impressively the vices, of which it is the parent, are ex- 
 hibited ; — above all— how distinctly is declared Cod's deter- 
 mination to subdue it in those who obey Him, and to punish 
 i' i" those who Him. Every nearer approach that 
 
 by any means make to a knowledge of our true relation 
 ' ( ■ I, of our i. i and Hi , has doubtless a tendency 
 tbate tl th in the Redeemer is founded 
 
 "I"" 1 >' ■ provision for its extirpa- 
 
 tion. It ia founded upon the ruins of human pride, for it 
 ">'l.\ in the d in whirl, self-dependence is van- 
 
 1 ■■ and it and advano n ugthen* 
 
 •' i ri". 33. 34-
 
 VII] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 107 
 
 the subjugation is completed. It is not, only founded upon 
 thr knowledge of what the Bible communicates to us of 
 our nature and condition — of our guilt, degradation, weak- 
 ness, and wants — of the sufficiency of that provision of 
 mercy by which we arc freed from guilt and secured from 
 danger, by which our weakness is to be supported and our 
 wants supplied; but the principle requires that this con- 
 viction should be so complete and intimate as to vanquish 
 all dependence upon ourselves, or on anything in ourselves, 
 and to lead us to rest our eternal welfare upon the work 
 of the Redeemer, and upon it alone. Its very essence con- 
 sists in this abjuration from the heart of all merit in our- 
 selves, and this unfeigned ascription of all glory to Him. 
 
 What obstinate resistance this master-vice makes be- 
 fore it surrenders, and how often it renews the struggle, 
 none can require to be reminded who have ever sustained 
 the conflict. Even where the criminality of our conduct 
 is too clear to be denied, every one knows how continually 
 we look for some consolatory palliations of it; some pecu- 
 liarity in our constitution, or circumstances, or in the temp- 
 tations to which we have been exposed, which, though it 
 cannot take away entirely our sense of guilt, may abate 
 in some degree the severity of our self-condemnation. But 
 if we reluctantly condemn our known vices, how much more 
 slowly and reluctantly do we yield to the conviction, that 
 the very acts upon which we most pride ourselves partake 
 of the same ungodly character ; that, far from being able to 
 secure forgiveness for our acknowledged offences, they need 
 pardon themselves at the hands of our All-seeing Judge ! 
 And even after we are convinced that if we would stand 
 before Jehovah, it must be in the merits of another, not 
 our own ; that we must, before Him, withdraw all plea of 
 merit for our ivories; how often arc we found preposte- 
 rously substituting for this, the merit of our faith! And, 
 driven from this more absurd form of pride, still clinging
 
 MORAL EFFI i 5 OF FAITH. [Sebjl 
 
 the Dotion me merit in the humility with which 
 
 ill merit, both of faith and works! while, even 
 
 in the folly of all such pretensions clearly, 
 
 t"u- from - sure from a worse form <>t self- 
 
 upon the clearness of our religious 
 
 rod th.- soundness of our religious principles: — what- 
 
 our language may give to the Redeemer, still 
 
 in our inmost thoughts recurring to ourselves — till lookim; 
 
 lething in ourselves which may be united to the 
 
 merits "t' our blessed Lord, omething to he joined to 
 
 that which we are ready in words to confess t . • be above 
 all fellowship in t ho work of ;( sinner's justification ! Inso- 
 much that you will often find nan who have passed a great 
 part of their lives in maintaining the doctrine of .tusti- 
 FH ati<>n by faith ONLY, as much strangers to this simple 
 exclusive trust in the Redeemer's work, as those who have 
 I d all their life-long opposing it. Men are, from various 
 natural causes, brought to take up, to maintain, and de- 
 fend tic- Doctrine in terms; but a cordial acquiescence in 
 God's humbling plan, of saving us by the obedience and 
 sufferings of Hi, only begotten Son, is only to he wrought 
 by the Spirit whom He sends It is only through that 
 Spirit, that a man i- ever brought to come to Christ simply 
 a blind and needy sinner: to cast down himself and 
 all that ho j. ridos himself upon — his works, his faith, his 
 humility, his knowledge— all at the foot of the cross of the 
 glorifying only in it. deling in life, and death, 
 and judgment, to ho found in Him that suffered upon it, 
 and in Hum to find everything- wisdom, and righteousness, 
 and aanctification, <>//</ redemption 11 . 
 
 Now this, and nothing short of this, is faith in the Re- 
 
 deemer; and if you only consider what a fruitful source of 
 
 - r. since the beginning of the world, self-dependence has 
 
 <; and what tic- natural consequence of substituting 
 
 11 i ("r. i. 30.
 
 VII.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 169 
 
 for it thi> sense of dependence upon God must be, you 
 
 cannot, I think, tail to see in faith a powerful restraining 
 principle. 
 
 It must be apparent. I think, that this frame of mind. — 
 this lowly estimate of ourselves, and just sense of the ex- 
 tent of our dependence upon God, — is not merely right and 
 suitable in itself, but that it must be most salutary also in 
 its effects; that its direct tendency is not merely under 
 every perplexity to turn us to the true source of wisdom 
 for direction, and in every difficulty to lead us to the true 
 source of strength for support, but to regulate steadily the 
 ordinary course of our lives by the rule of conduct which 
 He has given us ; and that while it dees so, this healthful 
 state of mind is. from our mental constitution, itself nur- 
 tured, strengthened, and perfected by exercise ; and our 
 hearts elevated and purified by the free communion with 
 God which it warrants and promotes. And all this in the 
 way of natural consequence. 
 
 Nor can it be said that these salutary effects are likely 
 to be lessened by a belief in the free and unreserved f! >r- 
 giveness of our offences, which is the foundation of this 
 reconciliation. — that it is calculated to weaken the prin- 
 ciple of obedience, to diminish the awe with which we re- 
 gard God, and the dread with which we should view sin. 
 This I say. however often it is maintained, cannot be main- 
 tained fairly. I of course do not mean that scheme of 
 free forgiveness must necessarily be secure from such con- 
 sequences. On the contrary, though lenity to sinners could 
 never, under any circumstances, have the effect that seems 
 sometimes ascribed to it, of producing a spirit ot' disaffec- 
 tion and disobedience ; and though its natural tendency is 
 to excite feelings which should promote a conformity to 
 
 i's will ; yet it must be admitted, that it might be so 
 
 administered as to take away some of the most powerful 
 
 - raints upon human corruption, by lowering our natural
 
 17- RAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Serm. 
 
 of the guilt of sin, and of the holiness of 
 i Thi rtainly to 1"' admitted. Bui to say that 
 
 I n His Son, through which we trusl in Him 
 
 iciled Father, doea not do this, is to say nothing, 
 It not only does not impair our apprehensions of the purity 
 - nature, and of the strictness of His law, but raises 
 height to which nothing else can raise them, 
 9 inexhaustible provision for continued augmenta- 
 them 
 This • tin' Language of common-place exaggeration, 
 
 truth and soberness. There arc some subjects, no 
 doubt, upon which the liveliness of our emotions far out- 
 strips the strength of our convictions; but this is one of 
 • u which we can g< nerally reason much farther than 
 We can si e, ■— to whatever extent we are our- 
 selvi by the humiliation and death of the Re- 
 
 iner, — we can see, that they furnish a measure of the 
 in, and evidence of the essential opposition of 
 divine nature to sin, which arc fitted to raise our ap- 
 prehensions of both to a height constantly increasing with 
 i contemplation of this unfathomable mystery ; and 
 ought to be progressive, not to the last 
 r of our mortal existence merely, but through the count- 
 
 : i ternity ! 
 Tb 3e, I 6 v. who feel ever so inadequately, can see 
 rly, that this is but a plain statement of a fair collec- 
 tion of oui a, For when we learn that to reconcile 
 the Most High to Burners, the humiliation and the suf- 
 ferings of His only begotten Son were essential; that for 
 ment it v ential that He who was in the 
 
 ■ who was With (!«'!), and who was GOD 12 — GOD 
 
 all, blessed for ever 1 * — should conic in the likeness of 
 ul flesh 14 , should humble Himself, and be obedient to 
 
 •' !l " ''• ' ,3 Rom. ix. 5. " Rom. viii. 3.
 
 VII.] MORAL EFFECT* OF FAITH. 171 
 
 death, even the death of the Cross 1 "'; when we learn that 
 THIS CUP could not pass from Him unless He drank ii" ; . 
 di) we not learn that nothing short of an INFINITE SACRI- 
 FICE for sin is an adequate declaration of the infinite ab- 
 horrence with which sin is regarded by a Being of infinite 
 purity; of which all former demonstrations of His wrath 
 against it were but comparatively faint indications? And 
 if this be so, is it not plain, that our conceptions of God's 
 abhorrence of sin — which are so impeded by our slow hearts 
 and blunted moral sensibilities here, and which will, doubt- 
 less, be quickened and enlarged when this body of sin is 
 laid down — must be continually advancing, as our know- 
 ledge of the worth and dignity of the sacrifice in which His 
 hatred of sin was embodied is augmented ; and that this 
 knowledge — the whole height, and length, and breadth, and 
 depth of which passes all finite capacity — must be receiving 
 unceasing additions through the progress of the infinite 
 duration that awaits us ? 
 
 This must be so. Nor can we doubt that those higher 
 spirits who stand before God's throne, and enjoy that vision 
 which is promised to the pure in heart; who have lived in 
 the light of God's purity since the first dawn of created 
 beino-, and have witnessed or executed all the awful mani- 
 festations of His wrath against sin, since it first appeared 
 among the works of His hands, — we cannot doubt, I say, 
 that they find in His last judgment against sin, — when He 
 awoke the sword against the man that is His fellow^ 1 , and 
 was pleased to bruise and to put to grief the Son of His 
 love 18 , — new evidence of the holiness before which they 
 veil their faces, while they adore it 19 ; that they turn from 
 all other monuments of His hatred of sin— from the burn- 
 ing cities of the plain — from a deluged world — from the 
 
 15 Phil. ii. 8. 16 Matt. xxvi. 39, 42, 44; Mark xiv. 35, 36, 37, 39. 
 
 « Zech. xiii. 7. 1S Is- liii- '°- 1D Is - vi - 2 > 3-
 
 ;_ MORAL EFFECTS OF FAIT Jr. [Sbrm. 
 
 immitigable and unending torments of rebellious angels— 
 
 the 3p ctacle of their < Ireator, — the Creator 
 
 1 worlds, risible and invisible,— in mortal agony for sin ; 
 
 and rind in tli-- contemplation matter to deepen all their 
 
 appi - .'i' the infinite malignity of sin, of God's 
 
 borrence -t' it. and Hi- righteous determination to 
 
 i-h it. 
 
 - hut ili>' Legitimate and natural effect of a 
 contemplation of this surpassing mystery, when all obstacles 
 t.. r are il<>ne away. And it is only necessary to 
 
 remember, that upon this mystery is our faith grounded, — 
 that this stupendous sacrifice for sin is itself the foundation 
 • •t" the sinni r's trust, — to see in some measure the wisdom 
 of thai -ill. me. which, while it rests our hopes upon the 
 I Ages gives just the same stability to the enlarged 
 
 and elevated apprehensions which it supplies, of the holi- 
 <>t' the < J. >< I in whom we confide. Now it is only in 
 the light of the divine purity that our own vileness truly 
 appears. < »ur perceptions of both necessarily advance toge- 
 ther. " I have heard of thee," saith Job, "with the hearing 
 of the ear; but now mine eye seeth thee, wherefore I abhor 
 myself, and repent in dust and ashes 20 ." This deeper pros- 
 tration of Bpirit is tin.' sure effect of every nearer view of 
 the ineffable holiness of the Most High: and thus the 
 renewed contemplations of the foundation of our faith in 
 Him which are necessary, uot merely for its increase, but 
 
 its maintenance, while they exalt and strengthen the 
 B ever's faith, confirm and deepen his humility. 
 
 But the effects of the view of God's character which 
 
 the atoning work of Christ presents to the Believer do 
 
 : ' end bere. In fact, when you consider how much of 
 
 i- actually formed by our views of the Being whom 
 
 adore, and how extensively these views must influence 
 
 30 Job xlii. 6.
 
 VII.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FA 1 TIL 17:', 
 
 everything in it that they do not actually constitute, you 
 will see that we cannot ascribe much to religion in re- 
 gulating man's conduct, and forming his character, without 
 tracing some most important effects to the views of God, 
 upon which it is grounded. But I have gone too far to 
 pursue the subject upon the present occasion; and must 
 reserve what I have further to say upon it for my next 
 opportunity of addressing you.
 
 SERMON VIII. 
 
 UPON THE MOEAL EFFECTS OF FAITH- 
 
 Contlnued.
 
 If • • Bustentat et vivificat contritos juxta illud, justificati ex fide 
 
 II-. fid quitur remissionem peccatorum, Lsec fides 
 
 in 1 >eo Nee prius dilectio adest quam sit facta fide recou- 
 
 i m ii"ii fit sine Christo, juxta illud 'per Christum habemus ac- 
 
 I • fides paullatim crescit, et per omneni vitam luctatur 
 
 at vincat peccatum et mortem. Csaterum fidem sequitur dilectio, 
 
 ut supra diximus. Ktsic clare definiri potest filialis timor: talis pavor qui cum 
 
 bus est, hoc est, ubi fides consolatur et sustentat pavidum cor. 
 
 ilia timor, ul.i fides non sustentat pavidum cor. 
 
 Apologia Augustan.* Confessionis. 
 
 ; l>< Christo in quo promittitwr gratis rem issio peccatorum.]
 
 SERMON VIII. 
 
 i John v. 4. 
 And this its the victory that overcomcth the world, even our faith. 
 
 Of the many surprising inconsistencies that we contrive to 
 combine in ourselves, the steadiness with which we pursue 
 all temporal advantages, while we obstinately turn away 
 from all consideration of our eternal interests, is doubtless 
 the most astonishing. A being framed to shun danger, and 
 provident against future evil, exercising no forecast for eter- 
 nity, except to lay up for himself wrath against the day of 
 wrath; — a being framed to desire and to pursue happiness, 
 rejecting the only real and permanent good, the only good 
 that can fill the capacities, and quiet the strivings of his 
 spirit, which was formed for immortality, — turning away 
 from this supreme good, though placed within his reach, and 
 pressed upon his acceptance, and persevering from the cradle 
 to the grave in seeking the felicity, which by the necessity 
 of his constitution he continues to seek, in objects worthless, 
 unsatisfying, and insecure; and in pursuits on which the 
 world's sad experience and his own have fixed the impress of 
 vanity, and vexation, and sorrow: — this is a sjaectacle, which, 
 in spite of the deadening force of habit, moves astonishment, 
 whenever calm attention can be commanded for it for a 
 moment. 
 
 12
 
 HAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Serm. 
 
 it is true, easily dispel such wonder, by saying 
 that it is man's nature; — that he is naturally engrossed by 
 ta that surround him, and are acting upon him at 
 moment; — thai his attention is filled and occupied by 
 tli. as to leave little .solicitude for remote prospects, 
 
 wh< "I "i- . \il. It' this were true, to the extent to 
 
 which it ought to I.,-, in order to furnish any solution of the 
 culty, it would no doubt make all wonder at this par- 
 ticular manifestation of OUT nature unreasonable; though we 
 should assuredly have abundant cause for amazement, at 
 finding ourselves endowed with a nature which would seem 
 to unfit us for all the highest purposes of our being. But 
 it is hardly necessary to say that it is not true to any such 
 lit. < »n the contrary, whatever colour the representation 
 may receive from the general fact that a part of our nature 
 inclines us to this disregard of the future; or from particular 
 in-' in which this j .art may have obtained the mastery 
 
 of the entire; it is so far from being true, as a general de- 
 Bcription of mankind, that the very opposite one would seem 
 approach the truth more nearly. 
 
 To satisfy ourselves of this, there is no need that we 
 
 should resort to cases that we only know at a distance, or 
 
 i of in history, — the heroes, and legislators, and sages, 
 
 who have been sustained through toil, and privation, and 
 
 danger; who, fatten on evil days and evil tongues, have found 
 
 ample recompense for the neglect, or obloquy, or persecution 
 
 ol their own times, in the uncertain promise of a reward so 
 
 remote and unsubstantial as posthumous renown. There is 
 
 sion, I say, to have recourse to what might perhaps 
 
 b v ad. d as extreme cases, or to go beyond the exhibition 
 
 ur nature which meets us in the commonest forms of 
 
 .'•-' la . v Kfei to be satisfied how much such a statement 
 
 Presents it. We < very where around us, men vo- 
 
 tarilv engaged in framing and executing laborious pro- 
 
 which always bear a reference to some future period,
 
 VIII.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 179 
 
 and often look far beyond the limits of their own existence. 
 And indeed, if we reeal the acts and thoughts of the most 
 ordinary day of our own lives, how much of both shall vre 
 find expended upon the future and the remote! How often 
 during the day have plans of future happiness employed us; 
 hopes of distant happiness stimulated and cheered us; and 
 how much more frequently has our uneasiness sprung from 
 foreboded than from actual suffering! So that, however 
 strong may be. the part of our mental constitution which 
 disposes us to regard only the present, it is, in fact, kept in 
 control by some more powerful part of our nature ; and a real 
 solicitude about the future is, in spite of it, a leading prin- 
 ciple of human conduct. Why then, it may be asked, does it 
 cease to exert any power, just where reason would seem to 
 assign to it the greatest force? 
 
 Some seem to think that a sufficient cause for every 
 anomaly in human conduct is assigned, when the strength of 
 human passions is alleged. And, no doubt, this disturbing 
 force accounts sufficiently for many of our rash acts, and 
 many of our rash judgments too. But it must be felt to give 
 but a very partial answer to the question under consideration. 
 For our passions, blindly pursuing their proper objects, are 
 equally at war with all prudential consideration of the future, 
 that opposes their present gratification. Yet, in spite of their 
 utmost force, how firm and persevering do we find men in 
 the pursuit of earthly and perishable objects; how resolute 
 are they in repressing all the propensities that would impede 
 or embarrass their progress there ! How steadily do they go 
 on, controlling their strongest passions, repressing their most 
 importunate appetites, denying their warmest affections, 
 while they are labouring for the attainment of something re- 
 mote, uncertain, and perishing in the using; and only deaf to 
 the voice of prudence, when she solicits for some regard for 
 treasures in Heaven, incorruptible, and unde filed, and that 
 fade not away ! 
 
 10 O
 
 EAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Serm. 
 
 I for ourpurpose it deserves carefully to be 
 
 !• passion •! >< - mislead us in the conduct 
 
 d affairs, reason in some degree makes compen- 
 
 i, v the correct I hi r more deliberate judgments. 
 
 in our spiritual concerns, reason is constantly as dark as 
 
 ling and by its decisions, when removed 
 
 Influence of passion (as in our judgments 
 
 nduct of others . shows how deep the cause 
 
 rence lies, and how widely it affects our entire 
 
 1 i while almost any measure of exertion or endu- 
 
 re £ 'in' thing mean and transitory, — not worth 
 
 ■ lining, or lost a- soon as obtained, — is esteemed manly 
 
 and wise; how constantly does the most enlightened reason 
 
 nl tin- same patience, resolution, and self-denial, when 
 
 d about tin- only worthy objects of anxious thought 
 
 and earnest pursuit, as wild enthusiasm, infallible marks of a 
 
 ■r and I mind! 
 
 W. re we to look at our affections with the same re- 
 nce, wo should only find fresh anomalies of the same 
 : : we Bhould see even this better part of our nature 
 1 I irpid and inert, barely by connecting the in- 
 •' •• l nit y with the objects that are fitted to draw 
 them forth. So that we, who are prompt to answer minor 
 call- lor gratitude, are then insensible to the highest be- 
 -we, who are ready to yield affection to the various 
 objects around U8, which are in different degrees fitted to 
 ' i'. and to return it even to those that have no 
 i- attraction except that they feel it for us, then with- 
 hold it from the most varied and exalted excellences, an. I 
 from love the most generous, and tender, and warm: — 
 who have a natural sympathy with everything elevated 
 and tender in our nature; who uever see, or can see, the 
 shadows of what is noble and excellent, which cross our 
 ; '" real hie, without a glow of admiration; who melt 
 and kindle al everj portraiture, even in fictitious narra-
 
 VIII.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 181 
 
 live, of suffering-, and magnanimity, and self-devotion, — arc 
 able to read and hear with little emotion, or with entire 
 
 apathy, the story of the loftiest heroism, the st patient 
 
 constancy, and the most generous self-abandonment, amidst 
 the most overwhelming' afflictions, and the most fiery trials: 
 merely, as it would seem, because these sufferings, endured 
 for our sake, have a connexion with our eternal interests ! 
 
 This might be pursued farther ; but enough has been 
 said to show how unsatisfactory must any solution of this 
 difficulty be, that proposes to refer this part of our conduct 
 to any of our common principles of action; — and to show, 
 at the same time, how deeply interwoven with the whole 
 tissue of our intellectual and moral nature is the cause, 
 whatever it be, of this strange indifference with which we 
 regard things so momentous and so ascertained, as death, 
 and judgment, and eternity. 
 
 Revelation alone supplies anything that approaches to 
 a full account of this great difficulty. It does not take 
 the difficulty wholly away, — far from it, — but it removes 
 an important part of it, when it tells us that we are a 
 fallen race : that man did not come from the hands of his 
 Creator, thus curiously framed, to frustrate all His highest 
 designs concerning him ; but that the whole constitution 
 of his nature has undergone a violent and most calamitous 
 change, — a change, under which conscience is robbed of 
 her natural supremacy, the reason darkened, the will per- 
 verted, and the passions inflamed. It is something to 
 know, that it is not in a state of nature properly, but in 
 a state of disorder and ruin, that the mastery is habitually 
 exercised by the lower parts of our constitution, so that 
 the mind is only acted on, with certainty and force, by 
 objects earthly, gross, and palpable: — that man has fallen 
 from his first estate, and so has been unfitted for his 
 high destiny, before he thus renounces it without a 
 struo-crle ; and has been rendered conformable to the dust
 
 HAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Serm. 
 
 which ire he thinks it is good to be 
 
 W . tnnol wonder that degraded, and bearing about 
 
 him a lation, however inadequate, — guilty, 
 
 sentence of condemnation, how- 
 lured, — we cannot wonder that he shuns, with 
 instinctive aversion and fear, all those contemplations of 
 futurity, and those only, which in conception confront him 
 with a just and holy God. We read, indeed, that the first 
 t of the fall was to rob man's 1 avast of all filial con- 
 fidence and affection towards his Maker, and to implant 
 there, instead, a Bense of enmity and fear. This painful 
 iousness, of being at enmity with God, it was that 
 drove fallen man to hide from the 'presence of the Lord 
 I OD amongst the trees of the garden. It has ever since 
 manifi sted itself in the various devices of idle and of active 
 life by which we contrive, with destructive ingenuity, to 
 rid ourselves of the intolerable sense of God's presence now, 
 and to banish all consideration of the hour when we can 
 ape it uo Longer. And even in that hour, the same 
 principle is to be still more awfully manifested : when He 
 who is our Creator and our Redeemer shall come to be 
 our Judge, some will be seen still vainly striving to shrink 
 from beholding Him; and in the wild agonies of hopeless 
 terror, calling on the rocks to fall on them, and the mountains 
 to cover tl» m, to hide them from the face of Him that sitteth 
 th- throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb 1 ! 
 A rtate of enmity, indeed, with the Being who has 
 led and who governs the world, is fitted to overwhelm 
 the mind with dismay. And it is not surprising that we 
 should so anxiously Beek to escape the sense of utter desti- 
 tution, which the consciousness of this hostility brines with 
 it. We are bo framed that we can, if we will, keep off 
 such thoughts for a long time by various contrivances; 
 
 i. 30; Rev. vi. ic I; . In both places it is not the final judg. 
 ■• n of, but certain great judgments which foreshadow it.
 
 VIII.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 183 
 
 and by various palliatives mitigate their terrors, when they 
 force themselves upon us. But there is but one way of 
 rendering judgment and eternity chosen subjects of con- 
 templation; and that is, such a new view of our relation 
 to God as may banish our natural fear of Him, and supply 
 its place by cheerful confidence in Him. 
 
 How effectually this is dune in the Gospel we have al- 
 ready seen. But what we have been now remarking enables 
 us more clearly to discern the wisdom of that scheme, as 
 contrasted with every corruption of it. Its characteristic, 
 in contrast with all of them, is, that it publishes at once 
 frank and full forgiveness for all sin, through the blood 
 of Christ — offers unreserved acceptance to all sinners who 
 come to God in Him — presents to them God as a recon- 
 ciled father, and solicits in His name all His rebellious 
 children to be reconciled to Him. Designing that Believers 
 should walk by faith and not by sight 2 , looking not at the 
 things that are seen, but the things that are not seen 5 — 
 it seeks at once, and from the first, to take away our natu- 
 ral aversion to contemplate the world to come : designing 
 to brine us under the influence of the character of God, 
 that we should live, realizing the sense of His presence, 
 as seeing Him ivho is invisible* — it sets at once about 
 removing the main cause why we shrink from beholding 
 Him. 
 
 And the mode in which this wise and gracious end is 
 effected is no less deserving of remark. We saw that, 
 though this aversion springs from a sense of our own im- 
 purity and of God's holiness— from an apprehension of the 
 strictness of His law, and the knowledge that we have never 
 complied with its requirements, — the principle by which it 
 is extirpated is one which deepens this sense of our own 
 vileness, and exalts our apprehensions of His purity ; which 
 enlarges our view of the wide range of His exceeding broad 
 
 s 2 Cor. v. 7. 3 2 Cor. iv. iS. 4 Heb. xi. 27.
 
 MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Serm. 
 
 and in the same measure adds to our con- 
 
 iiu- rly failed to fulfil them ; while; 
 
 of the foundation upon which it rests, a 
 
 by which, just in the degree in which the 
 
 advances, it must raise still more our apprehen- 
 
 Bis holiness,. and still more deepen our self-abase-: 
 
 I l;in. 
 
 This would of itself vindicate the Divine origin of this 
 E • iv human invention to set us at peace with God, 
 by Lowering Him or unduly exalting ourselves; and 
 ry human corruption <>t' Divine truth is marked by the 
 led characters. Whether with the Socinian we 
 deny a sacrifice i"i sin: or seek to lower the infinite worth of 
 that sacrifice, with the Arian; or labour, with other corrupt- 
 of the truth, to diminish the extent to which the blotting 
 • ■lit of man's trespasses, and bis acceptance with God arc due 
 1 rt'e work -by ascribing any part of either to any work 
 pf our own, — <M)mbining in any measure our own merits with 
 II : ; reconciling us to God, — in whichsoever of these ways 
 are labouring to adulterate the Gospel, we are but ex- 
 hibiting under different forms the same principle, and with 
 similar effects. We are lowering our apprehensions of the 
 strictness of God's law, and raising our imaginations of our 
 own mural power of fulfilling it; we are weakening our im- 
 of the infinite malignity of sin, and of the irrecon- 
 cilable opposition of the divine nature to it: and this, be- 
 e we find comfort in a law that makes a provision for 
 partial obedience, and admits some compromise with sin; 
 we desire a God when, sinners may approach upon 
 some lower footing than through an infinite sacrifice and 
 • righteousn< •-: and because we shrink from the con- 
 template fthe holiness with which His own plan for for- 
 
 fiving and accepting us invests the character of the Most 
 II gh. 
 
 t without pursuing the contrast farther, you must see
 
 VIII.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 185 
 
 in this operation of genuine faith, so far as it has been ex- 
 plained, the source of most salutary influences upon the heart 
 and life. It would seem, as I said, a waste of words to 
 attempt to prove that not only is the humility upon which it 
 is grounded a fitting state of mind for being so corrupt and 
 guilty, so frail and ignorant as man, but that it must be a 
 great safeguard to him too. And as we saw how much just 
 views of God's holiness, which are also apart of its founda- 
 tion, are calculated to confirm and deepen this humble frame, 
 it is plain that they thus indirectly contribute in the same 
 measure to our security. 
 
 But this is not their only wholesome effect upon the 
 mind. Faith, it must be remembered, is not merely grounded 
 at the first upon these exalted views of the holiness of God, 
 but at all times draws life and strength from them ; and in- 
 cluding, — it may be almost said, being — a cheerful sense of 
 our entire dependence upon Him, under these views of His 
 nature, it obviously, in every exercise of it, brings the mind 
 under the direct influence of His character, as exhibited in 
 the Atonement; making Him present to Believers, in that 
 manifestation of His infinite perfections, which even in Hea- 
 ven, His dwelling-place, the angels desire earnestly to look 
 into 3 . And can it be doubted, that minds habitually directed 
 to such a Being, in a spirit of firm reliance upon Him, — of 
 cheerful confidence in Him, — must be raised and refined by 
 the contemplation ? 
 
 It requires, indeed, but little reflexion upon the way in 
 which we become assimilated to those, who, near to our affec- 
 tions, and high in our esteem, are our continual companions, 
 and the most familiar objects of our thoughts, to see, that 
 when Jehovah thus becomes to us a subject of delightful 
 contemplation, as the source of peace and joy, the spring of 
 our highest happiness, and of all our hopes, we must h<> 
 transformed gradually into His likeness ; that in the way of 
 
 5 i Pet. i. 12.
 
 MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Sbjul 
 
 "we all with open face, beholding, as in 
 J. ,iv of the Lord, are changed into the same 
 ii„ ;i .y | , glory, even as by the Spirit of the 
 
 Lord •('hi two walk together unless they be agreed 7 ?" is 
 a q which may 1"' left to any one to answer. And, 
 
 [redly, the impressive sentence of the Bible against the 
 trainers and worshippers of false deities, "They that make 
 them are like unto them, and so are all they that put their 
 trust in them 6 ," only expresses a truth which is of wide ap- 
 plication, as well as of the deepest importance: — that our 
 notions of the Being to whom we offer religious reverence, 
 and in whom we habitually confide, are not more surely an 
 indication of our moral character, than they are, by a neces- 
 reaction, a powerful instrument in forming it. 
 But to whatever extent you may discern transforming 
 intlii. lies in tins operation of genuine fa ith by which God's 
 presence is realized to Believers, you must at least recognise 
 in it a powerful restraint. The old philosopher but spoke 
 honestly the natural feeling of every natural heart, when he 
 said that realizing the continual presence of a being to whom 
 all our secret thoughts lav open, was but providing an lin- 
 ing source of terror and anxiety. Anil in accordance 
 with this, wc find in the Bible that sin owes all the peace 
 that it enjoys to some mode of keeping Him out of view, or 
 of hiding from ourselves His true character, — to the refuge 
 into which this apprehension drove the Epicurean, — or to 
 tin- ran r refuge of Atheism, — or to the more common device 
 ither banishing God altogether from our minds, or form- 
 ing Buch views of Him as may alleviate the terrors with 
 which a Burner naturally regards Him. The wicked man, 
 
 who is ften in the Bible with emphatic severity styled 
 
 the fool, i- described there as saying in his heart, There is no 
 and as becoming corrupt and abominable under this 
 
 r - »''■ ' s - 7 Amos iii. 3. 8 Psalm cxv. 8.
 
 VIII.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 187 
 
 debasing delusion 9 ; — or as dissipating the apprehensions 
 which a conviction of God's existence is fitted to awaken, by 
 a denial of His moral government: Tush! God doth not re- 
 gard it, He hideth his face, He will never see it 10 ; — or his per- 
 severance in iniquity is accounted for by the fact, that he 
 has not God in all his thoughts 11 ; or, finally, that thinking of 
 Him, he thinks that He is altogether such an one as himself 12 . 
 And there appears to be no other way by which sin and 
 peace of mind can exist together. To have exalted impres- 
 sions of God's purity, and an abiding sense of His presence, 
 and not to feel our corruption chastised and restrained by it, 
 seems impossible. It seems, therefore, that in this operation 
 of faith, all must recognise a powerful safeguard; under 
 which, if no more be done, sin at least is rebuked and re- 
 strained, whether in act or thought, and purity of life and 
 character naturally promoted. 
 
 Nor can it be fairly thought that there is in our sense of 
 reconciliation with God, anything calculated to impair the 
 restraining influence of a sense of His presence. We have, 
 doubtless, boldness and access with confidence through the 
 faith of Christ 13 ; but no one who considers the foundation of 
 that faith, can fairly apprehend that our confidence should 
 ever assume a form incompatible with reverence and godly 
 fear u . To suppose, indeed, that the fullest confidence in a 
 father's love destroys or lessens the reverence with which we 
 regard him ; or that, when fear of punishment at his hands is 
 taken away, no salutary fear of displeasing him can remain, 
 would be to belie our experience of our own nature, corrupt 
 as it is. And the Word of God expressly describes a sense 
 of His compassion and loving-kindness, not as hostile to this 
 filial fear of Him, but as its proper source: "There is for- 
 giveness with Thee, that Thou mayest be feared 13 ." And 
 how this filial fear, which is the natural result of such fatherly 
 
 9 Psalm xiv. i. 10 Psalm x. it. u Psalm x. 4. 12 Psalm 1. 21. 
 13 Eph. iii. 12. " Heb. xii. 28. 15 Psalm exxx. 4.
 
 MORAL EFFECTS OF FA1TS. [Sbm*. 
 
 •!, must be heightened by the way in which God's 
 was shown, it cannot be necessary for me 
 int out 1 have before said enough to show with 
 what awful holiness that dispensation of mercy invests the 
 of tli.- Mos1 High; and how little likely it is tli.it 
 -in ran !>.■ thought a light thing by those whoso trust in Him 
 grounded upon the most appalling manifestation of His 
 abhorrence of Bin ever made in earth or heaven. I shall not 
 ■ what I thi-ii said; I only desire to remind you that 
 is oot merely grounded upon such impressions of God's 
 chai but that to suppose these impressions weakened, 
 
 ippose faith impaired] to suppose them obliterated, is 
 - ip] faith overthrown; for that no confidence in God, 
 |.t confidence in Him through the atoning work of the 
 I; ' is, in anything connected with the doctrine of jus- 
 
 tfion, intended to In- styled faith in Him. When you 
 remember this, you will see that in the restraining influences 
 ascribed to this operation oi faith, too much is not attributed 
 to it: that it brings into action and keeps alive motives, 
 which have plainly a natural tendency to make us dread sin, 
 shun it, and lay hold on all the means which God has pro- 
 vided to Becure us from its snares, and effectually redeem us 
 from its power. And you will recollect that the discovery of 
 Buch motives in or from this principle, was the object pro- 
 I- ieed ly thifl examination of it. 
 
 But it may bo said that, we have a plain interest in the 
 further inquiry: Are these motives strong enough to regu- 
 late conduct, to ,oni,ol passion, to resist temptation? This 
 is, no doubt, :oi interesting question ; and so far as it is a 
 fair one, 1 think it admits of a satisfactory answer. If it 
 meant to ask, whether such motives can be made to act 
 itronglyand so constantly upon the mind, as to restrain 
 sion, and to govern conduct,— it is to be replied, Doubt- 
 they can. No,- will any one think that in saying this, 
 '" ll '- ascribed to them, when he reviews them, and
 
 VIII] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 180 
 
 considers what motives experience shows to be able to exert 
 such influences; to impose very strong restraints upon "in- 
 strongest passions; and to secure, in spite of them, givai 
 outward decency of conduct. 
 
 I will not ask you to imagine what would be the effect 
 upon a man's conduct, if a virtuous friend, whom he revered 
 and loved, were made his constant companion, the observer 
 of all his actions ; and what would be the probable influence 
 of such companionship upon his inmost thoughts and feel- 
 ings, if he knew that they all lay open to the eye of this 
 associate. I prefer referring to your experience, though 
 the parallel which it furnishes is weaker, and less exact. 
 Take, thru, what may seem a slight case, but which is 
 not on that account unsuited to our purpose. Consider 
 only what the fear of man can do in this way ; apart from 
 all apprehension, I mean, of violence or injury from him. 
 Consider only what influence is exercised upon us continu- 
 ally by a regard for the decencies of common life ; for 
 those proprieties of conduct and demeanour which common 
 use has established in society. This is a force which seems 
 made up of feeble elements ; it does literally nothing to 
 amend the heart ; yet to what an extent does it act upon 
 US ! If you desire to know to what an extent it is con- 
 stantly influencing us, controlling self-love, and restraining 
 other inordinate passions, you have only to consider how 
 these show themselves when it ceases to operate ; to com- 
 pare, for example, the license and violence of the manners 
 of savage life, with the decorum and forbearance of civilized 
 society. Now, whatever be the forces which this form of 
 the fear of man brings to bear upon the mind, — whether 
 a sense of shame, respect for others, regard for their good 
 opinion, and the fear of losing it, the apprehension of dis- 
 turbing relations with them, under which we feel peace and 
 enjoyment, or the like, — that the fear of God, in the form 
 in which it exists in the Believer's mind, has all these at
 
 MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Serm. 
 
 uKUj.l. and in a immeasurably greater, cannot, [ 
 
 iubte<L 
 
 It may be Baid, it is true, thai in exercising upon us 
 an int! which at first Bight might seem so dispropor- 
 
 .-ti its command, this respect for the 
 avails itself of the powerful aid of habit ; 
 
 . that it derives, besides, obvious advantages from the 
 that it i i mtinually in operation upon the mind: 
 
 that this, n"t only serves to confirm the habit of forbear- 
 ance ami self-restraint, hut haves it nothing in general to 
 do, but to struggle with the passions that it seeks to con- 
 trol, at their commencement : which everyone knows may 
 successfully, by a force that would be quite in- 
 :' coping with them in a state of full excitement. 
 
 This is, no doubt, true; but, rightly considered, it would 
 not be found to render the illustration (for it is no more) 
 at all : i act It' the nature of human life plainly calls 
 into i \.ivi-,- continually the/tw of man, it must be evident, 
 on the other hand, that the very nature of religion provides 
 for an exercise no less mi. -easing of the fear of God. The 
 influence which religion claims to exercise over us, extends 
 iv moment of our existence, and embraces all our 
 
 . and all our thoughts. So that it is plain that occa- 
 sions at.- perpetually arising for the exertion of the prin- 
 ciple, whatever it be, by which the influence of religion is 
 to be maintained. The fear of God, if it be in the mind, 
 will, from the very nature of religion, have unceasing op- 
 portunities of exercising itself. And enough has been said 
 
 h >w that if faith be there, the fear of God cannot be 
 
 nt. 
 
 B • what Lb there to keep faiih there? — it maybe said. 
 I mighl answer, that that is beside the subject of this in- 
 quiry; which only proposes to ascertain what influence 
 /•' ;,,t ' or ensures shall he exerted, while it is in the 
 
 mind. Or, as the question is certainly an important one,
 
 VI II.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 191 
 
 whether it belong fairly to this inquiry or not, I might in 
 answer attempt to show, in the nature of the principle 
 itself, and in the condition of mind which it supposes and 
 requires, much that seems to give some security for its 
 permanence, But I should feel it to be trifling with a mosl 
 serious subject, to give any answer short of the full one, 
 to such a question. And if it be asked, What is there to 
 keep faith in the mind? I answer, The Holy Spirit who 
 has wrought it there. 
 
 Nor is it necessary, for the purposes of the answer, to 
 go into any inquiry into the nature or extent of His opera- 
 tion upon the mind. Every one must see that the bare 
 notion of such an agency is enough to remove the difficulty 
 conveyed in the question, and all kindred difficulties. I 
 have been showing the natural effects of faith, by showing 
 what motives it brings to bear upon the mind ; and afford- 
 ing some means of judging of the probable effects of these 
 motives, by pointing to effects actually produced by motives 
 similar in nature, but vastly inferior in strength. It may 
 be replied that the actual effects of motives, and their pos- 
 sible effects, are widely different. That the same motives 
 so vary in strength, not merely in different individuals, but 
 in the same individual at different times, that the strength 
 of which they are capable is a very uncertain proof of their 
 actual effects. That if you considered, for example, only 
 the effect which a dread of eternal punishment, or the hope 
 of eternal reward, is capable of exerting upon a rational 
 nature, you would pronounce it an overmatch for any temp- 
 tation, however strong. If you could see the degree of 
 force which it is actually exerting upon many minds, in 
 which it still holds some place, you would see why it is 
 that there is no temptation so feeble by which it is not 
 actually overcome. If this be said, I answer, that all this 
 is true and important ; but that the bare fact, that these 
 motives are applied to the mind by a spiritual agent, of
 
 RAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Skkm. 
 
 d wisdom, is a full security thai they shall 
 I at the proper seasons, and with the proper force-; 
 : that their actual effects shall be the highest which they 
 • producing 
 I it may be said that their influence, whatever it be, 
 !•-. opposite motives, of the strength of which, un- 
 happily, a- question ran be entertained; and that in the 
 •lift that must ensue, the frailty of our nature, the in- 
 approaches which sin makes to our hearts, and the 
 ally that it finds there in indwelling corruption, all afford 
 ble 'jP'iiihls for \<Tv gloomy forebodings. How are 
 • • I"- dispelled \ All that you have said hut shows 
 a provision for maintaining the conflict, hut falls far short 
 stablishing with certainty its final result. — The real point 
 at issue, the important meaning of the question asked, is, 
 v > i motives actually exert such force upon the mind 
 
 of the Believer, as to overcome the temptations by which 
 be is sure to be assailed 1 If this be said, 1 answer, that 
 1 ' the question, in this meaning of it, I never intended to 
 return a reply by reasoning. What degree of probability 
 the affirmative might receive from reasoning, is another 
 point, upon which what we have been saying has an evi- 
 dent bearing; and in the discussion of which, I have no 
 disposition further to engage you. But I readily admit, 
 ither in this way, nor in any other way of reasoning, 
 r;in v "- hope for certainty upon it. We might go on for 
 a long time, balancing these motives against the passions 
 uid evil propensities with which they have to contend; and 
 !i unprofitable ingenuity might be expended in com- 
 ttg and fixing their relative strength, without advancing 
 to certainty than we have already arrived; while we 
 Bhould run much risk of mistaking the proper limits of 
 oning upon this subject, and its proper object. 
 1 pon this point, I was anxious to speak distinctly at 
 tni ur tion; hut it is so important, i!
 
 VIII.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 193 
 
 I will not l)t- prevented from saying something upon it 
 nuw, by the fear of falling into repetition. 
 
 I never proposed so false an object for this examina- 
 tion of the effects of faith, as to establish by it the cer- 
 tainty of the sanctifieation <>i' Believers. The assurance 
 with which we hold this truth is not built upon human 
 reasoning, but upon multiplied and unequivocal promises 
 of God. By His Prophets of old He had promised, that 
 lie would make an everlasting covenant with His people, to 
 put His fear into their hearts, that they should not depart 
 from Him 16 ; that He would put a new spirit within them, 
 that He would put His own Spirit, and cause them to 
 walk in His judgments and to do them 17 . And when the 
 time arrived for the fulfilment of the promise, it was re- 
 newed by the Lord in the expressive figure, " Whosoever 
 drinketh of the water that I shall give him, shall never 
 thirst ; but the water which I shall give him shall be in 
 him a well of water, springing up unto everlasting life 18 ." 
 Nor while we are so distinctly informed of the unfailing 
 efficacy of the principle implanted, are we left in any doubt 
 about the subjects of the operation ; for when this figure is 
 elsewhere repeated, it is subjoined, that " He spake this of 
 the Spirit, which they that believe on Him should receive 19 ." — 
 But I do not mean to detail the accumulated evidence for this 
 important truth. It is familiar to all readers of Scripture, 
 and forms the proper and sufficient ground of the Believer's 
 hope, that he shall be sustained in the course prescribed to 
 him, and transformed into the image of his Master. 
 
 I attach some importance to the inquiry in which I have 
 attempted to engage you ; but I should be sorry to be sup- 
 posed to exaggerate its importance so weakly as to regard 
 the result of it as capable of affecting this position in 
 either way, — either in the way of invalidating it or of 
 establishing it. I rest my hopes of the sanctifieation of 
 
 10 Jer. xxxii. 40. 17 Kzek. xi. 19, xxxvi. 26. 
 
 1B John iv. i|. lu John vii. 39. 
 
 13
 
 HAl. EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Smut 
 
 not "ii m% success in investigating the uncertain 
 Qd causes, but upon my conviction of the 
 and the truth of the First Cause. I look for it with 
 unshaken confidence, not because I am able to satisfy myself 
 >f the instrument employed, but because 1 am 
 sure of tli.- omnipotence of Him who wields it — because 
 11, v.;.., has given His blood to cleanse their guilt, has 
 promised Hi- Spirit to subdue their iniquities — and be- 
 .-.- //, is faithful who has promised, who also wiU do it. 
 ther did I mean to establish by reasoning the instru- 
 mentality of faith, in this restraining, cleansing, and trans- 
 forming work of the Spirit. That also rests upon higher 
 nds. The same sure testimony on which wo learn the 
 'ng efficacy of faith, has also revealed to us its sane* 
 tifying power. They to whom God's Spirit is imparted are 
 cribed in His Word as "kept by the power of God, 
 through faith, unto salvation' 20 ," — through faith, which the 
 same Word represents as overcoming the world 21 , purifying 
 the heart \ and quenching all the fiery darts of the wicked 
 one . Neither here, then, was there any room for reasoning, 
 nor any design of applying it. 
 
 Where, then, it may be asked, has reasoning a place in 
 doctrine? lis place, ,-is 1 have attempted before to 
 ■•. is well defined. It is this: — being informed thai 
 the instrumentality of faith is employed by an Almighty 
 Sanctifier, in His gracious work upon our hearts, it seems 
 plainly to belong to reason to show, from an examination 
 of the nature of the principle, how far it is naturally fitted 
 to produce the effects which He brings about by means of 
 it We are to recollect that it is not natural in its pro- 
 duction—it is His gift ; that it is not natural, strictly speak- 
 in its operation — it is only efficacious so far as He 
 applies it Bu1 still, so far as it is at all instrumental, it 
 must be bo by some natural fitness to move or to restrain 
 ; b) pre i ating to us some natural motive to act or to 
 
 ' '•' ■ ' ! i John v. A , -■- Acta xv. 9. -3 Eph. vi. 16.
 
 VIII.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAIT//. ][>:, 
 
 abstain from acting; by offering objects to four or hope, 
 or some other influential principle of our nature, which 
 stimulates these emotions by some known fitness to excite 
 them. To discover and exhibit such forces in operation 
 upon the Believer's mind, so far as they form part of this 
 principle of faith, or naturally result from it, is plainly the 
 office of reason. I have attempted, accordingly, to show 
 that faith in Christ — in the views of God and of ourselves 
 upon which it is grounded, and which it keeps alive and 
 confirms — provides a real restraining force, capable of ex- 
 erting a real and powerful influence on the mind, upon 
 natural principles, and in a natural way of operating upon 
 it. If I have succeeded in this, I have, so far as I have 
 gone, attained the only object that I proposed. 
 
 But whether I have succeeded or not, I trust I have 
 guarded against the preposterous mistake of the true ob- 
 jects of the inquiry, which would convert ill success in it, 
 real or imaginary, into an argument against truths, that 
 rest not upon the uncertain collections of human reasoning, 
 but on the unerring testimony of the Word of God. We 
 are so constituted as to receive high satisfaction from being 
 able to trace to any extent the process by which any results 
 in which we are deeply interested are brought about. And 
 God has, in gracious accommodation to this part of our 
 constitution, enabled us to do this in a certain degree, even 
 with respect to the most mysterious of His ways. This, 
 which ministers highly to our gratification, is also in no 
 small degree profitable to us ; and when we avail ourselves 
 humbly of any means within our reach, to enlarge our 
 knowledge of any part of His works, in nature or in grace, 
 we are sure that we are acting suitably to our condition, 
 and conformably to His will. But to regulate our confidence 
 in any of His promises, not by the certainty that He has made 
 it, but by our power of following Him in the performance of 
 it — this is so manifest a perversion of legitimate inquiry, — 
 
 13—2 *
 
 )RAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Serm. VIII 
 
 h plain presumption and folly,- as ool to require or admit 
 ;iv beyond a simple statement of it. 
 
 But it may be said, 'Supposing all this to be as it is 
 
 ted, still, in an inquiry into the natural effects of faith, it 
 can hardly be thought to be other than a serious difficulty 
 
 •;„d. that it- first natural effect is to take away the 
 $ natural support of virtue — the support which it 
 derives from a sense of its influence upon our interests in 
 a future lit'-. Whatever Ik- the change wrought in us in 
 iwing faith upon us, it must be admitted, that in many 
 important respects man remains as before; that his whole 
 bodily constitution, with its long train of wants and desires, 
 remains unaltered ; that evil habits cannot be at once eradi- 
 cated, "i" g 1 ones at once formed. And under the mani- 
 fold temptations which are inseparable from such a state, 
 is it qo1 a startling thing to find faith, at the very out 
 
 1 1 -_r away the powerful aid which self-love is able to 
 render; removing restraints upon conduct of acknowledged 
 force, and clear in their mode of operating upon us; and 
 supplying their place by motives, the operation of which is 
 hardly so intelligible, and to which, at least, it is not easj 
 upon any common principles to ascribe equal strength?' 
 
 [f all that is assumed in this plausible difficulty were 
 strictly true, still the answer ought to be as before — that the 
 
 ire applied to the mind by a Being of infinite wisdom 
 and infinite power, who can discern their weakness and effec- 
 tually supply it ; or can, altogether independently of them, 
 effect such a change in the subject of His operations, as to 
 male- it susceptible of gentler influences than those which are 
 required to move or to restrain unconverted man. But, in 
 truth, the objection conveys a grossly overcharged statement 
 of the facts of the case, as I hope, in part, appears from what 
 I have already Baid upon the subject; and as I shall endea- 
 fully to establish upon some future occasion.
 
 SERMON IX. 
 
 UPON THE MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH- 
 
 Continued.
 
 Placet igitur haec obedientia non quia legi satisfacit, sed quia persona eat in 
 
 Christo reconciliata fide, et credit sibi reliquias peccati condonari. Semper 
 
 r sentiendum est nos consequi remissionem peccatorum, et personam pro- 
 
 nunciari justam, id est acceptari, gratis, propter Christum, per fidem. Postea 
 
 ilacere etiam obedientiam erga legem, et reputari quandam justitiam, et 
 
 mereri pnemia. 
 
 Confess. Aug. 1540. (Art. 6.)
 
 SERMON IX. 
 
 i John v. j. 
 And this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 
 
 They take a narrow and very erroneous view of man's na- 
 ture, who regard him as necessarily and uniformly governed 
 hy self-love. A fairer consideration of the human mind 
 would show that a love of others forms an essential part of 
 it, no less than a love of ourselves. It contains, besides, a 
 number of subordinate propensities, clearly distinct from 
 cither principle, and having appropriate objects altogether 
 different from the interest of others or our own. And in 
 action, this concern for our own happiness sometimes com- 
 bines with, sometimes opposes, our desire for the happiness 
 of others ; while each of these principles, at times, finds itself 
 aided, and, at times, resisted, by some of those other propen- 
 sities of our nature; is sometimes overmastered by them, 
 sometimes overcomes them. So that the whole man is, at 
 times, governed by a combination of his desires, and, at 
 times, by some single one — by self-love or benevolence; or 
 by some passion or appetite, which, ruling him at the mo- 
 ment, hurries him in the pursuit of its proper object, not 
 merely with the same injury, eventually, to his own interest, 
 as to his neighbour's, but with the same disregard, at the 
 moment, for both. 
 
 The coarse system, in fact, which derives all human con-
 
 MORAL KIT Errs OF FAITH. [Sekm. 
 
 duct directly from self-love, is too palpably false to require 
 itation. And the more artificial scheme, which proposes 
 i i refer all our actions ultimately to that principle, by treat- 
 all our desires and affections as bo many modifications of 
 a love of ou] rests upon sophistry, which has been 
 
 ■tn and well i sposed. Still, after every proper abatement 
 perverse exaggerations of its importance, self-love 
 n tains an important place in the human character. It ex- 
 - in all mind-, and in considerable strength. It is often, 
 indeed, too weak to resist the sudden violence of passion; 
 imetimes gives way even to the milder impulses of 
 benevolence: but it is sure soon to regain its influence. And 
 Dot requiring to be excited by outward circumstances, but 
 >ming hack naturally after every temporary displacement 
 with the same steady force, it exerts upon most minds, on 
 the whole, more power than other principles of our nature, 
 which, though capable of higher energies, are subject to 
 wider fluctuations, depending more upon what is external 
 forstimulus and support. So that while self-love could not 
 with truth be asserted to have ruled, with uninterrupted 
 iy. the in-- frigid and unfeeling of mankind, it would be 
 II " 1 - "l"' :i ;| review ofth sir entire live to have exercised 
 a powerful influence upon the most impetuous and the most 
 t> nd. r-hearted. 
 
 Accordingly, among the numerous objections with which 
 the doctrine of justification i;v faith only has been from 
 tone t.. time assailed, the most popular has always been that 
 which charges it with robbing religion of the aid of this 
 active principle of our nature The fear of punishment, it is 
 id, is an intelligible restraint upon hum;,., .•on, hid: hut 
 what restraint is there up,,, hi,,, from whom this fear is 
 u ,;,k -" away? The hope of obtaining the divine f, 
 ' b •■'" intelligible incentive to exertion: hut what is 
 ■" ^ivity to one who believes himself fully ac- 
 '• i for what another has done?
 
 IX.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 201 
 
 An answer to the first objection is given in the attempl 
 which I have already made to show the restraining forces 
 which faith substitutes for those which it takes away. From 
 Believers, indeed, the fear of punishment is taken away; for 
 it not only is not the principle by which God designs to 
 govern them, but is wholly incompatible with that principle, 
 as I hope will afterwards more fully appear. But 1 think it 
 has been shown that the restraints which faith brings to bear 
 upon the mind, are neither few nor inconsiderable. And I 
 only desire to remind you, that they are not merely con- 
 sistent with the freeness and the fulness of God's plan of 
 forgiveness, but that they are derived from these character- 
 istics of the Gospel, and that they derive from them their 
 best efficacy. 
 
 It is thus that, as we saw, the several elements of which 
 this restraining force is composed are maintained in full 
 Strength, and in that mutual action by which each is so 
 wisely calculated to aid the direct effects of the other, so far 
 as they are salutary, and to restrain them, when they would 
 be likely to become injurious. 
 
 Thus we saw that the Believer's humility rests upon his 
 sense of his guilt and corruption ; and that this is based upon 
 just views of the holiness of Jehovah and the strictness of 
 His law; and that these again confirm and receive strength 
 from the view of the Atonement, which represents the sacri- 
 fice of the everlasting Son of God as essential to the forgive- 
 ness of offenders, as well as all-sufficient for it. In this last 
 is also the true foundation of such confidence in God as effec- 
 tually prevents our self-abasement from bringing back that 
 alienation from Him, and that fear of Him, which of itself it 
 has an obvious tendency to renew. While, on the other 
 hand, this self-abasement no less effectually guards against 
 the danger, that the confidence in Him which springs from 
 the Doctrine of the Atonement should degenerate into pre- 
 sumption and pride.
 
 )RAL I TS OF FAITH. [Serjl 
 
 Again, such a of the charactt r of the Most Bigh, as 
 
 the Doctrine of the A at gives adds powerfully to the 
 
 natora] ts which an abiding sense of His presence is 
 
 produce; and such a sense, faith has obviously a 
 
 natural tendency to maintain. Bui we saw that from this 
 
 of the presence of God, even under far less 
 
 il views •: Bis nature, the human mind naturally shrinks 
 
 \sith aversion and fear; and that, therefore, any provision for 
 
 operating upon us by right views of the character of God 
 
 would be ineffectual, unless accompanied by such an assurance 
 
 aciliation with Him as may vanquish our repugnance 
 
 mtemplate Him. — But this whole investigation is too re- 
 
 • to render it necessary to review it minutely; and to the 
 
 answer to this objection, which it has drawn directly from 
 
 the Doctrine, I have no desire to add anything of my own. 
 
 For various reasons, however, I do desire to bring to your 
 mind- the animated reply made by the great Apostle of the 
 Gentiles, to difficulties of the same kind, connected with these 
 fundamental principles of Aw Gospel. When, in magnifying 
 the tree mercy of the Mosl High, he has described it as 
 very variety and every multiplication of human 
 crime; as growing as it were) with the growth of our ini- 
 quity, and finally going beyond its possible limits, by a pro- 
 vision of mercy which must be more than adequate to any 
 finite demand upon it. he anticipates that this glowing repre- 
 -entatic.il of God's unbounded compassions, which ought to 
 vanquish all hostility against Him in the human heart, may 
 only furnish occasion to seme new display of it; may stimu- 
 tnan'e impurity to some corrupt perversion of this conso- 
 ry truth, or prompt his self-righteousness and pride to some 
 profane cavil against it: and that in either spirit a man may 
 ShaXL we continue in sin, that grace may abound? "God 
 i- bis earnest reply. "How shall we, that are dead 
 
 • Rom. vi. i, 2.
 
 IX.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 
 
 to sin, live any longer therein?" As if he said, 'The bhoughl 
 can only pass through a mind, not merely experimentally a 
 stranger to the influence of Christian principle, but wilfully 
 blind to the manifest force of the rite by which men become 
 members of the Christian Church.' For the initiatory rite 
 of Christianity (as he goes on to explain it) symbolizes death 
 and the resurrection, and specially the death and resurrection 
 of the blessed Lord. So that, by the very force of the figure, 
 all who are baptized declare, that, — as He died to this world 
 of sin, and rose again that He might dwell where sin has no 
 place, — their profession, in becoming His followers, is a death 
 unto sin, which is by nature, and, in the strength purchased 
 for them, a rising again to holiness, which is by grace. The 
 rite is thus but a symbolical declaration of the real change 
 that takes place in every true Believer. And thus, at the 
 very threshold of the Christian Church, the true nature of 
 the Christian profession is so emphatically and distinctly set 
 forth, as to stamp dishonesty on the abuse or cavil, which- 
 ever it be, that the Apostle is considering. 
 
 Again, his statement, that Christ has borne the curse of 
 the law for Believers, and that they dread it no longer, — 
 that they are no longer under the law, but under grace' 2 , — may, 
 he supposes, in the same manner, move the thought, "What, 
 then, shall we sin because we are not under the law, but 
 under grace?" To this, whatever it be, whether scoff, cavil, 
 misconception, or abuse, — his answer is as before, " God for- 
 bid!" He reminds those to whom it may occur, that the 
 service into which Believers have entered, and the service of 
 sin, are interests so essentially opposite and irreconcilable, 
 that we cannot put on the outward profession of the Gospel 
 without the solemn renunciation of sin, to which he has be- 
 fore adverted ; and that this is but a figure of the real change 
 which true Believers undergo; — that it is only of true Bc- 
 
 3 Rom. vi. 14.
 
 1 ; MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Serm. 
 
 lievers that it can be Baid that they are not under the law, 
 
 t under grace; — and that, therefore, it' we have passed 
 .,„ / it i- by receiving into our hearts a principle, 
 
 which, though it may not, and do< - Dot, prevent the assaults 
 of sin, li tually rescued us from the debasing thraldom 
 
 Bin in which we were held, — though it lias not entirely 
 destroyed Bin's force, has certainly overthrown its tyranny. 
 : on tlii- statement, he leaves the question confidently to 
 
 mmon - use, —appealing boldly to the commonest princi- 
 !»;. immon life for its derision. 'It' one were to profess 
 
 that he had cast off the authority of Ins former master, and 
 entered into the service of another, while his whole conduct 
 and way of life remained unchanged; — if he continued to 
 obey the c »mmands of the former, and neglected or disobeyed 
 those of the latter, what would you conclude? Would you 
 not conclude that the professed change was a deceit, what- 
 r were the motives to the deception? Apply these simple 
 principles to the ease before us; and if you find that with 
 you, the tyranny of sin is unbroken, be assured that you are 
 deceiving yourselves in imagining that you have changed 
 masters. That you should have obeyed the commands of 
 Bin formerly, when you were professedly sin's servants, was 
 il: it was but according to the nature of all servitude. 
 But if you are doing so still, the same principles oblige us to 
 
 elude that your master is still the same.' 
 
 This i> the answer of the Apostle to such objections: 
 
 and you see how little it qualifies his large statement of 
 
 God's free forgiveness of sin, which gave rise to the first; 
 
 or bis statement that we are not under the law, but under 
 
 I ■■. which seems to furnish occasion to the second. He 
 derives his answer to both, from the true nature of the 
 Christian profession, which the Word of God so distinctly 
 forth. By this he is enabled to show, not that Believers 
 are under the law, but that they who are under sin are not 
 Beli( Dot thai Believers in Christ are not freely for-
 
 IX.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAIT If. 205 
 
 given, and fully accepted in Him, but that 1 1 1 oy who see in 
 this, motives or encouragement to disobedience, are strangers 
 to the very elements of the Christian profession. 
 
 'Be it so,' it may be said, 'Let the Apostle's answer 
 be taken as establishing that it professes to establish ; but 
 must it not be felt that, however suited to his purpose it 
 might have been, it is a very insufficient answer to the 
 whole objection as stated above ; that it in fact leaves the 
 second part of the objection, certainly not an unimportant 
 part, wholly without an answer ? We are looking for the 
 natural operation of faith, and may for the present set 
 everything else out of view. And we deny that, however 
 successful it may be in restraining from sin, it does any- 
 thing to promote our advancement in holiness, or to stimu- 
 late us to exertion in the service of God. Admit that the 
 distinctness with which the Bible presents to us the life 
 and character of the Believer, sufficiently guards a man 
 from imagining himself reconciled to God by faith in tin- 
 blood of His Son while he continues to pursue a course 
 which the Bible unequivocally declares to be inconsistent 
 with that state of reconciliation. Let it be admitted, too, 
 that the restraint which it provides, is operative as far as 
 it is reasonable to suppose that it can operate ; that it 
 keeps Believers not only from all flagrant violations of God's 
 law, but from many lesser derelictions of duty ; — from any 
 systematic neglect of express commandments — from any 
 clear opposition to the Scripture character of followers of 
 Christ, which might awaken in them alarm and doubt, 
 whether they really belonged to that class or not. Ad- 
 mit that all this is done, and how much is left undone ! 
 How much remains to complete the Christian character! 
 And in all of this great work that remains, does not 
 faith in Christ, — trust in His obedience and His death 
 for everything, — rather impede us than help us on, — by 
 taking away the connexion between our exertions here,
 
 MORAL EFFECTS OF FMTU. [Serm. 
 
 I our destiny hereafter, which is, after all, the great in- 
 fix <• \ irtu- 
 1 do not know thai the objection, upon this principle, 
 to the doctrine of justification by faith only, admits of being 
 put in a subtler or a stronger form than this. If I did, 1 
 .1.1 be careful to choose thai form for it. It certainly, 
 in the form in which I have stated it. deserves an answer; 
 and 1 -liall endeavour to answer it. But to avoid misappre- 
 hension, 1 may at the outsel say, that 1 agree fully in the 
 view of religiou which makes any restraining force insuffi- 
 .i for its purposes. Religion certainly does not consist 
 wholly, or even chiefly, in abstinence from -what is for- 
 bidden — it lies much more in the performance of Avhat is 
 imanded; bul mosl of all. in the reception and cultiva- 
 . of oew principles of action — new desires — new affec- 
 lii.n--. in that inward and thorough change which can render 
 rice to God 3 , a service of perfect freedom 4 ; 
 which can. according t" His own gracious word of promise, 
 make the Lord's yoke easy mid His burden light 6 . I think 
 il requin - nothing bul a fair examination of the nature of 
 faith to Bhow in it a powerful provision for effecting this 
 entire change of human character, which is, no douht, as 
 _ ids us, the ultimate end of religion. But, in the pre- 
 Benl Discourse, 1 must confine myself to the more limited 
 objed of showing that this objection against the moral 
 "f this Doctrine i- a groundless one. 
 Though I hold the objection to be deserving of an 
 answer, I Bhould he sorry to he understood to admit, that, 
 if il were established, it would be conclusive as to the actual 
 if the religious views which it assails. For it pro- 
 ;.\ speaks bul of their natural effects. It says nothing 
 of the secrel operation of the Spirit which accompany - 
 them, and applies them to the mind and heart of the Be- 
 
 : Bom. rii. i. < The CVlUct for Peace. 
 
 4 Matt. xi. 30.
 
 IX.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FA IT If. 207 
 
 liever — by which, if they had deficiencies, all their defi- 
 ciencies might be abundantly supplied -by which, even bheii 
 
 injurious tendencies, if they hnd such tendencies, might be 
 effectually counteracted. Still it would be a startling thing 
 to find that the instrument wielded by this Omnipotent 
 Agent in the work of our sanctification, was, in truth, so 
 defective, or worse than defective, as the objection represents 
 it. We should be combating for the truth to a disadvan- 
 tage, if we were obliged to confess, that, so far as we can 
 discern its natural tendency, the more thoroughly that we 
 know, and the more firmly that we believe the truth, the 
 less likely are we to be active in the service of God ! 
 
 The defenders of Gospel truth, however, are in no such 
 unfavourable position. The objection is neither well grounded 
 in what it asserts nor in what it assumes. Faith does not 
 dissolve all connexion between our conduct and our des- 
 tiny; nor is self-love the most effective principle in securing 
 active obedience. The latter part of this reply is connected 
 with matter which renders it by far the more important 
 part ; but, in the present Discourse, I must confine myself 
 to the former. 
 
 It is, doubtless, true, as the objection supposes, that all 
 who believe the doctrine of JUSTIFICATION by faith only 
 do hold that the Word of God distinctly teaches us to regard 
 ourselves as pardoned by God, and restored to His favour, 
 freely, — for the sake of a work in which we had not, nor 
 could have had any share : that it not only gives us no en- 
 couragement to do anything in order to procure that pardon 
 or to obtain that favour, but denounces and stigmatizes all 
 such attempts, as derogating from the sufficiency of the 
 Redeemer's work, and, for ourselves, and in our measure, 
 making the cross of Christ of none effect. So far, the founda- 
 tion of this objection is doubtless true. But they hold also 
 that the same Word no less distinctly teaches, that in thus 
 uniting ourselves to the Lord, we are not terminating our
 
 2 a MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Seem. 
 
 f discipline, but commencing it. That by faith we 
 ime d > of < hrist ; thai we then but enter the 
 
 1 where we are to be formed for eternity; by instruc- 
 and chastenings, by trials and blessings, by the out- 
 ward dispensations of Bis providence, by the inward Leadic 
 Spirit, to be made meet to be partakers of the in- 
 ,nts in light*. 
 And surely if the case Btood here, it would seem that 
 jh had been done to vindicate the Doctrine from this 
 objection. For assuredly there ought to he enough to secure 
 anxious interest in the progress of this Divine teaching, in 
 the bare knowledge that it is going on They who feel 
 that they aie in God's hands, and for such a purpose, can 
 hardly be unconcerned about the progress that they are 
 making, ins. osible to the pain of retrograding, to the plea- 
 ire of advancing, in this heavenward course. The Apostle 
 rtainly seems to find in this — in the bare consciousness 
 that a power so wonderful is exercised upon us, and within 
 us, — motives the most persuasive to activity and assiduity, 
 00 less than to humility and awe. "Work out your own 
 salvation," saith he, "with tear and trembling; for it is God 
 that worketb in you both to will and to do of His srood 
 3ureV 
 
 But it' we go on a little further, we shall see still more 
 clearly that, in teaching us to regard life as a state of dis- 
 cipline a state, that is, in which character is formed by 
 .duct - Revelation virtually establishes a connection be- 
 tween our conduct here and our destiny hereafter, which 
 ms well fitted to keep a concern for our own interests in 
 atinual exerci 
 We cannot Look upon the diversities of moral character 
 that surround us, whether among believers or unbelievers, 
 without feeling sure that individuals of each class pass through 
 
 * ( -'" 1 - ' '-• ' Phil. ii. i*.
 
 IX.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 209 
 
 life very differently improved or injured by its teaching, and 
 arrive at its close in very different moral states. Jt' the 
 authority of Scripture were needed to establish a truth bo 
 obvious to common observation, the Lord expressly tells us, 
 that of those who do bring forth good fruit, so)iie bring forth 
 am hv/ndredfold, some sixty, some thirty*; and that, on the 
 other hand, a return to the thraldom of sin after a tempo- 
 rary escape from its yoke, can make the last state of a man 
 worse than the first 9 ; and that some are twofold more children 
 of hell than others 10 . 
 
 But if this difference exist at the close of life, it is surely 
 impossible to avoid believing that it continues after life is 
 ended. Unless we suppose that God places us here for the 
 formation of character; provides potent means to effect its 
 formation; employs the events of life, the revelation of His 
 will, the operation of His Spirit, to promote this design; 
 brings all these means, internal and external, natural and 
 preternatural, to bear upon man to effect this end; and then, 
 when life is over, interferes by an act of power to undo all 
 that this elaborate system of forces had effected, — unless, I 
 gay, we are prepared to adopt this unreasonable and wild 
 supposition, we must believe that men enter the next world 
 — both the great divisions of it — as they leave this, — in 
 widely different degrees of moral advancement and of moral 
 degradation. 
 
 Now, this, fairly considered, is equivalent to asserting 
 that they enjoy there very different degrees of happiness, 
 and suffer there very different degrees of misery. For under 
 every reasonable notion of the happiness of the future state, 
 much of it must be supposed to consist in the exercise of 
 those principles, and in the indulgence of those affections, 
 which it is the business of moral discipline here to invigorate 
 and to purify. A more advanced state of moral improve- 
 
 * Matt. xiii. 23. ' Malt. xii. 45- J " Matt - xxiii - l 5- 
 
 14
 
 MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Serm. 
 
 nit nt i-. • but another name for a higher capacity 
 
 for tliis kind of happiness. And, surely, with Bim in vol 
 
 /,'<"/. and at whose right hand there are 
 pit —the highest capacity for happim 
 
 must be the highest enjoyment of it. So that you see, that 
 unless we Buppose an express provision in heaven for exclud- 
 - men from deg of happiness of which they have been 
 by God's appointment rendered c-i j):tl>lc upon earth, we must 
 distinction in the enjoyments of saints in the 
 kingdom of glory. And, I may add, though it is not directly 
 anected with our argument, that if we only think how 
 much of the misery of the realms of darkness must consist in 
 the natural working of the evil principles, which the disci- 
 pline of lit'o, when perverted from its true purpose, serves to 
 • c and aggravate, we must see that there is the same 
 ssity foT mferring different degrees of suffering there. 
 Thus, important differences in the condition of men here- 
 after would be the natural result of the differences of their 
 moral -tat.- in leaving life : and this would be enough for my 
 purpose. But we appear to have good authority for refer- 
 ring some differences in their future lot to what we should 
 I a more direct appointment of God; — as express authority 
 it would be reasonable to expect to have upon a subject , 
 which the Scriptures always manifest remarkable reserve. 
 The n.. t ions of the eternal world, which are usually enter- 
 tained, are well expressed by an eloquent writer, when he 
 
 Is it. an ocean of sprits without bottom and without shor 
 B it such vague notions of the world to come are not Scrip- 
 iraL The Bible, without supplying much food for curiosity, 
 ch more definite information concerning the state 
 that awaits us. We know from the Word of God that then 
 ■ sist now among the inhabitants of heaven wide distinction 
 told of differences in Angelic natures,— as angel, and 
 angel, seraphs, and cherubs,— which we must suppose 
 
 11 Psalm xvi. 1 1.
 
 IX.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 211 
 
 real and important, but of which (though their existence i 
 distinctly declared to us) we can form no very clear ideas. 
 But, besides these, Ave read of distinctions among the An- 
 gelic host, of which we can form better conceptions, distinc- 
 tions of rank and authority, thrones, and dominions, a/nd 
 principalities, and powers 12 . And the glimpses which we arc 
 given of the state of saints hereafter, seem to hold out v< a -\ 
 clearly the existence and maintenance among them of the 
 like distinctions. We have the Apostles sitting upon thrones 
 with Christ, judging the twelve tribes of Israel 13 . We have the 
 place of highest dignity on His right hand, and on His left 
 hand, in His kingdom, reserved for those for whom it is pre- 
 pared by the Father 14 . We have the undefiled following the 
 Lamb, whithersoever He goeth 15 . While those whom He has 
 brought out of great tribulation, serve Him dag and night in 
 His temple 16 . And other intimations will, probably, of them- 
 selves come to your minds, tending to establish the same fact — 
 that though, in the spiritual world, they that are wise shall 
 shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that turn 
 many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever"; yet it 
 shall be there as in the natural world, where one star difer- 
 eth from another star in glory 13 . 
 
 But in addition to all such intimations of permanent dis- 
 tinctions in the condition of the blessed hereafter, it is to be 
 remarked, that the plain aim of some parabolical representa- 
 tions of the final judgment seems to be to convey to us, that, 
 in that righteous award, the precise station shall be assigned 
 to each for which he has been fitted by the discipline of life. 
 The servant whose pound had gained ten pounds, it set over 
 ten cities ; he who gained five, over five 19 . And, I may add, — 
 though, as before,- it only bears upon my immediate purpose 
 
 12 Col. i. 16; Eph. i. 21 ; 1 Pet. iii. 22. 
 
 13 Matt. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 30. 14 Matt. xx. 23. 
 
 15 Rev. xiv. 4. 16 Rev. vii. 14, 15. 17 Dan. xii. 3. 
 
 18 1 Cor. xv. 41. 19 Luke xix. 17. 
 
 14—2
 
 MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [See* 
 
 showing !i"\v i nthvly the principle pervades God's govern- 
 t — that we are informed distinctly, that in awarding 
 punishments in that hour, the like measure of their severity 
 shall be employed. That ignorance of God's will, for ex- 
 ample, which, though it does not take away the guilt of sin, 
 certainly lessens it- heinousness, shall also mitigate its punish- 
 ment; and tli.it 80, while the servant who knew his lord's will, 
 and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, 
 shall be beaten with many stripes; the servant who knew not 
 • - voter's will, and did com, nit things worthy of stripes, 
 *h<ill I» beaten with few strijjes 20 . So that on the whole, 
 les those differences in the future happiness of moral 
 it-, which, as we saw, are the necessary result of the diffe- 
 rence of their moral state, it appears that we have good 
 
 -■•us to look for distinctions in their condition hereafter, 
 depending also upon these moral differences, not, however, 
 like the former, resulting naturally from them, but from a 
 direct appointment grounded upon them. 
 
 To pursue the matter further, is for our purpose needless. 
 Indeed, as I intimated, it was not necessary for me to have 
 gone so far. In simply stating what is so distinctly stated in 
 God's Word, and what is too reasonable, and too much in 
 uni-oii with the general principles of His government, to re- 
 quire a detailed proof, — that while the conduct of a Believer 
 is forming his character, his character must materially affect 
 his happiness in the world to come, — we should seem to have 
 done enough to answer the objection. The objection sup- 
 i 3 that Dili, vers, according to their principles, are living 
 und( i a system which separates wholly their present conduct 
 and their future interests. Assuredly enough is said in reply 
 whe n we Bhow, that according to their principles they ate 
 really living under a system which establishes a close and 
 most important connexion between their course upon earth 
 and their condition in the unseen world: a system which as- 
 
 10 Lulcp xii. 4;.
 
 TX.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 213 
 
 signs a sure and never-ending reward to every act of genu in.' 
 obedience to God's will, — which suffers not one to fall to the 
 ground without bringing forth fruit eternal: which assures 
 the Believer that nothing that is done or suffered in his 
 Master's service shall be left unrecompensed, — that from the 
 blood of martyrdom shed in defence of His truth, to a cup of 
 cold water given to a disciple in His name — not a single act of 
 duty and love shall go without its reward. And all this, with- 
 out in the slightest particular impairing the perfect freedom 
 of that grace in which he stands, and desires to stand for ever ! 
 Indeed, so far is reward, under this view of it, from 
 being opposed to the freeness of Divine grace, that in the 
 writings which set forth God's free grace most distinctly, 
 there is continually no less distinct reference to this pro- 
 vision of recompense. Thus, it is true that the certain con- 
 junction of present suffering and future glory is often 
 spoken of simply, and without any explanation : " Our hope 
 of you is stedfast, knowing that as ye are partakers of the 
 sufferings of Christ, so shall ye be also of the consolation 21 ." 
 " If we suffer, we shall also reign with him 22 ." " For which 
 cause, we faint not ; for though our outward man perish, 
 our inward man is renewed, day by day: for our light 
 affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for its a far 
 more exceeding and eternal weight of glory 23 ." But at 
 other times we are told how this union is brought about, — 
 that it is by the moral effect of such sufferings upon our 
 character. God's design in chastening His children, is, we are 
 expressly told, to effect in them this moral change, — to make 
 them partakers of His holiness 2 *. And hence the trials 
 which He sends are not merely to be endured with patience, 
 but received with gratitude and joy : " We glory in tribula- 
 tion also, knoiving that tribulation worketh patience, and 
 patience experience, and experience hope, and hope maketh 
 
 21 2 Cor. i. 7. " 2 Tim. ii. n. 
 
 " 2 Cor. iv. 16. " 4 Heb. xii. ro.
 
 l'U /V.i/. EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Sekm. 
 
 shamed And again, the startling command to re- 
 
 ptatums, i- accompanied by a satisfactory explana- 
 tion derived from this effect in strengthening and perfecting 
 the moral character of the Bufferer: "My brethren, count 
 it all joy when ye tall into divers temptations, knowing this, 
 that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let 
 patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and 
 • ntiiv. wanting nothing" 6 ." 
 
 - is a full explanation of the connexion which is i 
 where only stated or implied. And we need to bear this 
 explanation in memory at times, when, in declaring this 
 
 i;nty of recompense, in perfect confidence that he could 
 not be misunderstood, a strength of language is emploj-ed 
 by the Apostle, which it requires this help to enable us to 
 follow, as, "God is not unrighteous to forget your work, 
 and labour of love 87 ." — And again, "Seeing it is a righteous 
 thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that 
 trouble you; and to you who are troubled, rest with us, 
 when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with 
 B mighty angels 88 ." No one will suppose that the great 
 Apostle here means to put the two things of which he 
 
 1^ — God's righteous punishment of vice, and His gra- 
 cious reward of virtue, — upon the same footing of natural 
 equity; or, bo to contradict himself and the truth, as to 
 
 it that the poor returns of love, which Believers are 
 
 enabled to render, for the exceeding lure wherewith He first 
 
 . ever Leave God their debtor — or that the afflic- 
 
 • of the presenl life give to any one a just claim for 
 compensation in another. None of these things were in 
 
 Apostle's mind But, speaking to those to whom he 
 
 ■ plained fully the principles of the Gospel, he speaks 
 
 lb- apprehends no misconception when he speaks 
 
 -l.v of ;i part of that gracious scheme, as, though, 
 
 ' i. v. i. James i. 3. 
 
 Heb. vi j These, i. f>, 7.
 
 IX.] MORAL EFFECT* OF FAITH. 215 
 
 like all the rest of it, springing altogether from God's free 
 grace, yet so fixed and consecrated, that He could not de- 
 part from it without departing from His faithfulness. 
 
 But to return to the objection. What view of this life 
 is there that presents so elevated an aim to exertion, ap- 
 plies such powerful incentives to activity, or makes them 
 operate so unceasingly, as this — which represents every mo- 
 ment as of real value ; every act, every thought, as capable 
 of exercising an intelligible influence upon eternal in- 
 terests? This not only imparts a dignity and importance 
 to life's meanest incidents, which its weightiest concerns 
 want when separated from such a connexion, but it does so 
 upon principles which all can understand and appreciate. 
 For you see that this is but applying to the acknowledged 
 facts of our condition, a known law of our nature: that 
 well-known law under which conduct is exercising an un- 
 ceasing influence upon character. Every one must see how, 
 under this law, the unheeded events of every day, and 
 every hour, may be doing something to form for eternity 
 the character of every human being, — calling into exercise 
 some moral principle, — developing some propensity, — re- 
 newing that strife between conscience and passion, which 
 tends to the advancement or degradation of our moral na- 
 ture, according to its conduct and issue, — strengthening some 
 vice, or confirming some virtue. What hour, in fact, of 
 our waking existence, carefully reviewed, even by ourselves, 
 at its close, would not be seen to have brought with it 
 some intelligible demand upon temperance, or fortitude, or 
 self-denial ; upon forbearance, or benevolence, or active ex- 
 ertion ; upon zeal for God, or love for man ? And as these 
 claims are answered or not, as conscience and that Spirit 
 which strives with our spirit prevail over evil dispositions 
 and indolence, or yield to them, are we not plainly advanc- 
 ing or retrograding in the moral course in which we are 
 treading ; and, in either event, becoming fitted for some
 
 I EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Serm. 
 
 n in the world that we are hereafter to inhabit, for 
 iety with which we -hall dwell for ever? Now, with 
 this view of the connexion of this life with the life that 
 i~ t.. come, i> there any one that will compare, in their 
 probable operation upon the mind, the notions usually enter- 
 tain, d of that connexion, — a vague dread of punishment, 
 banished by some notion >>t' the mercy of God, no less vague; 
 .■r presumptuous hopes of reward, betraying ignorance alike 
 • I lod and of ourselves*? 
 
 B • it may be said, However true and important this 
 
 may be, what connexion has it with the principle of 
 faith in the Redeemer? Why, you are to remember that 
 what has h. , n -aid was designed to answer an objection 
 which charges that principle with depriving those who are 
 und<r its influence, of all intelligible motives to activity in 
 the Bervice of God : every degree of activity, at least, be- 
 yond the very moderate degree required to keep down alarm 
 about our condition. And for the purpose of answering 
 this objection what has been said seems abundantly suf- 
 ficient It seems (juite enough for this purpose to show, 
 that in the form in which a connexion between our pre- 
 sent conduct and our future interest seems best calculated 
 to excite and to sustain exertion, faith does nothing to 
 dissolve that connexion. So far, on the contrary, as it may 
 
 • upon the direct testimony of God's Word, faith includes 
 a belief in it. So far as it has for its support fair reason- 
 
 ii that testimony, faith does nothing to discounte- 
 nance it. For answering such an objection, this would ap- 
 abundantly sufficient. 
 Lit in fact, faith has a much more important part to 
 »nn in tin- matter. It is required, first, to lay a satis- 
 
 • rv foundation for the Doctrine, as I have endeavoured 
 •plain it; and then, to aid and to regulate its practi- 
 cal operation, 
 
 • \„ t .- v.
 
 IX.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 217 
 
 And first, it is evident that it is only in the new rela- 
 tion which faith establishes between God and man, thai 
 man can be the proper subject of reward at God's hand 
 
 That rewards can only be consistently bestowed upon 
 those who, being reconciled to God through Christ, have 
 all their offences blotted out by His blood, and are ac- 
 cepted in Him as dear children, I have already established, 
 if I have established the fundamental principles of the 
 Gospel in opposition to erroneous views of it. The very 
 notion of reward, indeed, involves insuperable difficulties, 
 and is glaringly preposterous, when we regard it as admi- 
 nistered by a righteous Judge, trying those who are bound 
 to render obedience to a law, and who have all confessedly 
 failed to obey it. But it involves no such difficulties, when 
 we consider that trial as past, and the Judge as a reconciled 
 Father. That our tender Father should look with compla- 
 cency even upon the feeblest attempts of His " dear children" 
 to serve and to obey Him ; that He should see with satis- 
 faction the needful transformation of their character going on 
 under such a course of obedience ; that He should stimulate 
 and cheer their progress by a sense of His approbation, or 
 by the hope of reward ; — this cannot appear, to any one who 
 fairly considers it, a strange or a startling thing. I will 
 therefore not dwell upon this operation of faith, as if it in- 
 volved any difficulty which required to be removed, but will 
 pass to the others. 
 
 Faith alone, then, as we have seen, takes away the 
 obstinate reluctance to contemplate the world to come, which 
 Ave all naturally feel. For at the bottom of that reluctance 
 lies a sense of hostility to God, and in faith we behold Him 
 reconciled. But it does not stop here. It tends to cany 
 our contemplations continually to the scene to which we are 
 hastening : not merely reminding us, generally, that we are 
 pilgrims and sojourners here, but, in the toils of our pil- 
 grimage, directing our eyes to our true home, where a rest
 
 MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Serm. 
 
 remai$ieih for tht ' [n the perils of our warfare, 
 
 u- by the sure promise, that, for all who fight the 
 
 i fight, ti ! <ii<I up a crown of righteousness, which 
 
 I. : ■ . right 9 Judge, shall give at His appearing™. 
 In the calamities of life, calling to our remembrance, that 
 f this present time are not worthy to be compared 
 with the glory that .shall I., n ■■■ alt / :u . In sufFering, and sorrow, 
 and bereavement, carrying us in hope to the world where 
 there is aeither pain, nor grief, nor separation, — where sor- 
 1 shall flee away* 2 . — Nor in our happier hours 
 i- it l< is to remind us how transient and peri -h- 
 
 are the objects upon which we are lavishing our best 
 us ; making here, as before, the great realities of futu- 
 rity familiar objects of our thoughts ; teaching us here, as 
 to look not at the things that are seen, but at the 
 things that arc m>t seen; by pressing upon us the momentous 
 difference between them — that tlie things which are seen are 
 tempot the things which are not seen are eternal 33 . 
 
 N . how all this must aid the views of life which we 
 been considering, must be evident. For, without pur- 
 suing the matt r int.) detail, it must be plain that such views 
 we have been considering can operate strongly upon a 
 man. only in tin- degree in which the objects of the unseen 
 hold their true place in his mind, and have truly en- 
 • l his affections: and this is too plain to require a 
 
 "!"'l ]i!-'"pf. 
 
 if faith lie thus useful in aiding the operation of 
 rach view-, it [a absolutely essential in regulating it, It 
 iial to supply resolution, and to restrain presump- 
 tion : • i prevenl failures in this course from restoring the 
 spirit of slavish fear from which we have been delivered, and 
 ; ' prevenl success in it from generating pride. How it 
 ■■■' this, ii can hardly be necessary, after all that has 
 
 "•'' '• I Tim. iv. 8. M T?,.;n. viii. 18. 
 
 ■ 10. 83 2 Cor. iv. • i.
 
 IX.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 219 
 
 been said upon its nature, to employ much time is pointing 
 out. It must be manifest to every one, that the principle 
 of simple unreserved trust in another, at all times, and for 
 everything, is fitted to abate pride from whatever source ; 
 and that the fact that this Being is the Everlasting God is 
 fitted to sustain hope under every trial. 
 
 When we look at the contest in which we are to engage, 
 as one in which every moment is of importance ; in which 
 every act, and every negligence, produces real and enduring 
 effects : when we consider the momentous interests that 
 hang upon this struggle, and the powerful enemies with 
 whom we have to contend — and then look at ourselves, we 
 naturally shrink back with dismay. "Who is sufficient for 
 these things 34 ?" must be the desponding language of every 
 heart. But faith replies that our sufficiency is of God 35 ; 
 that His grace is sufficient for us ; that His strength is made 
 perfect in weakness™. It reminds us that His omnipotence 
 is engaged in the work : that the same everlasting Spirit 
 who has opened our minds to discern Divine truth, and 
 our hearts to feel it, — that it is He who heals our infir- 
 mities, supports our weakness, supplies our wants ; furnishes 
 us with arms for our spiritual warfare, and aids us in the 
 conflict ; gives us the desire to pray, and directs our peti- 
 tions ; guides us in drawing from the events of life, — from 
 all God's outward dealings with us, whether trials or bless- 
 ings, — the improvement which all were alike designed to 
 supply ; and exercises upon us, within, those transforming in- 
 fluences by which the world becomes crucified unto us, and 
 we unto the world* 1 . Is not this enough % In much weak- 
 ness, and amidst many fears ; amidst all the painful and 
 often recurring proofs that we carry this treasure in earthen 
 vessels™; in sorrow and shame for dull ingratitude, and barren 
 carelessness; in bitter remorse for wanderings and back- 
 
 34 2 Cor. ii. 16. 33 2 Cor. iii. 5. 3G 1 Cor. xii. 9. 
 
 » Gal. vi. t 4 . :,s 2 Cor. iv. 7.
 
 MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Serm. 
 
 slid doI here enough, and more than enough, to 
 
 ■ 1 to cheer the weakest Believt 
 D ibtless there ia And the same source supplies abun- 
 dant mat. rial- to repress the pride which is so ready to 
 Bpring uj> in our carnal hearts, under a sense that our course 
 Ivancing. The answer which faith supplies, indeed, to 
 r question, " Who made thee to differ 38 ?" ought effec- 
 tually to extinguish all presumption in our Christian graces, 
 ..I- imaginary. Faith, which has brought us to the 
 if the Redeemer for pardon for sin, directs us to the 
 .. \ ..t the same stupendous sacrifice, for all protection 
 from Bin's Bnares, and all cleansing from its pollution. So 
 far •" bf restored to the purity of our lost estate 
 
 here, faith directs us to look for this restoration, not to anv 
 visionary spring of renovation in our corrupt and fallen 
 nature, but to the same fountain open for sin and for un- 
 clea nness 40 , — to the gifts purchased for the rebellious 41 by 
 Him who died for them ; and gladly and gratefully acknow- 
 ledges, therefore, that if we do bring forth any fruit in righte- 
 ousness, it is not ours, but His. But faith rests upon views 
 of God's demands upon us, which will not allow us easily 
 think highly of such fruit. It brings our lives to a 
 standard of duty, by which our best actions show too poorly 
 i much to spiritual pride. It makes familiar to 
 . believing heart the humble confession, "the little fruit 
 that we have in holiness, it is, God knoweth, corrupt and 
 uind 42 ." And by the views of God upon which it is 
 grounded, and which by exercise it deepens and confirms, 
 it effectually keeps down the vain imagination, that in the 
 Ivanced state to which His grace ever brings us we 
 can challenge or sustain His scrutiny. And while it keeps 
 alive continually the sense that we only stand in His sight, as 
 
 1 ' Cor. iv. 7 . 40 Zech xiii r 
 
 41 Psalm lxviii. tS; Ej.h. iv. 8. 
 M Booker, ' Discourse of J ition,' § 7.
 
 IX.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 221 
 
 seen and accepted in Him who is the Lord ouii RIGHTE- 
 OUSNESS 48 ; it prompts unceasingly the Apostle's fervenl aspi- 
 ration, that we may be found in Him, not having our own 
 righteousness, but the righteousness which is of God**! So 
 that faith is not less powerful to keep alive humility, than 
 it is absolute to banish despair. 
 
 And, on the whole, you must see how groundless is 
 this objection, — how groundless any objection must be, thai 
 charges faith with robbing religion of the support of that 
 universal and operative principle of human nature, a concern 
 for our own well-being. On the contrary, you see that, so 
 far as this is a legitimate principle of action, faith only 
 interferes to add to its force, and to regulate its operation. 
 So that if self-love be, as it is said to be, the surest spring of 
 obedience, here it is, enlightened fully, and fully awakened, 
 stimulated to activity, sustained in exercise, directed to its 
 true ends, and restrained within its proper limits, and acting 
 — that is, having a tendency to act — upon the Believer, at 
 every moment of his existence, to secure his active obedience 
 to the will of God ! 
 
 But it is to mistake our nature, — fallen as we are, — it 
 is to mistake our nature greatly, to regard self-love as the 
 most effective principle in securing obedience ; and it is 
 grossly to mistake the nature of our religion to suppose that 
 it is on the efficacy of self-love that it mainly relies. Christi- 
 anity certainly does not design to place us under the domi- 
 nion of self-love, however well-informed or wisely regulated 
 it be. She seeks to raise us to a higher principle of action, 
 which is at the same time a surer principle of obedience. 
 What this is, and what part faith has to perform in exciting 
 or supporting it, I shall endeavour to point out in my next 
 discourse upon this subject. 
 
 « Jer. xxiii. 6. " Pbil. iii. 9. Note Z.
 
 SERMON X. 
 
 UPON THE MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH- 
 
 Concluded.
 
 - inus quidem quod fides nunquam est sola, sed affert secum chariUtera et 
 alia luultiplioia dona. Qui enim in Deuni credit et certus est quod faveat nobis, 
 nqoidem et filiam dedit et cum filio spem oeternee vite, quomodo hie non ania- 
 . t to corde Deum? Quomodo eum non revereretur ? Quomodo non stu- 
 deret declanre pro tantis beneficiis gratum anhnun)? Quomodo non probaret 
 Deo obedientum in adversis peiferendia ? 
 
 fides chorum pulcherrimarum virtutuin secum ducit: neque unquam 
 st. Sed non ideo confundendae res, et quod solius fidei est, aliis virtuti- 
 bub tribnendam. 
 
 Luther, in Gen.— Cap. 15.
 
 SERMON X. 
 
 i John iv. 19. 
 We lore Htm because He first loved us. 
 
 The Gospel is professedly designed for man in the low 
 estate to which sin has brought him ; and if it contained 
 nothing bearing a reference to a part of our fallen nature 
 so widely diffused, and so operative, as self-love is, it would 
 be an indication that it did not come from Him who made 
 us, and who knows of what we are made. The omission 
 doubtless might admit of a satisfactory account ; but it would 
 plainly present a difficulty requiring to be accounted for. 
 
 We have seen, however, my brethren, that, in fact, no 
 such difficulty exists ; that not only do the representations 
 of Revelation concerning man's condition and prospects con- 
 tain matter to alarm this principle and to stimulate it to 
 activity at the first, but that, after, impelled by fear and 
 hope, we have, by faith, embraced the offers of Divine mercy 
 in Christ, self-love is not left without matter to exercise 
 itself upon. For that, though the faith of a Believer teaches 
 him to look exclusively to the merits and the sufferings of 
 his Master for pardon and acceptance with God, and, in 
 that reconciling work, forbids him to ascribe to himself any 
 part, original or supplementary, — it teaches him also, that 
 the further promises of God, of making him like t<> Him 
 
 15
 
 MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Serm. 
 
 in whom be trusts, and bo rendering him meet for the in- 
 heritance purchased and prepared for him, shall be effected 
 through the gradual teaching of His everlasting Spirit. 
 And that this omnipotent agent employs, in promoting Cud's 
 if con g us, even our sanctification, the in- 
 
 fluence of the faith which He has bestowed, of the Word 
 which Be has dictated, of the outward events of life which 
 11 ordains ; until it seem fit to Divine wisdom to terminate 
 the earthly course of the subject of His teaching. Ami. 
 lastly, we saw that a right view of such a course of discipline 
 ca in it a provision for engaging the Believer's con- 
 cern for his own well-being, from the beginning to the end 
 of his career. For that, independently of all other cause for 
 sorrow at finding himself retarded or retrograding in this 
 moral course, and independently of all other motives which 
 would make him desire to advance in it, and take pleasure in a 
 
 -•■ of advancement, there is this particular motive, address- 
 ing itself directly to the principle of self-love, namely, that 
 such an advancement in holiness must be an augmentation 
 of eternal happiness. And of this connexion between the pre- 
 sent life and the life to come, of the Scriptural grounds upon 
 which it rests, and of the part which faith has to act in 
 maintaining it, I gave you, when I last addressed you, a 
 sufficiently detailed account. 
 
 1 did not then think it necessary, nor do I now, to say 
 
 much to obviate the misapprehension, — to which, neverthe- 
 
 1 should be sorry to give occasion, — that, in establishing 
 
 i a connexion 1 am building ogam the things which I 
 
 •oyed 1 . Any one who is willing to give fair attention to 
 
 the subject, must, I think, see that this representation at- 
 
 tributea no good effect to human conduct, except as it ema- 
 
 • lii. and is governed by, faith; and no reward to it, 
 
 i then, as of debt, but all of grace; and nothing what* .< t 
 to it, at any time, or under any view of it, which was before 
 
 1 Gal. ii. 1 8.
 
 X.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 227 
 
 ascribed to faith, or to its object, exclusively of conduct 
 T should, I trust, shrink from all philosophy as from vnin 
 deceit, if it led to anything calculated to mar the simplicity 
 or impair the freeness of the Gospel of Christ. But I am 
 satisfied that this view, rightly considered, lias no tendency 
 io do either: that it only requires to consider it apart from 
 prejudice, in order to see, that it gives a satisfactory account, 
 of many embarrassing appearances in life ; and an intelligible 
 and worthy account of the whole end of life itself, which, 
 unless viewed in some such connexion, presents such an 
 afflicting and perplexing scene: that it gives an easy and 
 consistent meaning to multiplied passages of Holy Writ, 
 which are usually explained, on the one hand, so as to do 
 great violence to the natural force of the plainest language, 
 and, on the other, so as to contradict the plainest and best 
 established principles of the Gospel: and, lastly, what is 
 most important, that it is sustained, as I then briefly showed, 
 by as strong direct Scriptural evidence, as in such a case 
 it would be reasonable to expect to find. And being thus 
 sure of its soundness, its importance, and its truth, I should 
 be sorry to decline putting it forward, under an apprehension, 
 that, notwithstanding every fair precaution to obviate mis- 
 conception, it may still by some be misconceived. 
 
 A being under the direction of self-love, thus informed, 
 regulated, and restrained, is no doubt in a very advanced 
 moral state, when compared with one who is governed by 
 more confined or less correct views of his real interests, or by 
 the passion or appetite that happens to be at the momeni 
 most inflamed. But it is an error to suppose that he is in 
 the state to which the Gospel designs and has the power 
 to raise man. And Christian moralists, who have beeo con- 
 tent to regard this as the ultimate end of Divine teaching. 
 have prejudiced and dishonoured Christianity, by a repre- 
 
 15—2
 
 Hfi MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Sere. 
 
 sentatton which takes for it a lower aim than that of ancient 
 
 philosophy. For it was only the worst part of that philo- 
 
 you. know) which pr I to regard prudence as 
 
 • human virtue, and to make an enlightened sdf- 
 the ruling principle of human conduct The better part 
 fails -tailed, perhaps, hardly less signally,— to regulate 
 
 life and to purify the heart -But it failed in a higher and 
 oobler effort, — in the attempt to place man under the domi- 
 nion of the love of virtue. 
 
 This failure may, in part, perhaps, he ascribed to the 
 abuse of means within the reach of philosophy, hut it is, 
 doubtless, chiefly due to causes tar heyond her control. To 
 whichever it he ascribed, however, it is only with loose 
 thinkers that it can have the effect — which it seems so often 
 to havi — of stamping the character of visionary upon the 
 design it-' If. That design certainly deserves to be very 
 differently regarded. The mode of prosecuting it may \><- 
 op n to much just animadversion; and it was found united 
 with the grossest vices in practice, and with many speculative 
 vi.-w- both false and chimerical. But the design was not 
 more elevated than sound. The design of freeing man from 
 the thraldom of sense, and from the tyranny of appetite, by 
 toring to the higher powers of his nature the supremacy 
 which the,- meaner parts had wrested from them, must be 
 irded with admiration by every one who is not incapa- 
 ted from viewing it in its true light by obstinate pre- 
 j idice, or a cold heart, or a limited understanding. It was 
 "iie of those aspirations after his first estate, which, even 
 in the disorder and degradation of the fall, from time to 
 time, vindicated man's high origin And the grievous errors 
 with which it was accompanied, and the utter failure in 
 which it issued, furnish no reasonable presumption against 
 - ..t the design: they are hut melancholy de- 
 
 i »ns of the .1. ptli of our fall 
 
 I; ligion finds man, .-is philosophy did, in a state in which
 
 X.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 229 
 
 conscience is far too feeble of itself to govern passion, and 
 
 in which it has self-love perpetually arrayed against it, 
 through false views of our real happiness; or, at best, dor- 
 mant, under imperfect information concerning it. The at- 
 tempts of philosophy to obtain for conscience the aid of this 
 important principle were, of necessity, attended with indif- 
 ferent success. For however clearly it may be shown — and 
 I think it can be shown, and has often been shown most 
 clearly — that virtue promotes the temporal happiness of the 
 race; it must, I think, in all candour be allowed, that there 
 are many conceivable and actual cases in which it is doubtful 
 whether a strict observance of the rules of virtue always 
 secures the happiness of an individual, in this life — doubtful 
 to such a degree, as to render it impossible to interest self- 
 love always on the side of virtue, without taking into con- 
 sideration a future state of existence. And to everyone who 
 has looked at the matter, it must be plain, that unaided 
 reason had arrived at no views of a future life which were 
 fitted to render conscience any effectual and steady support. 
 
 But Revelation supplies abundantly this defect — when 
 it publishes and proves to us that God hath appointed a day 
 in which He will judge the world in righteousness* — and 
 will render to every man according to his works ; to those who, 
 by patient continuance in well doing, seek for glory, honour, 
 and immortality, — eternal life. But to them that are conten- 
 tious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, 
 — indignation and wrath 3 . 
 
 From the moment that Revelation establishes that tri- 
 bulation and anguish shall for ever rest upon every soul of 
 man that doeth evil*, it becomes plainly impossible to in- 
 terest self-love on the side of vice. And that there are fur- 
 ther provisions to engage its active co-operation in the cause 
 of virtue, I showed you before. Revelation certainly designs 
 
 3 Acts xvii. 31. 3 Rom. ii. 6, 7. 4 Rom. ii. 8.
 
 2 
 
 MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Seum. 
 
 (Jed this alliance. It is obviously an end of great im- 
 portant It is inde< 1 the one to which Revelation first 
 ;ll l,ii itself; and the means which are employed to 
 
 ,iv it have naturally a prominent place in the Bible, — 
 a ■ prominent as to render it easy to understand how its 
 uii.' place in religion has been misconceived. That it has 
 
 q misconceived can, I think, be easily shown. That the 
 principle is designed to be strictly subordinate and occa- 
 elnnnl — that the means employed to engage it on the side 
 of conscience are but among the elementary means of reli- 
 gion, and among its first operations, — and that the end 
 itself is but subsidiary to a higher end, — the end of 
 raising man to a condition in which he may be acted upon 
 by tli>' higher parts of his nature, and ultimately brought 
 under the dominion of the love of God, — all this is easily 
 proved from the Word of God: and, I think, indeed, it can 
 hardly fail to make itself evident to any one who examines 
 patiently and fairly the system which that Word presents. 
 
 The point might be established, perhaps, in various ways. 
 1 choose, as peculiarly fitted to my limits and design, a proof 
 which, to a fair mind, cannot, I think, fail of being perfectly 
 satisfactory, and which is, besides, one easily stated and 
 understood. I mean that which is furnished by the contrast 
 between the motives employed in the Apostolic addresses 
 to Believers, — whether to restrain or to excite them — and 
 tin' considerations which are used to move the impenitent 
 and unbelieving, — to invite them, plead with them, threaten, 
 and warn them. 
 
 In the addresses to Believers, for example, how sparingly 
 il" yon find the terror of the Lord 5 , which is wielded so 
 I k <\\ • Hi 1 11 v aga insl the world ! The prospect of eternal hap- 
 
 e88 is doubtless often put forward in such addresses, and 
 
 r ' i Cor. v. ii.
 
 X.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 231 
 
 with a clear purpose of influencing the Believer's mind. But 
 you are to remember, that I do not mean to deny the legiti- 
 macy of such motives in their proper place. I only mean 
 to ascertain what that is, — what is the place that they are 
 designed to hold in religion. And I may also remark, that 
 though fear — the fear of punishment — is plainly unfit to be 
 the animating motive of our lives, or to have a prominent 
 place among such motives (so plainly, indeed, as to make it 
 wonderful that it should have ever been thought of for such 
 a purpose), yet the same objections do not apply to the 
 constant exercise of hope. Fear, even when it does not 
 mount to such a height as to paralyse all the active prin- 
 ciples of our nature, seems effectually to deaden all its gene- 
 rous emotions. But hope has no such effects. On the con- 
 trary, while it has a plain tendency to call into activity some 
 of the most stirring qualities of the human mind, it offers 
 no obstacle to the exercise of any of its tenderest and kind- 
 liest sympathies. Moreover, in the particular case that we 
 are considering, while the nature of future happiness is of a 
 character to elevate and purify the mind that contemplates 
 it as an object of desire, the contemplation of it can hardly 
 be so separated from the true grounds upon which it be- 
 comes an object of hope, as not to excite strongly and to 
 sustain the feelings of gratitude and love. 
 
 So that if it were the design of the Bible to imprint 
 gratitude to God, and the love of Him, upon the human 
 heart, it would be plainly promoting powerfully such a design 
 by calling us, as it does so often, to contemplate the hap- 
 piness which He has in store for His children. But, you 
 will remark, that this effect is not left to the natural ten- 
 dencies of this hope, however strong they are; but that 
 such references to the joys of heaven are continually, 
 almost uniformly, so made as to direct the mind expressly 
 to the consideration of the source of these unspeakable 
 benefits,— to the mercy of the Father,— to the sacrifice of
 
 MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Sebm. 
 
 the Son, — to the work of the Spirit upon the heart: so 
 as i" secure an effect beyond the hare exercise of hope, 
 and to indicate a purpose lying beyond the excitement of 
 thai emotion. 
 
 But as the love of Cod is undoubtedly a duty both of 
 natural and revealed religion, no one mil be disposed to 
 question that it must be the purpose of the Christian reve- 
 lation to implant that principle in the minds of Believers. 
 'Ih.' only question is, what place it was designed to hold 
 there. And if that question be not decided by the nature 
 of the principle, as compared with all others, it may, I think, 
 be satisfactorily settled by considering — first, that in the 
 portraiture of the Christian character given in the Apostolic 
 writings, it sufficiently appears as the ruling principle. And 
 secondly, — what I wish to secure attention particularly for, 
 as in my apprehension establishing the point even more 
 (inclusively, though less directly, — that throughout the Epis- 
 tles, where the purpose is plainly a practical one, — where 
 the manifest design of the writer is to urge those whom 
 he addresses to painful sacrifices, — to sustain them under 
 severe trials, — or to animate them to arduous duties, — he 
 directly and fearlessly appeals to gratitude and love, — not 
 only as real and influential principles of action, but as the 
 proper motives to unrepining submission to God's appoint- 
 ments, cheerful obedience to His will, and active zeal in His 
 service. 
 
 With reference to the first, look at the life and ministry 
 of the Apostles themselves. Look at the course of generous 
 Belf-devotioB of the Apostle of whose life we know most, 
 from the moment that in humility and sincerity he asked 
 Lord, what wilt thou have me to do 6 ?" till he is disap- 
 pearing fn.m the scene, ready to be offered, and the time of 
 departure at hand 7 . See him encountering danger fear- 
 
 V( - ts '*• r >- 7 2 Tim. iv. 6.
 
 X.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 233 
 
 lessly; patiently sustaining toil, and privation, and suffer- 
 ing; taking pleasure, as he describes himself, in infirmities, 
 in reproaches, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's 
 sake 8 ; ready, not to be bound only, but also to die for tJie 
 name of the Lord Jesus 9 . And not only animated with these 
 devoted feelings upon great and spirit-stirring occasions, 
 but — what everyone knows to be so much harder — regu- 
 lating by the same principles the common course of his 
 daily life ; — giving none offence in anything, that the ministry 
 be not blamed 10 ; — renouncing the clearest rights, when the 
 assertion of them might impede the success of his preach- 
 ing 11 ; and ready to forego the most legitimate indulgences, 
 when they threatened to prejudice the spiritual welfare of 
 the weakest soul that he had won 12 . If you ask how he 
 was quickened and sustained in this arduous course of ex- 
 ertion, and endurance, and forbearance, you will find that it 
 was not merely by looking to the recompense of reward, 
 in the sure and steadfast hope of that crown of glory which 
 the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give him at His ap- 
 pearing 13 ; but that it was under the resistless influence of 
 real, fervent, grateful love to Him to whose love he owed 
 everything — all his peace, and joy, all his privileges, and 
 his hopes: — "the love of Christ," saith he, " constrain- 
 eth us 14 ." 
 
 Nor are you to suppose that in this he differed in any 
 respect, except in degree, from the less distinguished fol- 
 lowers of the Lord. For them, he prays for this gift, as 
 the consummation of God's mercies to them ; that Christ 
 might dwell in their hearts by faith, that they, being rooted 
 and grounded in love, might understand, with all saints, 
 what is the breadth, and length, and height, and to know the 
 love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that they might be 
 
 8 2 Cor. xii. io. s Acts xxi. 13. 10 2 Cor. vi. 5. 
 
 11 1 Cor. ix.; 2 Cor. xi. ; 1 Thess. ii. 6; 2 Thess. iii. 9. 
 
 12 1 Cor. viii. 13. 13 2 Tim. iv. 8. u 2 Cor. v. 14.
 
 MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Serm. 
 
 rillal u-ith all the fulness of God u ' ; — thai their love might 
 abound mure and more, in knowledge, and in all judgment 1 *. 
 \ r only bo; but he describes them as actually partaking of 
 the principle, as having "the love of God shed abroad in 
 tla-ir hearts by the Hoi} Chost, which He had given them 17 ;" 
 and even more Btrikingly conveys what a certain and Lead- 
 ing characteristic of the Christian profession it is, by limiting 
 his closing salutation to "all them that love the Lord Jesus 
 Christ in sincerity "j" or by denouncing, as accursed, — 
 
 ited to destruction, — all in whom the principle is not 
 found: "It" any man love not the Lord Jesus, let him be 
 anathema 19 ." 
 
 But, as I said, what is most striking and convincing is, 
 the confidence with which, in practical cases, an appeal is 
 made, not to an invigorated conscience only, but to reno- 
 
 ■ 1 affections, to a jealous zeal for Cod's honour, to a 
 
 real solicitude for the propagation of His truth; — to some 
 
 form or result of -latitude and love, rather than to a dread 
 
 of punishment, or the hope of reAvard. Here, for example, 
 
 is the way in which an exhortation to the observance of the 
 
 most arduous Christian duties, and to the cultivation of the 
 
 highest Christian graces, is introduced: "I beseech you, 
 
 therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present 
 
 your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, 
 
 which is your reasonable service 20 ." And again, "I there- 
 
 the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk 
 
 worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called 21 . And again, 
 
 l: ye imitators of God, as dear children, and walk in 
 
 as Christ also hath land „ s \ and hath given Himself 
 
 for \a n : n —OT, "Put on, therefore, as the elect of God, holy 
 
 and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of 
 
 mind, meekness, long-suffering, forbearing one another, and 
 
 1 EpL iii. 17, &.C. " ; Phil, i. 9. 17 Ro m< v . gi 
 
 ''-I' 1 '- vi - »4- ,: ' 1 Cor. xvi. ?:. 2° Rom. xii. 1. 
 
 ph. iv. 1. [bid. v. 1.
 
 X.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAIT II. 235 
 
 forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against 
 
 any, even as God for Christ's sake hath also forgiven you, so 
 also do ye 23 " And we have evidence that the personal 
 teaching of the writer was not only directed to the snmr 
 high ends, but grounded upon the same pure and elevated 
 motives: "Ye know how we exhorted, and comforted, and 
 charged every one of you, as a father doth his children, that 
 ye would walk worthy of God who hath called you to J I is 
 kingdom and glory 2 *" 
 
 But I omit any further citation of passages. The few 
 that I have given will bring others of the same kind in 
 abundance to your minds ; or at least suggest the line of 
 reading that will supply them in abundance. Look to the 
 whole course of the Apostolic teaching ; you will see that, 
 however much it deals in general principles, it descends 
 upon proper occasions to the most minute directions for the 
 conduct of Believers ; for the regulation of their own hearts 
 and lives, and for their demeanour to all, both within and 
 without the Church. And you will see throughout, that, 
 however other motives are intermingled, this is the leading 
 one relied upon, — that whether the writers seek to promote 
 personal purity, patience, humility, and self-denial ; or to 
 engage a benevolent concern for those who are still ene- 
 mies to the truth, — to secure for them the forbearance, 
 tenderness, and compassion, which their awful condition calls 
 for; or whether they are asking for the warmer and more 
 peculiar affection with which they are to be regarded, who, 
 serving the same Master, governed by the same laws, and 
 sharing the same hopes, are journeying to the same home, — 
 they still appeal to the same principles, — make every sacri- 
 fice that they call for, and every virtue that they enjoin, 
 rest upon the grateful love which should fill and animate 
 the Believer's heart. 
 
 S3 Col. iii. 12, 13. u i Thess. ii. II.
 
 MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Smut 
 
 And Barely, no one can look at human nature, or human 
 life, fairly, without Beeing the wisdom of this, — without see- 
 that in choosing, out of all the principles of the human 
 character, LOVE to bear the burden, the one is chosen which 
 is best able to bear it Even those who deny the appli- 
 cability of the principle to religion, or who deride such a 
 of it— even they must, I think, acknowledge, that if 
 our hearts were really filled with the love of God, our 
 lives w..uM be regulated l>y a principle more effective in 
 securing obedience to Bis will, than any that the more 
 selfish part of our nature can supply: a principle more wake- 
 ful, more active, more circumspect, more self-denying, more 
 Btudious to please, and more vigilant to avoid offending, — 
 setting aside all it- superiority in nature over the expecta- 
 tion of reward, or the dread of punishment, and looking 
 merely to it- effects, — a principle more prompt and more 
 enduring than either; more powerfully stimulating to ex- 
 ertion, and stronger to sustain under suffering, those upon 
 whom it exerts it- real power. 
 
 For evidence of this, 1 might send you — and fairly too — 
 to the very strongest forms under which human love ever 
 manifests its.lt' : because it is plain, that what we are con- 
 cern. -d in ascertaining is the strength of which the principle 
 is capable. But as, in some of its strongest forms, it is min- 
 gle.! with other parts of our nature — appetites or instincts — 
 from which it would be necessary for exactness here to sepa- 
 rate it ; and as I have no time for subtle distinctions, and no 
 osition to engage you in them, I prefer referring you to a 
 case which requires none, and against which no exception 
 lies. Of all the diversified forms, then, under which love is 
 ang and gladdening this troubled scene of existence, con- 
 sider only the one to which the subject naturally leads us. 
 Think only of all that it is doing everywhere around us, in 
 the filial relation, to assuage sorrow, and to heighten joy. 
 Think only of the power of genuine filial love; of its cheerful
 
 X.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAIT I! 237 
 
 sacrifices to promote the comfort of parents, of its bender at- 
 tentions to mitigate their sufferings; how it can tame down 
 the buoyant spirits of the young, repress their ardour, abate 
 their levity, and control all their natural love of enj<>\ im-nt, 
 that they may cheer the decline of those who watched over 
 their helpless infancy, — how it can often make giddy and 
 headstrong youth sedate, thoughtful, and patient, that it may 
 minister to unconscious imbecility, to revolting disease, to 
 peevish and querulous age : — Think only of this, I say, by no 
 means the strongest form of human love, and such scenes must 
 come to your minds, as I desire to bring back to them, — i'<>v 
 such scenes, all have witnessed, or shared in. Set beside 
 them, fairly, any effects of the same kind that you have ever 
 seen springing from fear or hope, and you must be satisfied 
 of the superiority of love over both. I do not mean satisfied 
 of its superiority, as in itself more elevated and generous ; 
 and as exercised more in conjunction with all that is lofty 
 and tender in human nature, and giving strength and kindli- 
 ness to all; — for of that superiority no one can doubt, and 
 with it I am not now directly concerned; — but I mean this, 
 that, estimated simply in its power of producing a conformity 
 of our conduct to the will of another, it is, in every form in 
 which it exerts itself strongly upon man, the most effective of 
 all the principles of his nature. 
 
 So that you see that, if we were at liberty to consider the 
 matter exclusively in this way, — if we were to consider prin- 
 ciples merely in reference to their influence upon outward 
 conduct, and if obedience to God were made up of the per- 
 formance of outward acts, or abstinence from them, — this 
 principle would have a claim to the very highest place; and 
 obedience would be more effectually provided for by implant- 
 ing it in the heart, than any other whatever. But this is 
 plainly a false view of the subject. We are not to regard the 
 love of God as one out of several principles producing obedi- 
 ence to His will, which might be exchanged for any other, if
 
 MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Seum. 
 
 any other equally efficacious could be found, but as itself an 
 atial part of obedience, and an essential element of every 
 
 ■ 
 
 Without spending time, then, iu proving what has already 
 
 sufficiently appeared, — that lore is not only an essential part 
 
 of the Believ< r*s character, but its ruling principle, and its 
 
 ,-, — I shall proceed, according to my plan, to 
 
 rider how faith is concerned in producing it. I shall look, 
 as before, only for the natural moans which faith brings to 
 
 i upon the Believer's heart, to awaken there the love of 
 God; — not intending thereby to intimate, that the Omnipo- 
 tent Agent to whom these means owe all their efficacy can- 
 not, or that He does not, operate beyond and independently 
 of them, as well as in them, and by them. And I need 
 spend but little time in the investigation, as I have, in my 
 former examination of the principle of faith, anticipated a 
 
 d ileal of what is necessary to be stated upon this head. 
 
 And. at the outset, you must see what a clear superiority 
 in feasibility (so to speak), this attempt of religion has over 
 the one of philosophy with which we compared it. This ap- 
 
 I ■ are at once, even from the single circumstance that it is for 
 a person, and not for abstract notions of our own creation, 
 that our love is demanded. To be an effective principle of 
 action, fcwe requires some support in reciprocal affection, — 
 some personal qualities to form the foundation of attach- 
 ment,— a being at least as its object, who can be interested, 
 offended, or pleased. To anyone who considers our nature, 
 
 II cannot appear surprising that all attempts to fix human 
 affections on the cold abstractions of philosophy should have 
 
 ignaliy tailed. The beauty of virtue, the deformity of 
 
 are not unreal — far from it, — but the emotions which 
 
 they excite, compared with our love of the virtuous or hatred 
 
 of the vicious, are languid and ineffective; they are weak in 
 
 all minds, compared with the feelings that are raised by the 
 
 •nal qualities from which they are derived, and they are
 
 X.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 239 
 
 weakest in those minds in which they would have most to 
 resist, and most to subdue. 
 
 But though this advantage is essential to the attainment 
 of the end, it obviously is not enough, of itself, to secure it. 
 On the contrary, the effect produced must depend, ultimately, 
 upon the qualities of the being for whom our love is required. 
 God, it is true, commands us to love Him, and we know that 
 upon obedience to His commands our eternal well-being de- 
 pends. But powerful a motive as this is to sway the will, it 
 has no direct influence over the affections, nor does its power 
 over the will secure it any. We can no more determine our 
 minds to love or hate, under a conviction that it is our in- 
 terest to feel the emotion, than we could, by resolving to do 
 so, hear or see without having oar bodily organs affected. 
 Some object, naturally fitted to excite the feeling, must be 
 offered to our apprehension, — an object endowed with the 
 qualities which, by the constitution of our nature, are fitted 
 to move the affection, — or we should labour in vain. 
 
 This is so obvious, and so well known, that a proof would 
 be misspent upon it. I suppose, in fact, that the most un- 
 tutored person — one who had never passed a moment of his 
 life in reflecting upon his own mind — if he were satisfied that 
 his interest required that he should feel real affection for any 
 object, and if, accordingly, he desired earnestly to do so, — I 
 suppose that he would instinctively feel where the limits of 
 this sense of interest lay, — that he would turn instinctively 
 from a contemplation of himself and his own interests to a 
 contemplation of the object ; and would endeavour to bring 
 his mind under the influence of everything in it which was 
 fitted to draw forth affection; to set its attractive qualities 
 in the clearest and strongest light, and to keep out of view 
 everything in it that was calculated to offend or repel: and 
 this, as I said, not from any theory of the mind, true or false, 
 but instinctively. 
 
 So far as the love of God is produced by natural means,
 
 MORAL EFFECTS OF I'M TIL [Serm. 
 
 it is plain that it too must depend upon the form under 
 which Be is present to our conceptions. But it would s< 
 
 : this were one which rendered the feeling irresistible. 
 
 It would seem, thai when our love was asked for Him who, 
 
 while He concentrates in Himself every excellence of which 
 
 can form any imagination, and possesses all in a degree 
 
 infinitely transcending our highest imaginings, is not j'ur 
 
 ■ ■ -■; whom everything that we behold or 
 
 think of, all that we suffer or enjoy, is fitted to recaJ to our 
 
 minds and everything, rightly considered, with new evidence 
 
 Iness; on whim we depend at every moment, and 
 
 to whom we owe everything — every object that ministers 
 
 happiness to us, and even the constitution of mind that eu- 
 
 ables us to find in it a source of enjoyment; — it would seem, 
 
 I say, thai upon every principle of our nature the human 
 
 tions would flow naturally to such a Being, as to the 
 
 ;:e that attracts them all. 
 
 And such, we cannot doubt, was the effect, upon unfallcii 
 man, of the manifestation which God at the first made of 
 Himself. Such, even now, to a certain extent, would be the 
 of His exhibition of Himself in the course of His pro- 
 vidence — in which, notwithstanding many awful demonstra- 
 ii >ns of wrath, benevolence so clearly predominates — if it 
 were suffered to produce its natural effect upon the heart. 
 
 But we have seen that, though too far fallen to have right 
 apprehensions of our guilt and corruption, we have such 
 apprehensions of them as make us seek our happiness in 
 averting our thoughts from our Creator. Viewing Him as a 
 righteous governor, we look upon Him with aversion and 
 ij. And ii is not more certain that love, when genuine, 
 th out all fear that hath torment, than that this torment- 
 fear, where it has the mastery, effectually casteth out 
 '■ ii possible thai love to God should be naturally 
 produced in the human heart, until this fear is dispelled, and 
 *o that alienation vanquished which prevents us from coming
 
 X.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 24] 
 
 fairly under the operation of the qualities in the Divine cha- 
 racter which are fitted to secure our Love. 
 
 How the Gospel effects this, I need not now poinl out in 
 detail. In it, as we have sufficiently shown, God only con- 
 vinces us of our danger, to show us His own provisions for 
 our security; He but proves to us our guilt, to take it a\va\ ; 
 establishes that we are His debtors, and that we have not/inn/ 
 to pay, only that He may frankly forgive us all! 
 
 If the Gospel did no more than thus remove the obstacles, 
 which sin has reared up, to a free contemplation of God's 
 character, even as it is made known in His works, it would 
 be doing, as we have seen, a great deal to secure our love for 
 Him. But, in fact, it can be easily shown that the mode of 
 doing this presents Him to us in a light which adds infinitely 
 to any power of attracting our affection that the perfections 
 of His character could of themselves exercise. If it be 
 doubted whether our hearts are so formed as to be unable to 
 love strongly, except where we are strongly loved, it must be 
 at least felt that the power of bounty, and even of mercy, to 
 draw forth our affection depends greatly, if not altogether, 
 upon the degree in which they are a proof and measure of 
 affection: — that no amount of careless bounty or mercy can 
 do much more than raise transient feelings of gratitude. And 
 Revelation accordingly does not leave us in any perplexity, 
 as to the source from which God's bounty and His mercy 
 spring. It is careful to inform us that we owe it to His 
 love; that it was to His love, while we were yet sinners, — 
 enemies, — that His highest gift and His greatest mercy to us 
 were due 25 ; that His love for the work of His hands survived 
 all human ingratitude, rebellion, and crime; but that, in the 
 perfections of the Divine nature, and in the principles of the 
 Divine government, there existed obstacles to the manifest.!- 
 tion of this love, until the law was satisfied, and sin expiated; 
 and that to accomplish this work of obedience unto death, He 
 
 25 Rom. v. 8, io. 
 
 16
 
 242 MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Serm. 
 
 g - sp vo/ Wail not, but ihliv, 
 
 What ;i measure of the severity of the l>i\ ine justice this 
 
 stupendous ofl in furnishes, 1 have on another occa- 
 
 od you to consider; and it is plain that, in exactly 
 
 the it supplies a measure of the strength of the 
 
 1 ine love. But what I mo I desire attention for now is the 
 
 vision for moving us Btrongly and permanently, which the 
 
 l pel makes in it - mode of presenting this evidence of God's 
 
 The An Scriptures abound with the most affecting 
 
 rai ea I I! 1 >ve. He descends there to borrow inn 
 from the strongest animal instincts* — from the liveliest and 
 
 o 
 
 warmest human feelings — from the strength of a husband 
 or of i r's M affection — even from the tenderness of a 
 
 mother's Love ' to convey to His people such impressions as 
 they are p ble of receiving of that love which passeth know- 
 . And when we consider from whom all these assu- 
 rances proceed, it is plain that nothing can add to their force 
 \i lence of this truth addressed to our reason. 
 Lnt to hring this evidence home to the heart with lull 
 t. somi thing more is needed; and, in the way in which 
 the great love of God to man is presented tons in the Gospel, 
 all that i needed is abundantly supplied. Unless our affec- 
 can be connected with a person, as their object, they 
 arc as I aid before, Languid and wavering. And it not only 
 is hard for us to find such an object in the infinite Jehovah, 
 in struggling with the natural difficulties of the subject, 
 are continually adding artificial ones, by a tendency to 
 _nit'y His physical and intellectual attributes, at the 
 pense of those m iral qualities which are more natural obj< 
 iur love. Now this want of our nature is fully provided 
 
 liu iii. if> : Rom. \i'.i. 
 I • i. xix. 4 ; Deut, xxxii. 1 1. 
 '■■■ ■ ■- 5, ■■■ Jer. ii. 2, iii. 14; Ezek. \\i. 8. 
 i' aim cili. 13; Jer. xxxi. 3° la. xlix. 15. 
 
 al Epb. iii. 19.
 
 X.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FA mi. 243 
 
 for, and this tendency effectually guarded against, in the 
 history of redemption, on which faith is grounded. -That 
 history which presents to us God in Christ, reconciling the 
 
 world to Himself, — the glory of the everlasting God, veiled 
 in our frail nature, submitting to all its wants, enduring 
 its distresses, and sustaining even its temptations,— is not 
 merely to be regarded as supplying evidence the most con- 
 clusive of the Divine love, but as presenting it in the way 
 which is fitted to produce the most impressive conviction 
 of it ;— furnishing the imagination with as distinct an ul.ject 
 as any in the history of mankind, in the person of Him who 
 so long deigned Himself to bear the weaknesses, the neces- 
 sities, the appetites of our nature ; to share for so lon«- in 
 the common occupations, the common troubles and sorrows 
 of man's daily life. The more you look at this provision, 
 and at the nature for which it w r as designed, the more will 
 you see its efficacy— that it is on a level with every capa- 
 city — and that it supplies to all, proofs, which all can feel 
 and understand, that we are objects, not merely of God's 
 mercy, nor of His bounty merely, but of His LOVE ; while 
 it brings back this evidence to the mind continually in the 
 most persuasive form, — a single incident in the life of the 
 blessed Lord often doing more, I am sure, to dissipate 
 passing distrust in the Divine Love, than the most laboured 
 arguments or the strongest assurances could. Believers can- 
 not doubt of the wakeful care, of the tender sympathy, and 
 of the fervent love of Him, who, though in nature infinitely 
 raised above us, has descended to furnish us with evidence 
 so affecting, that He is not thereby raised above a participa- 
 tion in all that concerns us. They cannot doubt that the 
 man of sorrows and acquainted with c/rief 32 , feels for human 
 afflictions, that He is touched with a feel tuff of infirm i, 
 that He Himself has felt, of temptations by which Hi' has 
 been Himself assailed — that He will give to those whom 
 
 3 - Is. liii. 3. 
 
 1G— 2
 
 )10RAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Seem. 
 
 \\ His brethren, strength proportioned to 
 new and suffer no trial to exceed their m< 
 
 It i> in this last and highesi effect of faith, thai the 
 superiority of the Gospel of Christ, above every false repre- 
 sentation of it. mosl conspicuously appears, li' God's design 
 rn i ntward conduct merely, with an indifference 
 
 the principles by which it was regulated, then any of 
 these false systems — all of which, under minor differences, 
 
 e in presenting reconciliation with Him, and acceptance 
 with Him, as a prize to human exertion — might in some 
 measun e to promote his design: though even that 
 
 object, as we have seen, is more effectually secured by the 
 true scheme. But it is when you regard it as the ultimate 
 purpose of the Gospel to implant in man's heart the l<> 
 1 ' and to make that the ruling principle of his life, 
 that the utter impotence of these degrading misrepresents/? 
 tions of the Gospel is fully felt. No measure of reward 
 thus offered as a price for human love could procure it. 
 The heart recoil-, from such a barter of its affections. //' 
 a man, said the wise king, — whose knowledge of human 
 nature was derived from Him who made man, and who 
 knew what was in him, — if a man would give all the wealth 
 of hie house for love, it would utterly be contemned 3 *. 
 
 1 nave already tried these systems, in another and a 
 more regular way. 1 have shown them to be opposed to 
 the direct testimony of God's Word; and I have confirmed 
 this refutation of them by showing them to fail in the n- 
 
 ■ ntations which they make of the holiness of His nature, 
 and the inviolability of His Law. But 1 should be myself 
 
 rinced of their falsehood, and should be satisfied, with 
 
 ' IM '- '>■ '7 I s IV. 15, l6j 1 Cor. x. 13. ■■* Cant.
 
 X.| MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. 245 
 
 any fair mind, to rest the proof of their falsehood, upon the 
 ignorance which they exhibit of the nature for which they 
 
 are professedly designed, and upon their consequent ineffi- 
 cacy to promote that which is the highest and ultimate end 
 of all God's dealings with man. 
 
 Strange however as it may sound, T believe it is to this 
 inefficacy that they owe their origin and their currency. I 
 believe that the uncompromising hostility with which the 
 Gospel has always been assailed, and of which these schemes 
 are but so many manifestations, is mainly to be ascribed 
 to its uncompromising purity. It is different from our own 
 mode of dealing with our enemies; and we believe reluctantly 
 in a measure of magnanimity so far above our own. It is 
 at war with all pride; and our proud nature struggles strenu- 
 ously against it. We find it hard to cast off our intellec- 
 tual pride, and to receive it in the humility of little children. 
 And we find it harder still to cast off our moral pride, and 
 to receive it in the self-abasement of polluted sinners. But 
 its hardest quality to the natural mind is, I am sure, its 
 irreconcilableness with sin. We are never so degraded as 
 not to feel, that coming thus to Christ for everything infers 
 the surrender of ourselves to Him in everything. We can- 
 not acknowledge that we are bought, and with a price so 
 costly, without feeling that we are not our own, but His 96 . — 
 And ive will not have this man to reign over us 56 . Any 
 scheme that secures us from His pure dominion will be pre- 
 ferred to that which consigns us to it. It is a comfortable 
 tiling to have the prospect of being reconciled to God, at 
 the close of our career; and no hard thing to think of ren- 
 dering to Him a full measure of gratitude and love in a 
 future state of being; and of walking close to Him there, 
 where, if there be temptations to wander from Him, they 
 are such as we can frame no distinct notions of. But to 
 
 35 i Cor. vi. 19. 36 Luke xix. 14.
 
 MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Serm. 
 
 netted to Him now, that we may now walk with 
 Hin sar children", is comfortable only tit those to whom 
 
 Sj.irit has made it • 
 
 This subjeci might be dwelt on much longer. Besides 
 manifold imperfections in the mode of handling those parts 
 which have been most fully treated, many interesting points 
 been bu1 glanced at, and many not adverted to at 
 all. Bnt much time has been already spent in this course; 
 and more, though it might supply some defects and repair 
 - ime faults, would leave still much to he corrected, and 
 much to be supplied. And as my proposed design ends na- 
 turally with this last and highest effect of faith in Christ, I 
 will end this protracted inquiry here. 
 
 1" r practical applications, I have left but little space. 
 the wonderful work of Redemption, however it has been 
 brought before you, can hardly fail itself to have prompted 
 some solemn and profitable reflexions; — and the simple ap- 
 peal which a contemplation of that great mystery suggests 
 tn the Apostle, asks but little time, and it assuredly could 
 not be mad- more impressive by any additions, — "How shall 
 
 • cape if we neglect so great salvation 38 ?" If this stu- 
 pendous manifestation of God's boundless love fail to move 
 
 what can turn us to Him? And if we remain alienated 
 
 from Him, what can save us? The sacrifice of the blessed 
 
 Lord does uot declare God's goodness only, but His severity 
 
 That He spared not his own Son, is indeed a sure 
 
 foundation of the Believer's hope, that with Him He will also 
 
 dy give us aU things 9 . But, rightly considered, is it not 
 also an assurance to impenitent sinners of the certainty of 
 II ■■ wrath i Does it not tell of the terrors of His anger? 
 
 '• *• »- Heb. ii. 3. »» Rom. viii. 32.
 
 X.] MORAL EFFECTS OF FAIT 11. 217 
 
 Docs it not publish that it is a fearful thing to fill into 
 the hands of the living Goal 40 , — that our God is a consuming 
 fire* 1 ? 
 
 To those who have embraced the hopes of the Gospel, 
 ami have by faith fled to the sure refuge which it holds 
 forth to sinners, all the manifestations of the mercy wliicli 
 bhey have received, and of the love of which they are the 
 objects, are prevailing motives to genuine obedience — be- 
 cause they are the sure source of that genuine Love which 
 is the surest spring of obedience. They will seek to 'purify 
 themselves, even as He who is the author and finisher of their 
 faith is pure**; they love Him, and will keep his command- 
 ments^; they will cultivate the graces that He enjoins, and 
 slum the vices that He abhors: feeling that upon them 
 devolves the momentous duty of adorning the Gospel of 
 God their Saviour in all things, they will be circumspect 
 and active ; and above all, under a just sense of their weak- 
 ness, they will seek for strength where it may be found. 
 
 Every congregation may be supposed to contain some 
 of each of the two classes, to whom, upon such an occasion 
 as the present, such reflexions may be fitly suggested. But 
 there is, in the congregation which I now address, another 
 class of hearers, to whom a few words, in addition, seem to 
 be due, before I conclude. Many of those who hear me 
 now, design themselves for the ministry of the Gospel. And 
 to them, therefore, it will belong, not only to obey their 
 Master's commands, and to recommend his doctrine by their 
 outward walk, but faithfully to teach it to the souls com- 
 mitted to their charge. To teach it faithfully, you nm-t 
 learn it faithfully; you must seek it in the Word, which 
 is its only pure depository, and seek it there in humility, 
 in sincerity, in patience, and in prayer. 
 
 It is in such an inquiry as this that I have desire] to 
 
 - 1 " Heb. x. 31. " TTeb. xii. 29. 
 
 4 ' r John iii. 3; Heb. xii. 2. 4; John xiv. 21, 23.
 
 MORAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Seek. 
 
 I have endeavoured to present to you the 
 fundamental doctrine of the Gospel of Christ, in Scriptural 
 
 iplicity ; to expose some of the misrepresentations of it, 
 on which you will have to decide for others and for your- 
 selves; and to Bhow that they are distinctly denounced in 
 I a Word, and in the Bound Confession of Faith which 
 our Church has derived from that Word And it' I deceive 
 myself in imagining that 1 have succeeded in attaining these 
 objects, I am at Least sure that I have presented the subject 
 in a form which must clearly establish the duty of patiently 
 in\. tag it. It' I have not done so much as I should 
 
 have desired to aid or to abridge such investigations, I shall 
 think that I have done what is still mure important, if I 
 have effectually promoted them. 
 
 And to those whom such inquiries shall, under God's 
 blessing, conduct to a knowledge of His truth, — to those I 
 would ■ iv recommend, as above all other ministerial 
 
 duties, the simple and faithful publication of it. 1 do not 
 mean to dissuade from corruptions of the truth, which spring 
 from party feelings or personal consideration-; for I will 
 not suppose any whom I address, at once so daring and so 
 degraded, as to pollute his high calling by subserviency to 
 such unworthy views. I speak only of those reserves and 
 qualifications, which, whatever be their source, rest pro- 
 Uy upon some calculation of human wisdom, concern- 
 ing the moral effects of tin' great truths of the Gospel 
 when .-imply and distinctly preached. I have, I think, 
 shown that such apprehensions are groundless; that tl 
 really spring from loose views of the nature of the Doc- 
 trine, from false views of human nature, or from the pre- 
 judice, pride, and corruption of our hearts. But the duty 
 ot faithfulness in preaching the Gospel, rests upon higher 
 grounds than our ability to show, or to see, that such appre- 
 hensions are unfounded. It is a message from God, which 
 you undertake to deliver. And even they whose gods were
 
 X.j MORAL EFF1 OF FAITH. \ 
 
 gods felt, that the bearer of a Divine mi -- . -'. 
 dare to alter it. It is a remedy prepared by \. 
 
 God for the dea-: ses of our fall iieh 
 
 voluntari! a - I administer. I- d t t 
 
 the empiricism v. old prom] t you 1 
 
 in its awful pre>uniption \ 
 
 1 ■ strenu A-.tmomian at I 
 
 i shall -nch in your m 
 
 .bat no less str« Pharisaical cavils agr-. 
 
 which you undou U encounter. __ 
 
 with., mourn • . inst, 1 an and the 
 
 Pharisaism which you will find cleaving to your own - 
 hearts ; — but It I ~ ~ - your crown. Let neither the 
 
 abuses of the I which you wit: - "he eav - 
 
 the scoffs, nor the calumnies against it. which you hear, nor 
 the vain reasonings of your own unquiet mind- 
 
 nee of your own corrupt her.: - :uce or drive 
 • -umptuous and perilous faiths - ss of qualifying 
 - nessag : mercv, or adulterating Hi- ivmedv! 
 
 Trials are the lot of human lii ad i th its that 
 you have chosen : culiar trials are assigned : 
 
 trials in which you will be made to feel that God's servants 
 mu.-: - from man. and rest upon th- 
 for comfort and for strength. And assured! v vou nr 
 that you can enjoy this cheering sens guidance and 
 
 support, only so long as you are preachir_ or own 
 
 cunning devices, but His simple truth. — In death, when 
 recall the manifold imperfections of your stewards!, 
 will need all consolation. Do luntarily : Ives 
 
 of the sure consolation, that, however weakly you h; 
 char_ ur important trust i have in this dischar_ 
 
 it honestly. — The trials of life and the pains : leath, wh - 
 
 c they be. will soon pass away. But there is an awful 
 hour of trial to foil - winch life and death ar 
 
 designed to prepare. In that awful hour, you will stand at
 
 IAL EFFECTS OF FAITH. [Serh. X. 
 
 brist, and render there an account — 
 
 ur « -w ii -.Mils only — but of the souls of the Hock 
 
 \ich the Holy Ohost shall make you overseers. As 
 
 would render your account with joy and not until grief, — 
 
 would stand before Christ's throne pure from the 
 
 I of all men, — <l» not shun to declare unto them ALL 
 
 ri. of God :
 
 NOTES,
 
 N T E S. 
 
 Note A. Tage 10. 
 
 Upon the Correspondence between the Romish and Sandemanian 
 
 Notions of Faith. 
 
 The Council of Trent (Sess. 6. Can. 12) anathematizes all who 
 assert "fideni j ustificantem nihil aliud esse quam fiduciam divinse 
 piisericordise peccata remittentis propter Christum." It makes 
 confidence in the Divine mercy, in some sense, a part of the ])repa- 
 ration for Justification, cap. 6; hut it is not easy to determine 
 positively, whether this confidence is to be regarded as a part of 
 justify in j faith or not: as whatever materials for collecting the 
 views of the Romish Church upon the nature of faith may be sup- 
 plied by the Decree and Canons of this Session (which are de- 
 signed to declare the Catholic Doctrine of Justification, "quam 
 nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque receperit, justificari non poterit"), 
 no explicit definition of faith is to be found in either. Bellarmin, 
 however, supplies the defect, and I suppose may be received as 
 sufficient authority on the subject. This is his account of the 
 teaching of their divines: "fidem historicam, et miraculorum, et 
 proinissionuni, unam et eandem esse docent; atque illani imam 
 non esse proprie notitiam aut fiduciam, sed assensum certain 
 atque firmissimum, ob auctoritatem primse veritatis, et banc unam 
 esse fidem justificantem." De Just. 1. 1, cap. 4. 
 
 It was a long time, I believe, before this view of faith was 
 adopted by any Protestant Divines. When they erred about the 
 nature of the principle, it was naturally in the opposite direction. 
 In fact, as the Romanists denied in terms, that ice are justified by
 
 NOTE A. 
 
 they had a manifest interest in robbing faith of every- 
 thii. I in its nature, as among the modes of vindicating their 
 
 n of this truth. J'«m a Protestant who ceased to hold the 
 brine, in the sense of the early Reformers, was still, probably, 
 bound to their assertion ofit in express terms, by the Confession 
 of the Church to which he belonged, and lay, therefore, under an 
 temptation to add to the meaning of faith, until it stood 
 dl that lit- conceived to be essential to justification. Hence 
 ■ i. •• fidem cui justificatio a Paulo tribuitur, pro unica ao 
 simplici virtute nequaquam sumendam esse, sed integram Foederis 
 Dgelici conditionem denotare, h. e. suo ambitu omnia Chris- 
 tiana? pietatis opera amplectL" Bull, Harm, Aj>o$t. Diss. Post. 
 1 § l. Or it was said, th&t faith, "in the New Testament, 
 stan rally for the complex of Christianity, in opposition to 
 
 tin- Law, which stands as generally for the complex of the whole 
 deal dispensation." — Burnet, XX XIX. Artt., Art. XI. — And 
 again, that "our faith, which includes our hope, our love, our 
 tance, and our obedience, is the condition that makes us 
 capal le of receiving this redemption and free grace," ic. — lb. 
 And Buch a view <'f the nature oi faith became a very common 
 one among Protestants, both in England and upon the Continent. 
 How far the palpable unfairness of this mode of neutralizing 
 the doctrine oi Justification by Faith only contributed, by a re* 
 action easily understood, to give rise to the opposite error con- 
 cerning the nature oi faith, it would not be easy or important to 
 decide. It seems likely, indeed, that the error originated in this 
 way; though those who have most signalized themselves in the 
 support of it are far from setting any high value on the doctrine, 
 and -..in. of them, as we shall see, absolutely reject it. 
 
 This view of the nature of faith was supported with much 
 
 acuteness by Sandeman, and was taken up, not only by his pro- 
 
 «1 followers, but by some other small religious bodies; agreeing 
 
 with them for the most part in doctrine, but separated from them 
 
 by differences upon questions of discipline. Beyond these limits, 
 
 ems to have made but little way, though it from time to time 
 
 adopted and defended by individuals of our own Church, 
 
 and of almost all other religious communions. The one specially 
 
 i"! to in the Sermon is Mr Erskine, who has adopted and 
 
 maintain ed this view of the nature oi faith in his 'Internal Evi- 
 
 and his ' 1'. ay on Faith ;' and if he does not support the
 
 NOTE /;. 255 
 
 ^ iew more ably than its earlier advocates, he certainly recommends 
 it more strongly by manifesting everywhere marks of a catholic, 
 cordial, and tender spirit, which is very advantageously contrasted 
 
 with the narrowness and bitterness that distinguish all the writ, rs 
 
 of the Sandemanian school with whom I have any acquaints 
 
 And accordingly the view seems to have obtained some additional 
 currency under his advocacy. He has been very well answered 
 by the Rev. Mr Carlile, in his 'Old Doctrine of Faith, 1 in which 
 students will find, in addition to a satisfactory refutation of Mr 
 Erskine, a great deal of important matter in support of the sounder 
 doctrine. 
 
 Note B. Page 15. 
 Upon the Proof of the Scrij)tural Meaning of Faith. 
 
 No one can, I think, reasonably doubt that faith means in the 
 Bible, as it does elsewhere, a state of mind; and it seems evident 
 that the real question to be determined here is this : — when we 
 are declared to be justified before God by faith, does that term 
 stand simply for the state of mind in which we believe the truths 
 contained in the Word of God ; or does it include, in addition, the 
 trust or confidence in Him which such belief ought to produce ? 
 
 It will be seen that the mode of deciding this question in the 
 Sermon is, to show : — that when the Lord reproves the want of 
 faith of those whom He addresses, He means (as appears from the 
 circumstances of the case) to reprove their want of trust; of trust 
 or confidence in the Father or in Himself; and that when He com- 
 mends their faith, He means, as appears in the same way, to coin- 
 mend their trust. And it would seem reasonable, if the matter 
 ended here, to assume, that when his Apostles labour to produce 
 faith — blame its weakness, — pray for its increase — extol the bene- 
 fits of it, — they really mean by faith the same thing, unless they 
 distinctly declare, or very clearly intimate, that they mean Bom 
 thing different. And this fair presumption appeals to receive all 
 the confirmation which in a preliminary treatise it is capable of re- 
 ceiving, when it is shown, finally, p. 20 — 23, that the only Apostle 
 who is led to give anything like an explanation of the meaning of
 
 NOTE B. 
 
 •■in. gives such a one as proves him to have used it in the 
 
 ii which it waa used by the Lord. 
 
 Thia account i- introduced by an exhortation which would of 
 
 a sufficiently to establish the true meaning of the word. 
 
 Apostle exhort to whom he is writing, having boldness 
 
 enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, to draw near with a 
 
 ti mce of faith to holdfast the profession 
 
 E V.faii , without wavering (for He is faithful that 
 promised)... not to c si away their confidence, which hath greal 
 ;' reward: and, after more to the .same purpose, he 
 proceeds to give au account of the principle which he has so earn- 
 ly exhorted them to retain and exhibit, according to which, 
 under every explanation of his words, the predominant element in 
 the principle appears to be, the expectation of future good. And 
 he goes on to illustrate this account, by referring to well-known 
 manifi of faith, in which trust in God — in His goodm 
 
 aerally, >>r in some special mark of it which He had promised — 
 is plainly the prominent feature. 
 
 This seems a reasonable mode of setting about the determina- 
 :i of the question ; nor am I aware that the way of conducting 
 it is exposed to any objection of real weight. It may possibly 
 ur to some, as an objection, that it only professes to fix the 
 meaning of the term fnith; leaving without examination the more 
 common and not less important phrases — to believe; to believe in, 
 . or upon, — the Lord, His name, G'urf, (fee. I was aware that 
 this might occur to my hearers as an objection; but I thought the 
 answer to it was also likely to occur to them at once; or at least 
 that it would, upon consideration, present itself so easily, that I 
 mighl avoid embarrassing myself, or them, by interrupting the 
 me of my argument to supply it. No one, in fact, who is wil- 
 ling to take the reasonable trouble of comparing a few of the cor- 
 ponding pas iges in which these different phrases are employed, 
 rho considers the free interchange of the phrases in the course 
 ' ' "I" 1 same p _• . can doubt, that in all the cases where it is 
 moal important to fix the sense of the forms in which the verb is 
 i fixed b\ determining the sense of the noun: that to 
 . in Buch cases, t<> have faith— to believe in, is to have or 
 in, .'w. 
 
 rhia connexion of these phrases will be at once apparent to 
 who arc acquainted with the original, as the noun and verb
 
 NOTE B. 257 
 
 have the same root in Greek. But it is somewhat obscured to 
 English readers, because though <>ur language has separate nouns, 
 viz. belief and faith, to express the simpler and the more complex 
 state of mind (being in this richer than the Greek), yet it baa 
 only one verb for both, and that (to believe) connected ct \ m< .lo- 
 gically with the former noun. The more complex slate is there 
 fore necessarily expressed in our version by a verb and a noun 
 of different roots. But the true connexion between them will 
 appear even to English readers upon such a comparison of pas- 
 sages as I have indicated above. 
 
 Thus a man finds, Matt. xxi. 22: "And all things what- 
 soever ye ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive." If he de- 
 sire to know what is here meant by believing, let him turn to 
 the corresponding text, Mark xi. 24, where he will see, ""What 
 things soever ye desire when ye pray, believe that ye have them, 
 and ye shall have them." So much for the sense of the phrase ; 
 and its connexion with the other form appears in the corre- 
 sponding exhortation, James i. 6 : " But let him ask m faith, 
 nothing wavering." And if he allow himself to be referred, fur- 
 ther, to 1 John v. 13, 14, he will find this firm expectation of the 
 fulfilment of our prayers connected with its true foundation, in 
 a way that, rightly considered, explains at once this form, and 
 the other, of believing on : " These things have I written unto 
 you that ye may kuow that ye have eternal life, and that ye 
 may believe on the name of the Son of God ; and this is the con- 
 fidence that we have in Him (or towards Hiui), that if we ask 
 any thing according to His will He heareth us." 
 
 Indeed, both the meaning of believing, and its connexion with 
 faith, would be sufficiently apparent from the introduction to 
 the passages cited from the Gospels. " Verily I say unto you, 
 if ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this," &c. — 
 Matt. xxi. 21 ; and Mark xi. 22, 23 :— " Have faith in God. For 
 verily I say unto you, that whosoever shall say unto this moun- 
 tain, Be thou removed," &c, " and shall not doubt in his heart, 
 but shall believe" &c. 
 
 But it happens that we are able to fix the sense of all these 
 phrases, not only thus generally, but in the most important use 
 of them, by the same process. Let any fair man only read, with 
 this view, from Bom. iii. 20 to the end of chap, iv., and when 
 he sees throughout, believing in Jesus Christ, faith in His blood, 
 
 17
 
 NOTE B. 
 
 d from ( Jen. \v. G, 
 
 whi will find i< ' , believing on Him that 
 
 b the ungodly; Him that raised up our Lord 
 
 I; when he ■ . I -■• phi 
 
 11 hardly doubt their connexion. And 
 
 i rked, Sermon 1 V. pp. 91, 92, that 
 
 :j ,l in \ -■■ the nature of Abraham's faitlt 
 
 g informed, that he against hop 
 
 being not weak in faith, he stagg ot at 
 
 i throu lief; but that lie was strong in 
 
 '■'! : i />■ r I that what 
 
 //, 'so able to perform; when we find, 
 
 I say, the nature of Abraham's faith thus distinctly and fully 
 
 • forth, we can hardly doubt what it was ; and when we are 
 
 that believers share in the blessings promised to Abraham 
 
 :md i ■ bis -.id. by sharing in his faith, we can lane hut little 
 
 ibt what tic ir faith is also. 
 
 It cannot be thought that the force of this argument is im- 
 paired by the circumstance, that it is altogether adapted to our 
 translation : for it manifestly depends on the sense of the passages 
 to such an extent as to he little affected by the medium in 
 which that sense is conveyed. Where the meaning of a word 
 is employed to fix the sense of a passage, everything of course 
 depends upon the language; but very little, where the sense of 
 the | i- used to fix the meaning of the word. No con- 
 
 clusions arrived at in any tongue, but the original, can be re- 
 lied on Bafely in the former case ; but in the latter, it is obviously 
 of little consequence whether we employ the original or a trans- 
 lation, unless the translation misrepresent the general sense of 
 the passages in which the word is found. 
 
 This a].]. lies directly to the entire of the preceding part of 
 thi- Note, and to tli,' part of the first Sermon of which it is a 
 continuation and explanation: that part, namely, in which the 
 meaning' of faith is attempted to be established, from a direct 
 mination of Scripture. This is, doubtless, the most important 
 ■ if the entire, and i> compli a proof, without the pre- 
 
 liminary remarks (pp. 12 — 1 I) on the phrases faith— faith in a 
 ■n •>/• thing. These remarks are only applicable upon the 
 i] ]■ eition that " faith" i- a proper rendering of the Greek word 
 which it Btands. English readers will, probably, in general,
 
 NOTE ]'. 259 
 
 be satisfied that it is, from the fact thai the translation ha . in 
 that particular, never been impugned; — but they may, without 
 any assumption, connect the proof and the remarks ,• j,, 
 
 this way : — the examination of the texts shows, that, where 
 "faith" is used in the translation, the general sense of the 
 sage requires some word expressing trust or confidence ; the pre- 
 liminary remarks show, therefore, faith to be a lit word for I lie 
 place that it occupies, and throw some light on its force and 
 Those who know the Bible only in our translation have thus, 
 (in the whole, I think, the point satisfactorily proved, and suf- 
 ficiently elucidated; and do not lose much by being unable to 
 apprehend the few remarks upon the original terms, which, for 
 the sake of others, I think it necessary to .subjoin. 
 
 The meaning of the original terms is treated of incidentally 
 in the works of all the first Reformers; most regularly and 
 fully, perhaps, in those of Bucer and Melancthon. It forms the 
 s.ibject of a distinct treatise (and a very able one) by the well- 
 known Flacius II lyricus, entitled " Be Re et Voce Fidei" and is 
 handled also in his tract " De Justificatione," and his "Clavisl 
 The excellent article on the subject in Melancthon's Loci Theo- 
 logici, is enlarged and confirmed in Chemnitz's valuable com- 
 mentary. And finally, in Gerhard's Loci Tlieologici may be found 
 a learned and satisfactory discussion of the point in full detail. 
 It has lately been investigated very carefully and judiciously by 
 Mr Cariile, in his Essay already spoken of (Note A) ; and in 
 an Appendix to a volume of sermons, to which the essay refers. 
 I should, perhaps, be content with pointing out these sources 
 of information, upon a subject on which, it is needless to add, 
 I can hardly hope to say much that is not contained in them : 
 but I have, upon consideration, thought it more satisfactory to 
 subjoin a brief digest of what is most important in these, and 
 other writers that I have consulted on the point, than to send 
 my readers to glean it for themselves; premising, however, that 
 what follows is not intended to supersede their own investiga- 
 tions, but in some degree to aid and direct them. 
 
 iTio-reixo and Trams are the terms to be explained ; and though 
 our chief concern is with their signification in the New Testa- 
 
 17—2 
 
 •i
 
 NOTE /■'. 
 
 . • ;.u is iii no small degree illustrated by the Greek 
 the Old Testament, it may be convenient to begin 
 h some remarks upon it. 
 
 meaning of j*2NI"l (to which in the version of the LXX. 
 is very satisfactorily fixed. It is a verb 
 in HiphU, the sense of which in Kal is known partly from the 
 ii-' of it- parti in which only it occurs in that conjugation 
 
 i:i the Bible), and partly from its meaning in the other conjuga- 
 tions in which it is found, Niphal and HiphU. In Benoni it 
 us nursing, rearing, or bringing up, a nursing fatJier, Num- 
 \i. L2j [saiah \li\. 23 ; a nurse, Ruth iv. 16 ; 2 Sam. iv. I ; 
 2 Bongs \. 1 —5. In Pahul, nursed, or brought up, Lam. iv. 5; 
 faithful, l'>. jrii.2, xxxi. 24 ; so that the moaning of jftX would 
 be directly fixed to he, to nurse, to rear, or briny up, to be faith 
 Jul. And from its derivatives, and from its use in Niphal, other 
 meanings of it may be added, to support, to prop, to befvrm. 
 
 In Niphal it means, from the first sense of Kal, given above, 
 A. A. carried in the arms, or to be nursed, Isaiah lx. 4. [This is 
 the only passage, I believe, in which it is supposed to be used 
 in that meaning, and some difference of opinion exists, as to 
 whether that is really its signification there. Gesenius, I per- 
 ceive, thinks it i- : as did Buxtorf, Calvin, our translators, ami 
 others. Simonis gives stabilientur ; De Dieu has permanebunt; 
 and other interpretations have been given, and even other read- 
 ings proposed (vide Lowth in loc.) ; but it must be seen that 
 Buch variations do not at all affect the main point.] — To be firmly 
 founded, '1 Sam. viL 1G; to be permanent, Deut. xxviii. 59 : to 
 be faithful, Ps. lxxviii. 8, 37; to be or to be proved true, Gen. 
 
 Xlii. L'U; II,..,,, v. 9. 
 
 From these senses, that of HiphU follows easily. When Kal 
 aid .\ iphal are used to describe one as possessing certain qualitie. . 
 doing or suffering certain things, HiphU not only expresses the. 
 act oj bestowing on him (causing him to possess) these qualities; 
 ing him to do or to suffer these things; but also, at times, 
 mental act of ascribing /<> him the qualities, or the action or 
 the passion. And, in the present ease, it is plain that the notion 
 of ascribing to an object firmness, stabUUy, permanence, faith- 
 fulness, truth, would easily yidd the sense of the verb in HiphU, 
 to hem upon (literally or figuratively), to trust, to believe. Ac- 
 oordingly, the instance- of its use, both in the senses of trusting
 
 NOTE B. 261 
 
 (iml believing, are too numerous to render any quotations neces- 
 sary. The common rule, that it means to J rust, when ii ia fol- 
 lowed by 5; t° believe, when followed by 7 , seems sufficiently 
 exact for a general rule. It is used absolutely in l»'tli senses. 
 Once, in the sense of trusting, the object is in the accusative 
 case (Judg. xi. 20); and the tiling bdieved is often expressed as 
 a proposition introduced by the conjunction ^ or in the equiva- 
 lent form, in which the infinitive mood is employed without the 
 conjunction; to both of which there are forms corresponding in 
 the Greek. 
 
 This seems all that it is necessary to say of the Hebrew verb. 
 It is admitted by all commentators and lexicographers, so far 
 as I am acquainted with them, to express properly both trust 
 and belief; the general rule given above, for determining, by the 
 form of expression, in which of these meanings it is used, is 
 found in most of them, and will almost always serve ; but that 
 point is, of course, ultimately best determined by the sense of 
 the p>assage in each case. 
 
 The Alexandrian interpreters having to render this verb, chose 
 naturally to express it by Tricrreuw, which it is well known had, 
 in classical Greek, both significations. IIicrT€uo/u.cu was used for 
 Niphal in the senses to be verified or to be credited; ttlo-tcvij) For 
 Iliphil, in the senses to believe, to trust; the person or thing 
 believed or trusted, being used in the dative. This was in ac- 
 cordance with the established usage of the language ; and the 
 additional forms which they introduced, apparently from the He- 
 brew, TriaTtvw eV tivi, hel tlvl, or Ttra, and which occur so com- 
 monly in the New Testament, they employed very sparingly. 
 Other strange forms are found so rarely as to require scarcely 
 any notice, as 7r. Kara Tiros ; Job iv. IS; and xv. 15 : tt. tov I8elv, 
 Ps. xxvi. (xxvii. Heb.) 13: they do not occur at all in the New 
 Testament; nor do the compounds e/xirio-revw or KaTa7rior£va), 
 which are used occasionally in the same sense by the LXX. 
 
 It has sometimes been attempted to be argued, that tt. cannot 
 properly signify to trust, as it is never used to render HD3 or 
 nOPl, of which, undoubtedly, to trust is the proper signification. 
 The answer to this is, that the word was unquestionably em-
 
 VE B. 
 
 authors, both before and after the 
 
 ■ .- and that it is undoubt- 
 
 ie LXX. to expr< '. aa any one may satisfy 
 
 such i I i- 32; Job iv. 
 
 12; Ps. lwvii. 22,32; Esaiah x.wiii. 16, <fec. Their 
 
 iploy it in ting the words above mentioned, 
 
 . ulv very marki I ; thus for iTuO we 1- " 1,1 «tari£a>, en-eXa-ifo 
 
 ".', -cTrot^ajs elfLi, iTwreiOofjLaL, Oappiw : for 
 
 and, in addition, o-K£7ru£o/xcu, iVodi'w, 
 
 . .. . ot -lorevw. Th o doubt, very marked; 
 
 . whether we can account for it or not, it doea not in the 
 
 of jTMrrewi), to express trust as well as 
 
 ■ \ — which i- established by the clearest instances of its use 
 
 in that sense by profane writers, or overthrow the evidence which 
 
 their own use i f it supplies, that the LXX. interpreters under* 
 
 stood it to have both .sen-. -. 
 
 1 do not think it necessary to subjoin passages to prove that 
 in classical Greek ir. b">e the sense to trust, as well as to believe, 
 both b-ioic mid after the date of this translation; as it is a point 
 not only well established, but very generally known. It seems 
 3S to say much, in additii n, of the word in the New 
 ament As the verb Ls shown to bear the meanings of trust' 
 and I" it would be necessary to determine, by an ex- 
 
 amination of any particular passage, which sense it bore in it ; 
 but the mode of examination would be, of course, the same as 
 that pursued above for the translation; and, as the very same 
 _ - would serve for the purpose, it seems hardly necessary 
 to go through it again. 
 
 This would be perhaps as far as we could go, if the verb oc- 
 
 curred in the New Testament only in its classical construction. 
 
 i; seems worth remarking that those Biblical forms which 
 
 : tioned as rare in the LXX. are here very common, and 
 
 a much less (if at all in the New Testament) subject to the 
 
 same ambiguity, Qurrevco rwi, means indifferently, I believe one, 
 
 or / trust him : but the proper sense of those other phrases ir. 
 
 farl or ir mi, hrl or cis riva, seems to be, / trust a pevson, I put 
 
 faith >" him. This can only be established by an examination 
 
 in which this form occurs. But, as such an es 
 
 amination can be carried out by any one wdio will use a Con- 
 
 lance and Testament, I will no1 extend this long Note by such
 
 NOTE B. 
 
 mi addition as the necessary adduction and examination of b 
 
 would lead to; but, leaving it to my readers to pursue the in- 
 vestigation for themselves, I shall content myself with subjoining 
 one or two remarks, to which I do xx.o\ indeed attach much im- 
 portance, but which I think may serve as a confirmation of the 
 conclusion to which, I am confident, a fair examination will con 
 duct them. 
 
 I. The variation of the phrase, in the same passage, couth 
 this conclusion, as it occurs just when', upon these principles, it 
 ought: while the apparent sense is I believe, the classical form is 
 used, and when it becomes naturally / trust, the Biblical form i 
 substituted ; not that the former is not fit to convey that mean- 
 ing also, but that the latter does so more properly and decisively. 
 Thus John xiv. 11 : "Believe me (rricrT€veT4 fj.oi) that I am in 
 the Father, and the Father in me. And if not, believe me (ir. 
 jjlol) for my works' sake [i. e. if my words do not secure this be- 
 lief for themselves, let my works obtain it for them]. Verily, 
 verily I say unto you, Whosoever believeth in me (7tiot€iW eis «/")> 
 the works which T do," &c. — i. e. ' when the trust in me which 
 is the proper result of the belief of this truth concerning me, is 
 produced, then shall follow all that is promised to faith. 1 — Thus 
 too the Samaritans are said to believe in Christ : where it cannot 
 be meant that they believed Him, for they had neither seen nor 
 heard Him; but, upon the representation of the woman that Christ 
 had told her every thing that she had ever done, they believe with 
 her that He is the Messias, in whom they expected (as it appears) 
 the Saviour of the world. John iv. 39 : Ik. 8e t^s 7ro\ews exeats 
 iroXXol eViaTeucrai/ eis olvtov rwv Sa/iapeiTaji/ Sta tqv Aoyov rrj<; 
 yvvaiKos, &c. ; and then they came and induced the Lord to go into 
 their city; and there, we are told, many more became believers 
 (cVio-Tcuo-av), on account or by means of His own word. John iv. 1 1 . 
 
 II. Inanimate things may either be employed to attest some 
 assertion, or from some physical qualities may be objects of trust 
 themselves, and therefore may fitly denote any objects of trust. 
 In the former case, when they are believed, the classical form is 
 used; in the latter, when they are objects of confidence, the Biblical. 
 " If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not [when I 
 say that I am the Son of God]; but if I do, though ye believe 
 not me, believe the works" (tois epyois 7ricrTevcraTe). John \. 37, 38. 
 While ye have light believe in the light (tt. eis to 4>m). John xn.
 
 NOTE B. 
 
 •• Behold, I lay in Sion a chief comer-stone, elect, precious: 
 and he thai Sim [or U] (d ir. «V aiVw) shall not be 
 
 ashamed." 1 Pet ii. 6 Rom. ix. 3 
 
 III. \V. find these forms of expression sometimes supplied 
 by phrases, about the Bignii of which no doubt can be enter- 
 
 tained. Tims the promise that the Gentiles .should believe in the 
 I. ■ ; j . Rom. xv. \'2, or avn3 lOvrj eXmovo-iyj and 
 
 Matt, x ii. 21, nit! iv tw ovofiari ai'rov c^i't; eAmovcriv. Thus the 
 ■ the women of old in God, is expressed by Peter — Ai 
 ®edv, 1 Pet. iii. 5. And that of such a widow 
 as Paul recommends to Timothy, to be selected to receive support 
 from the Church — ykiruiev fart tov 0eoY, 1 Tim. v. 5. And the 
 by which he was himself supported under persecu- 
 tion— ori iJXiruca/tev fan, 0e(3 £wrrt, 1 Tim. iv. 10. And, lastly, 
 Eph. i. 12. 13, seems to furnish a striking instance of the Bame 
 kind : "That we should be to the praise of His glory, who first 
 (or hoped) in Christ. In whom ye also [trusted], after 
 thai ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: 
 in whom aX r that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy 
 
 Spirit of promi The second trusted is supplied by our trans- 
 
 - required by the sense; and their view of the construc- 
 fcioD of the passage appears to me the easiest and most probable : 
 and under this view, or indeed under any view of its construction, 
 the equivalence of the phrases to trust in, and to believe in, is 
 apparent. The reader may look at the original — eh to etvat 77/ias 
 cis eVcm'oi' tv;s Soirrjs avrov, tovs 7r/)o^X7TtKOTas iv tw X^uotw. iv w 
 Kai v/xcis aKOvcrttiTCS tov \6yov tt}^ aXrjdeLas, to evayylXiov tt}<; 0x0777- 
 /< as X-/J.WV, €V w K'at 7rio"T€t'0"avres €0-</>payio"#7iTe t<5 7rj'et'/xan rrjs 
 tVayycA/as tw ayi'a). 
 
 I\'. I do not know whether it Avill be considered a fanciful 
 addition to the foregoing observations, but I think there are traces 
 of a purpose in the writers of the New Testament to preserve 
 this phrase (in which the verb or noun is followed by the dative 
 or accusative, with a preposition), to express this particular state 
 of mind — the confidence in God, or in Christ, by which we are 
 
 aciled to God, or which reconciled sinners feel. For when 
 
 ennfuhur, \ u ;i nv created person or thing is to be expressed, or 
 
 a God for something else, the phrase is usually varied. 
 
 'I hus the confidence of the Jews in Moses is expressed by Moses 
 
 ■!,,.„, ,„ trust— tU ov CfxtU tJXttIkoltc, John v. 45; the conn-
 
 NOTE B. 
 
 dence of the followers of Theudas in him, ttuVtcs 00-01 iirclOovra 
 avrw, Acts v. 36; again, vi. 37. Trusting in riches, tovs imvoiOo- 
 Tas lirl rots xf > W a(Ta '> Mark x. 24. yu.7j8e 77'A.ttikcVcu iiri xrXovrov 
 dSyjXoTrjTi, 1 Tim. vi. 17. Paul trusts in the Lord Jesus, that he 
 shall soon send Timothy to the Philippians, and expresses it l>y 
 iXiri^di 8e Iv Kvptio 'lycrov — and thai lie shall soon come himself 
 7T£7roi#a Se iv KVpua, Phil. ii. 19, 24. This, however, is only what 
 would he natural without system or design. The phrase which 
 was used to express so important a notion, and one so often 
 recurring, would not unnaturally become so appropriated to that 
 notion, that, without any fixed rule, men would rather avoid 
 employing it in other cases, for which in its strict and proper 
 meaning it was perfectly fit. 
 
 I do not know that the noun irians requires any additional 
 remarks. It is never used, so far as I know, to express belie/ 
 simply, unless 2 Thess. ii. 13, be esteemed an instance, which 
 is not worth discussing. The object in which we trust is often in 
 the genitive case [gen. obj. the meaning being the same as in the 
 different forms of expressing the object, tt. eV tlvl, &c.], as ttio-tis 
 0eot5, 7r. 'Itjo-ov Xpio-Tov ; sometimes the thing hoped for is also in 
 the genitive, on ttlcttlv e;(ei T0 ^ o-ioOrjvai, Acts xiv. 9 ; the other 
 forms are, 77' tt. or it. r/ 'iv tivi, cis, «ri, or 77730s two. [the last two 
 forms very rare], which, after what has been said of similar forms 
 with the verb, can require no particular observation. It is very 
 often used absolutely, as is the verb sometimes ; but the sense of 
 both, when employed in this way, is of course to be derived from 
 that which they have when the object is expressed, and may fre- 
 quently be determined by some passage in immediate connexion, 
 in which the object appears. J1lctt£vu) often, in this use, means, 
 to believe in Christ ; but sometimes only to pro/ess such belief, 
 or to become his disciple, or follower; whereas Trioris always 
 expresses real faith, unless the passage (as in James ii. 14 : and I 
 should add, there only, so far as I know) intimate the contrary. 
 When the article is used with the noun, its force is to be deter- 
 mined generally by the rules for interpreting the Greek article ; 
 but sometimes 77 tti'o-tis, used absolutely, seems to have the peculiar 
 signification of the body of truths which is believed— the Gospel 
 itself,— in which sense we use the faith at times in English.
 
 2 ' NOTE R 
 
 My will, I hope, remark thai the proof of the main 
 
 adent of all these latter remarks, and is contained 
 
 in the examination of the passages of Scripture, in which the word 
 
 i in th>- Sermon and in the former pari of this Note. 
 
 [f any tliii ig i the Note, therefore, should seem to any one 
 
 well founded, he is to remember that the proper proof of the 
 
 main point remains unaffected, and he is requested to re-examine 
 
 thai proof, and extend it for hims 
 
 Hi-hop Pearson is sometimes spoken of as opposed to the view 
 maintained in the foregoing Note of the meaning of irurrevu) cts 
 rim, and of the equivalent Biblical forms referred to there. This 
 is not one of the questions which are to be decided by authority: 
 but, unless a man is very deficient in modesty, he will revise with 
 some anxiety the reasoning upon any question which has brought 
 him into opposition to so weighty an authority as the illustrious 
 
 author of the " Expositi if the Creed;" and if he find himself, 
 
 after all. obliged to abide by his first conclusion, he will differ 
 very reluctantly from one so wise and learned. 
 
 This is the position in which I find myself But though I 
 cannot, upon the fullest consideration, change my view of the 
 meaning of this important phrase, and though I fear I cannot 
 count the Bishop upon my side, yet it is some satisfaction to me 
 to be able to say, that he neither proves nor asserts anything 
 which is inconsistent with what I have laid down and attempted 
 to prove. But, to understand the actual state of the case, it will 
 be necessary to look at what he has said upon the point. 
 
 •■ Now these words, / bdu ue in God, will require a double con- 
 ation: oi:e, of the phrase or manner of speech; another, of 
 the thing or nature of the truth in that manner expressed. 
 Fo* ' '• ivith the addition of the preposition in, is a phrase 
 
 or expression ordinarily conceived tit to be given to none but 
 to God himself, as always implying, beside a bare act of faith, 
 an addition of hope, love, and alliance. An observation, as I 
 conceive, prevailing .'specially in the Latin Church, grounded 
 principally upon the authority of Si Augusfcin, Whereas among 
 the Greeks, in whose language the New Testament was penned, 
 1 p"" ive no Mich constant distinction in their deliveries of the
 
 XOTti r, 
 
 
 Creed; and in the Hebrew language of the Old, from which 
 the Jewish and Christian Greeks receive that phrase of /.,/;,. 
 'in, it hath no such peculiar and accumulative Bigni6cation : foi 
 
 it is sometimes attributed to God, the Author and original a 
 sometimes to the prophets, the immediate revealers of the faith; 
 
 sometimes it is spoken of miracles, the motives to belii ■.up- 
 
 times of the law of God, the material object of our fail li. A mong 
 all which varieties of that phrase of speech, it is sufficiently ap- 
 parent that in this Confession of Faith it is most proper to admit 
 it in the lust acceptation, by which it is attributed to the m 
 rial object of belief. For the Creed being nothing else but a 
 brief comprehension of the most necessary matters of faith, what- 
 soever is contained in it beside the first word / believe, by which 
 we make confession of our faith, can be nothing else but part 
 of those verities to be believed, and the act of belief in respect 
 to them nothing but an assent unto them as divinely credible 
 and infallible truths. Neither can we conceive that the ancient 
 Greek Fathers of the Church could have any farther meaning 
 in it, who make the whole body of the Creed to be of the same 
 nature, as so many truths to be believed, acknowledged, and con- 
 fessed; insomuch as sometimes they use not believing in, neither 
 for the Father, Son, nor Holy Ghost; sometimes using it as to 
 them, they continue the same to the following articles of the 
 Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, kc, a:;d generally 
 speak of the Creed as nothing but mere matter of faith, with- 
 out any intimation of hope, love, or any such notion included 
 in it, so that believing in, by virtue of the phrase or manner oi 
 speech, whether we look upon the original use of it in the He- 
 brew, or the derivative in the Greek, or the sense of it in the 
 first Christians in the Latin Church, can be of no farther real 
 importance in the Creed in respect of God, Avho immediately 
 follows, than to acknowledge and assert his being or existence. 
 Nor ought this to be imagined a slender notion or small part 
 of the first article of our faith, when it really is the foundation 
 of this and all the rest; that as the Creed is fundamental in 
 respect of other truths, this is the foundation even of the funda- 
 mentals : 'for he that cometh to God must believe that He 
 (Heb. xi. G), and this I take for a sufficient explanation of the 
 phrase, / believe in God, that is, / believe tlm> God is." 
 
 It is evident that the epiestion considered in this paragraph
 
 S b $OTE B. 
 
 from that which I have endeavoured to settle 
 j n t i lt . i a Note and the Sermon with which it is connected. 
 
 I] u , q U( befon Pearson was, whether, In the Creed, the 
 
 Is, vurrcvu els "' believe in Qod," were used to ex- 
 
 ■ | believe that God is," or in addition, "I hope 
 in Him, love Him, and place affiance in Him." The question 
 which I had to determine was, whether, when these words occur 
 in the Bible, and especially in the New Testament, they mean / 
 
 , or 1 trust in God I do not mean to make 
 any addition to the reasons which 1 have given to show that the 
 i- is its meaning. Nor do J pretend to review what Pearson 
 with any design of overthrowing the conclusion at which 
 but merely for the purpose of showing that neither 
 bis conclusion (.supposing it to be perfectly established), nor any 
 of his reasons in support of it, does anything to disturb the con- 
 clusion to which 1 have come. 
 
 L As to his conclusion. — Tt will be plain, on consideration. 
 that it is in no wise inconsistent with mine. However certain 
 • re, that irunevtw «"s two. meant in Scripture to trust in one, 
 \\ would not follow that it was used strictly in that sense by 
 siastical writers afterwards. And supposing, with Pearson, 
 that what the first framers of the Creed wanted to express was, 
 / bell- '■ thai Cod is, it is very intelligible that they may have 
 felt that, of all the combinations in which the verb is used in 
 Scripture, there was none more suited to their purpose than the 
 one that they have chosen. The form in Heb. xi. G, tuotcuw to} 
 Ocu> on la-Ti, or any equivalent form, would no doubt have ex- 
 pressed the sense directly and unequivocally. But one could not 
 wonder that it was not adopted. Most persons, I think, will 
 : that if they were drawing up a brief profession of faith, they 
 would look for a more condensed and emphatic form of expres- 
 sion, and si ill more for one which presented God Himself, rather 
 l a proposition about Him, as the object of belief. But re- 
 tig this form, none of the others would express the required 
 niiiL', without some deviation from the sense in which it is 
 i! ed in the New Testament ; and if we can give no decisive reason 
 why tie- framers of the Creed preferred the one which appears 
 111 it to the others, we should have been in the same position 
 ■y of the others had been chosen. It is by no means certain, 
 indeed, thai fchey thought that they were using the form in the
 
 NOTE /:. 
 
 sense in which it is used in the New Testament. But, whatevi r 
 they may have thought upon thai pointy it is very certain I 
 they were not: nor can any instance be found in the X< \\ T< 
 ment, I believe, of any use of the words in the sense in which 
 according to Pearson they are used in the Creed. I do not wan: 
 to convert this into an argument against Ids interpretation of 
 the words as they are found in the Creed. I do not think that 
 it would be fair to do so. But such a process would certainly 
 seem much fairer than the opposite one, of drawing from tin- 
 use of the words in the Creed, an argument againsl the meaning 
 which I have shown them to have in the New Testament. 
 
 II. Nor is the proof which I have given of their Scriptural 
 sense at all touched by his arguments. The positions which he 
 assails are — 
 
 1. That the phrase 7rto-reueiv eh, to believe in, can only be 
 used of God Himself; 2. That it always implies, besides a bare 
 act of faith, an addition of hope, love, and affiance. 
 
 Now I need hardly say that I do not hold either of these posi- 
 tions. 1. I am so far from holding that iri<T7evu> eis, in the 
 sense of trust in, is only to be used in relation to God, that I 
 hold and have stated that it is used, and may properly be used, 
 of any person or thing upon which we firmly rely as the agent 
 or instrument in procuring for us, or bestowing upon us, any 
 good which we desire, temporal or spiritual. Indeed, the fact 
 that in common life the phrase is used familiarly both of men 
 and things, and that such is its acknowledged meaning, is part 
 of my proof of the sense in which it is used in the higher appli- 
 cation in which, chiefly, we find it in the Bible ; and therefore 
 the fact upon which Pearson relies, and which he proves in a 
 learned note, viz. that in the Hebrew Scriptures the phrase is 
 applied to various objects besides God Himself, however pertinent 
 or conclusive it may be for the purpose for which he puts it 
 forward, does nothing to shake my view of the meaning of the 
 phrase. I hold that / believe in is generally equivalent to / 
 have faith in, and that this is equivalent to / trust in. The 
 state of mind is the same in kind, whatever be the objed 
 which / trust in, and whatever be the thing for which / 
 trust. But what / trust for, as well as the grounds on which 
 I trust in the particular object, must be inferred from its nature 
 and my relation to it. 2. As to the other position, I might
 
 NOTE V. 
 
 tralj il v thai 1 do not hold it, l>ut that I do hold that 
 
 the words I express "a bare act of faith," and nothing 
 
 . itter statement, though true in words, would 
 
 be v.. ■■ by faith, Pearson means simply 
 
 ■'. while 1 understand trust as the leading part of tin- notion 
 for which the word Btands. I therefore do hold that the worda 
 expri tething in addition to what I i calls faith. But 
 
 .. who hav< what I have said in the Sermons, or in 
 
 lot need to be informed that I do not 
 
 hold that addition to be " hope, love, and alliance.'' If ajffianot 
 
 '. then, as I have before explained, I understand the 
 
 La to include the addition of affiance to belief. But it' it be 
 meai '. it often : i be, to express some high degree of 
 
 t, then I Bhould avoid using the word \ for while trust is aa 
 ■■; of true faith, all that is required is that it be 
 The strength of faith will vary with the strength of trust; but 
 to render faith real, nothing more is needed than that the trust 
 which forms an ■ bia] and leading pari of the notion should 
 . that is some measure of it, seems to he included 
 in trust; and in the same measure it is to be regarded, not as 
 an ad lition to faith, but as a part of it. But love is to be re- 
 garded as an effect of faith, not a constituent of it. And so, if 
 it I"- implied in the words / believe in, it is not as a part of 
 their meaning, but as a consequence of the state of mind which 
 they properly express. 
 
 I- is plain, I hope, from what I have said, how very little 
 
 c cerned 1 am in defending the interpretation of these words 
 
 whi< on rejects. But I cannot avoid adding that he seems 
 
 to have underrated the amount of support that it has in antiquity, 
 when he speaks of it as prevailing chiefly in the Latin Church, 
 grounded principally upon the authority of St Augustin. Any oi 
 my readers who feel any curiosity upon the subject, will find in 
 Suicer in boa the materials for forming a more correct view of the 
 actual state of the authorities on the point, than they could derive 
 from Pearson. Suicer acknowledges, not only that the forma 
 irurrewa t(, and cT? ti, it. tivi, and 6ts tivo. are frequently used as 
 equivalent by the Greek Fathers, but that the Latin Fathers 
 sometimes use in the same way the corresponding forms in their 
 own tongue, of which he gives some examples. But he maintains, 
 "''<!' reg cd to both, that this is only when they speak latius et
 
 NOTE I',. 271 
 
 V,hrlm; and that, when they express themselves disbinctix 
 magis proprii, they deny thai we are to believe in man, or in gfa 
 Church, or m anything but God. For the Latin I besides 
 
 express passages from St Augustin, which are well known, and 
 which need not be repeated here, lie gives, from the Expos. Sym- 
 boli (which is published in Cyprian's Works), an extracl in which 
 the author (Ruffinus) treats of the use and omission of the prepo 
 sition in the Creed as designed, and as decisive of the meaning of 
 the article; and ends thus: " Hac itaque proposition is syllabA 
 Creator a creaturis secernitur, et divina separantur ab humanis." 
 He then gives quotations from the Greek Fathers, beginning with 
 Origen, which fully support this statement as regards them. One 
 or two of these extracts are particularly remarkable, in which the 
 fact that the Arians retain this form in their Creed is converted 
 into an argument against them; for if we believe in Christ, how 
 can He be a creature? Thus Athanasius, Contra Arianos, Orat. 3, 
 Ata rt rj 7rtcrrts KaO v/xas eis ktmtttJv koX as KTttr/xa 7rapaSi'8oTai ; and 
 Cyrill. Alex., Dial, iv., De S. Trin.,*Ap ovk eis tvarkpa Kal vlov ko.1 
 rrvivpa. ayiov rj 7r«rris; ol Se 0?; rrjv ttlcttiv ciKXivrj kcu. ctwirairiov Sia- 
 cruxjeo-Ocu TTpoT^9vprj[x.(vot, 7rioTevcraav dv tt's ye 0ecV o/xov kcu ktictiv; 
 Apapcv ovv on kcu. €ts vlov rj 7tuttis ws ets OeoV £wi'Ta. kcu d\rj$tv6v. 
 
 Suicer also remarks that, though the Romanists maintain that 
 the Church is not only to be believed, whatever it declares or 
 teaches, but to be believed in, yet in reciting the Nicene Creed at 
 the Council of Trent the preposition was omitted before the Holy 
 Catholic Church. And in the Catechism 'Ad Parochos,' published 
 by the command of Pius V. according to the Decree of the Coun- 
 cil, not only are the words Credo Sanctam Ecclesiam, but a reason 
 for the form is subjoined, which agrees in substance with that 
 which is given by Ruffinus. 
 
 As I have referred to Suicer, I may remark that what that 
 learned writer says upon faith seems chargeable with some con- 
 fusion and inconsistency. He lays down that faith consists of 
 three parts, knowledge, assent, and confidence or trnst. But though 
 he states this distinctly, he endeavours to prove that trust is rather 
 an effect of faith than faith itself. If it be meant that the two 
 things are not identical, it would be easily granted; for not only is 
 it certain that a part (however prominent and important a part it 
 be) is not identical with the whole, but in this particular case the 
 part in question may exist without the other constituents of faith,
 
 US NOTE B. 
 
 - 1 
 
 rod it is therefore important to make the true distinction between 
 
 tlicm underst 1. I'.ut on the other hand, if it be really Apart of 
 
 • ; (, it cannot with propriety be made one of its effects. 
 
 II , : f is that there are in Scripture distinct words to 
 
 express the two things: PlJIttK and Trams for faith, PID3 and 
 
 wtm . us (or trust. And he says that reason teaches the sou ml - 
 
 - of the distinction. We trust in God because we are firmly 
 
 . . i; goodness and His power. Now this persuasion 
 
 nth, therefore trust follows faith. Besides trust is a kiml of 
 
 ami hope i> distinguished from faith and follows it. That 
 
 • it is hope he proves from Hesychius, who gives 7r£Voi0as, #a/>- 
 
 peis; urtv, flAffticacri; TreirotOiav, eWrriOa, irpoaSoKiav ; ireiroidm, 
 
 rus, TTtorti'iras. 
 
 I may remark, in passing, that whatever truth there may be in 
 the position, this seems a curious proof of it It is, of course, in- 
 tended that we are to collect that Hesychius regarded these several 
 groups as synonymous, or nearly so. We have his authority, 
 therefore, for regarding TreiOeaOai as synonymous with t/Wi^etv, 
 ■ ;. rp<xrSoK6iv. But then it would in just the same way 
 appear that he thought that 7rio-reu'av is synonymous with eA.iri£ay 
 and Trct^co-^at, for they form his last group. The truth, however, 
 is that the- words in the different groups respectively are all akin 
 in meaning, but in none of them, identical. 
 
 But in the fact that there is a word in use in Scripture to 
 express trust, there is nothing which is at all inconsistent with the 
 supposition that the word which we translate faith includes trust. 
 Trust stands for a certain state of mind, independently of its foun- 
 dation and accompaniments. But while trust is an essential part 
 of the meaning of faith (in the use of it in which we have been 
 explaining and proving its meaning, that is, justifying faith), it is 
 equally essential that this trust be built upon the promises of God. 
 And this seems to require, or at least to render it very convenient, 
 that there Bhould be a word to express the state of mind which we 
 call trust, when it wotdd not be so proper to use faith to express 
 !■ And I may remark also that, while the degree of trust which 
 faith includes is not absolutely determined, 7re7roi#?7o-is (which is 
 uue as venoifiia in Eesychius) seems to be properly used of a 
 J, 'o'h di f confidence, -strong assurance. 
 
 But Buicer refers to Eph, iii. 12, apparently as not only an 
 iple of the distinctive use of the words, but as expressing the
 
 XOTE /:. 273 
 
 relation between them for which he contends, via, of cause and 
 effect: and Beza, he says, in his Commentary, takes this view of 
 
 the meaning of the text. 
 
 Let us look at the text : eV <L Uxo/jlcv -rrjv irapfaviav koX rrjv irpcxr- 
 aywyr)v eV ireiroiQ-qaei, Sta tt/s 7rt'crTews clvtov. Now it does not 
 appear to me that this at all bears upon the point which it is 
 intended to establish. The access here spoken of is to the Father, 
 as is proved, if proof were needed, by ii. 18. The text then de- 
 clares that in Christ we have boldness and access (i. e. to tlie Fatlier) 
 with confidence through faith in Him (i. e. Christ). Is there any- 
 thing here inconsistent with the supposition that faith in Christ 
 includes trust in Him (as a Kedeemer, propitiator, advocate, &c); 
 or rather is not such trust a proper, or the proper, ground of con- 
 fidence in approaching the Father? 
 
 There are five other passages in the New Testament in which 
 ■7T€iroi6r)cn<; occurs, HziroLOwviv Be ToiavTrjv l^o/xev Sta Toil Xpicrrov 
 7rpos tov Trarepa, 2 Cor. iii. 4, hardly requires any remark in the 
 present connexion : what was said on the last instance may be 
 repeated here. That there should be another word expressing 
 trust or confidence, and that it should be used to express the state 
 of feeling in which Christ has enabled us to approach the Father, 
 can hardly be regarded as any evidence that faith in Christ or in 
 God does not include trust in Him. The other passages have no 
 reference to God or the Lord: they are 2 Cor. i. 15, viii. 22; x. 2, 
 Phil. iii. 4, and do not seem to require any particular remark. 
 The word is used in all to express the strong confidence that Paul 
 felt either in the affection and good will of those to whom he was 
 writing, or in his own apostolic authority; or, in the last passage, 
 that which he might have felt, but did not feel, in certain outward 
 advantages which he possessed. Such examples of the use of the 
 word can offer no objection to our explanation of tticttis. For sup- 
 posing 7rtcrTts els nva, or cv Tivt, to include trust, confidence, hope, 
 there would still be room and need for such a word as Tr(.TroiOi]cn%. 
 This is enough to say on the point : nor need I say much upon 
 iriTToiOa, the part of the verb from which the noun is derived. It 
 is used in the various forms in which irio-Tzvu) is found. We have 
 7re7roi#a tlvl, Iv nvt, int nva or eis nva, ir. on..., or the equivalent 
 form of the accusative and infinitive mood, and finally it appears 
 with an accusative as its object, Phil. i. 6, 25. And in all these 
 cases, to be fully assured of or to have full confidence in, according 
 
 18
 
 NOTE G. 
 
 to tli.- bra of construction, would Beem to be the meaning. Ami 
 all that has been said of the noun— ae expressing not simply fr».< 
 hut n high degree of trust, and moreover as not confined to the 
 ease in which God or Christ ia the object of faith— seems to apply 
 to the verb. 
 
 Note C. Page 21. 
 Upon the Meaning of uVdo-raa-is, Heb. xi. 1. 
 
 It will he seen that I do not think it of very much conse- 
 quence in the argument, whether v7ro<rracris he translated sub- 
 stance or confident expectation, in Heb. xi. 1. For the figurative 
 • in which substance must be taken, would make the passage 
 serve my purpose in bringing it forward nearly as well, though 
 not so directly, as it does when the word is rendered by confidi nee 
 or confidi nt expectation. One of the oldest and best known expla- 
 nations of the passage, under the former view of the meaning of 
 the word, exhibits this so clearly, that, often as it has been cited, 
 I will subjoin it here. It is from Chrysostom, Horn. 21, in Ep, 
 in] J/J,/,. eVciSav yap Ta iv £\tti8i avv7ro'oTa.Ta elvat. Sokci, rj 7ricrris 
 viroo-rao-LV aureus x a P l '£ €TCU - p\Xov Se ov ^apt^rai, aA\ avro icmv 
 ovcrta avTuZv. otov, tj aVacrracri? ov 7rapayeyovev ovoc iariv iv vtto- 
 (TTuo-ei, aAA. tj eA.7ris v(f>LO~Tr)aiv avTrjv iv rrj vp-crepa. t/'t'X??- tovto 
 Icttiv vVo'crracris 7rpaypaV<joi/ eA.7n£opeViov. If we translate I'-orrracrts 
 substance, no better explanation of the passage can be desired. 
 
 Theodoret must be regarded as understanding the word in the 
 same way. *Eori Se 7ri'crTis i\rr i£o jxivuv u7rdoTacris 7rpa.yixa.TOiv, cAcy- 
 Xos ov fi\tTrop.ivwv. Ta yap ov\ opojpeva Sia Taurus opwpev, Kai 
 
 -/(O? TIJV TU>V €X7Tt^O/X€VOJV OtUipLaV O<£0aApoS TJpiV yiVCTtU, Kai BflKVV- 
 
 (tlv w; vefxerrwra Ta u^SeVw yeyevrjpei'a. Taiy j'eKpwv aTavrwv ei/ 
 tois ra'^ois en kciucVcji', 7/ 7tiotis ^piy Trpo£,wypa<peL rr/v avaaraaiv, 
 koX tv;s KOVecus twi- o-wpaTcov tt}v a0ara(riay 7rapa<XKCva£ci <pavTa- 
 faOai*- 
 
 • In iii. 1 1. both the Fathers make rV d^xV ttjs £7ro<rT<{o-ews equiva- 
 lent to - ',<■ wUrru>i but the explanation which they subjoin seems to Bhow 
 that there too, they regarded b. as substance. Tims Theodoret: row||» 
 
 [rrjf iriaTii>] ttjv apxh" r W i , 7ro<rrd<rews ici/ckr/ice' 81 iadv^s yap h>eovpyqO-r}p.tv 
 peal avvq^O-qp.tv ry AttnruTr) Xpiffrf. And SO Chrysostom : Tr]i> -k'kstlv \tyu, 
 ii fjt virt<TTr]ixa>, nal ytyevijp.tOa, xal <rvvov<nw<Tdr)p.(i>, ws dV TK ef;rot.
 
 NOTE C o 
 
 j i :> 
 
 That the word, however, is also used to express confident 
 expectation cannot be doubted; and I believe tli.it Pan] intended 
 
 that it should bear this sense in the passage before us. But as I 
 have little to add, in support of this view, to the arguments which 
 I find in the treatise of Flacius, Be Re et Yore Fidei, of which I 
 have spoken in a former Note, I may give his reasoning in his 
 own words. 
 
 "Apostolus ad Heb. xi. clare affirmat fidem esse expeclationem 
 rerum sperandarum ; expectare autem bona a Deo est idem quod 
 fidere eo. Nam quod vox iVooracri?, quae ibi est, significet expecta- 
 tionem, potest ex tertio capite ejusdem epistolse probari : ubi 
 etiam hortatur Paulus ad fidendum Deo, et a diffidentia dehor- 
 
 tatur Bis enim eandem rem diversis verbis exponit ; cum 
 
 enim dicat nos esse participes Christi, addit conditionem, si modo 
 ia inchoata fide aut fiducia perseveremus. — Greece sic. pe-ro^oi yap 
 yeyovafxev rov Xpicrroi! tavTrep rrjv apyrjv Trjs VTrocrrdcraas p-^XP 1 
 T€/\ovs fiefiaiav Karacr^o)/xej/. Heb. iii. 14. Eandem sententiam 
 in eodem cap. repetit, dicens, nos esse donmm aut famili mi 
 Christi si modo fidnciam et gloriationem Dei usque ad finem reti- 
 neamus (v. 6). Xptcrrou oiko's ccr/xev T^uets idvyrep ttjv irapp-qaiav, 
 Kai to Kav)(7]ixa t^s i\.Tri&o<; pe^pi reXous /3e/3atav KaTd.o-xwp.ev. Jam 
 confer hasce duas sententias, reperies easdem prorsus res iisdem 
 pene vei'bis Apostohim repetere, et tantum pro voce, dp-^yj rrjs 
 v7roo"racrea)5, inchoata fiducia, Trapprjo-iav ko.1 to Kav^cq/xa Trjs oWi'Sos, 
 ponere : quoe proprie ingentem aut ardentem quandam fidiiciam, et 
 
 veluti audaciam accedendi et aggrediendi aliquem indieat Sic 
 
 et 2 Cor. ix. et xi. dicit, ne si diversum deprehensum fuerit pude- 
 fiamus in hac vn-oo-racret, id est fiducia seu audacia gloriationis, 
 quod videlicet audebat gloriari de Corinth iorum promptitudine 
 in conferenda eleemosyna. Testantur igitur et hsec exempla vocem 
 V7roo-Tacrts significare fiduciam vel audaciam aliquid agendi conan- 
 dive. Probatur quoque eadem hujus vocis significatio ex Psalmo 
 xxxix. [xxxviii. in LXX.] ubi LXX. pro fnnin quod ap m 
 et expectationem significat, voce woo-rao-is utuntur. Quanqnam 
 et Polybius, prcbatus auctor Grsecae linguae, vocem banc pro 
 confidentia accipit cum scribit Hetruscos confidentia et audacia 
 Coclitis esse perculsos. Sunt autem hsec inter se conjunctissima, 
 certo expectare aliquod bonum et illo fidere. Potest etiam rx 
 ipsius verbi vcpLo-r-qfu etyraologia haec significatio perpulchre erui. 
 Videtur autem proprie et primarie significare andere sub gravi 
 
 18—2
 
 NOTE C. 
 
 atiqno ponders stare, ant irrnentem in te molem audere humeria 
 ezeipere el ezpeotare: ni Plntarchns in Dem. inquit, Nemine 
 hosttam tyumi Kpectante, Bed fugientibus et deserentibus 
 
 civitates. Et alioqui Grseci vttoo-tcltikov euin militem noniinant 
 
 qui andet Lrruentem impetum expectare et in se ezeipere 
 
 Eadem Bignificationifl origine et Gracum wrofUma est compositum 
 (qnod etiam sepe eonfidenter expecto significat, velnti si dicas audeo 
 manm tub advenienH pondere) ae saepe admodnm v-n-onoi-rj pro spe 
 ft expectatione in Bibliis ponitur ut Ps. xxxviii. nbi in eodem 
 vena tanqaam idem siguificans cum iVoo-Ta'u-a conjungitur, Kai 
 i Ti 71? v; \-zojxo\n] fxov ; ovy/ o Kvpto? ; Kai ?; vTrocrrao-i's /xov irapa aoi 
 _ 17* w 
 
 This seems to me sufficient : having once the sense of a reso- 
 lute abiding or awaiting, the transition to confident expectation, 
 or to confidence generally, is too easy to render it necessary to 
 vindicate it, even if the authorities for it were less express. But 
 they are, in fact, direct and conclusive : for, besides the quotation 
 from the LXX. given above, in which v. stands for rVTnn it is 
 found in their translation for rfipH, Ruth i. 12, and Ezek. xix. 5. 
 And I think Flacius further shows conclusively that, in the other 
 passage in this epistle (iii. 14), to which he refers, the word is 
 actually used in this sense of hope or expectation. In the remain- 
 ing passages (from 2 Cor. ix and xi.) it is not employed in pre- 
 cisely the same sense, but in one so far connected with it as to 
 make the quotations pertinent to his purpose, — in the sense of 
 confid n<:e generally ; in the first passage, confidence in the libe- 
 rality of the Corinthians; in the second, confidence in the justice 
 of the claims which the Apostle felt obliged to put forward on his 
 i>w ii behalf 
 
 ( in th«- whole, I feel little doubt of the soundness of the inter- 
 pretation ; and I think the preponderance of authorities is in 
 favour of it, though some eminent names are found among the 
 dissentients. As 1 aid before, I felt it to be of no great import- 
 ance to my purpose to settle the question, and my own mind was 
 convinced by the reasoning which I have given from Flacius ; but 
 I was led, as a matter of curiosity, to look after other opinions 
 
 " The rradcr will observe the correspondence between the process 
 bj which the meaning of b. for which Flacius contends is derived from 
 the literal meaning of t>4><<rrwu, and that by which in tho preceding Note, 
 P :\['j, the sense of TP^H is derived from' that of |CN.
 
 NOTE C. 277 
 
 pretty extensively, and 1 shall give my readers a part of the result 
 of the inquiry, which, if it beof no other service to them, may spare 
 them the trouble of consulting the same authorities. They are to 
 remember, throughout what follows, that the texts in which the 
 word occurs, are Heb. xi. 1, Heb. iii. 14, 2 Cor. ix. 4, and 2 < <>r. 
 xi. 17*. 
 
 Luther varies in his translation of the word in these passages, 
 agreeing however with Flacius in the most important one, Heb. xi. 
 1. "Es ist aber der Glaube cine gewisse Zuversicht [firm assu- 
 rance] dess das man hoffet." Heb. iii. 14, he renders rqv dpxyv tt}<; 
 i;7rooTao-£<D; by " angefangene Wesen," the original or first substance. 
 2 Cor. ix. 4, is translated, " mit solchem Riihmen," by such boast- 
 ing, leaving it doubtful what meaning he attaches to v. And 
 there is the same uncertainty in his translation of xi. 17 : " die- 
 weil wir in das Riihmen gekommen sind," since we have come to 
 boasting. 
 
 Melancthon is very decided as to the signification of the 
 word, in the most important passage : " Postremo definitio fidei in 
 Epistola ad Hebraeos testatur fidem significare fiduciam ; cum in- 
 quit, fides est viv6a-rao-i<; rerum sperandai-um : constat enim iis qui- 
 bus phrasis nota est vnoo-Tao-Lv significare expectationem hoc est 
 fiduciam expectantem." — Loci Theolog. de Voce Fidei. And again, 
 in his Prolegomena in Ep. ad Rom. " Descriptio fidei ad Ebrajos 
 xi. ostendit et ibi fide significari fiduciam; quia inquit fides est 
 viroaTao-Ls, id est, expectatio rerum sperandarum. Hsec est vere 
 grammatica vocis enarratio ut omnes eruditi norunt." 
 
 Bucer, on the other hand (Enar. in Matt. cap. 8, De Fide), 
 renders it " eai*um rerum quae sperantur substantia, argumentum 
 eorum qua3 non videntur est fides." And his explanation is : 
 " Utique qua? a Domino speramus, liberationem ab omni malo et 
 vitam peternam, hac ipsa de qua agimus persuasione Spiritus Dei 
 qua verbis ipsius credimus, nititur et subsistit : idque ideo quod 
 eas ipsas res quas speramus, atque ideo non videmus, qualibet 
 ratione et experimento certius animo osteudit ac prresentes statuit."' 
 
 Zlingle, in Ep. ad Heb. cap. xi., translates it by substantial, 
 and explains it by fiducia. "Fidem hie Paulus vVocrrao-iv, mbstan- 
 tiam vel subsistentiam dicit, hoc est, vividam, certain, inconcus- 
 
 * It occurs also in Heb. i. 3. But, however important that text is 
 for other purposes, it is not necessary for mine to consider it.
 
 i'7S NOTE a 
 
 Bam, induhiam et minime trepidantem./Wnctawi earum rerum que 
 
 sperantur jugiter, ac minime videntur." 
 
 Calvin, like Lather, wavers in his translation of the word in 
 the different places in which it occurs. Heb. xi. he translates 
 ./( aperandarum substantia, and in his commentary on the pas- 
 sage: "Fides, inqnit, est hypostasis, hoc est, fultwra vel post 
 in qua pedem iigimus. Sed quaruni rerum? Absentium, qua 
 adeo pedibus nostris non subjacent, ut longe snperent ingenii nostri 
 captnm. Eadem est ratio secundi membri," l-c. In his Institutes, 
 lib. 3, c. 2, § 41, he says, referring to the same text, "Nam per 
 u7To'crTacrii', quo vocabulo utitur, quasi fulcrum iutt lligit cui pia 
 mens innitatur, et incumbat; ac si diceret fidem ipsam certain 
 quondam esse et securam possessionem eorum quse nobis a Deo pro- 
 missa sunt, nisi quis v. \iVojidacia accipere inalit, quod non dis- 
 plicet: quanquam illud quod receptius est amplector." 
 
 Heb. iii. 14, he translates, "Si quidem initium jiducios [marg. 
 \el subsistenticB], ad finem usque lirmum tenuerimus." And in his 
 note: " quum hypostasis, fiduciam interdum signiticet, jwsset hie 
 in eo sensu accipi. Non tamen displicet nomen substantia, qimj 
 alii reddiderunt, quanquam paulo secus interpretor. Illi enim sic 
 did tidem putant, quia totum esse hominis absque ea nihil aliud 
 sit quam vanitas. Ego autem quia in ea recumbamus : sicuti nulla 
 est alia fultura in qua possimus stare." 
 
 Upon the remaining passages he is quite positive. 2 Cor. ix. 4, 
 In hue Jiducia glorialionis. Note: Quum Greece sit v. Yetus 
 interpres substantiam transtulerat. Erasmus argumentum. Sed 
 neutrum convenit. And xi. 17. In hac audacia gloria&ionu. 
 Note: Jfjuiii' ulum certe aut substantia hie minime quadrant. 
 
 Beza renders Heb. xi. 1. IUud quo subsistunt quai sperantur. 
 And in his note he says, "Tantum dicam Grsecum scholiastem 
 mihi paucis rideri rem omnem felicissime exposuisse. IIiotis iarlv 
 
 ou tij if i JTOOTOtriS km cacria t£>v i\iri£op.(.iwi> Trpay/iaTiov eVcici?? yap 
 to. iv eA.7ri<riv cua7rocrTaTu t<mv, ws tcws p.t] TrapoiTa, -q ttl(tti<; ovrria 
 tis avrwv kou \7ru(TTa(Ti<; yi'vcTcu, eircu airrois kcu irapeivai rpotrov rtva 
 TTapaaKCvu^oicra, Sid tov irMTTevtiv diai. lent Se i) irians eAty^os *cai 
 u7ro6£i£i5 T( "V ov fiXeirvpiviov. a7roSet'/<iacrt Be opard tgi dopara y 
 ItVOTVff 7TOJ5; to) vu> kill Tais (.Xttlctlv opwaa Ta p.rj <f)aiv6pieva." [This 
 
 occurs in the Commentaries of (Ecumenius, on the Acts and Epi- 
 
 The w<nk is, for the mosl part at least, a compilation, and 
 
 this particular note is borrowed in part from the passage already
 
 NOTE C. 279 
 
 giwn from Chrysostom. It is, like the comment from which it is 
 taken, a clear and excellent explanation of the text when the 
 word uVo'crraoris is rendered by substance.] 
 
 Heb. iii. 14. Principium illud quo sustentamur. Note: Vel 
 principium illud Jiducice; sive inchoaturn illud in nobis quo ful- 
 cimur. 
 
 2 Cor. ix. 4. In hoc fundamento gloriationis. There is added 
 in the text, in Italics, in prcefidmte ista gloriatione, which was the 
 translation of the first edition of his Testament. And in the note, 
 he says, " Id est in quo nititur hsec mea de vobis gloriatio, nempe 
 ilia insigni in conferendis eleemosynis alacritate et animi prompti- 
 tudine, quam ut mirificam apostolus apud alias ecclesias prsedi- 
 
 caret, &c Vulgata in hac substantia, prsetermisso quoque 
 
 gloriationis nomine, ut vix ullus hinc possit sensus elici. [N. B. 
 Though this translation yields no intelligible meaning, yet it seems 
 to have been made from the true text ; for the authority for omit- 
 ting 777s Kai^'creus in the passage appears nearly conclusive; which, 
 however, is only a further proof of the proper meaning of v. there.] 
 Erasmus, in hoc argumento gloriationis, non multo melius. Doc- 
 tissimus autem interpres v. maluit fiduciam interpretari, quod in- 
 terdum hac voce significatur animi prgesentia in periculis minime 
 dejecti sed subsistentis. Hoc olim secutus verti hunc locum et 
 alteram infra xi. 17. in prcefidenti ista gloriatione, sed nunc atten- 
 tius hunc locum consideranti, etsi istud non displicet, tamen lon- 
 gius petitum videtur." 
 
 Grotius in 2 Cor. ix. 4. In hoc fundamento mese jactationis 
 xi. 17. in hoc Jirmamento gaudii mei, Heb. iii. 14; dixit dpxrjv 1-775 
 V7roo-Taorea)9 [initium substantia}] per viraWayrjv [Immutationem] 
 nostris his libris non infrequentem, pro r-qv viroaraatv rrjv i£ dpxfjs, 
 spem illam quam ab initio habuimus. 
 
 Grotius gives, however, Heb. xi. 1. Berum sperandarurti 
 Jirma qucedam expectatio. And Gerhard and Chemnitz defend the 
 same sense, in the essays upon faith in their Loci Theologici, in 
 which this text comes naturally under discussion^ 
 
 Our own translations vary in the same way between the pri- 
 mitive and derived meanings of the word. Coverdale's (Zurich, 
 1535) "being faithfully and truly translated out of Douche and 
 Latyn into English,"' of course, follows Luther. Heb. xi. : A sure
 
 NOTE C. 
 
 eon of thinges which are hoped for, and a certaynte of 
 
 thinges which are not Bene. 
 
 II b, iii. The beginnynge of the substance. 
 S CJor. ix. Presumeion of boastinge. 
 
 2 I or. xl We are now come to boastinge. 
 
 Hatthi ■ '-. London, 1537 (2nd Ed.). Heb. xi. A sure eon- 
 
 a which are hoped for, and a certayntie of thinges 
 which are oot Bene. 
 
 Eeb. iii. 14. The first substance. 
 
 2 » i . ix. The boost that I made in this matter. 
 
 2 Cor. xL 17. While we are now come to bostynge. 
 
 Cranmer's, 1540, agrees in Heb. xi. 1, with both the preceding. 
 Ami in iii. 14, gives, with Coverdale, the begynnyng of the sub- 
 ■".nce. But in both the passages in 2 Cor. has, this matter of 
 bostyng. 
 
 Parker, 1572. Heb. xi. 1. The ground [niarg. expectation^ of 
 tilings hoped for, the evidence, &c. 
 
 Heb. iii. 14. The beginning of the substance. 
 
 2 Cor. ix. and xi. This boldnesse of boastynge. 
 
 Geneva Bible, 1583, Heb. xi. 1. The ground of things which 
 are hoped for, and the evidence of, drc. 
 
 Heb. iii. 14. The beginning wherewith ice are upholden. 
 [niarg. the foundation of our assurancei\ 
 
 2 Cor. ix. In this my constant boasting. 
 
 2 Cor. xi. In this my great boasting. 
 
 Hammond's correction of our translation of Heb. xi. 1, is, 
 " Now faith is the confident expectation of things hoped for, the 
 conviction of tilings not seen." And the note in which he sup- 
 ports it appears to contain a good deal of what is to be said upon 
 that side of the question; though Clericus takes exception to parts 
 of it. 
 
 M<.re modern Commentators have brought nmch learning to 
 bear on the passage, without throwing any additional light upon 
 it; and they admit variations in the same way, without mate- 
 rially affecting the sense. I looked at all within my reach, and 
 subjoin the principal ones; more, as before, with the hope of 
 s p a rin g my readen trouble, than of supplying them with any im- 
 portant information.
 
 NOTE C. 281 
 
 Carpzovius, Sacra Exercitatt. in Ep. ad Heb. gives, Bides 
 cujus 6 StKatos tJ]iTero.t, i. e. salvitica, est eorum qua future Bp 
 inus proposita in antecessum quasi preesentia atque c&rtitudo 
 rerum qua? oculis cernuntur nullis, cognitio demonstrata el Longe 
 verissima. 
 
 And his account of the matter is that v. is vox ontologies, 
 meaning, — 1. Actual existence as contrasted with apparent, vmagi 
 nary, or in conception ; as he proves from Philo, Artemidorus, 
 and Aristotle. 2. Actual existence as contrasted with past or 
 future. Quicquid autem existit, quia rerum naturae aut nobis 
 praesens est, philosophi prcesentia dicunt lv v. eliai. So Lietan- 
 tius, de Orig. Erroris, 1. 2. " Praeteriti est origo, pr,esentis sub- 
 stantia, futuri dissolutio." And Philo, speaking of the knowledge 
 of God, describes all things as hi the Divine conception d^po'rw? 
 yivoiMtva kcu vfao-r-qKOTa. When faith, then, is called v. it inti- 
 mates present existence. Isaac Casaubon, he [tells us, regards it 
 as expressing real existence; and he allows that they are not in 
 error who receive it de constanti ac certa fiducia; and that 
 Symmachus may be right in translating the corresponding Hebrew 
 word by dva/xovi] ; and Aquila, when he renders it KapaSoKia ; 
 Jerome, prazstolatio ; his own view, however, is somewhat dis- 
 tinct from all, but the reader must take it in his own words : 
 " Mallem tamen inhaerere notioni metaphysicae quatenus enti 
 fulcitur aliquid ac innititur. Chrysostomus ovo-iav interpretatur. 
 Essentiam ne an existentiam 1 Utrumque scias jungendum. Pro 
 qiio alii eadem significatione substantiam." 
 
 "EAey^os, he says, lexicographers explain of undoubted convic- 
 tion. Aristotle applies it to mathematical demonstration, Theo- 
 phylact to the manifestation of what is hidden, Prosper, con- 
 viction; but Carpzovius himself understands it of demonstrative 
 knoioledge, by which, however, it would seem that he cannot mean 
 anything more than a firm assurance. 
 
 His final explanation is this: The object of faith is things 
 hoped for ; but these are ordinarily things not seen, and arc there- 
 fore in the passage so styled ; but. weighing the reasous for be- 
 lieving their existence, we find that they are kv tAc'y^w, and 
 cannot be otherwise, that they must be, and this renders them 
 as if they had v7roWacriv. 
 
 Ernesti, Lectiones Academicce in Ep. ad Heb. Est autem tides 
 rerum promissarum expectalio et spes rerum absentium et futu-
 
 NOTE C. 
 
 niruin. This is \ny express; and iu a note, cot equally clear, 
 bis tnnalation of i-Woracm, expeetaHo, is justified principally by 
 the authority of the I. XX. The text Heb. iii. 14, he renders j 
 Si quam ab iuiti" habuistis JUlem perpetuo retinuerimus seu 
 retineamua 
 
 Dindorf, his editor, traces tlie sense of the word, tlirough the 
 
 literal meaning of foundation or base, to the figurative sense, 
 
 lity, vrmn tution, and quotes Diodorus Siculus and 
 
 Polybius for this use of it ; but prefers the sense which Hem- 
 
 ticks, one of the continuators of Koppe's New Testament, pro- 
 
 -. in commenting upon the passage, and which agrees pretty 
 nearly with the meaning given by IJeza's Greek Scholiast. 
 
 Heinrtchs, to whom Dindorf refers, says, v7ro'oTacri9, quod 
 v.iv et ovrtas subsistit, eine reelle Substanfz, oppos, ikin^ofieva 
 qnaa aondum existunt Bed in phantasia tantummodo nostra sita 
 sunt. Kst ergo v. t<Zv e\m£o[Lev<av, illud quod eis quae nondum 
 apparent, quorum non nisi umbram vidcmus, veruni corpus indit. 
 But on chap. iii. 14, he thinks that a better meaning (for this 
 place) than the common one, may be deduced from the sense of 
 v<t>L<7Ta.fjLai, to engage, undertake, promise ; whence v-noo-rao-is would 
 mean, first, confession or profession, and then, by an easy meto- 
 nymy, the thiug confessed or professed, — the Christian faith. Din- 
 dorf is highly pleased with this mode of interpreting the word, 
 which, he says, mira se facilitate commendat. 
 
 Eisner, Observatt. Sacrae in Nov. Feed, libros, vTroo-Tacns, hie 
 est vera errorisque expers j ducia, cui res speratse quasi prajsentia 
 sistuntur, <pise spe sua non excidit, qua; a proposito suo scopoque 
 non dimovetur. This seems to be taking more than one mean- 
 in.,' of the word; and, accordingly, he gives quotations for at 
 least two very different senses of it. The first, from Josephus, 
 Antiq. Jud. 1. xviii. c. 2 [c. 1.], who, speaking of the immovable 
 resolution with which the followers of Judas, the Galilean, met 
 tortures and death, uses the phrase, to dfierdkXaKTov tt}<; vtto- 
 'rru'.rtws. Then Ajrtemidorus, Ontirocrit. cap. xiv. lib. 1, wort 
 (jiavTaaiav /Mew «x etv "rkovrov, viroo-Tacriv St fiij. Where it means 
 
 real existence, as contrasted with imaginary. And, lastly, he gives 
 the <-ften cited passage from Polybius, Oi 8e 'Po'Sicn fcipraVcs 
 tijv Tu>v Bv£avrui>v vtt6(tt(xo-lv, where it means resolution again. 
 
 Kypke's objections to interpreting wo'crao-is (in 2 Cor. be. 4, 
 and xi. 17). by confidence, are very curious. "Quod v. multi
 
 NOTE C. 
 
 h. 1. ut et infra c. xi. 17, per firmam fidudxim, cotifidmUam ex- 
 plicant, neutro loco nexus satis ferre videtur : h. 1. apostolus 
 metuebat ne inanis redderetur sua gloriatio, et ne id mbi />"</orem 
 adferret; c. xi. 17, vero gloriatio apostoli quanquam haud Lnanis 
 non tamen cum fiducia juncta erat, cum perquam invitua ad 
 gloriandum se conferret." By which strange reasoning it would 
 seem, that when a man boasts of others, he may be shown not 
 to have boasted confidently, if it appear that at some subsequent 
 period he feels doubts whether his boast would be justified l>y 
 their conduct : and that, when he boasts of himself* it may in 
 like manner be proved that he cannot state his own merits con- 
 fidently, provided it appears that he has been driven into this 
 vindication of himself, by the unfairness or ignorance of others I 
 I observe, by the way, that in Mr Bloomiield's laborious and 
 useful Synopsis, Kypke is represented as agreeing in Beza's view 
 of the meaning of v7rocrTacri?. He does not, however ; he men- 
 tions it as admissible, but gives his own as. preferable : " Vertere 
 igitur potes cum Beza: In hoc fundamento gloriationis. Hoc 
 
 sensu vocem habet Themistius, Orat. 9, ad Valentin Aut 
 
 quod magis placet verte : in hac materia sc. negotio laudls. Vide- 
 tur eniin phrasis iv rrj v-rroo-Tiicru ravry tt^s Kav^7ja-(.(as, idem signi- 
 ficare ac ilia : tj kch/j^o-is iv toutw rw jiipei, vers. 3." He un- 
 derstands by it therefore, " in this matter or affair of the praise 
 which I bestowed upon you." Grotius does not distinctly ex- 
 plain the sense in which he uses the words ; but Beza (as he 
 explains himself) means by it, the foundation of this praise, 
 namely, the prompt liberality of the Corinthians, which Paul 
 describes himself as having so confidently extolled. I must add, 
 though I have said quite too much on this singular note of Kypke 
 already, that I am perfectly at a loss to discover what there is 
 in it that induces Mr B. to qualify it as a learned annotation. 
 It is certainly safer to praise the learning than the reasoning 
 of it ; but it seems too indulgent to commend either. Of the 
 three quotations which it contains, the first, from Thfmixfius, is 
 really, as Kypke himself states, in support of Beza's translation : 
 the second, from Artemidorus, is, as Kypke also states, taken from 
 Eisner; and the third, from Aristotle, is given in Budseus and 
 Stephens in verb.; and when it is added, that neither of these last 
 has any more application to Kypke's purpose than the first, the 
 extent of Mr Bloomfield's liberality will be better appreciated
 
 NOTE a 
 The from Artemidorus is given above, under the head of 
 
 . that from A ii-i< 'tli- is, r<3v tv ai.pt (pai'TaafiaTw, rd fxcv 
 t'.rn K<ir' Ifufntrw to. 8c kulO' vnwmuriv ; in both the meaning of 
 
 rraoxs ifl pretty Dearly the Bame, reality, real existence, or 
 
 perhaps - nee. The translation which Kypke gives of the 
 
 r passage Beams to have misled him into thinking that the 
 
 quotation bore upon his view of the meaning of the word: 
 
 "qua in aere apparent, qusedam Bpecie tenus existunt, qusedam 
 
 . ^- materia quadam consistunt;" but it is unnecessary to re- 
 mark that, supposing Aristotle to say, as this translation makes 
 him, thai "some of these atmospheric phenomena are composed 
 of a kind of mutter;" still it would be no proof that, because 
 viroorao-is stands for matter in this sense, it might also be used 
 for mutter in the sense of business or affair. 
 
 Leun, one of the continuators of Koppe's New Testament, 
 furnishes even a more extraordinary example of this rage for 
 authorities, which leads commeutators of a certain class rather to 
 borrow or steal the most indirect ones than want the proper 
 number. He explains 2 Cor. ix. 4, by "cum absque omni dubi- 
 . tarn jirmii fulucia, vestros laudavimus apparatus;" and, in 
 his note on the passage, he says, that tVo'cn-acri?, which is, lite- 
 rally, a prop (from the sense of vcpicnao-Oai, to bear, or support), 
 means metaphorically, firm confidence and certain hope. And 
 lie supports this sense by quotations from Polybius, often given 
 before, but pertinent; but he then subjoins two quotations from 
 Philo-Judseus, which most persons will, 1 think, find it very 
 hard to connect with his translation. The first is from De Con- 
 fusion* Liiiijtiiiru m, p. 348, A. (Frankfort edition, 1691), ra fitv 
 pr]ra tojv xpj](rfj.wv <TKLa<; nras waavel (roj/xarojv aval' Tas 8' ifxcpaivo- 
 /jteras SiW/jieis Ta vcftecrrcWa [i'</>co"T<Ji>Ta] dX.r]6eia TrpdypaTa. Where 
 I suppose the meaning of the participle is existing or being, and 
 combined with dXqOiia, actual, real, really existing, or something 
 to that effect. The second is from De Josepko, p. .544. Philo is 
 .-peaking of Joseph's sudden elevation, and says that such things 
 happened, and will again, when God pleases, fxovov h> ti 
 v^iVTradia KaXoKdyadias i/nn'pevpa Tais i/ar^ais, where the verb may 
 !»• used in the rare sense of to lie hid (which Stephens notices as 
 given by Budwus, without any example, referring himself to Tho. 
 ister for examples from Lueian); to exist, simply, would give 
 sufficient meaning to the passage; but what bearing this or the
 
 NOTE 0. 
 
 other has upon Leun's OAvn view of the meaning of the word, 
 
 or his mode of arriving at it, would not be easy to gu« . How 
 he came by them is more easily told. He found them in Loesner 
 (Obss. in Nov. T. d Philone Alex.), as appears not only by his 
 copying v^eo-rora, as it is misprinted in Loesner, but by the 
 mode in which he introduces the quotations. 
 
 LEUN. LOESNER. 
 
 Auctor Ep. ad Hebrreos cap. xi. j Cernitur autein fiducia in con- 
 
 1, fiduciam in constanti et innnota j stanti et immota rerum speranda 
 
 renun sperandarum expectatione ruin cxpectationc, Heb.zL 1. Quod 
 
 cerni contendit Philo de , si £. ad certitudinem referaspree 
 
 Conf. Ling. p. 348, A. ubi monet sidium habebis loci de Conf. Ling. 
 
 in oraculis divinis putari debcre i p. 348, A. ubi monet auctor in in 
 
 tA niv k.t.\. j terprctandis oraculis divinis putari 
 
 I debcre ra /xei> k.t.X. 
 
 Loesner makes some preparation for the quotations, and in 
 translating the passage from Be Conf us. Ling., renders ra v<f>ecrTu>Ta 
 a\y]0da 7rpay/xara by res certissimas, so as to supply some reason 
 for citing it in the connexion, but it is apparent that the quo- 
 tations are nearly as much out of place in him as in Leun. One 
 can account for his adducing the first passage as an example of 
 v. used to express certainty, though it would not be easy to justify 
 it. But as reality is a fit foundation for certainty, — a passage in 
 which the word seems used to express the former emphatically, 
 when a man was looking for authorities for the latter use, might 
 doubtless appear to him something like one ; and that it is only 
 in this indirect way that it serves Loesner's purpose, appears 
 elsewhere to be his own judgment, for when he comes to Heb. xi. 1 
 (which he translates, rerum sperandarum fiducia), he says, in the 
 note v7roo-Tao-is ab v^ia-Tao-Oai ducitur, quod verbum sensu philoso- 
 phico et ontologico significat id quod naturam ac essentiam rei 
 ingreditur ; and, as an example of this sense, gives the very 
 passage from De Confus. Ling., which he had made serve before 
 as an example of a sense not easily understood, but of which 
 certainty is meant to be the distinguishing part. But how he 
 could conceive that the passage from De Josepho gives any support 
 to the meaning, is not easy to understand. 
 
 I have been led a little out of my way by these more remark- 
 able cases, and shall now give briefly a few more authorities, which 
 ought to have appeared earlier. 
 
 Abresclis Paraph, et Annotatt. in Ep. ad. Heb. Specimen does no1
 
 NOTE D. 
 
 extend to chap, xi. (at least I have never seen beyond the 6th), 
 l.ut upon iii. 14, ho remlers v. by spent, firmam expectationem, 
 
 Jiduciam. 
 
 /,■,,„,."•, 2 Cor. ix. Ob eonfidentem Worn gloriaiionem, 
 
 Dam vno oi uu &K est fitucia, 
 
 '1 Cor. xi. 1"- (J'ljuiaui nunc cum tanta confidentia ineipio 
 
 loudare. 
 
 H,. I,, iii. li. Si quern ccejnmus prqfessioni Christiana (hire 
 
 -in, ii<1 tin- nt jiriitii.iu tent lie's tVocrrao-is hie est qiue 
 
 supra, v. 6, i\-U dicitur, spea firma, fiducia. 
 
 11. li. xi. 1. Est auteni tides rerum sperandarum, firma qua- 
 dim expectatio, convictio indubitata de existentia rerum quse sub 
 aepecta non cadunt. 
 
 Sender, Paraph. Epistol. ad Corinihios. 2 Cor. ix. 4. Cum inde 
 a tani" jam tempore confide atissi me gloriatus sini de vestra libera- 
 litate. His note is i'. apud LXX. saepius occurrit ea notione ut sit 
 fiducia >i< ut et Heb. xi. 1. Non male Beza reddiderat in prafir 
 d- 1>'< ista gloriatione quod postea quasi exprobravit. 
 
 This ii"te has swelled to a very unreasonable size; but I hope 
 that it may interest those for whom chiefly I write, or at least 
 for whom chiefly I annotate; and that it may spare them some 
 unprofitable labour. They will see, I think, upon a review of 
 the authorities, earlier and more recent, that the preponderance in 
 Learning and reasoning lies decidedly on the side of that inter- 
 pretation of the Apostle's meaning which I have ventured to 
 adopt. 
 
 Kuinoel, the Giessen Professor, whose work on the Gospels 
 and Arts is so well known in his country, wrote, some years later, 
 a ( lommentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. It was published 
 Borne time before this volume appeared, but I did not see it until 
 -1 while afterwards. He seems worth quoting here (at least 
 more BO than -Mine that I have quoted), and it will be seen that 
 the weight ,,t' bis authority is to be added to the side of those who 
 i' ader vitootoutis by confident expectation. 
 
 " I'' i' rrjv -icntv h. 1. non significatur fiducia in Christi morte 
 nec religionis Christianas professio, sed latiori sigoificatu 
 hoc vocabulum sumitur, ita ut indicet firmam et stabilem persua- 
 sionem, qnse Deus docuerit, monuerit, minatus sit, pro
 
 NOTE J). 287 
 
 miserit, qualis fides tempore V. T. locum habuit. Imprimis autem, 
 ut exempla propositi docent, spectatur fides respectu rerum fa 
 turarum, fides promissis divinis habita, et lseta eorum, qua 1 1 
 nos sperai'e jubet, expectatio; de his autem potissimum sermo e t, 
 quia s]>es Christianorum prsecipua erat reditus ''luisti ad regni 
 sui iuaugurationem. Particula 8e h. 1. ut supra 10, 3S, vim babel 
 transeundi et copulandi. eon 8e 77 morns, l\-n-i^t>p.iv(av v7roo-rao-is 
 k. t. X. est autem fides, firma expectatio rerum quo? speramus, et 
 certa persuasio de rebus qua; non cemuntur, v7roorao-is nonmilli 
 vertuut : fundamentum, v. not. ad 3, 14. Plerique cum Vul. 
 iuterprete, Chrysostomo et Theodoreto, substantia, essentia, id 
 quod vere existit, eine reelle Substanz, das Wirkliche, das Wesen, 
 vid. ad 1, 3. Atque adeo vTro(TTacrt<; riov iXTri^o/xevoyv dicitur illud, 
 quod iis, qua? nondum apparent, quorum non nisi umbram vide- 
 mus, corpus indit ; sive ut alii verba explanaut, fides ideo dicitur 
 substantia rerum sperandarum, quia quamvis res speratse nondum 
 existant, tamen earum existentiam fides quodammodo in nobis 
 efficit et gignit, et nobis illas prsesentes exhibet, dum adeo certos 
 nos de illis facit, ac si re ipsa jam prsestitre essent. Arguta in- 
 terpretatio, nee a simplicitate commendabilis. Adhibuit Epistolse 
 auctor b. 1. nomen wro'o-Tacris eodem significatu quo 3, 14, positum 
 comparet, ita nimirum, utfirmam expectationem rerum qua? spera- 
 mus indicet, Ta IkiriCp^va qua? speramus, sunt ea, qua? nondum 
 evenerunt, sed futura sunt. tu ov j3\<LTr6jX€va quae non in sensus 
 incurrunt sive jam evenerint, sive futura sint. ■7tl<ttl<; respectu 
 eorum quae evenerunt est, cum quis testimoniis fidem babet ; 
 respectu eorum quae futura sunt, cum quis promissionibus fidem 
 habet. Post 7rpay/xaTwv Bbhmius comma ponendum causat, cum 
 facilius boc nomen ad posterius participium, quam ad prius subau- 
 diatur, sed vulgaris interpunctio retinenda. Nam non necesse est 
 ut subintelligatur 7rpay/AaTtov v. Hermanns et Viger, p. 871, seq. 
 Yocabulum eAeyyos declarat demonstrationem ut ap. Diod. Sic. 
 p. 146, B. Pbilo. Lib. de Joseplio, p. 541. ult. -n-pos l\zyx°v fiefiut-n- 
 Te'pas TTt'orc'iJS. V. Milnthius et Carpzovius ad h. 1. de denion- 
 stratione matbematica boc nomen posuit Aristot. Tibet, c. 14. 
 Significat veroetiam argument urn ut ap. Ael. H. V. 7, 10. Glossse : 
 probatio eAeyxos Tbeopbylactus explicat, Stt^is koX (j>avepo>(ri<; d8rj- 
 Xwi/ Trpay/i-aTw demonstrate et manifestatio rerum qua non swni 
 conspicuw. (Ecumenius aTroSei^s. Horum auctoritatem Becuti 
 sunt plures interpretum recentiorum, et IXcyxos reddiderunt c/>
 
 288 NOTE IK 
 
 - , alii expliouerunt demonatrata cognitio. Alii, argu- 
 menkum rerum qua non ridentur, argumentatio. Rectius h. 1. inea 
 Bententia exprimitur , ■> jirmn. qua ex argumentis oritur, 
 
 iiaqae nititur, de rerum quae sen&ibus non percipiuntur veritate. 
 I. [tutor enim Bcriptor de certa animJ affectione." 
 
 Note D. Tage 23. 
 l'l>oa the Examples in Heb. xi. 8. 
 
 To avoid misconception, I think it necessary to remind my 
 readers that there is here no question raised, whether the persons 
 commemorated in Heb. xi. were all Believers in Christ; and no 
 attempt made to settle, if they were, in what way, or to what 
 it, they were so; but that the inquiry merely respects the 
 particular incidents in their lives to which the Apostle refers. 
 And when this is recollected, and these incidents are carefully 
 considered, it will be felt, I trust, that the question is rightly 
 
 wered. 
 
 I do not know that these examples, generally, require any ob- 
 servations, for my purpose, beyond those already made upon them 
 in the Sermon. Upon one of them, however, I must say some- 
 thing, as it may perhaps be thought to furnish some objection to 
 the explanation which 1 haA r e given of the first verse. Our belief 
 of the revealed account of the origin of the world is alleged, v. 3, 
 as an exercise oifaUh; and this may be thought not to accommo- 
 date itself easily, either to my general account of the principle, or 
 to my representation of the meaning of the particular passage. 
 
 I do not think that the instance, fairly considei'ed, will be 
 found in any way inconsistent with either. It will be remembered 
 that I have maintained that the design of the Apostle, in the 
 opening -tateineiit, is t< > convey to us a notion of the principle in 
 general; and, in the examples, to acquaint us further with its 
 general nature, by exhibiting it to us in actual operation, in dif- 
 and under different circumstances. As to the account 
 which he gives, I may add, by the way, that I agree with Erasmus
 
 NOTE /'. 
 
 :iii- 1 Calvin, in thinking it unr I 
 
 c unplete defi rition offaith; and in regardin I 
 
 to give essentia] parts of that principle — leading and prominent 
 characteristics of it. The two characteristics of faith which he 
 cts, as suited to his purpose, are, confident exp of good, 
 
 ;md the Jirm conviction of the reality of what is unseen [when wc 
 are assured of it by Him in whom we put faith]: and every in- 
 stance of either would of course be pertinenl to his main d< 
 The general character of the examples which he utly 
 
 shows that hy the unseen things, of which he describes faith as 
 assuring us, he meant, principally, the things hoped fur, which we 
 firmly expect. But as the reliance upon God, which he designed 
 to illustrate, leads necessarily to an assurance of all that He de- 
 dares to us, — since one confiding not only in His power, and His 
 goodness, but also in His truth must i irmly believe all that He 
 reveals concerning what is unseen, whether past, present, or fu- 
 ture, — it is not strange that the Apostle should take occasion to 
 intimate this more comprehensive range offaith, though it did not 
 suit his purpose to dwell upon it. He therefore gives a single and 
 well-chosen instance of this operation of faith, in which reliance 
 upon God's truth emancipates Believers as remarkably from the 
 thraldom of sense, concerning the past, as it does concerning the 
 future in all the other examples which he gives, — where, in the 
 midst of sufferings and trials, it assures them of some happy 
 change for them in this world, or of the glory which shall be 
 revealed in the world which is to come*. 
 
 * The following is the comment of Kuinoel (see note C, at the end) 
 on the verse, so far as the point considered above is concerned : — " E 
 crcatione mundi probat epistolse conditor tt'kjtlv spectare etiam res 
 prseteritas, quae non in sensus incurrant, to ^77 p\eir6fiei>a, camque esse 
 certissimam persuasionem de veritate eorum quae in libris sacris eon- 
 signata, et e Dei quasi ore profecta legautur. A crcatione autcm 
 exorditur, morem Judseorum secutus, qui cum de gente sua et beneficiis 
 a Deo ei exhibitis loquebantur, a primordiis mundi et generis humani 
 inchoare solebant, v. Ps. cxxxvi, Sir. xliii, xliv. Accedit alia ratio, de 
 fide generatim dicta fidei Christianas accommodare volebat. Qui autcm 
 credebant, ut Heinrichsius et Stolzius periti monucrunt, mundum Dei 
 ntia esse creatum, eo facilius credere potcrant Deum Christianoa 
 probos et constantes a calamitatibus propter religionem Christianam 
 perferendis libcraturum, eosque prsemiis amplissimia prnaturum esse 
 Ipsa creatio, inquit, nullos spectatores habuit; neque nos neque rods 
 ■n-peafivTipovs, sed fidem habentes scimus mundum Dei voluntas 
 ditum esse, ita, ut quce conspiciuntur non condita sint ex it* qua jam 
 eansterent," 
 
 19
 
 ri: D. 
 
 It i: it is true, that this belief in the origin of all 
 
 thi iiily a result of faith in God; fur that a man 
 
 principles of natural reason, that the world 
 ternalj and that the course of natural reproduction, by 
 
 which th< ace of all that it contains is now continued, can- 
 
 not 1. 6 On always; but that both it and they must have 
 
 had t: gin ultimately in some act of the power of its ruler, 
 
 ■ally different from any that we now witness) and so forth; 
 and that, the] this may be a result of rational c mviction in 
 
 one who disbelieves revelation, or a result of such a belief of the 
 truth lation as J make distinct from faith — from the faith 
 
 intended to be explained and exemplified by the Apostle. This is, 
 no doubt, true. But it is true of every example given by the 
 Apostle as well as this one, and makes as much against everv 
 account of the meaning of faith as against mine There is no act 
 which the Apostle refers to, as a result of faith, which might not 
 have been the result of some other principle. I mean of some 
 principle distinct from faith, under every notion of its nature. 
 But they are also natural and striking results of faith: and so is 
 this. When they are known to be the effects of filth, they serve 
 to throw light upon its nature: and so does this. No doubt a 
 belief in the true account of the creation might be but an example 
 of the force of reason; but in the same way, Abraham's offering 
 of his son Isaac might he an example of the awful delusion under 
 which some made their children to pass through the f re, and offered 
 tht vr sons and (!>■ ir daughters to devils. When we know, however, 
 that it was in Abraham the result of faith in God, we recognize in 
 it a .striking example of the effects of this principle. In like man- 
 ner, though this belief of the real origin of all things might he the 
 
 dt of reasoning upon the phenomena; yet, when we know that 
 it is, in Believers, the result of their faith in Him who has re- 
 ded it. we see in it an exemplification of one of the leading 
 ch: ' tics of the principle. And this seems enough. 
 
 The occurrence of the instance seems, therefore, sufficientlv 
 
 accounted for; while the fact that it is but a single instance, and 
 
 ,h " '"> different character of the remaining ones, furnish a 
 
 firmation of the account already given of the meaning 
 
 of the Apostle in this remarkable passage.
 
 NOTE E. 291 
 
 Note E. Page 25. 
 
 Upon the Declarations of the Nature of Justifying Faith in the 
 Confessions of Protestant Churches, and the Writings of the 
 earliest Protestant Divines. 
 
 The declarations of the nature of faith in the Sermon are from 
 the third Homily, Of the Salvation of Mankind, and from the fil I 
 part of the following Homily, intitled, A Short Declaration of the 
 true, lively and Christian Faith. They are, I suppose, sufficient 
 to establish the views of our Church upon this point; but, if the 
 reader should desire further evidence or explanation of these 
 views, he will find both in abundance in the Homilies referred to. 
 
 The assertion, that equally express declarations of the same 
 views are to be found in the public acts of all Protestant Churches, 
 and in the writings of all the early Protestant Divines of real 
 weight*, may be, I think, satisfactorily established. And the 
 point is one of so much importance, that I hope my readers will 
 not decline the trouble of reading and weighing the quotations by 
 which I proceed to pi'ove it. Numerous as they are, I think they 
 will be found not to have been multiplied inconsiderately. 
 
 The general accordance of the Reformers upon the question is, 
 indeed, stated strongly by Bellarmin: "'Namfidem Lutherani fere 
 omnes non tarn notitiam, vel assensum, quam fiduciam esse defi- 
 niunt. Atque earn demum fiduciam specialis misericordise fidem 
 justificantem esse docent." De Just. lib. 1. cap. 4. But even if 
 no better evidence of their agreement were required, it would be 
 desirable to allow them to explain their principles for themselves, 
 as there is, in Bellarmin's account of them, some direct misrepre- 
 sentation, and something which, without amounting to actual mis- 
 statement, is no less likely to mislead. The confidence upon which 
 the Reformers insisted was not, as the reader will see, independent 
 of knowledge and assent, but founded upon them. And as to the 
 statement, that they regarded justifying faith as confidence in 
 
 * Pacer and Eeza may seem exceptions to the general concurrence 
 of the eminent Reformers upon this point. Both certainly speak of 
 Jiducia as distinct from fides, and properly its effect; but the reader 
 will see, by the statement of their views given below, that their differ- 
 ence from the rest is rather verbal than real : at all events, he will have 
 the means of judging for himself of its amount. 
 
 19—2
 
 a a xote e. 
 
 far true, that they taught that the faith of 
 
 the I r was his trust in God through Christ; his confidence 
 
 Lied Father, and his Aope of all good things at 
 
 and that they denied that any general belief iu God's 
 
 pur] rs in Christ, of rewarding the good, <fcc., 
 
 ■ '/ in Him. J Jut, on the other hand, they neither taught 
 
 inced, under the name offaith, any fanatical Lmpres- 
 
 peculiar personal favour; nor did they allow, as faith, any 
 
 confidence towards God which was not grounded upon a believing 
 
 and intelligent application to < s, of the offers of mercy which 
 
 Bie Word makes alike to all. But I am well satisfied upon this 
 
 to Buffer them to speak for themselves. And I shall begin with 
 
 the public documents. 
 
 I iNFBSSio Augustana, 1530. Art. De Bonis Operibus. 
 Admonentur etiam homines quod hie nomen. fidei non significet 
 tantum historiae notitiam, qualis est in impiis et diabolo, sed signi- 
 ficet fidem, 411:0 credit non tantum historiam, sed etiam effectum 
 historiae, videlicet, hunc articulum, remissionem peccatorum, quod 
 videlicet per Christum babeamus gratiam, justitiam, et remi 
 nem peccatorum .... Augustinus etiam defdei nomine hoc modo 
 admonet lectorem, et docet, in scripturis nomeu fidei accipi, non 
 P r o qualis est in impiis, sed fiducia quae consolatur et 
 
 erigit perterrefactas mentes. 
 
 Confessio Augustana, 1540. De Fi 
 
 d fide hoc beneficium accipiendum est, qua credere nosopor- 
 [uod propter Christum donetur remissio peccatorum, et justifi- 
 catio. . . .Verum haec misericordia non potest accipi nisi tide; et 
 hie non tantum historiae notitiam siguificat, sed significat 
 credere promissioni misericordia quae nobis propter mediatorem 
 Christum contingit. Et cum hoc modo fides intelligitur de fiducia 
 ncordiae non dissentiunt inter -<■ Jacobus et Paulus. Quod 
 enim Lnquit Jacobus, Dcemones credunt et contremiscunt, intellirit 
 fidem de notitia historiae; haec non justificat. Norunt enim his- 
 toriam ei ion impii ac diaboli Paulus vero, cum inquit, fides 
 latur ad justitiam, <fcc. loquitur de fiducia misericordiae pro- 
 ■'■ propter Christum. 
 Apologia Cokfessionis Augustana 
 
 3 '' Ula fides quae justificat non est tantum notitia historiae, 
 atiri promissioni Dei, in qua gratis propter Chris- 
 tlM " offertur , ;I11 et justificatio. Et ne 1
 
 NOTE /:. or, 3 
 
 suspicetur tantum notitiam esse, addimua ampliua est velle el 
 accipere oblatam promissionem remissions peccatorum et justi- 
 ficationis. 
 
 Confessio Saxoxica. 1551. De Rem. Pecc. et Just. 
 
 Sunt autcm nota vocabula. Fides significat non tantum his- 
 torian notitiam qualis et in diabolis est, de quibus dicitur dcemom i 
 credunt et contremiscunt : sed significat amplecti omnes artictdos 
 fidei et in his hunc articulum, credo remissionem peccatorum. 
 Nee tantum aliis earn dari credo, sed mihi qnoque. 
 
 Ha?c fides simul est fiducia acquiescens in mediatore, juxta 
 illud : justificati ex fide pacem hulemus. Ita loquitur Paulus de 
 fide, qua? adsentiens omnibus articulis fidei, promissionem intuetur 
 et amplectitur, copulat enim fidem et promissionem. Ruin. iv. 
 Ideo ex fine, ut sit firma promissio. 
 
 Confessio Helvetica. 1566. 
 
 Fides enim Christiana, non est opinio ac huinana persuasio, 
 sed firmissima fiducia et evidens ac constans animi assensus, 
 denique certissima comprehehsio veritatis Dei propositse in scrip- 
 fcuris et symbolo apostolico, atque adeo Dei ipsius summi boni, 
 et prsecipue promissionis divina?, et Christi, qui omnium promis- 
 sionum est colophon. 
 
 Confessio Belgica. Gallice, 1561. Latine, 1581. Art. 
 XXII. 
 
 Credimxis Spiritum Sanctum in cordibus nostris habitantem 
 veram nobis fidem impartiri, ut hujus tanti mysterii veram cog- 
 nitionem adipiscamur. Qua? fides Jesum Christum cum omnibus 
 suis meritis amplectitur, illumque sibi ceu proprium effectum 
 vinclicat, nihilque deinceps extra ilium qmerit. 
 
 Confessio Bohemica, 1538. Latine auctior, 1572. 
 
 Atque ha?c fides proprie est cordis prompti assensio erga nni- 
 versam in Evangelio annunciatam veritatem, qua homo mente 
 et animo illustratur, et Deum suum et Dominum Jesum Chris- 
 tum recte agnoscat, et pro unico salvatore suo accipiat, supraque 
 hunc, ut veram petram suam prorsus salutem collocet, eum diligat 
 et sequatur ipsoque fruatur, omnemque spem et fiduciam in eo 
 reponat, et se hac erigat et animosa fiducia confidat quod propter 
 ipsum et solum meritum ipsius propitium placidum et benig- 
 num Deum habeat, atque etiam in ipso et per eum certo vitam 
 seternam habeat, et in seternuin habiturus sit, secundum veram 
 promissionem ipsius quam jurejurando confirmavit, <kc.
 
 094 ZOTE E. 
 
 Catechesis Heidelbergensis, 1563. 
 
 21. Quid est fides? Est non tantum notitia qua firmiter 
 assentior omnibus quae Deus nobis in verbo suo patefacit, sed 
 etiam certa fiducia a Spiritu Sancto per evangelium in corde 
 meo accensa, qua in Deo acquiesco, certo statuens non solum 
 alios sed mini quoque remissionem peccatorum, seternam justitiam, 
 tt \ itam donatam esse, idque gratis ex Dei misericordia, propter 
 unius Christi meritum. 
 
 It may be needless to add any evidence of the views of the 
 earliest Continental Reformers, as these Confessions were drawn 
 up by the most eminent of them, and approved by all. I shall 
 subjoin a few, however. 
 
 Luther. Disputationes, 1555. 
 
 Fides acquisita seu sophistarum de Christo dicit, Credo filium 
 Dei passum et resuscitatum: atque hie desinit. Sed vera fides 
 dicit, credo quidein filium Dei passum et resuscitatum, sed hoc 
 totum pro me pro peccatis meis, de quo certus sum. Est enim 
 pro totius mundi peccatis mortuus. * At certissimum est me esse 
 partem aliquam mundi, ergo certissimum est pro meis quoque 
 peccatis mortuum < 
 
 In Genesiu, cup. 15. 
 
 Hie aperte die quid faciat sola fides, non cum quibus virtuti- 
 bus conjuncta sit. Sola autem fides apprehendit promissionem, 
 credit promittenti Deo, Deo porrigenti aliquid, admovet manum 
 et id accipit. Hoc proprium solius fidei opus est ; charitas, spes, 
 patientia habent alias materias circa quas versantur, habent alios 
 limites intra <juos consistunt. Ison enim amplectuntur promis- 
 sionem sed mandata exequuntur Retinenda igitur dis- 
 
 tinctio haac est, quod fides quae agit cum Deo promittente et ejus 
 promissiones accipit, haec sola justificat. 
 
 In, Kp. ad Galatas (153G, the enlarged commentary). 
 
 Quando fide in verbum Dei edoctus apprehendo Christum, et 
 tota fiducia cordis (quod tamen sine voluntate fieri non potest) 
 credo in eum, hac noticia Justus sum. 
 
 Mi:i,\\< TiiON. 
 
 As it is known that the Augsburg and Saxon Confessions, 
 and the Apology, were drawn up by Melancthon, it seems need- 
 less to give any proof of his views beyond the quotations already 
 made from these documents. I shall give but two brief ones 
 from his last revisions of two of his works.
 
 XOTE E. 295 
 
 Loci Theologici, 1543. De Gratia et de Justnficatione. 
 
 De remissione peccatorum vociferantur [Monachi] non recto 
 doceri quod fide gratis propter Christum accipiatur remissio pec- 
 catorum ; nee admittunt fide significari fiduciam misericordise 
 
 Dei Quare cum dicit [Paul us] fide justificamur, vult te 
 
 intueri Filium Dei sedentem ad dextram Patris, modiatorem in- 
 terpellantem pro nobis ; ct statuere quod tibi remittantur peccata, 
 quod Justus, id est acceptus, reputeris seu pronuntieris propter 
 ilium ipsum Filium Dei qui fuit victima. Ut igitur vocabulum 
 fides monstrat ilium mediatorcm, et nobis applicet, significat fides 
 non tantum historiae notitiam, sed fiduciam misericordise pro- 
 missa? propter Filium Dei. 
 
 Enarratio Symboli Niceni Ultima, 1557. 
 
 Fides est assentiri universo verbo Dei, atque ita et promissioni 
 gratise ; et est fiducia acquicscens in Deo propter mediatorem, 
 accedens ad eum, vere invocans eum, et clamans Abba Pater. 
 
 Bucer. Disputatio de Fide (Explauatio Fam. in Psal. viii. 
 Geneva;, 1554). 
 
 Proinde fidem in Deum recte definiemus, si dicamus indubi- 
 tatam esse persuasionem, Deum esse, et omnium rerum authorem, 
 bonorumque fontem, ita et nostrum conditorem, servatoi'em, seter- 
 numque beatorem : sic fidem Christi certam persuasionem eum 
 nostrum esse redemptorem ac instauratorem. 
 
 Enarratio in Mathceum, cap. vii. v. 10. 
 
 Ex his jam abunde liquere existimo, quidnam sit virtus ista 
 vere divina, quse Hebrseis rDlfotf, Grseeis 7r«rns, Latinis per- 
 suasio, vulgo fides dicitur ; est enim constaus firmaque animi per 
 Spiritum Sanctum de Dei bouitatc atque promissis persuasio ; 
 qua is, ut verbis ejus certam fidem habet, ita et de ejus erga se 
 bonitate omnia sibi indubitato pollicetur, turn demerendo quoslibet 
 tarn ipsi gratificari quam referre hoc bonitatis studio iinpensis- 
 
 sime studet. 
 
 De Justification et Locis Evangelical Doctrinoz D'^utatt. 
 
 Ratisbonoj habitce. 
 
 Nos autem in articulo nostro [Art. 4, Conf. Aug.] loquimur 
 de ea fide de qua Apostolus et Dominus ipse in locis jam ad- 
 
 ductis Quse fides ut docemur, 2 Cor. i v., et aliis in locis, 
 
 utque ecclesia semper credidit, donum est et testimonium Spiiitus 
 Sancti, quod largitur et prsebet spiritui nostro, ut certum et m- 
 dubitatum prsebeamus assensum Evangclio et firmiter credamus
 
 " 
 
 Deam n nos filiorum loco pro] 
 
 Christum filium -man, ita irl hsesitatione invocemus earn 
 
 j, ; ,tr quae ab eo in nomine rilii sui peten 
 
 daturas est nol 
 
 (^1 ], from Buo r, for various 
 
 but chiefly because he Bometimes, as in the Strasburg 
 
 Confession and elsewhere, appears bo make confidence a result of 
 
 faith, and not a part of it; which, to any one that reads the fore- 
 
 mts of i'aitli by him, may appear strange, but cannot 
 
 appear very important.] 
 
 B i i ck Q] :;. De Gratia Dei, 1553. 
 
 Dico fidem esse certain veritatis cognitioneni atque adeo con- 
 stantem ac firmam fiduciam, et indnbitatum ex Spiritu Sanct » 
 is humanse assensuni verbo Dei, omnera veritatem creden- 
 dam, imprimis autem Dei promissiones, ac in his, ij)suin Chris- 
 tum, in qu amis plenitudo vita? et salutis, proponent!. 
 ' m.\ ix. Inst lib. 3, cap. 2, § 7. 
 
 Nunc justa fidei definitio nobis constabit, si dicamus, esse 
 divi. i'vm firmam certamque cognitioneni, qua) 
 
 gratuitas u to promissionis veritati fundata, per Spiritum 
 
 Sanctum e1 c entibus nostris et cordibus obsignatur. 
 
 Sessionis Cum:. Trid. Antidoton, in Can. 12. 
 Nbn placet venerandis patribus fid m justificantem esse fidu- 
 ciam, qua misericordiam Dei propter Christum peccata remit- 
 tent is. amplectimur. At placet Spiritui Sancto qui per os Pauli 
 sic loquitur nos gratis justificatos esse Dei gratia per redemp- 
 tioncm quae est in Christo, Arc. Rom. iii. 24. 
 
 Beza, as I mentioned above, dissents from this general -\iev 
 
 of the Reformers, but so, it will be seen, as to make a belief in 
 
 j of God, with a personal application of them, an 
 
 iiti.il part of justifying faith. — In Ephes. iii. 12. Ex hoc 
 
 autem Loco apparet manifesto, imrolO-qaLv, id est, fiduciam, % fide, 
 
 nempe turn a causa, differre : ac proinde a nonnullis per- 
 
 peram i ibstitui Fiducisa nomen, quamvis ista duo semper 
 
 cohsereant, quum de vera ilia fide agitur. Yule 2 Cor. iv. 16. — 
 
 II own definition of ji g faith is given in Rom. i. 17. 
 
 Fidem igitur de qua hie quaeritur, esse definimus firmam illam et 
 
 bantem animi -X-qpofpopiuv, id est, certiorationem qua ccrtus 
 
 apud se unusquisque fidelium non modo verum ac firmam 
 
 ■ rerbum Dei, ac prsesertim promissiones Dei de gratuita
 
 XOTE E. 
 
 per Christum reconciliatione : sed etiam istas per prsedicationem 
 et Sacramenta sibi oblataa credit ad se proprie ao peculiariter 
 pertinere : qua, inquam, illam promissionem vita) eeternse per 
 sanguinem Christi quibusvis credentibus acquisitse, sigillatim am 
 plectitur, ac sibi ipsi applicat. 
 
 I may be more sparing of quotations to establish the views of 
 the early English Keformers, because evidence of their principles 
 has been lately placed within the reach of every our, by a repub- 
 lication of their most important works, in the series of the " I tri 
 tish Reformers," just completed, by the Religious Tract Society. 
 I should be glad to believe that this timely and valuable pub- 
 lication was in the hands of all my readers: it is not too much to 
 hope, at least, that those who design themselves for the office of 
 Ministers of the Church of England will thankfully avail them- 
 selves of the opportunity which is thus afforded to all, of becom- 
 ing acquainted with the true principles of her immediate re- 
 formers and their predecessors*. Though it would plainly be 
 improper to multiply citations to the extent for which I had made 
 preparation, I cannot omit them altogether ; and I shall begin 
 with him of whom Fox speaks as that "true servant and martyr 
 of God, William Tyndall, who for his notable pains and travail 
 may well be called the Apostle of England, in this our latter age." 
 I have already prefixed to this Sermon his view of the nature 
 of faith, with the passage from Luther from which it seems taken. 
 I had noted other passages in his writings, which it might have 
 been useful to give, had they continued locked up in what must 
 have been rather a scarce book, the Works of Tyndall, Frith, 
 and Barnes, published by Fox, 1573. But I rejoice to find that 
 the most important parts of that very important collection form 
 one number of the series before-mentioned; and I willingly refer 
 my readers to that admirable volume, for a declaration of the 
 principles of the earliest maintainers of the truth in England, not 
 surpassed, in fervency, soundness, and plainness of speech, by 
 anything with which I am acquainted in the writings of their 
 most illustrious successors. "For albeit increasing of learning 
 of tongues and sciences, wyth quicknes of wit, in youth and 
 
 * I have retained what I said of this most useful publication, though 
 a still more important scries which has been sent out by the Pabkeb 
 Society since this volume was published lias superseded it fur not a few 
 readers, yet there will always be a great number to whom its moderate 
 extent and price will make it more suitable.
 
 XOTE E. 
 
 others, duth marvailously Bhut up, as is to be seene, to the sufc 
 nt rurnishyng of Christes church : yet so it happeneth, I can 
 
 toll how, the further I look backe into those former tymes 
 
 Ith, ami others lyke, more simplicitie, wyth true 
 
 I humble modestie, 1 see, wyth lesse corruption of atl'ec- 
 
 a in them. Ami yet wyth these dayes of ours I finde no 
 
 bull Such is tin- testimony of one, who was 
 
 himself largely endowed with the qualities which he commends, 
 
 and who wrote when such gifts were more common than they are 
 
 in V 75 of ours. I trust, however, that the causes, wkat- 
 
 ■ they be, which hare made such excellencies rare among us, 
 have not in the same measure disabled us from discerning and 
 admiring them. 
 
 Tyxdall. Prologues made iipon the Five Boohes of Moses. 
 • 
 
 Fayth is the belevying of God's promises, and a sure trust 
 in the goodnes and truth of God ; which fayth justified Abraham, 
 Gen. xv.. and was the mother of all his good workes. 
 
 A imto Mr. Mures ith fiooke. 
 
 Note now the order : 1st. God giveth me light to see the 
 goodnesse ami rightenusnesse of the law. and myne own sinne and 
 unrighteousnesse. Out of whiche knowledge spryngeth repent- 
 aunce. Now repentaunce teacheth me not that the law is good, 
 and I evill, but a light"' that the Spirit of God hath given me, 
 
 • Misprinted in the Society's edition, " but is a light," which plainly 
 misrepresents TyndaU's meaning. He intends to say. that we owe our 
 perception of the goodness of the Law and (if our own vileness, not to 
 itance, but to a light bestowed by the Spirit of God, distinct from 
 repentance, ami properly its cause. As I am upon the subject of mis- 
 takes. I may notice another in a note in the same volume, at p. 11^ of 
 Barm - - /. atis >f Justification. — B., in maintaining the tiutb sga'nsl 
 "the fies" by which it was assailed, says, " Hut such a lie must St Paul 
 i- Buffer, when he had proved that faith only did justify. Then 
 came your overthwart fathers, and said, 'Therefore thou destroyest the 
 law."" &o. — Bere, by a Btrange inadvertence, a note is given, explaining 
 '•your overthwart fathers" by " the lathers of the church who contradict 
 yiiu." Whereas it manifestly means your perverse predecessors in this 
 work of gainsaying, and misrepresenting the truth ; the cavillers of 8t 
 Paul's day-, whom Barnes Btyles the fathers of the cavillers of his own 
 days. Soon after these Sermons first appeared, I received a letter 
 from a gentleman who had a large share. I believe, in the publication 
 red to, informing me that the mistakes that I had noticed were to 
 be corrected by cancelling the pages in which they occurred. 1 presume 
 that thifl has been done, but J have never had an' opportunity of seeing 
 a copy of tin- volume so corrccb i
 
 XOTE E. 299 
 
 out of which light repentaunce spryngeth. Then the sanif Spirit 
 woorketh in myne harte trust and coiiiiilcnci; to brieve the meroy 
 of God, and his truth, that he will do as hee hath promised, \\ lii.li 
 beleffe saveth me. And immediately out of that trust spryngeth 
 love toward the law of God agayne. 
 
 Cranmer. Catechismus, 1548. 
 
 This [the Apostles' Creed] is the summe of our Christian faith, 
 wherein God hath shewed unto us what he is, and how <zreat 
 benefites he hath gyven, and daily doth gyve, unto us, to the in- 
 tent that we should cast the anchore of our faith upon him, and 
 take sure hold of his mercie and goodnes, and comfort ourselves 
 with the same both in our life time, and also at our death. Gen. 
 Preface to the Crede. 
 
 Where note, good children, that this word (I beleve) signi- 
 fieth as much, in this place, as I trust : so that this sentence, — 
 I believe in God the Father, is as muche to saye as I trust in 
 God the Father, and loke assuredly to receave all good thinges at 
 
 his hande Therefore we ought to put our trust 
 
 in God only, sticke fast to him, hang upon him, and to loke for 
 all good thinges at his hande And this is the fa- 
 therly love which he bereth towarde us, to do all goodnes towarde 
 us, without oure merites or deservinges. Wherefore we ought 
 to trust in him, yelde ourselves holly into his protection, to loke 
 for all good thynges at his handes, and with a mery harte and 
 constant faythe to cleave to his goodnes in all thynges. — First 
 Sermon. 
 
 Therefore, when we beleve in Christ, and stedfastly clevyng 
 to the worde of God, suerly perswade ourselves in oure hartes 
 that we be thus redeemed by Christ, then God is no more angry 
 or displeased with us for our synnes, but freely and mercifully 
 he forgyveth us all our offences for the death and passion of his 
 
 Son Wherefore, good children, beleve ye with all 
 
 your harte in thys Jesus Christ, the onlye Sonne of God, oure 
 Lord, and doubte not but that he hath suffered for our synnes 
 and contented the justice of his Father for the same, and hath 
 brought us again into his favour, and made us his wel beloved 
 children and heyres of hys kingdome. — Second Sermon. 
 
 [I quote from the reprint of this Ed., Oxford, 1829; having 
 never seen the original. As the object for which I make the 
 quotations is to show the leading notion attached to faith by
 
 TE E. 
 
 Cranmer at tl, . the 1 k would equally serve my pur] 
 
 whether it '• lieved to have ttually translated by him- 
 
 Belf from the Latin of Jonas, or by bis orders, and under his 
 
 ;! . 1 , ,:i id adding, however, that I consider the 
 
 ins put forward by Dr Burton (in bis preface to this reprint^ 
 
 for disbelieving this translation to have been executed by 
 
 archbishop himself, in the highes unsatisfactory. They 
 
 amount, bo far as I can collect them, to the following: — 
 
 that Gardiner, in attacking this catechism, speaks of it as set forth 
 
 • set forth in the archbiahoppe of Canterburies 
 name, as translate into English vn this auctor's name, and bo forth: 
 that lie says, that one in comm m would have made him 
 
 diner] that this translation had been his [Cranm< 
 
 /• and not hi*. And, what is more important, that 
 Rowland Taylor in his examination, when asked by Mayster 
 bary Bournes, whether he would stick to the religion set forth 
 lechisme by my Lord of Canterbury, answers: "My Lord 
 of Canterbury made a catechisme to be translated into English, 
 which booke was not of his ozone making; yet he set it foorth in 
 his own name, and, truly, that, booke, for the time, did much 
 good." 
 
 These seem the entire grounds upon which Dr Burton pro- 
 nounces that "Upon the whole, it seems evident that Cranmer 
 was not himself the translator, though the work may have been 
 'overseen and corrected' by him." I hardly think, however, that 
 this will be regarded as evident, when it is stated on the opposite 
 side: — that Cranmer, as Gardiner mentions, confessed the transla- 
 ■' caii chisme ; — that, in his Answer to Gardiner, he speaks 
 of it repeatedly as my catechisme : as "a catechisme by me trans- 
 lated and set forth ; : as " the catechisme of Germany by me trans- 
 lated into English:" — and that, when Gardiner founds an argu- 
 ment upon a print in the Latin, which did not appear in the 
 iah, Cranmer complains of this unfairness, that "would gather 
 my mynd, and make an argument lure of a picture neyther put 
 in my booke nor by me devised, but invented by some fond paynter 
 or carver, which paynt ami grave whatsoever theyr idle heades 
 can tansy. Y"u should rather have gathered your argument upon 
 the other side; that I mislike the matter, because I left ovJ of 
 my booke the picture that was in the original before. And I 
 mervayle you be not ashamed to alleadge so vayne a matter
 
 NOTE /:. so] 
 
 against me, which indede is not in my bool-r, and if it were, yet 
 were it nothing to the purpose. And in thai catechisme / teach 
 not,"&c. And in his answer to Smith's confutation of his defence. 
 "But this I confesse of myself, bhat not Long before Ttorotthia 
 sayd catechisme." And finally, that in h oination at Oxford, 
 
 1550, when Martin asks, "Did you not translate Justus Jonas 
 booke?" he replied, "I did so*." 
 
 Now, after all, Cranmer may not have been the translator 
 of this catechism; but I certainly greatly misconceive the state of 
 the case, if it do not establish that he was, by as strong direct 
 proof as such a point admits of. The only evidence of any weight 
 on the opposite side is Taylor's, which may therefore deserve 
 to be looked at a little more closely. The words that the book 
 was not of his oivn making, may very easily be understood to 
 mean only that Cranmer was not the author of it. But when he 
 says that he made it to be translated into English, 'it is most 
 natural to understand him as meaning that Cranmer was not him- 
 self the translator of it. Indeed it would be very hard to assign 
 any other meaning to these words, if we were at liberty to sup- 
 pose that the fact, that the eatechism was a translation, was 
 generally understood. But this does not appear to have been the 
 case : the title-page seemed to present it as an original work 
 of Cranmer'st, and Mr Secretary Bournes speaks of it as a cate- 
 
 * This express admission re-appears in this form in the Notary's 
 Report of the Interrogatories. Answer to Inter. 7 : — " Whereunto, 
 when the names of the books were repeated unto him, he denied Dot 
 such books which he was the author of. As touching the treatise of 
 Peter Martyr upon the Sacrament, he denied that he ever saw it before 
 it was abroad, yet did approve and well like of the same. As for the 
 Catechisme, the Booke of Articles, with the other booke again.it Win- 
 chester, he granted the same to be his doings.'' — Fox. 
 
 t The reader ought to be informed, or reminded, that the fact that 
 the Catechism was not an original work, was one not to be collected 
 from the book itself. No intimation that it was a translation was given 
 cither in the title-page, or in the body of the work; or even in the pre- 
 fatory dedication to King Edward, in which Cranmer speaks of the 
 nature and design of the lytle treatyse and the motives that led to his 
 undertaking it, in a way which does not suggest that he was only the 
 translator of it, but which, I cannot help adding, seems wholly irrecon- 
 cileable with the notion that he had not even that Bhare in it: K ] 
 kuowyng myself as a subiecte greatly bounden and much the more 
 by reason of my vocation) to set forward the same [the king's plans of 
 reformation, &c] am persuaded that thys my smal travayll in thya 
 behalfe taken shall not a lytic helpe the sooner to brynge to passe your 
 godly purpose."
 
 NOTE E. 
 
 ism by my lord . which is not the style in which a 
 
 translation by him would naturally be spoken of. Taylor, who 
 is only able to give it the qualified praise, thai it for the time did 
 
 much good, is anxious t> make it clear that Cranmer was not the 
 author of the book. And when a man is intent upon an object 
 this kiml lie often does not very carefully weigh the exact force 
 his lai _ being chiefly solicitous to make it strong enouglu 
 
 B • that though it would be very dangerous and unjustifiable to 
 adopt it as a general rule of interpretation, yet in some cases it is 
 really Bafer to collect a man's meaning from the purpose that he 
 has in view, than from the words which he employs. If we insist 
 on taking Taylor's testimony literally, it stands in opposition to all 
 the proofs which we have been looking at, all of which, as we have 
 it this way. J5ut there is no difficulty in bringing it 
 into harmony with all of them, or at least of taking away all 
 opposition to them, if we interpret it on the principle just sug- 
 i. and suppose that in his anxiety to disconnect the Arch- 
 bishop from the work he said somewhat more than he intended, 
 ami that all that lie really meant was that he (Crannier) was not the 
 author of the work, and that he was only concerned in (he transla- 
 tion, without meaning to deny that he was the translator, or to 
 assert anything on that particular point. This seems to me a 
 reasonable mode of dealing with his testimony. I must add, how- 
 •r, if it were otherwise, and if I were obliged to understand by 
 his words, that he meant to deny the Archbishop to be the trans- 
 lator of it, I should find it infinitely easier to suppose him mis- 
 taken, than to disbelieve Cranmers own reiterated admissions and 
 avowals of the fact, and, above all, his express assertion of it (just 
 cited) in answer to a direct question when on his examination 
 before the commissioners. 
 
 But, as I said, I am equally at liberty to use the citations 
 that I have made from the book, however this question about it 
 settled ; and, even if I were not, a single passage which I am 
 about to give from an undoubted work of Cranmers, would make 
 me independent of them. The passage is taken from a very 
 interesting MS. still preserved, in the library of C. C. College, 
 Cambridge. It is in Cranmer's hand, and must be regarded as 
 containing his deliberate and corrected opinions on the important 
 subjects on which it treats ; as it is a detailed revision of The 
 Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man, commonly called ■ The
 
 XOTE i- 303 
 
 King's Book.' Parts of this IMS. were published by Strype in bis 
 Appendix to 'Memorials of Cranmer;' and the mosl important 
 parts are given in the Tract Society's publication before refei 
 to. The entire is to be found in Richmond's 'Fathers of the 
 English Church.' It seems to afford an easy ua\ of determining 
 some questions that have been raised, with respect to the ahare of 
 Cranmer in the doctrinal part of the King's Book ; or, at least, of 
 
 settling — what is the point of real importance in that discussion 
 
 the views finally held by him upon the doctrine of Justification.] 
 
 MS. Notes upon the King's Book. 
 
 87. Having assured hope and confidence in Christ's mercy, 
 willing to enter into the perfect faith. 
 
 He that hath assured hope and confidence in Christ's mercy 
 hath already entered into a perfect faith, and not only hath a will 
 to enter into it. For perfect faith is nothing else but assured 
 hope and confidence in Christ's mercy : and after it followeth, 
 That he shall enter into perfect faith by undoubted trust in God. in 
 his words and j^'omises which also be both one thing : for these 
 three be all one, perfect faith, — assured hope and confidence in 
 Christ's mercy, — and, undoubted trust in God, in his toords and 
 promises. 
 
 Becon". The Demands of Holy Scripture. [Tract Society's Ed.] 
 
 What is faith ? It is a full and perfect confidence and trust in 
 God through Christ, engendered in our hearts by hearing the 
 word of God ; and as Paul defines faith, — Faith is a sure confi- 
 dence of things which we look for, and the certainty of promises. 
 Rom. x.; Heb. xi. 
 
 Hooper. An Hundred Articles according To the Order of the 
 Apostles' Creed. [Tract Society's Ed.] 
 
 Art. XC. I believe that this justifying faith is a mere and 
 singular gift of God, which is commonly given by the hearing of 
 God's Word; whereupon alone it is built, and not upon the doc- 
 trines and traditions of men. I call a justifying faith, a certain 
 assurance and earnest persuasion of the good will, love, grace, 
 bounteousness, and mercy of God towards us, whereby we are 
 assured, and verily persuaded in our hearts, of the mercy, favour, 
 and good will of God the Father; that he is on our aide, and for 
 us, against all that are against us; and that he will be a merciful 
 Father unto us, pardoning our sins; and will give us his grace, 
 make us his children by adoption, and admit us for heirs unto
 
 NOTE F. 
 
 oal lifej and all this freely in his Son. and by his only Son, 
 i. >rd, and aot for our merits or good works — 
 
 It would be v< ry easy to add to these pas i ges many such I 
 timonies, both from the same writers ami others. But I should 
 
 hope that a fair consideration of those given will show them to 1"' 
 abundantly sufficient to establish the point which they are in- 
 tended to establish j namely, that the meaning of faith — of\/ 
 
 ith — which the Continental and British Reformers held 
 and maintained agrees with that i d to the term in the 
 
 aon: that they held it to be trust in Christ, or in God through 
 Christ, grounded upon a belief of God's testimony in His Word 
 concerning Christ, and wrought by His Spirit in the hearts of 
 those whom that Spirit had convinced of sin, of danger, and of 
 helplessness; and, through such convictions, had brought to take 
 refuge in Him, in whom sinners find innocence, security, and 
 st length. 
 
 Note F. Page 30. 
 Upon the Difference between Faith and Ilope. 
 
 The Reformers were often pressed by their opponents with the 
 difficulty: — Scripture plainly distinguishes faith and hope, but 
 your account of tlie former confounds them. Luther treats this 
 point as a very serious one; and gives a regular answer to it. His 
 mode of introducing the subject is highly characteristic (Ep. ad 
 GaL eap. v.): "Hie quaestio oritur, quid hit rsit inter Fidem et 
 Spem I Hac in re valde sudaverunl sophistse, sed nil certi osten- 
 dere potuerunt. Nobis, qui tamen diligentissime versamur in 
 sacris Literis, et longe majori (absit verbi invidia) Bpiritu et intelli- 
 gentia illas tractamus, ditlicile est aliquod discrimen invenire. 
 Tantam enim cognationem inter se habent fides et spes, ut hsec ab 
 ilia divelli aon possit." He attempts, however, to show that they 
 differ in five i 1 . in subjectoj 2. in officio; 3. in objecto; 
 
 •1. in ordinej 5. a contrariisj but his answer, though it is so elabo- 
 em to deserve to be quoted at length. Melancthon
 
 NOTE F. 
 
 touches upon the subject with more effect in his Examen ">ni„> 
 ijiii audiuntu/r ante ritv/m publicce ordinationis WittebergcB t L554 : 
 
 "Et est [fides] fiducia acquiescens in Deo propter mediatorem, 
 accedens ad Deum et acceudeus invocationem, el clamans A.bba 
 Pater. Et quia tides in prcesentia accipit remissionem peccatorum 
 et reconciliationem, est fducia prcesentis beneficii: Bed spes est certa 
 eapectatio." The same view of the difference is more fully stated 
 in Davenant's Determinationes Qusestionum, Qucest. 37, Fides justi- 
 jiaius est fiducia in Christo Mediatore ; in the course <>i' which he 
 explains that faith is not confounded with hope in the Protestant 
 doctrine, but distinguished from it in this: — That faith dues not 
 tend to its object as a future, but as a present good. It conceives 
 and apprehends the Mediator, as now present to the sinner, and 
 reconciling him to God the Father. It cleaves to the truth of the 
 Gospel promises, not as an expectant, but a possessor, according to 
 the word of the Saviour, " He that believeth on the Sun hath 
 everlasting life." 
 
 The most important distinction between these states of mind 
 is certainly given in these answers of Melancthon and Davenant, 
 which are substantially the same. But they seem to require some 
 explanation, lest it should be supposed that the agreement of the 
 two states of mind is overlooked or denied. He who simply hopes 
 for a fulfilment of Gospel promises (of which assuredly a most im- 
 portant part is happiness in a futui'e life) is not more an expec- 
 tant, or less a possessor, with respect to this part of the promises, 
 than he who trusts in Christ for the fulfilment of them. They 
 both have the present enjoyment which such hope is fitted to sup- 
 ply, and both have equally to wait for the pei-fect fruition of it. 
 But the difference between the two states of mind is intelligible 
 and important, though they have so much in common. Th&t faith 
 includes feelings, with respect to the Being whose sufferings 
 secured the benefits of redemption to us, and to the Being whose 
 mercy will bestow them, which do not enter into a mere hope of 
 the blessings themselves, is, as I have remarked, p. 14, immediate- 
 ly apparent from the true account of the nature of faith. And 
 here, what the Bishop says, of faith conceiving and apprehending 
 the Mediatory &c, and what Melancthon says of the present 6< neft 
 which is its object, must be felt to be well grounded and most im- 
 portant. So that it may be seen — and it seems to be a sufficient 
 answer to the difficulty, though, perhaps, not a perfect account of 
 
 20
 
 XOTE G. 
 
 the whole difference — that faith has objects which hope has not; 
 and that though ,/aiiA in Christ cannot exist without some degree 
 of hope, it does not depend for its life and energy upon the same 
 ind may be strong and cordial, while our hopes are not 
 p iwerfully raised, for want of the distinct knowledge which is 
 their liveliness; and, moreover, that the liveliest hopes 
 may e isl without anj such faith. 
 
 But it may be Baid, though this distinction is well founded in 
 the abstract, what application can it have to the particular case 
 for which it is intended 1 ! For, assuredly, the hope of which the 
 Scriptures -peak is that, ami that only, which Believers in the Lord 
 1 answer, that the distinction holds not Less in the particular 
 than in the abstract. For, though the Believer entertains no 
 hopes which are not founded on the Redeemer's work, this does 
 not hinder that, at certain seasons, the objects of his hopes may 
 be present to his mind, apart from their true foundation. He 
 may form vivid pictures of future happiness, may indulge ardent 
 Sfings tor it, and enjoy a lively expectation of it, without ad- 
 verting, at the moment, to what forms the sole foundation of such 
 hopes. Nor does he, by so doing, cease to be a Believer, but he 
 is not at the time exercising faith. On the other hand, he may, 
 while he meditates upon joys in store for him, think even more of 
 Him to whom he owes them, and think of Him in assurance that 
 through Him he shall obtain them : he is, in the former state, 
 hoping j in the latter, confiding — exercising faith in the God of 
 hope, and in Christ, who is our hope. 
 
 Note G. Page 30. 
 
 Upon Desire, as an Element of Faith. 
 
 The importance of insisting upon a desire of the blessings of 
 salvation, as an essential part of faith, was felt by Melancthon, 
 when he writes, in the AjnAogy, " Et ne quis suspicetur tantum 
 &dem], addimus amplius, est velle et accipere obla- 
 tam promissionem." And the peculiar necessity, hence arising, 
 i ir divine inllii. , produce fait]], is very well explained in an 
 
 anonym( '.'/"" '!"■ Exterti of Human cmd Divine Agency in 
 
 wmg Faith. Edinburgh, 1828.
 
 NOTE II. 307 
 
 Note H. Page 32. 
 An Objection obviated. 
 
 Some persons will be ready to think that all this may be 
 retorted; and that it may as reasonably be said — Thai faith in its 
 full meaning includes Christian obedience, but that the term is 
 sometimes, according to these principles, used for a part of it, 
 entire signification, to express trust; and that sometimes, perhaps, 
 (rust may be used for it, reversing the synecdoche; and that really 
 the appearance of conclusiveness, in the arguments of those who 
 hold it to mean trust, arises from their error being in defect: and 
 so forth. It is very likely that all this may be said; but there 
 are important and decisive differences in the two cases, which will 
 show that, however specious the objection may be, it is altogether 
 unsound. In the first place, it is not true that faith, either in its 
 common or its Scriptural sense, includes obedience, and it is true 
 that it does include trust. Both these points, I think, I have 
 established in the investigation of its meaning, in Sermon I. and 
 Note B. And this, surely, must be felt to be an important dis- 
 tinction between the cases. But, secondly, though faith does not 
 include obedience in its proper meaning, yet, as obedience is a 
 result of the principle, and is so described in the Bible, I readily 
 grant that faith might be employed, according to a very common 
 use of language, to express both the principle and its effects. But 
 that it is not so used in the Scripture statements of the doctrine 
 of Justification (and this is the only point at issue) is, I think, 
 fully proved, when it is shown, as it is hereafter, that this obedi- 
 ence follows after justification; that it is only rendered by those 
 whom faith has actually justified; that, before we believe, we can- 
 not do anything well pleasing in God's sight, or render to Him 
 any obedience; that, when we believe, we are justified; and that 
 then, and not till then, does faith bring forth its fruits of love and 
 obedience. And this, I hope, is enough to show that, though 
 what is said in the Sermon may seem to furnish an opportunity 
 for a retort, it is really not exposed to one. 
 
 20—2
 
 NOTE I. 
 
 \,.ii: I. Paob 33. 
 On Eph. ii. 8. 
 
 Am mg the texts to which I have here referred, in proof of the 
 ion that faith is tic gift of God, is Eph. ii. 8. The inter- 
 pretation «>f the text which makes it pertinent to the point is the 
 ancient one; but as it has been disputed by many modern com- 
 mentators, from Calvin down, I ought to give my reasons for 
 adhering to the earlier authorities. The 8th and 9th verses are: 
 Tn yap yapni tort o~£o~u)o~p.evoi Sid Trj<; 7riOTeu>s, kgu tovto ovk c£ 
 t'/xioj', 0cov to SoZpov ovk i£ €pyu)v Tva p.r) Ti9 Kav^rjcrrrrai. Dean 
 Alford'a Note gives the chief authorities on both sides, together 
 with his own reasons for preferring the more modern interpreta- 
 tion: — "And this (not your faith, as Chrys. ov8e rj tticttk, <pi]alv, 
 e^vpiov: so Thdrt., al. Corn.-a-lap., Beza, Est., Grot., Beng., all.; — 
 this is precluded [not by the gender of tovto but] by the manifestly 
 parallel clauses ovk i$ vp.<Zv and ovk i£ Zpywv, of which the latter 
 would be irrelevant as asserted of 7rioTis, and the reference of 
 ver. 9 must therefore be changed: — but, as Calv., Calov., Ruck., 
 Hail., Olsh., Mey., De W., Stier, al., 'your salvation.')" — See, to 
 the same effect, Ellicott in loc. 
 
 The objection to the ancient interpretation, which is here 
 stated, seems to be a very serious one ; but I do not think that it 
 Lb conclusive. Griesbach and Scholz put the words, koI tovto ovk 
 i$ v/iwi', Qeov to 8<Zpov ovk ££ Zpyinv, in a parenthesis. I collect 
 from Alford that Lachmann, Harless, aud De Wette parenthesize 
 only the words, Qeov to hwpov. I would propose to take an inter- 
 mediate course, and regard the words ko.1 tovto ovk i£ vpaZv, ©cov 
 to Bwpov, as parenthetical. And then ovk i£ tpyuyv will be con- 
 ed with o-eo-a)o-/u.eVot Sia t?;s 7rtcrT€ajs, without any irrelevance *. 
 
 * After this Note was written I saw that, though Beza's text is 
 printed so as to give no intimation of any such construction, his transla- 
 tion exhibits the parenthesis proposed above. But he would interpret 
 *ai tovto, so as to combine both references, — to the word jrfort?, and to 
 the Diet stated, that we are saved by it. His note is: — " Et hoc, ko.1 
 tovto, id est, et hsec fides, itidemque quod fidei interventu Bervamini: 
 ne quia fide dob at qualitate justifican arbitretur. Est autem totum 
 hoc membrum parentnesi includendum." I should think that this two- 
 fold reference would be almost universally rejected as wholly inad- 
 missible.
 
 NOTE I. 
 
 This would remove the only serious objection to understanding 
 Kai tovto to refer to 1175 7riorea)s, and there seems to be this decisive! 
 reason for so uudei'standing it, that the phrase k<u toCto will then 
 be used with strict propriety, which it does not seem to be, If H be 
 understood to mean "your salvation." The meaning of the words 
 no! tovto (or /cat TavTa) is simply and that, or and this. But their 
 proper office (when they refer elliptically * to what has gone before) 
 seems to be to introduce and draw attention to some addition to 
 what has been said, — something which adds to its force, — some- 
 thing which was from the first before the mind of the writer, but 
 which he feels that he has not presented to his readers, or al leasl 
 has not so presented that it is not liable or likely to be overlooked 
 if attention be not directly drawn to it. Examples of its use in 
 classical authors may be found in Viger (Hoogeveen's notes), 
 Buttman, Matthire, and Kiihner. I need only add here a few from 
 the New Testament. Thus in 1 Cor. vi. G, kgu tovto iirl aTrio-TOiv, 
 the phrase introduces the aggravation of the offence of brethren in 
 the faith going to law at all, viz., that the judges before whom 
 they appear are unbelievers. So too, just after, verse 8, aAAa 
 u'juei; aSiKetre kcu d7rooTepetTe, kcli tovto (Bee. kcu. ravra) dSeXcfjovs. 
 In the preceding verse, he had said that they were to blame in 
 going to law at all ; that they ought rather to allow themselves to 
 be wronged and defrauded. But he adds that, so far were they 
 from bearing patiently wrong and fraud in the spirit of Christ's 
 followers, that they actually inflicted both, and that (increasing 
 the aggravation) upon their brethren. Again, Bhil. i. 2S, ko.1 
 tovto awo ®eov, it seems to introduce an enhancement of the value 
 and importance of the sign (or, as some think, of the thing signi- 
 fied, or, as others, of both), viz. that it is from God. And, Heb. 
 xi. 12, ko.1 TavTa veveKpw/xevov, where the fact plainly adds to the 
 wonder of the original statement. 
 
 Now, in the case under consideration, ko.1 tovto is used in the 
 customary and proper way, if we interpret this text with the 
 ancient fathers. But it seems hard to account for the use of it, 
 when the modern interpretation is adopted. In the former part of 
 the verse, the Ephesians were told that they were saved by grace, 
 
 * In Hoogeveen's note on Viger de Tdiotismis, ed. Herman, i>. 1 
 (referred to lower down in this Note,) there is an example from Demo- 
 sthenes (pro Phorm. p. 605) in which the ellipsis is supplied, but in 
 general the reference as stated above is elliptical.
 
 S10 NOTE I. 
 
 through faith (Le. that this was the way in which sinners were 
 Bared under the Gospel). Bui no addition seems to be made to 
 this information, nor any ner strength or emphasis given to the 
 
 tement, if it be said thai tlieir salvation teas not of themselves. 
 B imething additional, however, and important too, is told them 
 when they are informed, that this faith by which they are saved is 
 not of tin not an acquisition of their own, nor the spon- 
 
 tai growth of their own minds — tlmt it is the gift of God. If 
 
 salvation be 6y grace, it cannot be of ourselves; but though it be 
 by yet the instrument employed — faith — might bean acqui- 
 
 sition of our own* and the grace of the aet might consist entirely 
 in counting faith for righteousness. We receive, therefore, some 
 additional information in being told that that is not the case — 
 that this faith is not of ourselves — that it is the gift of God. The 
 _ ace of our salvation is evidently enhanced, when it appears not 
 only that God accepts as righteousness at our hands that which in- 
 de< I •' righteousness, but moreover that lie Himself graciously 
 giv.s us that which He thus graciously accepts. 
 
 I should be sorry to insist dogmatically on the ancient inter- 
 pretation as undoubtedly the right one. But it docs appear to me 
 a sufficient reason for abiding by it, that in it, the emphatic phrase 
 kglI touto discharges its proper office, which it cannot be thought 
 to do when the modern interpretation is adopted; I mean that 
 this is a sufficient reason for holding by the former interpretation, 
 when the objection to it which Dean A 1 ford puts forward is satis- 
 factorily disposed of, as I think it is by the proposed parenthesis. 
 Tin- verses will then stand thus: Trj yap )(apuri «re o-eawafievoi Sid 
 Trjs 7riaT€ojs (kcu touto ovk i£ v/jluJv, ®eov to Bwpov), ovk i£ epycov, <Va 
 firj tis Kav^ija-rjTai. Aud I should hope that my readers will see 
 that, when the passage is thus pointed, the ancient interpretation 
 i- entirely relieved from the only serious objection that, so far as I 
 know, hi . been urged against it. 
 
 Imbed Chrysostom, who maintains very distinctly the gratuitous 
 
 nature of our salvi es very far to a very heterodox length, as it 
 
 in representing faith as qf ourselves. To /xfr wapa rrjv dpxv" 
 
 ■Kiurtvaai rijs ■tyuer^pas e{ryvufuxrfor)s iarl, ko.1 t6 vwaKovcrai ^TjO^vras- /xtra 8t 
 "?]vai tt)v ttIutw, tt)s tov Tri>eO/j.a.Tos 5e6p.e0a poijOeias, tSffre fxtvav 
 SitjveKUt AaeiffTou ical airepLTpeirTov. Hoiu. liv. t. V. p. 371 t^Eton, 1612), 
 -nicer, sub voc. irlons.
 
 NOTE J. 311 
 
 Note J. Pack 44. 
 
 The Repentance essential to Faith. 
 
 The Reformers taught that faith was only wrought in a mind 
 which the Spirit of God had alarmed and humbled, hud softened 
 and subdued to receive it. But they discouraged, wisely, a curiam 
 scrutiny into the quality and amount of the ('.motions of remorse, 
 and sorrow, and fear, which preceded the consolations of the Gos- 
 pel : well knowing how fitted such inquiries were to delay and 
 impede such consolation, and to mislead as to its proper source. 
 I have prefixed, to this second Sermon, a passage expressing their 
 views upon this subject, which are given elsewhere with great 
 clearness. For example, in the second Augsburg Confession, 
 Art. iv. : " Cum Evangelium arguit peccata nostra, corda per- 
 terrefacta statuere debent, quod gratis nobis propter Christum 
 donentur remissio peccatorum et justificatio per fidem. Quan- 
 quam igitur Evangelium requirit pcenitentiam, tamen ut remissio 
 peccatorum certa sit, docet earn gratis donari. . . . fieret enim 
 incerta remissio, si ita sentienclum esset, turn demum contingere 
 remissionem peccatorum postquam earn prascedentibus operibus 
 meriti essemus, aut satis digna esset pcenitentia." And, again, 
 iu the Art. De Fide: " Quanquam igitur contritio aliqua sen, 
 pcenitentia necessaria est, tamen sentiendum est donari nobis re- 
 missionem peccatorum et fieri nos ex injustis justos, id est recon- 
 ciliatos seu acceptos et filios Dei, gratis, propter Christum, non 
 propter dignitatem contritionis, aut aliorum operum prsecedentium 
 aut sequentium. Sed fide hoc beneficium accipiendum est," &c. 
 Aud in the Saxon Confession, Art. xvi. De Pcenitentia: " Et 
 dicimus partem pcenitentia? seu conversionis primam esse con- 
 tritionem, quae est vere expavescere agnitione irse Dei adversus 
 peccata et dolere quod Deum offenderis : et dicimus in his qui 
 convertuntur aliquos tales veros pavores et dolores esse oportere, 
 nee agei-e pcenitentiam eos qui manent securi et sine dolore. . . . 
 Hie auteni taxamus adversaries, qui fingunt contritionem mereri 
 remissionem peccatorum, et oportere contritionem sufficientem esse. 
 In utroque en-ore magna? tenebrse sunt. Nam remissio datur 
 propter Mediatorem, gratis. Et qua? potest esse contritio sufficiena I
 
 312 NOTE J. 
 
 [mo quo mag it dolor sine fiducia misericordise eo magis 
 
 ,i fogiunt Deum," i 
 Aa the point is one of much importance, I must add another 
 
 markable quotation. The Articles from the University of Lou- 
 vain. 1 544, declaring tin- Romish doctrine, drew a bitter reply 
 from Luther, which was weakened, however, by unbecoming levity. 
 A work by Melancthon [1546], in a different tone, winch refers 
 to those Articles, supplies the following valuable evidence of the 
 principles of the Reformers upon this question: "De contritione 
 D.oa quoque docemus omnino oportere <i/t</nr>n/, in lis qui con" 
 
 /,/,,/,/,-. contritionem existere; quia Deus damnat camalera se- 
 curitatem, et vult aliquo niodo agnosci iram suam adversus 
 peccatum. [deo Paulus sic orditur suam concionem, Revo- 
 laiur ira I' <'. &c Et contritio est vere expavescere agnitione 
 ii;e Dei adversus peccata, et dolere propter Deum, et Filium 
 ejus Dom. nostrum J. Christum. Sit verus dolor et pavor, nee 
 disputetur an sit siij/iciens, quia nostra contritio non meretur 
 reinissionem, et si ci'esceret pro magnitudine peccatorum extin- 
 
 guerentur homines Sit igitwr contritio, sed accedat fides, 
 
 qua unusquisque vere credat et statual aibi ipsi remitti peccata 
 gratis propter Filium Dei, non propter propria ulla merita. Hue 
 fide consequitur homo remissionem peccatorum certo, et rursus 
 erigitur cor, et vivificatur, id est, mitigantur pavores, et concipitur 
 Bpiritus Sanctus, et nova vita et loetitia ut Rom. v. dicitur, Justi- 
 ficati fide pacem habem/us." — J)lsp. de tofa Ecnng. Doct. 
 
 .More cannot l>e needed to show the views entertained by the 
 
 ply Reformers of the right use of this doctrine of repentance, 
 and their apprehensions of the abuse of it; that they held that 
 its use was to lead the sinner to the consolations of the Gospel ; 
 and that they feared that it might be abused, to drive him from 
 them into despair; to keep him in affliction and alarm notwith- 
 standing them; or to direct him to other and self-righteous con- 
 solations for relief. What just grounds for such apprehensions 
 the Romish doctrine of Repentance furnished cannot be unknown 
 to my readers ; but to many of them, I should suppose, there will 
 be something new in the specimen of Protestant divinity which 
 I am aboul to subjoin. Bishop Bull, having proved that Repent- 
 "'"■■ is no less required to Justification than Faith, proceeds 
 thus to Bettle what Repentance is: "Id porro notandum est, re- 
 Bipiscentiam non esse opus unicum, aut simplex, sed multorum
 
 XOTE J. 313 
 
 aliorum operum quasi complexionem. Suo eniiri ambitu compre- 
 hendit sequentia opera nee pauca neque ignobilia." Of th( 
 opera pcenitentice he enumerates eleven, making the last, " Opera 
 beneficentia? sive eleemosynas. Qua? quanta valeant ad remis- 
 sionem peccatorum a Deo impetrandam, satis liquet <\ celebri 
 loco Dan. iv. 27. [24.] Ubi sanctna Propheta RegJ Nebuekad- 
 nezzari adhuc in peccatis haerenti hoc consilium suggeril : Peccata 
 tua eleemosyuis redime*, et iniquitates tuas misericord 'tis pan- 
 
 perum Yides quam late se difiundant poenitentise opi 
 
 vides ea omnia- ad veniam peccatorum consequendam a Spvritu 
 Sancto omnino necessaria statui." — Ear.Ap. Diss, prior. ' 'op. II. § 7. 
 
 This note is already too long ; but I cannot refrain from fur- 
 ther extending it, by appending to Bishop Bull's exposition of 
 his principles a striking and, on various grounds, most interesting 
 exhibition of their genuine effects. It will be easily conceived 
 that I must feel, at times, tempted to give examples of the views 
 that I maintain, and of those that I oppose, in actual operation. 
 But I certainly cannot be accused of yielding often to the tempta- 
 tion. I have, on the contrary, avoided carefully the introduction 
 of any matter of that kind hitherto, for reasons which, I dare 
 say, will readily occur to every one. But, I think, most readers 
 who have gone so far will not be displeased at the deviation from 
 my plan which makes them acquainted with the passage sub- 
 joined, or brings it back to their recollection. 
 
 It is from Bos well's account of a dinner with his illustrious 
 friend at Mr Dilly's in April, 1778. Croker's ' Boswell,' Vol. vn. 
 pp. 138, 139. 
 
 * How far the Bishop's strange theology has the appearance of any 
 support in this passage from Daniel, depends, of course, on the correct- 
 ness of this translation of PIS, which our translators render break <<ff. 
 That they are not without respectable support in thus translating the 
 word will be seen by referring to Poole's Synopsis, in which there is, as 
 usual, a fair account of the authorities on both sides. To those which 
 he gives in support of the translation break off, some additions are t< i 1 je 
 made, but the most important of these is Buxtorfs great name: see his 
 L .'icon Choi. Talm. et Bab. in roc. And then, though they will still 
 be outnumbered, I do not think that, considering the nature of the 
 question, thev will be outweighed, by the authorities on the opposite side. 
 For some of mv readers, the question must be settled by Midi a com- 
 parison; but I hope I shall have some who will be able and willing to 
 consider it upon its own merits. And being anxious to give such reai lers 
 such help as 1 can, I have set down some remarks upon the point at 
 issue; but they have run out to too great length to be added here, and 
 will be found at the end of this >"ote.
 
 314 NOTE J. 
 
 '• 1 expi a horror at the thought of death. 
 
 " M 1WLE8. — ' Nay, thou should'st not have a horror for 
 
 what i f life.' 
 
 "Johnson. (Standing upon the hearth, rolling about, with a 
 solemn, and somewhat gloomy air.) 'No rational man 
 .1 die wi limit uneasy apprehension.' 
 "Mra K. — 'The Scriptures tell us, The righteous shall ha 
 hope in his death.' 
 
 •••'. V s, Madam; that is, he -hall not have despair. But, 
 consider, the hope of salvation must be founded on the terms on 
 which it is promised that the mediation of our Savioub .shall be 
 applied to us, namely obedience, and when obedience has failed, 
 thru, as Buppletory to it, repentance. But, what man can say that 
 his obedience has been such as he would approve of in another, or 
 even in himself upon close examination: or that his repentance 
 has not been such as to require being repented of? No man can 
 be sine that his obedience and repentance will obtain salvation.' 
 
 Mrs K. — 'But divine intimation of acceptance may be made 
 to the soul' 
 
 "J- — 'Madam, it may: but I should not think the better of 
 a man who should tell me on his death-bed he was sure of salva- 
 tion. A man cannot be sure himself that he has divine intimation 
 of acceptance; much less can he make others sure that lie has it.' 
 
 "Boswell.— 'Then, Sir, we must be contented to acknowledge 
 that death is a terrible thins;.' 
 
 "J- — ' 5Tes, Sir, 1 have made no approaches to a state which 
 can loot on it as not terrible.'" 
 
 j '- •■ .1 justified r.v faith, ive have peace with God, is not more 
 certain than that, while we seek to be justified in any other way, 
 we shall want peace, unless we be given over to utter darkness 
 concerning God's nature and our own. "Our great moralist" was 
 never delivered over to this delusion; and, in consequence, while 
 ,l " -' •'■": to have entertained no doubts that this religious system 
 — which sent him first to Ids own obedience to obtain the applica- 
 tion of the SAVIOUK's mediation to himself, and then to repentance 
 mppletory to obedience — was really the Gospel of Chiust, 
 he never found, or professed to find, a ray of comfort in it, — 
 although ii is likely that his obedience was as exact as most men's, 
 when it came 10 reckoning up the opera pamitentice, he 
 could come aa near as most to the just Ude. But the mercy,
 
 NOTE J. 3ig 
 
 which was shown in keeping him ever alive to the utter inefficacy 
 of the Gospel which he professed, was, we have reason to belii 
 accomplished at the last in teaching him a better. And we may 
 hope that it was through the Spirit, the Comforter, thai be at- 
 tained that tranquillity in death which, in the progress of the 
 conversation from which I make the above extract, be treal 
 always the result of want of thought, or of the dogged resolution 
 with which men meet what they feel to be inevitable. In the 
 midst of much that is painful and perplexing in the closing scene 
 of his life, Boswell has preserved one comfortable testimony from 
 Dr Brocklesby (for whose freedom from fanaticism lie answi 
 which gives good ground for the hope that the God of hope gave to 
 this eminent man the peace, if not the Joy, in believing, which is 
 the portion of those who are reconciled to Him by faith in Mis 
 Son. "For some time before his death all his fears were calmed, 
 and absorbed by the prevalence of his faith and his trust in the 
 merits and propitiation of Jesus Chuist." 
 
 Continuation of Foot-note, p. 313. 
 
 Bishop Bull gives the following Note in vindication of the 
 Latin translation which he adopts: — " p*)% Chaldseum respondet 
 Hebneo PH-)- Vid. 2 Sam. iv. 9; Num. iii. 49, et xviii. 15. 
 Recte ergo Theodotion vertit, Xvrpwa-ai. Yide Grot, in locum." 
 
 This is merely an abridgment of the Note of Grotius, to which 
 he refers. " pl£5> Chaldseum respondet Hebraao PHS) quod hie in 
 interpretationem posuit Iacchiades. Apparet id, 2 Sam. iv. 9, 
 Esaine xxxv. 9, Num. iii. 49, xviii. 15, et alibi. Quare optime 
 vertit Theodotion, XvTpwaat redime." Grot, in loc. 
 
 What is stated in these accordant Notes is literally true; but 
 it does not warrant the inference drawn from it. And, on the 
 other hand, they agree in a curious suppression of a facl which is 
 very important to the question. 
 
 The Hebi-ew verb H13, which is sometimes rendered by the 
 
 T T 
 
 Chaldee p*l$, means primarily (see Gesenius in verb.) to loose {by 
 cutting, cognate with TlD, to cut, sever, separate); then, to redeem 
 by paying a price ; then, to let go or release that which is so re-
 
 NOTB J. 
 
 deemed; then to deliver (from slavery), to rescue (from (linger), 
 in none "l" these meanings can it be joined with sins, as redv- 
 
 ,1 even to redeem, may l>e: it only moans <o redeem in the 
 
 / and delivering that which was cop tu/n d. lost, for- 
 
 30 as to . restore, preserve, &c, it; and 
 
 not, at least so far as 1 know or believe, in the sense of atoning 
 
 or in any sense which would make it 
 applicable I Ajid, accordingly, though often used in refer- 
 
 to sinners, it is m>t, I believe, found anywhere applied to sin, 
 thai though it is true that p"!2 ChaZd. does sometimes corre- 
 spond to rn3 Seb. t and that this latter word does mean to redeem, 
 it Is Dot in any sense which would warrant this translation. It 
 ads for ?X5 and J^lTI!"!, but still only in the same sense. 
 And "123 (Pih. from *l33, to cover), which signifies properly to 
 at one for, to make atonement, is not translated by pIQ but by 
 *"|£3- The correspondence of the Chaldee verb p"lj3 with the 
 Hebrew H"12 does not. therefore, make as much for the trans- 
 
 T T 
 
 lation for which Grotius and Bull contend, as might at first sight 
 appear. But on the other hand H*l2 corresponds to the Hebrew 
 verb p""l£, of which undoubtedly a common meaning is to break, 
 to break off. And it seems strange that these learned men concur 
 in leaving this important fact unnoticed. A modern writer, who 
 upholds the translation for which they so emphatically declare, 
 deal> more boldly with the objection which this fact seems to offer 
 to it. In the Preface to Ayrillox's Guide for passing Lent, one 
 of a series of 'Devotional Works, edited and adapted to the iise 
 of the English Church, by the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D.,' what is 
 said to be undoubtedly a true and Catholic doctrine, found in all 
 antiquity, with reference to fasting, tears, ahusdeeds, &c, is 
 stated; and the text, Dan. iv. 27, is quoted as a part of the proof 
 that it is also the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures. The text is 
 thus translated: — '■'■Redeem thy sins by righteousness, and thine 
 iniquities by showing mercy to the poor;" and upon the word 
 have the following note: — "The same sense would 
 result from the Knglish Version 'break off,' but the versions agree 
 in the other rendering: our translators have given to the Chaldee 
 word the sense most frequent in the Hebrew, but which in the 
 Chaldet it is never hnoum to have." This absolute assertion, being
 
 NOTE J. 317 
 
 made by so high an authority as the Begins I'n.fessc.r of Sebrew 
 in the University of Oxford, is likely to have been received I 
 great many of his readers without any doubt of its correctness. It 
 is, however, strangely rash and ill founded. There can be DO 
 doubt that p^fc) is often used for Hebrew words which ignify to 
 redeem; but, as is above remarked in connexion with thai one of 
 them which is specified by Grotius and Bull, PH^, it is not in the 
 sense of to atone /or, to expiate, make satisfaction for, or any si 
 which applies to sins. And, on the other hand, it is used by the 
 Targumists, earlier and later, for the Hebrew verb p*!3, where 
 that verb signifies (as Dr Pusey admits it most frequently does) to 
 break, to break off, or something akin thereto. 
 
 Thus, Exod. xxxii. 2, E. V., "break off the golden earrings," 
 
 &c, isHeb. nntn *j&n tons and chai. xiiiT »Bhp tons. 
 
 t t - ■■ : • | : t t - : - : T | T . | • i 
 
 In the next verse, E. V., "And all the people brake off," &c. 
 
 DyrrSs ^pTfiT^ Heb.; NJgfl^J ^"W*'] ChaL And again, 
 
 verse 24, for ^DISHi! Heb. we have ^"13 Glial. And it is 
 
 I TT : - .1 -T 
 
 used for verbs of kindred senses, as VD^ (Pih. from Vpty of the 
 
 same meaning) to divide, or cut in two; "VTiri Hiph. (from IT 
 
 to descend), to take down, to lay down, applied to taking down the 
 
 Tabernacle, and laying down the parts of it which were carried l>y 
 
 the Levites [Geier {Pol. Syn.) thinks that this sense supplies a 
 
 suitable interpretation to the text under consideration] : for HT3 
 
 Niph. (from PIPIT D °t in use, to remove, to separate), to be removed, 
 or separated. And so too Jonathan, 1 Kings xix. 11, renders 
 p"i3/b Heb. Part. Pihel, breaking, rending, by rp"l5£ dial. Part. 
 Panel. [The difference in number between the participles arises from 
 the curious paraphrase adopted in the verse, where for a great and 
 strong wind rent, &c, we have an army of the angels of wind rent, 
 
 &c. psrjttp ann ^y&P WVfo- Aud so of tbe rcst ' an 
 
 army of angels of fire, &c] Examples, like those given above 
 from Onkelos, may be found in later Targumists also, of the use of 
 the Chaldee verb for some other Hebrew verbs, besides p*l3> ot 
 somewhat different but still kindred senses. But the case is too 
 clear to require further proof. I will only notice, as throwing 
 some additional light on the question, that the substantive TT\$ 
 Chal. not only has the same signification as the Heb. p"]5,
 
 /■/■: k. 
 
 v, t/f j t, or rather (for tliat is the 
 
 tion which the word presents » Really) wfo > ways 
 
 diverge, bu1 also other meanings, in which the Heb. noun is not 
 
 found, hut which agree in the same general conception of a point 
 
 which is the end of one thing and the beginning of another : as the 
 
 v and back, any joint of the hand or 
 And in Rabbinical writings it is further used for knots or 
 in plant dks; also a section, or chapter of a book, 
 
 and in Other meanings. See Buxtorftn cue. 
 
 Note K. Page 46. 
 On Prayer for Faith. 
 
 The error adverted to here is clearly and forcibly exposed in 
 }lr Carlile's 'Old Doctrine of Faith;' and the general question 
 glanced at — of the state of mind which prayer to God Bupp 
 and requires — is very well handled in the anonymous Essay on 
 
 b, already referred to, Note G. I do not recur to the question 
 with any intention of treating it at large. The decision in the 
 Sermon is enough for my immediate purpose; and T am persuaded 
 that it must be assented to by all who have followed, and who 
 adopt, the preceding account of the nature of Faith, and of the 
 mode of producing it in the mind. That account not only renders 
 it probable that the principle may often gradually develop itself 
 in the mind, under the teaching of God's Spirit; but it suggests, 
 ry probable stage of the progress of the change through 
 which faith is established in the heart, the one referred to in the 
 ion: in which a man sees, and even feels, the value and neces- 
 sity of faith in the Lord, and sees and feels that he possesses it but 
 imperfectly, if at all; that he is far, very far, from feeling that 
 dee]', cordial, and undoubting confidence in the Redeemer, which 
 he must pera wt is the prop r result of the truths that he believes 
 rning Him. And if this be admitted, nothing more can, I 
 suppose, I"- needed to show the presumption of discouraging one 
 who feels this want from applying to God to supply it; or the 
 inig to exhort him to do so. And with this 
 
 rmination of this particular question, which is all that my 
 be purpose required, I musl be for the present content.
 
 NOTE L. gig 
 
 Note L. Page 58. 
 
 Upon the Hebrew and Greek Verbs which mo. rendered by the w rb 
 1 to j ustify ' in our Vt rsion. 
 
 Whatever be the assistance that might l>e hoped from etvmo- 
 logy in determining the nature of Justification, the Etomai 
 must be acknowledged to have looked lor it rather perversely, 
 
 when they proceeded to deduce it from the c positi I' the 
 
 Latin verb justifico ! And it was certainly conceding too much 
 to their outrageous claims of authority for their translation, to 
 discuss the meaning of any word in the Vulgate, as if it could 
 decide a question concerning the meaning of the original term for 
 which it stands. But it seems to have been a rule with the early 
 Reformers — rather a bold than a wise one certainly — to take every 
 adversary upon his own ground. And they appear to have fol- 
 lowed that rule here; so far, that is, as to attempt to show that 
 the Romanists were wrong in the point which they endeavoured 
 to make, though I do not believe they were ever guilty of the 
 imprudence of admitting that, if they had succeeded in establish- 
 ing it, it could decide the real point at issue. 
 
 So far as etymology was concerned, the answer was a very 
 happy one. When the Romish writers confidently put forward 
 the composition of the word — -justum facere — as establishing the 
 sense to make just of the compound, it seemed a very sufficient 
 exposure of the value of the argument, to ask whether, when we 
 glorify God, or sanctify Him, as we are commanded, we really 
 make Him glorious, or holy ? Whether when Mary magnified the 
 Lord, she made Him great? &c. AJfelmanni Syntag. Eocercitatt. 
 part. i. p. 530. As to authority, however, the case was not so 
 clear. It is true that Chemnitz tells us that he challenged 
 Andradius to produce any instance, from an approved Latin 
 writer, of the use of justificare, in the sense of making justj and 
 that the challenge was never answered. Exam, Cone. Trid. de 
 Decreto 6to. Bellarmin, however, De Jwtificatione, Lib. ii cap. 
 iii. not unfairly replies, that, as the word was not used by classical 
 authors, his party could not be reasonably required to produce 
 any ancient authorities for the meaning which they assigned to it. 
 He confesses that they cannot. But in this he says fchev were in
 
 NOTE L. 
 
 • position than their opponents, who could just as little 
 
 ;mv instanoe of the use of the word in the sense for which 
 
 they contended. Bui he maintains thai it is otherwise with the 
 
 Fathers : " Latins enim linguae non imperiti, rerbum, justljicare, 
 
 hi. luurpanl pro eo quod est juslum fa* 
 
 This large assertion, with respect to the Fathers passim, he 
 
 in his way, by half-a-dozen quotations from Angustin*! 
 It appears to bave been a great mistake to answer such an 
 argument at all; for, even if there were uo hazard of being de- 
 feated upon it, and of having the value of the victory much mis- 
 understood, the contest served to divert attention from the points 
 of real importance. It must be confessed, however, that it waa 
 by no means eas] to bring the Romish controversialists to those 
 points. Tlu\ wt re in general but little inclined to engage in a 
 discussion of the original terms; nor is it very surprising, as they 
 must have felt themselves wry weak there. But Bellarmin, who 
 Beldom wants courage, expresses himself with the utmost confi- 
 dence on the meaning of the Hebrew verb: " Dico verbum 
 p7)i et |T"]¥!"1 proprie nihil esse aliud quam justum facere; sed 
 quia potest aliquis fieri Justus turn intrinsece per adeptionem 
 justithe, turn extrinsece per declarationem, inde eandem vocem ad 
 varia siguificanda traduci." Ibid. The buhl assertion with which 
 he sets out is so qualified, that it might be admitted without in- 
 volving auy very decisive consequences; but it certainly seems 
 
 " I do not mean to discuss this point, as I stated in the Preface. 
 But I may mention that any one who consults Suicer will see a proof 
 that the true meaning of Sinaiou was acknowledged and asserted by the 
 Greek Fathers. And I think it right to say that even with respect to 
 Augustin, it is clear, that while, as Hellannin asserts, he used the 
 word and interpreted it, when it occurs iu the Latin Scriptures, iu 
 the sense, to make righteous, he recognised to count or declare right- 
 . as a legitimate meaning; and that he was prepared so to interpret 
 the word when he could thereby obtain sounder doctrine. Thus one of 
 Bellarmin's quotations is: Quid aliud justificati quam justi factif 
 This is from the Lu\ r </-' Spiritu et Littt ra, cap. xxvi. § 45. Augustiu 
 u there proving that the Apostle's statement, /actor es legis justi/icabun- 
 tur, is not inconsistent with his doctrine, that a man is justified l>y 
 faim, without the deeds of the law a doctrine which Augustan, by the 
 way, often repeats and insists upon strenuously . because they could not 
 be doers of the law if they were not justified. But lest there should be 
 any doubt of the conclusiveness of his proof in this mode of explaining 
 justificari, he adds what Bellarmin does not quote : "Aut certe ita dic- 
 tum eetjustificabuntur, ac si diceretur justi habebuntur, justi deputa- 
 a : -ient dictum est de quodam, file autem volens sejustificare,id 
 it Justus baberetur et deputaretur."
 
 NOTE L. 32] 
 
 very insufficiently supported, when Bellarmin ia able, oul of all 
 the instances of the use of the verb in the Hebrew Scriptur< 
 bring forward but two (Is. liii. 11, and Dan. xii. 3) of what he 
 maintains to be its only proper signification. I do not think that 
 either of them is an instance of the sense of making just; and 
 I shall proceed to give some reasons for my opinion immediately. 
 But for the moment let it be supposed that they both are; and 
 I would ask, have we not at least a strong presumption thai this 
 is not the usual meaning, and therefore that it cannot be, in the 
 sense in which Bellarmin asserts it to be, the proper meaning of 
 the word, when none others are produced by a controversialist 
 who so well understood their value in the case? 
 
 But I think it only requires to look at the texts referred to, 
 to see that in neither of them does this important word so clear! ■/ 
 or certainly bear the meaning which Bellarmin contends for, that 
 they can be reasonably held to determine the sense of the word in 
 question. In Isaiah liii. 11, the Lord is described as justifying 
 many, by the knowledge of Himself ; which assuredly might be 
 equally said, whether the proper meaning of to justify be to make 
 righteous or to declare righteous. I have already said (Sermon III. 
 pp. 61, 62) that, receiving the latter as the proper sense of the 
 word, we ought to be prepared to find it sometimes used figura- 
 tively of certain acts which bear an analogy to this judicial act; 
 and, moreover, that even when justification proper is the thing 
 referred to, the word might be expected to be applied not merely 
 to the judge by whom the act is performed, but to any person 
 or thing whereby it is in any way procured. Thus, though it is 
 God who properly justifies sinners, yet grace is said to justify them 
 (to express either the original fount and source from which the 
 whole scheme springs, or to express the gratuitous character of 
 the act); faith is said to justify them (to express the instrumental 
 cause or mode of their justification). And so Christ may be said 
 to justify them, not referring to His judicial character, and to the 
 great act of judgment which He is to perform at the last*, but to 
 
 * If the explanation which I have given of the mi 
 involved the necessity of always understanding it as applied to the 
 judicial act which it properly denotes, the judicial character whir! 
 Lord is to sustain at the last would easily enable me to interpret this 
 text so as to show that the use of the word in it is not at variance with 
 the explanation. But I have already said that my explanation of 
 word involves no such consequence ; and I think that, in fa
 
 NOTE L. 
 
 Hifl mediatorial character, as the meritorious cause of their justi- 
 fication. And it is in tliis sense that I would understand the 
 word in the texl under consideration "By his knowledge [La 
 by the knowledge of himself] shall my righteous servant justify 
 many ; for He shall bear their iniquities," would thus be a predic- 
 tion of the justification of the great multitude which no man can 
 number, which shall be saved through Christ; — who is said to 
 
 fy them because He is the meritorious cause of their justifica- 
 tion, and to justify them by the knowledge of Himself* (and, as it 
 would seem to be intimated, more especially the knowledge of 
 Him as bearing their sins, for it is added, for He shall bear their 
 iniquities), as the instrumental cause of their justification. This 
 appears to me to be the natural interpretation of the text. 
 
 And in the way of obviating an objection, I may add, that 
 this interpretation of the text supposes no deviation from the 
 strict meaning of the word as defined by me, which must not also 
 lie supposed, in regard to their own definition, by those who 
 
 rd the word as meaning to make righteous. Christ, at the 
 [■resent stage of the Dispensation of Grace, does not sustain a 
 judicial hut a iin'Iiaturial character. And, therefore, those who 
 hold the forensic sense of the word to justify are obliged to sup- 
 pose that when He is said to justify His people, it is in the sense 
 of causing or procuring their justification at the hands of God 
 the Father, who is presented to us in Scripture as now judging, 
 
 "'in g or condemning sinners. But is it not equally certain 
 that the office of making His people righteous is not assigned to 
 Christ, hut to the Holy Spirit? The Spirit is the Sanctifier, and 
 
 sage docs not refer to what Christ is to do in the final judgment, hut to 
 tip' present effects of His atoning sacrifice. 
 
 * It is hardly necessary to remark that the knowledge of Christ is 
 to he understood as including all the affections which ought to flow from 
 it. In Scripture both His knowledge of His people and their knowledge 
 of Him hear this pregnant sense. When He is said to kimir them, it is 
 meant that He knows them as His; and His gracious favour and love 
 towards them as His own are included in the meaning of the expression. 
 And BO, when they are said to know Him, it must be meant that they 
 acknowledge and feel their relation to Him: and the feelings on their 
 put which suit that relation are also intended to be conveyed in the 
 phrase. And accordingly this is the language in which the Lord ex- 
 presses the relation on both sides: "I am the good shepherd, and 
 know my sheep, and <nn known of mine." John x. 14. See too how 
 •hi- knowledgt of Him is made the characteristic of Believers. John 
 ivil 3, 8, 25.
 
 NOTE L. 323 
 
 therefore when Christ is said to justify His people, those win. hold 
 that the word means to make righteous are obliged to Buppose that 
 He is said to justify them in the sense of causing or procuring 
 their justification at the hands of God the Holy Gho b. The 
 figure is the same in both cases; and it is neither riolenf in itself 
 nor of unfrequent occurrence in the Bible, nor indeed at all un- 
 usual in other writings. 
 
 Bellarmin's other instance is just of the same kind. It is 
 Dan. xii. 3, where those who convert sinners, or had bhem to 
 justification, are described an justifying them, by a similar figure. 
 Our own excellent version has, they that hern, many to righteous- 
 ness : and, for the sense of the passage, no exception can be taken 
 to this translation; for it is doubtless of those who so convert 
 sinners that the prophet is speaking. But what he actually says, 
 is, " they that justify many;" using the word figuratively of those 
 who can be said to justify only as instruments in God's hands in 
 bringing others to that state in which they are justified by Him. 
 And, as before, I may remark that those who with Bellarmiu 
 maintain that the proper sense of the word is to make righteous, 
 must suppose that it is here used not in its proper but in a figu- 
 rative sense, as just explained. For surely one man can only be 
 said to sanctify, or make righteous, another, in the sense of being 
 an instrument in the hands of the Holy Ghost the Sanctifier. 
 And this objection being thus neutralized, I have no fear that 
 either or both of Bellarmin's instances will do much for the pur- 
 pose for which they were brought forward. 
 
 Dan. viii. 14, indeed, seems to me a much more plausible text 
 for Bellarmin's purpose than either of those to which he has 
 actually referred. In it, the verb (in Ni/phaT) seems to be used 
 directly to express to be cleansed, or made pure : Grotius, I find, 
 is not content with taking it as a single example of this sen-'-. 
 but says, in commenting on it, " Nota, p1)£ \justificare\ ssepe 
 poni pro mundare" Of this positive assertion he gives here no 
 proof whatever; and when he does attempt a proof of it, Acts 
 xiii. 39, he takes care to qualify it very considerably ; but even in 
 its reduced form he entirely fails to establish it. " Nam jTIVn 
 quod plerumque Greece est Sikcuow (justificaiv) significat et pur- 
 gare: vertiturque p"l¥ KaOapos earai {jpurus crit), Job iv. 17. 
 KaOapi<j$rj(T€Ta.L (purifieabitur) Dan. viii. 1 1." And in the intro- 
 duction to his Annotatt. in Rom. he says that the conjugations 
 
 21—2
 
 NOTE L 
 
 ' .• | //' ; " ngnify nativo t I ritiis purgare, mundare, 
 
 and gives, in addition to Bellarmin's two examples (of 
 which I have spoken already), Pa lxxiii. 13. 
 
 A- to what Grotiu of the proper sense of the conjuga- 
 
 1 Hiphil, it must have been known to him how far 
 d iiding the question. It is known to every tyro in 
 ,• that the ajugations have, in some verbs, pro- 
 perly, a declarative sense, and express properly tlie act of ascribing 
 t the qualities, at- which Kal asserts it to pos- 
 
 rcise, &c. We saw an instance of this, Note B, p. 2G0, 
 in "*2Xr\ JDN ; yt?H to be wicked, J^BHjl , to declare wicked, to 
 2TD- to lie, 2"Tpri, to convict of falsehood, are other 
 f the same kind for Hiphil; and for Pihel, which is 
 much less important in the cs are not without similar ex- 
 
 amples— X£D to be unclean, XfitO, to pronounce or declare im- 
 clean; *"|!"ID, to be clean; and lilD. to pronounce or declare clean, 
 
 •* T ** ' 
 
 are well-known ones. And from all this it appears, that when 
 tion ifl raised about any particular verb, it cannot be 
 decided merely upon grammatical principles; but that it is to be 
 determined finally by the use of it in Scripture. This Grotius, 
 imhed, seems to admit, by subjoining examples of the meaning 
 for which he contends; but how little they contribute to establish 
 it, any one will see who examines them. 
 
 Of two of them (Is. liii. 11, and Dan. xii. 3) I have already 
 
 spoken. And a glance at the additional pair will be enough to 
 
 show, that they do very little indeed to strengthen the very w< k 
 
 proof of his assertion which the former pair supplied. As to the 
 
 (Job iv. 17), the Greek version quoted by Grotius may be 
 
 allowed to prove, what would be easily admitted without it, viz., 
 
 that it Lb an example of the use of the verb in Kal in the e 
 
 to be But I have said above enough to show that that 
 
 warrant the inference that in Hiphil it means to make 
 
 . And as to the second, from Ps. lxxiii. 13, the reference to 
 
 it m bainly be a mere lapse; for, though it is a char instance 
 
 the use of SiKaida), in the version of the LXX. (where it is 
 
 P . :■■ .ii. 13) to express making clean, the word in the Hebrew is 
 
 from p"Vi\ l' ufc fr° m !"I3T (1'ih. from POT to be pure); so that 
 
 no bearing on the point at all, Indeed, even if the examples 
 
 1 ^rotius were more unexceptionable, the fact that they
 
 NOTE L. 325 
 
 are so few would amount to something like a confet ion that he 
 was rasli in asserting that p1¥ often signifies to pu/rify. Bui I 
 have more direct reason for believing him wrong than his failure 
 in proving himself right; for I have examined almost all, if not 
 all, the texts in the Bible in which the verb occurs, and can b i 
 cjuite sure that p*7¥ is not often taken for mv/nda/re. I ran even 
 say that I do not know a single text in which it is really 
 and scarcely one in which such a meaning could be reasonably 
 thought of for it. 
 
 With respect to this text, Dan. viii. 14, in which it is so ren- 
 dered in our own translation and others, — instead of taking it as 
 a solitary instance of the use of the word in the sense of mo, 
 clean, I greatly prefer, with Calvin, receiving it in its ordinary 
 meaning there, and regarding it as used by a figure, which In; 
 thus excellently explains : " Quod elicit hie Sanctuarium justifca- 
 bitur, quidam vertunt, expiabitur tunc S. Sed libenter retineo 
 verbi proprietatem. Scimus eniui Hebraios justificandi verbo uti 
 quoties de jure loquuntur. Ubi ergo restituitur jus suum spolia- 
 tis, ubi asseritur in libertatem qui servus fuerat, ubi causam obti- 
 net qui fuit injuste gravatus, hoc totum est justijicari Hebrseis. 
 Quum ergo Dei sanctuarium infamise esset subjectum quantisper 
 illic conspectum fuit simulachrum Jovis Olympii, et ita nulla 
 
 esset amplius ejus dignitas quum ergo tanto dedecore oppres- 
 
 sum esset templum, tunc justificatum fuit, ubi Deus iterum erexit 
 sua sacrificia, voluit restitui purum cultum quern lege sua prse- 
 scripserat. Justificabitur ergo sanctuarium, hoc est, vindicabitur 
 ab illo probro cui ad tempus obnoxium erit." — Calv. in loc. I 
 think this offers an easy explanation of the text, consistently with 
 the established meaning of the word; and I think, also, that what 
 I have said of the two passages given by Bellarmin shows that 
 they are not examples of the sense which he wishes to prove. 
 But I am well content, as I said, that all three should be esteemed 
 clear instances of p*l¥ in the sense of making righteous; and, I 
 ask, is it credible that, if this were the proper sense of the verb, 
 but three, out of forty-one instances of its use in the Bible, could 
 be found to favour it 1 ? 
 
 This is a point which the student may investigate for himself. 
 And in examining the Old Testament in the original, to d 
 mine the meaning of the word, he will find it useful to remember 
 what has been said in the text (Sermon III. pp. Gl, 62) of its
 
 NOTE L. 
 
 derivative . and of their connexion with its primary sen--. 
 
 I hope that th"se who engage in this inquiry may be aided by the 
 following referenceB to the texts in which tin- verb is found, which 
 I have arranged according to the different senses in which it seems 
 to be employed j and, as a further aid, I have set down in each 
 ojugation in which the verb occurs. 
 
 To !'■ righteous, innocent, right, just, Kal: Gen. xxxviii. 2G; 
 
 • I ih iv. 17. i\. 15, x, 15, xv. It, xxii. 3, xxxiii. 12, xxxiv. 5, 
 
 \w\. 7: Pa xi\. 1". li. 6 ( .' i ; Ez. xvi. 52. To be accounted, de- 
 
 iii God's judgment or men's), as righteous, inno- 
 
 t, right, just, Kal: Joh ix. 2, xi. 2, xiii. 18, xxv. 4, xl. 8; 
 
 Pa li. G (?), cxliii. 2; Ls. xliii. 9, 26, xlv. 25. To account, <fcc., 
 
 one righteous, &&, Pihel: Job xxxiii. 32. Hiphil; Ex. xxiii. 7; 
 
 Deut. xxv. 1; 1 Kings ^ i i i - 32 j 2 Chron. vi. 23; Prov. xvii. l."i ; 
 
 Is. a. 23, 1. 8. To prove (by words or acts, one's self or another) 
 
 righteous, <fcc. (or to attempt to prove, or to maintain hisrighteous- 
 
 . Kal: Job ix. 20. Pihel: Job xxxii. 2; Jer. iii. 11; 
 
 Ez. xvi. 51, 52. Hiphil: Job xxvii. ."). To prove ones self 
 
 righteous, &c, Hiihpahel: Gen. xliv. 1G. To do justice to, or 
 
 decicU in favour of, Hiphil: 2 Sam, xv. 4; Ps. lxxxii. 3. 
 
 These, with the three considered in the firmer part of this 
 Note, are, I believe, all the texts in which the verb occurs in the 
 Old Testament. A different classification of its derivative senses 
 might perhaps be made. And, even adopting the foregoing one, 
 it may perhaps appear that one or more of the texts ought to have 
 been placed in some other division rather than the one in which 
 they stand*. But this is of little importance, and what is really 
 important seems hardly to admit of any doubt I do not think 
 that any one who fairly goes through the foregoing list in the 
 Bible will entertain any doubt of the following points, which 
 seem to contain all that is of any moment with reference to the 
 
 ■ ion : — 
 
 1. That in Kal the proper meaning of the verb is — 
 a. To be righteous, innocent, right, or just (the proper word to 
 be supplied in each instance according to the context and the cir- 
 cumstances of the case). 
 
 Thus 1 have placed Ps. li. 6 in two divisions, marking it interro- 
 gatively in each because the rorb may be translated in the meaning 
 to either, and in either way of translating it the text yields a 
 good sense. And perhaps some few others ought to have been 'marked 
 in the same way.
 
 NOTE L. 327 
 
 /?. To be counted, or declared, or treated as righteous, k<-., 
 perhaps to appear, or to be made to appear righteous, <fcc., 
 deserve such a judgment or declaration) in God's judgment or 
 man's. 
 
 2. That in Hiphil its proper meaning is to count or declare, 
 or treat one as righteous, &c. : and that the same meaning belo 
 
 to it in Pihel, though there seems to be but one clear instance of 
 its use in that meaning. 
 
 3. That in no conjugation does the verb mean to make righte- 
 ous, &c, nor in any does it mean to be made righteous, &c, unless 
 it be settled that the single text, Dan. viii. 14-, furnishes an in- 
 stance of its use in that sense in Niphal. Upon that point (which 
 is of no very great importance) I have said enough already; but I 
 may add here that the improbability that the verb in Niphal 
 means to be made righteous, &c, is greatly increased when it 1ms 
 been shown that in Kal it never means to make righteous. 
 
 The case is even clearer in Greek, where it is of most import- 
 ance to us to be certain about the meaning of the word. For, 
 whatever may be said of the use of 8tK-atoo) and Si/caioo/xai in 
 the Old Testament and the Apocrypha, they never admit the 
 senses to be righteous, or to be made rigliteous, in the New Testa- 
 ment. And the Protestant divines, who held that the verb has 
 the former meaning, and the Romanists, who contended for the 
 latter, were, curiously enough, both driven to the same text, Rev. 
 xxii. 11, o Si'kuios SiKcuto&fra) tri : the Protestants understanding 
 it, with our translators, " he that is righteous let him be righteous 
 still;" and the Romanists rendering it, "let him be justified still*" 
 
 * This is the Douay translation; — and it might perhaps be doubted 
 whether it meant, let him continue still in a justified state, or, let him 
 be justified yet more. There is a note upon the verse, but it does Dot 
 touch upon this clause; and what it says upon the one to which it 
 refers does nothing to decide this question. But that the latter is the 
 sense in which the Roman Church understands the text is clear, from 
 the use which is made of it by the Council of Trent. In the I >ecree De 
 Justi ficatione, cap. x., De acceptw Justificat ion is incremento, it is quoted 
 as one of the Scripture proofs of that part of the Romish doctrine of 
 
 Justification, "Sic ergo justificati •••in ipsa justitia per 
 
 Christi gratiam accepta cooperante fide bonis openlms, creseunt. al.jue 
 magis justificantur; sicut scriptum est (Apoc. alt, , Qui Justus est,iusti- 
 ficetur adhuc. ' And Bellarmin, quoting the text as one of the Bcnp- 
 tural proofs that Works justify, explains it in tins sense, or rather
 
 NOTE L. 
 
 in support >'f their doctrine of a second justification. It would be 
 hardly spending time well, to discuss the meaning of a solitary 
 
 . when tin.- true sense of the word may be established from tlio 
 concurrence of such a number. But the fact is, that SiKaiw^'ro) 
 
 always a Buspected reading; and that it lias been rejected ab- 
 solutely by I tch, ujH'ii what appear to in- conclusive grounds, 
 and Bucaiocrvviji 1 7ron;o-uTw substituted for it. The same emendation 
 oft] s Eeceptus is adopted by Matthai, Alter, Scholz, and 
 lorf. On that point, therefore, I presume it is unnecessary 
 
 Omitting all passages involving the doctrine of Justification, 
 the forensic sense of the verb in the New Testament appears suf- 
 ficiently from the well-known texts, Matt. xi. 19, xii. 37; Luke 
 vii. 29: Rom. ii. 13: the second and fourth of those texts being 
 plain examples of that sense strictly; the two others of a sense 
 naturally derived from it. That its tise in the doctrinal pas 
 is in this forensic meaning, I think I have shown conclusively in 
 Sermon V., p. 122 — 124. And if the point were one about which 
 reasonable doubt could be entertained, there would be no difficulty 
 in putting it beyond question by other arguments. But, in fact, 
 it is so clear that some of the most determined and able opponents 
 of the doctrine of justification by faith only have felt it much 
 ■r to assail that doctrine by enlarging the meaning of faith 
 than by restricting or altering that of justification, so that, upon 
 this point, we have the advantage of their testimony. Thus Bull 
 writes: "Pro certo igitur statuatur vocabulum justificatiouis in 
 hac materia forenaem significationem obtinere; atque actionem de- 
 signare Dei more judicis, ex lege Christi gratiosa absolventis accu- 
 n, justum pronuntiomtis, atque adprasmium justitice h. e. vitam 
 "m acceptantis." — Bar. Ap. Bis. Prior, cap. 1. § G. And he 
 Lvowedly with reference to Grotius, that a man must be 
 nearly blind not to see that this forensic signification, of account- 
 ing or declaring righteous, is the most obvious and common mean- 
 ing of the word in the Bible generally, but especially in the New 
 I iment "Duo tantum annotabimus: Primo vocern Sikcliovv 
 
 tes this to be its undoubted meaning: "Scxtum testimonium 
 Apocal, ult , Qui in sordibus est, eordescat adhuc; et qui Justus est,jus- 
 
 ur adhuc. Certd <iui magis Bordescunt per mala opera et nova 
 ! ' ordescunt: igitur et qui magis justificantur per bona opera et 
 
 a obedientiam justificantur." Be Justific it tone, lib. iv. cap. xix.
 
 NOTE L. 329 
 
 (cui respondet apud Hebrseoa p""J¥!"l) ab eo [S. Jacobo] i 
 
 tiori suo significatu usurpari, b. e. senm forenei pro just/mi <■. , 
 sive pronunciare. Earn enim esse vocabuli liujus in Sacria Lit 
 praesertim Novi Testamenti, significationem maxime obviam ac 
 familiarem, pene ccecus est qui non videat. Ut mirum sit reperiri 
 virum longe doctissimum et alioquin in liac ipsa justificati< 
 cloctrina de veritate optime meritum, qui id neget, vocemj/'.- //'//<■,,- 
 tionis fere semper in bac qiuestione (praesertini, ubi fidei tribuitur) 
 purgationem a vitiis, seu liberatiouem a peccandi consuetudine 
 significare strenue contendens {In Prolegom. in Epist, ml Roma- 
 nos). Fatetur quidem Grotius (nam ilium designamus) SikoioCv a 
 Jacobo in capite secundo sumi pro aliquem ut justum tractor e; 
 additque totum ejus Sermonis contextum bunc sensum neces.sario 
 exigere. Sed hanc esse usitatiorem vocis hujus significationem, 
 pi-sesertim in Paulinis Epistolis, omnino negat. (In secundis An- 
 not. ad Jac. ii. 21.) Nos autem (quamquam fortasse locus buic 
 rei alius commodior esset) vocem Sikollovv in eo, quern diximus, 
 sensu in Novo Testamento constanter ac fere semper usurpari, 
 facile evicturi sumus." Bull, Harmonia Apostolica, Diss. Prior. 
 cap. i. §§ 1, 2. 
 
 If tbe reader sbould desire to prosecute tbe investigation 
 farther, for himself, he may recollect that, although to count or 
 declare a person just, <fec, is not one of the classical sense- of 
 Sikcuoo), yet no doubt can be made that it is among its Scriptural 
 meanings. The question really is, whether, in the statements of 
 the doctrine of justification by faith, to justify is to be taken in 
 this sense or not. The texts to be examined are so easily made 
 out, and have been referred to to such an extent already, either in 
 the Sermons or in this Note, that I shall not subjoin a list of 
 them; but, instead of it, transcribe a list of references from Ger- 
 hard, to show that the proceeding of the justification of a sinner 
 is, throughout, a judicial one: which is one of his modes of fixing 
 the true sense of the term. " Exprimitur per Judicium, Ps. 
 cxliii. 2. Judex, Joh. v. 27. Tribunal, Rom. xiv. 10. Accusa- 
 tor, Joh. v. 45. Testis, Rom. ii. 15, Chvrographim, Col. ii. 14. 
 Debitum, Matt, xviii. 24. Advocatus, 1 Joh. ii. 1. Absolutio, 
 Ps. xxxii. 1."
 
 330 NOTE M. 
 
 Note M. Page 61. 
 /• qfifu meaning of Justification. 
 
 Most P • tan! authorities, of any real weight, are very de- 
 i upon this Bense of Justification \ and some, who differ some- 
 what in their statements of the meaning of the word, so explain 
 of ill-- doctrine as to show thai the difference is of no 
 
 I importance. 
 
 ir own Eleventh Article slmws (as has been pointed out, 
 ]>. 124) that, by our Reformers, Justification was understood to 
 mean &< ing counted righteous before God. And this further appears 
 from the Homily of Justification. 
 
 The views of the German Reformers are equally clear. 
 .,',, Augustana. 
 
 Significat autem Justificatio in his Pauli scntentiis remis- 
 sioiicin peccatorum seu reconciliationem, seu imputatdonem justitiss 
 hoc- est acceptationem persona'. 
 
 Co Saxonica. 
 
 In declaratione vocabuli justijicari usitate dicitur, justificari 
 significat ex injusto justum fieri : <jiiod recte intellectuni hue quo- 
 que quadrat. Ex injusto, id est, reo et inobediente, et non ha- 
 bente Christum, fieri justum, id est absolutum a reatu propter 
 Filium Dei; et apprehendentem fide ipsum Christum qui est jus- 
 titia nostra, ut docuit Hieremias et Paulus: quia ejus justitia 
 nobis imputaturj et quia dato Spiritu Sancto nos vivih'cat et 
 sicut et Johan. 5 dicitur. 
 
 Confessio Helvetica. 
 
 Justificare signiiicat apostolo, in disputatione de justification e. 
 peccata remittere, a culpa et poena absolvere, in gratiam recipere, 
 justum pronunciare. 
 
 I fessio Wittenibergica. 
 
 Homo eniiii fit Deo acceptus, et reputatur coram eo Justus 
 
 propter solum filium Dei, Dominum nostrum Jesu Christum, per 
 
 fidem: et in judicio Dei non est ullo earum virtutum quas noa 
 
 habemus merito, sed solo merito Domini nostri Jesu Christi, quod 
 
 rum per fidem, confidendum. 
 
 Confessio Bohemica, 1535, Latine Auctior, 1572. 
 
 Et bsec justitia sen justificatio est remissio peccatorum, sublatio
 
 NOTE M. 331 
 
 poena? reternre quam Dei severa j\istit la deposcit, ct Christi justitia 
 
 seu imputationc hujus convestiri, cumque Deo rec<>iicili;itin, in 
 gratiam l'eceptio per quam grat'um facti sumus in dUecio, •> .-,./,,, 
 redes vitce ceterna;, &c. 
 
 Luther. Disputationes, 1G35. 
 
 Justificari enim hoininem, sentimus, hominem nonduin • i 
 justum, sed esse in ipso motu seu ctirsu ad justitiam. [deo et 
 peccator est adhuc quisquis justificatur ; et tamen velut plene <t 
 
 perfecte Justus reputatur ignoscente et miserente Deo Recte 
 
 igitur dicitur justificari nos ex fide sine operibus legis. * Jn< .« 1 jus- 
 tificari ista includit: fide, scilicet propter Christum, reputari aoe 
 justos, nee peccatum ullura, sive pra>teritum sive reliquum in 
 carne manens imputari, sed, velut nullum sit, remissione interea 
 tolli. 
 
 In Ep. ad Galat. cap. 2. 
 
 Justificat ergo Fides quia apprehendit et possidet istum the- 
 saururn scil. Christum prresentem; ubi enim vera fiducia cordis 
 
 est, ibi adest Christus in ipsa nebula et fide Ergo fide appre- 
 
 liensus et in corde habitans Christus est justitia Christiana propter 
 quam nos reputat justos et donet vitam reternani. 
 
 Melancthon. Loci Theologici, 1543. 
 
 Justificatio significat remission! m peccatorum, et reconciliatio- 
 nem, seu acceptationem persona? ad vitam seternain. Nam He- 
 braais justificare est forense verbum, ut si dicam, Popidus Romam/us 
 justijicavit Scijrionem accusatum a tribunis, id est, absolvit seu jus- 
 tum pronunciavit. Sumpsit ergo Paulus verbum justificandi ex 
 con.suetudine Hebraei sermonis pro remissione peccatorum et re- 
 conciliatione, seu acceptations. 
 
 Propositiones complectentes praicipuos articulos doctriace ccelestis 
 traditce in schola Wittembergensi. 
 
 Comprehendi remissionem peccatorum in vocabulo justifies 
 tionis etiam ex illo dicto Pauli, Rom. iv. manifestum est; ubi 
 Paulus expresse inquit, sicut et David inquit, Beatitudiaem esse 
 hominis cui Deus imputat justitiam sine operibus. Beati quorum 
 tecta sunt peccata. Ibi enim nominat imputationem justitia? in 
 ostendat non solum remitti peccata, sed etiam recipi personam 
 propter alienam justitiam imputatam scil. Mediatoris Dei el 
 hominis. 
 
 In Ep. ad Romanos, 1529. 
 
 Cap. 3. Sit autem nota phrasis, justijiamvr, id est, ex reis
 
 332 NOTE M. 
 
 pronunciamur non ni, donamur remissione peccatorum, reconcilia- 
 tione, sen imputations jnstiti;o cum qua conjuncta est vivifieatio 
 qua lit per ipsum filinm Dei cum fide rerbum vocale accipimua 
 
 cum quo ve\ ificax filiua l>ei Quamquam sunt in con- 
 
 veraione plures motua tamea vocabulum. justificari Bignificat Laud 
 dubi< remisaionem peccatorum reconciliationem ac inqm- 
 
 tationem justitus. llanc autem cum accipimua simul vivificamur. 
 
 J '.i i r.it. 
 
 [Bucer*s view of justification is, especially in his earlier writ- 
 
 . not a little embarrassed by his desire to repel the calumnies 
 by which the doctrine of Justification by Faith only was assailed, 
 and to obviate some abuses of it. He endeavours, for this pur- 
 
 . bo combine, in the signification of the term, both the effects 
 of faith : — its effects upon our state before God, and its effects 
 upon our character, — or, to make it include our justification both 
 before God and men. His view does not affect his conformity in 
 doctrine with the other Reformers, as he labours very anxiously 
 to show in his Prefata in Enar. Epistt. D. Pauli, cap. 8; his state- 
 ment being that we are pardoned and accepted by God by faith; 
 and that thus we are justified before God by faith; but that this is 
 a faith which is fruitful in works, so that they who possess it are 
 acknowledged by men to be righteous, and that therefore we are 
 justified before men also by faith. So far there is no difference 
 between him and the other Reformers. But he thinks that in 
 
 g the word justification, though St Paul chiefly regards the 
 first, he has also respect to the second. In this latter point, then, 
 he differs from the other Reformers at this period; but he is very 
 anxious to show that the difference is only verbal, and that, so far 
 from overthrowing free Justification before God by faith only, he 
 only more fully established it by his statement of the doctrine. — 
 " Adeo non negamus justificationis primum caput et substantiain 
 esse gratuitam peccatorum remisaionem, nostrique apud Deum, 
 propter Dominum nostrum Jesu Christum, acceptationem, qua 
 fides tota nititur, ut istuc etiam confirmemus. Etenim ilia jus- 
 titia et bona opera, qu?e in nobis Spiritus Christi operatur, testi- 
 monium sunt illius nostra apud Deum gratuitffi acceptation^ 
 Nam nisi noa ipsos Deus bonos justosque habeat, nihil nostri bo- 
 nuni aut justum censeri potest. Mala arbor edit fructus malos. 
 Pniimh: dura dicimus, justitiam et bona opera nobis fide constare, 
 simul dicimus fide nos Deo acceptos, gratosque reddi Ita
 
 NOTE M. 333 
 
 quum dicimus fide percipi justitiam quam Dcus nemini Did apud 
 se justificato donat, ostendimus et ipsam nostri apud Deum justifi- 
 cationem fide nobis contingere." This would seem to make the 
 point, which Bucer endeavours here to establish, innoceni a Ear 
 as the doctrine is concerned. I need not say, however, that I 
 think he was in error in it; for, though the Apostle is careful bo 
 show that faith produces that obedience which secures the ju ti- 
 fication of believers in this latter sense, he does not include this 
 effect in the meaning of justification in any statement of the doc- 
 trine. This, however, is no place for discussing this point. And 
 I mention Bucer's early difference from his brethren partly to 
 settle the amount of it — which is, I believe, misunderstood; 
 but chiefly because I think it right to notice it, before I give 
 from his last work his final views upon the subject, which, my 
 readei'S will see, agree perfectly with those quoted from other 
 authorities.] 
 
 Scripta Anglicana. Disputatio publico, Cantabrigice, 1550. 
 
 Justificari, ut hoc verbo Spiritus Sanctus in Scripturis suis 
 utitur, opponitur, ei quod dicimus condemnari ; et significat con- 
 donari homini peccata recipique eum in gratiam Dei; cum nimi- 
 runi agitur de justificatione vita, id est, qua homini vita seterna 
 adjudicatur Hoc intellectu utuntur verbo justificationis Scrip- 
 ture cum loquuntur de justificatione qua reconcilianmr Deo et 
 recipimur in gratiam vitas seterna?. Justificari quidem pradicant 
 Scriptura et factores legis bona scil. operantes, sicut Jacobus 
 scripsit justificatum fuisse Abraham ex voluntate immolandi filium ; 
 
 et Rachab, &c Sed in his locis justificari ho'minem nihil aliud 
 
 significat quam laudari et remunerari hominem propter bona 
 opera. Porro plerique scriptorum ecclesiasticorum sequel 
 etymon verbi Graci SiKatouo-^ai et Latini justificari, intellexerunt 
 per hac verba hominem donari inhaerenti justitia, qua? con 
 fide, spe, charitate, quae nunquam quidem deest remissioni pi 
 torum; tamen Scripturaa non hoc, dari donum justitia, significant 
 per verbum justificari, sed, sicut dictum est, vel condonari peccata 
 et recipi in gratiam Dei; vel benefacta comprobari a Deo et iv- 
 munerari. Ex hac vero varia significatione horum verborum 
 justificari et justificationis, dum Scriptural per hac intelligunt 
 peccatorum remissionem atque vitaa aterna?, ex penitus gratuita 
 Dei misericordia et gratia, adjudicationemj Sancti Patres vero 
 inharentis justitia, id est, virtutum omnium, pie rcctique vivendi
 
 334 NOTE M. 
 
 donationem et mfusionem, multi dbi periculosas accersuni 
 tenebras. 
 
 It would be very easy to extend tliese quotations; but I am 
 ideM will think that enough has been done to show 
 tli,- lu which tin- first Reformers understood the term 
 
 i,. I I dare say they will be as much at a loss as 
 I am t<> understand how an author so well acquainted with the 
 controversial writings of these men as Archbishop Laurence is, 
 could have fallen into the strange mistake that the word was 
 used by them as simply equivalent to remission of sin. He says 
 B mpton Lectures, Sermon G) — "But here, to avoid a miscon- 
 ception of tin- argument, it seems necessary previously to Btate 
 in what sense the word Justification, which comprehends the sole 
 ground of contention, was used by the opposing parties. Upon 
 both sides it was supposed entirely to consist in the remission 
 of sin. 
 
 This is, certainly, a most extraordinary statement from one 
 who is professedly aiming at exactness; and who shows, elsewhere, 
 considerable acquaintance with works which prove its very great 
 inaccuracy. The fact is, that the early Romish and Protestant 
 divines could not be truly represented as concurring in any view 
 of the entire meaning of Justification; but it seems a curious in- 
 felicity, that the sense of the term which the Archbishop describes 
 
 greed upon by both, was, in fact, admitted by neither. How 
 far it is from a fair statement of the meaning assigned to this 
 important word by one of "the opposing parties" the foregoing 
 extracts afford ample materials for judging. And how strangely 
 it misrepresents the views of the other, will appear by referring 
 t<> the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. It will be 
 found, not only that the Council expressly decrees (Sess. vi. cap. 7; 
 thus — " Non est [Justificatio] sola feccatorn m remissio, sed et 
 sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis, per voluntariam sus- 
 m gratiae el donorum;" but also, that in what Chemnitz 
 happily calls its pro/usa anatlc m<tinm liberalitas, it pronounces a 
 distinct anathema upon everyone who ventures to assert that men 
 tified sola peccatoru/m remissione. — Sess. vi. can. 1. 
 
 It ever, then, Romanists peak of Justification as consisting 
 entirely <// the remission of sins, it is, certainly, only in opposition
 
 NOTE M. 
 
 335 
 
 to the reformed doctrine, that it includes also the imputation of 
 righteousness; and, on the other hand, whenever the Reformed 
 
 writers speak of it in the same terms, they are to be undersl I 
 
 as meaning to reject the Romish addition of the infusion <>/' right- 
 eousness. 
 
 From Calvin, for example, very strong declarations thai Jti ti 
 fication consists entirely in the remission of sins, might, doubtless, 
 be produced. But, as Bellarmin (De Just. lib. ii. cap, h vmv 
 truly remarks, other and neighbouring parts of his writings do 
 not allow us to fall into any mistake concerning the Bense in 
 which such declarations are to be received. "Igitur cum idem 
 Calvinus in eodem capite [cap. ii. lib. iii.] sect. 21 et 22, el in An- 
 tidoto Concilii ad Sessionem 6, contendit justificationem non esse 
 positam nisi in peccatorum remissione, non excludit imputationem 
 Justitia3 Christi, sed internam renovationem et sanctificationem." 
 
 Be Just. lib. ii. cap. 1 And Bull, referring to Calvin on Rom. 
 
 iv. 6, 7, 8 — " Ubi quod Calvinus dicit, Justitiam nihil esse quam 
 Remission em peccatorum, ex aliis ejusdem Calvini locis exponen- 
 dum est, in quibus aperte fatetur pi*seter Remissionem peccatorum, 
 Justitice etiam imputationeni in Justificationis notione contineri." 
 Resp. ad Animadv. vii. And the same is true of all the rest*, 
 as a review of the foregoing extracts from their writings will 
 abundantly prove. Indeed, the Archbishop quotes, in support of 
 his assertion, Melancthon's declaration, given above, that Justifi- 
 cation signifies, " remissionem peccatorum et reconciliaiionem seu 
 acceptationem ad vitam aitemam." And, had Melancthon written 
 nothing else upon the subject, I cannot conjecture how this ex- 
 press addition, et reconciliaiionem seu acceptationem ad vitam 
 ceternam, could be considered so insignificant, that he might be 
 described as supposing Justification entirely to consist in the re- 
 mission of sin. But, if his language here left his view of the 
 nature and amount of the addition doubtful, I have given above 
 ample materials for determining it. 
 
 As evidence of the opinion on the other side, tin- Archbishop 
 quotes, from Aquinas, Qucestiones disputato?, the determination, 
 
 * Bull, having quoted the inference which Paraeus draws from the 
 same passage: "Quod Apostolus Justificationem in sola Kemissione 
 
 peccatorum constituit palam est ex iv. 6, " adds, "Ubi si cm offen- 
 
 diculo sit vox sola, sciat candem medclam hie praesto esse, rjuam modo 
 
 Calvini verbis adhibuhnus."
 
 336 NOTE M. 
 
 qusest. xxviii. art. 1 ; which 
 ems to exhibit an unhappy difference between the 
 
 imenical Council and the Angelical Doctor. If any one, 
 however, be anxious to accommodate the difference, he will, 
 I think, find it do very difficult matter to effect : for it is suffi- 
 ciently evident that Thomas did not intend the above for a perfect 
 definition of Justification. Vasquez tells us that the proposition 
 i- t i be und 1 u non identice, neque formaliter, sed ut aiuut 
 
 And Montesino, that it is meant that " Justificatio 
 impii est remissio peccatorum concomitanler." But, in fact, it 
 
 is intended chiefly to determine from what the act ought to 
 receive its denomination. The question appears again in the 
 Summa, and is the 113th lmse. 2dae. And, in the discussion of 
 the various Articles, he seems to lay down that, in the jnotus de 
 
 •ario in contrarium by which the Justification of a sinner is 
 effected, the remission of his sins is the termination or consumma- 
 
 of the whole, and, for this reason, is employed as equivalent 
 to it. "Et quia niotus denominator magis a termino ad quern 
 quam a termino a quo, ideo hujusmodi transmutatio qua aliquis 
 transmutatur a statu injustitise per remissionem peccatorum sor- 
 nen a termino ad quern et vocatur justificatio impii." And 
 the Cardinal de Vio Cajetan, in commenting upon Art. G (in 
 which it is wisely inquired whether remission of sins ought to be 
 enumerated among tlie things required to Justification ; oue of the 
 objections being that it is tlie thing itself) — says "Justificatio im- 
 pii dicitur esse ipsa remissio peccatorum secundum quod omnis 
 motus accipit speciem a termino : tamen ad terminuni consequen- 
 dum multa alia requiruntur." And, in the edition of the Summa, 
 is, 1G39, post Lovaneasium atque Duacensium theologorum 
 
 jnem operam, in w T hich there is annexed to each article a 
 statement of the point established in it, it will be seen, by the 
 conclusion of Art. 1, how far the editors were from imagining 
 that Thomas*> determination went to decide that Justification 
 entirely consisted in remission of sins. Conclusio. Ea justificatio 
 quae fit per modum Bimplicis mutationis non est remissio peer 
 rum Bed solum justitise acquisition qua? vero dicitur impii jvxtifi- 
 (de qua hie solum sermo est) cum per modum motus de 
 
 ratio in contrarium fiat, est remissio peccatorum cum acquisi- 
 titice. Thomas himself, indeed, says expressly, upon Art. 
 7, that " tola Justificatio imjtii originaliter consistit in gr>
 
 NOTE X 
 
 iiifusione; per earn enim et liberum arbitrium movetur, el culpa 
 remittitur." Justification, in its general sense, might, according 
 to him, apply to angels or to unfallen man; and would, in Buch 
 an application of it, express merely the infusion or ingeneratioo 
 of righteousness; but when it is applied to fallen man, ii uo1 onl\ 
 necessarily includes, in addition, the new operation of a remission 
 of sins, but this latter being the end, or consummation of the 
 whole, is rightly employed to describe it, or properly e.^ . :■■ 
 by it. 
 
 I do not subjoin any extracts from our own divines, to i 
 blish their concurrence with the German Reformers upon this 
 point; partly because this Note has already extended unreason 
 ably far; and partly because I think their views of the nature of 
 Justification appear with sufficient clearness, in citations made or 
 to be made from them on other occasions. 
 
 Note N. Page 74. 
 
 On Imputed Righteousness. 
 
 As some divines hold that the doctrine of imputed righteous- 
 ness, in every form, is to be abjured as part and parcel of Cal- 
 vinism, I have prefixed to this Sermon a quotation* which may 
 serve to show them that they are in this, as in some other matters, 
 Arminio ipso Arminianiores. That epiestions should be raised 
 concerning details in that doctrine seems perfectly natural ; that, 
 after the fullest discussion, differences should remain upon minor 
 points connected with it, is not strange; but that any doubt 
 should be made of the general principle — that the imputation of 
 righteousness to the sinners whom God justifies, is as much a part oj 
 their justification as the remission of their sins — has always ap- 
 peared to me truly amazing. In this third Sermon I have occu- 
 pied myself very much with the establishment of this general 
 principle; attempting chiefly to show that it follows from the 
 proper meaning of justification, and from the nature of the divine 
 law; to remove some of the most common difficulties connected 
 
 * As the typography of the extract from Anninius may seem Bome 
 what strange, I add, that it is exactly copied from his Oratti ne* i ' i 
 Tractates, dx. Lugduni Batavorum, 1613.
 
 ri: \ 
 
 with it; and to answer a few of the mosi popular objectiona 
 against it. And in these objects 1 trust I have, to Bome extent* 
 Bncoeeded. Bat I perceive, upon reviewing the Sermon, that 1 
 have ii"t shown, with sufficient distinctness, that the conclusion 
 the nature and extent of God's justification of sinners, 
 to which such reasoning leads (p. G2), is fully confirmed by St 
 Paul's detailed statement of the doctrine. I have supplied, in- 
 deed, materials for this proof (pp. 71, 72), but I have not pointed 
 out with sufficient clearness the entire concurrence of these two 
 modes of learning the true meaning of justification. What follows 
 will, I hope, in some measure supply this defect, and perhaps some 
 others, in what I have already said on the subject. 
 
 It will be convenient, however, before I enter upon a con- 
 sideration of the doctrine as stated by St Paul, to fix what is 
 meant by the phrase, to impute righteousness. 
 
 The word translated to impute is, in the original, Xoyi^ofxai : 
 and the most important forms in which it is used are, iXoyicrOi] 
 airiZ «ts Sinaiooiuvrjv, Pom. iv. 3, <tc. AoyiTcrai rj ttiotis ai/rov €19 
 8tKaiocrri"/;r, 5. u> o #eos Aoyi£ercu hinaicHTVvqv x w p'S «/>yo>v, G. a! 01' 
 fjirj Xoyiarrrat kv/hos d/xapTiav, 8. And, in all, its meaning appears 
 to be simply to count to, to be counted to; to set down to the account 
 of, or to be so set down, or something to the same effect. Daven- 
 ant, dejustitia habituali et actuali, says, " Imputare aliquid alicui 
 idem est in hac questione atque, inter ea qucc sunt ijjsius et ad eum 
 pertinent Ulud connumerare ac recensere." And this, which seems 
 the simple meaning of the Latin verb, imputare, would, of course, 
 l>e a good explanation of the English verb directly derived from 
 it, to impute; except that use appears to confine this latter to 
 
 - in which something moi'ally good or evil, deserving praise 
 or Maine, is ascribed. Indeed, the noun, imputation, is only capa- 
 ble of even so extensive a use, when employed by ethical writers. 
 
 1 technical term; for, in common parlance, it is confined to 
 in which something blameworthy is attributed to one, and is 
 nearly equivalent to charge or accusation. It appears likely that 
 our translators, who render the original verb very variously, chose 
 here, of the different words which would suit the place, to imj 
 from its appropriation to cases of morals. And it seems a very lit 
 rendering, But English readers will probably have a more cor- 
 conception of the meaning of the entire passage, when they 
 are informed thai the word translated so often in Rom. iv. to im
 
 NOTE X. 
 
 pule, is, in the original, the same as that whirl), in other pai I 
 the same chapter, is rendered by to count, and to reckon. So that, 
 
 though the phrase, imputed righteousness, is generally undei I I 
 
 to mean, righteousness ascribed to a man tohich is not Ma own <l 
 have myself used it in that sense, p. 72), it will be seen that this 
 is not properly conveyed by the word imputed; that it simply 
 expresses that the righteousness spoken of is counted to a man, or 
 set down to his account, without intimating whether it is his own 
 or another's. 
 
 But, as this plain point has been curiously misunderstood, I 
 will dwell a little longer upon it. The notion, indeed, that Aoyi- 
 £o/xcu, imputare, had some more occult meaning seems to hive 
 been a very early one. Chemnitz tells us that in the well-known 
 controversy raised by Osiander, a divine, whom he leaves anony- 
 mous, unintentionally caused no little mirth by maintaining that 
 imputare was verhum hortense; and that, as putare meant to 
 prune, to lop off, so imputare meant to ingraft, to implant ! The 
 eminent persons who have since been looking for some recondite 
 sense in this simple word, would probably have joined cordially in 
 the laugh at their too ingenious predecessor : but though their 
 own researches have led to nothing quite so ludicrous as this dis- 
 covery of a horticultural metaphor in the word, I do not think 
 the result of their labours has been much sounder, or more 
 valuable*. 
 
 Erasmus holds imputatio to be equivalent to the legal term, 
 
 * I was not aware when I met this strange figure in Chemnitz that 
 it had been reproduced by a more modern authority. In Robertson's 
 'Clavis Pentateuchi' in loc, we find—" n^'Dil. Et imputavit illud . 
 3 pers. sing. fut. 5 sp. cum. aff. T\ r a 2L' ; n ^^. <IM ^, origo est in putare 
 
 vitcm, arbores; computavit: prop, polivit summam, i.e. earn purgatissi- 
 mam, exactissimam et solidissimam reddidit; to reckon exactly with 
 precision) with one in pecuniary matters : hinc, 2, imputavit, cum quid, 
 ratione bene subducta et perpurgata, veluti aliquod alteri transfereba- 
 mus; sic hie imputavit in justitiam, qua? adfert admirabilem eraphasni 
 qua aliquod alicui plcno jure assignatur, atquc in ejus rationes tran- 
 scribitur; to put to one's account, to impute, to lay to one's charge, and 
 also to one's credit ." 
 
 If there were any difference among Arabic scholars as to the meaning 
 of a word, I should not venture to interfere as if I had a righl to 
 moderate in such a debate. But in the present case I can discover do 
 
 grounds for ascribing to i_^u>- the sense of to prune, except the 
 double meaning of the Latin verb putare, by which it is rendered in 
 Arabic and Latin dictionaries. 
 
 O.) .,
 
 NOTE X. 
 
 i hominis coram Deo, a 
 
 • Proprie autem loquendo dicitur aliquid alicui Lmputari quod ipse 
 non fecit, quodve in ipso aon esi ; e1 contra doii imputari dicitur 
 i<l quod ;ili<iuis fecit quodve in ipso I should have thought 
 
 thai the second member of this sentence sufficiently exposed the 
 . 1 1 1 > 1 1 1 < — ^ of the first; but Arminius, Respa w.\i. Artt., 
 
 adopts the point as "iie which Piscator, he say-, bene observamt el 
 . Ait. \. (Le. 4th, of the eleven la-t Artt., the 21st from 
 the beginning.) Notwithstanding this emphatic commendation, 
 however, 1 do not think they agree exactly as to the meaning of 
 the word. Tiny both, indeed, hold that it conveys that there is 
 Borne impropriety or irregularity in the ascription to as of the act 
 or quality spoken <>f. But Piscator conceives that this properly 
 lies in taking that for ours which is not ours; so that, though the 
 term is used properly, when it is said that righteousness is imputed 
 to a sinner (because he has not righteousness himself), it is used 
 improperly, when it is said that faith is imputed to him fur rigktt - 
 ousness (because he really has faith). And this latter phrase, 
 therefore, lie thinks is to be interpreted in accommodation to the 
 former. Arminius, <>n the other hand, while he holds also thai 
 imputatio est gratiosa cestimatio, seems to think, so far as I can 
 collect (Theses cle Just. Thes. 10), that the grace of the act may lie 
 either in ascribing to us what is not ours, or in ascribing to us as 
 righteousness what is not really righteousness. And this is oer 
 tainly the notion which Jonathan Edwards (a strange conjunc- 
 tion!) puts forward in his able sermon on Justification. He say- 
 that the phrase, it is counted or imputed to him for righteousness, 
 imports that "God of His sovereign grace is pleased to take ami 
 n . id that which indeed is not righteousness, and in one that has 
 no right s, so that the consequence shall be the same as it' 
 
 he had righteousness;" which is certainly very true; but he adds 
 that "it i- manifest that the apostle la}-s the stress of his argu- 
 ment for the \'yqg grace of God, from that text which he cites out 
 of the Old Testament about Abraham, on that word counted or 
 
 ' Apud ICtos est fiota qusedam, et imaginaria solntio, et liberatio, 
 ni docet Modestinus Digest. 1. 46, tit. 4, ley. 1, qua? fit per interroga- 
 tionem, et responsionem, qua atrisque continent ab eodem nexu abso- 
 lutio. Dicenti enim, Quicquid tibi per stipmaM nem promisi, vel e, 
 utipidatu debeo, habesne acceptumf tu respondes, Habeo, acceptumqus 
 fcro; quasi dicas, Perinde habeo, ac si accepissem abs te per veram 
 
 in " V '.' CI0LAT1 LkXK ON, tub '■"''■ .
 
 NOTE N. 
 
 imputed." And again: "The Scripture uses the word i/mpuU 
 this sense, viz. for reckoning anything belonging to anj p< i on, to 
 another person's account." In this view of the meaning of the 
 word he seems to me to fall into a curious though perhap 
 
 very important error; and he certainly supports his view by ven 
 
 strange reasoning. 
 
 ic 
 
 He derives this force of the verb, Xoyi£o/j.cu, partly from tl 
 force of the kindred verb eAAoyew, and partly from the apo : 
 reasoning upon the passage given above from Romans iv. .'5. The 
 verb iXXoyiw has plainly, he thinks, sonic such force in Philemon 
 18, where Paul, taking on himself the debt of Onesimns, E 
 tovto e/xoi eAAoyei: whereas, it is plain, oil the contrary, I think, 
 that it has in that passage no such force; nor any meaning be 
 yond count or charge; and that, accordingly, the direction given 
 by the apostle is rightly translated in our version, set that don-,, tn 
 my account. There seems, indeed, a curious confusion of ideas in 
 what Edwards says about this simple passage. We know, it is 
 true, that the effect of what Paul desired Philemon to do would 
 be, the substitution, for the real debtor, of one who, in fact, owed 
 nothing, except by his voluntary engagement to discharge the 
 debt contracted by the former. But we manifestly know this 
 from the circumstances of the case, and not from the word. To 
 find all this in the word is a mode of proceeding which would 
 introduce us to very strange definitions. In fact, not to go be- 
 yond the case before us, any reasoning which would enable us to 
 conclude that eXAoye'w meant, properly, to charge a man with wliat 
 another owed, because Paul, in engaging to discharge the debts of 
 Onesimus, says, tovto l^ol eWo'yei, would serve to prove thai 
 diroTLvw means, properly, to pay another man's debts, because he 
 adds, on the same occasion, eya> a7roTto-w! 
 
 The only other text in which the verb occurs in the New 
 Testament is afxaprCa Se ovk eAAoyciTui fxrj 6Vtos vofxov, Romans v. 
 13. And it seems strange that Edwards could have referred to 
 that text (as he does) without seeing how little the force which 
 he ascribes to the verb can properly belong to it : for assuredly 
 assigning any such meaning to it there would destroy altogeth i 
 the sense of the passage. But I suppose too much has been 
 upon a point so manifestly untenable. 
 
 Something of the same confusion appeal's in what he says 
 about the reasoning of the Apostle on the texi eXoytcrtfij avv
 
 NOTE A. 
 
 oi/ouotrvn/r. Koinans iv. W. He thinks that, in what follows, the 
 Apu-tle plainly a-suuies that there is here conveyed some substi- 
 tution ..t' <>ne thing for another, or the Betting down to a man 
 something which properly does not belong to him, or Bomething 
 of that kiml. And bo he manifestly does. But it is by uo mean- 
 true, as Edwards atrangely supposes, that this is conveyed prinoi- 
 i by the word i\uyia6rj. It is not, as I have said, conveyed 
 by that word at all. And of this Edwards might have satisfied 
 himself if he had considered that the Apostle's reasoning is just 
 
 good in English as in Greek; yet no one, I suppose, imagines 
 the English word, cotmted, has anything of this pregnanl 
 sense which he attributes to the Greek word for which it stands. 
 But, indeed, a glance at the passage in the original from which 
 his argument is drawn ought to show how little foundation there 
 is for it — ruJ 8t epya£o/A€i'u) o [Jua-Qos ov Aoyt£erai Kcrra X C V HV > aAAu 
 Karu uffxiXq/xa : — Moses says nothing of Kara x°-P LV > Edwards 
 reasons, unless by using the word IXoyiaOq; aud hence, he con- 
 eludes, that the verb must convey something of this kind natu- 
 rally and of itself. But (not to insist upon the point that, if 
 this wore the ease, St Patd would hardly have added Kara x° L P lv > 
 for o /xto-^09 ov Aoyt^erai would then express all that he "wanted) 
 the remaining part of the sentence shows that the word is equally 
 iit to be employed when the reward set down is a strict and 
 proper debt, Kara ofaiXrjfxa : as would, indeed, further appear 
 conclusively in verse 8, from /juxxapios dvrjp <S ov /jlj] Xoyio-ijrai 
 Kvf>io<; ajj-apTiav; where, as it is sin that is spoken of, it cannot be 
 imagined that there is any intention of intimating that there is 
 any impropriety in setting it down to the individual. 
 
 But where, then, does St Paul find Kara x"-P LV m the original 
 record which he quotes? Evidently in ek SiKaioo-vvrjv. What is 
 told of Abraham was clearly not righteousness; and when .Moses 
 records thai it was counted to him for righteousness, it must mani- 
 festly have been by an act of God's grace, and not in the way of 
 strict dealing. And so St Paul most legitimately assumes in 
 reasoning upon it. 
 
 But all this will, I doubt not, appear evident without further 
 explanation. And there seems, indeed, so little ground for gi\ ing 
 \oyi£o[iat in the original passage any other meaning than the 
 Bimple one which it bo often bears, and which our translators give 
 it in rendering the text, to count, to be counted to; that I may
 
 NOTE y. 
 
 bethought to have misspent time in combating, at such Length, 
 such feeble reasoning in support of so manifest an error. But it 
 is hardly safe to regard an error as manifest, which has been 
 adopted by Edwards and so many other divines of high reputation, 
 or to treat as unworthy of refutation reasoning which has pa 
 current with them*. It may be that their mi 
 meaning of this word has not led them into any error as to the 
 important doctrine contained in the passage in which it occurs. 
 But that would be a very bad reason for overlooking or thinking 
 lightly of such a mistake. "When we are car* iou1 fixing 
 
 exactly the meaning of the words of any portion of Holy Writ, 
 and are satisfied with collecting its sense by some less certain 
 process, we are not only dealing irreverently with the Word of 
 God, but are throwing away our best, indeed our only, security 
 for obtaining and preserving the precious truths which it contains. 
 I shall not be disposed, therefore, to regard this long digression as 
 a waste of time if, as I trust, it has effectually cleared away this 
 strange misinterpretation of the word under consideration, and 
 has at the same time fixed its true sense t. 
 
 To reckon, then, to count, to impute, righteoiisness to a man, 
 all mean the same thing. And if reference be made to Romans iv. 
 in which St Paul so often uses the word in vindicating and i \ 
 plaining the statement which he had made of the doctrine of 
 Justification by faith in the preceding chapter, it will be found 
 that he infers from the Scripture record of Abraham's justified out 
 — viz., that Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for 
 righteousness — that the father of the faithful could not have been 
 justified by works; for that, had he been, the record would not 
 
 • Indeed, even still, from time to time, we see this popular misinter- 
 pretation of Xoyl^ofiai put forward by competent scholars, writing with 
 all the aids of the advanced criticism of recent times. Sec some ex- 
 amples in the addition to this Note. 
 
 t I have no doubt that enough has been said to effect both objects. 
 But it maybe thought that I ought to have gone on to explain more 
 fully the whole phrase, of which the word is but a part, or at least to 
 support the explanation which I have given; and, moreover, that as 
 the phrase is derived from the Old Testament, some examination of it as 
 it stands in the Hebrew Scriptures ought to have been added. H any 
 of my readers should be disposed to complain of any deficiencies ol this 
 kind" here, he will, I hope, feel that these are satisfactorily supplied bj 
 some additional matter which he will find at the end of this Note, and 
 which is not introduced above, where it might naturally be looked 
 for, only because it would interrupt inconveniently the course ol the 
 reasoning in the place.
 
 NOTE N. 
 
 thus represent him as rewarded gratuitously, but as paid his da< . 
 He thai the statement that his faith was counted to him 
 
 - distinctly, that the case recorded was 
 that of one ichu worked not, I ved on that God whoj 
 
 the ungodly; and, he adds, that the blessedness of one so justi 
 tied,— the blessedness of the man to whom God tlm^ imputeth 
 righteousness without works, — is that which David extols when be 
 they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose 
 
 ■ '. Bl I is the man to whom the Lord doth not 
 
 impute sin." He then enters into a proof that this blessedness 
 extends to all who believe, as Abraham did, whether they be 
 Jews or Gentiles; and that righteousness shall be imputed to them 
 ; and finally declares that the main purpose of this record 
 about which he has been reasoning was to establish this : that it 
 [righteousness, or faith for righteousness] shall be imputed to us 
 also if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from 
 the dead. 
 
 Here, then, is a distinct and full statement of the nature of 
 the Justification of sinners, which perfectly coincides with the 
 account arrived at in a different way (page 02). I showed there 
 that when we are justified we are declared innocent; that inno- 
 cence, under either divine law, whether natural or revealed, re- 
 quires an abstinence from acts forbidden by the law, and a per- 
 formance of those enjoined by it; and that, therefore, in justifying 
 us, God must not only obliterate altogether the guilt which we 
 have contracted, but that He must ascribe to us the righteousness 
 which we have not earned. I grant that such an account as this 
 of Justification, however strongly supported it be by reasoning, 
 requires some direct confirmation from Scripture : but is there 
 Dot lure a complete and literal confirmation of it? Here the 
 A.postle not only distinctly informs us that God justifies the un- 
 godly — those icho have not worked, but who have believed iipon IJim, 
 — but lie tells us that when they are so justified their iniquities 
 are forgiven, their sins are covered; that God doth not impute sin 
 unto them, and that He doth impute righteousness unto them. The 
 ncidence is perfect, and, as appears to me, irresistible. 
 
 Here are two modes of arriving at a knowledge of the nature 
 of Justification, perfectly distinct, and leading precisely to the 
 Bame conclusion : and can any reasonable doubt remain of the 
 correctn< sc of this conclusion? Whatever doubts might fairly !»•
 
 NOTE N. 
 
 entertained about it, while the statement rested almo t or alt* 
 ther upon reasoning, are they not wholly taken away by thi 
 direct, express, and unequivocal testimony of the A.postle1 I n 
 thus of the testimony of the Apostle, in the passage to which I 
 have referred, with the full knowledge that some respectable di\ 
 have assigned a very different meaning t<> his language there; l>ui 
 my general respect for their authority cannot persuade me bo think 
 of them in this case in any other light than as men led by sti 
 prejudice to reject the direct, express, and unequivocal testimony 
 of Scripture. And upon this point I refer with confidence all an 
 prejudiced readers to the place : not merely with confidence that 
 they will arrive at the same conclusions that I have, with 
 to the Apostle's meaning, but that they will be unable, as 1 am, 
 to discover any reasonable grounds for questioning it. They will 
 find that he does not throw out casually or in ambiguous terms th 
 imputation of righteousness to all believers; but that, through the 
 entire chapter, he keeps it studiously before us ; stating it (list im-t 1 j . 
 recurring to it repeatedly, reiterating the phrase by which he 
 first expressed it, or varying the form of expression while he 
 carefully preserves its meaning; so as to make the point as clear 
 as language can make it, and to- render, I cannot avoid repeating, 
 the denial of it as extraordinary an example of the rejection 
 of direct Scripture testimony as the whole history of religious 
 controversy can furnish. 
 
 Archbishop Tillotson, however (Sermons, Vol. xii. Sermon 8), 
 not only holds that to justify means nothing more than to pardon, 
 but he proves it principally from this passage ! He says : " Thus 
 the word justifie doth signifie variously according to the subjeci 
 or matter it is applied to; but when it is applied to a sinner u 
 signifieth nothing else but pardon of his sin. Nor can I possibly 
 apprehend what other notion men can frame to themselves of a 
 sinner's being justified, distinct from pardon and remission." And 
 he supports this by a reference to Acts xiii. 38, 39, and to this 
 passage of Rom. iv. with which I am concerned. "The other 
 text is Rom. iv. G, 7, 8, Even as David describes the blessed™ 
 
 the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness tmtliout works 
 
 The man unto whom God imputeth righteousness is the man 
 whom God justifies. Now how does David describe the blessedne 
 of the man whom God justifies ?— Thus, Blessed is the man wlm 
 iniquities are pardoned, and whose sins are covered, which
 
 NOTE X. 
 
 metaphorical expression of the same thing : covering of sin 1-, th< 
 pardoning of it Prom hen© I reason, if, according to the Apostle, 
 those propositions be equivalent) Blessed is the man whose iniqui- 
 ties are Poi and Blessed is the man whom God justifies: 
 then, according to the Apostle, justification and forgiveness of sin 
 are all one; but those propositions are equivalent, if the Apostle 
 cite the text pertinently*." 
 
 Every one will be ready to admit, as the Archbishop expects, 
 that the Apostle has cited the passage from the Psalms pertinently. 
 The question with most persons will be — Is it necessary, in order 
 vindicate the pertinence of the citation, that we Bhould hold 
 that the two descriptions of the man whom God justifies are 
 precisely equivalent? Let us, therefore, consider this. Arch- 
 bishop Tillotson cannot, of course, mean that, if there wen- an 
 hundred distinct felicities of the justified man recorded in Scrip- 
 ture, it might not be pertinent to the Apostle's purpose to quote 
 them all. What he must mean, is, that St Paul's mode of intro- 
 ducing the quotation {even as) intimates, naturally, that what he 
 is about to cite from the Psalms, concerning this character, is 
 equivalent to what he has already cited from Genesis. And, no 
 doubt, the form of expression does fairly intimate — not the equi- 
 valence of the two passages— but that they both bear upon the 
 same point ; and that the latter confirms the conclusion to which 
 the former led. Any one who considers the place fairly will see, 
 
 * In his Apologia Disputationis de <•>>"*</ merit ria Justif. horn, 
 coram Deo, Piscator not only maintains the same view as Tillotson V, 
 but supports it by precisely the same reasoning; with the difference 
 that he states the argument more formally. "Quod autem in loco illo 
 Paulino imputari hornini justitiam idem sit quod /u;;;ii,, ,>/ remitti, 
 quivis iimi oontentiosus ct prsejudicio occupatus facile ex ipsa sententia- 
 rimi eohaprentia, videre potest. Verba apostoli hsec sunt, Rom. iv. 6, 7. 
 : s "'" David, &c. Hie probaturus apostolus hominem ilium 
 
 beatum esse cui Deus imputat justitiam, adducit testimonium ex Psal. 
 32- At >" ill" dicto sententia probanda nempe beatus est homo cui 
 Deus imputet justitiam non habetur. Ergo aut nihil probat,aut pro 
 bat \i ; squipollentise. Dicere autem quod nihil probet blasphemum 
 Necesse est igitur fateri quod probet vi sequipollentiaa." — Consi- 
 deratio, 77,, s. xxxv. The only equivalence, however, established by 
 this argument, as I have remarked, is that the per*<>n described as 
 having his sin- pardoned, being the same as the p< rson before described 
 ■ '- having righteousness imputed to him, the second passage confirms 
 1 he inference concerning the gratuitous nature of Justification which 
 the A.postle had drawn from the first; not that the meaning of both 
 passages is precisely the same; which is the equivalence plainly that 
 itor wants.
 
 NOTE \ 
 
 not only that this is actually the case, but that it rendi i a suffi- 
 cient account of the purpose of the second citation, and of the 
 form in which it is made. He will see that the lirst quotation, 
 from Genesis, was designed to prove the gratuitous character of 
 justification, and its total independence upon works; and thai the 
 quotation from the Psalms establishes the same points, even m 
 distinctly to common apprehensions : the former passage conveying 
 as the Apostle explains it, that this object of God's favour has no 
 righteousness of his own which can be set down to his account, 
 and that he is accepted by having his faith sel down for right- 
 eousness; the latter, that he (for it is the same character to which 
 it relates, as the Apostle declares), has iniquities to be pardoned, 
 and sins to be covered. Does not this give a satisfactory res 
 for the even as of the Apostle 1 ? And, when a reasonable account 
 is given of this form of expression, I cannot believe that there i 
 anything in the argument of Tillotson which would justify me in 
 dwelling longer upon it. Assuredly, no one can require to be 
 guarded against the obvious sophism which would infer the iden- 
 tity of the imputation of righteousness, and the pardon of Bin, 
 because each is used to describe God's justification of sinners. If 
 we were at liberty to take two assertions about the same thing, 
 and infer that, because they mean the same tiling, in the sense of 
 designating, or being applied to, the same thing, they must mean 
 the same thing, in the very different sense of being equiv 
 propositions, there are scarcely any propositions so diverse that we 
 might not prove identical. Yet this is plainly what is done here ; 
 with the additional unfairness that, in fixing the common 31 
 of the assertions, it is derived, not from the one which expresses 
 most, but from that which expresses least. • 
 
 It cannot be necessary to say anything more upon this attempt 
 to defend so plain an evasion of Scripture. Indeed, in a case in 
 which Scripture speaks distinctly, perhaps the best mode of an 
 swei-ing such attempts to misrepresent its testimony is simply to 
 transcribe the passage misrepresented, and to leave it to have it 
 fair weight with fair minds. In the present case, the testimony 
 is so explicit that, when I want to express that the imputation 
 righteousness to believers forms an essential part of their justi 
 tion, I find myself continually led to use the language of the 
 Apostle; not merely for the authority which it hud- the d( 
 ration, but for the clearness with which it expresses my meaning.
 
 note y. 
 
 Ami, if such language do not Bel at rest the question, I am unable 
 
 onceive what can or could, It' BUCh reiterated and explicit 
 
 declarations of the fact, from such authority, do not compel belief 
 
 of it, it Beems vain t<> Beek to secure assent to it in any other 
 
 I ; a, however, once more to remind the reader, that 
 
 the fact to which this testimony is given is nut one requiring any 
 
 extraordinary testimony from its own nature, but that it is, on 
 
 the contrary, one which, as I have shown pp. 58, G2, we could 
 
 anticipated from the nature of justification, and from the 
 
 nature of the divine law; that we could be sure, that, if Qod 
 
 Binners, He declares them innocent; and that, if they are 
 
 accounted innoeent, they must not merely be pardoned their 
 
 offences against his law, but accepted, too, as though they had 
 
 performed what it requires. 
 
 After what I have said, pp. 65, 66, it caunot be necessary for 
 me to add anything in the way of precaution against the miscon- 
 ception, that, in labouring at this point, I am dividing justification 
 into distinct or successive acts; or, that I suppose that God can 
 pardon any to whom He does not, at the same time impute right- 
 mess, or impute righteousness to any whom He does not pardon. 
 1 am sure that, in the justification of sinuers, these gracious acts 
 are not only in fact, but, necessarily, united; and I have so said 
 distinctly in the place referred to, and elsewhere. By one, there 
 fore, who had right notions of Justification, 'pardon might be used 
 to express it. It is actually so used, not only in the Bible, but in 
 various Protestant writers, who yet assert, in the most distinct 
 terms, the concomitance of the imputation of righteousness with 
 the pardon of sin in the justification of siuners. I am, of course, 
 therefore, not labouring against any such interchange of the 
 words, but seeking to guard against the inadequate notions of 
 justification to which it is calculated to lead. 
 
 The express testimony of Scripture, then, concerning tin- 
 nature of God's justification of sinners, is that, besides what is 
 naturally conveyed by the pardon of their iniquities, the covering 
 of tluir sins, it includes also the imputation of righteousness unto 
 them: that to those whom He justifies lie does not impute sin: 
 ami thai II, does impute righteousness to them. We are further 
 informed, not only that those who are so justified arc believers in 
 1 is, ''ui i hat it is by their faith, and not by any thing that the} 
 havt '1 or hall do, thai they are bo justified, for their justifica
 
 x <>■/'/■: n 
 
 tion is by faith, untliout the deeds of the law, they are /',,-. „■/,, 
 
 work not, but believe on Him that jusHfieth the ungodly; up 
 
 who raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead; and EJe 
 
 imputes to them righteotisncss without works, counting tlieir faith 
 for righteousness. All this with respect to the ex t ml of <•■ 
 justification of sinners, and the mode of it, is contained in a 
 passage (Rom. iii. and iv.) professedly treating on the subject. It 
 involves, in the form in which I have given it, nol a single 
 of doubtful construction, or, at least, does not rest upon a disputed 
 interpretation of any text. And, finally, it is nnmingled with 
 any inferences from Scripture testimony; but is the testimony 
 itself, pure and distinct. 
 
 The questions of most importance concerning the doctrine of 
 justification are thus explicitly determined. No question of equal 
 interest can be raised concerning the source of the righteousne 
 thus imputed to us; because all must agree to find this in tin- 
 work of the Redeemer, and in it alone. There are, no doubt, 
 very many questions connected with this doctrine left undecided 
 by what has been said; but, while I think that they do not admit 
 of the like direct determination by express declarations of Scrip 
 ture, I cannot regard them as of the same vital importance to 
 the truth. I think he may be taken to hold all that is strictly 
 essential to the Scriptural doctrine of justification, who holds : — 
 that we are justified by faith only ; justified freely, by God's grace, 
 without ivorks, ivhen we believe upon Him that justifieth the un- 
 godly, and raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead; that, 
 in this justification, our sins are blotted out, and we are counted 
 righteous before God; and that of this free justification, — of this 
 pardon of our offences, and of the righteousness thus imputed to 
 us, Christ's work in the flesh is the proper meritorious source. 
 This, I think, comprehends what is strictly essential to the doc- 
 trine. I, at least, desire to have no controversy with those who 
 believe it in this form, and to this extent; whether, upon the 
 points which remain undecided, their belief goes beyond mine, or 
 falls short of it.
 
 NOTE .v. 
 
 Additions to Note N". 
 
 I. re I perform the promise made above, p. 3l">, note, o\ 
 adding to this I - Note 3ome farther consideration of Rom. iv. 3, 
 I think it advisable to l< ok at an objection which has been urged 
 against the Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness; and which, I 
 believe, has created a strong prejudice against it. I take the 
 objection as it is found in one of the Archbishop of Dublin's 
 works, because it Is nowhere else stated with more clearness and 
 But I must first quote his account of the doctrine against 
 which the objection is directed. It is as follows: — "The system 
 at present in question, as far as I have been able to collect its 
 import, may be briefly stated thus: that when our first parents 
 had fallen from a state of innocence, they transmitted to all their 
 posterity (over and above the proneness to sin which we are born 
 with, and our liability to natural death), the guilt also of the 
 actual transgression committed by Adam — this being imputed to 
 
 ry one of his posterity; for, it is said, he being the federal 
 head or representative of the whole human species, his act is con- 
 sidered as theirs to all intents and purposes; and each descendant 
 of Adam is considered by his Almighty Judge as actually guilty, 
 from his birth, of the actual sin of having eaten of the forbidden 
 fruit ; and is, for that sin, sentenced not merely to undergo natu- 
 ral death, but also everlasting punishment in the next world, 
 independently of any sins committed by himself." 
 
 "Then to relieve mankind from this sentence, and to procure 
 fur them immortal happiness in heaven, our Saviour Christ, it is 
 said, not only in His death offered up an effectual sacrifice for the 
 sins of the whole world, — bearing in His own person the punish- 
 ment duo both to the imputed transgression of Adam and to the 
 actual Bins of men, — but also, during His abode on earth, per- 
 formed for them those good w r orks of pei'fect obedience to the law, 
 both ceremonial, civil, and moral, which are imputed to true be- 
 li> vers in Him, and considered as theirs, even as the transgression 
 of Adam is imputed to his natural descendants. Thus, and thus 
 only, it i^ said, could the evil introduced by Adam's transgression 
 • ir as re peel the adopted children of God) effectually re-
 
 NOTE N. 
 
 paired; for, as Adam was the representative of the whole human 
 race, so that las sin is, by imputation, made theirs, and they all 
 and each, lay under the sentence of eternal punishment, so \\ 
 necessary that the obedience and personal holiness of Christ, who 
 stands as the representative of His faithful servants, should 1"' in 
 like manner imputed to these, and thus give them a title to eter 
 nal happiness; that He should, in short, not only by His death 
 undergo the punishment due to man from God, but also, in Hi 
 life, fulfil the righteousness due to God from man — in each in- 
 stance suffering and performing what He did, vicariously, for and 
 in the stead of, His people; who are thence regarded as having 
 themselves both paid the penalty of sin, and also performed per 
 feet obedience to the Divine law — both having been accomplished 
 by their substitute and representative. And some there are who 
 go so far as to maintain that, as God imputes to believers the 
 good works of Jesus Christ, and transfers to them the merit of 
 His obedient life, so He also imputed to Jesus, at the time of 1 1 is 
 crucifixion, the actual guilt of those sins for which He suffered, 
 
 and regarded Him, for the time being, as the actual transgressor 
 
 'bearing our sins,' not only in respect of the penalty of them, but 
 of their intrinsic guilt and the Divine wrath* against it. 
 
 "This, however, is not, I believe, held by all who maintain 
 the imputation of Adam's sin, and of Christ's obedience. Some 
 other slighter variations of statement are to be found, as might be 
 expected, in the works of different authors; but such, in the 
 main, as I have described, is the system taught> not in abstruse 
 theological disquisitions merely, but in several popular treat 
 and sermons; and taught as the very foundation of Christian 
 
 * In a note on this word, the Archbishop says: "There arc many 
 writers who never think of reminding their readers, and, indeed, appear 
 to have themselves gradually learnt to forget that wrath is attributed 
 to the Deity only in a figurative, not a literal, sense. See King's Dis- 
 course on Predestination.'" This opens a wide subject, upon which I 
 have, of course, no thought of entering here. But I may remark that 
 those who hold with Archbishop King upon this point ought to feel 
 that it rather mitigates than aggravates the difficulties which they find 
 in the representative character of our Blessed Lord. For the utmost 
 that the strongest maintainors of that Doctrine would state is, that 
 Christ, standing in the place of sinners, was regarded by God for the 
 time as if He had been Himself a sinner. And if sinners be not lite 
 rally, but figuratively, an object of Divine wrath, Christ would be, 
 according to them, in the same way an object of wrath figuratively and 
 not literally.
 
 .v. 
 
 kith, — of which, indeed, it' true, it must form no insignificant 
 part."— Di i of St Paul, pp. 189— 193. 
 
 Upon neither of these news of the Doctrine do 1 wish here to 
 pronounce any opinion; but I am anxious to remind my readers 
 that I have nowhere maintained or nut forward either of them. 
 I have taken the doctrine at a lower stage, at which it is Less 
 symmetrical, but at the same time, I think, more distinctly n- 
 v ,;i!. |. I have not spoken of our relation to the first Adam at 
 all- and in speaking of our relation to the second Adam, I have 
 d more reserve than some, as stated by the Archbishop, 
 thought it necessary or right to do. I have been content to 
 take the doctrine of justification as it is fully and clearly set forth 
 in the first four chapters of the Epistle to the Komans, in which 
 no reference to our relation to our first parent occurs, though the 
 fruits of tlif relation are very fully stated. We have there a full 
 proof of the guilt of man, and a full declaration of God's gracious 
 plan for his deliverance. And finding it distinctly stated, not 
 only that sinners are justified by fa if//, but that righteousness 
 i'-ifhout works is imputed to than, their faith being counted for 
 righteousness, 1 have not hesitated to state that believers are jus- 
 tified by imputed, not by inherent righteousness. That this is 
 Christ's righteousness, in the sense that it is the fruit and pur- 
 chase of His work in the flesh, cannot be doubted; but that it is 
 His, in the more strict and exact sense in which, as the Arch- 
 bishop truly says, it appears in the statements of some supporters 
 of the doctrine, I have nowhere asserted, but have been, and am 
 still, content with the sober statement with which the passage 
 quoted from Hooker (Sermon v. p. 125) begins — "Christ 
 hath merited righteousness for as many as are found in Him." 
 And on the other hand, seeing (not as a matter of reasoning or 
 inference, but in express statements) that Christ redeemed us from 
 
 curse of (lie law by being made a curse for its — that the Lord 
 
 laid on Hi ni the iniquities of us all — that He bare our sins in His 
 
 own body upon the tree — that He who knew no sin was made sin 
 
 fur us; — seeing this, I say, not to go beyond express texts, I have 
 
 not hesitated to speak of His standing in our place, as our repre- 
 
 and in that capacity having our sins imputed to Him. 
 
 Though I have been anxious to note distinctly the form in 
 which I hold the doctrine in question, yet I do not think it likely 
 tli.o the Archbishop would regard mine or any other modification
 
 NOTE A. 
 
 of the Doctrine which included in Bubstance the imputation to be 
 
 lievers of a righteousness which is not tlioir own, as differing very 
 materially from even the strongest, of the statements to which he 
 has referred. And, at all events, J feel bound to notice thai part 
 of his objection which is derived from the limited amount of 
 Scriptural evidence on which the Doctrine rests— as that may 
 seem to apply to the view of it which 1 hold, no less than to the 
 view or views of it against which the Archbishop's remarks are 
 more expressly directed. 
 
 He lays down, as a principle from which he does not appear to 
 apprehend any dissent, that the nature of this Doctrine — which 
 he describes as "paradoxical, remote from all we should naturally 
 have expected, and startling to our untutored feelings" — furnishes 
 x-easonable grounds for expecting revelation to be more lull and 
 precise upon it than if it were more conformable to the suggestions 
 of reason, and contained no mysterious difficulty. He adds more 
 at length: "Any doctrine, which, like that now in question, is 
 wholly at variance with every notion we should naturally be h-d 
 to form, we may be sure will be revealed, if revealed at all, in the 
 fullest and most decisive language. The Doctrine, too, which I 
 have been considering, must, if it belong to the Gospel scheme, be 
 as important as it is mysterious, it must be the very key, as it 
 were, to eternal happiness; since, according to this view, it is 
 only through the obedience of Christ imputed to us, that we can 
 have any claim or hope to be admitted to the glories of His 
 heavenly kingdom. 
 
 "It is not once or twice, therefore, it is not obscurely or 
 obliquely, that we might expect to find Paul speaking to his con- 
 verts of this imputed sin and imputed obedience. As the founda- 
 tion of salutary dread, and of consolatory hope, — as connected 
 most intimately with every question relative to the punishments 
 and rewards of the next world, — we might expect him to make 
 the most explicit declaration respecting a point of such moment, 
 to dwell upon it copiously and earnestly, and to recur to it in 
 almost eveiy page." — lb. pp. 194, 195. 
 
 Now I am sure that these will appear to many, as they do to 
 the Archbishop himself, to be " most reasonable expectations." It 
 will, indeed, be thought by many, perhaps by most persons at first 
 sight, that we are laying down something like a truism, when we 
 say that we may confidently expect that the clearness with which 
 
 23
 
 note y. 
 
 doctrines are stated in the Word of God, and it may lie their pro- 
 minence and the spar.- which they occupy there, will vary with 
 their importance and difficulty; so that what is most mysterious 
 and of most importance will be most explicitly stated, and oftenesl 
 rei and most earnestly pressed upon us. But, however this 
 
 proposition may sound, it really rots upon no firm foundation. 
 We could hardly be warranted in laying it down, unless we were 
 sure that the only object of the evidence upon which the truths of 
 Revelation are offered to us is that they may l>e received and be- 
 lieved by us. But we arc so far from bring sure that this is the 
 . that we can have no doubt that there are other very impor- 
 
 t objects to be accomplished by it. In answering the objections 
 to the truth of Revelation which are drawn from the defectiveness 
 of its proof. Bishop Butler shows that their strength is entirely 
 derived from overlooking the part which that proof lias to perform 
 in the state of probation and discipline in which we are placed in 
 this life — the test and exercise which it supplies of honesty and 
 seriousness, patience, docility, and other qualities of mind; that 
 this is to some a very important part of the whole probation and 
 discipline under which they are placed by religion; and that for 
 such persons, what are regarded — and in another aspect rightly 
 regarded — as the defects of the proof, fit it to perform an office 
 which it could not perform, if it were more theoretically perfect — ■ 
 if it left no difficulties unremoved, no objections unanswered, and 
 
 re in every point conclusive and complete. 
 
 I believe that the depth and soundness of this reflexion are 
 generally acknowledged. But surely it lias an obvious bearing 
 upon the case before us. Indeed, when it is once settled that 
 there arc other important ends to be answered by the way in 
 which truth- are presented to us in Holy Scripture, besides the 
 primary and important end of procuring our belief of them, we 
 must feel that these other ends must have some share in deter- 
 mining the manner in which such truths arc to be stated, and the 
 which they arc to be explained, sustained, and enforced. 
 Every one must see that this is the case: and, upon consideration, 
 
 ry one, I think, must feel that we arc wholly incompetent to 
 
 di termine what is the amount of the effect to be assigned to th< 
 
 other end- iii each particular case; and that, therefore, we cannot, 
 
 without great rashness, venture to graduate the evidence which we 
 
 to look for in each case. We may be co-tain that we arc
 
 NOTE v 
 
 safe in anticipating, that for every bhing thai w< are required to 
 believe, be it fact or doctrine, sufficient evidence bo warranl our 
 belief, and sufficient, indeed, to make disbelief or unbelief a Bin, 
 will be provided. But when we go beyond this, and laj down 
 that the evidence will be multiplied and strengthened, in propor 
 tion to tlic difficulty and importance of the doctrine prop 
 our belief, we are plainly going beyond our depth: we are de 
 manding more than wo bave any right to expect. And we are, 
 therefore, taking a perilous course, when we reject a doctrine or 
 withhold our belief from it, because such demands are nol com- 
 plied with, or because the doctrine is not stated as explicitly or aa 
 repeatedly as we think its obscurity, or its importance, or its diffi- 
 culty requires. 
 
 But do we in fact find any more warrant in Scripture for this 
 position, than in reason? I do not mean, do we find thai some 
 doctrines of great importance are laid down distinctly, and re- 
 peatedly, and in various forms, so as to guard against all possibi- 
 lity, apparently, of mistaking them or disbelieving them : for this 
 we certainly do. But are there any doctrines of great difficulty, 
 and of great importance, that are less distinctly stated, and le a 
 repeatedly put forward, than others which are easier and of 
 moment, — which are more of a nature to be readily admitted. 
 and to which the same importance cannot be attached ! 
 
 Let us take an example. Can any doctrine be regarded 
 more important than the doctrine of the Trinity ? — and can any 
 other be regarded as more mysterious? If the Archbishop's prin- 
 ciple were well founded, might we not say very confidently of it, 
 that it is a doctrine which "we may be sure will be revealed, it' 
 revealed at all, in the fullest and most decisive language?" And 
 with more especial reference to St Paul as the sacred writer w o 
 has set forth the Doctrine of Justification most distinctly and 
 copiously, — dwelt on it most and enforced it most, — might we 
 not expect that, if only from its intimate connexion with I 
 great Doctrine, we should find the doctrine of the Trinity fully 
 and clearly unfolded in his writings; that it is so essentially c 
 nected with the peace, and hope, and joy of the Believer thai, it 
 it could be said of any doctrine, we might say it of this, thai 
 might expect St Paul to make the most explicit declarations n sj 
 mg it, — to dwell on it copiously and earnestly, — to recur to it in 
 almost every page. 
 
 23—2
 
 3J6 NOTE -V. 
 
 A ul ia tlii- the easel The Archbishop says, with reference 
 to tin- doctrine of Imputed Righteousness, "Now when we pro- 
 
 I t.. the actus] examination of Scripture, do we find these 
 most reasonable expectations confirmed 1 Far otherwise: it is 
 not, perhaps, going t<>" far t>> Bay that the whole Bystem is made 
 t,, peel "ii a particular interpretation of one single texl (Rom. v. 
 19)— -A- 1>\ one man's disobedience many wen- made sinner-. BO 
 by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.' For, 
 though there are other passages which have been c tnsidered as 
 alluding to ami confirming the text in question, there is none 
 that could, without great \ ioleiice, be construed into an express 
 declaration of it." — Ibid. 
 
 Now, admitting this statement for the present, is it very dif- 
 ferent from the account which an opponent of the doctrine of the 
 Trinity might give, witli the sane appearance of fairness, of the 
 Scripture evidence on which that great truth rests { Might not 
 such a one say — ' There is but one passage in the Bible (1 John 
 v. 7) which can be fairly described as an express and formal 
 declaration of the doctrine of the Trinity as it is stated by theo- 
 logians, and that is given up as spurious by all Biblical critics to 
 whose opinion any real weight is to bo attached. After this, there 
 is not a single passage in Scripture that can he regarded as ex- 
 pressly stating the doctrine. Those that would be tirst thought 
 of are the Baptismal Formula (Matt, xxviii. 10), and the Aposto- 
 lic Benediction (2 Cor. xiii. 14-). But even the strongest advocates 
 of the doctrine do not allege those texts as express enunciations 
 of it: the utmost that they maintain is, that the doctrine is to be 
 inferred from them. And as to the other texts which are brought 
 forward on that side, however thoy may have been considered as 
 confirming the Doctrine in question, there is none of them which 
 could be construed, by any amount of violence, into an express 
 declaration of it.' 
 
 Is not this about as fair an abstract of the Scripture evidence 
 for the doctrine of the Trinity as the Archbishop's of the doctrine 
 of Imputed Righteousness? And if it he, does it not show — 
 first, that a doctrine may he estaMished to the entire conviction 
 of .nir minds, though the Scripture proofs, on which our belief 
 
 . do not comprehend even a single express enunciation of it, 
 
 '.ut are made up of pas-ages from which it is inferred, and pas- 
 
 — whether allusions, or assumptions, or partial statements —
 
 NOTE X. ,7 
 
 by which the inference is confirmed I and, secondly, thai uch ma] 
 be the proof which God in His wisdom may Bee lit to provide 
 even for the most mysterious, diilicult, and important doctrini 
 Revelation ? 
 
 I must add, however, that I am not prepared to acquiesce en- 
 tirely in the Archbishop's statement of the Scripture evidence "f 
 the doctrine of Imputed Righteousness. lie says, as we have 
 seen, that "the whole system is made to rest on a particular 
 interpretation of one single text (Rom. v. 19)," ami that, with 
 the exception of this single text, "there is none that could, with- 
 out great violence, be interpreted into an express declaration of 
 it." I think, however, not merely that this is not the only 
 express declaration, but that this text is by no means tin- . -I, . M . i 
 and strongest declaration of the doctrine which is to be found in 
 Scripture. 
 
 Indeed, I so far agree with the Archbishop with reference to 
 this text, as to think that so much may be said to show that it 
 speaks not of imputed, but of inherent (imparted) righteousness, 
 that, if the doctrine rested entirely upon it, it would not have a 
 very satisfactory foundation*. But I think the text, 2 Cor. v. '21, 
 
 * I wish, however, that it should be specially noted that this conces- 
 sion only applies to the question, What is the blessing spoken of in the 
 text referred to ? — and that it does not touch the other question, By 
 what was the blessing procured ? It may be that, as the Archbishop 
 contends, the blessing was not imputed but inherent righteousness. 
 But whichever it were, surely it is ejyressly stated that it was by 
 Christ's obedience that it was procured : ovtw Kal oia r^s iVa/corJs rov ivbs 
 Si/ccuoi KaraaTadrjirovTai ol ttoWoL. If there could be any doubt that this is 
 the express testimony of this clause, it would be removed by the clause 
 with which it is directly connected : c!We/> yap did t^s irapaKOTjs rod iris 
 avdpwTTov a/jLapruiXol KareoTad-qaav ol iroWol, ovtw k.t.X. There can be no 
 more doubt that the clause first quoted declares that man's righteous- 
 ness came by Christ's obedience, than there is that the clause now- 
 quoted declares that man's sinfulness came by Adam's disobedience. 
 
 It may be asked, how does this declaration (thus understood) agree 
 with the repeated testimonies in Scripture (one of them in this very 
 chapter, verse 9 : diKaiudivres vvv if ru> aiixan clvtov, and again, 10 :Karr}\- 
 \dyr}/xev rt3 9et3 5td rod davdrov rov vlov aurov), which point to ( hnstrS 
 
 death,— Bis blood— as the procuring cause of all the benefits of re- 
 demption? In reply, I would say that these different declarations ol 
 Holy Writ, one of which ascribes to His death the same efficacy that 
 the other ascribes to His obedience, only appear to be at ranance when 
 His mediatorial work is divided strictly into obedience and suffering; 
 and that when these are regarded as united, so that His death was tho 
 crowning act of His obedience, all opposition between such declarations 
 disappears. This view of the Atonement is explained m Bermon 111.
 
 NOTB A. 
 
 offers a much more certain basis for it. The Archbishop does oof 
 ■ this text entirely unnoticed; but he disposes of it inci- 
 
 A li-l I may remark here, thai it supplies a satisfactory answer to 
 ;m objection which one often hears against tins doctrine, viz.. that 
 Scripture speaks continually <>f Christ's death in connexion with <mr re- 
 demption, and but rarely of Bis obedience. It is plain that what is 
 Baid above in the body of the Note in abatement <>t' the Archbishop's 
 objection applies to a great extent to this one also, as relying upon the 
 scantiness of the Scripture testimony to the doctrine. But I wish, in 
 addition, to remark that whatever force this objection may seem to 
 have when directed against the artificial view of the Atonement above 
 referred to, it can hardly be thought to touch mine, fur. according to it, 
 whenever mention is made of Bis death, there the highest act of ohe- 
 dience is spoken of. I do not, of course, mean to intimate any doubt 
 that there was a Bpecial efficacy in His death as a sin-offering which was 
 
 lerivi '1 from its being an act of obedience; but merely that it was 
 an act of obedience, and as such a meritorious ground of our justifica- 
 tion. Indeed, if it is to be regarded as a part of the Redeemer's course 
 of obedience at all. we could hardly doubt that it is to be regarded as 
 the highest part of that course. And though a more convenient place 
 might be found lor the remark. I must add. that setting aside all other 
 texts which might be brought to bear upon the question, we seem to be 
 clearly directed to the Lord's death as the culminating point of His 
 obedience, in that most important passage iu Phil ii. which sets forth 
 Bis voluntary humiliation. The words are, yev6fj.ei>os vwtikoos ntxP 1 6avd- 
 tov, Oav&Tov U ffravpov ; and that they present the death of the Lord as 
 a j part of His obedience can hardly, I suppose, be doubted. For though, 
 so tar as the force of the preposition is concerned, it cannot be d< 
 mined whether the object of txtxP 1 ifl :' part of the course which it ter- 
 minates, or whether it is simply the termination, without forming any 
 part of the course, yet this is often to be collected from the known cir- 
 cumstances of the case, or from something subjoined which explains 
 them. Thus, Matt. xiii. ."50, &<pere <rwav£dvt<rdai dfupdrepa fi^xpi Oepia/xou 
 might, perhaps, leave it doubtful whether the growth was to terminate 
 witli the harvest or not, but what follows shows that, when the time of 
 harvest comes, the growth is to come to au end: iv ^ KaKonaOQ fiixpi. 
 8e<r/i&v might be said, so far as the words are concerned, if the Apostle's 
 sufferings had fallen short of actual bonds, but as we know from history 
 that they did not, we conclude that the object of ^XP<- is here included 
 in the course of suffering of which he speaks. And in the place in 
 question, if the sentence elided with yev6p.a>os virr/Koos ptxP 1 Oavdrov 
 we could not be sure that the Lord's death was a part of the obedience 
 spoken of: the words might be only intended to convey that he was 
 Obedient as long as he lived. Hut when it is added davdrov 5t crravpov, 
 it is plain that his death was a part of the obedience spoken of. because, 
 in that mode of understanding it. the nature of His death is pertinent, 
 for it- severity magnifies His obedience. IJut, on the other hand, if the 
 
 d were only to mark the point at which His obedience terminated, 
 or to State that He was obedient His whole life long, the first simple 
 mention of His death would have been enough : — there would be no good 
 
 1 for subjoining the specification of the nature of the death which 
 Be died, and that in a way that directs attention to its severity, B 
 certainly does. That Bis death was therefore a part of Bis obedience 
 
 cannot be doubted ; and. if it were, it can as little be doubted, it Would 
 
 seem, that it was the crowning act of Bis obedience.
 
 NOTE .V. 
 
 dentally, not imagining, us it seems, that the same Lmportcu 
 
 could be attached to it. 
 
 " And this should teach us how bo interpret the pa in 
 
 which we are said to be made • the righteou aess of God in < 
 and He to be 'made sin for us;' viz. — not that li«' w;i con idered 
 in the sight of God as actually sinful, but thai He was made a 
 'sin-offering' for us; a/mpi-ta, which is, literally, 'sin, 1 being com 
 monly used by the Septuagint translators in ll iu- 
 
 pffering."— lb. p. 206. 
 
 This is the common interpretation of this remarkable pa 
 indeed, Archbishop Magee thinks that there is no other that 
 deserves any consideration. He says — "In this passage the word 
 d/xapTia, which is translated sin, is considered by Hammond, I .•■ 
 Clerc, Whitby, and every respectable commentator, to mean a 
 offering, or sacrifice for sin: it is so translated expressly by 
 Primate Newcome in his new version. That this is the true 
 meaning of the word will readily be admitted, when it is consi- 
 dered that this is the application of it in the Hebrew idiom; and 
 that Jews, translating their own language into Greek, would give 
 to the latter the force of the corresponding words in the former. 
 And that they have done so is evident from the vise of the word 
 through the entire of the Greek version of the Old Testament, to 
 which the Apostles, when speaking in Gi*eek, would naturally 
 have adhered." — Magee on the Atonement, 5th eel. Loud. 1832, 
 Vol. i. p. 230. 
 
 There can be no doubt that not a few respectable names might 
 be added to those enumerated by Archbishop Magee as favouring 
 the interpretation of the word which he maintains. But he 
 a little too far when he counts every respectable commentator on 
 his side. Some eminent names have been added to the list of 
 authorities, which might have been made out when he wrote, in 
 support of a different view of the proper meaning of the word 
 But even then, it would have been easy to bring forward Borne 
 who could scarcely have been excluded from the clas pect- 
 
 able commentators. — For example, Hammond, Le Clerc, and 
 Whitby are not more decidedly for his interpretation of dfiapria, 
 than Calvin, Beza, and Bengel, are against it. 
 
 I will only quote the last, because he is, as usual, much the 
 briefest; but the others are not less decided. 
 
 "Hum, qui non norat peccatum ; qui nulla eguenrl reconcilia.
 
 3C0 NOTB -V. 
 
 tione. Elogiam Jesa propriunx Maria non erat 77 /at) yvovcra, 
 /<('/( /("/•<«/ peocatum. — dfiapriav t-ou/o-ev, peccatum fecit) pec- 
 catum ita.uti noBJtutitia. Quia auderel sir loqui, nisi Paulus prav 
 Iretl Con£ Gal. iii. 13. Ideo Christua etiam derelictus in mice. — 
 7;/it?s) no*, qui non noramus justitiam, qui debueramus consumi, 
 nisi reconciliatio invents asset.— fr aurw, in eo) iu Christo, pro 
 
 As Archbishop Magee baa named but three authorities in 
 support of his interpretation of the text, I should be content 
 with tli-' same number on the other side; but I do not wish to 
 withhold from my readers the pleasure and advantage of a very 
 luminous comraenl upon the text by a more recent writer. The 
 passage which I am about to quote cccurs in Mr Davison's work 
 on Primitive Sacrifice, to which I do not wish to refer without 
 stating distinctly that I dissent entirely from the solution which 
 the ingenious author oilers of the question with respect to the 
 origin of the rite. But there are several subordinate points in 
 the controversy, and particularly points of criticism, upon which 
 I am obliged to agree with him rather than with those whom he 
 opposes; and the interpretation of this text is one of them. 
 
 In the progress of a very ingenious and able argument in 
 which he combats the translation of Gen. iv. 7, which Archbishop 
 Magee supports, he is led to investigate the meaning of d/xapria in 
 the Greek versions of the Old Testament. He shows that the 
 
 tnent that dfxapTLu stands in the Septuagiut (and the other 
 Greek translations) for H^DH, when it signifies sm-offering, is 
 only true with a qualification, even in the Levitical Code. And 
 he adds, "But out of the Levitical law, in the pure moral or his- 
 toricaJ parts of Scripture, I venture to lay it down as a point 
 certain, that dfiapria neither could express sin-offering, nor be so 
 used by any translator not wholly inattentive to the propriety of 
 hi- expression." He then passes thus to the consideration of the 
 Bingle passage in the New Testament in which the word has been 
 BUpposi d to bear this meaning : 
 
 •■ < me passage there is iu the New Testament wherein d/xapria 
 simply is thought to he used for sin-ollering. Tuv yap fxrj yroVra 
 
 nav, wtp //"('if djiapTLav erroirjaev, ii>a vy/Atis yivw/xe8a SiKaiocrvvri 
 1 (V acrJj, 2 Cor. v. 21, which is commonly explained thus: — 
 ' He made him a sin-offering for us;' and the text is usually quoted 
 
 is authoritative examplt of that definite sense. But in this
 
 NOTE X. 36] 
 
 passage of St Paul, one of the most expressive and energetic in the 
 whole of his writings, I consider that we only enervate the exqui- 
 site force of his sentiment and doctrine, by introducing the idea of 
 sin-offering. * Him who knew no sin, lie made t<» be sin foi 
 that we might be made the righteousness of < rod in Him.' < !h 
 was made sin (a sinner) for us: we righteousness (righteous) in 
 Him. His being made a sinner, is the being treated as Buch. 
 But all this force is condensed in the term sin; and the pn 
 notion of sin-offer ing not only is unnecessary, but even detrimental 
 to the pathos and argumentative eloquence of the Aposl le's Baj ing. 
 It is a part of the intellectual grandeur of his style to write in 
 that manner. So he often does. Gralat. iii. 13: ' Christ hath re- 
 deemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us* 
 {Ko.Ta.pa. not Ka.Topa.Tos). — Ephes. v. 8: 'Ye were sometimes ilurh- 
 ness, but now are ye light in the Lord' (ctko'to?, </><Hs). — Rom. xi. 7 : 
 1 The election hath obtained it.' It is therefore a cold officious cri- 
 ticism, and not a true sympathy with the pregnant and emphatic 
 style of the Apostle, which would convert sin, in this passage, into 
 .sin-offering; and although this substituted idea has had a consider- 
 able success among later commentators, it is only by a specious 
 poverty of thought which really robs the passage of its force. For 
 what is there extraordinary, if the sinless should be made an offer- 
 ing for sin? It is of the very nature of offerings that they be 
 pure and spotless. But when we read that the righteous was made 
 a sinner, that we sinners might be made righteous, then we are at 
 home with St Paul's striking energy of mind, and the mutual 
 transference of character between the Redeemer and the sinner 
 becomes perfect. Our translators, therefore, have here shown a 
 justness of conception, to which many later critics, and those of no 
 mean talents, have not attained; or rather from which they have 
 been carried away by a suggestion of their philological erudition 
 unskilfully applied." — Primitive Sacrifice, p. G3 — 65. 
 
 My own view of the important text referred to is so much 
 better expressed in the foregoing passage than 1 could hope it 
 would be if I were to state it myself, that I am very glad to give 
 it in the words of the distinguished writer from whom I have 
 quoted rather than in my own. 
 
 Besides the proofs derived directly from Scripture for ami 
 
 against the doctrine of Imputed Righteousness, there are oth. re,
 
 - 
 
 NOTE .v 
 
 {,,„,, ning, upon which Bome of the advocates and 
 
 Borne of tin- opponents of the doctrine are disposed to rely. 1 
 attach bat little importan rguments of that class in support 
 
 of the doctrine, even as auxiliary to the Scripture proofs ..fit, and 
 none at all to them in an independent capacity. But there are 
 I '.;. h tin- doctrine which oneia not at liberty to 
 
 disregard, 1 mean those which profess to show that it is incon- 
 
 in itself, or inconsistent with acknowledged principb 
 the divine government And a- the doctrine is one of such im- 
 portance, I think it well to notice briefly one or two of this class, 
 whi.h 1 do not remember to have ever seen in print, but which 
 came acquainted with by finding that they were weighing 
 heavily upon the mind of a pious friend, whose life might have 
 1 to have been spent, as literally as that of any on.' I have 
 ever known, in the study of Cod's Word. Perhaps if 1 had 
 learned them in any other way, I should have attached but little 
 importance to them. Under the circumstances, however, I could 
 not but feel anxious to remove them, and what I am about to sub- 
 join is the substance of a paper which I drew up at the time for 
 this object I may premise that the difficulties which I am about 
 to notice, like that which I have just considered, apply more di- 
 rectly to the doctrine in some of the other forms in which it is 
 often held and stated, than to the one to which I have thought it 
 right to confine myself. But still I think it advisable, as in the 
 former case, to look at them on account of the general principles 
 which they involve, or which the consideration of them will natu- 
 rally bring out. 
 
 It is thought a very strong objection to the doctrine in ques- 
 tion, if not a complete refutation of it, that while the law only 
 requires us to obey or to suffer, this doctrine seems to require us 
 to obey amd to Buffer, because, according to it, Christ, as our repre- 
 sentative, obeyed "/' / Mill'ered for us. 
 
 |; it there is an ambiguity in the word requires, which renders 
 it necessary to fix its meaning, before we can judge what this 
 argument is worth. To make it of any value, requires ought to 
 mean requires for our justification. This is its sense in the second 
 proposition] but the same sense cannot be given to the won 1 in 
 the Bret proposition without making it false. The law does not 
 prop fering as a substitute for obedience in procuring justi- 
 
 but sete if forth as the penal consequence of disobedience.
 
 NOTE S 
 
 11 the law says, obey or suffer, it is nol aa proposing two mean 
 the same end, either of which you may take with the ame result. 
 It is an alternative of a different kind one in which if you do 
 
 uot choose the first, you must take the second. An. I the law .. 
 not represent those who take the second, ami win. do suffer 
 conliugly, as objects of God's favour and justified l>\ Him, bu 
 condemned by Him and objects of His wrath. It cannot be said, 
 therefore, that we have suffered in Christ, and are therefore ji 
 tied before God. No other way of justification but obedience i, 
 proposed to us by the law. Reasoning, therefore, on these princi- 
 ples, the conclusion would seem to be that we ca >t regard 
 
 ourselves as justified before God, until we can say that we have 
 obeyed in Christ. 
 
 But then it may be said, 'Suppose that in this way yon Bhow 
 that Christ's suffering for us does not render His obedience for as 
 superfluous, would not His obedience for us render His Buffering 
 lor us not only superfluous but something more? If we had our- 
 selves obeyed, could we have been justly punished? Ami it' lb- 
 has obeyed for us, can it be justly required that He should suffer 
 for lis also? This seems to be as good reasoning as the other. 
 And is it not a decisive reductio ad absurdum? Is it not enoueh 
 to overthrow any view of the Gospel plan of redemption, that, 
 according to it, Christ's death was unnecessary, not to say unjust V 
 
 This reasoning appears plausible, but it is really founded upon 
 an inadequate statement of the case. For Christ's obedience has 
 been rendered for man, not simply as subject to the law, but as a 
 sinner against the law. No obedience rendered by such a one, 
 and therefore no obedience rendered for him could expiate hi, past 
 guilt, or could secure his justification while his guilt was unex- 
 piated. And for this, the other part of the Lord's work was 
 necessary. 
 
 But then, it will be said, that this is making a great deal too 
 much rest upon what is plainly a non-essential poiut. The argu- 
 ment turns altogether upon the fact that Christ was not mani- 
 fested in the flesh until after man had sinned. But the time at 
 which His work was wrought here upon earth does not affect 
 either its nature or its effects. Though the time of His coming 
 was fixed by Divine wisdom with reference to the accomplishment 
 of all the Divine purposes, and was no doubt of great importance 
 in various ways, it was of no moment ae to the relation that
 
 364 NOTE N. 
 
 sinners bear to Bis work. Those who lived before and those who 
 
 i after are alike Baved by it, bo that the declaration that lie 
 was not only the Lamb foreordained before the foundation of the 
 world, but the Lamb slain from the foundation of the «•.</•/>/, is not 
 to be regarded as a mere figure but a great reality. His offering 
 
 dates not from the accomplishment of it in this world, but from 
 the appointment >>f it in the unseen world. But ii' this be the 
 case, ami if ffis work for man is to he regarded as wrought before 
 man was called into being, then obedience for man cannot he a 
 part of it, for this would make the other part. Hi- suffering for 
 man, unnecessary. 
 
 But what, we may ask, did make this other part necessary/ 
 Nothing that had actually occurred. Man had not sinned, for, 
 according to this hypothesis, man had n t been yet created. Why, 
 then, was it necessary that his representative's foreordaiued work 
 for him should comprise suffering? Doubtless, it would be re- 
 plied, because it was foreseen that man would sin. No one can 
 object to this answer. But does it not plainly abandon the former 
 use of the text, and confess that the nature of the Lord's work for 
 mm is determined by the actual condition and wants of man at 
 the time that it was wrought? And this is, no doubt, the only 
 legitimate use of the text referred to. The efficacy of the Lord's 
 work does not depend in any degree upon the time at which it 
 was wrought It is plainly in its own nature as applicable to 
 sinners who lived before as to those who lived after it was accom- 
 plished. And when it was determined in the Divine councils, it 
 might be regarded as already wrought; so that all its benefits 
 might he bestowed 14)011 all whom God connected with it, even 
 though they lived before it was actually wrought. But though it 
 might in this way be treated as actually wrought, yet it is plain 
 that this anticipation (in our mode of speaking and of apprehend- 
 ing too) of the work made no alteration in the mode of accom- 
 plishing it, or in its nature or objects. All of these were just the 
 same as tiny would have been if it had not been foreseen or fore- 
 ordained. They were in fact determined by the nature and re- 
 quirements of this emergency, which was foraseen, and provided 
 for beforehand, and they were, therefore, in every respect the same 
 a- it the emergency had not been foreseen, or any provision made 
 tor ii until it had actually arisen. 
 
 In looking at the question in this way, therefore, we art.' to
 
 NOTE X. 
 
 collect the nature of the work from the nature of the case foi 
 which it was to provide. And thia brings us back to the point .1 
 which we started, at which, considering the actual condition and 
 wants of man when the work was wrought, we Beemed, so faj 
 
 reason could carry us in such a case, to see that the gr la for 
 
 requiring that the Redeemer's work should comprise obedience for 
 sinners are as strong as those which we have for requiring that 
 suffering for sinners should be a part of it. 
 
 It is not, of course, meant to say that we can see that the 
 former is an absolutely essential part of the work, bo that it was 
 not possible that God could be just in forgiving ami accepting 
 sinners on account of Christ's death simply. That, would be an 
 irrational and most presumptuous forgetfulness of tin- proper 
 limits of our reason. But it seems that the justice of the pro- 
 cedure appears more clear in the one case than in the other: ami 
 with reference to the declaration of the Apostle (Horn. iii. 25) — 
 that Christ was set forth to be a propitiation for our sin.-, not 
 merely that God might be just, but that His justice in showing 
 mercy to sinners might be manifested, — this seems to be of some 
 importance. 
 
 II. 
 
 I proceed to the further consideration which I promised to 
 give of the form of expression «ai iXoyuaOr] (u'tcu et? 8ikcuooti rjv. 
 I have said a good deal about it, as it is found in th>' N«\\ Testa- 
 ment; but as it is borrowed from the Hebrew it will be satisfactory 
 to look at some of the places in the Old Testament in which such 
 forms of speech occur. 
 
 The verb 1£TI, which corresponds to Aoyi£o/xat, signi6es chiefly 
 
 (1) to think, to think upon, to think out, to plan, foe ; (2) to count 
 
 for or as, to reckon for or as, to regard as, in judging, forming an 
 
 estimate of, dealing with; (3) to reckon to, or count to, or set (hum 
 
 to the account of, or impute. 
 
 It is only with the meanings (2) and (3) that we are imme- 
 diately concerned. And with those, chiefly in the cases where 
 the person or thing counted, reckoned, foe., is in some way. more 
 or less, different from that for which it is counted, foo. It will be
 
 NOTE .V. 
 
 i the cases to which I refer, as the verb 
 i- used in thai connexion much more frequently than in any 
 other, 
 
 I shall lii-: camples of the meaning (2) to countfor, .v.-.. 
 
 in this connexion; premising that the word signifying that for 
 which tin- object i- counted may follow the verb without any 
 prefix, or with 7 or 3 (poet. St^O) prefixed. 
 
 Thus th 5 of Laban say of their father, Gen. xxxi. 1">, 
 
 h i:2L M 'n^ ni»133 xi^ri, lxx. oi5 x & ^ jaaoV'u \e\u y i- 
 
 07- • Vw: and E.V. An we not coio*'"/ of him strangers? 
 
 A ,1 Job Bays of himself. Job xix. 15, ^uTO ih 'Jlh&NI 
 LXX. uAAoyei /}* vjfJMqv (vavriov avrwv, and E.V. "And my maids 
 for a stranger." And God Himself says of His people, 
 Ho& viii 12, JQBTtJ Tl'foS, LXX. ko.1 to w>pipa auroi; ets 
 tlWuTpia iXoyiaOrjcrav, E.V. " They [the great things of my law] 
 were counted as a strange thing." 
 
 In th( ts, it will be remarked that the word den< ting the 
 
 person or thing for or as which, the actual person or thing is 
 
 i>t>il, -lands in the first without any prefix in the original (ws 
 appearing in the LXX.); in the second, it is preceded by 7 1 
 which there is nothing corresponding in the LXX.); in the third, 
 by i£3 (translated by «s, LXX.). But the force in all of them 
 i- evidently tin; same; insomuch that the form might be inter- 
 changed in any pair of them, without any alteration of the 3en 
 And, indeed, th.- same is true of the corresponding texts in our 
 version. To count one a stranger, for a si/ranger, and as a 
 evidently mean the same thing. The case is so plain, 
 therefore, that I need not multiply quotations to prove it. But 
 lor those who wisli to look further at the point, I Bubjoin a list 
 of texts, arranging them in three divisions. 
 
 A. Deut. ii. 11,20; Nek xiii. 13; Lrov. xvii. 2S; Is. xl. 
 17. liii. 1. 
 
 I'.. 1 Sam. i. 13; 1 Kin. x. 21 ; Job xiii. 2 1, xxxiii. Id, xxxv. 
 2, xli. 1'.' (E.V. 27); Lam. iv. 2. 
 
 . C. Job iviii 1, xix. 11, xli. 21 (E.V. 29); V?. xliv. 23 (E.V. 
 22); [& v. 28, xxix. 10, xl. 15; Dan. iv. 32 (E.V. 35). 
 
 It will be- found upon looking at the foregoing texts thai they 
 all express the same act or operation of counting <>r regarding 
 ■ pel 11 or thing as or for something more or less different from-
 
 NOTE X. 
 
 what it actually is. But as in the three texts quoted i\ length 
 above, tlio word which denotes the person or thing /or oi 
 which the actual person or thing is counted is found, in the <• 
 in div. A., without any preposition; in those in 15., it is preceded 
 
 by 7; and in those in C, by 5- 
 
 In the Greek, the form of expression is sometimes so char 
 as not to admit of a detailed comparison with the original. Bui 
 setting aside such eases, we find, as we should i xpect, thai 7 ifi 
 generally rendered by eis, and ^ by ojs or wenrep; and that where 
 neither of the prefixes appears in the original, neither of the 
 corresponding Greek particles is given in the translation. Bui 
 wdiile this holds as a general rule, there are exceptions which are 
 quite sufficient to show that all the forms referred to v. 
 garded by the LXX. as equivalent both in the Hebrew and in 
 the Greek. For sometimes, when neither of the prefixes occurs 
 in the original, we find one of the Greek particles, sometimes the 
 one and sometimes the other, in the translation; while, mi tin- 
 other hand, at times, when one of the prepositions appears in the 
 Hebrew text, it is left unrepresented in the Greek. And, filially, 
 the ordinary translation of the prefixes is at times interchanj 
 
 7 being translated by w?, and 5 by eh. 
 
 We may now pass to the third meaning of ^H, to count, or 
 reckon to one; to set down to his account; to impute to him. 
 
 And the verb may be used in this sense both when the thing 
 set down to a man's account is a quality which he actually pos- 
 sesses, or an act which he has actually done; and also when it is 
 something that he does not possess, or that he has not done, 
 this applies both to men's dealings with each other, and to the 
 dealings of God with them. . . » 
 
 Thus in Shimei's petition to David, 2 Sam. xix. _'< >, *^"3w !T" S X 
 fltf *Jl& E.V. (ver. 19) "Let not my lord impute iniquity unto 
 me," he does not mean to deny that he is guilty. He says, in- 
 deed, that he knows that he is, and he goes on to confess expi 
 the iniquity which he had committed. So, too, Lev. vii. L8, N s 
 )h SBTft " Neither shall it be imputed unto him," E.V., is 
 with reference to a peace-offering which a man had rowed, and 
 which he has really offered, but in the eating of which there 
 an irregularity which vitiates and annuls the offering, BO that 1 
 is not set down to the man's account.
 
 NOTE X. 
 And aa too. Pa xxxii. 2. before referred to, \jh E"!N~HC'X 
 
 9 t t •* : 
 
 iiV i 1 ? nilT HBTl'i " Blessed u the man unto whom the Lord 
 Imputeth n. .t iniquity" E.V.J where the verse before shows (if it 
 were need d) that this is -p. .km of one to whose account iniquity 
 might be, and, in strict justice, ought to be, set down. 
 
 S onetimes, however, that which is set down to a man's account 
 is some quality that he does not possess, or some act that he has 
 uot committed. But here (as was diown to be the case with 
 
 rd t" the corresponding word A.oyi'£o/i.cu in the former part of 
 this Note) the verb, though used in a different connexion, is not 
 used in a different sense. The fact that the man is not really 
 entitled to that which is set down to his account is not expressed 
 or intimated by the veil), which means in such cases exactly what 
 it means when what is set down to a man is something that he 
 actually possesses or has actually done. The rest is to be col- 
 1. sometimes entirely from the circumstances of the case, and 
 sometimes also from the form of the remainder of the sentence. 
 
 Thus, when we read Lev. xvii. 4, tf!|pin B>W? 3BTP til, Blood 
 
 9 - • T " T " T 
 
 shall be imputed to that man, the verb is plainly used in its ordi- 
 nary sense. There is nothing, indeed, in the words hut what 
 might have been said, and would have been said, if the case 
 referred to were that of one who had actually committed murder. 
 It is from the context that we know that it is not such a case 
 that is spoken of, but the case of one who had violated a positive 
 commandment by which the killing of an animal for food was 
 made, fur the time, a religious service, to be performed in a pre- 
 BClibed place and manner. And a breach of this commandment 
 was treated as an unpardonable offence, to be punished as the 
 shedding of a man's blood. 
 
 And the same is to be said as regards the verb, even when the 
 process of substituting one thing for another in a man's account 
 is more distinctly expressed. We tiave an example of this, Num. 
 xviii. 27. The children of Israel were required to set apart for 
 the Lord the tenth of the increase of their lands, and herds, and 
 flocks. Thisc t.iiths were to be offered to Him as a heave- 
 offering, and then to be given to the Levites for their support. 
 The Levites could not make offerings in the same way, because 
 they had ao part or inheritance in Israel. But when God provided 
 for them thus in another way, by giving them the tithes, they
 
 NOTE y. 
 
 were commanded to offer to Him the tenth of this provision which 
 He made for them. The tenth of the tithes which they received 
 
 was to be a heave-offering to the Lobd and then given to the 
 priests (or, as some think, to the High Priest) for their Bupp 
 and it was promised that this their offering should !»■ cou 
 them even as though it were made, like the offering of their 
 brethren, from the increase of their land. DDnJ^nfi DD 1 " 1 HuTuI 
 aj£!rp& T^fS\ ]1^"P \fi&\ iu lll<; LXX- *« hryurdi 
 
 rai vfiiv rd utpaipe/xaTa vjxuiv o5s aiTos a7ro akta kcli a^>at/)c/iu utto 
 
 Xtjvov; and E.V., "And this your heave-offering shall lie re 
 
 unto you as though it were the corn of the threshing floor, and as 
 
 the fulness of the wine-press'""." 
 
 It is hardly necessary to say that ^^Pt is used here in the 
 ordinary sense, inasmuch as there is no ground or pretext for sup- 
 posing it to have any other meaning than that which it bears, 
 when that which is counted to a man is what really belongs to 
 him, or what has really been done by him. 
 
 Again, in Prov. xxvii. 14, "He that blesseth his friend with 
 a loud voice, rising early in the morning, it shall be counted a 
 
 curse to him." *|7 i^'flM Tw^D, a curse shall be set down to his 
 
 V T •• T T ) : 
 
 account, rendered sufficiently as to sense by the LXX., Karapu/jLtvov 
 ovSev 8ia.(f>epeLv 6"d£«. And here again it must be plain that whe- 
 ther the blessing which he had uttered, or the curse to which it 
 was regarded as equivalent was to be set down to his account, the 
 same word ^fc/Tl would be used to express the process, and used 
 in precisely the same sense. 
 
 We may now proceed to examine the important texts (Rom. 
 iv.) for the consideration of which this extended reference to the 
 Old Testament was intended to prepare. St Paul appeals to the 
 record of Abraham's justification in the book of Genesis in proof 
 
 * In the original it is the same particle 3 which is used in both 
 members of the sentence (and in both translated by is in the LXX. , 
 though in our version it is expressed by the explanatory periphrasis " as 
 though it were" in the first member; while in tin second, it is ren- 
 dered, as usual, simply by "as;" which is the rendering of the particle 
 in both members of the corresponding verse 30: "Therefore thovi Bhalt 
 say unto them, when ye have heaved the best thereof from it, then it 
 shall be counted unto the Levites as the increase of the threshing Boor, 
 and as the increase of the winepress." In the LXX. it is translated as 
 before by ws in both members of the verse. 
 
 24
 
 ; XOTE X. 
 
 of his assertion thai Ik-, the father of the faithful, was not justified 
 before God by ^^■> >rk --. •■ Poi what Baith the Scripture?" he askB; 
 
 and lil— answer is *Eiri<rrevor€V Se 'Afipadfi tw 0eu), kcu IXoyitrOq aiVip 
 
 cts SiK.u..<n'i iyr. This i- a quotation from Gen. x\. 6, as it is found 
 in the I.XX. The original is, np"IV V? T&WTN HIITS p$T)l 
 ■ • A nl he believed in the Lord; and He counted it to him for 
 righteousness." I'V. 
 
 Of the first member <>f the sentence I need say nothing here, 
 a- it belongs t<> another Notet. But in the second member it will 
 1..- Min that the Greek version differs from the original in two 
 points: (1) in tin- former, the Ibvine proceeding is expressed DJ 
 the passive verb; in the latin-, by the active; ami (2) the prepo- 
 sition corresponding to ek is wanting in the Hebrew. No one 
 would be disposed to regard the first change of form as in any 
 respect affecting the meaning to be conveyed. It plainly leaves 
 the act and the agent the same. And as to the second, 1 should 
 hope that those who have read what has been said upon the t< ztfl 
 of the Old Testament quoted and referred to to illustrate this 
 phrase will see that no change in the sense is made by the intro- 
 duction or omission of the particles either in the original or in the 
 Greek translation. And, indeed, it happens that the present case 
 furnishes a confirmation of what was then stated with respect to 
 the equivalence of the phrase with and without the particles in 
 question. For the record which is here found of the faith of 
 Abraham is repeated in the Psalms of the zeal of Phinehas (as 
 related Num. \\v. 7. 8). But in this latter case the verb is in 
 the passive and the preposition is inserted, so as to make it corre- 
 spond exactly in form with the translation of Gen. XV. G, in the 
 
 * Except that for Kal Marcus, St Paul writes (irlarevcev SI There 
 is, however, some authority in .MSS. versions and the Fathers for omit- 
 ting V, though not enough to justify its removal from the text; but the 
 deviation is of no importance. And how little St Paul aimed at exact- 
 i:i quotation, where it was of no importance to his immediate pur- 
 pose,appears by his giving the father of the faithful the name of 'AppaA/t, 
 while in the I AX. the name is, of course, written 'Aj3pan, as it was not 
 changed for more than a dozen years after. 
 
 t I may however remark that while in the second member of the 
 
 -ent. ace, as afterwards notice 1, the LXX. introduce most legitimately 
 
 preposition efc, though there is no prefix to the noun in the original, 
 
 in rendering the first member they drop the preposition 3, and trans- 
 
 ■ |Og?] rightly translated E. V.. "And he believed t\ the 
 
 Lord," >>«< iirUrrewcv ' \ ... ■■' u r<p I
 
 NOTE N. 371 
 
 LXX. T\\nf? iS ^nni, Ps. cvi SI, and bo to apply ad 
 ditional evidence, if it were needed, thai in translating the texl in 
 Genesis the LXX. were fully warranted in introducing els before 
 SiKouoavvrjv, and that our translators were safe in following their 
 example, and putting in "for" in the corresponding p] thej 
 
 do, without marking it as an addition to the original by print 
 it in italics. 
 
 But, indeed, if we were unable to prove, in this way, the equi 
 valence of the Hebrew and LXX. texts in the place, St Paul's quo 
 tation of the latter for the purpose of reasoning upon if as what 
 Scripture says concerning the justification of Abraham must In- 
 decisive evidence to us that it correctly represents the Bense of the 
 original. We may therefore take the record of Abraham's j 
 fication as it stands in Rom. iv. 3, 'E7riCTTevo-ev Se 'A/fyaa/x tw 0tw, 
 kol iXoyLcrO-r] aurw eis hiKaiocrvv-qv. This is translated in our version 
 by "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto bim for 
 righteousness," and as this is a literal translation of the Greek, it 
 general correctness is not likely to be disputed; but it is necessary 
 to notice some parts in detail in order to find its meaning ac- 
 curately. 
 
 And first of IkoyLaOq olvt<2, it tvas counted to him, I should 
 have a great deal to say, but that I have said so much already 
 upon it in the first part of this Note. I have, I trust, said enough 
 there, to exhibit and correct the error of supposing that here or 
 anywhere in this chapter Xoyi'Ceo-Oat tivl means anything more 
 than to count to one, to set down to his account, to reckon to him, 
 and that I have also shown that it is not necessary to supply any 
 addition to this simple sense of the woi'd in order to make this 
 passage a sufficient foundation for all that the Apostle builds on it 
 in the course of his reasoning upon it. I do not mean to go over 
 my refutation of Edwards again; but T am anxious that my read 
 ers should not pass lightly over what I said, as if it were dired 
 against an exploded error. The error, in feet, appears in Borne 
 form or other, more or less distinctly developed, in mod< in com 
 mentators down to the very latest. 
 
 It is found, as might be expected, in the full© I form in Stuart 
 He says, upon vcr. 3, "In order further to illustrate the meaning 
 of XoyL&aQai k. t. \. to impute or reckon^ &c. it may be remarked 
 (1), that the word sometimes means to reckon to ont what i 
 tually possesses, to impute that to him which actu nil,/ belongs to 
 
 'J 1—2
 
 372 
 
 yon: x 
 
 him, i.e. t.i treat him as actually possessing the thing or quality 
 reckoned to him; e.g. I'-, ovi 31 (cv. 31), &c. (2) It also means 
 meUiing to one which does not actually belong to him; 
 to treat him as possessing wliat lie does not actually possess; m- c>' 
 dom //ait which !<■ has not actually done: e.g. Lev. wii. 4. 
 Such i- plainly tin' sense in Rom. iv. 3, 5, G, 9, 10, 11, 22, 
 
 I ;. So also iXXoyu Philem. ver. is." Ami further on, upon 
 ver. •'», he -ays. "For through vers. 3 — G, and for the most part in 
 the sequel, XoyiC^pat is used in the second sense mentioned under 
 v.;-. ."), viz. that of imputing to one what in reality does not belong 
 to him." 
 
 It is needless to say that through all this the same mistake 
 runs — of supposing that the verb changes its moaning as the na- 
 ture of the case in reference to which it is used changes. Whereas 
 as I have sufficiently explained both with respect to it and the 
 corresponding Hebrew verb, it expresses the same act of counting 
 to a urn n. reckoning to him, imputing to him, setting down to Ins 
 /'/. whether the thin-- set down really belongs to him or not. 
 
 But the noti( □ that one of the meanings of Aoyi'£o/xai is (o 
 
 ■/? to a man what <h,os not belong to him seems to have laid a 
 firm hold upon some better scholars and clearer-headed men than 
 Stuart. Indeed, some appear to think that this is its strict and 
 prop* r meaning. I collect, for example, that this is the view both 
 of Michaelis and Tholuck, for the latter quotes the following pas- 
 from the former with high praise, as expressing with great 
 precision that exposition of the words t£> Se Ipya^ofxivy o ft-ioOus on 
 \oyC£erai Kara X^P LV > w hich he himself regards as the iceiglUiest, — 
 more conformable to the usual diction of St Paul, and not less 
 agreeable to the context than the others*. "To him who does 
 works, the reward is not said to be reckoned, an expression which 
 makes it appear as if it were given from grace, but he obtains it 
 b( cause it is his due." 
 
 The same view of the proper meaning of the word seem bo 
 have been in Dean Alford's mind, though it is not so distinctly 
 expres ed: "rtg cpya£o/*.] (q. d. tw ipyarQ, but the participle is 
 (i ed because of the negative tm firj ipyat,. following) — 'to the 
 workman (him that works for hire, that earns wages, comp. irpucr- 
 
 f I quote from Tholuck's ' Exposition of the Epistle to the I 
 translated by the Rev. Robert Menzies, (lark, Edinburgh, i^:>:i. I 
 have neither the original nor Michaclis within reach
 
 NOTE X. 373 
 
 eipyda-aro, Luke xix. 16) his wages are not reckoned according to 
 (as a matter of) grace (favour), but according to (us a matter of) 
 debt.' The stress is on Kara X"-pw, not on A.oyi£erai, which in the 
 first member of the sentence is used hardly in the strict sense of 
 imputing or reckoning, but of allotting or apportioning : its use 
 being occasioned by the stricter Aoyi£erai below'""." 
 
 And the same erroneous notion of the proper meaning of the 
 word, and the same distinction (which is founded upon the error) 
 between its senses in the different members of the sentence occur 
 still more distinctly in Mr Jowett's commentary on the passage. 
 
 "That the stress of the Apostle's argument falls partly upon 
 Aoyi£erai seems to follow from the threefold recurrence of the 
 word, as also from its signification of 'imputed,' 'reckoned.' Faith 
 was imputed, reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. But it 
 cannot be said that reward is 'imputed' of grace to him that 
 doeth works; it is his due. A slight obscurity arises from the in- 
 
 * I will add, though the point is not connected with the object for 
 which I refer here to his Commentary, that I do not think that the 
 Dean explains correctly the contrast intended between r$ ^afou^ey 
 and ry 5£ fir] ipyafauii'U) (verse 5). What he says upon the former is 
 given above. Upon the latter, he says : "5.] ' But to him who works not 
 (for hire, — is not an ipydrrjs looking for his /uc06s) but believes on,' " &c. 
 
 It would seem from this that the difference in the two cases is in the 
 object for which the work is done, — in the one case, for hire, and in the 
 other, not for hire: whereas 1 think that the difference intended is, 
 that the work is done in the one case, and that in tiic other, it is not 
 done. Both the men spoken of are epydrat ; the difference between 
 them being, that the first does the work which entities him to his hire, 
 and to him, therefore, the hire is set down as eai-ned and due ; the 
 other does not do the work, and, therefore, to him, if the hire is to bo 
 set down, it cannot be set down in the same way, as earned. But in 
 stating the difference, there is something very characteristic of the 
 Apostle. A strictly didactical writer would have presented both parts 
 of the general case — the case of a workman and his employer — by 
 which Abraham's was to be illustrated, and then have proceeded to 
 point out how it applied. But St Paul's genius was not didactical but 
 essentially rhetorical. And having stated the first part of the illustra- 
 tion regularly in general terms, and having begun to state in the Bame 
 way the second part, he leaves it to the reader to fill up the rest, and 
 suddenly passes from the illustration to the case which was to be illus- 
 trated (or rather to the general case of justification by faith, of which 
 Abraham's was a particular instance and the type , and he completes 
 his statement not in the language of common life, which was proper to 
 the illustration, but in the Scriptural language which was only proper 
 to the actual case. But this raises no difficulty and creates no uncer- 
 tainty as to the meaning of t$ ipyaf. and tw p.i) epya.?., which are plainly, 
 I think, intended to present the case of the man who ir<>rh* and the 
 man who does not work; not of the man who work* for hire, and Cu i 
 man who does not work fur hire.
 
 374 NOTE N. 
 
 accurate use of the .same word in both eases, the real meanine 
 
 o 
 being ovk iXoyiaOr) Kara X"-P LV t *-^ a * GTL K0LT o^»et'A?;ju.a." 
 
 I cannot be sure that I understand all this. "But it cannot 
 be said that reward is 'imputed' of grace to him that doeth 
 works" — is the very thiug that St Paul himself says; but, in the 
 connexion in which it stands in the above passage, it seems to be 
 intended to express some dissent from him, and to furnish the 
 foundation of Mr Jowett's correction of his language. And if this 
 be what it is intended for, then "of grace" has no business in the 
 sentence. What is required for Mr Jowett's purpose is, that it 
 cannot be said that the reward is imputed to him that doeth work. 
 Nothing less than this would suffice as a foundation for what fol- 
 lows. And if I am right in my conjecture (it is nothing more) as 
 to the purpose which this sentence is intended to answer, then 
 what I have said in the first part of this Note upon the meanim' 
 of Xoyi^ofxai is enough, I should hope, to show that the position 
 which it lays down involves a great mistake as to the meaning of 
 that word. But whether my guess, as to what is intended in this 
 part of the extract from Mr Jowett, be right or wrong, it is very 
 certain that the whole rests upon the erroneous view of the word 
 which I have taken such pains to expose. And wherever the 
 mistake occurs, the portion of the first part of this Note, to which 
 I have referred, may spare me the trouble of saying anything to 
 correct it. Any one who reads what I have said will require no 
 further help to enable him to see that no part of the stress of the 
 Apostle's argument falls upon Xoyifaai; and, moreover, that there 
 is no inaccuracy whatever in the use of the same word in con- 
 nexion with /caTct x°-P LV au d kcit o<£a'A.77yu.a ; but that, in both con- 
 nexions, IXoyiaOt] is used with strict propriety in exactly the same 
 sense. 
 
 The Apostle is speaking of a record, not of the act of payment, 
 but of the act of counting or reckoning to a man with the view to 
 payment hereafter. In common life what was in this way counted 
 to a man would ordinarily be only what he had really earned; and 
 so what was counted to him, or set down to his account, would be 
 what was actually due to him as a matter of right. But, even in 
 common life, there might be a case in which no work had been 
 done, but in which, by the favour of his master, the man was to 
 be dealt with just as if there had been. The act of reckoning or 
 counting to the man would be the same in both cases, and would
 
 NOTE N. 375 
 
 naturally be expressed by the same word in both. But it' then 
 were a record made of such cases, we might expect to find — at 
 least no one could be surprised to find — that though the same 
 word was used to express the act in both cases, there Avas still 
 something in the record which would enable us to distinguish l>e- 
 tween them, — between the case in which the work was done, ami 
 the reward set down to the man's account as a matter of right, 
 and the case in which the work was not done, and the reward was 
 set down as a matter of favour. 
 
 How St Paul finds in the record of Abraham's justification in 
 Genesis evidence that his was a case of the latter kind, I have 
 already explained, and I need not return to the point. And, 
 indeed, the whole case ought to be so clear by this time, that it is 
 with some hesitation that I say anything in addition, with a vi<v, 
 to throwing further light upon it. But as such very strange diffi- 
 culties seem to be felt about this language in various quarters, I 
 am tempted to suggest, as, perhaps, making it easier to some minds 
 to receive it in its proper meaning, that it seems to be used 
 throughout with reference to that view of judgment in which it is 
 presented to us as a final reckoning with men, and an awarding to 
 them what is due to them, as it appears recorded in a book or 
 books. This view is found both in the Old and New Testament. 
 Thus in Dan. vii. 1 0, having described the Judge, and his throne, 
 and his retinue, and the multitude awaiting His sentence, the 
 prophet says, " The judgment was set, and the Books were open- 
 ed." And the procedure is expressed more at large in Rev. xx. 
 12 : "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before Cod, 
 and the Books were opened : and another book was opened, which 
 is the Book of Life, and the dead were judged out of those things 
 which were written in the Books, according to their works*. ' 
 Now this figurative description of judgment seems to furnish a 
 key to the meaning of the language that we have been considering 
 which ought to obviate all the difficulty that seems to be felt 
 about it. When once this figure of the Book in which each man's 
 account is kept, — by a reference to which he is to be judged, — has 
 
 * The Book of Life— the record in which the names of the righteous 
 are enrolled— meets us very often in Scripture, as Bxod. xxxu. 32; 
 Ps. lxix. 28; Ban. xii. 1; Phil. iv. 3; Rev. hi. 5, xiii. 8, xvu.8, xx. 15, 
 xxi. 27, xxii. 1!). We have, too, the figure of a Book in which the sul 
 ferings (Ps. Ivi. 8) and the good deeds Mai. iii. LG "l' His Bcrvanta arc 
 written.
 
 xote y. 
 
 I itself in the mind, it would seem perfectly natural to speak 
 i.ntiiKj to a man, reckoning to him, Betting down to him, any- 
 thing thai he lias done, whether it be good or bad, or whatever he 
 has deserved, !"■ it praise or blame, punishment or reward. And 
 in this way we ought to find it easy to understand, when it is said 
 that sin is • '. counted, or i/itj"i/>d to a man, or when the 
 
 same phrase is used with respect to righteousness. 
 
 This i-> enough to saj upon the verb, hut it may he neces ary 
 to add a word upon the preposition ei?. It is translated by for, 
 meaning thereby as, or in the j>'<ice of This is a sense in which 
 eis is not found in classical Greek, though it stands there for other 
 senses of the word for. But so many instances have been given 
 or referred to in what has gone before, in which it is used in the 
 
 LXX. as the translation of 7, and also for ^, that it is unneces- 
 sary to add any quotation to show that by the LXX. it was 
 familiarly used to express the sense of for, i.e. when for is equiva- 
 lent to as or in the place of*. And there can be no doubt that 
 this use of the preposition was adopted by the New Testament 
 writers. Several of the examples, indeed, of their use of it in 
 this sense, are quotations from the LXX.; but the manner in 
 which they are made, without preface or explanation, shows the 
 writers to be perfectly familiar with this use of the preposition. 
 Indeed there is one instance of this kind in which the proof is 
 somewhat stronger. In the course of St Stephen's speech, Acts 
 vii. 21, speaking of Moses, he says, that when he was exposed, 
 aveiXaro avrov r; OvyaT-qp <J>apaoj kol avtOpixpaTO avruv eavrrj eh vlov. 
 This is not a quotation from the LXX.; for there the words are 
 koX iycm]6r) avrrj eis vlov. Nor is it a literal translation of the 
 original made by the speaker; for the LXX. gives a perfectly 
 literal translation of the Hebrew words in the place. It is evi- 
 dent that it was the substance of the narrative that was in 
 St Stephen's mind, and that he was expressing it in his own 
 language. 
 
 Rom. ii. 20, seems to be a good instance unconnected with 
 this doctrine : — cav ovv rj aKpofivo-Tio. to. SiKaioj/Aara tov ro/xov 
 cpvXacro-rj, ov\A 1) a.Kpof3vo~Tia avrov cts 7rept.Top.rjv Aoyicrtfj/crerai. 
 
 I may however add a very decisive example which I did not before 
 
 quote: na.1 tylviro oiro?j r) ir\ivdot els \idov, Kal dafiaXros rjv avrois 6 7r??\6r.
 
 NOTE S. 
 
 ■ • i 
 
 Again, ix. 8, ov rd tIkvo. t^s crapKik, Taeru TtKVa r . „\V\u 
 
 ra TtKi'a tj/s tTrayyeXias Xoyi^crat tts (nrt'/i/jiu. 
 
 There can be no doubt then that a? is used by Si Paul and 
 especially in connexion with this verb, even when be i not 
 quoting from the LXX. or referring to it, in the sense in which 
 we saw that it is so often used in that version, %i/.. in the sense of 
 
 instead of, in the place of, as, as though it were. 
 
 The only other question as to the meaning of the passage 
 seems to be, What was it that was counted wnto Abraham for 
 righteousness? The natural answer seems to be, his faith. And 
 that this is the true answer seems to be distinctly declared by the 
 Apostle himself in verse 5 ; and again, even more expressly, in 
 verse 9, where he says, plainly referring to this verse .'5, A.eyo/xep 
 yap am iXoyitrOr] tc3 'A/Spad/x -q iriaris eis 8iKaioovvr}V. If there were 
 any room to question what it means in verse 3, it is here shown 
 beyond any doubt to be the faith which Abraham is desoribed as 
 exercising when it is said that he believed God. And it is this 
 that makes what is said further on, of the severity of the trial to 
 which Abraham was subjected, pertinent and important, as 
 evincing the genuineness of his faith. 
 
 But though it seems that in this way the Apostle's meaning 
 here is put beyond the possibility of doubt, there is no part of 
 this remarkable exposition of the process of justification about 
 which more serious difficulties have been raised than this. Tiny 
 are chiefly founded upon, I will not call it extreme, but certainly 
 very misdirected, jealousy for the freeness of the Gospel. It is 
 apprehended that the statement which the Apostlr makes in \ 
 3, cannot be taken in the natural and obvious sense, to which it 
 seems authoritatively fixed by verse 9, without ascribing some 
 merit to faith. And not seeing any more legitimate mode of 
 escaping from what they rightly regard as a very inconvenient 
 consequence, some have adopted the violent expedient of treating 
 rj 77-icn-is here as put by metonymy for the object of faith—* Ihrist 
 Himself. I do not mean that there is anything intolerably \ iolent 
 in the proposed figure, considered in itself. For though there is 
 no direct and literal precedent for it, I believe, yet there are ex- 
 amples of similar metonymies which might be taken to justify it, 
 if the connexion admitted it. But no one can read the whole 
 chapter (or, which is rather better, the portion of tin- Epistle from 
 iii. 21, to the end of iv.) without seeing how decidedly the eon
 
 NOTE X. 
 
 udiates such an interpretation. The verse is, in fact, oulj 
 one out of u aumber of texts in that spaa-, in which justification 
 ! with faith; and all these texts, though differing 
 somewhat in form of expression, agree in substance in making 
 justification follow faith and depend upon it. In none of them 
 would it appear reasonable, and in some of them it would be plainly 
 impossible, to suppose that any Buch figure, or any figure of any 
 kind, was intended. In all of them,irums naturally expresses, as it 
 elsewhere, the Btate of mind of the person spoken o£ and in 
 some of them it cannot by any possibility be understood to mean 
 anything else. It is in this sense oi faith that justification is 
 connected with it in the different ways of expressing the con- 
 nexion. And even in thi^ general way of stating the facts of the 
 
 . it would appear a very violent proceeding to put a different 
 sense upon faith in this verse from that which it bears in so many 
 ethers clearly connected with it, and with each other. But the 
 violence of this change would be very much more striking if we 
 
 • to go through these texts in detail. I will not, however, 
 add to this very long Note by such a detailed examination of the 
 
 age to which I have referred, partly because it may be safely 
 left to every reader to go through it for himself, but principally 
 because I have already shown elsewhere, that there is really no 
 
 hi whatever for adopting any questionable proceeding to 
 
 tpe from the plain meaning of verse 9, for that it involves no 
 such consequence as is apprehended. I have noticed a similar 
 difficulty in Sermon IV., pp. 97 — 1"1, and also in the beginning 
 of Note S. ; and I trust that any one who reads what is said there 
 will be satisfied that such fears arise from ignorance or forgetful* 
 of the true instrumentality of faith in justification, and 
 indeed of the true nature of faith.
 
 NOTE <>. 
 
 Note O. Page 85. 
 Oa Rom. iii. 28. 
 
 The reading from which our version was made, \oyt£d 
 
 ovv , is not without respectable support, bul the preponderance 
 
 of authorities seems to be in favour of Aoyi£o/.*e0u yuf> , which, 
 
 accordingly, has been preferred by Gx^iesbach, Scholz, and i 
 editors since, including Teschendorf. It has been urged, too 
 Alford in loc), that the translation require lion: "Aon 
 
 [xe6a, not 'we conclude,' but l ice hold,' 'we reckon' (see reft) : 
 the former is against New Testament usage, and has, probably, 
 caused the change of yap into ovv, by some who imagined thai 
 this verse was a conclusion from the preceding argument. ' For 
 we hold (as explanatory of the verse preceding, — on the other 
 supposition the two verses are disjointed, and the conclusion coin- 
 in most strangely) that a man is justified by faith, without the 
 works of the law (not works of law); and therefore boasting is 
 excluded.' " 
 
 This correction seems to be made not without reason. As to 
 the connexion between the verses, it certainly does, I think, appear 
 easier and clearer in the proposed translation than it is in our 
 version. But this only goes to support the change of the conjunc 
 tions, which is established sufficiently by external evidence. The 
 connexion between the verses is the same whether we tran 
 
 verse 23, " For we conclude "or " For we hold " In the 
 
 former case, the reference would seem to be to verse 20 (which 
 Alford justly describes as, " The solemn and important conclusion 
 of all the foregoing argument,") and to all the explanatory and 
 confirmatory matter which is to be found in the intervening vei 
 But, I think, the very same reference must be understood to be 
 made when the second is taken to be the Apostle's meaning. It 
 
 he says, For our conclusion is the foregoing passage would be 
 
 the materials from which the conclusion was drawn. But if he 
 
 says For our position is then the same passage i^ the evidence 
 
 that this is the position which he holds. But in both ease, alike 
 a reason would be assigned for what is said in the preceding \ 
 
 and, indeed, the same reason in both; for the reason depends u] 
 
 the truth set forth by the Apostle, whether be gives Li as a deduc
 
 I • NOTE P. 
 
 ti.iii from other truths which Ik* had laid down, or as a restatement 
 what had been in Bubetance laid down by him iu the preceding 
 
 S t'.r. t' bhe connexion of verses 27 and 28 is eon- 
 
 i. the translation of Xoyt^ofuBa in the English version njitrht 
 be allowed to stand But the objection to it derived from New 
 iment usage seems to be well grounded. Besides its common 
 
 meanings to c . to think, to kohl, it appears to stand 
 
 for irk xi. 31, kcu iXoyiCovro irpds lavrous But 
 
 tli is to be only the reasoning which is preliminary to a con- 
 
 ch, ad not to include the actual drawing of the conclusion. 
 
 And of the use of the simple verb in this latter meaning, I do 
 not think there is any clear instance in the New Testament. It 
 is Bafer, therefore, to adopt the proposed translation. But it is 
 hardly necessary to remark that, whichever way the verse may be 
 translated, the doctrine which it declares remains the same. It is 
 as clearly an authoritative declaration of the great doctrine of 
 just on by faith only in the new translation as it was in the 
 old, though made in a somewhat different form and connexion. 
 It is, therefore, equally available for my purpose in either version; 
 and, accordingly, T have not thought it necessary to make any 
 change in it as the text of Sermons IV V. and VI., though, 
 adopting the proposed translation, I have been obliged to make 
 some alteration in the way in which the verse was originally 
 introduced in the passage in Sermon IV., to which this Note 
 . s, and elsewhere. 
 
 Note P. Page 88. 
 On Bom. iii. 25. 
 
 The text is : oV TrpoiOero d ©cos IXaaTrjpLov Sid 7ri'-rrews iv toj 
 iutov aljxaTi ets ?i'Sei|tv t^s St/cato-riV^s avrou ... I have refer- 
 red t" it as if eY tuj olvtov aifxart were to be connected with 
 
 irurr-HDs, as it is in the English version. Put this construc- 
 tion has been f<>r a good while questioned. In Poole's Synop- 
 sis it is said that the words eV T o) avrou at/Acm are conne
 
 BOTE P. 
 
 with iXaorypuv by Paraeus, Beza* (from Erasmus), and Told 
 (from Chrysostom, G . and Ambroa Ami Wolfl 
 
 PkUologg. says apon the former words : ■• I;. f< rri tunc 
 ai/xart] iiomiulli volunt ad vocem iXjaurrqptav, a 
 Trt'o-rsw;. Videtur enim illis haec phra - 
 Biblica satis esse : rj -uttis Iv tw at/urn." 
 
 The first of the two points made against the phrase by I 
 objector referred to maybe freely admitted. The phra 
 thinly, is hardly (classical) Greek. But the aame is true of >y 
 -tticttis iv t-Sj Xp«rra5, or ets Xpioror, or hn Qeov, Arc. which yet are 
 certainly Biblical Greet, notwithstanding. 
 
 "While the first point, then, is plainly unimportant in r 
 it does not infer the second, which sounds as if it were of .-..un- 
 importance. And so it would really be, if it meant that the 
 clause was in its form or construction at variance with Biblical 
 
 re. But this is not what is intended. In fact, irumgj follow 
 by that which is the object of faith, governed by a prepositioi 
 being one of the prepositions employed), is a form which occurs 
 too often in the New Testament to leave any room for any obj< c- 
 taon to the clause in question on that score. What is m< 
 is that this particular object is not found anywhere else, so that 
 there is no other example of the phrase tt. Iv t<j ovtov a<. 
 This is a very different, and a very much less important, objection, 
 though it has been treated as a very serious one. 
 
 Mr Jowefct, indeed, relies entirely upon it. 1 - 1 <>f the 
 rendering in the E. V., "Whom God hath set forth t'» be a propi- 
 tiation through faith in His blood ..," he proposes, '-Whom I 
 hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith by His b 
 And, in a note, he thus justifies the proposed change : " No such 
 expression occurs in Scripture as faith in the blood, or even in the 
 d ath of Christ. Hence, the two clauses are better separa 
 ' Through faith— by his blood.' ; ' 
 
 And to the same effect, but more folly, Dean Alford 
 ' ; ota -tj-rew?, 'by faith,' as the subjective means of appropria! 
 
 * It seems strange to find Boza here, for though in a note on 
 verse he states that Erasmus followed this construction, and accord- 
 ingly translated evruK.T.x. by int nte ipsitu tanguiru 
 •gives also the other construction, without Btating on wl 1"- own 
 preference lay, which indeed could hardly be d - he had dis- 
 tinctly adopted the latter in his translation: Quern potuii />•»■* pto- 
 camentum per fidem i,i sanguim ipei
 
 382 NOTE P. 
 
 of this propitiation : not to be joined with h> avrov gu/lcciti (but the 
 om. of T7/? is in) objection to this : see above, on ver. 22), as 
 Luth., Calv., al. Olsh. Riickert, — for such an expression as 77-10-1-15, 
 or iridTevtM iv tQ alfxari 'I. Xp. would be unexampled, — and (which 
 is decisive) the clause iv t<3 avrov alfxan required a primary, not 
 a subordinate, place in the sentence, because the next clause, as 
 £v8. t. oik. avT., directly refers to it. As Bid mar. is the sub- 
 jective means of appropriation, so iv to aljx. avrov is the objec- 
 tive means of manifestation of Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice. 
 a'ifxa does not = 6dvaro<;, but refers to propitiation by blood, — the 
 well-known typical use of it in sacrifice." 
 
 Notwithstanding this, I am not disposed to adopt the pro- 
 posed construction, and for the following reasons : — 
 
 1. It is true that there is no other instance in which the 
 expression jr. iv t<2 alp.ari 'I. Xp. is used, but neither is there 
 any in which the expression iXao-rypiov iv t<3 atp.ari 'I. Xp. is 
 used. So that, though the proposed construction gets rid of an 
 unexampled expression, it introduces an expression equally un- 
 exampled. 
 
 2. It may be said that there is a great difference between 
 the two cases. 'lXao-njpiov does not occur anywhere else, and, 
 therefore, whatever words are supposed to be combined with it, 
 the expression must be unexampled. But 77-10-ris is used con- 
 tinually by the Apostle, and is followed by various words, in 
 different constructions, expressing its object, as God, Christ, the 
 Lord, His name, tJie truth, the Gospel, but nowhere does it appear 
 in connexion with the blood of Christ. Is it not likely that, if he 
 meant to give here the object of faith at all, he would have given 
 one of the usual ones, rather than this unexampled one 1 And 
 this being the case, is it not safer to conclude that he did not 
 intend this for the object of jr., and that we are only following his 
 mind, in connecting alp,a avrov, as proposed, with IXao-ryptov 1 
 
 How far this answers what I have just said (1), I need not 
 inquire, for there is no lack of instances which cannot be so set 
 aside: e.g. SiKatovv and SiKatovo-$ai are very often used by the 
 Apostle in connexion with the means by which justification is, or 
 is supposed to be, effected : we have 3. i£ Ipyw, Ik irio-r^%, wurrei, 
 rr] avrov x a P LT h & Xpio-rw, iv vopuo. In one place, and in one 
 only, is the verb followed in the same connexion by alp.a. In 
 Rom. V. we find ?>iKaio)Oevre<; iv tw alfiari avrov. Here seems a
 
 ROTE P. 383 
 
 perfectly parallel case, which yet raises no difficulty. No one e\ ei 
 doubts that this unexampled expression was used by the Apostle 
 And if we acquiesce in it, why should we be perplexed by the one 
 in question, or be anxious to get rid of it 1 
 
 We have even a more direct parallel in Col. ii. 12, Bid t^s 
 irto-TCcos Trys evepyeias rod ®eov tov lyupavros avrov Ik t<Zv veupGv. 
 Here is a clearly unexampled instance in which the word vurrvs 
 itself stands in a connexion in which neither it nor the verb i , 
 anywhere else found *. 
 
 3. These examples would seem sufficiently to show that the 
 fact that the proposed construction gets rid of a phrase in which 
 7T. is assigned an object with which it is not found connected else- 
 where, ought not to be regarded as a reason of much weight in its 
 favour. Of course, if the object were in any way an unsuitable 
 one, that of itself ought to be regarded as conclusive against the 
 other construction. But this cannot be alleged. If we are told 
 that the blood of Christ was shed for the remission of sins (Mark 
 xiv. 24) ; that we are justified by His blood (Rom. v. 9) ; that xoe 
 have redemption through His blood (Eph. i. 7 ; Col. i. 14) ; that 
 He made peace through the blood of His cross (Col. i. 20) ; that 
 those who were afar off were made nigh by His blood (Eph. ii. 13) ; 
 that He purchased the Church of God with His own blood (Acts 
 xx. 28) ; that He has washed us from our sins in His own blood 
 (Rev. i. 5); that it is through His blood that we have boldness 
 to enter into the holiest (Heb. x. 19); if all this, not to look for 
 anything more, is declared concerning the efficacy of His blood, 
 it can hardly be thought strange that it should be anywhere stated 
 that His blood is the object of the faith of His people. 
 
 4. No objection, theu, lies against the expression, except thai 
 it does not occur elsewhere; and, as I have already stated, and 
 not without giving reasons for the opinion, I cannot think thai 
 this is a very serious objection ; while I also think that nothing 
 
 * There are several other instances which might be put forward, ns 
 
 i] it. rod ovofxaros avrov, Acts hi. 1(J ; 7/ ir. rod euayytXiov, Phil. i. '2~ : T. dXiJ- 
 
 Oelas, 2 Thess. ii. 13; all of which are expressions that occur nowhere 
 else. But as the point which Dean Alford makes against the con- 
 struction is, that "such an expression as irians or iriareiu b> t£ at/iart I. 
 Xp. would be unexampled ;" and as each of the nouns in the above ex 
 amples, though it docs not occur elsewhere in connexion with ir/<ms, 
 yet is found after tncrreiu, 1 have only adduced a case in which n 
 has an object which is not found anywhere else, either in connexion with 
 it or with the verb.
 
 NOTE P. 
 
 Bhori of very strong objections against the expression would 
 justify the adoption of the construction by which it is proposed 
 t" g< t rid of it. For I cannot bui believe that if the Apostle had 
 
 intended that both Slu. 7ri0-rews, and eV to) avrov a"/j.aTL should 
 innected with lX.ao-ri')ptov, he would have placed them after it 
 iu the opposite order to that in which they actually stand. When 
 the words ev tu avrov at/xart follow wurns immediately, it is 
 natural, and indeed at first unavoidable, to regard them as con- 
 ed with it — as expressing its object. And it appears to me in 
 the highest degree improbable that, if this were not what the 
 Apostle intended, he would have adopted an order which is so 
 calculated to mislead, when the other arrangement — iXao-Trjpiov Iv 
 tw avrov at/xan Sta Trtorea)? — would express his meaning without 
 any ambiguity. 
 
 5. And I may add that this improbability is aggravated by 
 the fact that upon the supposition that the Apostle intended that 
 iv t<3 aurou ai/xan should be connected, not with Sia 7rtcrreojs, but 
 with IXaarypLov, the latter arrangement would seem to be the 
 natural one, independently of the object of securing his meaning 
 against mistake. For when both were to be stated in connexion 
 with IXaoTijpiov, it would seem the natural order of thought to 
 give the precedence to the means by winch the propitiation was 
 effected, rather than to t/ie means by which it is to be made avail- 
 to vs. And so in our Eleventh Article we find: "We are 
 counted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, by Faith." 
 
 This is enough to say upon this objection to the translation 
 in our Version; but it is not the only one stated by Dean 
 Alford, nor apparently the one which he chiefly relies on. He 
 a Ms another, which, he says, is decisive: "The clause cV tw 
 avrov aljiari requires a primary, not a subordinate, place in the 
 
 -nee, because in the next clause, eis iv8. r. Slk. avrov, directly 
 refers to it." 
 
 I am obliged to confess that I am unable to see much force in 
 this reason. No doubt the next clause does require that the one 
 ■ c n ider.ition shoul 1 contain something which would serve 
 to manifest the righteousness of God in justifying sinners. But 
 tins seems to be provided in the statement that he had set forth 
 Christ Jesus as a propitiatory offering. Surely it is the fact that
 
 NOTE Q. 385 
 
 Christ was made & propitiatory offering which renders God 
 when He passed over sius in the Old Dispensation, and when Ee 
 justifies sinners under the New Dispensation ; and it is the shouring 
 forth of this fact — the setting Christ forth as a propitiatory offer- 
 ing — which proves God to be righteous — manifests Hie righ I 
 — in this forgiveness. So that the sense would be perfect if the 
 sentence ran, ov TrpoWero 6 ©eos iA<xot///hov cts evSci£ij/ tt/s Sikcuo- 
 o-wVrj? avTov, k.t.X. And what is subjoined to IXao-TTjpiov is to be 
 regarded as supplementary and explanatory, not as containing 
 anything essential to the manifestation of the righteousness of 
 God, but noting incidentally the mode in which the propitiatory 
 offering which establishes God's righteousness, in the forgiveness 
 and acceptance of sinners, is made efficacious to them. 
 
 On the whole, I see no reason to depart from the English 
 Version of this text. And this being the conclusion to which I 
 was led, I was pleased to find that it seems to be the one which 
 Tholuck adopts : "7r«rris tv to) avrov aXp.a.Ti for €is to at/xa stands, by 
 metonymy, for bloody death, the aKfir} of his holy and love-devoted 
 life. This clause is best conjoined as an epexegesis with lAaar^'piov." 
 Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, in loc. 
 
 Note Q. Page 95. 
 
 The Reformers' Declarations of the Doctrine of Justification by 
 
 Faith only. 
 
 The universal concurrence of the early Reformers in this doc- 
 trine of Justification by Faith only, must have already appeared, 
 to a great extent, in the quotations which I have given from 
 their writings. It was impossible, unless I had mutilated the 
 extracts in a way that would have rendered them unintelligible, 
 to have given the Reformers' definitions of Faith and of Justifica- 
 tion, without also giving the views of the writers concerning their 
 connexion. This will somewhat abridge the authorities which 
 ought to be adduced in support of the strong assertion in the 
 Sermon to which this Note refers; but I cannot allow myself to 
 be prevented from making so important a point perfectly clean 
 even by the apprehension of being led into a little repetition. 
 
 25
 
 NOTE Q. 
 
 The question is not, whether all the first Reformers professed 
 
 the doctrine that we are justified by Faith only, — for every one 
 knows that they all did, — but, what did they mean by the decla- 
 ration? I shall endeavour, in the quotations that follow, to put 
 that point beyond doubt; but I desire to remind the reader that 
 1 have already supplied quotations in abundance to show what they 
 meant both by Faith and by Justification; and that he should not 
 expect generally to find that those who have so fully explained 
 the meaning of these terms, should always accompany their state- 
 menta of the doctrine by a repetition of definitions already given 
 in tin' same documents, or just about to be subjoined. Such, 
 however, was their sense of the great importance of the doctrine, 
 
 teat liability to misconception, evasion, and abuse, that they 
 frequently do take this additional precaution, to render a mistake 
 of their meaning impossible, — as will appear by the citations 
 which I am about to give. But, when they do not, reference 
 should be made to the definitions contained in the former quota- 
 tions. As before, I shall begin with the confessions. 
 
 Con/essio Augusfcma. 1530. Art. 4. 
 
 Item docent [ecclesiae apud nos] quod homines non possint 
 justificari coram Deo propriis viribus meritis aut operibus, sed 
 gratis justificentur propter Christum per fidem, cum credunt se 
 in gratiam recipi et peccata remitti propter Christum qui sua 
 morte pro peccatis nostris satisfecit. Hanc fidem imputat Deus 
 pro justitia coram ipso. Rom. iii. iv. 
 
 Con/essio Saxonica, 1551. 
 
 Cum autem hac voce arguente peccata mens perterrefacta est, 
 audiat promissionem Evangelii propriam de Filio Dei, etstatuat sibi 
 remitti peccata gratis propter Filiuni Dei, Dominum nostrum Jesuni 
 Christum propitiatorem, per misericordiam, non propter contritio- 
 nem aut dilectionem nostram; hac fide cum erigitur, certum est 
 donari remissionem peccatorum, reconciliationem, et imputationem 
 justiti;e. propter ipsius Christi rnerituni; et Christum in nobis 
 efficacem esse et Spiritu suo vivificare credentes, et ex seterna 
 morte nos liberare et facere nos simul hau-edes vitse aeternse. 
 
 Con/s88io Bohemica, 1535. Latine Auctior. 1572. 
 
 H;e (; Bola fiiles et heec intimi cordis in Jesu Christum fiducia 
 jufltdficat, seu justum facit hominem coram Deo absque ullis operi- 
 bus quae ipse addat conferendo, aut ullo merito ipsius; de qua 
 Banctue Paulus dicit ei vero, &.c. Bom. iv.
 
 NOTE Q. 
 
 Confessio Tigurina. 1545. 
 
 Quapropter hoc et solido hujus nostra vera;, indubital 
 Christians fidei argumento instructi, nullis humanifl \<-l operi 
 bus vel meritis sed per solam Dei gratiam, id est per tnotam 
 illaui crucifixi Filii Dei passionem et innocentein mortem hominec 
 justitiam consequi, a peccatis mundari, vel eorundem sati.sfa 
 nem aut expiationem impetrare posse, docemus. Et quod m 
 Chi*isti innocently et meriti tunc participes reddamur cum I •■ ■ 
 Filium nostrum esse, et propter peccata nostra, ut nos nimiruin 
 justos et beatos redderet, mortem subiisse, vera et constant] fide 
 cretlimus. 
 
 Confessio Helvetica. 1536. 
 
 Proprie igitur loquendo Deus solus nos justificat, et dontaxat 
 propter Christum justificat, non imputans nobis peccata sed im- 
 putans ejus nobis justitiam .... Quoniam vero nos justificatio- 
 nem banc recipimus non per idla opera sed per fidem in Dei mise- 
 ricordiam et Christum, ideo docemus et credimus cum apostolo, 
 hominem peccatorem justificari sola fide in Christum uon lege 
 aut ullis operibus. 
 
 Confessio Belgica. 1561. Latine reddita, 1581. 
 
 Merito igitur jureque dicimus cum D. Paulo, nos sola fide 
 justificari, seu fide absque operibus legis. Cseterum proprie 
 loquendo nequaquam intelligimus ipsam fidem per se seu ex se 
 nos justificare, ut quse sit duntaxat velut instrumentum quo 
 Christum justitiam nostram apprehendimus. Christus ergo ipse 
 est nostra justitia qui omnia sua merita nobis imputat, fides vero 
 est instrumentum, quo illi in societatem seu communionem 
 omnium bonorum ipsius copulamur atque in ea retinemur. Art. 
 xxii. 
 
 Confessio Gallica. 1559. Latine reddita, 1566. 
 
 Credimus totam nostram justitiam positam esse in peccatorum 
 remissione, qua? sit etiam, ut testatur David, unica nostra felicitaa 
 Igitur cseteras omnes rationes quibus homines existimant se coram 
 Deo posse justificari plane repudiamus, omnique virtutum ei men- 
 torum opinione abjecta, in sola Jesu Christi obedientia prorsu^ 
 acquiescimus, qua? quidem nobis imputatur, turn ut tegantur 
 nostra peccata, turn etiam ut gratiam coram Deo nanciscamur. 
 
 Art. 20. Credimus nos sola fide fieri hujus justitia parti- 
 cipes. 
 
 25—2
 
 388 XUTE Q. 
 
 Apologia Con/, Angustano* 
 
 Dtrumque enim damnant [adveraarii nostra] et quod negamus 
 hominee propter sua merita oonsequi remiaaionem peecatorum; et 
 quod affirmamua hominee fide oonaequi remiaaionem peecatorum, 
 et fide in Christum jaatificari 
 
 Sola fide qod per dilectionem non propter dilectionem conse- 
 quimur remiaaionem peecatorum, etai dilectio sequitur fidem. 
 
 ( 'um autem sola tide accipiam.ua remiaaionem peecatorum et 
 reconciliationem, propterea sola tides justificat; quia reconciliati 
 reputantur justi et Filii Dei non propter suam munditieai sed per 
 miaericordiam propter Christum, si tamen hauc miaericordiam 
 tide apprehendant. Ideoque Scriptura testatur quod tide jusii 
 reputamur 
 
 LlTTHEB. In Ep. ad Galat. Cap. 2. 
 
 Hie observandum est, ista tria, fidem, Christum, acceptationem 
 seu reputatiouem, conjungenda esse. Fides apprehendit Christum, 
 et habet eum prassentem, inclusumque tenet, ut anuulus gemmam. 
 Et qui fuerit inventus hac fiducia apprehensi Christi in corde, 
 ilium reputat Deus justum. Hsec ratio est et meritum quo per- 
 venimua ad remissionem peecatorum et justitiam : quia credis, 
 inquit Deus, in me, et fides tua apprehendit Christum quern tibi 
 donavi, ut esset Mediator et Pontifex tuus, ideo sis Justus. Ita- 
 que Deus acceptat seu reputat nos justos solum propter tidem in 
 Christum 
 
 Concludendum cum Paulo; sola fide, non fide formata chari- 
 tate, nos justilicari. Quare non isti formse gratificanti tribuenda 
 est vis justiiicandi sed fidei, qua? apprehendit et possidet in corde 
 ipsum Christum salvatorem. Ista fides sine et ante charitatem 
 justificat. 
 
 In Genesin. Cap. 22. 
 
 Quia vero tarn impudenter apertae veritati contradieunt, operas 
 pretium est tractare et negativam seu adversativam nostras doctrinre 
 quam ipsi statuunt, una cum nova glosa quam recens commenti 
 sunt ad palliandum suum errorera. Non enim simpliciter operi- 
 bus justitiam tribuunt sed operibus conjunctis cum fide. Quia 
 vident se in manifesto et turpi errore deprehensos, quod opera 
 tantum et sine fide, et quidem traditionum humanarum docuerunt 
 Jam ergo paululum sese inflectunt et pro traditionibus suis opera 
 et justitiam legis ad justificationem exigunt. Verum cum ne id
 
 NOTE Q. 
 
 quidem ad declinandam justam ignominiam satisfit, eo decumuit 
 
 ut adsuant fideni operibus et dicant, neque opera sola aeo solam 
 fidera justificare, sed fidem cum operibus, quia fides Bine operibus 
 mortua est At huic proposition] callidam declarationem 
 
 liraitationem addunt : licet exigamus opera tanquam necessari I 
 salutera, inquiunt, tamen non docemus confidendum operibus. 
 Est satis astutus diabolus, sed nihil agit tametsi fucum imperitifl 
 
 et rationi facit Non negamus nos facienda e •■ opera, Bed hoc 
 
 improbamus quod adversarii commiscent fidem justificantem et 
 opera justificatorum per fidem. Bene quidem conveniuut, el sunt 
 connexainseparabiliter fides et opera. Sed sola fides est qua? appre- 
 hendit benedictionem. Ideo solam fidem justificantem preedicamus 
 quia sola benedicit, opera non habent gloriam quod benedicant, 
 sed sunt fructtis benedicta? pei'sonse. 
 
 Melancthon. Resjionsio ad Bavar. Articulos. loo 9. 
 
 Etsi autem verum est cum in conversione sit vera consolatio 
 fide per Spiritum Sanctum, habitare Deum in cordibus et inchoari 
 novam obedientiam. Tamen semper statuendum est in hac vita 
 personam j ustam esse coram Deo, sola fide, id est habere remissio 
 nem peccatorum et reconciliationem seu imputationem justitia?, 
 placere seu acceptam esse personam Deo ad vitam jeternam et 
 hsereditatem vita? aaterna?, sola fide, id est fiducia mediatoris. Ut 
 quamquam in Paulo renato habitat Deus, ut sunt excellentes 
 virtutes, tamen quia adhuc in eo peccatum est, in hac vita persona 
 habet remissionem peccatorum reconciliationem et imputationem 
 justitioe, et est justa, ])lacens Deo, et accepta ad vitam seternam, 
 sola fide, id est propter solum mediatorem. 
 
 Enarratio Symboli Nicmni ultima. 1557. 
 
 Conclusio. Recte explicatis vocabulis recito propositionem 
 qua? est sumnia evangelii recitata a Paulo, Rom. iii. et deinccps, 
 propter Filium Dei Mediatorem, et quidem propter ejus obedien- 
 tiam, gratis non propter ulla nostra merita, recipimus in veris 
 pavoribus sola fide remissionem peccatorum et reconciliationem, et 
 in ea consolationem cum Fide sustentamur, Filius Dei ipse in 
 nobis est efficax, dicit consolationem, voce evangelii ostendil mise- 
 ricordiam Patris, et liberat nos ex doloribus inferornm, et dat 
 Spiritum Sanctum; ac reputamur justi coram Deo propter obe- 
 dientiam Mediatoris, et simul sumus hseredes vitse eeternse propter 
 Mediatorem, non pi-opter nostram dignitatem aut nostras viri 
 seu opera.
 
 NOTE Q 
 
 . I da Wormacenaick 1557. 
 
 De justificatione lvtinemus doctrinam qua? pio consensu in 
 •lesiis nostris juxta Confessionem et Apologiam proponitur; ac 
 pie et constant<r retincmus propositionem; sola fide coram Deo 
 'i/l.-a/ivn: Et banc propositionem intelligimus et declaramua 
 raxta consensnm perpetuum traditum in Propheticis et Apostolicis 
 Srriptis: quod homo in conversione ex injusto fiat Justus, id est, 
 ex reo habens remissionem peccatorum, i*econciliatus et acceptus 
 Deo ad vitam seternam, per misericordiam gratis propter solum 
 Mediatorem filium Dei, sola fide, id est, fiducia Mediator is, juxta 
 promissionem ; quse fides nititur obedientia Mediatoris propter 
 (juam persona credens jam est justa, id est habens remissionem 
 
 peccatorum, et reconciliata et accepta Deo justitia imputata 
 
 Cum igitur de justitia coram Deo dicitur, semper fides nitatur 
 obedientia Mediatoris, Hac fide persona justa est coram Deo 
 etiam post regenerationem. Nee recipimus Synecdochen Origenis, 
 Monachorum, Papistarum, libri Interim, Stencfeldii, Osiandri, 
 Funcii, et aliorum, qui sic interpretantur propositionem, fide 
 justificamur scil. prapa rati one, ut simus deinde alia re justi id est 
 accepti coram Deo, scil. novitate seu dilectione, seu inhserenti 
 justitia essentiali. Nam hi modi loquendi idem significant. Nee 
 volumus al'jici justitiam imputatam de qua Paulus expresse inquit, 
 Fides impulatur credentl ad justitiam. 
 
 Instead of multiply big extracts to the extent that I easily 
 could, without givmg any of a less unequivocal character, I shall 
 be content with subjoining two — to which, however, I invite par- 
 ticular attention; as I think they are peculiarly calculated to 
 show how decided and cordial was the concurrence, upon the 
 main points of this fundamental doctrine, even of those who dif- 
 fered widely upon some points of minor importance directly con- 
 nected with it, and very widely upon some collateral questions. 
 The first is taken from the proceedings of the Altenburg Confer- 
 ence, held 15G8 — 15G9, between the Divines of the Elector of 
 Saxony, and those of the Duke of Saxe Weimar, to arrange some 
 differences connected with this doctrine, which belong to a class 
 that I have upon system avoided in these Sermons and Notes. 
 They were of a kind, however, which, though they admitted 
 a good deal of subtilty and trifling, led naturally to explicit state- 
 ments of the views of the conferring divines upon the most 
 important questions, and to very full discussions of them. The
 
 NOTE Q. 39] 
 
 following are among the positions laid down by one Bide, and 
 admitted by the other as not controverted : — 
 
 Passione et obedientia ipsiua [Christi] pro nobis e 
 turn. Impletionem legis per Christum nostr.i vice prsestitam, fieri 
 et esse nostram fide. Justiciam qua peccatorcs fide coram Deo 
 justificantur esse obedientiam Christi pro nobis exhibitam. .1 u 
 ticia imputata nos coram Deo justos et acceptos et reconeil, 
 esse. Fidem esse organon quo Justiciam Christi apprehending] 
 esseque donum Dei quod per vocem evangelii datur. Gratis . \ 
 sua misei'icordia, et dilectione Dei, imputari justiciam credent i- 
 bus. Donari ei qui sic justificatur Spiritum Sanctum qui novita- 
 tem inchoat in hac vita, qua? perficietur in altera vita. 
 
 It is true that these Articles are stated by the divines of the 
 Duchy, whom Bellarmin calls Lutlierani rigidl; but tiny are 
 assented to, thus warmly, by those of the Electorate (Bellarmin's 
 Lutherani molles) : " Has formas recipimus et nos cum collocu- 
 toribus, et sic nos docentes sen tire testamur; semperque ita nos 
 docuisse ac sensisse libri testantur in corpore doctrinse compre- 
 hensi, quos ut normam nos sequi spepe affirmavimu3." Ej>ilogus 
 iii. Collationis Electoral. Theolog. 
 
 The other quotation which I shall give is from the Bisputa- 
 tiones Privates of Arminius : it will show no less clearly how little 
 tbe widest differences upon points of doctrine, which latter dis- 
 cussions have forced into an artificial connexion with this doctrine 
 of Justification, affected the concurrence of the earlier Protestant 
 divines upon this emphatically Protestant principle. 
 
 Thesis 48. De Justificatione. 
 
 II. Justificatio est actio Dei Judicis justa et gratiosa, qua 
 de throno gratise et misericordise hominem peccatorcm sed fidelem, 
 propter Christum, Christique obedientiam et justitiam, a peccatis 
 absolvit, et justum censet, ad justificati salutem, et justitiae gra- 
 tia?que divina? gloriam. 
 
 III. Actionem Dei Judicis esse dicimus, qui licet ut supre- 
 mus legislator de lege sua dispensare potuerit et reipsa dispensave- 
 rit, tamen non ex absoluta infinite potestatis plenitudine dispell- 
 sationem administravit, verum inter justitiam limites ses.' oonti- 
 nuit, quam duplici modo demonstravit. Primo, quod non nisi 
 praseunte reconciliatione et satisfactione per Christum in Banguine 
 ejus peracta; secundo, quod non nisi peccata sua agnoseentea et is 
 Christum credentes, justificare voluit.
 
 392 SOTE Q. 
 
 IV. Gratiosam et ruisericordeni actionem dicinius non re- 
 Bpectu Christi, ac si Pater ex gratia contra strictam et rigidam 
 justitiam distincta Christi obediential acceptasset pro justitia, 
 sed nostri respectu, turn quia Deus ex gratiosa niisericordia erga 
 nos Christum pro nobis prccatum, et nobis justitiam fecit, ut nos 
 essemus Dei justitia in illoj turn quia in fide Evangelii commu- 
 nionem ( 'hristi, illumque per fidem propitiatorem posuit. 
 
 VI. Objeetum justificationis est homo peccator, talem se cum 
 dn]« >re agnoscens, et fid el is, credens nempe in Deum qui justi- 
 ficat impium, et in Christum traditum propter peccata nostra, et 
 resuscitatum propter justification em nostri. Qua peccator justifi- 
 cations ex gratia indiget, qua [quam] fidelis justificationem ex 
 gratia obtinet. 
 
 VII. Fides est caussa vel actio instrumental qua Christum 
 nobis in propitiationem et justitiam a Deo propositum appre- 
 hendimus, juxta prescript um et promissum evangelii, quo dicitur 
 qui crediderit justificabitur et servabitur ; qui non crediderit con- 
 demnabitur. 
 
 VIII. Forma est ipsa gratiosa aestimatio Dei, qua Christi 
 justitiam nobis imputat, hoc est, peccata nostra nobis fidelibus, 
 propter Christum fide apprehensum, reniittit justosque in illo 
 censet; quae aestimatio junetani habet adoptionem in filios et colla- 
 tionem juris in hsereditatem vitaa seternse. 
 
 The omitted and remaining Articles relate to less contested 
 or less important points; or are included in the foregoing: and, 
 to the whole three Corollaries are appended; the first of which is, 
 Fidem et opera ad justificationem concurrere est impossible. It is 
 right to add his account of evangelical Faith. 
 
 Thesis 44. De Fide in Deum et Christum. 
 
 III. Fides Evangelica est adsensus animi a Spiritu Sancto 
 per Evangelium in peccatoribus, et peccata per legem agnoscenti- 
 bus, deque iisdem pcenitentibus pi-oductus, quo turn certo sibi 
 persuasum habent, Jesum Christum a Deo constitutum esse aucto- 
 rem salutis obtemperantibus ipsi, et suum quoque si in ipsum 
 crediderint, turn in ilium tanquam talem credunt, et per eum in 
 Deum tanquam Pattern benevolum in ipso ad salutem creden- 
 tium et gloriam Christi et Dei. 
 
 This is not so expressed as to remove all doubt about his 
 views upon the point: but, as he makes a belief in Christ as our 
 Saviour an essential part of evangelical faith, and also describes
 
 NOTE Q. 393 
 
 this as founded upon a belief that Christ is the author of s;dv;i- 
 tion to all who obey Him, this would seem to infer tint :i pari of 
 the work of the Spirit upon the heart, producing faith then 
 the establishing a full confidence that we shall be enabled bj the 
 Loi'd to render to Him all the obedience which He require of 
 His followers; and, if this be his meaning, his account of tin- 
 principle does not perhaps differ so much in substance as in form 
 from the more simple statements of the earlier Reformers. That 
 in his view of the state of mind of a Believer it includes thifl con- 
 fidence would appear from his account of a believer in Art. VI. 
 Thes. 48, quoted above; but it would appear also that he does not 
 conceive it to be a part of evangelical faith from Art. V. of this 
 44th Thesis, in which he makes knowledge the antecedent of 
 faith, and confidence its consequence : — "Fiducia autcm con- 
 sequens : per fidem enim fiducia coUocatur in Christum et per eum 
 in Deum." But in a letter to Uytenbogaert (Prcestantium ac 
 eruditt. Virorum Upistolce. Ep. 70) he declares more distinctly tie- 
 necessity of their connexion, and their close conjunction in point 
 of time. " Fieri autem nequit ut fides vera, qualem Deus in se 
 postulat, non producat ex se illam fiduciam, et quidem eo ipso 
 momento quo primum Deum talem concipit; hsec enim est nativa 
 inter intellectum istum affectivum, et hunc affectum qui fiducia 
 dicitur, relatio." 
 
 This leaves a difference with the earlier Protestant Divines 
 concerning the principle ; but it shows that there was none con- 
 cerning the character justified, and the state of mind of all who 
 are justified: and though I think, that, so far as Arminius dif- 
 fered here from the older authorities, he was in a real, and by no 
 means an unimportant error; yet it is manifest how much the 
 practical importance of the error is lessened by the extent of 
 his ao-reement with them about the character and state of mind 
 of a believer. This agreement appears sufficiently by what I 
 have already quoted : but I add a striking passage, bearing upon 
 the same point, from his Oratio cle Certitudine Sacrosancta '/'/<■■>- 
 logice. After saying that the certainty of faith which God re- 
 quires for His word is not satisfied either by implicit <>v historical 
 faith, he continues:— Sed postulat Deus verbo suo illam haberi 
 fidem, qua sensus illo enunciati, quantum quidem ad Baltttem 
 hominum et gloriam Dei est necesse, intelligantur, atque ita 
 divini esse certo cognoscantur, ut non modo veritatem summam
 
 394 NOTE Q. 
 
 sed etiain sunnmnu bonum honiinis complecti credantur: qua? 
 ikies non tantum credat Deum et Christum esse; neque tantum 
 Deo credat et Christo aliquid enuntiantibus; sed in Deum et Chris- 
 tum credat talia de se affirm antes, qua? fide adprsehensa faciunt ut 
 in Deum tanquam Pat rem et in Christum, tanquam Salvatorem 
 credatur; quod non theoretici modo, sed et practici intellectus 
 manna esse arbitramnr. Qua de causa fidei vera? et viva? non 
 modo dcr<f>ukei.a in Scripturis tribuitur, sed et 7r\r)po<popia et 
 7r£7rot#>/o-is. Atque istiusniodi cert'dudiais et fidei postulator et 
 exactor est Deus. 
 
 Copious as these references liave been, I must give in addition 
 a few from our own writers. To the proof given in Sermon IV., 
 page 11G, of the declared principles of the Church of England, 
 and the confirmation of it in the following Sermon (p. 138-140), 
 I have no wish to add anything; but I shall subjoin some evi- 
 dence of the views of the most eminent of her early divines ; be- 
 ginning as before, with the excellent Tyndall. 
 
 A Pathxoay into the Holy Scripture. 
 
 By faith are we saved, onely in belevyng the promises. And 
 though fayth be never without love and good workes, yet is our 
 saving imputed neither to love, nor unto good workes, but unto 
 faith onely. 
 
 Parable of the wicked Mammon. 
 
 That fayth onely, before all workes, and without all m elites, 
 but Christe's only, justifieth and setteth us at peace with God, is 
 proved by Paul in the first chapter to the Romans. [And after 
 alleging and explaining the most important texts connected with 
 the doctrine, he says] And of such like ensamples are all the 
 Epistles of Paul full. Marke how Panle laboureth with him selfe 
 to expresse the exceedyug misteryes of fayth in the epistle to the 
 Ephesians, and in the Epistle to the Colossians. Of these and 
 many such like textes, are we sure that the forgivenes of sinnes, 
 and justifying is appropriate unto fayth onely without the addyng 
 to of workes. 
 
 Craxmer. Catechismus. General Pre/ace. 
 
 Wherefore, good children, it is necessarie for you to learne the 
 doctrine of faithe, for without it we can not be justified, or 
 brought agayn into God's favour. For no man is just or rightuous
 
 NOTE Q. 305 
 
 before God, that liath not the Holy Gost, and he that will recej re 
 the Holy Gooste, niuste beleve in Christe (for by fidth we receyve 
 the Holy Gooste,) therefore, by faith we be iustified. Agayne, \l 
 we wyll be saved we must knowe God and our Lord Jesus Chri 
 as it is wrytten John the xvii. But we can not knowe God and 
 hys sonne Jesus Christ, but by fayth, therefore fayth hist i lid !i vs. 
 and bringeth lyfe euerlastynge. 
 
 The Lord's Prayer. The seconde Petition. 
 For fyrste by fay the we be iustified before God (for fayth mak- 
 eth vs partakers of the iustice of Christ, and planteth us in Christe) 
 and he that by true faythe doth receive the promise of grace, 1 1 . 
 hym God gyueth the Holye Ghoste, by whotne charitie is spred 
 abrode in our hei-tes, whiche perfommethe all the commandr- 
 mentes. Therfore, he that beleveth in Christ, and truely belev- 
 eth the gospel, he is just and holy before God, by the iustice of 
 Christe, whiche is imputed and gyven unto him, as Paul saith, 
 Romans iii. We thynke that man is iustified by faith without 
 workes. He is also just before the world, because of the loue and 
 charitie which the Holy Ghost worketh in his herte. 
 
 Secondly, faith worketh peace and quietnes in oure heartes 
 and consciences. For by faith we be certified that our synnes be 
 forgjaien. Therefore, saythe Sayncte Paule to the Romanes: 
 Beyng iustified, we haue peace and quietnesse wyth God, by oure 
 Lorde Jesus Christe. 
 
 Thirdely, this peace bryngethe vnto vs a great and synguler 
 ioy in our hertes and consciences, and maketh vs, for this excedyng 
 benefite of God's mercy and grace towarde vs, feruently to loue 
 hym, gladly to laucle and prayse him, to honoure hys name, and 
 to professe the same before all the worlde euermore, to gyue vnto 
 hym moste herty thankes, and to be swift and redye to do all 
 things that maye please God, and to eschewe those things that 
 maye displease hym. 
 
 Becon. The Christian Knight. 
 
 In myself I am a sinner; but in Christ, my righteous Mak.r, 
 I am righteous. For he hath forgiven me all my sins, and hath 
 taken me into his grace, favour, and tuition. He is always readj 
 to help me; he forgiveth me the remnants of my sins, and pnrgeth 
 them in me daily, till he maketh me altogether new .... Behold, 
 therefore, [Satan] that thy accusation which thou attemptesl 
 against me, cannot have place in me. For, although 1 fulfil nol
 
 396 SOTE Q. 
 
 the commandments of God in the law with mine own works, yet 
 I fulfil them in the gospel with the most perfect works, and the 
 satisfaction of Christ, in whom I believe. This faith is reckoned 
 to me unto righteousness, although my works of themselves be im- 
 perfect. And this is the only and true manner of fulfilling the 
 law of God, that I believe in Christ, the only fulfiller of the law 
 and jastifier, without whom the law can never be fulfilled. All 
 these things can I prove by the word of God, &c. 
 
 Therefore, it is all one whether we say faith justifies without 
 works — as Paul saith, "God saves us through his mercy, and not 
 for our works" — and as Peter saith, " We believe to obtain health 
 through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ" — or if we say with 
 the ancient Catholic doctors, Faith alone justifieth or saveth. For 
 we mean none other things by those words than that our righte- 
 ousness and everlasting salvation comes of the free and mere grace 
 of God promised in Christ : that Christ hath deserved these so 
 great benefits for us, and not we ourselves; that we can none 
 otherwise than by faith lay hand on the mercy of God or on 
 Christ. 
 
 And this is the Confession and Faith of all the Catholic 
 church. 
 
 The demands of the Holy Scripture. 
 
 Who is just or righteous? He that hath faith; for through 
 faith we are justified. To be justified is to to have our sins not 
 imputed unto us, but to have them forgiven in Christ and for 
 Christ. Even as David saith, Blessed are they, &c. Now, be- 
 cause the faithful man alone receives and enjoys this mercy, for- 
 giveness, and this not imputing of sin through faith, therefore, he 
 is called just; and we, through faith, are said to be justified. 
 
 See further, Th>> Sup. rings of Christ, p. 4G9. The Office of 
 the Holy Ghost, p. 487, in the valuable collection of Becon's writ- 
 ings, published by the Tract Society. 
 
 Hooper. Declaration of Christ (from the edition of the Tract 
 Society) Chap. VII. of Justification. 
 
 Paul declares that for the death and merits of Christ we are 
 saved, and not by our own virtues. So that faith not only shows 
 us that Christ died, and now sitteth at the right hand of God; but 
 also applies the merits of this death unto us, and makes Christ 
 ours. Faith lays nothing to gage unto the justice of God, but the 
 death of Christ, and thereupon claims mercy and God's promise,
 
 NOTE Q. 397 
 
 the remission of sin, and desires God to justify and deliver the 
 soul from the accusation of the law, and the right of the- devil 
 which he is bound to do for his promise' sake. 
 
 And mark this manner of speecli : "We are justified by faith •" 
 that is, "we are just through the confidence of mercy." Thin 
 word, faith, comprehends as well a persuasion and confidence, that 
 the promise of God appertains to us for Christ's sake, as the 
 knowledge of God. For faith, though it desires the company of 
 contrition and sorrow for sin, yet it contends not in judgment 
 upon the merits of any works, but only for the merits <>(' ( ihrist's 
 death. In case it did, it avails nothing, &c We must, there- 
 fore, only trust to the merits of Christ, which satisfied the ex- 
 treme jot and uttermost point of the law for us. And he imputes 
 and communicates this his justice and perfection to us by faith. . . . 
 
 This example of Nicodemus declares that neither the works 
 that go before justification, neither those that follow justification, 
 deserve remission of sin. Though sole faith excludes not other 
 virtues from being present at the conversion of every sinner, yet 
 sole and only faith excludes the merits of other virtues, and ob- 
 tains solely remission of sin, for Christ's sake, herself alone. 
 
 Confession of Christian Faith. 
 
 Art. XIV. I believe and confess Jesus Christ to be the ful- 
 ness, the end, and accomplishment of the law, to the justification 
 of all that believe, through whom, and by whom only, all the pro- 
 mises of the Father are accomplished, yea, even to the uttermost. 
 Who also alone hath perfectly satisfied the law in that which no 
 other amongst men could perform; as the law doth command 
 things impossible, which, nevertheless, man must accomplish, not 
 by working, but through believing : for so is the law accomplished, 
 through faith, and not through works; and by this means shall 
 men find the righteousness of faith to be available before the 
 Lord, and not the righteousness of works, which leadeth nothing 
 unto perfection. 
 
 Jewel. Defence of the Apologie of the Churche of Englande. 
 
 Two other great quarrelles M. Hardinge moveth; the one of 
 onely Faithe ; the other, as he calleth it, of the presumptuous cer- 
 taintie of salvation. Whereiu judge thou uprightly, go.nl Chris- 
 tian reader, howe juste cause he hath to reprove our doetrine. As 
 for the firste hereof, St Paule saithe, Justificamvr gratis ex gratia 
 ipsiw. Wee be justified freely of his grace: wee judge that a m i I
 
 398 NOTE Q. 
 
 i* justified by Faithe without the woorkea of tits lawe: ivee hnowe 
 that a man is /tut justified by the tvoorkes of the law, but by the 
 faithe o/Chriate. M. Hardinge will Bale, yet hitherto of sola fides 
 — that is, of onely faithe, we hear nothinge. Notwithstanding, 
 when St Paule excluded al manner woorkes bisides onely faithe, 
 what <1> then leaveth lie but faithe alone? 
 
 With this I shall end my extracts from the waitings of British 
 divines, though I could very easily add to these express testi- 
 monies, both from the writers referred to, and others of the same 
 period, ami carry them down to a later date. Indeed, my own 
 acquaintance with the eminent divines of the Church of England, 
 so far as it extends, fully corroborates the strong assertion of one 
 who had a much larger and more exact knowledge of them — that, 
 up to the year 1G40, they were entirely agreed upon all the im- 
 portant parts of this fundamental doctrine. See Bp. Barlow's 
 Letters on Justification : reprinted, 1828, pp. 86, 110. I cannot 
 refer to this excellent little work without expressing my sense 
 of the obligation which its republication has conferred upon all 
 students in divinity. Its general scholastic form may probably 
 repel other readers, but rather favours the closeness of reasoning 
 for which the letters are remarkable, and therefore is an additional 
 recommendation to the class of whom I have spoken. I do not 
 agree in every point with the Bishop. I should not wish, indeed, 
 to be understood to profess a perfect accordance upon all poiuts 
 with any even of the writers whom I have quoted oftenest, and 
 most commended. But I agree with him, as I do with them, 
 upon all points of real importance connected with this doctrine ; 
 and I consider his work of the highest value, for distinct state- 
 ments of this great truth, and clear and close reasoning in sup- 
 port of it.
 
 NOTE R. 
 
 Note R. Page 95. 
 On the title ' The Homily of Justification? 
 
 The Article Of the Justification of Man -ends us to one of the 
 Homilies for a larger and fuller expression of what it has i\ 
 laid down concerning that great doctrine. The Homily i, referred 
 to compendiously as The Homily of Justification, but it nowhere 
 appears in the volume under that name. Its full title is: A Si rmon 
 of the Salvation of Mankind, by only Christ our Saviour, from Sin 
 and Death Everlasting ; while in the table of contents it is stated, 
 Of the Salvation of all Mankind; and the running title a1 tin- 
 top of the page is Sermon of the Salvation of Mankind. .Must of 
 my readers are probably aware of this discrepancy, but I should 
 suppose that few of them have attached any importance to it. 
 It has not always, however, been regarded as of trivial moment. 
 In the course of a controversy on the authority of the Homilies, 
 which was carried on in Ireland more than thirty years ago, the 
 fact was put forward as having a very serious bearing on the 
 question. The controversy engaged some of the most eminent 
 persons in the Irish branch of the Church at the time*, and led 
 to a very full discussion of some most important points. I am 
 only concerned here, however, with the particular one just referred 
 to, — of the difference between the title of the Homily in ques- 
 tion, as given in the Article and in the Book of Homilies. 
 
 And I think the best mode of noticing the point will be 
 by quoting what is said with reference to it in a review of the 
 controversy which appeared in the ' Dublin Christian Examiner,' 
 a religious periodical of that day, which has survived to our own 
 time, and is still carried on under the same title, though in a 
 different form. The following extract is from Yol. iv. pp. 153 
 —i56 :— 
 
 "What we have said and quoted might serve as an answer t.> 
 Mr Knox, as he adopts in substance the views of the Bishop 
 of Limerick. However, since it is with some difference, and bud 
 
 * Bishop Jebb, the Rev. Dr Elrington, Mr Alexander Knoi 
 
 Note X.), and the Rev. Richard Graves were among the controver- 
 sialists.
 
 KM) NOTE R. 
 
 ported by different arguments, we must, according to our system, 
 notice him distinctly. His statement of the amount of the obli- 
 gation incurred by subscription to the Eleventh Article is so 
 carious that it must be given in his own words : — 
 
 " ' And here, I assuredly think, a matter of attention is fairly 
 presented t>> every theological reader. Nor cau it be deemed 
 excusable in any one win. subscribes the Thirty-nine Articles 
 to remain ignorant of a document to which his notice is called by 
 such venerable authority. But more than this cannot be reason- 
 ably inferred. 
 
 " ' But even in this very reference something, perhaps, will be 
 found which may be thought to give it the character of a pruden- 
 tial recommendation, rather than of an authoritative injunction.' 
 — Knox, pp. 10, 11. 
 
 " It would appear from this — and we assure the respectable 
 author, if we are misstating his meaning, it is from a bond fide 
 misconception of it — that every subscriber to the Articles incurs, 
 by the Eleventh, the obligation of reading and acquainting himself 
 with the Homily of Justification, and nothing more. This would 
 seem light enough ; but the following paragraph shows that even 
 this needs some abatement, and that we are still more leniently 
 dealt with by our indulgent mother. At first view it would 
 appear that the Church says, Bead the Homily of Justification : 
 but upon closer examination it is found that she does not say so 
 much, but at most — / think you had better read the Homily of 
 Justification ; but you need not, unless you choose. 
 
 " It is hard to believe this to be the view of any sensible 
 writer, and yet Mr Knox's language seems so plain as scarcely to 
 allow us to doubt that we understand him : certain it is, that it 
 would require very solid arguments indeed to establish such a 
 view. In fact, it seldom falls to our lot to meet with an argu- 
 ment which we should not find it less difficult to presume falla- 
 cious (even if we were unable to find any fallacy in it), than to 
 believe that our Church deviated from the grave and imperative 
 tone which she maintains in her Articles, into such a trifling and 
 purposeless parley as the foregoing. 
 
 " But let us see the reasoning upon which this rests : — 
 " 'It is a well-known fact that there is literally no such 
 Homily as that referred to in the Eleventh Article. The Homily 
 supposed to be meant is that of the Salvation of Mankind. But
 
 uYOTE /,'. .,,,1 
 
 it is natural to ask, Why should it no1 have been named 
 proper title 1 The history of the case seems to furnish a probable 
 explanation. The Eleventh Article, as it now stands, v..,- modi- 
 fied by Queen Elizabeth's divines, from the former Article in 
 King Edward's reign on the same subject. It was evidently an 
 object to make no unnecessary changes ; and \,| this Article. 
 " Of Justification by Faith," was not a little altered. A state- 
 ment of the doctrine was briefly but comprehensively given: 
 whereas, in the former Article, there was no doctrinal proposition, 
 but all was to be learned from "The Homily of Justification" 
 The new form of the Article, as actually propounding the doctrine, 
 made the reference to the Homily no longer indispensable. But, 
 probably, it was considered that to omit the mention of the 
 Homily entirely might be misunderstood, and that the r 
 bility of a necessary means of present public instruction might be 
 thereby diminished. From this motive, as it would seem, the 
 reference to the Homily was in a certain degree retained ; but, 
 manifestly, without consulting any other document than t lie for 
 mer Article. This is evident from the continuance of Cranmer's 
 misnomer ; for had there been a recurrence to the Homily itself, 
 the error would have been detected, and the attention to correct- 
 ness of expression, which those divines everywhere else evince, 
 would have been observed in this instance also. 
 
 "'I mean no charge of negligence against those learned ami 
 sagacious men. Their works bear testimony to their wisdom, and 
 in no one particular more than in the new form they gave to 
 the Article now adverted to. Concise as the doctrinal part of it 
 is, it bears evident marks of deep consideration; but it is no less 
 clear that they referred to the Homily without having the Homily 
 itself before them. That they ran no risk of doctrinal error, by 
 such a qualified reference, from general recollection without direct 
 inspection, they must themselves have felt, and there is no just 
 ground to dispute; but that they intended to attach any great 
 importance to a document thus referred to it is not easy to believe. 
 It would seem rather a matter of almost moral certainty that auoh 
 a reference, had it then remained to be made, would nut have 
 been made at all.' — Knox, pp. 11, 12, 13. 
 
 " It may arise from some unhappinesa in the constitution of 
 our minds, but certain it is, that what brings Mr Knos thus to 
 moral certainty seems to us but a tissue of gratuitous and, wo 
 
 26
 
 NOTE B. 
 
 may add, eminently improbable assumptions, which lead us to 
 nothing beyond Borne apeculations (of no great value) upon the 
 unprofitable skill employed in the fabrication of it. We shall 
 not give these to Mx Knox, or our other readers; but we shall 
 present b<>th with a specimen of the ineonveuieuces which flow 
 from this piece of reasoning, desiring them very earnestly to con- 
 sider it closely. 
 
 " If, we would ask, the appearance of the misnomer which 
 Mr Knox notices in our Thirty-fifth Article prove it to have been 
 written without a recurrence to the Homily, does not the same 
 misnomer occurring in Edward's corresponding Article prove that 
 it, too, was written in the same way, — that the writers had not, 
 at the time of writing, the Homily before them? And again, 
 if a carelessness about the document misnamed be fairly inferred 
 in the one case, from this mode of writing about it, may not 
 similar indifference concerning it be inferred in the latter case 
 also, in which it is equally evident that the same mode of writing 
 about it was adopted! And finally, if we be released from much 
 em about this Homily by the indifference to.it thus exhibited 
 by the framers of our- Articles, were not the ministers in Edward's 
 time in like manner left at liberty by the indifference concerning 
 it, which was equally apparent in the divines who composed his 
 Articles? Unless we flatter ourselves strangely, this is a chain 
 composed of rather stronger materials than Mr Knox's; and yet 
 to what an inconvenient conclusion does it conduct us ! And to 
 what further difficulties does it lead ! Bishop Jebb is of opinion 
 (in which he has, we believe, the support of universally concurrent 
 tradition) that < Yamner was the author of this Homily, and he 
 certainly was a very influential member of the conclave by which 
 Edward's Articles were framed. Is it not strange that he should 
 have forgotten the name of his own Homily? Again, following 
 up Mr Knox's principles, we have found in this Article evidence 
 of the writer's indifference to this Homily. Bishop Jebb, follow- 
 ing out his own principles (page 7), finds in the same Article 
 traces of the writer's fatherly partiality for it ! Is not this 
 a disagreeable collision? Had principles of interpretation of so 
 refined a kind been matured in Edward's time, the result might 
 have been a curious one. For as to many, undue partiality for 
 the Homily in the writers of the Articles would seem about as 
 good a reason for disregarding their approbation as indifference
 
 NOTE /,'. 
 
 concerning it; dissenters from the doctrine of the Eomily might 
 quiet themselves in either of two ways— either by d riving from 
 the Article the partiality or the indifference of the wri 
 wards it — either of which, it seems, it will equally yield, merely 
 
 by a change in the alembic ! 
 
 " But, we may be asked, how do we dispose of the difficulty ? 
 If we might say so without being regarded as deficient in reaped 
 towards the ingenious person who has made it a matter of such 
 importance, we should reply that we do not consider it a difficulty 
 
 at all, but a thing of the most ordinary occurrence. The name 
 
 the Homily of (or concerning) Justification— seems naturally 
 given to the Homily in question from its chief subject; and eii 
 the fitness of the title recommended it to common use, and the 
 writers in Edward's time, finding it current, continued the 
 approving of it — or they, for the first time, bestowed it upon the 
 Homily. It is quite impossible, at least we have no means to 
 determine which of these suppositions is the true one; they si 
 both about equally probable : but either is, we fear not to 
 infinitely mox-e so than the hypothesis which makes the writer of 
 the Homily forget its name. In whichever way it came to be 
 used by the first Reformers, it is plain that its fitness, and their 
 use of it, would probably combine to render it general. So tli.it 
 it can hardly be thought strange that the Reformers in Elizabeth's 
 time should have adopted a title probably in general use, and cer- 
 tainly an exceedingly proper one; and, moreover, one already 
 employed upon a similar occasion by the person by whom the 
 Homily was written. This is, as we said, a thing of almost 
 everyday occurrence. Indeed, we are sure that it will be thought 
 a puerile course to pi'oduce any pi'oofs how usual it is, not only 
 that a document should acquire a name from its chief subject, 
 and that this name should supersede its more regular title in 
 common use; but that the same should take place on the most 
 solemn occasions, and in the most exact and technical prod 
 Nevertheless, as the following instance is so pertinent, we cannot 
 deny it a little space : — 
 
 "One of the charges against Sacheverell was, that he had 
 maintained 'that the toleration granted by law is unreasonable, 
 and the allowance of it unwarrantable.' To which charge, advi 
 we presume, by his learned counsel in the laws of this land 
 he ingeniously replies, 'that upon the most diligent inquiry, he 
 
 26—2
 
 404 SOTE R. 
 
 hath not been able to inform himself* that a toleration hath been 
 granted by lawj but admits thai an Act did pass in the first year 
 of Bang William and Queen Mary, entitled, an Act for exempting 
 their M Protestant subjects dissenting from the Church of 
 
 England from the penalties of certain hues,' «tc. This ingenuity 
 meets with but little indulgence from the managers for the 
 Commons. 
 
 " Sir Peter King. — ' Indeed it is almost difficult to be serious 
 in giving a reply to that part of his answer, that he cannot inform 
 himself that a toleration hath been granted by law. 
 
 " 'Tis true, the word toleration is not mentioned in the Act, 
 neither is the word indulgence to be found in that law; but every- 
 body knows that the exemption granted in the Act is commonly 
 
 called the toleration, and the Act itself the Toleration Act 
 
 It [toleration] is now become a word of art, that not only in com- 
 mon conversation, but even in the most public acts of state, the 
 exemption granted by the Act is called the Toleration : did not 
 her Majesty, in her speech to both Houses of Parliament from 
 the throne, declai'e that she would always inviolably maintain the 
 Toleration ? In the free conference between the Lords and Com- 
 mons about the bill for preventing occasional conformity, in the 
 year 1702, is not this Act of I. William and Mary called the 
 Act of Toleration]' 
 
 " Lord William Paulett. — 'It is well known that the Act of 
 Parliament he alludes to is everywhere, not only in courts of 
 justice, but even in Parliament, called the Toleration Act*."' 
 
 • " Sacheverell's Trial, p. 77. At p. 204 of the same volume is given 
 an attested copy from the Cottonian Library, of Queen Elizabeth's well- 
 known letter for suppressing the exercise called ' Prophecyeing.' One 
 of her directions for this purpose is intended to enforce the reading 
 of the Homilies. And if any of the 'Busshopps' to whom it is ad- 
 dressed, finding the book curiously styled in this document 'the pub- 
 lique Homlines' (for such and so gross, we grieve to say, is the caco- 
 graphy of that 'bright Occidi ntal Star') were to have concluded, as ho 
 fairly might, that she must have written without looking at the title- 
 page of the volume, and to have inferred from this her indifference 
 concerning it, and finally collected therefrom his own liberty to slight 
 her injunctions; he would, we doubt not, have had but little reason to 
 felicitate himself on the ingenuity to which he owed this well-linked 
 chain."
 
 NOTE S. 405 
 
 Note S. Page 90. 
 
 True Connexion of Faith with Justification. 
 
 There was no point connected with this doctrine upon which 
 the Reformers were more anxious to be explicit than the one 
 insisted on here: that it is not as one of our virtues or good 
 qualities, taken as the substitute for all; or as the one which is 
 the source and spring of all the rest, that faith justifies us. •• Neque 
 intelligi (says Luther) neque defendi potest hsec sententin. Quod 
 sola fdesjustif cat, si quis imaginatur ideo fide homines justificari 
 quia fides in nobis sit novitas quaxlam seu nova quality." And. 
 in the Augsburgh Confession, 1540: "Cum igitur dicimus _//</.• 
 justifcamur, non hoc intelligimus, quod justi simus pi-opter ipsiua 
 virtutis dignitatem. Sed hsec est sententia, consequi nos remis- 
 sionem peccatorum et imputationem justitise per misericord i; mi 
 propter Christum." The same point is most laboriously pressed 
 in our own Homilies: "So that the true understanding of this 
 doctrine — we be justified freely by faith without works, or that 
 we be justified by faith in Christ only — is not that this, our own 
 act, to believe in Christ, or this our faith in Christ, which is 
 within us, doth justify us, and deserve our justification unto us — 
 for that were to count ourselves justified by some act or virtue 
 that is within ourselves — but the true understanding and meauing 
 thereof is, that, although we hear God's word and believe it ; 
 although we have faith, hope, charity, repentance, dread and fear 
 of God within us, and do never so many good works thereunto; 
 yet we must renounce the merit of all our said virtues of faith, 
 hope, charity, and all our other virtues and good deeds, which we 
 either have done, shall do, or can do, as things that be far too 
 weak, and insufficient, and imperfect, to deserve remission of our 
 sins, and our justification. And therefore we must trust only in 
 God's mercy," &c. — Sermon of Salvation, Part 2. And other 
 equally express declarations to the same effect, both from public 
 documents and eminent divines, could be very easily added. Nor 
 can any one, indeed, understand the doctrine without perceiving 
 the vital importance of the position which they so carefully lay 
 down, in explanation of it.
 
 406 NOTE S. 
 
 But it would seem still lees easy to mistake these sound and 
 
 — ary explanations of the true instrumentality of faith in 
 
 man's justification, for declarations that it has none. Bishop 
 
 Bull, however, having quoted Beveral such passagee from our 
 
 Homilies, and the I dons of other Protestant < 'lunches, adds : 
 
 l'.\ bis autem t'.stiuioniis sole meridiano clarius est, quam 
 perperam omnino veterum Protestantium doctrinam de justifi- 
 catione ex sola fide, acceperint plerique sequioris sevi Protestantes, 
 qui eos fidei prsa caateris virtutibus propria dictam instrurnentali- 
 tatem in negotio justificationis, tribuisse ezistunarunt. Merum 
 hoc somnium est. Nam ex ipsoi-um doctrina jam fusius a nobis 
 explicata, liquido liquet, nihil illos proprie dicta? efficacia? adeoque 
 nee instrumentalitatis fidei prre cseteris virtutibus adscripsisse; 
 sed id tantum voluisse, fidem ex omnibus virtutibus unam re- 
 Bpectum connotare ad gratuitam Dei misericordiam, per Christum 
 promissam, quae primaria justificationis nostra? causa est, ideoque 
 figurata quidem, sed non incommoda locutione dici posse, nos 
 sola fide justificari. 
 
 This certainly contains some truth; but no reader who has 
 gone through the testimonies with which these notes have sup- 
 plied him, can be at a loss to see how greatly it misrepresents 
 the views of the Reformers which it professes to explain. To 
 make out, indeed, that their declaration, tlmt we are justified by 
 faith only, expresses merely what faith does not do in the matter 
 of our justification, and that it couveys nothing about what faith 
 actually does, or, rather, conveys that it does nothing, is a mode 
 of interpretation which it would be very hard to vindicate to the 
 satisfaction of unprejudiced men. The true statement, as must 
 be sufficiently apparent from all that I have cited from these 
 writers, is, that having asserted so expressly that we are justified 
 by faith only, they are naturally solicitous to guard against the 
 mistake— that this justification is effected by faith, received by 
 God in the way of compromise, a part, instead of all, that His 
 law requires — or by faith, as the principal virtue, the spring and 
 source of all the rest — or in any way which ascribes any merito- 
 rious efficacy of any kind to faith. They explain distinctly that 
 this faith is trust in, anot/ter; that it not only is not trust in our- 
 selves, but that it includes a renunciation of all trust in ourselves, 
 or m any thing la ourselves; and that, in the things thus re- 
 nounced, of course faith is itself included. Faith is not only the
 
 XOTE 8. 
 
 state of mind which becomes a sinner bo whom the revelatio 
 mercy is made in the Gospel, but it is required and commanded 
 by God. It is evidently, therefore, an aol of obedienoe it 
 
 and the Reformers also declare and Bhow that it is the Bonn 
 all Christian obedience; and so it might easily become a ground 
 
 of dependence before God, like any other of our virtues or g I 
 
 qualities: nay, from its appointed instrumentality In our jn 
 cation and in our sanctification, we are more peculiarly liable bo 
 be thus misled with respect to it than with respect to any other. 
 So that, when this instrumentality has been so distinctly declared, 
 the caution seems obviously to be required, thai trust vn owr faith, 
 under this view of its nature, is no more justifying faith than 
 trust in our works, or our holiness, or our repentance, or anj 
 thing else wrought by us, or appertaining to us; that, on tin- 
 contrary, such trust is opposed to justifying faith, and subversive 
 of it; and that the faith by means of which we are justified is 
 trust in Christ, and in His work. 
 
 "When they join faith then with the other virtues, as not 
 to be excluded from our grounds of dependence before God, I 
 do indeed assert that it has, in this way, no more and no other 
 efficacy than the rest, that is to say, none whatever. But, is this 
 asserting that it has in no other way a part to perform which the 
 rest have not? It is so far from this, that it is intended to b 
 description of the real nature of that faith, by which only it has 
 been previously asserted that toe are justified. For, faith being 
 trust, a statement in any particular case of what are and what 
 are not the objects or grounds of trust, may be taken as the only 
 account of the nature of the principle which can be needed. But, 
 further, this instrumentality of faith is distinctly re-asserbed 
 often in the course of these explanations, always by the writer 
 who thus explain themselves,— so as to leave no doubt of the 
 extent and design of the explanatory passages. I might refer to 
 past quotations for evidence of this; but I will subjoin one or 
 two new passages from the same sources. 
 
 Bishop Bull's great argument against the peculiar instru- 
 mentality of faith is, that in the seuse in winch other virtue! 
 not instrumental (i.e. in any sense which ascribes merit bo 
 neither is * so : and that in the only sense in which d i 
 mental (i. e. as a condition) so are all others. The point .... 
 not how far the second position is true (the nrst is aot questioned),
 
 NOTE S. 
 
 but how far it is the doctrine of the Protestant Churches and 
 Divines. I have given, as I said, ample materials for the decision 
 of this point ; but 1 add the following passage from the Homilies ; 
 expecting that, with any fair man who reads it, it cannot fail to 
 be conclusive as to the principles of our own Church. Having 
 explained the cause and effects of the Lord's death, the Homily 
 proceeds to point out the mode of applying it, as a medicine to 
 oar wounds, so that it may work the same effect in its wherefore it 
 was given, namely, the health and salvation of our soxds. "Al- 
 mighty God commonly worketh by means; and in this thing he 
 hath also ordained a certain mean whereby we may take fruit and 
 profit to our soul's health. What mean is that? Forsooth, it is 
 faith ! Not an inconstant and wavering faith, but a sure, stead- 
 fast, grounded, and unfeigned faith By this, then, you may 
 
 well perceive, that the only mean and instrument of salvation 
 required of our parts is faith; that is to say, a sure trust and 
 confidence in the mercies of Cod : whereby we persuade ourselves 
 that God both bath and will forgive our sins; that he hath 
 accepted us again into his favour; that he hath released us from 
 the bonds of damnation, and received us again into the number 
 of his elect people, not for our merits or deserts, but only and 
 solely for the merits of Christ's death and passion ; who became 
 
 man, &c This faith is required at our hands. And this, if 
 
 we keep steadfastly, there is no doubt but we shall obtain salva- 
 tion at God's hands, as did Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; of whom 
 the Scripture saith that they believed, and it was imputed unto 
 them for righteousness. Was it imputed unto them only, and 
 shall it not be imputed unto us also 1 Yes, if we have the same 
 faith as they had, it shall as truly be imputed unto us for right- 
 eousness as it was unto them. For it is one faith which must 
 save both us and them, even a sure and steadfast faith in Christ 
 
 Jesus Therefore, I say unto you, that we must apprehend the 
 
 merits of Christ's death and passion by faith; and that with a 
 strong and steadfast faith, nothing doubting but that Christ, by 
 his own oblation and once offering of himself upon the cross, hath 
 taken away our sins, and hath restored us again into God's favour 
 so fully and perfectly that no other sacrifice shall hereafter be 
 requisite or needful in all the world. 
 
 "Thus have you heard, in few words, the mean whereby we 
 must apply the fruits and merits of Christ's death unto us, so that
 
 XOTE 8. 409 
 
 it may woi'k the salvation of our souls — even a stir.-, Bteadl 
 perfect, and grounded faith. For as all they which beheld stead 
 fastly the brazen serpent, were healed and delivered, at the vis- 
 sight thereof, from their corporal diseases and bodily stings, ■ 
 so all they which behold Christ crucified, with a true and lively 
 faith, shall undoubtedly be delivered from the grievous wound 
 the soul, be they never so deadly or many in number. 
 
 "Therefore, dearly beloved, if we chance at any time, through 
 frailty of the flesh, to fall into sin — as it cannot be chosen l.ut we 
 must needs fall often — and if we feel the heavy burthen thereof to 
 press our souls, tormenting us with the fear of death, hell, and 
 damnation; let us, theu, use that mean which God hath "/>/«>i?ited 
 in his word, to wit, the mean of faith, which is the only instrument 
 of salvation noio left unto us. Let us steadfastly behold Christ 
 crucified with the eyes of our heart. Let us only trust to be 
 saved by his death and passion, and to have our sins clean washed 
 away through his most precious blood; that in the end of the 
 world," &c Sermon on the Passion, Part 2. 
 
 Nothing need be added to this in pi-oof of the views of our 
 Church, concerning the reality and the nature of the office of faith 
 in our Justificatian. As to the Continental Churches and Di- 
 vines, the reader is desired to look at the jiassages from tlie Apology 
 for the Augsburg Confession prefixed to Sermons IV. and VIII. 
 Or this short extract from the Confession itself — " Cum igitur di- 
 cimus Fide Justificamur, non hoc intelligimus quod justi simus 
 propter ipsius virtutis dignitatem. Sed hsec est sententia, con- 
 sequi nos remissionem peccatorum et imputationem justitiae per 
 misericordiam propter Christiim. Verum hpec misericordia non 
 potest accipi nisi fide, et fides hie non tantum historian noti- 
 tiam significat, sed significat credere promissioni misericordia? qua? 
 nobis propter mediatorem Christum contingit." Be Fide. — And 
 the Saxon Confession : "Itaque et correlative intelligenda est 
 ha?c oratio, Fide Justificamur, hoc est, fiducia Filii Dei justifica- 
 mur, non propter nostram qualitatem, sed quia ipse est propitiator, 
 in quo cor acquicscit, fiducia promissse misericordise propter cum. 
 De Rem. Pecc. et Just.— And again in Art. IX. V""""" 7 " /"' ' 
 nova obedientia : "Primuni statuat renatus se reconciliatum 
 Deo, sola fide, id est, fiducia mediatoris, et quanquamjam habitant 
 in eo Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus juxta illud, vememut <>,/ 
 eum, &c. tamen statuat personam justam reputari propter Filium
 
 410 VOTE 8. 
 
 Dei mediatorem et deprecatorem, gratis propter Lpeius meritum." 
 And Art. XVI. De Panitettiia: "Sed qui credit sibi remitti pec- 
 cata propter lmnc mediatorem, jam oerto accipit remissionem peo- 
 catorum propter Christom, <[ui efficax est in eo, et vivificat et 
 
 suictitieai sum Spiritu buo sancto : et reoonciliatus jam certo re- 
 putatur Justus propter mediatorem, et est hares vine setemse." In 
 the Belgic Confession, Art, XXII. "Merito igitur jureque diet 
 mus cum D. Paulo, Xos sola fide jtutificari, seu fide absque operi- 
 bus legis. Cseterum proprie loquendo, nequaquam intelliginius 
 ipsam tidem per se, seu ex se, nos justificare, ut qua? sit chmtaacat, 
 velutl mstrvmentwrn, quo Christum, just&Uam nostrum, apprehend* 
 mus. Christus igitur ipse est nostra justitia, qui omnia sua nobis 
 merita imputat, jfafe« vero est mstrumentum, quo illi in societatem 
 seu communionem omnium bonorum ipsius copulamur atque in ea 
 retineniur; adeo ut ilia omnia nostra effecta, plus quam satis nobis 
 sint ad nostri absolutionem a peccatis." And, finally, the Helvetic 
 Confession, upon the same point testifies in the same way : — " Pro- 
 prie ergo loquendo, Deus solus nos justiiicat, et duntaxat propter 
 ( hi istuin justilicat non imputans nobis peccata sed imputans ejus 
 nobis justitiam. Quoniam vero nos justifieationem banc recipi- 
 mus, non per ulla opera, sed per fidem in Dei misericordiam et 
 Christum: ideo docemus et credimus cum Apostolo, hominem pec- 
 catorem justificari sola fide in Christum, non lege, aut ullis operi- 
 bus. Dicit enim Apostolus Ergo quia fides Christum justi- 
 tiam nostram recipit, et gratise Dei in Christo omnia tribuit, ideo 
 fidei tribuitur justificatio, maxime propter Christum, et non. ideo, 
 quia nostrum opus est. Donum enim Dei est. Cseterum nos 
 Christum fide recipere multis ostendit Dominus apud Joan, in 
 Cap. vi. ubi pro credere ponit manducare, et pro manducare, cre- 
 dere. Nam sicut manducando cibum recipimus, ita credendo par- 
 ticipanius Cliristo. Itaque Justificationis beneficium non partimur, 
 partim gratise Dei vel Christo, partim nobis aut dilectioni, operi- 
 busve vel merito nostro, sed in solidum gratise Dei in Christo per 
 fidem tribuimus. Sed et non possent Deo placere dilectio et opera 
 nostra, si fierent ab injustis : proinde oportet nos prius justos esse 
 quam diligamus, aut faciamus opera justa. Justi vere efiieimur, 
 quemadmodum diximus, per fidem in Christum, mera gratia Dei, 
 qui peccata nobis non imputat, sed justitiam Cliristi, adeoque 
 fidem in Christum ad justitiam nobis imputat." — De vera Fidelium 
 Justificatione.
 
 NOTE 8. ill 
 
 The reader who has gone through these extract* is in a better 
 condition to determine whether any special instrumentality In the 
 
 Justification of sinners is ascribed to fait It by the Reformers, and 
 what that instrumentality is, than when ho had <>nly Bishop Bull's 
 account of their principles, though backed 1>\ an argumenl which 
 the author warrants as sole meridiano clarius. Indeed, anj 
 who reads carefully the foregoing extracts will not only be enabled 
 to correct his misstatement, but will be in full possession of the 
 Protestant doctrine of Justification. And as the point at issue is 
 of such vital importance to that doctrine, I am tempted to add a 
 few passages from two eminent divines, rather with the view of 
 enlarging the explanations already given, than of adding to their 
 authority. Thus Luther: "Quando igitur fide in verbum Dei 
 edoctus, apprehendo Christum, et tota fiducia cordis (quod tamen 
 sine voluntate fieri non potest), credo in eum, hac notitia Justus 
 sum. Sic fide seu hac notitia me justificato," kc. — la Ep, ad 
 Galat. Proifat. And on Chap. 2 : "Quare fides pure est dneenda, 
 quod scil. per earn sic conglutineris Christo, ut ex te et ipso fiat 
 quasi una persona, non possit segregari sed perpetuo adhserescai 
 ei; ut cum fiducia dicere possis; ego sum Christus, hoc est, 
 Christi justitia, victoria, vita, &c. est mea. Et vicissim Christus 
 dicat, Ego sum ille peccator, hoc est, ejus peccata, mors, «fcc, sunt 
 mea quia adhasret mihi, et ego illi; conjuncti enim sumus per 
 fidem in unam carnem et os. Eph. v. &c." And on Genesis, 
 Chap. xv. "Quomodo igitur acquisivit justitiam? Hoc solo 
 modo, quod Deus loquitur et Abraham loquenti Deo credit. Ac- 
 cedit autem Spiritus Sanctus, testis fide dignus, et affirmat, hoc 
 ipsum credere, seu hanc ipsam fidem esse justitiam, seu imputari 
 ab ipso Deo pro justitia, et haberi pro justitia." dfelancthon has 
 already supplied (Note 14) equally distinct declarations of this 
 special instrumentality of faith; and, in adding a few from him, I 
 am chiefly anxious to choose them of moderate length: — "Estque 
 semper hsec propositio correlative intelligenda, Fide sumus ju.-ti- 
 ficati, id est, fiducia misericordia? propter Christum sumus accept i 
 
 non propter nostras virtutes Ideo necesse esi sic intelligi 
 
 hoc dictum, Fide habemus remissionem, id est, hac fiducia quod 
 propter Filium Dei recipiamur."— Loci Theol. " Adtm ramus i : /l- 
 tur justificari Iwminem sine operibus legis. Est ergo sententia pro- 
 positionis, asseveramus hominem accipere remissionem pecoatorum, 
 reconciliationem, et imputationem justitise propter Filium Dei me-
 
 412 NOTE - 
 
 diatoreni per misericordiam gratis non propter legem, sen nostras 
 virtutes, .sen opera. Kt hanc misericordiam accipi oportet fide." 
 — //( Sp. -"/ Rom. Cap. ■">. His Theological Disputationes from 
 1523 to 1534 were originally published with a commendatory 
 preface by Luther, and republished by himself, 1558. "2. Impos- 
 sibilis est remis8io peccatoram nisi tide in Christum, cum appre- 
 hendimus Christum mediatorem ei opponimus eum ine Dei. Hrec 
 fides consolatur ei erigif conscientias." "5. [gitur manifestum 
 i t quod sola fide justificamur, hoc est, ex injustis accept] efficia- 
 mur ft regeneremur." "17. Promissio fide accipitur. Prius ergo 
 fidejusti Bumus quia accipimua promissam reconciliationem, quam 
 Legem facimus." "24. Ideo nee postea reputamur justi coram 
 Deo propter illam legis impletionem sed ideo quia fide habemus 
 accessum per Christum." " 3G. Cum dicimus, sola fid* jastificamur, 
 intelligi hoc debet non tantum quod fides initio accipiat remissio- 
 nem peccatorum, et convertat, sed etiam quod deinceps sola fides 
 reputatur a Deo pro justitia, tametsi impletio legis necessario se- 
 quetur, verum luec impletio legis non est accepta coram Deo nisi 
 propter Christum qui apprehenditur Fide." In his reply to tho 
 propositions of Malvenda in the Conference at Ratisbon, 1546: 
 " Constat autem ex illis quae hactenua disputavimus : solo Christi 
 Jesu merito, sola Christi justitia, plene purgari fideles; nee ulla 
 ratione alia vitam nobis restitui in primo parente nostro amissam, 
 nisi Christo qui solus vita est inseramur. Inserimur autem riper 
 ji'lem unde alibi legimus fide purificari corda nostra; et iterum, 
 fide, non lege non ullis meritis aut operibus, sed fide justificari 
 credentes." 
 
 I may, I think, stop here. Indeed, if I could hope that a re- 
 ference to the quotations already given in preceding Notes would 
 send my readers back to them, I need not have swelled this to 
 such a size. But the point is one which has derived considerable 
 importance from the unfair mode in which the argument has been 
 managed upon the opposite side; so as to justify all the pains 
 which are necessary for setting it right. The Reformers, as I 
 have said, declare expressly, and in various forms, that we are 
 justified by faith only, and they declare, too, that faith sanctifes 
 us : such statements of the operation of faith require cautions 
 lest it should be supposed that so much is ascribed to this princi- 
 ple in our justification on account of its proper worth, or of its 
 effects upon our character. Such cautions are accordingly added,
 
 NOTE 8. 113 
 
 and they necessarily are a good deal occupied in stating what 
 faith does not do ; and it is easy to see how, by enlarging upon 
 this part of them, and neglecting the rest, a plausible case may 
 be made for the position that the writers maintain, thai faith 
 
 no instrumentality distinct from the other graces, and i 
 except such as it shares with the others. My readers have now 
 the means of satisfying themselves how grossly this mi the 
 
 whole truth, even when the assertions are so framed as t . > contain 
 a part of it. 
 
 Bishop Bull is sometimes very successful in producing a false 
 impression in this way : besides, affected as his style real 
 
 spirit and point, his confident tone, and ostentation of the forms 
 of exact reasoning, would account sufficiently for his great sue 
 with cai-eless and prejudiced readers. But he is so pugnacious 
 and discursive that he involves himself in many difficulties from 
 which a quieter and closer writer would have escaped, ami falls 
 into some inconsistencies so glaring that no prepossession in his 
 favour can lead his more discerning admirers to rely altogether 
 upon him. And they, I think, judge wisely in being more dis- 
 posed in general to trust their cause to Archbishop Laurence, by 
 whom it seems on the whole moi*e effectively, though less bril- 
 liantly, maintained. He is much less flippant, and noisy, and 
 absolute, than Bull; makes fewer positive assertions, and con- 
 structs few r er syllogisms; lauds himself less strenuously, and 
 vituperates his adversaries more mercifully. But, though he does 
 not display his skill so studiously, or stop so often to admire it, 
 his readers must, I think, feel that he possesses more real dex- 
 terity, as well as more temper and judgment. The Bislm]> stands 
 with his hair on end at his own wonders; certifying every argu- 
 ment that he gives as omni exceptione majus; luce clarius, or sole 
 meridiano clarius; and qualifying every one who hesitates as 
 talpd ccecior, or something worse. The Archbishop proceeds 
 steadily, neither praising himself nor abusing his opponents ; and, 
 by quietly suggesting his own views, wdiile he seems t<» allow 
 others to speak for themselves; putting forward prominently un- 
 doubted and important parts of the true doctrine, while be V 
 back the obnoxious parts altogether, or assigns them an obscure 
 position, or assails them by assailing erroneous views with which 
 he confounds them; he contrives, I think, to convoy as low a 
 view of the doctrine of justification, and as unfaithful a repre-
 
 411 NOTE s. 
 
 sentation of the Reformers' principles, as the Bishop j though he 
 certainly does not lay himself open to so many direct contradic- 
 tion-, and throughout makes better provision against any brief 
 objections to his statements. 
 
 I cannot* of course, attempt a detailed analysis either of Bull's 
 ■work, or of the part of the Archbishop's with which I am con- 
 cerned; but. as they are likely to be considered the principal 
 writers on their side, and as they seem to be really the most 
 effective, at least of those with whom I am acquainted, I have 
 thought it right to notice occasionally in these Notes everything 
 in either that appeared to me most likely to mislead : and I will 
 now subjoin a word or two upon a fallacious mode of treating 
 the question, which is common, in substance, to both of them, 
 and which I think it maybe an important safeguard to my readers 
 to be made distinctly to understand. 
 
 The Archbishop takes very great pains to fix the attention of 
 his readers upon the monstrous errors of the scholastic scheme of 
 justification; and he then represents the doctrine of justification 
 by faith only, not as the assertion of an important truth concern- 
 ing the mode of our justification, so much as a form devised to 
 combat and overthrow these errors concerning the grounds of it. 
 " Never, therefore, should it be forgotten that when they spoke of 
 justification by faith alone, they solely opposed the scholastical 
 system so frequently alluded to, which attributed to our merits 
 the expiation of crime, and a readmission into the favour of God : 
 this, with an inflexibility not greater than the occasion demanded, 
 they constantly laboured to annihilate, and to restore in its stead 
 the plain doctrine of a perfect propitiation and satisfaction for 
 sin, by the death of Christ," «kc. — Bampton Lectures, Ser. vi. 
 p. HO. 
 
 Bishop Bull has pursued the same course in his attempt to fix 
 the doctrine of justification as delivered by St Paul. He states 
 the errors of the different parties, both Jew and Gentile, with 
 whom the Apostle had to deal; and thinks himself warranted in 
 interpreting the Apostle's most explicit and direct statements of 
 doctrine, as if they were less designed to convey saving truth 
 than to overthrow these dangerous errors. 
 
 The effects of such representations, when they succeed, are 
 manifest. They lead those who receive them to be satisfied with 
 the loosest interpretation of the most exact and express state-
 
 NOTE S. 415 
 
 in 
 
 ments; and, in fact, not to look for the meaning of a v. 
 his own mode of expressing it, however precise, but, bo take up 
 contentedly with the most inadequate, forced, and \ ■ 1. la- 
 
 nations of his language, however ill thej agree with what he 
 says, or with each other, provided they make him contradict 
 something which it is supposed he designed to contradict. I think 
 it cannot be necessary to say anything to show how perverse and 
 hazardous a mode this is in general of seeking for an author's 
 sense, and how calculated it is to favour evasions or misrepresenta- 
 tions of his meaning. And, after all that I have said of the 
 statements of this great truth, both in the Scriptures and in the 
 writings of the Reformers, I hope I need aot add much to show 
 how peculiarly inapplicable the principle of interpretation i 
 them, and how certain it is to mislead us when applied to thou. 
 
 It is true that St Paul, and those fearless maintainors of his 
 doctrine to whom we owe so much, had to deal with errors of the 
 kind described by Bull and Laurence; but it is no less certain 
 that their chief mode of combating these errors is by distinct 
 statements of the truth: and they manifestly feel that, altogether 
 independently of this object, their highest and most important 
 duty was the publication of the truth; and they discharge thai 
 duty by express and reiterated declarations of it in forms fitted 
 to convey it to all — not merely to those infected with such errors 
 — but to those who were as ignorant of these corruptions of the 
 Gospel as of the Gospel itself. St Paul declares, as I have often 
 shown, not only the true grounds of a sinner's justification, but 
 the true mode of it; and the one as distinctly as the other. And 
 I have given abundant proof, even in this Note, that the Reformers 
 were solicitous to be as distinct in declaring the latter as the 
 former. Indeed, as we have seen (p. 78), the Reformers who 
 signed the Apology for the Augsburg Confession, declare that it is 
 not more essential to the trtith to maintain the Lord's work as the 
 sole meritorious ground of justification, than it is to maintain 
 faith as the sole instrument or means of effecting it. And, is mot, 
 I do not think it is difficult to see that the latter cannot be let 
 go, without soon losing hold of the other. But, at all evenl 
 must be felt that the Scriptural provision against the error of 
 exalting our works into meritorious grounds of justification, must 
 be a more effectual safeguard than any declarations against it, 
 however strong. If our works are not allowed to be imai<
 
 410 XOTE S. 
 
 ?it ions of our justification ; if we can perform no work that 
 is good or acceptable in the sight of God until after we are justi- 
 fied j thru there is no possibility (to those 1 mean who so believe) 
 of regarding these works as in any respect, in whole or in part, 
 the meritorious cause of our justification ; of which they are not 
 even made the instrumental eause, hut the consequences and 
 effecta This must be abundantly clear. And the Reformers, 
 doubtless, perceived and prized this effect of the doctrine of Jus- 
 tification by faith only; but we have abundant reason to know 
 that it was not upon any calculation of its results that they so 
 strenuously asserted it, and rejected the opposite doctrine, but be- 
 cause they found it distinctly asserted in Scripture, and the other 
 distinctly denied. 
 
 I must not, however, suffer myself to be led beyond my limited 
 purpose in introducing the subject, which was to guard against 
 this dangerous scheme of interpretation, by showing upon what 
 false principles it is grounded ; having elsewhere sufficiently shown 
 how widely it has misled those who have employed it. Arch- 
 bishop Laurence asserts, we have seen, that, in speaking of justi- 
 fication by faith alone, the Reformers solely opposed the scholastical 
 system, which ascribed justification to human merits. The 
 Apologists, when they undertake to prove that we are justified by 
 faith, assert the proposition to be as necessary as the one which 
 declares that we are justified through Christ, — ubi primum monendi 
 sunt lectores quod sicut necesse est hanc sententiam tueri quod 
 Christus sit Mediator, ita necesse sit defendere quod fides justificat. 
 The Archbishop says (Lectures, p. 124) that the effective principle 
 or meritorious cause of justification was the great point contested, 
 and he does not tell us of any other. The Apologists assert that 
 there was another point objected to in their Confession; and, as 
 they have expressly informed us that they regarded the maintenance 
 of it equally important, so they give U3 no intimation that their 
 adversaries assailed it with less hostility : Utrumque enim damnant, 
 et quod negamus homines propter sua mei-ita consequi remissionem 
 peccatorum; et quod ajfirmamus homines fide consequi remissionem 
 peccatorum, et fide in Christum justificari. This would seem to 
 show that the Reformers' declarations of the doctrine of Justifi- 
 cation by faith only were felt, both by those who made them, and 
 those who opposed them, to contain something beyond the great 
 truth, that we are justified only for the merits of our blessed Lord
 
 NOTE T. 4i 7 
 
 And I add one reiteration of their news, no! merely b 
 contains so strong a declaration of the instrumentality of fiiith. 
 but because it distinctly states the doctriue as it La found in 
 St Paul. Et ne putemus temere excidisse Paulo bi im. ntiam 
 fides justificat, longa disputatione munit el confirmal earn in 
 
 IV Rom. et deinde in omnibus Epistolia repetii Eic olare 
 
 dicit fidem ipsam imputari ad justitiam. Fides esi ilia res quam 
 Deus pronunciat esse justitiam; et addit gratia imputari, e1 i 
 posse gratis imputari si propter opera deberetur. 
 
 Note T. Page 111. 
 rig en. 
 
 Origen bas abundance of errors to answer for on many points, 
 and no lack of them upon this particular doctrine; but I have 
 some reason to think that I have charged him with this one 
 wrongfully. I mentioned his name upon the authority of Calvin, 
 who, both in his Institutes, and in his Commentary, ascribes to 
 him the invention of this strange exposition of the meaning 
 law in this passage of the Epistle to the Romans. Chemnitz 
 makes the same charge, and I think I have seen it elsewhere. 
 Calvin and Chemnitz must have had some grounds for the a 
 tion. They probably, indeed, had very sufficient grounds for it. 
 But certainly Origen's commentary upon the passage furnishes 
 none. It contains some strange misrepresentations of the Aposl 
 meaning, but I have been unable to discover this particular one. 
 He, on the contrary, lays down distinctly the reality aud obi 
 tion of the law of nature, as forming a part of the Apostle's argu- 
 ment. He thinks that in his language the written law ia the 
 of Moses, and that the law of nature is the law of God, distiin- 
 tively; and that it is by means of this latter that the Apostle is 
 able to bring in the whole world guilty before God. It is this 
 law, he thinks, which is meant in vv. 19, 20, 21; except that in 
 this last verse the law of Moses also appears in vVo tou vofiov kcu 
 twv irpo^rjTwv ; and he takes occasion thence to lay down a ruh 
 interpretation which shows that he could not have understood 
 
 27
 
 418 XOTE T. 
 
 ritual law bo have been intended in v. i!S : namely, that when the 
 la"- of Moses is meant, the word /ins the article; but that if 
 anarthrous the law of nature is intended. 1 * I i < 1 not feel it 
 
 try to continue tin' examination any farther, lie commits, 
 
 I have said, Borne most extraordinary mistakes about the Apos- 
 tle's meaning, but they arc intermixed with some judicious re- 
 marks, and occasionally seme Bound doctrinal statements, [nstead 
 of dwelling on his errors, I will atone for my false charge against 
 him (for such, so far as I am able to see new, it was) by giving 
 one or two examples of the soundness which he at times exhibits; 
 premising that his commentary is only preserved in the Latin 
 translation of Kufinus. "Rom. iii. 27, 28. Dieit sufficere solius 
 fidei justiheationem ita ut credens quis tantummodo, justificatur, 
 etiam si nihil ab eo operis fuerit expletum." He gives as an ex- 
 ample the thief on the cross; and says, that no good work is set 
 down to him in the gospel but this, that he cried to the Lord, 
 " et pro hac sola fide ait ei Jesus. Amen dico, etc.;" and that here 
 boasting Mas excluded plainly by the law of faith, and not by the 
 law of works. "Per fideiu eiiim justiticatus est hie latro sine 
 operibus legisj quia super hoc dominus non requisivit quid prius 
 operatus esset, nee expectavit quid operis, cum credidisset, exple- 
 ret, sed sola confessione justificatum comitem sibi earn paradisum 
 ingressurus assumpsit." He then refers to the story of the woman 
 in Simon's house, Luke vii. 3G — 50; and, having spoken of the 
 parable told by the Lord, adds, " Et ex nullo legis opcre sed pro 
 sola fide ait ad earn, Ileinittuidur iibi peccata tua, et iterum Fides 
 tua te salvam fecit, vade in j«'ce." The phrase pro sola fide may 
 suggest to some that he is putting faith for the merits of the Sa- 
 viour, but he had before laid down His office in the justification 
 of sinners, and sometimes with great clearness. " Deus enim Jus- 
 tus est, et Justus justificai-e non poterat injustos, ideo interventum 
 voluit esse propitiatoris, ut per ejus fidem j ustificarentur qui per 
 opera propria justificari non poterant." 
 
 It is much more pleasant to dwell upon such a man's sound 
 statements of the truth than his corruptions of it; and it is coin 
 fortable to believe in his case, as well as in that of others, that the 
 former represent his abiding feelings, and the latter his occasional 
 notions. " Etsi autern interdum veteres Scriptores negligentdus 
 locuti dnt, tamen non dubium est omnes conversos ad Deum tes- 
 tari banc sententiam veram esse, quam multi didicerunt etiam in
 
 NOTE U. il9 
 
 sua conversione, quanquam in explicando alias magi , alia minus 
 plane loquantur." — Melancihon. Besponsio ad Bavariooa Artie 
 
 1559. 
 
 Note U. Tack 115. 
 
 Evasions of the Proof, furnished by Articles XI. XII, X I II 
 our Church's Views of Justification. 
 
 The evasion noticed here in this Sermon is the one adopted 
 by Burnet when he comes to Art. XII. lie had, in his Com- 
 mentary on Ait. XI, endeavoured to prove that "by faith only 
 
 is not to be meant faith as it is separated from the other evan- 
 gelical graces and virtues [it is hardly necessary t<> point oni the 
 ambiguity of the word separated, and how it affects the truth of 
 the statement. If by separated be meant considered apart from 
 all such graces, and to the exclusion of them ell, it, no doubt, 
 the sense in which sola, only, was annexed to faith in the Article. 
 If it mean existing in a mind in which no oth r grace <>s rirtue 
 exists, the Reformers certainly did not mean this, but, on the con- 
 trary, unanimously denied that the principle ever did or could BO 
 exist], but faith, as it is opposite to the rites of the Mosaical di 
 pensation." That "our faith, which includes our hope, our love, 
 our repentance, and our obedience, is the condition that m 
 us capable of receiving the benefits of this redemption and 
 grace." And, amidst much shifting and confusion, he plainly la- 
 bours very anxiously to establish this point: thai these Christian 
 graces and this Christian obedience, are, together with OUT faith, 
 and in the same way, conditions of our Justification. 
 
 But when he comes to Art. XII, he finds that this obedii 
 which he has thus laboured to present as a part of the con<lit i--n 
 of our justification, is not only declared to be the frail of our 
 faith, but to follow after Justification'". And he then, with 
 
 * This position of Art. xn. is but a repetition of the well known 
 dictum of Augustin — Bona opera styuunlur jus/if calum non /■' 
 dunt justificandum ; which has given much annoyance to man. 
 Burnet's way of thinking, who all desire, very naturally, to have 
 tin on their side; and some of whom, indeed, not yerj rest 
 determine that he shall stand with them whether he consents or 
 Bull's mode of getting over the difficulty is not an unfair specimen of 
 
 27 I
 
 420 XOTE U. 
 
 mirable coolness, turns about, and tells us that, provided obedience 
 be allowed to be necessary to salvation, it is very little matter 
 . why, where, or when it comes in! And thus he quietly 
 dismisses the direct contradiction which this Article gives to his 
 representation of the doctrine of the preceding one; first, however, 
 pretty Beven 1 condemning the framers of the Articles for setting 
 about the determination of such a nicety: and, indeed, not ob- 
 Bcurely intimating that he thinks that they have determined it 
 erroneously; but that it is no great matter! "Whatever subtle- 
 ties some may have set up, to separate the consideration of faith 
 from a holy life in the point of Justification [the very subtlety of 
 this Article, be it remembered] — yet none among us have denied 
 that it was absolutely necessary to salvation ; and so it be owned 
 as necessary [see pp. 115 — 118, for the ambiguity of this word] it 
 is a nice curiosity to examine whether it is of itself a condition 
 
 hie style, at once imperious and evasive, under such embarrassments : — 
 '• Nimirum intelligendua est Augustinus non de operibus quibuscunque, 
 seil de longa et jugi operatione; ut sensus ejus sit, pauciora ac minora 
 esse opera quae justificandum pnvcedunt, quam qute justifieatum se- 
 quuntur. Absque hoc grano salis axioma illud (adeo ab omnibus de- 
 cantatum) a manifesta falsitate vix ac ne vix quidem purgari possit." — 
 Diss. Post. cap. iii. ^ 2. This is pretty well : but his editor, Grabe, fur- 
 nishes even a better example of the sort of relief which will be hailed 
 by a man in distress : — " Isti Augustini dicto cum clarissimam lucem 
 afferant verba supra laudati et nunquam satis laudandi, Gulielmi For- 
 besii, in considerationibus suis pacific-is do Justificatione, Lib. l. cop. 3, 
 §3, ea hie annotare opera? pretium duxi. 'Quod, inquit, ad nauseam 
 usque ex Augustino de Fide et Operibus, cap. 14, repetunt Bona opera 
 sequi justificatum, non autem prweedere justificandum, rise i 11 i men- 
 tern Augustini nunquam sunt assequuti. Loquitur eo loci Augustinus 
 de operibus justitiae qua? percepta et professa Fide (ut ipse ait) fideli- 
 bus deinde diligenter toto vitae cursu prrcstanda sunt, seu de operibus 
 illis quae per justitiam babitualem, i.e. in ipsa justificatione infusam, 
 inhierentem et permanentem, efficiuntur, atque sic speciali quadam ra- 
 tione dicuntur bona opera ; non autem de iis, quae per Spiritus Sancti 
 gratiam a>sistentem et praeparantem hunt ante et ad justificationem 
 peccatoris, &c.' " By which the reader will see that Augustin does not 
 mean to tell us any thing of good works generally, but merely to inform 
 us, that the good works which are wrought by faith, are not wrought by 
 any man before he has faith; and that those good works which are 
 wrought by that righteousness which is infused into us at justification 
 are not wrought until a man is justified/ One cannot say that this is 
 very profound ; but then it seems, in recompense, highly probable, if 
 not absolutely certain. And if the illustrious father upon whom W. 
 Forbes supra laudatus et nunquam satis laudandus has thrown such 
 bright light, had always dealt in such apophthegms, the Christian world 
 might have lost some important truth, but it certainly would also have 
 escaped some angry controversy.
 
 NOTE U. 
 
 of justification, or if it is the certain distinction and i 
 
 effect of that faith which justifies. These are speculatii 
 
 little consequence, so long as the main point is still i aed, 
 
 that Christ came to bring us to God, etc And, th 
 
 even when the thread of mens speculations of these matters ma 
 thought too fine, or in some points of them wrong drawn; yel 
 long as the foundation is preserved, that every one who nameth 
 the name of Christ does depart from iniquity, bo long tin' doctrine 
 of Christ is preserved pure in this capital and fundamental point." 
 Upon the XIHtli Article, as connected with the doctrine, he 
 nothing. 
 
 Bull's mode of dealing with this embarrassing Article is no 
 less extraordinary. Having determined that to justification or 
 remission of sins is necessarily required repentance, as an ant 
 dent condition, without which none can obtain pardon of his 
 from God, he settles, as we saw, that repentance comprehends 
 eleven works, all of which are declared by God's Spirit to be ab- 
 solutely necessary to the obtaining of pardon of sin. Har. Ap. 
 Diss. I. Cap. 2. §§ 6, 7. To which notable piece of theology bis 
 learned editor, Grabe, thus emphatically sets his seal: "Per bona 
 opera, speciatim per actus pcenitentise, nos gratiam Dei, ac remis- 
 sionem peccatorum impeti-are, vir Reverendus pluribus sacrorum 
 Scriptorum testimoniis solidissime probavit:" while Bull himself 
 refers to his proof of this comfortable principle with equal com- 
 placency, Diss. Post. Cap. 3. Nemo enim (ut supra argvm 
 omni exceptione majoribus evicimus) vel ad primam justificationis 
 gratiam pervenire potest, qui pcenitentise opera non prastiterit." 
 He, however, subjoins the qualification that these works which 
 precede the first Justification, are far less and fewer than t 
 which follow it, and that it is after Justification that we are en- 
 abled to bring forth opera egregia ac vere Heroica. At length, 
 however, it becomes necessary to take some notice of the Article. 
 And certainly to one who had proved, to his own satisfaction, 
 that good works do not only accompany justifying filth, but that 
 they are no less necessary to justification than faith its* If, and thai 
 the same kind of causality is to be ascribed tofoM and to 
 i.e. that faith and works conjointly are the condition of J 
 tion solummodo prescribed in the gospel covenant, (Diss. Pi 
 Cap. 6, § 3), this Article which describes good work* as tin fruits 
 of faith, and as following after Justification, would seem to
 
 422 NOTE r. 
 
 rather embarrassing. Bui the difficulty is solved by a distinguo. 
 Vv'o are, the Bishop tella us, carefully to distinguish between the 
 fast and Becond Justification, and bo between the good works re- 
 quired for each. "Atque hie statuendum omnino est ad primam 
 Justificationem opera tantum interna fidei, poenitentiae, spei, cha- 
 ritatis, i ■ absolute necessariaj cetera vero externa opera, 
 
 qua? in tact is extends, rive in actuali singularum virtutum quas 
 Dumeravimus exercitio conspiduntur, signa tantum esse 
 fructusque pietatia interne, et Justificatione po teriora eaque de- 
 mum lege prsestanda si non d< i pportunitas." — Diss. Post. Cap. 
 . 8. And he adds that this is, without doubt, what is meant 
 by the Church in Article XII. But, without attending at pre- 
 sent at that point, what foundation does this Article or any other 
 supply for this distinction of & first and second Justification? Any 
 one who reads these Articles in connexion must see that the jus- 
 tification which they describe, as effected by fiaith, and which 
 good works follow, and which no good works precede, that this is 
 the only justification of which they speak — the justification which 
 we have for the merits of Jesus Christ, by faith. If there be 
 another justification, the Articles do not speak of it, or even 
 glance at it. They tell us, indeed, of a justification before which 
 no good works are done, and after which all good works are done. 
 But they do not intimate to us, in any way, that this is but 
 inchoate, and that there is another justification, to the obtaining 
 of which all these good works are necessary. 
 
 Would not this be a strange way of presenting this important 
 doctrine, — that there should be three, and but three, Articles 
 given on the subject of Justification, its causes and effects; and 
 that we should be left in ignorance of what this second Justifi- 
 cation is* — how it is to be obtained — or even that it has any 
 existence ? Is this credible 1 
 
 Bull's proceeding in bringing the point forward is a curious 
 specimen of his style. When he has to explain St Paul's 
 dictum, that we are justified by faith without the deeds of the law, 
 Justification is allowed to be (as we have seen, pp. 328, 329) the 
 act of God as judge, absolving, according to Christ's gracious law, the 
 
 * 'I And when Mr More," says Tymlall, "is come to himselfe, and 
 sayth, 'Ihe first faytli, and the first justifying is gcven us without our 
 deeervyng, God be thanked ; and I would fajne that he Mould describe 
 me what ho meaneth by the second justifying."
 
 NOTE l . .11-3 
 
 accused, pronouncing him righteous, and admitting him to I 
 
 reward of righteousness, viz. eternal life. He even thinks, 
 saw (t7>.) that Grotius must have been blind n< >i to have peroe 
 that this forensic sense of regarding, or declaring one right* 
 is the common sense throughout the Bible, and specially the '• 
 Testament. But then he is ahle to settle that faith means faith, 
 and everything else; that faith without the deeds of the lata means 
 faith with the deeds of the law, only they must not be done 
 prescribed in the Mosaical law, or as parts of thai covenant, i 
 and so far the. matter is left on a sure footing. Winn we cme to 
 the Protestant principle, that we are justified by faith only, which 
 is so often declared, by all the old writers who maintained i1 
 be only another form of expressing Paul's doctrine, it would se< tn 
 that Justification and Faith would necessarily bear the same 
 signification as in the Apostle's own enunciation of the same 
 truth. And so the matter would of course be left, but for this 
 Xllth Article; which renders it impossible to receive faith as 
 expressing the whole condition of the gospel covenant — as compre- 
 hending all the works of Christian piety, &c; and, therefore, e 
 practising upon faith is put out of the question, Justification and 
 Works must be tried; and the matter is pretty safe again when it 
 is settled that by Justification is meant the first Justification; 
 and that by the ivories which follow it are only meant external 
 acts; that to this first Justification all the internal virtues, from 
 which these external acts spring, are essential, i.e. faith, rep 
 ance, hope, charity, &c; and that this is undoubtedly dubio 
 procul, what our Church means in this Xllth Article, that is, 
 that it means that external obedience is a necessary condition to 
 the second Justification, and inward obedience, to t\xo first. 
 
 Such a proceeding might be left without any further remark, 
 but the subject seems to deserve to be exhibited a little more 
 distinctly. It would appear that it cannot be denied that faith, 
 in Art. XII, is faith and nothing else. I do not venture to Bay 
 so from my own notion of the sense of the Article, but b< cause 
 Bull, in commenting upon it here, speaks of "opera interna . 
 pcenitentice, spei, charitatis, &c. ;" so that I suppose it is admJ 
 by every one that by faith, in Article X I 1. is meant a 
 mind; and one, moreover, distinct from these other Mate, enume- 
 rated by the Bishop. It will hardly be maintained, then, 1 sup- 
 pose, that in Article XI, in which we are said to be justified by
 
 42 i . te r. 
 
 faith only, faith means anything different from what it does in 
 Article XII, unless it be thought thai it was the purpose of the 
 framero of the Articles to mislead or to perplex us about this 
 important doctrine which they profess to declare. Indeed, 
 I have before intimated, I believe it was because Article XII. 
 ained so clearly the sense of faith; and the connexion 
 between the two Articles rendered it so hopeless to attempt 
 assigning a dii sense to the term in Article XI. that this 
 
 new experiment upon ■■ >iluu was resorted to. But, how- 
 
 ever that be, so far appears pretty clear, viz. what the faith of 
 
 iiele XII. is, and that by that faith, and by It only, we are 
 Haiti, in Article XI, to be justified. 
 
 But what is Justification / Why, whatever it be, I presume 
 it will be iu the same way allowed by all who do not regard our 
 Articles as dangerous enigmas, that it means the same thing 
 in all these three Articles upon the Doctrine; and that, fixing its 
 sense in any of them, is fixing its sense in all. What is its sense, 
 however, in Article XI. we Lave, as I before have shown, various 
 means of determining. The Article itself, as I notice (p. 124), 
 establishes that to be justified, and to be counted righteous before 
 God, mean the same thing. And this would be quite enough. 
 But, moreover, all Protestaut writers who put forward the decla- 
 ration contained in the Xlth Article, that toe are justified by faith 
 only, maintain that it is exactly equivalent to Paul's declaration, 
 that we are justified by faith, without the deeds of the law. We 
 saw, for example, in p. 479, that Jewel defends the Protestant 
 declaration expressly on the ground that it is precisely equivalent 
 to the Scriptural one; and the same language is uniformly main- 
 tained by the other Reformers. I suppose, thei'efore, that it can- 
 not be questioned that by Justification in their enunciation of 
 the truth, these men intended to express whatever Paul designed 
 that the term should stand for in his. What that is we may let 
 Bull himself settle : he determines, as we have seen, pp. 328, 329, 
 that it is the act by which God, as judge, remits our sins, acquits us, 
 counts us as righteous, &c. This is the Justification, therefore, of 
 the Xlth Article; and therefore, as I said, of the other two also. 
 This is the Justification which we have by faith only — Article 
 XI; which good works follow — Article XII; and which no 
 tjood ivories precede — Article XIII. Of this justification, which 
 includes our acquittal by our Almighty Judge, the recognition
 
 NOTE U. 
 
 of our righteousness by Him, ami the plenary acceptance b) v. 
 we have peace with God, the Articles are careful to 
 tinct information : of the other thej tell as nothing, [f 
 
 but our first Justification, it is the onl\ one of w bich the \ 
 speak. If there be a second justification which /.,• „,,/ by ( 
 only, and which good works do precede, our Articles ar inly 
 
 silent about it, and we may very Bafely leave it in thi 
 obscurity. 
 
 Having gone so far upon these corruptions of the truth, 1 
 can add little to what has been said in the Sermon upon otl 
 except to give the authors of those adverted to there. The first 
 explanation of what faith is (p. 112), and what counting faith for 
 righteousness, means, is from Dr Clarke's XVII. Sermons, Sermon 
 XL The metonymies in the next page are Bull's. The account 
 (pp. 120, 121) of Paul's sense of Justification is from a Sermon by 
 Mr Manning, of whom I know nothing beyond what is given 
 about him in a strange publication by the Rev. 11. J. Todd, 
 entitled, 'Faith and Justification;' which consists of a Sermon 
 by Archbishop Sharp on Justifying Faith; the one by Manning, 
 referred to, on Justification; and an Appendix, in which are col- 
 lected, with considerable diligence, certain interesting testimonies, 
 which Divines of the Church of England, eminent and obscure, 
 have from time to time borne against that most icholesome i 
 trine and very full of comfort, — that we are justified by faith only. 
 As Mr Todd only requires of his authorities some declaration of 
 
 hostility to this doctrine, it may be imagined that > ■ want 
 
 of harmony in their views at times appears. This does not, per- 
 haps, lessen the right of any enemy of the doctrine to count them 
 all, in the gross, upon his side; but, when we come to details. 
 it sometimes assumes a form that makes it hard to understand 
 what is the value of the aid that they give to one who is de- 
 termined to have them all as auxiliaries. 
 
 Thus, Mr Manning holds that, when the Apostle asserts that 
 we are justified by faith without the deeds of the law, "his doc- 
 trine is clear beyond a doubt, that we are justified by faith, 
 that without works of any kind, even works of moral righto 
 ness." And, moreover, he gives it as his opinion, that it is attri- 
 buting to the Apostle a mode of expressing himself unto 
 so able a reasoner to suppose that he meant to say that 
 justified by faith alone, exclusive of any works, and to tell us at
 
 426 NOTE r. 
 
 the same time that by faith alone he meant gospel faith," "which," 
 BfrM.adds, "we :ill know, does include works of moral righteous- 
 ness." Bo fax very well. Bishop Bull then comes, who, we have 
 n. teaches us another meaning of this expression, of faith with- 
 it the works of the law — viz. that the works which it intends to 
 exclude from justification are not evangelical works, or such acts 
 of obediei are Jour in, and proceed from, faith in Christ. 
 
 And, aa to faith, we have seen (p. 2-3-1), thai faith dors, according 
 bo him, in Paul's statements of the doctrine of Justification, in- 
 clude all works of Christian piety. 
 
 "But these Divines agree, notwithstanding." S"es, they agree, 
 but it is by means of another difference upon the Apostle's mean- 
 
 incr, by assigning different senses to Justification in his doctrinal 
 
 statements. Mr Manning holds, that in the passages in which 
 St Paul "speaks so repeatedly as he does of being justified by 
 faith without the works of any law, he means that first kind of 
 Justification whereby converts, whether Jew or Gentile, whether 
 of his own or succeeding times, are admitted into the body of 
 Christ's visible church in this present world." And he says, and 
 repeats, that this first Justification is the chief suliject of Paul's 
 argument when he treats of Just if cation at all. What Bull thinks 
 on this matter, we have seen; and, from Dr Jackson, Mr Todd 
 gives what he describes as a "perspicuous and impressive sen- 
 tence," on the same point; by which it appears that he thinks 
 this second, or final Justification, is the sense which the word 
 bears most frequently in St Paul. " There is another acceptation 
 of Justification yet behind, most frequent with St Paul, to wit, 
 the actual sentence of the judge acquitting or absolving us, or for 
 final absolution, or actual acquittance of the parties so qualified 
 as St James requires." 
 
 But of what importance can it be that one of these men 
 thinks that St Paul genei'ally uses the term in one sense, while 
 another thinks that it is generally used by him in a different 
 sense? Of no importance whatever to me, certainly. But it can 
 hardly be treated as of little importance to any one who intends 
 to avail himself of their authority in the case. For, I presume, 
 it is not as confident propounders of their own views, but as sound 
 interpreters of St Paul's language, that they can be expected to 
 have any weight. They agree, it is true, in the end, in deriving 
 from his writings pretty nearly the same views of the way in
 
 NOTE r. 
 
 which a sinner may be reconciled bo Godj and if we were ihut 
 out from all knowledge of the proa by which they have arri 
 
 at the conclusion, one who from indolence or i lesty would 
 
 disposed to leave it to any eminent persons to settle tb 
 Scripture for him, might find in the agreement of thi e I 
 authorities with each other, some added reason for acquiescing in 
 their decision. But we are let behind the scenes too mncl 
 allow any man such a plea for following their guidance. The 
 declaration of the Apostle, that we <ir< justified by faith wit) 
 the deeds of the law, is to be interpreted:— What does he mean bj 
 our Justification 1 ? He means, say Bull and Jackson, our 
 cpaittal by God's sentence, and our acceptance by Him as Judge. 
 And this is the most frequent sense with St Paul, adds Jackson \ 
 and a man must be blind not to see that it is the most frequent > 
 of the word through the ivhole of the New Testa>w,/f, subjoins 
 Bull. He means no such thing, cries our other guide ; lie means, 
 our admission into GodJ's visible church: and not only here, Imt 
 generally, when St Paul speaks of our Justification, this, and not 
 the other, is the sense in which he uses the word. 
 
 So much for the thing effected : now for St Paul's account of 
 the mode of effecting it; that it is by faith without the deeds of 
 the lata. What does he mean by faith ? What by, without the 
 deeds of the law ? Bull tells us that faith here includes evangeli- 
 cal righteousness, and that without the deeds of the law i 
 meant to exclude works of obedience; and Jackson concurs with 
 him as cordially as before. Manning testifies, on the contrary, 
 not only that without the deeds of the law, does mean foifif 
 deeds of any law, without any works even of moral righteousness ; 
 but that if we hold that in faith, the Apostle includes works of 
 moral righteousness, we disparage his reasoning powers, and 
 therefore, I suppose, prove our own to be but indifferent, 
 
 It is not, perhaps, very strange that a violent opponent of (he 
 doctrine of Justification by faith only, should feel Borne gratil 
 tion at finding, in any writer of repute, any evidence <>f an ag] 
 ment with his own opinion of the falsehood or the danger of that 
 doctrine. And if he were a diligent man, a- Mr Todd is, it ifl 
 not extraordinary that such testimonies should find their way 
 separately into his common-place book. But that, reviewing 
 them together there, he should think it served his cause to Bhow 
 to the public upon what different and even incompatible grou
 
 423 NOTE U. 
 
 the doctrine ha'l b dl( d, and how widely and irreconcilably 
 
 the great opponents of it differed in their explanation of the 
 leading texts, from whirl) a knowledge of the true doctrine i- to 
 
 derived j this certainly seems passing strange. I wonld re- 
 commend the hook strongly in the hope that these diversities will 
 produce the proper impression; and that the readers of the volume 
 will make the best use of it — taking Jackson's or Bull's notion 
 of what St Paul means by Justification in his doctrinal statements, 
 and Manning's view of the mode in which In- deseribes Justitira- 
 tion effected, — and they will have something like Scriptural views 
 upon this important subject. 
 
 I do not know whether some of Mr T.'s authorities would not 
 be found to be pressed into the service; — at least, in the quota- 
 tions which he gives, some of them appear assailing, not the doc- 
 trine itself, but abuses, or misrepresentations of it. But I am 
 content to leave him all of them except one. He endeavours to 
 show that Crakmer's authority is clear for the distinction of 
 Justification into first and final. His chief proof is that The 
 Erudition of a Christian Man contains it; and that it is likely 
 that it was introduced into that tract by Cranmer. His proof of 
 the probability of this is rather curious, but I Avill not stop to 
 notice it, as the point is of so little consequence. I only wish to 
 remind my i-eaders that we have Cranmer's own examination of 
 that book with the view of supplying such corrections as it re- 
 quired. It must be felt, I should suppose, fair to collect his 
 principles from this review, rather than from the work without 
 these corrections, whatever part he may be supposed to have had 
 in its composition. And, if my readers consent to take this 
 obviously fair course of informing themselves of his views of 
 Justification, I desire nothing more. They will find (as I have 
 mentioned, p. 303) the entire of these notes upon the King's book 
 in Richmond's 'Fathers of the English Church;' and the most 
 important parts of them in the volume of the Tract Society's 
 British Reformers, which contains Cranmer.
 
 NO TE V. 
 
 429 
 
 Note V. Page 1 l.">. 
 
 Upon the Objection to the Doctrine of Justification by I 
 
 derived from James ii. 
 
 It will be seen that in the mode in which 1 have atti mpted to 
 obviate this objection, I differ somewhat from oth< r d< fendi - 
 
 the true docti-ine of Justification. And I f..l ii n 
 
 a few words in explanation and defence of the difference. 
 
 Some eminent writers think, that by Justification, Si James 
 means, not, as St Paul does, our Justification before Qod, but our 
 Justification before men. This is, 1 believe, much the mosl 
 general mode of accommodating the apparent difference between 
 the Apostles; it is the one adopted by Tindall, Bishop Jewel, 
 Bishop Barlow, and a host of more recent writers. Hooker h 
 that in St James, Justification means that <o 'on of n 'fit- 
 
 ness by obedience which is a part of the course of every Brliever. 
 I do not know that he is followed by any maintainer of the true 
 doctrine of Justification. Bucers view is also, so far as I know, 
 a singular one: he thinks that the word means, in St James, the 
 public honouring and rewarding by God of some special act of 
 obedience to His will. 
 
 When I say that I am dissatisfied with all these modi 
 reconciling the Apostles, I hope the amount of my di> ction 
 
 will not be overrated. I should wish to be understood to ho i 
 that the least probable of them is attended, in my apprehension, 
 with infinitely less difficulty than the process to which they are 
 opposed : — that of taking the doctrine of the Justification of sin- 
 ners literally from St James's position, that a man is justifi 
 works, and not by faith only; and then, wresting Paul's reason- 
 ing, and distorting and mutilating his statements, to brim 
 his agreement with a doctrine which he has so ol un- 
 
 argued against, and expressly contradicted. I would take any of 
 them, I repeat, unhesitatingly, rather than acquiesce in what 
 appears to be so preposterous and irrational a pm.voliii::. Nay, 
 if I had not so good an explanation of St James as any of th< m 
 furnishes, I should (as I have said, p. 139) be content to 
 St James appears to me, here, to contradict what I knoi I
 
 430 NOTE V. 
 
 the truth. I am sore, it' 1 understood him rightly, his meaning 
 would be found to be perfectly consistent wiflj it; but I am 
 obliged to confess thai 1 cannot explain the passage bo as to show 
 their consistency : and I Leave it unexplained without feeling my 
 conviction of the doctrine which 1 have learned from St Paul in 
 the Bliehtest decree disturbed by a contradiction which 1 know 
 can be but apparent. 1 think, however, that the explanation 
 which 1 have offered removes this difficulty, and does not it self 
 involve any (if moment: but before 1 speak of it, I must state 
 what I think are the unsatisfactory points in the other modes of 
 g tting over the objection. 
 
 The first has the recommendation of being perfectly consistent 
 with the particular fact, of representing the Apostle as stating 
 a principle undoubtedly true, and of doing no violence to his lan- 
 guage. Fur these reasons, and on account of the high names of 
 all periods by which it has been sanctioned, I feel some difficulty 
 in saving anything against it ; still I am . constrained to confess 
 that it does not appear satisfactory to me. For, first, whatever 
 errors men may have fallen into connected with this doctrine, I 
 can hardly think that it could ever be necessary to prove formally, 
 or declare authoritatively, to any, that we can only be justified 
 before men by outward actions which men can see and judge; 
 that it is impossible that we can be justified before them by an 
 internal principle which they cannot discern. I say, I cannot 
 conceive it possible that any man could be in a condition in which 
 it should be necessary to prove such a point as this to him. And, 
 secondly, when it was proved, it would seem to fall far short of 
 meeting the case for which it was intended. Suppose that, to 
 one who was abusing the doctrine of justification by faith only, it 
 was thus declared or proved — that "we arejusti6ed before //ten 
 by works, and not by faith only ; and that Abraham himself was 
 justified before men by works," .Might not such a one be ex- 
 pected to say, 'Be it so. And let all that desire to be justified 
 before men do the works whereby they may be so justified. For 
 me it is enough to be justified before God. And you do not 
 venture to deny that, before Him, ;i man is justified by faith only.' 
 For these reasons, — becau e, that is, it represents tin 1 Apostle i 
 proving what it is hard to believe that any one could doubt, 
 and what he does not seem to gain much by proving,:— for these 
 -, I cannot regard this popular mode of explaining the pas-
 
 NOTE V. 43] 
 
 sage as a correct one. And, againsl Eookei . withoul inquiri 
 to what extent it is open to this Latter objection, I have the di 
 sive one that it assigns a meaning to the wind which it no wh 
 else (see note L, pp. 827, 328) bears in the New Testament. Bu< 
 
 sense of the term is not so inadmissible ; for, as this honoui 
 rewarding is the result of the recognition <>l' :i man's innoi 
 righteousness, it would not be strange t<> find it used in the m< 
 ing which he ascribes to it in this place; bm his solution is 
 evidently open to the evasion which 1 have supposed applied 
 to the iirst, and does not, independently of that, give so natural a 
 sense to the passage. 
 
 As to my own explanation, — I believe 1 have with me ale 
 all who have attempted to explain the passage upon any thin, 
 sound principles, when I regard St .James as using/ai^A in the 
 
 false sense in which those with whom he had t" do undersl 1 
 
 the term. I consider the proof in this point given in the Sermon 
 pp. 1-41, 142, as satisfactory, and as not requiring any addition Nor 
 do I think there is any real force, though there Is some appi 
 ance of it, in Bull's argument — that it must have been true faith 
 that St James meant, as he says that a man is nol justified by 
 faith only, whereas, if it were false faith he could not be justified 
 by it in part. Ear. Ap. Diss. Post. Cap. ii. § 3. This is a sort of 
 reasoning in which this able writer deals largely; and it is very 
 showy, but not equally solid. When a man, for the purpose of 
 condemning a doctrine, states it in the very words of those who 
 hold it, he very clearly tells us what he rejects, but he does uot 
 give us the same direct information as to what he admit-. And 
 we are liable, manifestly, to fall into great mistakes concerning 
 his views, when we proceed to make them out from the statement 
 which he quotes and denies, in this way :— by laying an emphasi 
 upon a part of it, and, fixing that he only means to reject 
 it in the sense which this emphasis assigns to it : and thai he 
 would admit the proposition in the sense that it would bear, it 
 the part which we have selected as the ground of his Bpecial ol 
 tion were taken away. 
 
 If the insecurity of such a process do not appear u] 
 simple statement of it, it may be seen by a stril ample of 
 
 effects. The Council of Trent anathematize those who hold I 
 we are justified by the imputation of Christ's righteous* 
 Seas. 6. Can. 11. And hence Chemnitz infer, that tin y admit
 
 432 NOTE V. 
 
 that we are justified by it in jmrt. Bellarmin, however, takes 
 him to . and 1 think very fairly, fi.r this precipitancy ; and 
 
 tells him, that the Church of Rome, desiring to condemn the error 
 of thus.- who hold thai we are ju by ike imputation of 
 
 C! ■ pressly, and in terms, condemn 
 
 that doctrine; bnt that it would be most hasty and unfair to 
 
 lied her adoption of the other error, thai we are justified by 
 ■ had not elsewhere expressed her dissent from 
 
 also. And this nut only seems fair in the particular case, but 
 it will be taken, 1 hope, as a sufficient proof generally, how preca- 
 rious a mode of arriving at a man's opinions we are taking when 
 we attempt to collect them in this way. 
 
 But, indeed, the direct proof of the point is too strong to be 
 overthrown by a better argument than Bull's : aud I do not 
 think that any one who considers fairly the whole passage, and 
 weighs the form of St James's introduction, and two illustrations 
 referred to p. 142, can doubt that by faith he expresses what these 
 false professors with whom he was dealing understood by the 
 term. And in this, as I said, I do not differ from any of those 
 who hold the true doctrine. I only suppose, in addition, that he 
 throughout adopts the language of these persons; that he uses 
 justification in their sense too, and speaks of justification by faith 
 only in the sense in which they spoke of it, for the purpose of 
 impressing upon them the conviction that their view of it must be 
 erroneous. This supposition, which makes the whole proceeding 
 of the Apostle consistent, supplies me with an easy sense of this 
 declaration of his — thai Abraham was justified by works ; and of 
 the general principle which he lays down — that a man is justified 
 by works, and not by faith only. He seems, in this, to assert 
 a falsehood, and to deny a certain truth ; but this mode of ex- 
 plaining his language shows that he does neither; that he adopts 
 a practical mode of correcting the error which all must, I think, 
 allow to be the very error with which he had to deal. 
 
 Everyone must, I think, allow that the error with respect to 
 the doctrine into which these men fell, was the notion that they 
 who were justified by faith wore not required to perform works of 
 obedience; that to be obliged to perform such works was to be 
 justified by works, and not by faith only. Now, if there were persons 
 who mistook this belief of devils which they possessed for real faith, 
 and who so far misconceived the doctrines of justification by faith,
 
 NOTE )Y. 
 
 and justification by works, as to think that they differ* d in 
 that the man justified by faith only, when a demand wa 
 upon him of obedience bo God, could reply, " I bav< bi 
 
 by faith, you are treating me as if I v. 
 
 by works. No doubt, this obedience of which you | be 
 
 needful if I desired to be justified by works, but such bo 
 to be imposed on any who axe justified by faith on 
 be abetter mode of removing this error adopted than l.\ 
 as St James does, the very type of the who!,, class of those who are 
 justified by faith only, and showing that, according l" this riew of 
 the nature of justification by faith and justification by works, li«- 
 was justified by works, and not by faith only! And doe* not 
 this too assign a true and consistent meaning to his declaration 
 that every one [who is justified] is jmtifii d by works, and n&ru by 
 faith only? St James, indeed, sufficiently shows thai he did not 
 mean that these words should be taken literally, when he Bubjoina 
 that, to every one who understands the doctrine, thi 
 Abraham was not a contradiction of the Script u, 
 justification by faith, but a clear confirmation of it. I 
 dwelling upon this, I hope that 1 have said enough to \ 
 my exposition to all who like to take the trouble of understam 
 it: and that the only suppositions which I make as the foundation 
 of the explanation, are such as there ought to be no difficult) in 
 admitting, namely, that these persons were in the babit of using 
 language which expressed distinctly, what (whether they so ex- 
 pressed it or not) must be allowed to have been their real error 
 about this doctrine; and that St James adopts their langi 
 throughout, as he confessedly does at the outset. 
 
 Note W. Page 149. 
 Upon the Objection — Faith is itself a Work. 
 
 The thing that hath been is thai which shall, be, applies to few 
 things under the sun more emphatically than to religious con- 
 troversy, and to no controversy certainly more entirely than to 
 this one concerning justification. The first preacher of the truth 
 appears to have been assailed by the strongest objections which
 
 434 NOTE W. 
 
 have ever been devised against it; and there is scarcely one of 
 the many minor cavils against his doctrine which we hear at the 
 present day. that the firsl revivers of the truth npon the Conti- 
 nent and in England, do not seem to have been called npon to 
 answer. This, for example, which passes generally for a very re- 
 cent sophism, appeal's among the objections answered by Melan- 
 cthon in his Enarratio Symboli Niceni Ultima, 16§7. — Fidesumus 
 justi, Fides est opus, ergo operibus sumus justi. And his answer, 
 while it sets in a clear light the mistake tipon which the cavil 
 rests, shows very clearly too what I have often attempted to ex- 
 hibit from the Reformers' writings, — their sound views of the 
 real place which faith holds in the justification of sinners. His 
 answer to the major is — " Hsec propositio, Fide sumus justi, cor- 
 relative intelligenda est, \ idelicet propter Filiuni Dei sumus justi. 
 Sed banc oportet fide apprehendi audita voce evangeli ; quia certe 
 aliquid esse oportet quo fiat applicatio ruisericordiai." He then 
 notices the minor, " Postea et de minore dicas, fides est opus, 
 sed non sumus justi propter ipsius operis dignitatem, sed quia 
 apprehendit misericordiam propter filium promissam. Alii re- 
 spondent fidem non esse opus, quia sit donum Dei. Haec re- 
 sponsio est aliena, quia cum dicitur non sumus justi ex operibus, 
 etiam ilhe virtutes intelliguntur, dilectio, castitas, patientia, qua? 
 sunt accensa? a Spiritu Sancto." The same cavil is examined 
 and exposed upon the same principles in his Enarr. in Ep. ad 
 Horn. Cap. iv. 
 
 The reader will notice how, in exposing the erroneous view of 
 the meritorious efficacy of our faith (upon which this cavil is 
 grounded) the true instrumentality of the principle in our justifica- 
 tion is re-asserted and explained. But further, the grounds upon 
 which Melancthon declines adopting the answer, Faith is no work, 
 for it is God's gift, deserve especial notice. He says, the reply 
 would be nothing to the purpose, for it would apply equally to all 
 those virtues or good qualities which are excluded from the office 
 of justifying us under the name of works, which are no less God's 
 gifts. This is evidently the meaning of his answer, and it shows 
 at once the error of those who hold that works were only denied 
 a share in the office of justifying us, as they are results of our own 
 unaided strength; and that of those who hold that the loorks 
 excluded were those acts of superstition, for which this place was 
 claimed by the Church of Rome. The former is Bull's theory,
 
 NOTE II'. 
 
 proposed with his usual courage; the latter is pul forward by 
 Archbishop Laurence, iu the following cautious form. •• < »m |;, 
 formers, indeed, frequently reprobated in the stroi 
 the idea of a justification by owr own works. Bat, how h 
 soever may have been their censures upon this tie 
 surprised at their zeal when we turn to the Injunction od I: dley, 
 in the year 1550; for there we perceive from the various super- 
 stitions enumerated with the proscribed doctrine, whal I 
 works of our own properly were which they principally kepi in 
 view when they expressed themselves on the occasion with bo much 
 severity. 'Item, that none maintain purgatory, invocation of 
 saints, the six articles, bedrowls, images, reliques, rubric primers 
 with invocation of saints, justification of man by his own works. 
 holy bread, palms, ashes, candles, sepulchre paschal, creepii 
 the cross, hallowing of the fire or altar, or any such-like abuses and 
 superstitions now taking away by the king's grace's most godly 
 proceedings.' — Burnet, Yol. n. p. 206. Records." Notes on s r 
 mon VI. note 20. 
 
 If there be anything strange in the place which this false d 
 trine holds in this enumeration of superstitions, it is certainly 
 not half so extraordinary as the speculation which the Archbishop 
 founds upon it. He evidently wishes it to be understood, though 
 he does not seem prepared to say so expressly, that if the Human- 
 ists, in maintaining justification by our own works, had included 
 among these works none of a superstitious character, our Reformers 
 would not have opposed the doctrine so strongly, or, at least, that 
 they ought not ! We are in no want of proofs that this is greatly 
 to mistake the true grounds upon which the Reformers rejed d 
 the Romish doctrine of justification. "Alii sic interpretati sunt, 
 fide, id est, operibus a Deo mandatis, justi sumus non operibus 
 traditionum humanarum. Alii hoc modo depravant, fids, id 
 interiore cultu non externis operibus justi sumus." Melancthon 
 Arg. in Ep. ad Bom. would of itself sufficiently show that it was 
 not the nature of the works required, which formed the great 
 difference between the doctrine of the Reformers and their op- 
 ponents. Indeed, in the first Augsburg Confession, it is nol I 
 that the Romish doctrine had in such points undergone important 
 improvements. " De quibus rebus olim parum docebani oou- 
 cionatores; tantum puerilia et non necessaria opera urgebant, ut 
 certas ferias, certa jejunia, fraternitates, peregrinati dtus 
 
 -2
 
 NOTE X. 
 
 Banctorum, rosaria, monachatum et siinilia. Ha?c adversarii nostri 
 admoniti nunc dediscunt, aec perinde predicant hoec iunt ilia opera, 
 at olim. Preterea incipiunt fidei mentionem facere, de qua olim 
 mimm erat ailentium. Docent, nos non tantum operibus justificari, 
 i conjungunt fidem et opera, et dicunt, nos tide et operibua 
 justificari Quae doctrina tolerabilior priore, et plus afferre potest 
 consolationis, quam vetua ipsorum doctrina." XX. De bonis 
 Lest this last sentence should be interpreted, however, 
 into an admission that this modified doctrine is tolerable, 1 add an 
 extract from WEelancthon's Disputations, already referred to, p. 412. 
 He -ays. that there are two classes of persons who hold that we 
 are justified by faith and works; the first assign the higher place 
 to works, and make faith mere knowledge; and these are easily 
 refuted; the second opinion is "homines principaliter justos esse 
 fide, id est, fiducia misericordiae minus principaliter propter digni- 
 tatem operum, eo quod legi nemo satisfaciat, ideoque fiducia mise- 
 ricordise sarciat id quod deest. Hsec secunda opinio conciuna est 
 in specie, ideo diligenter excutienda." And, accordingly, he pro- 
 ds to examine and expose it. Luther, on Gen. xxii. (quoted 
 p. 388) contains a still more distinct condemnation of all such 
 uiodili' of the doctrine; and I could give various other proofs, 
 
 it' it were necessary, that, though the nature of the works joined 
 with faith, might be allowed so far to qualify the error as to make 
 it more or less gross, every statement in which they were unit d 
 with it as means of justification, was rejected by these assertors 
 of the truth as equally false and equally subversive of the true 
 doctrine of justification. 
 
 Note X Page 151. 
 Knoxs Remains. 
 
 The writer referred to in the text was Mr Erskine, who is 
 alluded to in Sermon I. p. 10; and expressly spoken of in Note A, 
 p. l'">4. He was very much better known when these Sermons 
 were written than he is now. Indeed he is now so little re- 
 membexed that it may be doubted whether, in reprinting this 
 volume, I ought to have preserved what I then thought it neces-
 
 NOTE X. 
 
 sary to say of him. At all events there can be no doubt thai 
 
 time would be misspent in any further noti< f writings which, 
 
 though they produced a strong impression in the reli orld 
 
 in their day, have long since passed out ..f view, and have I. ft 
 behind them no permanent effects. We shall be much betb t era 
 ployed in noticing a writer to whom, though he is of dif- 
 
 ferent school, a great deal of what is said in the text concerning 
 Mr Erskine applies, and whose works not only are hill n 
 are likely to be read for a long time, and to live even long* r in 
 the effects which they have produced. 
 
 Mr Knox's 'Remains' were not published when this volume 
 first appeared. They present, in the form of Letters and E 
 the views of an active and serious mind upon many Bubjeci 
 interest and importance, and, among these, upon the doctrin 
 Justification. The work has had extensive circulation, bo that 
 very many of my readers are probably long since aware thai 
 Mr Knox is among those who arc most decidedly op] i the 
 
 view of that great doctrine which I have endeavoured to explain 
 and establish in the foregoing Discourses. The su 
 have engaged his mind deeply and constantly, and it is brought 
 forward in various shapes in his volumes. But whether he ti 
 it incidentally or formally, his object is either directly to over- 
 throw the true doctrine (as I must be allowed to designate that 
 which I hold and have attempted to prove to be the true doc- 
 trine), or to establish a very different one. 
 
 In his reasoning against the view which I have been main- 
 taining, there is little that is new, in substance, and nothing new 
 in the view which he proposes to substitute for it. There i>. in 
 fact, nothing in either, at least nothing of importance, which has 
 not been in some way considered either in these Discourses or in 
 the Notes. Still what he says requires some distinct notice I 
 have no doubt, indeed, that it would deserve much more s] 
 than I can allot to it. For though Mr Knox's matter .may be, 
 to a great extent at least, common to him with others, his man- 
 ner is entirely his own. And it is highly effective, [nsomuch 
 that I am not surprised to find, that what he has written 
 made a wider and stronger impression than anything which has 
 been in recent times brought out in support of the same \ i< 
 
 There is quite enough, indeed, to account for such an effi o< in 
 the leading characteristics of his mode of handling the question,
 
 XOTE X. 
 
 Hi> style is clear and interesting. He writes evidently from long 
 and anxious thought, and certainly under a deep conviction of the 
 truth and importance of whal he saya What he Bays, taken 
 apart from its intended application, is often true and important. 
 And, indeed even the charges which lie urges against the doctrine 
 that he opposes, however little they apply to any true views of it, 
 do apply to it in th.- form in which it is at times taught; so that, 
 ha- some of hi- readers, he only offers to supply deficiencies which 
 they have -iien f, It. And as so few will look beyond what they 
 have been taught, either for the natm-e or effects of the doctrine, 
 it is to be expected that many will readily acquiesce in the state- 
 ment that these deficiencies belong to the doctrine itself, and will 
 be more disposed to receive gladly the supply which is offered, 
 upon the terms and in the way in which it is offered, than to set 
 about considering whether it were not always within their reach, 
 and only withheld from them by the unskilfulness, or narrowness, 
 or false views of their teacher, and their own inertness in acqui- 
 escing so entirely in the adequacy of his teaching. 
 
 These are elements which ought to go a good way in account- 
 ing for the impression which Mr Knox's Essays on this subject 
 have produced. But T have no doubt that it is also to be ascribed 
 in no small measure to a very different quality in his controversial 
 writings — I mean the extent to which they misrepresent the case 
 which he has to combat, and the extent, too, to which they ex- 
 aggerate the force of his arguments in support of the one which 
 he has to establish. 
 
 I can hardly say this, I fear, without appearing to intend 
 something offensive, which is very far from my purpose. I do 
 not suppose that such misrepresentations were ever designedly 
 made by him. I am sure he felt too deeply the importance of 
 his subject, and wrote too conscientiously upon it, to employ any 
 artifice in treating it. I believe they were the unconscious result 
 of mental habits, which affected as much the reasoning by which 
 he formed hi- views for himself as that which was intended to 
 commend them to others. For his mind was, both by nature and 
 habit, much more rhetorical than logical. His logic, indeed, was 
 altogether insufficient to guide or restrain his rhetoric. It neither 
 pt him from reasoning fallaciously, nor enabled him, upon con- 
 sideration, to detect or even to suspect the fallacies into which he 
 fell. So that he never felt, and therefore never exhibits, any mis-
 
 \0Ti-: x. 
 
 giving* as to his perfect .success in refuting all thai | | to 
 
 refute, and proving all that he ought to prove. 
 
 This is an important constituent in im 
 the large class of readers of whom Butler says that, what 
 mental activity they may show in other ways, they, "from dif- 
 ferent causes, never exercise their judgment upon what oomi 
 
 fore them, in the way of detenu in ing whether it I icluaive and 
 
 holds." The old maxim with reference to our emotions holds 
 
 of our convictions: if we would impart them, they must be genu* 
 
 ine, not assumed. But where a writer's i I in bis own 
 
 reasoning is real, it is extensively contagion rda the < 
 
 of i*eaders just referred to; and their confidence in him wil] be 
 more readily given, if he writes perspicuously, as Mr E£noi 
 far, at least, as regards his sentences taken separately -always 
 does; for with such persons, a clear writer always | for a 
 
 clear thinker. And when he at the same time writes, as .Mr \\w<>\ 
 also does, with evident sincerity of purpose, — in a genial -]>irit 
 and an earnest tone, — he will find them ready to believe thai he 
 has actually proved what he is plainly convinced that he has 
 proved, and that his argument is exactly at the stage that he 
 thinks it is. 
 
 Thus, a large class of Mr Knox's readers may be regarded as 
 entirely in his hands. And even those who do not so entirely 
 commit themselves to his guidance are often perplexed by the 
 qualities by which others are altogether misled; and, though in 
 possession of all the materials for answering what he says, find it 
 difficult to use them, from the extent to which they are led away 
 from the true question, and need some help to extricate them- 
 selves from the maze of false issues in which they are involved by 
 his mode of managing the controversy. 
 
 I am anxious to supply my readers with a safeguard and 
 help where I believe both are greatly needed. But it is not • 
 to do this effectually within such limits as I must prescribi 
 myself. My own conviction is, that there is scarcely anytl 
 Mr Knox's volumes on the doctrine of Justification which is 
 not erroneous either in itself or in its intended application 
 To exhibit this fully would, of course, require so detailed 
 analysis of all that he has written on the subject aid I 
 
 be comprehended within any moderate space. I cannot 
 anything of that kind. But I think 1 may be performing
 
 4 to NOTE X. 
 
 ice to many, by directing attention to some of the leading 
 fallacies in his mode of treating the subject, against which his 
 have especially to l>e <>n their guard. In what 1 am 
 about to say, I shall of course us.- perfect freedom in pointing 
 out what I believe to be erroneous in his principles or in his 
 t oning. The subject is too serious for any other mode of 
 treating it. But I trust that, so far as is compatible with such 
 freedom, my remarks will not be found chargeable with any 
 want of due respect for tin- gifted and pious writer, and that 
 neither in matter nor in manner will they be calculated to wound 
 the feeliii'_'- of those by whom he is remembered with affection 
 and reverence*. 
 
 I. Mr Knox reasons continually as if the difference be- 
 tween him and his opponents were about the true end of the 
 Gospel, and not, as it really is about the true and Scriptural 
 »f attaining that end. I do not mean to say that he never 
 anywhere admil ual state of the case. But I mean that 
 
 he does so rarely, and that when he does, he soon loses sight of 
 
 .tin, ami returns to his habitual misrepresentation of it, so 
 that the general current of his reasoning proceeds upon a false 
 assumption of the point at issue. The reader who collected from 
 Mr Knox's volumes the views of those whom he opposes, would 
 be very little prepared for the fact, that they do not merely 
 acknowledge distinctly, but that they maintain as strenuously 
 as he does, that the deliverance which Christ has wrought for 
 us comprehends a deliverance from the power of sin, and from 
 its pollution, as well as from the guilt ami the punishment of it. 
 
 This i> so distinctly and so often stated in the foregoing 
 Sermons, and they arc, indeed, so much occupied in explaining 
 the nature and extent of the moral deliverance, and its con- 
 nexion with the legal deliverance, that it cannot be necessary 
 .- anything to satisfy my readers that it is in this sense that 
 T hold and maintain the doctrine of Justification by Faith only. 
 And I am sure that I have said nothing on this point which, 
 
 The portions of Mr Knox's volumes chiefly referred to in the fol- 
 lowing remarks are — the Letter to Mr Parker <>» Justification, Vol. i. 
 p. 256; On tin; trailing Design of tin' Christian Dispensation as ex- 
 hibited in the Epistle to the Romans, Vol. n. p. 12; On Redemption 
 and Salvation by Christ, p. 41; On the Nature of our Salvation 
 through ' 'hriat, p. '2M5.
 
 NOTE X. Ill 
 
 eitlier in distinctness or in strength, goes beyond whal 
 be found in those writings in which it would be m 
 and fah*est to look for authentic statements of the doctrine. 
 Even as to the question of the place in the Christian cheme, 
 to which the moral effects of Christ's work are entitled, I ihould 
 suppose that but little room for difference with Mr Kjioj 
 left, when I say, as I have said, p. 152, thai the renovai 
 our /alien nature, if it be not the only intelligible < nd of R< vt lat\ 
 is, doubtless, with respect to us, its highest and most important • 
 And in this, too, I only say what is to be found thou h perhaps 
 not in words, yet in substance, in the same writings. 
 
 I do not mean to assert that this part of the gospel has n. vet 
 been put out of sight, in the conflicts which have been maintained 
 for the other parts. It is not to be denied, that, in maintaining 
 controversially, as has been so often necessary, the freeneas and 
 fulness of the forgiveness of sins, and of the ace ptance which 
 the Gospel secures to all Believers, the further blessings which 
 it had to bestow have been at times for a little thrown into 
 the shade. It is the very nature of a fervent contest that the 
 object which is in jeopardy attracts for the time all an s 
 and interest to itself, as if it were the only thing which the 
 combatants prized or cared about. And I by no means undertake 
 to say that, in the protracted contest t<> which 1 refer, this has 
 not often taken place, with respect to those parts "t the Gospel 
 scheme which were most constantly the object of attack and 
 defence. But no one can read the works of those who were mosi 
 deeply engaged in the contest, even when it was fiercest, without 
 finding abundant evidence that they really never let out of their 
 view of the Gospel the moral renovation which it promia 
 all upon whom it bestows forgiveness and acceptance This 
 true of the Reformers of the Continent and of Britain. And 
 it is true of all since who are best entitled to the uames of 
 their successors, including those who most strenuously main t ain ed 
 the doctrine of Justification by Faith amongst ourselves, when, 
 
 * I use Revelation here emphatically for the dxsdosur* to 
 the Divine counsels, dealings, will, &c., not meaning to speak pi the 
 ends of what God has done for us, what He designs for as, and what 
 He requires of us, but of the ends of making 'In, known to as. And 
 what 1 mean is, that all the immediate impressions produced bj 
 knowledge, and all their further effects, are bat parts of the jreM «',rk 
 of our moral renovation, or but preliminary and BUDSernenl GO it.
 
 ■U-2 NOTE X. 
 
 after it had fallen into long neglect, it was again revived, and 
 found in the bosom of our own Church as determined opponents 
 as it had eneonntered at the beginning in the Church of Rome. 
 
 The iir-t tiling, then, to be borne in mind in reading Mr 
 Km>x is that when he proves that .Mural Renovation is an end 
 of the Gospel, "i- it> chief, or (as regards us) its ultimate end, 
 he proves nothing which is not as strenuously maintained by 
 his opponents as by himself; and that every such proof, there 
 fore, is to be set aside as an ignoratio elenchi, the real question 
 being as to the means by which this end is to be effected. 
 
 II. This question, however, about the meant, Mr Knox re- 
 gards as involved in the question about the end. If it be ad- 
 mitted that to effect this moral change in us is the great end 
 of the Gospel, he regards it as hardly requiring proof, that the 
 way of attaining it must be by engaging our minds directly about 
 it, by making it the great object of our desires and of our ex- 
 ertions, and so the great subject of our thoughts. "When once 
 these two points are established — first, that our moral deliver- 
 ance is the great boon and blessing of the Gospel, and secondly 
 that it remains to be obtained by each of us for himself — he 
 thinks that it must be evident, that it is about this deliverance 
 that our thoughts and feelings should be engaged — that it is to 
 what Christ is to do for the deliverance of each of us, in this 
 higher sense, and not to what lie has already dune for the de- 
 liverance of all of us, in the lower sense, that each of us ought 
 to be looking. And he concludes farther, that if we rightly 
 apprehend what it is that we are to seek, and steadily seek it, 
 it cannot be necessary that we should possess distinct apprehen- 
 sions of what Christ has done to render it attainable by us: 
 insomuch that He does not hesitate to lay down the position, 
 that distinct apprehensions of the expiatory design of our Re- 
 deemers sacrifice of Himself and explicit reliance on tlie satis- 
 faction made thereby for sin, as the ground of reconciliation ivith 
 God, and of re-admission to His favour, are not essential to com- 
 plete the character of evangelical or saving faith ; in which he 
 sees, he says, no reason for including the belief of more than 
 tlie Catholic Verities and their inseparable consequences : that is 
 to say, the Trinity in Unity, the Incarnation of the Second 
 Person, and the efficacious grace of the Third, together with
 
 NOTE x. in 
 
 the undeniable results of these two latter veritiet i„ //,■ 
 tion of man *. 
 
 This conclusion is sustained, be Bays, alike by Eolj Script 
 by the reason of the case, and by the course of things exhil 
 in the Christian Church. I am at present only concerned with 
 the support which it receives from the reason, of tike OOM, on which 
 Mr Knox seems much to rely. II. seems bo think thai when 
 once it is acknowledged that our moral renovation i> il, 
 and ultimate end of the Gospel, it will be immediately, apparent 
 that the way of attaining it must be by direct I v pursuing it ; and 
 that it must be felt not merely that the contemplation "I" the 
 atoning work of Christ, by which only a lower end was eff! 
 must be an inefficacious way of accomplishing it, but thai the (3 
 tion of our thoughts from what is to be done to what baa been 
 done — what cannot be undone by our ceasing to think about it, or 
 better done by our thinking about it — is a purposeless waste of 
 
 * "Remains," Vol. n. p. 283, 284. 
 
 I need hardly say that when saving faith is described to be belief in 
 Christ as a Saviour, or reliance upon the satisfaction which He has 
 made for sin, as the ground of reconciliation with God and re-admis- 
 sion into His favour, it is always understood that the apprehensions 
 of this work which lie at the foundation of such reliance have been 
 drawn from Scripture. And as it is needless to point out that a Scrip- 
 tural apprehension of the work of Christ includes a right apprehension 
 of the Catholic Verities, it is to be remembered that, under this view 
 of saving faith, these Verities are not excluded from its objects, but 
 absolutely included in them. On the other hand I do not mean, of 
 course, to say that an explanation of the inseparable consequent 
 the Catholic Verities, or of the undeniable consequences of th two 
 latter of them in the salvation of man, might not, or that an adequate 
 explanation of them would not necessarily, include the expiatory design 
 of Christ's death and the accomplishment of this design for all Be- 
 lievers. I am sure that it would. But it is plain that Mr Knox could 
 not intend that it should. From the very purpose of bis Essay he must 
 have intended that these great truths concerning < Ihrisfa death and it- 
 effects are not included among what he calls the inseparable and un- 
 deniable consequences of the Catholic Verities. Otherwise there would 
 be no difference between him and those from whom be treats himself 
 as differing widely and decidedly upon the nature of >a\ ing faith. The 
 real question, therefore, is not whether saving faith may exist with <ui 
 a belief in the Catholic Verities; for that is not held by those whom 
 Mr Knox opposes, not does he charge them with holding it. The real 
 question is, Whether saving faith is constituted by rach a beliei in the 
 Catholic Verities, and their consequences, as leaves out of them 
 
 sure it is a very important one.
 
 441 ftOTE X. 
 
 invaluable time and of energies for which there is enough and 
 more than enough of occupation in their proper business. 
 
 Thi> is Baid in various forms, and not only with a firm convic- 
 tion of its truth but, apparently, with ;i full persuasion that it 
 must commend itself to every lair and reasoning mind as an 
 obvious practical truth. And yet I do not think it too much to say 
 that it is but very rash and very superficial speculation. I might 
 perhaps be using language too high for the occasion, if I called it 
 very wnphUoaophicai ; but I must say that it exhibits a strange 
 forgetfulness of what is best ascertained and most familiar in the 
 natural and moral • - with which we have to do. For in 
 
 1. fch it is certainly a matter of continual experience, not onlv 
 that the most efficacious means often do little to connect us in 
 conception with the end which they are securing ; but that, on 
 the contrary, they turn away our attention from it, and engross 
 our thoughts and i all our energies for themselves. 
 
 I need say nothing of the extent to which, by God's provi- 
 dential arrangements for us in our early years, we are engaged in 
 promoting most important ends of our physical and moral train- 
 ing while we are as yet incapable of forming any conception of 
 these ends. But in our after life, when we propose distinctly 
 such ends to ourselves, how often are they attained by the diligent 
 use of means which are so far from depending for their efficacy 
 upon a constant remembrance of the end which we have in view 
 in employing them, that, on the contrary, we should be taking a 
 sure way of impeding their successful operation by making it a 
 point to bear constantly in mind the purpose which they are 
 intended to promote, and by marking carefully the way in which 
 they are promoting it 1 
 
 A man who has been set upon a course for the preservation or 
 recovery of health by a sense of the value of that blessing, may 
 find it necessary to recall from time to time the end which he has 
 in view, that he may be kept from deviating from the course 
 which is intended to secure it. But this use of having the end 
 which he proposes to himself present to his thoughts is but occa- 
 sional; and to have it constantly before his mind — in his rest, and 
 his recreation, and his exercise — would be manifestly not a help 
 but a hindrance to his attaining it. It would be, so far as it acted 
 at all, an interference with the natural operation of the means 
 employed, from which the benefit was to spring.
 
 NOTE X. 
 
 And this is even moiv obviously true in morula, [nsorouch 
 that if, as I presume will be generally allowed, our moral 001 
 tution is to lie restored from the disorder and 
 which it suffers, by a course in which our faculties are • 
 and our attention exercised aboul their proper objects, then it 
 would hardly be questioned, 1 suppose, that however, as bel 
 the occasional recollection of the greal cud which thi 
 intended to secure may be needful as !( restrain! or a stimulant, 
 according as either is required, it can hardly be made the subject 
 of contemplation, without interfering with the engagement of the 
 thoughts, and the exercise of the affections which are to promote 
 it. And the effect of such interferences is more evidently diaad 
 vantageous in this latter case than in the other; for physical 
 operations might go on, though with diminished force, when the 
 mind was engaged in thinking about them and about their effe 
 but when the actions or emotions of the mind itself become tin- 
 subject of our thoughts, the former cease altogether, and the latter 
 become necessarily more languid. 
 
 This cannot be doubted; and it is sufficient to show that 
 Mr Knox is not warranted in concluding againsl the importance 
 and necessity of any views of the Atonement merely I they 
 
 do not engage us directly about the moral renovation of our 
 nature, or because they engage us about something distinct from 
 it. I mean that he is not warranted, even upon his own prin- 
 ciples. Supposing that he is right, as I think be is, in the sense 
 in which I have before explained it, in saying that the great end 
 of the Gospel is our deliverance from the thraldom and pollution 
 of sin; and supposing that he is right, which I think he is not, in 
 assuming that nothing can be essential to evangelical or saving 
 faith except what is fitted to promote that end" : still, were la- 
 right in both these points, I think he would be wrong, and plainly 
 wrong, in the inference, that certain views of the Atonement can- 
 not be essential to saving faith, because they do not engage the 
 mind in the contemplation of that end, or in the ius pur- 
 
 suit of it; for we have seen, and every one knows, that 
 withstanding this, they may be really means — nay, the fittest* the 
 
 * I need not say that I hold that, in point of fact evangelical or 
 saving faith really does promote this end; but I do aot think that ire 
 could beforehand determine that this must be the case, th it ifl. that 
 nothing could be fixed on by God as saving faith except wh it bad such 
 
 tendencies.
 
 4 l»; NOTE .V. 
 
 most necessary, and the most efficacious means — lor securing 
 that end. Whether tiny are or in it cannot be determined in 
 
 this compendious way : it can only be determined by an exa- 
 mination of them, with the view of ascertaining what effect they 
 really produce u\«<n tin- mind. 
 
 I trust it is unnecessary for me to add, that I do not in* 
 tend, by anything that 1 have said, to deny that the direct devo- 
 tional pursuit of this great end is a proper and efficacious mode 
 of attaining it. This would be to escape from Mr Knox's one- 
 sided view of the subject, by running into another not less one- 
 sided. I hope I need not say here that I hold that it is only 
 1 y God Himself that this great change can be effected in us, and 
 that the proper and appointed way of obtaining the agency by 
 which it is to be effected is by prayer. And the whole work 
 might doubtless be wrought by the Spirit of God directly and 
 secretly, in answer to such prayers. But it is in nowise dero- 
 gating from His infinite power to suppose that He acts through 
 means; and, if He does use means, no one will be disposed to 
 doubt that they have some natural fitness to accomplish the end 
 proposed. But all this being admitted, what I intend to say is, 
 that we have no right to conclude that this or that is not among 
 these appointed means, because it does not engage our minds 
 directly about the end. And this I suppose, after what I have 
 said, must be sufficiently apparent. 
 
 Even with respect to prayer as the means of procuring those 
 Divine influences by which the needful change is to be wrought 
 in us, it is to be remembered that to be efficacious it must be 
 offered earnestly in faith, that we must really desire what we ask 
 for, and we must ask in faith, nothing waver iny. Now those views 
 of the Atonement of which we have been speaking may be highly 
 useful, or even absolutely necessary to give us a sense of the im- 
 portance of what we are asking for, and to give us confidence in 
 asking. And whether they be fitted or not to do this is not to 
 be determined by the degree in which they engage the mind directly 
 about our moral renovation, but by their fitness to impress us 
 with a sense of the deadly nature of the disease under which we 
 naturally labour, and of God's readiness to relieve us from it. 
 
 III. From what has been said, I trust it appears sufficiently, 
 that the fitness of a contemplation of the atoning work of Christ
 
 NOTE X. 
 
 to promote the great end of our moral renovation I 
 determined by any suoh considerations a thoae on which M B 
 
 so confidently relies, as— that " it turns our thoughta awai from 
 
 the highest end of rede]iinli..n, and fixes them m a V 
 
 or, that this work upon which it fixesthem "was vtrrouehl oLAl 
 hundred years ago;" or, that "it was wrought alike I'm all. 
 that "it only procures solvability, and not sofa ' my- 
 
 thing of the same kind. I hope ii will be fell by all who havo 
 followed me so far, that tibia question is onlj to be determined 
 by considering what effects such contemplations are fitted to pro 
 duce upon the mind and heart, and how far these effects constitute 
 the moral renovation of which we speak, or are a pari of it. or tend 
 to produce it. 
 
 Now upon this question, Mr Knox's mode of speaking of the 
 views which he opposes is calculated to give a very false im- 
 pression. He speaks of these views as if they offered to our 
 thoughts the benefit procured by the Lord's sacrifice, apart from 
 the mode of procuring it, — as if they made the forgiveness "t'sina 
 thereby procured merely the object of the sinner's contemplations 
 and the ground of his hopes. But it must be felt that this is a 
 most fallacious representation. It must be known to every one 
 that when we direct the thoughts and hearts of sinners to the 
 Cross of Christ, as to the true ground of faith, — of confid. 
 in God as a reconciled Father, — the true foundation of trusi fin: 
 pardon and acceptance with Him, we do not speak merely of what 
 was procured there, but of what was done, and snjirn-d, and >:x- 
 hibited there. In every exposition of such views, this is distinctly 
 explained and dwelt on. And in every statement of their nature 
 and effects, it is supposed that we know, Who it was that bore the 
 pain and the shame of the Cross, and why, and for whom, lb- 
 bore it. And when we know this, do we not find in this sacrifice 
 for sin a manifestation at once of God's hatred of sin aiul His love 
 for sinners, to which no other exhibition of Himself makefl any 
 approach 1 
 
 And if this be the case, assuredly in estimating the mora] effects 
 of a belief in the expiatory efficacy of the Redeemer's sacrifice, Mr 
 Knox was not at liberty to leave out of consideration what it 
 exhibited of the Divine character in relation to sin and Burners, 
 That those whom he opposes do not leave this out ef oonsidew 
 tion, — that, on the contrary, they do not attempt to trace the
 
 ■)4< NOTE X. 
 
 mora] effects of a belief in the Atonement to what it effected, apart 
 from the way of effecting it. but that they rely always and much 
 upon the latter, Lfl well known : and this would be enough to make 
 Mr Knox's proceeding unfair, even if they were wrong in laying 
 such stress upon it. 
 
 But, in fact, I think it requires but little consideration of the 
 ease to see the reasonableness of ascribing to it all that is usually 
 ascribed to it. I suppose it is generally felt that oue of the great- 
 est evils of the Fall, both in itself and in its effects, is that God 
 no louger holds the place which He ought in our thoughts and 
 affections; and that restoring Him to this place would be the 
 Burest means of restoring us to our lost estate : that as the aliena- 
 tion and fear with which we regard Him, are at once a proof 
 of how low we have fallen, and the cause of still deeper degrada- 
 tion, so, if we were made to look upon Him with filial reverence 
 and filial love, we should have at once evidence that we were 
 raised from the depths into which we had sunk, and the surest 
 j .ledge of the future progress of our renovation, because we should 
 be brought under the operation of the most unfailing means of 
 carrying it on. Now this change may certainly take place in us 
 by an act of Almighty power; but it seems more consonant with 
 analog}-, as well as more in accordance with Scripture, to look on 
 it as effected by means, which, however they need to be accom- 
 panied by Divine grace to give them efficacy, are yet in their own 
 nature fitted to produce the effect : that as fear is excited in us by 
 having danger presented to our apprehensions, and hope, by objects 
 of desire offered to our expectations, so love, and every other feel- 
 ing which religion demands of us are to be produced in our hearts 
 in the same way; and that, if God is to be made an object of love 
 and reverence to us, it is by having Him set before us in an aspect 
 which is naturally fitted to raise these affections of our nature. 
 
 How eminently above all other manifestations of His character, 
 that which we have in the Atonement is fitted to do this, I need 
 not attempt to show here. It has been often shown by others; 
 and I have in the preceding Discourses, and especially in the last 
 four, endeavoured myself to show that the sacrifice of Christ fur- 
 nishes us at once with a measure of God's holiness and of His love 
 infinitely transcending all others; and moreover, that 'it does this 
 in a way which is not merely fitted to convince the understanding, 
 but to soften and subdue the heart. And if that stupendous sacri-
 
 NOTE X 
 
 fice for sin furnishes, as nothing else can, the true m 
 hatred of sin, and of His love towards sinners, w< 
 that in including in saving faith, distinct apprehen 
 piatory design oj our 7.V,/, ,/„,/■'* sacrifice of Himself, a 
 reliance on the satisfaction made thereby, as tine grou 
 ciliation ivith God, and of readmission to His favour, m hi ■•• in 
 faith an instrument incomparably more efficacious ill ■ 
 moral renovation than it could be, if'it did not include these api 
 hensions and this reliance. If each, faith, in its immediate effi 
 turns us away from the highest end of Redemption, /■> conU m 
 a lower end, it thereby engages us in the consideration of 
 which are above all others calculated to raise and refine the mind, 
 and to melt and subdue the heai-t — it brings us under the influi 
 of the character of God in the way most fitted to draw us i 
 Him, and to make us like Him. 
 
 But though, in its immediate effects, it does not make our 
 moral renovation present to our thoughts, or engage us in t he direct 
 pursuit of it, it does not follow that it exerts no influence upon 
 this pursuit. As I remarked a little while ago, everything that 
 gives us a deep sense of the malignity of the disease under which 
 we labour, and a deep conviction of God's readiness to deliver us 
 from it, cannot but be efficacious in engaging us and sustaining us 
 in prayer for this blessing; and if we have, as I have said, in the 
 Atonement, the most impressive proof that has ever been given 
 of the odiousness of sin in God's sight, and at the same time the 
 most affecting evidence of His readiness to receive Burners, to 
 pardon them, to bless them, to do every thing for them that re- 
 mains to be done, we have in it too the strongest motive t" pray 
 for deliverance from the thraldom and the pollution of sin. and 
 the firmest ground for the unwavering confidence which is neces- 
 sary to make such prayers effectual. And moreover when, !•• 
 maintain this confidence, we turn in this way, or direct others t" 
 turn, to the evidence which God has given us of His love in 
 giving His Son to die for us, we may be sure thai we cannot be 
 wrong, for it is thus that the Apostle uses this proof of His i 
 "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us 
 all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all th 
 Rom. viii. 32. 
 
 IV. But, after all, it is according to the Scriptural proofs on
 
 NOTE X. 
 
 which they rest, that the viewB which Mr Knox advocates, and 
 those which he opposes musl stand or fall. However unfair or 
 weak his general reasoning may be — whether against what he 
 calls "the forensic hypothesis," or in support of the hypothesis 
 which he attempts to substitute for it, under the name of "the 
 moral idea of justification" — still, if the view which he advocates 
 
 astained by sufficient proof from Holy Scripture, it is to be 
 
 hly received and bt •>■ ved; and that which he opposes, if it 
 
 be found wanting in such proofs, is to be abandoned, whatever 
 
 may be the apparent cogency of the reasoning by which it is 
 
 supported. 
 
 It may seem, therefore, that what we have now to do is to 
 examine the Scripture proofs on both sides. But when it is 
 considered that the main purpose of this entire volume has been 
 to establish the doctrine which Mr Knox rejects, (though I should 
 not be disposed to uphold it in the form in which it sometimes 
 appears in his statements of "the merely forensic system," or 
 "an exclusively forensic justification"); and that, moreover, for 
 jtablishment I have chiefly relied upon proofs from Scripture; 
 and that I have not only given such proofs at length, but have 
 considered at length the most important of the objections which 
 have been urged against them, it will be felt that it would be 
 preposterous to set alxnit this woi'k over again here. I must 
 be content to refer to the text and Notes of this volume for those 
 proofs and confirmations, and confine myself to a specimen or two 
 of the Scriptural proofs on which Mr Knox relies for the establish- 
 ment of the theory of justification which he upholds. 
 
 But first I shall quote one or two passages from which it will 
 be seen what his theory really is. " I have largely allowed in the 
 above paragraphs that AtKaio'w (to justify) means our being made 
 just or righteous in the opinions of others, as well as being made 
 actually so in ourselves. I have also meant fully to grant that 
 St Paul often gives a prominence to the former sense when he 
 ascribes the agency to God ; and, indeed, I doubt not but, in this 
 case, it is always included It is included in the fact, and it 
 must, of course, be so in the mind of so just a thinker. But what 
 I am impressed with is, that our being reckoned righteous coram 
 Deo (before God), always and essentially implies a substance of- 
 AiKaiocrvvr] (righteousness) previously implanted in us; and that 
 our imputative justification Is the strict and inseparable result
 
 NOTE .V. 
 
 of this previous efficient moral justification. I mean thai the 
 reckoning us righteous indispensably prarappo i an nr. 
 ality of righteousness on which this reckoning 
 ' Remains,' vol. i. p. 278. And in another place be • the 
 
 Fathers: "They could lmi read the N.-u T, | , ,. ■ ■ without 
 
 conviction, that, though in some instances (as Rom. vi, 7. air 
 
 quoted, and Rev. xxii. 11), it [justification] may demand, trictly, 
 
 a moi-al interpretation ; yet it very often, and for > : 
 
 implies what God in His gracious reckoning esteem be, 
 
 as well as that which, by His almighty energy, In- maki 
 
 be." 
 
 What the doctrine held by this ingenious writer i> does OOl 
 lie open to any reasonable doubt, though then ■ ■ obscurity 
 
 and uncertainty as to the meaning really assigned by him t<> 
 the word SiKaiow. When it is said that the word "implie 
 reputative as well as an efficient act, and that it "always in- 
 cludes" the former, it would seem that it must always imply and 
 include the latter also. And thus it would appear to be intei 
 that the word always stands for, not one act, but two ! Bowever, 
 I do not believe that Mr Knox really meant to put forward this 
 preposterous position, but that he was led into the statement 
 which seems to convey it, through timidity. It seems very 
 evident that he was reluctantly convinced of the true meaning 
 of the word Sikcuooj, but that he could not persuade himself to 
 adopt it frankly and simply. He appears to have been afraid 
 that if he distinctly and without qualification admitted that, 
 where the doctrine of justification is concerned, this word i 
 properly what he calls the "reputative act," the advocates of the 
 forensic system might be able to make too much of tin' admission ; 
 and, as a safeguard, he used the words "implies" and "inch 
 instead of "expresses" and "signifies," without clearly B&eing the 
 inference to which his language naturally led. 
 
 But, looking at the substance of his statements, it a] | 
 tolerably clear that his view of the doctrine is, that God firal 
 makes us righteous and then accounts vs righteous, and thi 
 reputative act is "inseparably dep< ndent' 5 od the pre\ Lou 
 act, "as when God, in creation, first said, ' Lei there be light, and 
 there was light;' and then He saw that 'the light wa 
 So that when God imputes righteousness to us it is the right* 
 
 ness which he sees in us ! 
 
 -2
 
 NOTE X. 
 
 It will probably be thought that this is hardly consistent with 
 
 the declarations in Scripture that we art justified freely; justified 
 
 faith; j I by faith, without the deeds of tht law; and with 
 
 the Protestant formula which embodies them, and which has been 
 
 so decidedly adopted by our Church, — "that we are justitied by 
 
 ', only.*' But they arc reconcilable, it appears, notwithstand- 
 ing. I i in the Articles, in which it is so distinctly declared 
 that V' ". fad by faith only, it is also declared that the faith 
 whereby we arc ju>tified is, "vera et viva fides," from which good 
 works, "necessario profluunt, ut plane ex illis aeque viva fides 
 . atque arbor ex fiructu judicari." And Mr Knox 
 asks " Does not this, then, in the strongest and fullest sense 
 describe faith as a root of righteousness, the seminal essence of 
 -V kcuoo-i'i 77 ; and when it comes at all into God's reckoning, must 
 not the estimate accord with the fact. Being His own invaluable 
 and exclusive work in us, must not the Divine idea which directed 
 the efficient act equally direct the imputative act; and must not 
 the Divine approbation of the work wrought be in proportion to 
 the correspondence of the work with the Divine idea?"* 
 
 I have in the proper place in this volume considered and 
 explained the most important statements of the doctrine of Justi- 
 fication which are to be found in the New Testament, and have 
 sustained my interpretation of them by various confirmations 
 direct and indirect. The true teaching of Scripture upon this 
 great doctrine, thus explained and proved, is the best refutation of 
 Mr Knox's representation of the doctrine, and renders any other 
 argument against it superfluous. But it is necessary for my pur- 
 pose to look at one or two of the texts which he adduces as 
 evidence of the agreement of his own statements with those of the 
 Apostle. 
 
 " In order to prove that St Paul had this idea [i. e. that the 
 reckoning as righteous indispensably presupposes an inward reality 
 of righteousness on which this reckoning is founded] fixed in his 
 mind, I will adduce two passages. First, 1 Cor. iv. 4, ovSiv yap 
 ifxavTw o-iVotSa* aA\' ovk iv tovtw StSiKCuw/xar 6 Bi dvaKpivuiv /xe 
 
 Kl'ptOS i(TTLV. 
 
 " I ask on what ground does St Paul here place his justifica- 
 tion? Does he ever so directly [indirectly?] intimate that it 
 
 * Remains, Vol. I. p. 266.
 
 xoTi-: .v. 
 
 does not hinge on his own integrity, but de] 
 
 extrinsic provision to which be is bo Look from 1 
 
 ultimate support against condemnation 1 It' this had been in 
 
 all his thoughts, this was the occasion for it bo be 
 
 The question related to his inmost and most essential » 
 
 character in the Divine reckoning. Of liis own innoces 
 
 uprightness, he is as conscious as he can be,- o 
 
 (I am conscious to myself of nothing); yet e, ovu h 
 
 SeSt/caiw/i-ai (am I not hereby justified). Why I bee 
 
 the true rule of judging 1 By no means, this is aot •<• hinted 
 
 at; but solely because he himself was not the adequate ju 
 o Se dvaKpivuiv [xe Kvpios Icttlv. Implying, as clearly aa laug 
 can imply, that, in order to his being really justified, he must 
 possess integrity of heart in God's view as well as in hie own." 
 
 I have given the whole of Mr Knox's comment i first 
 
 text that he brings forward, as it furnishes a very fair and, I 
 should hope, instructive specimen of his critical Btyle. I Bhould 
 think that very few will read it without perceiving that all the 
 writer's ingenuity is expended under a total mistaki tin- 
 
 meaning and application of the text. To any one who considers 
 the text in its connexion, it will be plain that it relati 
 to the Apostle's justification before God, as His creature, Bubj 
 to His holy law and to His righteous judgment, but solely to hi 
 justification in reference to the discharge of his duty as an A.p 
 in connexion with the Church at Corinth, and with a 
 reference to the charges which had been brought against bi 
 his enemies in that Church. It is strange, indeed, that the 
 words to which Mr Knox more especially refers— ovhlv yap ip 
 o-wotSa— did not protect him from falling into such aim 
 correct it. That the Apostle should make such a declaration w i 
 regard to his general account with God would seem bo plainly 
 impossible, that it ought to have been abundantly sufficient, i 
 there were nothing else, to show that it was not about 
 account that he was speaking; and that, therefore, the text bad 
 really no application whatever to the point which Mr En 
 wanted to establish. 
 
 This cannot be disputed. But it is possible that Borne of Mr 
 Knox's followers may contend that the text furnishes a go 
 
 ment in support of his views, though not a direct , And i 
 
 may be urged that, 'though it cannot bo denied that the b
 
 XOTE X. 
 
 refer immediately to the discharge of the Apostle's duties towards 
 the Corinthian Church, and more especially to the calumnies 
 against him which were circulated therein during his absence, 
 v- t this does not hinder that his views of the general principles 
 of God"^ government should appear in what he says upon the 
 particular case. His conscience acquits him in this matter, but 
 he appeals to the final judgment as to that which alone can de- 
 cide the question. He evidently hopes, however, that this judg- 
 ment will ratify the decision of his conscience: that is, he evi- 
 dently hopes that Cod will pronounce him innocent. "Why? Be- 
 cause he is and feels himself to be innocent; and he is sure that 
 the righteous Judge will therefore declare him innocent. But 
 this expectation is not founded upon anything peculiar to the 
 point in question, but upon the character of the Divine Judge, 
 and the general principles of His government. And is it rea- 
 sonable to suppose, that, when the question is not with regard 
 to a part of his life, but the entire, the principles on which the 
 trial is conducted and the sentence pronounced should be so en- 
 tirely different; and the grounds on which the Apostle hopes, and 
 teaches others to hope, for acquittal, so entirely different?' 
 
 It is tolerably plain, I think, that this train of argument was 
 not in Mr Knox's thoughts, but that the text was brought for- 
 ward by him as furnishing a direct proof of St Paul's views of 
 Justification. That would be of very little consequence, however, 
 if the indirect proof which it supplies were a sound one. It is 
 very easy to show that it is entirely fallacious. But first I think 
 it well to remark that this is a case in which we might fairly re- 
 fuse to look at any indirect proof. If we had been left without 
 any direct evidence of what St Paul held and taught with respect 
 to the justification of sinners, we should, of course, be obliged to 
 endeavour to arrive at some conclusion about his views upon this 
 momentous subject in the way of reasoning and inference; and, if 
 the direct evidence were scanty, we might find it very necessary to 
 extend it by indirect evidence. In either case, such an argument 
 as the foregoing would deserve examination. But every one knows 
 that there is hardly a single subject referred to in the Sacred 
 Volume upon which we have such copious, varied, and conclusive 
 direct evidence as this very one of the doctrine of Justification 
 preached and taught by St Paul. And this being the case, to set 
 about discussing the force of an argument which ignores all this
 
 NOTE X 
 
 direct evidence, and attempts to derive the Ap 
 
 this subject indirectly, from what hi a] anotfc 
 
 would seem to be very wanton and in 
 and labour. 
 
 And such no doubt it would really be, if the object of 
 remarks were to settle the doctrine of •) ratification ; but 
 in writing them is not to do this, bid to proi idi ich 
 
 may protect the doctrine, which I have elsewhere settled 
 being unsettled. And with reference to thai object, i1 moj 
 worth while. to go on to show that, apart from all objection 
 the use in this case of any argument of the cli bich it be- 
 
 longs, this argument is in itself entirely fallacio 
 
 And first I must say that no reader of the Bible ought 
 find any difficulty in the fact that St Paul had one ground "I" 
 hope before God, when his discharge of his duty in a particular 
 relation to his fellow men is concerned: and another, and a very 
 different ground of hope, when the discharge of hi> duty 
 God and to his neighbour, at all times and for all his past lit 
 in question. For the Word of God not only supplies us with the 
 grounds and reasons of the difference between the two but 
 
 with examples of other servants of the Most High who fell the 
 difference as strongly and expressed the l< 3 distinctly 
 
 St Paul does. 
 
 Thus Job seems at times to maintain his own innocence in 
 heart and life, and to appeal to, and almost to challenge the judg- 
 ment of God, as if he felt confident that the result of a trial b 
 an Omniscient Judge must be a triumphant acquittal. But there 
 is no lack of other passages in which he confesses most unequivo- 
 cally that he is unable to abide such a judgment, —that no • 
 can be just with God; — that if God pleads against him, he cannot 
 answer Him one of a thousand: — that at the bar of his Jn 
 place was that of a suppliant,— that if he justified himself,- 
 maintained his own innocence, — his own mouth would cond< 
 him. These and other earnest declarations to the same effect ahow 
 a very different state of feeling from that which the 
 to seem to express. But the apparent inconsistency beta 
 passages is removed, when we understand that the ap 
 Divine judgment, and the deprecations of it. are « Lth 
 different questions ;— that he seeks the judgment of God, wit 
 ference to the question which lay between himself and h
 
 NOTE X. 
 
 friends, as to the charges which they brought against him of 
 hypocrisy and secret sin; that he shrank from the Divine judg- 
 ment, upon the question of his guilt or innocence as the creature 
 of God, and the subject of His righteous government. 
 
 Again, every reader of the Psalms must be acquainted with 
 the similar passages, in which David expresses the same difference 
 of feeling witli reference to the different cases. When man is 
 concerned, he says, " Judge me, O Lord, according to my righte- 
 ousness, and according to mine integrity that is in me." But as 
 j uds his account with God, his language is: "If thou, Lord, 
 shouldst mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?" And his 
 prayer, therefore, is: "Enter not into judgment with thy servant, 
 
 Lord, for in thy sight shall no man living be justified." 
 
 Here are parallel cases, which ought to make it easy to re- 
 concile what St Paul says, 1 Cor. iv. 4, with the true doctrine of 
 Justification as it is elsewhere set forth by him. The Apostle 
 feels conscious that he had discharged his duty to the Corinthians 
 with such zeal and fidelity as not merely left no just ground for 
 the gross charges which they had so readily received against him, 
 but none for any complaint whatever against him on their part. 
 His conscience acquits him perfectly so far. But he says that he 
 does not feel that the question is even thus absolutely decided. 
 Bearing in mind his frailty and the liability of his judgment to 
 err, particularly when his own conduct is concerned, though he 
 will not submit to the judgment of those who had shown them- 
 s Ives so unfair towards him, neither will he rely entirely upon 
 his own: he remits the case between him and his calumniators to 
 the Judge who cannot err. His conscience bore testimony to his 
 innocence both as to his conduct and his motives. And this bein^ 
 the case, he is confident that he may appeal to the judgment of 
 
 1 d, even in that great day when all disguises shall be stripped 
 oflj and when not merely men's acts but all the secret springs of 
 their actions shall stand unveiled. 
 
 There is nothing that is not easily understood in this. That, 
 upon this point, Paul should have felt sure of his innocence, and 
 that, being conscious of his innocence, he should expect that God 
 the righteous Judge would declare him innocent, or justify him in 
 this matter, is perfectly intelligible. 
 
 But how does this apply to the justification with which Mr 
 Knox was really concerned? That justification has reference to
 
 XOTK X 
 
 
 •n 
 
 a man's conduct and to the state of his heart, in every n 
 in which he stands, including the hig elation of all, 
 
 relation to God, and that at every moment, an. I dorii g ... 
 past life. 
 
 No doubt if a man's conscience testifies to his faithful 
 charge of all his duties towards God and towards his neighbour, 
 as Paul's bore him witness that he was blameless d< d the 
 
 Corinthians, then he may expect plenary justification ■<• G 
 hands, as confidently as St Paul expected to be justified, in respo I 
 of his duties to the Corinthian Church, and upon the same grounds, 
 namely, that the judgment of God must be in accordance with tin- 
 truth. But is there any one whose conscience bears such t 
 mony 1 Did St Paul's] Was it in this confidence that he d 
 nigh to God for justification ] 
 
 We are allowed to see little more of the Apostle's conversion 
 in the history than the outward part of the process by which 
 he was brought to God. But while what we are told h 
 doubt that that process ended in his justification by his right* 
 Judge, there is little to suggest the notion that this justifica- 
 tion was sought or obtained in the way or on the grounds in 
 which he expected to be justified in the particular case to which 
 the text quoted by Mr Knox relates. When he is arrested in 
 his mad career of opposition to the Lord, we see him smitten to 
 the earth; we hear him in self-abasement and terror asking of 
 the Lord what He would have him to do; we find him then, 
 after three days' fasting, still praying, and we see a me 
 sent to restore his sight, to declare to him the gracious pro | 
 for which the Lord had chosen him, and to seal his forgivi 
 by admitting him to baptism. That the Apostle was then justified, 
 no one can doubt. It is true that, for anything thai is told us 
 expressly in the history, he may in the interval have pleaded with 
 God the sincerity of his purposes and the integrity oi his ],. 
 He must have acknowledged that the course which he was pur- 
 suing was a mistaken one. But he may have urged thai he had 
 entered upon it under a real zeal for God's honour, and that nil 
 through, he had been acting honestly up to his ligW : and being 
 "conscious to himself of nothing," he may have humbly bul i 
 fidently appealed to the judgment of God. 
 
 It is possible, no doubt, so far as the history goes, that all this 
 may have taken place. But there arc few, 1 should think.
 
 NOTE X. 
 
 will be disposed to imagine that this or anything like this, was 
 what was going on between the chosen Apostle and his Judge, 
 during those three days which he spent in darkness, and fasting, 
 and prayer. But if there were any one found to maintain such 
 a position, there arc material- enough, and to spare, in his writ- 
 ings to enable us decidedly to disprove it. I may pass over 
 all his statements with respect to justi/ication, of the way in which 
 it must be sought, and the ground on which it is bestowed; be- 
 cause however clear they are, they are. we know, still matter of 
 dispute. We may confine ourselves to what he says of himself 
 before his conversion, as abundantly sufficient to show that he 
 could not have put forward his "integrity of heart" in the course 
 which he had taken, as justifying him in the judgment of his 
 own conscience, and so warranting him in expecting to be justified 
 by the righteous judgment of God. For, years after, when he had 
 been long in the full enjoyment of God's favour as a tried, and 
 faithful, and honoured servant, we find him looking back upon 
 that part of his life, not with the satisfaction with which the 
 retrospect of his course as the founder and pastor of the Corinthian 
 church filled his mind, but with deep and bitter remorse. His 
 conscience is so far from being at perfect ease with regard to this 
 persecution of the Church of Christ, that it testifies against him 
 as, on that very ground, the chief of sinners. He does not regard 
 himself as acquitted by the righteous judgment of God, but as 
 spared by His mercy, and made a monument of His grace, for the 
 encouragement of all who should thereafter believe in the Lord, 
 and for the confirmation of their faith. 
 
 But enough has been said to show not only that the text which 
 Mr Knox quotes has no direct application whatever to the point 
 which he regards it as establishing, but that it cannot be made to 
 furnish an indirect argument in its support. 
 
 There is a further Scripture proof connected with the same 
 point, which I think worth quoting, if it were only as an ad- 
 ditional illustration of his style. He says, "A farther insight into 
 the Apostle's design may be obtained by closely observing his 
 various application of those significant words which he so fre- 
 quently introduces, Sikcuow, Sikcuos, and SiKaiocrvvrj. It is, in fact, 
 on the precise meaning of these three words, which evidently re- 
 solve themselves into one common notion, that the question de-
 
 NOTE \ 
 
 pends whether the great benefit on which be expatuM 
 forensic or a moral nature. 
 
 "That in the course of this Epistle every oi f tin 
 
 used in a moral sense cannot be disputed. For example, i 
 
 in Rom. vi. 7, where SeStKauoTcu a7ro 7175 u/xapn'us, 
 
 our own translators, ' freed from sin.' Aucaios, undeniably 
 
 used to signify a morally righteous man in Rom. \ i. 7 : and il 
 
 equally clear that in Rom. vi. 13, the SikcuoctiY//, to which <,ur 
 
 members are to be yielded as instruments, can be no other than 
 
 moral righteousness""'." 
 
 I need not dwell on the misapprehension of the question which 
 is exhibited in this passage. It is only a particular b and 
 
 by no means an extreme one, of the kind of unconscious Bophistry 
 which pervades all Mr Knox's reasoning on this subject. Anv in- 
 stances which could be produced of the use of SiKaiow in a m 
 contradistinguished from a forensic sense — that is to say, in t he 
 of to make righteous, instead of to count or declare righteous — would 
 no doubt be pertinent to Mr Knox's purpose; but it seems 
 that he could imagine that his argument gained anything by ex- 
 amples of the use of Si'kcuo?, or SiKatocrvvq, in a moral sense. It 
 never occurred to anyone, I suppose, to doubt, not merely that 
 these words are used in a moral sense, but tli at such is their pro- 
 per sense; and that it is their common use in Scripture, [nd 
 it will be seen in Note Z how very little the argument for the 
 forensic sense of SiKaiow is affected, if it be supposed that Sikcuo.- 
 is never used in any other sense. But my object in quoting the 
 passage from Mr Knox here is merely to consider the example 
 which he gives of the use of Sikcuow in a moral sense. 
 
 He seems to think that our version of the text shows that the 
 English translators agreed with him in this view of the meaning 
 of the word. It may be that they did; but certainly 1 
 strange to find evidence of this agreement in the translation, U 
 the word SeSwwuWai stood alone, and they had rendered it by 
 
 "he is freed from sin," his inference might seem to have soma 
 
 foundation. But as it is combined with a™ -njs ap. 
 is no more reason for supposing that they thought that 34 I 
 used Sikouou in "a moral sense," than for supposing that I 
 ascribed any moral sense themselves to the English verb 
 
 free." 
 
 * Remains, Vol. 11. p. 20.
 
 4 GO NOTE X. 
 
 How ScSikcuWcu expresses "he ifl Breed" Lb very intelligible. 
 Its proper meaning, as has been shown, is, "he has been declared 
 innocent," "be has been acquitted," &c ; and, as the fruit or effect 
 of such a Bentence Lb fco s - a mam ftuee, the word may be use.! 
 by a common figure to express simply the effect without the 
 cause — the fact, thai is, of being set free, without including the 
 particular mode of obtaining such freedom, — whether by a ju- 
 dicial sentence or otherwise. 
 
 If it were necessary to account for St Paul's use of this word, 
 which expresses his meaning by a figure, in preference to the 
 familiar one which would express it literally, and which he uses 
 elsewhere, I suppose we should not have far to go for a reason. 
 We often see that when an earnest writer has been led in the 
 course of an argument to use important words repeatedly in their 
 proper sense, he will go on to use them puree deturta, rather than 
 introduce new words, which would express his meaning more 
 exactly and easily, but with some loss of impressiveness. 
 
 And this is peculiarly a character of St Paul's style. Thus, 
 in this Epistle, having had occasion to speak often of tlie Law 
 as furnishing, not only a rule of life, but also a principle of action, 
 he goes on to use the word to express not merely things different 
 from the Law but contrasted with it. Anything, in fact, which, 
 like the Law, furnishes an operative principle, more or less effi- 
 cacious, whether acting in accordance with it or in opposition 
 to it, is for a time a law. Thus, there is a law of faith, as well as 
 a law of works; he finds a law hi his members, a law in his mind; 
 a law of sin, as well as a law of God; a law of sin and death, 
 as well as a law of the spirit of life, &c. So here, having used 
 8iKaio'w frequently in its full meaning, he prefers going on to use 
 it, though he only wants a part of the entire sense. He wants 
 only to express released or set free, but he chooses to express it by 
 this verb, which properly expresses a special mode of setting 
 free, though all that it adds to the simple notion seems to be 
 superfluous; or, if pressed closely, rather in the way. 
 
 How death may be said to give this freedom may admit of 
 some difference of explanation. The doctrine which he is ex- 
 plaining and establishing seems to be, that Christ haying paid the 
 penalty of sin by his death, Believers, having died with Him, are 
 freed from all demands or claims of the Law. But in the words 
 o yap aVoflavw k.t.X., he seems to lay down a general principle or
 
 NOTE X. 
 
 maxim from which this particular c bo be inferred, And 
 
 therefore the words « For he thai is dead - 
 
 probably to be understood merely as a Btatemenl of the common 
 
 principle that death pays all debts, cancels all bond ■ nil 
 
 obligations, — "There the prisoners rest b 
 
 the voice of the oppressor." — Job iii. 18. Or perhaps, more per 
 
 ticularly, that it brings a release to tin ■ slave: "And the servant 
 
 is free from his master." — lb. 19. This last appears more likely 
 
 to be what the Apostle intends, from the way in which hi 
 
 wards dwells upon our natural relation to sis as a masi 
 
 But, however this be settled, it does nm affeci the question 
 as to the meaning of ScSiKaiWm. Whatever be the grounds or 
 reasons on which the assertion rests, the meaning of the word 
 is the same. It is simply as our translators have rendere 1 it, 
 "he is freed'"." And unless it be true that when a 
 expresses or relates to a moral state, act, or process, every word 
 in the sentence must have "a moral sense," there is do reason for 
 taking this text as an example of the use of Sikcuow in "a moral 
 sense." 
 
 Mr Knox refers to another text which he regards as also 
 furnishing an example of this " moral use " of the verb. 1 1 
 said, "I must strongly question, however, whether it is i 
 on any occasion, in this latter repntative sense, except as rt 
 nising a moral quality in the subject which is in its nature 
 ceptable to God, and therefore meets His merciful, but, at the 
 same time, His righteous approbation. For 'we know,' says St 
 Paul, 'that the judgment of God is according to truth.'— Rom. 
 ii. 2," he adds "I am strengthened in this persuasion by the im- 
 port of the word AiKauoOevTes in Rom. v. 9." I omit for a 
 moment his proof, and only subjoin the conclusion: "That the 
 word expresses what the persons were in the Divine estimation 
 is undeniable; but its place in the sentence, and its connexion with 
 the preceding terms, no less certainly oblige us to understand it 
 as implying that God had made them substantially righteous by 
 His gracious influence, as well as accounted them righteous by Kil 
 own merciful estimation." lb. pp. 21, 22. 
 
 * In the subsequent part of the chapter the same characters are 
 twice spoken of as iXevdepudtvres a™ tijs d/iaprlas, IS, 22.
 
 i 52 NOTE X. 
 
 Huw tar Mr Knox's argument is from proving this conclusion, 
 we shall see by and by. Wnat I am anxious here to point out 
 is, how far tin' conclusion itself, supposing it to be established, 
 falls short of what he was concerned to prove. In fact, the most 
 Btrenuous supporter of the "forensic hypothesis" might freely 
 admit, without any detriment to his views, that, in this or any 
 other passage, the word 8iKaiw0eYTes is so used as to make it 
 plain that the Apostle understood it as implying all that Mr 
 Knox says i^ here implied by it. This might be admitted, I say, 
 without determining anything that is at issue between him and his 
 opponents as to the meaning of SiKaiow. For it is to be re- 
 membered that StKatw^cVrcs means hewing been justified* ; that 
 it is used with respect not to those who were at the time beiwj 
 justified by God, but of those who had been justified by Him, 
 and who were in the actual enjoyment of all the privileges and 
 blessings into which sinners are brought by that gracious act. 
 Now, according to the view which Mr Knox opposes, no less than 
 his own, sanctification is one of the blessings and privileges of 
 the state into which they had been brought. According to both 
 views, therefore, all who could be spoken of as SiKcnw#eVres would 
 be in a course of moral training, and so in a state of holiness more 
 or less advanced : so that, whether Sikcuo'o> means to make righte- 
 ous, or to declare righteous, SiKaiw^evres might be used in such 
 a connexion as to imply that God had made the persons so desig- 
 nated substantially righteous. And this being the case, if the 
 word were so used, — as nothing would thereby be implied but 
 what according to both views must be true, — nothing would be 
 done to decide between them. It would still remain to be decided 
 whether the act of justification consisted in, or included this moral 
 change, as Mr Knox maintains; or whether the moral change was 
 subsequent to, and in an important sense a consequence of their 
 justification, as those whom he opposes maintain. 
 
 But the fact is, that the word does not seem to be so used 
 in the particular passage as to imply this truth. And the argu- 
 
 • In our version it is rendered "being justified." But justification 
 is used both for an act, and for its effect,— for the divine act by which 
 sinners are pardoned and accepted, and for the state of pardon and 
 acceptance into which they are brought l>y that act And so, to be jus- 
 />//,,/ means either to be in a state of justification, or to be />>tt into that 
 state; and h ring justified, in the former sense, is the consequence of, and 
 therefore equivalent to, leaving been justified, in the latter sense.
 
 NOTE X. 
 
 ment by which Mr Knox attempts to prove thai \\ 
 
 is entirely fallacious. I give it to foil: "The A; 
 
 stated as an enhancement of the Divine love to n 
 
 we were neither good nor righteous, bu1 'i 
 
 died for us: much more, then,' he adds, 'being justii II 
 
 blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Sim,' Th< 
 
 ment is simply this: if God was so gracious when the m 
 
 disposition had nothing in it engaging, bul 
 
 now when we bear a better character, are W< tain 
 
 of His mercy? The Apostle's reasoning admits of do other 
 
 construction j and therefore we musl attribute a moral meaning 
 
 to the word SucaiojflevTcs (whatever else i\ may tocludi 
 
 wise there would bo no logical ground for an h fortiori conclusion. 
 
 Besides, it is obvious that as 6.[xaprw\o\ is opposed to Stxatos and 
 
 aya#os, so in like manner is SiKaiwfleVres opposed to dutapraAol: 
 
 the contrast being not more clear in the former instance, than 
 
 in the latter." 
 
 This is the proof of the conclusion given above. And 
 whatever force it may seem to have when the verses upon which 
 Mr Knox comments are considered apart, will at once disapp 
 when they are looked at in their proper connexion with the 
 following one. 
 
 No doubt the words a/xapToAoi and SiKaiw#evT£? stand to 
 position; but the foundation of the opposition is not the difference 
 of the moral state of the parties, but the difference of their ,•■ Intion 
 to God — as enemies and as reconciled. That sinners are ii 
 of enmity towards God is sufficiently set forth in the beginni: 
 the Epistle. And that the effect of justification is to alter thin 
 state, and tore-establish peace between Him and them, is set forth 
 in the outset of the chapter as a clear inference from what had 
 been previously laid down with respect to justification — "Tl 
 fore being justified by faith, we have peace with <Jod." And it i.s 
 this difference, — the difference in their relation to God, — whi 
 the foundation of the & fortiori argument that the Apostle emp 
 The extraordinary mercy bestowed upon them, while they « 
 yet in a state of enmity, is the ground for the confident • 
 tion which they are encouraged to entertain, that all that i 
 to complete this act of grace will be added to them, now that 
 are in a state of reconciliation. It is not merely tl 
 sufficient ground for the argument it fortiori to the oase, but
 
 464 .VOTE Y. 
 
 the Apostle goes on to show very clearly that it was actually the 
 
 ound on which it rested in his mind. Having first stated the 
 
 argument a fortiori, as commented on by Mr Knox, he subjoins 
 
 an explanation, embodying a restatement of it, which seems to 
 
 leave no room for doubt upon that point. Here is the argument: 
 
 '•But God commendeth His love towards us, in that, while we 
 
 re yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now 
 
 justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through 
 
 Him.'' And then follows the explanation: "For, if, when xce 
 
 were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, 
 
 much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." It 
 
 is evident here that the contrast is, as I said, between a state 
 
 of enmity and a state of reconciliation; and that the argument is, 
 
 that when such amazing love and mercy were shown to enemies, a 
 
 fortiori, now that they have become friends, they may expect that 
 
 all that is needed will be given to them. 
 
 I might go on, but this is quite enough for my purpose. I 
 trust that the remarks in I, II, III, upon the fallacies in Mr 
 Knox's general reasoning, and these examples of the unsoundness 
 of his Scriptural proofs may serve as a safeguard against a work 
 by which many, I believe, have been led into great error upon 
 this fundamental doctrine, and many more are in danger of being 
 beguiled in the same way. 
 
 Note Y. Page 216. 
 Upon the Gospel Doctrine of Reward. 
 
 I am aware that the doctrine of this Sermon is liable to be 
 misconceived and abused by all who are ignorant of the Gospel : 
 and that it is likely to startle and offend many who know and 
 value it. I have felt bound, in putting it forward, to take all 
 reasonable precautions to obviate abuses of it, and to conciliate 
 prejudices against it. But, finding it clearly taught in God's 
 Word, I did not feel that I should be warranted in holding it back, 
 under any apprehensions of the way in which it might be received. 
 And I have the satisfaction of knowing that it has been found in 
 the Bible, in the form in which I have stated it, by those with
 
 NOTE Y. 
 
 whom I am most anxious to agree. I have prefixed to 1 
 an extract from the Augsburg Confession, in which the d 
 
 is very distinctly laid down, thai after the person 
 Christ by faith, his obedience is pleasant i 
 accounted righteousness in a certain sense, am/ ,/, 
 Postea vero placere etiani obediential!) erga Legem i 
 quandam justitiam, et mereri prsemia. And the vnii 
 the assertion and the caution most distinctly in the Article, /' 
 bonis Operibits. They say that the grounds on which our 
 sufficient obedience is pleasing- to God are net to b< 
 
 Non enim ideo placet quia legi satisfaci I quia p 
 
 conciliate et justae sunt propter Christum, et credunl Bibi • 
 donari imbecillitatem suam. Sic Paulus do 
 condemnatio, cDc. Quamquam igitur hsec nova obedientia procul 
 abest a perfectione legis tamen est justitia el inn, fur prsemia 
 ideo quia personal reconciliatai sunt. The same doctrine is taughl 
 in the Saxon Confession, Article IX., Quonin.li> placeat i 
 obedientia, and Article X., De Prcem/iis. And in the XVIth 
 Article of the Helvetic Confession, the question is very fully 
 opened, and the same principles are most distinctly laid <]>>\\ n. 
 Placent vero approbanturque a Deo opera qua? a nobis tiuin. 
 fidem. Quia illi placent Deo propter ndem in Christum, qui 
 faciunt opera bona; qua? insuper per Spiritum Sanctum ex gratia 
 
 Dei sunt facta Etenini docemus Deum bona operantibua 
 
 amplam dare mercedem, juxta illam prophets sententiam, Jen m. 
 xxxi. Isaise iv. Cohibe vocem tuam afletu: quoniam ■ 
 operi tuo. In Evangelio quoque dixit Dominus, Matt. v. \. 
 Gaudete et exultate, quia merces vestra multa et in cafys. E 
 dederit uni ex minimis meis poculum aquce frigidce, <•, 
 vobis, non perdet mercedem suam. Referimus tamen mercedem 
 banc, quam Dominus dat, non ad meritum hominis accipientia, 
 sed ad bonitatem, vel liberalitatem, et veritatem Dei promitte 
 atque dantis. Qui cum nihil debeat cuiquam, promi il ' un< 
 suis cultoribus fidelibus mercedem daturum; qui interim 
 etiam ut ipsum colant. Sunt multa prseterea indigna D 
 imperfecta plurima inveniuntur in operibus etiam Band 
 quia vero Deus recipit in gratiam, et complectitur propter Chr 
 turn operantes, mercedem eis promissam pi ^""1 ■ 
 
 the Articles agreed upon by both sides at i < 
 burg was "Bona opera habere pnemia turn in ati turn i
 
 NOTE r. 
 
 aterna vita/' But I believe that there is no opposition of views 
 among the early Protestant divines upon the point, though there 
 may be considerable difference in the degree of distinctness or pro- 
 minence which it has in their statements. Tyndall, it is true, 
 seems to say very hard tilings against the doctrine, " If I worke 
 for a worldly purpose, T get no reward in Heaven; even so if I 
 worke for heaven, or a hyer place in heaven, I get then no re- 
 warde. Bnt I must do my worke for the love of my neighbour, 
 because he is my brother, and the price of Christes bloode, and 
 because Christ hath deserved it, and desireth it of me, and then 
 my rewarde is great in heaven." — Answer to M. More. In A 
 Pathway into the Holy Scriptures, he holds the same language. 
 After exhibiting Christ's free love to sinners as the proper object 
 of their imitation ; and shewing that we cannot either do or for- 
 bear to do anything, to procure heaven itself, without doing wrong 
 to Jli< Mood, he adds, "Neither that I loke for a higher roume 
 in heaven .... for that were the pride of Lucifer," .... and 
 he elsewhere speaks in the same tone. I should be sorry to find 
 myself differing from Tyndall upon any important point. I per- 
 suade myself, however, that there is no real difference between us 
 here; but that his disapprobation is directed against an abuse of 
 the doctrine, against which I have attempted carefully to guard, 
 and -which I should be ready to condemn in as severe language as 
 any that he employs. He says distinctly that " "We know that 
 good deedes are rewarded, both in this lyfe and in the lyfe to 
 come;" but he feels that to make these rewards the motive of 
 obedience to God, is inconsistent with the character of a Chris- 
 tian; and this I have endeavoured to express in Sermon XI. ; and 
 to show that the leading principle of Christian obedience is love 
 to God. I have been anxious to assign to this principle of self- 
 love a place strictly subordinate ; and, even in this way, I am aware 
 that it can be spoken of safely, only when it is spoken of with 
 very great caution, when the true foundation has been very care- 
 fully laid, and is never suffered to pass away from the memory. 
 I have not only laboured to present it in this way, but I hope I have 
 done something in this ninth Sermon to clear up the Christian 
 doctrine of future rewards, by Bhewing its connexion with Chris- 
 tian discipline, and with the effects of a course of obedience upon 
 the character of the Believer; and I meant to explain, that the 
 only form in which I think it desirable or allowable that it should
 
 WTE v. 
 
 operate upon us, is by giving us a deep 
 
 importance of every part of our appointed ooux • : and i 1 
 
 fitted to do this by showing us uj Buch intelligible 
 
 how unending may be the consequences of every pari ol 
 course. But my views upon this pari of the subjed ar 
 with even more distinctness in :1 Discour d( ruently 
 
 to the same Congregation; and as the question i i uch 
 
 great importance, and so liable to be misunderrt I. I hall 
 
 ture to subjoin the concluding passage of thai S 
 
 mode that. I can take of setting in a ch 
 
 application of the doctrine which I have been anxious ben 
 
 teach. 
 
 "But is it necessary to our advancement in the divine life 
 that we should constantly bear about us the anxii • which 
 
 such views seem calculated to give rise? Are we 
 daily life, and all its most trivial concerns, this painful i 
 tion of the connexion of each with the formation of our cl;;. 
 and through this connexion, the effects of each upon our eternal 
 well-being? Certainly not. It is neither necessary nor d< arable 
 that Ave should do thus. This would be to assign a constant 
 to what was designed to be but occasional in ib tion; it 
 
 would have a tendency to exalt into the chief pi; which 
 
 was designed to be but a subsidiary motive; it would be keeping 
 out of view the main principles which conduct is d 1 to <-all 
 
 into action; and so would be frustrating rather than promol 
 the main end of the discipline of life. What is most to 1 
 sired is that, having received the kinydom of God as Ir 
 dren, we should so walk therein, — that ice should walk in love. It 
 is not necessary for the full effect of the bodily exercises of child- 
 hood in strengthening the frame, that the child who performs 
 them should be aware of their effect upon his health and vigour, 
 and upon the comfort of his maturer years. It is not n< 
 for the best effects of the mental exercises which parental i 
 prescribes to him in early youth, that he should be abh 
 in them the materials of all his future powers of intellectual 
 ertion, of his habits of self-command; the foundation of th< 
 spectability and happiness of his after-life. The perception of the 
 connexion is in no wise necessary; and it would 1"' manil •tly 
 injurious that it should be constantly borne in mind by those who 
 are capable of perceiving it. Still the connexion is Dot for this 
 
 a ' -2
 
 4C8 NOTE Y 
 
 the less real, or tie l.s< important; nor are the consequences of 
 neglecting such aalutaiy exercises, mental or bodily, a jot less 
 sure. And, though those who perceive it clearly would certainly 
 impede the best effects of such courses by constantly bearing it 
 in mind, it might manifestly be useful and even necessary to recal 
 it occasionally to their recolL ction, in order to quicken their dili- 
 gence and to impress upon them more deeply the danger and the 
 folly of nee and sloth. 
 
 " Even so, those who are walking now as God's dear children, 
 who are enabled to wait upon Him in the humble, docile, and 
 tender frame of mind that becomes that endearing relation, to 
 follow the course which He has prescribed to them, looking for no 
 reason beyond this — that their Father has commanded it ; — ac- 
 quiescing meekly in 21 is appointments, submitting patiently to 
 His chastisements, and obeying humbly his commands, — in them, 
 the transforming process, which is to fit them for the glory, and 
 honour, and immortality of the life to come, is assuredly going on 
 here, whether they have ever cast a thought upon it or not. They 
 are, doubtless, the blessed subjects of the Spirit's teaching, and 
 in them is his happiest work advancing, whether they can trace 
 its progress or not; — whether they can understand the mode of 
 its operation or not. But religion embraces wide diversities of 
 character; and, though its aim and its effect are to produce in all, 
 the great features of resemblance which mark the children of one 
 family, it by no means seeks to obliterate those minor differences 
 which are not incompatible with the closest kindred — nay, dif- 
 ferences, which are finally to disappear under its teaching, it 
 eradicates patiently, and wisely takes advantage of while they re- 
 main. The end of religion is to bring all who name the name of 
 Christ under the dominion of the love of God. But, in the 
 progress of our pupilage, it does not refuse to employ, in their 
 proper place, subsidiary motives in aid of the main one, and to 
 accommodate them to the various intellectual habits of individuals, 
 and to the diversities of their moral state. Under all temptations 
 to delay obedience to the call of duty, there are many who will 
 be preserved by the knowledge that such delay is an act of real 
 disobedience to their gracious Father; of real ingratitude to their 
 dear Redeemer; that it is grieving the Spirit, by whom they arc 
 sealed to the day of redemption. But there are doubtless some 
 v.li "lutiou against such temptations may be strengthened,
 
 NOTE Z. 
 
 and in whom wholesome habits of cunt inn a^ainsl their 
 deceitfulness maybe infixed more deeply, by bavins that im- 
 pressed upon then i tin' views which 1 have been unfold 
 peculiar connexion of this world with the eternal world thai 
 us; by being taught, hence, to regard in i 1 
 negligence and sloth, and procrastination, of which v.. 
 to think so lightly, — to see bow awful their effects are, and bow 
 enduring they may be; that they are impeding that work in 
 hearts which it is the great business of the Sph 
 effect there — that they are preparing for us sharp i menl in 
 
 the present life, or impairing for ever the glory and the happi 
 of the life which is to come." 
 
 Note Z. Page 221. 
 
 On the lOOi'd AiKaiocrvvr]. 
 
 Having settled the meaning of StKatow and of ttl(ttl<;; and 
 shown the connexion which Scripture declares to exist betvi 
 the things for which they stand, — between the Divine act, which 
 the former word expresses, and that state of mind of tin- Binner 
 who is the object of the act, which is expressed by the latter 
 word; — and having also endeavoured to lix the proper Bense of 
 XoyiCofxai; I did not think it necessary to explain any of the other 
 words which occur in the Scriptural statements of the doctrh 
 Justification. But though, strictly speaking, enough had I 
 done for my purpose, yet I have seen reason since to regret that 
 I did not add something on another important word which is con- 
 nected etymologicaUy with the first of the foregoin- words, and 
 which is often found in close connexion with both the others, in 
 doctrinal statements, more especially in the writings of St Paul, — 
 I mean the word StKaioavvrj. 
 
 In proceedings supply this omission, T shall begin by 
 tion from Knox's Remains, a publication of which I have sp 
 more fully in another place (see Note X). 
 
 The passage is as follows : — 
 
 "I beg leave to make one more philological remark, not with 
 reference to these passages, but to the general rabj I
 
 470 NOTE Z. 
 
 the continual use of the word SiKaioo-cn] (righteousness), where 
 the subject of justification is treated <>t', has not led learned men 
 to suspect the roundness of the merely forensic theory. 1 appre- 
 hend that nothing could be more inapplicable than a Creek noun 
 ending in oo-it?/, to a mere business of reputation or extrinsic 
 change. All snch substantives seem to me, without exception, 
 to express actual and personal habits, rooted in the mind and 
 manifested in the conduct; at least the latter is implied in- 
 variably. I allows vulgar writer, in any language, might over- 
 look such a nicety, but to say nothing of that divine superin- 
 tendence, and that knowledge of tongues, which St Paul had so 
 abundantly from heaven, he was himself too excellent a critic 
 to have overlooked such a rule in language." 
 
 Then follow some examples of St Paul's critical exactness in 
 the use of language, which I must pass over""', and Mr Knox 
 proceeds : — 
 
 " One of these examples furnishes so very characteristic a spe- 
 cimen of Mr Knox's style of criticism, that, though I am obliged to 
 omit it above, 1 must had a place for it, though not a very suitable 
 one, here: — • 
 
 " It is a curious fact that St Paul has evinced his critical exactness 
 in this identical instance. He says to Festus, Oi> p.aivop.ai, Kpano-Te 
 <&r}<rTe d\X d\7]deias xal ffucppoo-vvqs pi)fxara diro<p6£yyop.ai, Acts xxvi. 25. 
 But when he expresses exactly the same idea in 2 Tim. i. 7, Ov yap 
 
 iouicev Tjpuv 6 Geos irvevp.a 5u\Las, dXXct ovrd/xews, Kal dyaTrrjs, teal ffu(ppovi<7/xov, 
 
 he uses not ouxppocivr) (the principle of sobriety), but <rui(ppovi<jp.6i (the act 
 of being sober). "Why 1 1 presume because he had already inserted the 
 word iri>ev/j.a (spirit 1 , in the strict sense of temper or habit [though not 
 excluding the Divine Spirit, whose fruit all virtuous tempers are); and 
 consequently to have used an additional term, which also signifies 
 temper or habit, would have implied a palpable solecism. To escape 
 this, therefore, the Apostle had recourse to a word which signified not 
 the habit, but the abstract act; and by this means he expressed his 
 miming, not with strength and clearness merely, but with absolute 
 elegance." — Remains, Y"l. i. p. 277. 
 
 I suppose this might be left to my readers without much risk, but 
 I must make one or two remarks upon it. Derivatives ending in la 
 from adjectives or attributives have just the same signification as those 
 ending in <?iv% Both express the abstract of the concretes from which 
 they are derived. So that if irvevp.a aw<ppo<jvvr)s would lie a palpable 
 solecism, on account of the signification of words of the chiss to which 
 the latter word belongs, -nvivp-aotCKia^ (to say nothing of either of the 
 other genitives) is, for the same reason, I( a palpable solecism." And 
 this being the case, even if one could not see his way through Mr Knox's 
 comment, ought he not to feel some distrust in its soundness, when 
 he sees the Apostle using without scruple, at the beginning of the 
 sent inn', the very same "palpable solecism" which he is represented as 
 BO careful to avoid at the end I But, taking Mr Knox's explanation of 
 xvtZp-a without stopping to question it, is it not easy to show that tho
 
 NOTE Z. ,71 
 
 "Is it then credible that St Paul should be all • .tinuallv 
 applying a word which ho uses often* t than any oth< r single » 
 
 solecism is imaginary in both cases? Fortnight not both 1"' l 
 
 as instances of a use of the genitive... in classical < Ireek, aim 
 
 to poetry, but not uncommon in the .New Testam at, from the Hi bn 
 
 in which it stands in the place of an adjective, though mi t< d and 
 
 emphatic? And so irveuna. du\ias would -■••' .■".i ■"•'..■ ; and i cu- 
 
 (ppoawrjs (if he hud used it) would = irvtC^aaQ^pov, and would be ii" D 
 a solecism than this latter phrase is. 
 
 But it may be asked, [fit were thus open to the Apostle to use thia 
 familiar word, why did he prefer the more unusual on< I 
 question to be answered only under protest, if at all. I am Bure that I 
 should be very often unable to give a good reason for my own at 
 one word rather than another, which, on looking hack at what I had 
 written, it might seem more natural to have used I could hard)] I"- 
 surprised, therefore, at finding a difficulty of the same kind. 01 
 many difficulties of the same kind, in St Paul's writings or in 
 others. Eut at all events I cannot allow that my inability if I should 
 be unable) to assign a satisfactory reason lor St Paul's using vu^ponafioS 
 instead of o-w<ppo<rvi'i)s, ought to be taken as a proof thai Mr Knox has 
 assigned the right reason, even if I had not shown that the reason 
 assigned by him was not entitled to any weight, and that, in point of 
 fact, the Apostle did not attach any weight to it. 
 
 I say this, however, entirely for the sake of those who may he du 
 satisfied with the reason which lam about to oiler, and ma because 
 1 myself feel any distrust in its soundness. I think, then, that the 
 Apostle did not use au<ppo<n'viis just because he did not want a word 
 which expressed "the principle of sobriety," or l, a sound mind,'' or any 
 such habit or temper. If he had wanted a word of that signification, I 
 think it very unlikely that he would have looked beyond the .me which 
 was so familiar to him. So far I agree with Mr Knox ; hut, on the 
 other hand, I do not think that what the Apostle wanted was a word to 
 express the abstract act of beimj sober, both the principle and the 
 practice were no doubt essential to a ruler in the < Ihurch. But I do not 
 think that it is the Apostle's purpose, in the place, to insist upon the 
 power of self-government, but upon the power of governing otters. 
 
 In the former quality, there does not appear to be the least reason to 
 suppose that Timothy was in any respect deficient. Indeed, there is 
 something in the First Epistle which seems to show that he was rather 
 too self-denying. In exhorting him to be drcumspect and faithful in 
 the exercise of the power of ordaining, the Apostle says: "Lay hands 
 suddenly on no man, neither be thou partaker of other men's sins : keep 
 thy 
 
 T7)p 
 
 exh 
 
 an 
 
 iyself pure." Here, however, as if, in writing the words va 
 ) P a, it struck upon his mind how very little Timothy needed such ai 
 exhortation as regarded his own habits, he pauses to Bubjoin, paren 
 thetically, a paternal injunction to him to relax the strictness oi nu own 
 way of living, in consideration of his health. And be then n to 
 
 show that the exhortation to him not to make himsell partaker ol the 
 sins of others, by laying hands suddenly upon those who are unfit for 
 the office, is not an unreasonable one, for that though the sins ol - 
 
 are secret, and not to be known before the great day. tl »ol i there 
 
 open, and, as it were, go before th m to ttoJudgrm ni ; and are to r. 
 fore to be known even now, if the necdtul tune and diligence be 
 expended in the investigation.
 
 4 72 KOTE Z. 
 
 whatever*, ninl the real force of which he could nut but know, 
 in an unnatural and inadmissible sense, especially when he had in 
 readiness the much mure flexible word SoccuWis (justification), 
 
 and actually uses it, at least in two iustances, where the sense 
 
 But however unimpeachable Timothy's character was, so far as self- 
 government is concerned, it is by no means clear that he had not fallen 
 Bomewhat ahort in the discharge of the duty of governing others 
 Warmly affectionate as the exhortations in the Second Epistle are, 
 there is something in them, both in matter and tune, which forcibly 
 suggests that, whether through youth or from some natural Boftness 
 of character, he had to some extent yielded to the difficulties which he 
 had encountered in the government of the Churches. Bo that it bad 
 b come necessary, as it seems, to exhort him to stir up the gift which 
 had been bestowed upon him at bis consecration — language which shows 
 that the Apostle felt sure that it was not extinct, but which at the same 
 tune intimates very clearly that lie thought it was dormant. And lie 
 reminds him that tins gift was not <t spirit of timidity, hut a Bpirit 
 
 Swd/utoi, Kal a-yaw-qs, ko.1 crutppovia/xov. It is evident here that his de- 
 scription of what the gift was, forms a much better contrast to his 
 description of what it was not, if <ru(ppoi>i<Tfi6s means rule or discipline, 
 than if it means moderation : /■■ > ping othi rs sober, than bt ing sober, or 
 / i \ng ourselves sober. And the whole course of the exhortation begin- 
 ning here and resumed ii. 1-7 has bo much more reference to the quali- 
 ties which are required for the exercise of discipline in the Church than 
 to those which are required for self-government, that even if <rw<ppoi>t<TtJ.6s 
 might have either sense indifferently there can be little doubt, I think, 
 that we ought to choose the former, in this place. 
 
 But the reasons for regarding this as the proper meaning of the word, 
 everywhere, seem to be very strong. It is true that Chrysostom and 
 Theodoret appear to fluctuate only between the senses of governing 
 ourselves, and being governed by the Spirit: and take no notice of this 
 •sense of governing others, which is first brought in. in addition, by 
 Thcophylact. But, on the other hand, usage is decidedly in favour of 
 this last meaning. The word is found, I believe, only in the sense of 
 ch tstist in. a/, correction, ecclesiastical censure or punishment, or some- 
 thing of that kind. It occurs, indeed, but in few instances — only here 
 in the New Testament, not at all in the LXX., and rarely elsewhere — 
 but they all agree with the general rule according to which words of the 
 
 - to which it belongs derivatives in p.6s), ought to have an active and 
 not a passive or a middle sense; and usage, though limited, has more 
 iit when it is in accordance with a general rule, than it would he 
 entitled to if it were without such support. And, on the whole, I sup- 
 pose there can scarcely be any doubt that we are right in interpreting 
 the word in the sense which usage, general rules, and the context, near 
 and remote, concur in assigning to it. 
 
 * It is of little consequence to the argument whether this statement 
 is strictly true or not, for there is no doubt that the Apostle does u^t- 
 this word very often. And that would have been quite enough for Mr 
 Knox'.s purpose, if ho had been content with saying so much and no 
 more. But h." has chosen to go a good deal further. And it is worth 
 noting, as a curious illustration of the rashness with which strong and 
 precise statements are often made, that the word TnVns is used much 
 more than twice as often as diKaioavvr) in St Paul's Epistles !
 
 NOTE Z. 
 
 obviously required it. We find him, also, probably from a I 
 motive, sometimes using the word Sifcauo/xa (just eoi 
 lastly, we actually often meet StKauxrvn? in bis writi 
 Mr Milner himself would have allowed it oould beai i 
 than its moral meaning." — Knox' R mams, Vol. i. pp. 27' 
 
 It will appear, I think, by and by, that St Paul 
 8u<aio(Tvi>r} is not quite so decisive against forensic ■ 
 is here supposed. But first I tliink it advisable, for vari< 
 sons, to look at Mr Knox's mode of arriving al the meanh 
 the word. 
 
 It is not true, as Mr Knox lays down, thai all words of I 
 class to which 8iK.aioo-vi>r] belongs " without exception, expi 
 tual and personal habits rooted in the mind and manifi ted in the 
 conduct." Words in crvv-q (for that, and not o<rwi] is the termina- 
 tion of the class of words referred to*) express the al quality, 
 
 * In fact, if a definition of righteousness were sustained by a rule for 
 the signification of English substantives in mess, it would be V6TJ much 
 on a par with Mr Knox's " philological remark." There is no '-round 
 whatever for making any distinction between the terminations otrirti 
 and wowT? as indications of the meaning of the words to which they 
 belong. The difference of form does not in any respect depend npon 
 the meaning of the word; and, in fact, the orthography of some words 
 fluctuates between the two forms; though in general the b 
 support the common rule, which would lead as to expect in the ante- 
 penult of such words (as in comparatives in repos) an a wherever tin- 
 preceding syllable is short. But it is unnecessary to press this point 
 further, for it will not be questioned by any scholar that the distinctive 
 termination of words of the class to which oiKaioohy belong J is . and 
 that the general signification of such words is the same, whether the 
 antepenult be w or o. 
 
 But it maybe thought that though, strictly speaking, Mr Knox', 
 philology cannot be defended, yet his mistake is really of very little 
 importance. For that the number of words in welvri is so small.— pro- 
 bably not a tenth of the number of those of the other form— that it 
 cannot be of much practical importance that he has confined his con- 
 sideration to the latter, and treated them as if they formed the entire 
 class with which he was concerned. And this is so far true that, it he 
 had given aright account of the meaning of the division to which his 
 view was limited, it would have served also for that which If has alto- 
 gether overlooked, while, on the other hand, it may Burly bo thou 
 that if he misunderstood the proper sense of the class ol words, when 
 he had before him a subdivision that contains tar the greater ni 
 the words which belong to the class, he would hardly have 
 right by taking a few more into consideration. 1 by no mean 
 to say that he would have been set right altogether bv such an . sUmi- 
 sion of his range, but 1 think that it would probably ,;, . unetl 
 
 him from going wrong in the way and to the extent that he has .lone. 
 There is one word in wim, which is found more than once ui 
 Testament, and which therefore would probably have i
 
 471 NOTB Z. 
 
 property, &C, which is in concrete in the adjectives or attributives 
 from which they are derived. They way therefore stand for "ac- 
 tual and personal habits rooted in the mind and manifested in the 
 conduct" But it is equally plain that they may stand for what 
 cannot, without great abuse of language, be treated as a habit, 
 either <•!' the mind or of the body. And though they may denote 
 moral qualitii they may also denote some things which are 
 
 purely " extrinsic." 
 
 And, accordingly, while we have a good many words, which 
 agree more ur less with Mr Knox's rule, there are, as might be 
 supposed, not a few which very absolutely repudiate it. As ex- 
 amples of the former class, we may take dyaOocrvvrj, or rather 
 dyaOuxTiTi] ' : ', which is goodness, that is, the quality or aggregate of 
 qualities by which a man is made ayados, — belongs to the class 
 of the good, and is entitled to the name of good. And, again, 
 dynaavvrjf, is that which makes a person holy. So from yvu>p.wv, 
 prudent, is derived yvu>p.ocrivi], prudence; from evyvwp.on>, kind, 
 candid, we have eiyvufioo-iir], kindness or fairness of mind; and 
 in like manner £\e>]p.wv, compassionate, gives l\er)p.oo-vvq, com- 
 passion. There is an endless number of compound derivatives 
 ending in <ppu)v, as d$>pa>v, tK(f>pu)v, evtpptitv, i—ifypuiv, irpo^poyv, 
 o.Wocppwv, KaKo<f>pu>v, Keio<f>poii; p.eya\o(f)po}v, op.o(pp<jiv, o"(i/</>pcoi', ra- 
 7r£Lv6(ppijiv, ifca, of these many have (and all might have) derivatives 
 in crwr], which of course, express primarily mental states, disposi- 
 
 if he had known that he ought to take such words into consideration, I 
 mean iepuaCvr) • and had this word been in his recollection, one would 
 say that he must at least have qualified very considerably the large 
 and positive .-tateuient which he has made, with reference to words of 
 this class. 
 
 * In the index to his edition of ( lemena Alex., Sylburgius says upon 
 this word, " ayaOuavvr) Oela, 2^:i, '.) . per w, P. MS. 55, 35, et alibi passim ; 
 at Flor. ed. per o." The edition to which he refers is the Editio prin- 
 ceps of the author, published at Florence, L550, by Victorius. The 
 .MS. is one which he himself found in the Palatine Library at Heidel- 
 berg, and it is likely that he adopted its orthography less out of 
 deference to the authority of the Bio. which was very small (it was, he 
 tells us, but one year older than the edition), than on account of its con- 
 formity with the ride. J5y the way, the copy of Clement that I have is 
 the Venice Reprint, 1757, of Archbishop Tetter's edition, and in it the 
 word is printed with an w in the first of the above references, and with 
 an o in the second. 
 
 t II. Stephens, in roc, tells u^ that his father in his New Testament 
 restored the w from the best MSB.: those known to him were but few; 
 but the correction has not been since disturbed.
 
 SOTE Z. 
 
 tions, or habits, as the adjectives from which they are 
 derived from <f>fjijv. 
 
 All these and others may, perhaps, b 
 rooted in the mind and manifesting themselv< ,. 
 but they have this signification, not from their termii 
 from the meaning of the words from which thej i, a.s 
 
 will be easily seen by looking al some others. Several evi d of 
 words which I have given above, indeed, oft 
 things very different from menial stairs or disposition : bul then 
 it seems reasonable to regard the latter as their primitive mean 
 in., and the former a derived one. So when i .... i 
 
 for alms, it seems certain that it is by a metonymy, and thai 
 proper meaning is that state of mind which dispi 
 In other words, perhaps, the process would lie found t" l»- the op- 
 posite, and the sense in which they relate to the mind to be the 
 figurative one*. But it is needless to discuss any doubtful c • 
 when there are so many in which it is clear that Mr Ki 
 philology is at fault. 
 
 Thus jxeyaXoicrvvr] stands for any kind of great/if**; and se m, 
 to be equivalent, as it is said by Lexicographers to be, to 
 Then, if ro^oavvr], being an art, is to be called a habit, it can 
 scarcely be said to be a habit " rooted in the mind ami mani- 
 fested in the conduct." AovXoavvr], which is as old as Eomer, is 
 the state or condition of slavery. And lepwo-vvr), standing for 
 office of Priest, seems a tolerably clear instance of a word of this 
 class applied to a matter of "extrinsic change t:" while it can be 
 
 just as little doubted that aaxW ocn '' vr l an '^ evo , xvi JLOa ' 1[ '' t ''l ,x l 
 qualities which are external and visible, — as might be anticipated, 
 indeed, from the meaning of vxwa. And these clear examples 
 
 * Aappoavvri would seem to be an example of this proa u 
 the adjective from which it is derived certainly is. Stephens, ind 
 apparently relying on Eustathius, derives \&Ppos from Wok M 
 papvs, and explains it as nimium vorax or avidus. Bu( Passow shows 
 satisfactorily that this derivation and meaning are inconsistent vnth its 
 earliest use; that in Homer and Berodotus it is ased only ol the no- 
 lence of the forces of inanimate nature, as winds, waves, riven 
 and that when used of men in early writers, as in Pindar, it is ol Uie 
 unrestrained impetuosity of a rash talker, or the tumultuous violence ol 
 a crowd, or something of that kind, and that it was not until later tlut 
 it occurred in the sense of greedy. . . 
 
 t In the LXX. d/>x«p«(r«5wi occurs 1 and 2 Maoo, an. I also in 
 
 Theodoret.
 
 476 NOTE Z. 
 
 may suffice to Bhow liow little ground there is fur this canon which 
 is laid down so absolutely and with bo little misgiving. 
 
 As Mr Knox's scholarship was by no means on a par with 
 
 some of bis other qualifications as a critic-, J do not know that 
 I should have thought it nccessan i much time upon 
 
 this " philological remark," but that it has been adopted by some 
 whose authority in such que-: uids deservedly high. The 
 
 Archbishop of Dublin says : "But looking to that which is our 
 present Bubject of inquiry, — the Apostle's use of terms— it may 
 be established beyond all reasonable doubt, that the word he 
 employs (Slkcuoo-uvt]), which is rendered in some versions 'justice,' 
 and in others ' righteousness,' is a word which must have implied 
 to any one acquainted (as Paul doubtless was) with the usages of 
 the Greek language, a mural habit; a habit possessed and exer- 
 cised by the person to whom it is attributed. A mere acquittal, 
 — a verdict of ' not guilty,' — an imputation to any one of good 
 actions not really performed by him, — would have been expressed 
 by another very different word (SikcuWis) *." And in a note he 
 -ays: " I have been told that in some recent publication a doubt 
 was raised as to the rule here alluded to, respecting the nouns 
 ending in ocrvvq, and that ev^poavi'T] was given as an instance 
 against it; but on wdiat grounds I cannot learn. I have always 
 found it used to signify ' cheerfulness,' in perfect analogy, conse- 
 quently, with the other nouns of like termination t." 
 
 In a second note, the Archbishop quotes from Mr Knox the 
 passage given above, and says: "It has been inferred, I tinder- 
 stand, from my coinciding in this point with Mr Knox, that I 
 must have derived my views, directly or indirectly, from him." 
 He shows very clearly that this could not have been the case; 
 and then adds: "But the conclusions in which we have concurred 
 are what, I think, any man would draw who, with competent 
 scholarship, should diligently and candidly examine, with a view 
 to the pi-esent question, both the classical and the New Testament 
 writers." 
 
 More recently, Mr Ellicott, in his Critical and Grammatical 
 
 * Essay* <<u some qf the Dangers t<> Christian Faith, <£r. Essay I. 
 I. oinlon, L839. 
 
 t It must be felt that the writer referred to was rather perverse in 
 his choice of an instance for his purpose, when lie had. as 1 have shown 
 above, not a few unexceptionable examples to prove that nouns of this 
 form do not necessarily mean a moral h<ih;t y or a habit of any kind,
 
 VOTE Z. 
 
 Commentary on St Pa/uVs Epistle to th 
 
 series which cannot but be of very greal 
 
 the New Testament), refers approvingly to Mr Knox in a i 
 
 ii. 21. " b\Kajuto-wij\ ' righteousness? Brown vn /.-•. 
 
 valence of 8iKaioow?7 h. 1. with Sucaiaxris, and cites V\ 
 
 Essays on Dangers, etc. § 4. This is not n< I 
 
 use the expression of Knox (Remains, Vol. i. p. 266) tl 
 
 essence' of SiK-atoo-vv^ <)n the general meai 
 
 awij, see Knox, ?7>. p. 276." 
 
 Whether SiKcuoavvr) and SiKatoKri; are equivalent in thi 
 or not, I need not attempt to settle lure. But whethi r tl 
 or not, it is very hard to understand how any one who ho 
 they are could have found anything in the Archbishop I 
 cite in support of his opinion. However, my concern with Mr 
 EUicott's note is, that it seems to lend the v ithority 
 
 to the process by which Mr Knox determines the meaning of 
 BiKaLoavvrj. He does not adopt the process, it La true, i icpri 
 but his reference to the passage seems to imply his approval of it. 
 I do not think, however, that, on reconsideration, any scholar 
 would justify it. 
 
 It will be seen, from what has gone before, tliat the I 
 of SiKaioavvw depends upon the meaning of Sikcuo?; which, again, 
 depends upon the meaning of Si/07, being derived from it, and 
 being applied to men and things, as they are observant of, or 1 
 formable to, Sua/. 
 
 AtK?? — omitting later, though still ancient, Benses, with which 
 we are not concerned — corresponds to jus, fas, and means right, 
 usage, justice, fairness'-. There is no doubt that the earliest 
 meanings of the words are right and usage, but it is noi Bettled 
 which of these is its original meaning. It is found in both 3* 
 in Homer. And the earliest authority thus refusing to di 
 the question, we are left to determine it as well as we can. 1' 
 
 • I find another meaning of SIk V in Tholuck. Having 
 original meaning of 8«a«H«K the condi 1 m ■• ■" ■' 
 
 required of him by the law, he says: -This B ,gnifi, 
 in the conception of a certain relation sub 
 covenant called 5k,." 1 am quite sure thai Uus learned writer h 
 assigned this sense to the word SIkt, mti unds; b 
 
 aware of any authority for it. I quote from he trai - 
 Biblical Cabinet, and have not the original within reach.
 
 XOTE Z. 
 
 would seem more reasonable to assign the precedence to right. For 
 the connexion between the two e ppeara best accounted for, 
 
 when we suppose that the word stood primarily far right, and 
 thai it was used to express custom or usage, derivatively, on the 
 assumption that every custom was, as it ought to be, drawn from 
 an autre. ■.lent principle or rule of right, on which it rested, and 
 from it- accordance with which it derived, in the first instance, its 
 force and obligation. 
 
 And this, whether he arrived at it in this way or not, appears 
 t" he Henry Stephens' view of the order of these two senses. 
 But, on the other hand, Passow, for whose authority I have 
 a high respect, makes custom the primary sense, right being re- 
 garded, he says, in early times, as resting upon usage. And cer- 
 tainly, though reason seems to me to favour the other view, this 
 one appears to have the earliest mythology rather on its side*. 
 
 But the decision of this point is not material to the determi- 
 nation of the meaning of oYkcuo?, which would, no doubt, denote 
 one who was observant of 81*77, in any or all of its senses. It has 
 been distinguished by some from oato?, as though it applied only 
 to the relation of man to his fellow, while this latter word was to 
 be used when his relation to God was concerned. But even in 
 classical Greek, this restriction of the sense of SYkcuos does not 
 seem to be certain or absolute, and in Biblical Greek it does not 
 hold at all. 
 
 It is, of course, with the meaning of the word in the New 
 Testament that we are chiefly concerned. And this is less to be 
 determined by its etymology, or even by the usage of Greek clas- 
 sical writers, than by its meaning in the LXX.; and this again 
 is to be determined by the meaning of the Hebrew word or words 
 for which it is used in thai translation. The principal of these is 
 p^V> which is derived from p*l¥, signifying to be straight, sincere, 
 just; and its use in the Old Testament accords with the meaning 
 which this derivation would assign to it. It is used of God Him- 
 self; of Rulers and Judges, who represent God; and of private 
 persons, in their relations to God and to each other. 
 
 1 . God shows Himself p^V* Sikcuos, in His just government 
 of the world; in the just exercise of judgment, in the punishing 
 
 * Ilesiod, 9. 900, makes AM the daughter of Jovo and Themis, who 
 was daughter of Uranus and Terra, 0. 135.
 
 NOTE Z. 
 
 of evildoers, and rewarding of them that do well; and in / 
 ness to His promises. 
 
 2. Judges and Rulers receive the name, are D'PH¥ 
 when, in imitation of Him whom thej repre ent, thej ■ in 
 the discharge of the duties of their office, — when thi 
 
 the power entrusted to them in accordance with the rules v. I 
 He has expressly set, or the principles which He approi 
 
 3. Private persons are CpH^. Suceuot, when they 'I" wl 
 is rigid as regards God, and more especially when they oh II 
 law, and so are holy, pious, virtuous, pure. An. I ■ ondly, ben 
 they do what is right towards each other; — when they di 
 
 the duties, whether of perfect or imperfect obligation, which i 
 owe to their fellow men in their several relation , and 
 honest, fair, true, considerate, &c* Bui it is to be remi mix 
 that in the former case, which is the one with which we are D 
 concerned, the word is sometimes used according to man's judg- 
 ment of the individual, and sometimes according to God's, 
 that thus it is applied, sometimes, to all who so obey the law 
 wardly that their fellow men can find no fault with them ; some- 
 times, only to those whose obedience is from the heart, so as to 
 approve itself in the sight of God. 
 
 Now, from what has been said before, it will be und 
 that, whatever be the varieties of meaning of the word Succuof, the 
 same may be expected to be found in the meaning of Sucaiooi 
 In regard to the Most High, it would stand for j 
 ness. And so of rulers and kings. As to men in general, it' 
 Sikcuos be taken to mean one who conforms to the law outwardly, 
 then SiKaioo-vvrj would stand for such outward conformity, it' the 
 former would be applied more strictly, so as to stand for one who 
 not only conforms outwardly to the law, but whose obedience 
 springs from the motives which God requires no Less than the ad ; 
 themselves, then the latter word would stand for thai more p< r- 
 
 " See Ezek. xviii. 5—9, beginning with "But \fa man b 13 
 
 and do that which is lawful and right'' (marg. judgrru ni and 
 nj?nv-1 DSB'P— and ending, after a description in .detail oi the ooun 
 life of such a one, with the emphatic declaration, "J '. ><■ 
 
 surely live, saith the Lord GOD." njjv *}1&j CS3 r,;rv — mn 
 
 In the New Testament, see Luke i. 6, where the Bense in which the 
 word is used is explained in an exegetical clause ; and sx 8 I, when 
 context shows the meaning to be/a»r, ho*
 
 4 SO NOTE Z. 
 
 feet conformity which includes the internal principles, dispositions, 
 and affections. 
 
 And this might seem to be enough to say as to the meaning of 
 the word, but that there i- certainly something more conveyed by 
 it, whether strictly forming a part of its meaning or not For the 
 law i- not merely to be regarded as a rule, but as a penal and re- 
 muneratory rule given by <!<>d to man. It is a declaration of His 
 nature and His will; an immutable standard of right and wrong, 
 good and evil, both in conduct and in principle, which He has 
 sanctioned by eternal punishments and rewards. And, under this 
 view of the Law — its source, nature, and enforcements, — there is 
 naturally associated with conformity to it, the notion of merit and 
 reward. If one really kept the Law as God requires, he would 
 not only give evidence of a certain state of the mind and affec- 
 tions, but he would acquire a certain degree of merit, would gain 
 a place in a certain class, and enjoy the estimation belonging to 
 this meritorious class; he would, moreover, as a matter of right, 
 inherit eternal life (Matt, xviii. 1G, 17); and the great reward 
 would be reckoned to him not of grace but of debt (Rom. iv. 4). 
 
 Now, all this enters, in some way and degree, into the idea of 
 SiKaioavi'i], righteousness, so that the word does not stand merely 
 for a moral quality, or an aggregate of moral qualities, disposing 
 and enabling a man to obey God's Law; nor merely for this 
 quality or aggregate of qualities carried out into action: it in- 
 cludes also some idea of the beneficial results which, as I have 
 noticed above, these qualities so carried out secure to the indivi- 
 dual in whom they are found, — the praise and reward which are 
 due to them under the Law. And in this view, in which Sikcuo- 
 (rvvrj does not simply express the relation of conformity to the 
 Law but also some of the effects of this relation, it is of the nature 
 of an acquisition and a property, being the possessor's title to justi- 
 fication, to approbation and acceptance with God, together with 
 all the blessed fruits of His love and favour in time and in 
 eternity. 
 
 This third sense of hiKawo-vvq is less obvious, and more difficult 
 to define than the others. But it is not less real. And, when 
 attention is given to it, it is not difficult to form a satisfactory 
 conception of it. And it is worth taking a little trouble to fix 
 it clearly in the mind, for it will be found of important use in 
 explaining the Doctrine of Justification. It is not absolutely
 
 WOTE Z. 
 
 essential in order to enable us bo explain the ' 
 
 but it facilitates the process of drawing the true doctrL 
 
 those statements of it in which bhe word 
 
 This seems quite enough, if not more than enough, B 
 meaning of the word. Now as bo its place in bhe o ui 
 Mr Knox thinks that the supporters of "the foren io 
 maintains that (at least in St Paul's statements of the doctri 
 SiKatoavvrj is used as if it were equivalent bo Sucauixric. And be 
 evidently imagines that, in correcting this error, be Lb ov< 1 1 
 an important, if not an essential, part of the proof of their \i- 
 the doctrine. 
 
 But this is a mistake. I do not mean to say that no defend* ra 
 of "the forensic theory" have been guilty of actually confounding 
 these very different words. But I believe that such confusion baa 
 been much oftener apparent than real. It is very commonly 
 indeed, in commenting upon certain passages in St Paul's Bpisl 
 in which SiKaioa-vvrj occurs, that it is there used for Sucatocrve. 
 But I believe that those who make this statement would, gi 
 rally at least, so explain themselves as to show that they mean 
 that the former word is there used for the latter, no1 as if tin- 
 words were properly synonymous, but by a common figure, l>v 
 which a word signifying one thing is used for a word eagnifj i 
 different thing, by reason of some connexion which exists I 
 the two things*. And when it is remembered that to justify is 
 
 " There are, however, some who assign the meaning to Sikuioc 
 without adding any such explanation, and without affording any ground 
 for supposing that they would regard such an explanation as necessary. 
 or even as proper. One of these is Suicer, whose article upon the word 
 is, as usual, rich in Patristical and Ecclesiastical illustrations, but 
 as is too usual with that learned writer, very far from clear and Bath 
 tory in division and definition. He enumerates no less than bu signifi- 
 cations of the word in genere, professing, however, to give but a Few of 
 its various meanings. The first of the six is Justificatw : " Ponitur pro 
 Justificatione, atque ideo pro remissione peccatorum quam obtinemus 
 merito justitise Christi, qua? nobis imputatur per fidem. Be quof 
 number of passages from the Fathers as examples of this sense - 
 of them are, but others of them undoubtedly are not ; while some are 
 too doubtful to be adduced as evidence of the sense in which bhe word 
 was understood by the writer. (Ecumcnius, for example, Beems cl< 
 to give justification as a proper meaning of the word m Rom n 21, 
 22: ducaioffivr) Qeov v irapa Oeou SiSopivv if, rj anb QeoO Smaiwcu ffd 
 nal dwaWa-yr, twv afxapTiC-v. And again in 2 Cor. v. e<o0 Bucatoo 
 £( ipyoiv, dXXa did. cvyx^p^ut StKcuutiTJi-cu. But, Oil the other hand, theru 
 
 31
 
 NOTE Z, 
 
 to declare a man righteous— th&t is, to declare that be is p08S< 
 of riy/Ueousiiess, — and that therefore, righteousness in an individual 
 is the proper ground of his justification, and BO may be said to be 
 its c«»se, it will be seen that, it' oi/ctuoo-iVv; were put for Si/caiWi?, 
 it woidd be nothing more than an instance of the common figure 
 by which the cause is put for the effect. 
 
 It is plain that, in this way, the supposition of such an inter- 
 change of the words would be perfectly defensible, if it were 
 necessary, in order to enable us to explain the texts in accordance 
 with the course of the Apostle's argument in the particular place, 
 or with general principles any where laid down by him. But I 
 do not think that any such necessity exists. And, in fact, I do 
 not think that the substitution, if it were effected, would always 
 express the Apostle's meaning in the places referred to. We 
 should seem, indeed, to be nearer his meaning, in some of them at 
 
 are quotations from Basil in which the word is evidently taken in its 
 proper sense of righteousness. Thus, in a statement of Justification 
 by faith only, which could hardly have been stronger or clearer, if it 
 had been penned by Luther himself: avrrj t? re\ela ko.1 6\oK\r)pos Kavxn<ns 
 iv Q(i2, Sre /j.rjTe iiri biKaiouvvrj tis (Traiperai rrj iavrov, d\,V iryvu) /m£i> ivSerj &i>to. 
 icnirbv oiKaiotrvvr)? &\t}0ovs, irloTti 5i /J-Sfrj rfj as \fjiffrbv 5e5iKaiufxfrov. It 
 
 seems strange that the word should be supposed to be used for justifi- 
 cation here. And the same may be said of two other quotations from 
 the same Father, He gives, besides a passage from Theodoret, one 
 from Theophylact, and one from Macarius, in all of which the sense of 
 the word is too doubtful to make them of any use in fixing the meaning 
 in either way. 
 
 However, my object in referring to the place, was not to discuss 
 Suicer's definition and authorities, but to show the grounds which he 
 gives for regarding him as an exception to the general statement made 
 above. Dr Moses Stuart of Andover, though a less important, is a 
 still clearer case of exception. In his commentary on the Epistle to the 
 Romans, i. 17, he says that, "the word SiKaiccrivr} is the usual one em- 
 ployed by Paul to designate the Gospel justification, i.e. the pardoning 
 of sin, and accepting and treating as righteous. So we find this word 
 plainly emploved in Rom. iii. 21, 22 (comp. vcr. 24), 25, 26; iv. 11, 13; 
 v. 17, 21 ; ix. 30, 31 ; x. 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 ; 2 Cor. v. 21 (abstract for concrete); 
 Phil. iii. G, 9 ; Ileb. xi. 7, et alibi sa-pe." 
 
 In support of this view he gives some reasons which show a strange 
 misapprehension of the point to be proved, but into which I need not 
 enter. But I ought to add that he gives quotations from Turretin's 
 Pradectiones on the Epistle to show that that author agreed with him 
 in the meaning of the word. They are quite sufficient for their purpose, 
 as will appear by the second, which I give in preference, for the sake of 
 the very characteristic note of approbation which Stuart appends to it. 
 "Again, l Justilia Dei — est ipsamet hominis justificatio, seu modus 
 quo potest Justus haberi apud l)eum, et salutis particeps fieri ;' a defi- 
 nition of which one may almost say: Omne tulit punctual ,"
 
 VOTE Z. 
 
 least, if we supposed StKoioorw/ bo band for th 
 who has been justified, than ifwetool it t,,r//„ ,//,■/ 
 ^e was justified. And translating Sueaioo-wi} bj 
 former sense would not be open to the objection which 
 regarding it as equivalent to SikuiWi? (which will only b 
 
 latter sense*), nor indeed to any object] Lerived 6oi irm 
 
 of the wordt. But I do not think that usage would v. 
 a translation; and it is not necessary to deviate in an om 
 
 the more obvious and common translation of the word I 
 translators have rendered it by the word righteousness, never by 
 the word justification. And I do not think thai th any 
 
 more difficulty in deriving the true doctrine of ju m from 
 
 the English Version than from the origin 
 
 But it is time to look at a few of the texts in which the word 
 occurs. I shall take them in the order in which they Btand in 
 
 the Epistles. 
 
 I. And the first text in which the word appears in the 
 Epistles, Rom. i. 17, seems to furnish a very good beginning of 
 such an examination. It is the Apostle's account of the Gospel : 
 hiKaLoavvq yap ©eou Iv avrw diroKaXv-TeTai ix iriorcws tU niortv. 
 Here yap seems to connect the statement in the text with the 
 preceding statement, namely, that the Gospel of Christ is the 
 power of God unto salvation to every one that b< lu 
 first, and also to the Gentile (which is similarly connected with the 
 declaration of the Apostle, that he himself was not ashamed of the. 
 
 * This is said from the form of the word, not from its use; for, 
 though it is found only in that signification, the instances of the use of it 
 are too few to ground any absolute conclusion upon, if the form were 
 indifferent. It occurs but twice in the New Testament, and but once in 
 theLXX. Lev. xxiv. 22, 8«aiWis, Heb. in*>' D£$? E V, om m 
 of law. It occurs in Sym. Ps. xxxiv. (Heb. and EL V. \\v>. 23, for 2 ,_ . 
 
 where we have 8Lk V LXX., and E. V. cause. 
 
 t As SovXoavur, means slavery,— the state or condition oj the 
 5oC\os— so might diKcuoawr) mean the slati or condition of the ngh 
 man, Sfccuos. But the state or condition of one who i- / in the 
 
 way that God has provided in the Gospel is the same as that ol the man 
 who is himself righteous, if such a one could be found. It u arrive. 1 at 
 in a different way, but it is tho same state. 
 
 31
 
 484 NOTB /.. 
 
 Gospel, which again is connected in the same way with the pro- 
 fession of his readiness to jin-arh the Gospel to those that were at 
 Rome also). The way, thru, in which the Gospel is the power of 
 God unto salvation to every Believer is, that in it is revealed the 
 righteousness of God from faith to faith. 
 
 The difficulties of this passage are of little importance to the 
 matter in hand, and, perhaps, not of much, in any point of view. 
 But it is necessary to look at them for a little. 
 
 It is disputed whether Ik ttlot((ds eis iria-riv is to be connected 
 with ZiKa.io(jvvT) Qeou or with aTTOKaXvirrvrai. And Dean Alford 
 gives what he appears to regard as a decisive reason in favour of 
 the latter construction. " It will be observed that Ik tt. eis tt. is 
 taken with dTroKaXvirreTai not with SiKatooi'iT/. The latter con- 
 nexion would do for Ik tt., but not for eis w."* — But might it not 
 with at least equal reason be said, that the former connexion 
 would do for eis tt., but not for e/c tt. ? It certainly seems to the 
 full as hard to make good sense of aTTOKakv-n-Terai Ik tt. as of chkcuo- 
 crvvrj 0eou eis 7r. I should say, indeed, that it is a great deal 
 harder. For, in fact, I do not think there is any real difficulty in 
 giving a satisfactory explanation of this latter phrase. 
 
 I may begin, however, with the easier one, 8. 0. ex tt. The 
 use of eV to denote the means or instrument by which anything is 
 
 " Junius in loc. (referred to by Surenhusius, £t£\os KaraWayrji, 
 p. 436) obviates this difficulty, without stating it, by a transposition of 
 the words: "Hie Grasce et Syre ellipsis relativi, judicio meo, Justitia 
 Dei qua est ex fide, in Ecangelio revelatur injidem, id est, ut homines 
 efficiantur credentes et credendo salutem assequantur, de qua in ante- 
 cedent! descriptioue Evangelii." 
 
 The following is a still bolder mode of dealing with the text which 
 ought to find favour with those who seem to think that a sacred writer 
 cannot have used a word or :i phrase anywhere unless it appears that he 
 has used it somewhere else. See note F, pp. 381, 382. 
 
 Nuperrime, quod miror, Witt. Walliu* in notis criticis super N. T. 
 Anglice editis p. 225 pneter omnium et codicum et versionum fidem 
 lectionem receptam ita solicitavit ut voces th -Kiarw prorsus expungendas 
 censeret. Causas facinoris has affert, quod alibi v. c. iii. 22, iv. 13, ix. 30 
 et x. 6, ubi itidem v e/c irla-rews oiKaioavvr) commemoretur, nusquam rb «/j 
 ttIctlv additum inveniatur, quod prseterea commodo sensu instrui non 
 possit. At non deesse sensum ex dictis patet, ex quo non minus intel- 
 ligitur, Paulum causam habuisse cur hoc loco eas voces addiderit, ad 
 rationem justitise illius, de qua hie prima vice meutio est, rectius ex- 
 plicandam. IFvlfii Curce Philolog. in loc.
 
 KOTK Z. \ ■ 
 
 procured, or the condition (which being fulfilled becoi 
 
 7>ieans) of obtaining it, is by qo means unc mon; and il 
 
 to be a very intelligible and easy transition from tl.it which, II 
 be not the primary use of the preposition, is but one b p n m< 
 from it, viz. that in which it denotes the touree 01 origin from 
 which anything is derived: for the means, or instrument, 01 1 
 dition by which anything is procured, may be consider I 
 source — not the ultimate and proper source, hut the immed 
 and proximate source — from which the thing comet to u 
 this sense, ex is equivalent to Sia with a genitive, ami -«r T >s b 
 the means' by which, or the condition upon w bich, 8. (->,. .,.,,, 
 
 the phrase 8. ®. ck 71-urrtws is easily understood. 
 
 Now as to eis irioriv, — it must be felt to be in St haul'-, 
 manner when he is upon the subject of justification, to l< 
 nothing unsaid which can be thought necessary to make it- pel 
 freeness perfectly clear, and rather to redouble and reitol 
 explanatory phrases than leave any room for doubt upon that 
 point. So here he is not satisfied with stating that this gift of 
 righteousness comes to us by faith. That might be the case, and 
 yet there might be many other qualifications necessary in ord< r 
 that we should receive it at all; and to obviate any doubl upon 
 that point, as it seems, as tt'kjtiv is added. This completes the 
 Apostle's account of his Gospel. Not only does it reveal the 
 righteousness of God as given by faith, but as given to faith ; faith 
 is not merely the channel by which it is given, but it is as it were 
 the object to which it is given, so that wherever faith is, there 
 is the righteousness of God. 
 
 It is very evident that this interpretation of the text makes it 
 just what it ought to be, in its connexion with the verse which 
 precedes it. Being connected with that verse, as was remarked 
 above, by yap, it ought to supply some 1 <>r warrant for 
 
 the assertion made therein, viz., that the Gospel is "the p 
 of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." That, in this 
 way of explaining ets irUmv, it does so is plain. But of the 
 numberless other interpretations of the text which have : 
 proposed, some fail altogether to give the reason required, 
 give it very imperfectly, as "from the imperfect bath of the 
 O. T. to the perfect faith of the N.T.;" or "from the faith 
 (faithfulness) of God to the faith (trust) of them;' or M fcom
 
 48G VOTE Z. 
 
 a lower to a higher degree of faith ;" or, " of faith for the increase 
 of faith;" or, "of faith that faith may be given to it;" "of faith 
 in order that we may believe,'' while some which cannot per- 
 haps be set aside on that ground are open to other objections 
 no less decisive; e.<j. "by faith only" or "altogether of faith 
 in which works have no Bhare;" which seem to be rather supply- 
 ing something that the translator imagines to be suitable to 
 the place than interpreting the words used by the Apostle. 
 Neither of these objections applies to the interpretation which 
 I have adopted. Aud if nothing more could be alleged in its 
 support, it ought to be enough to justify it, that it is a proper 
 translation of the text, and that it draws from it just the sense 
 which the connexion requires. 
 
 But we can go much further than this; for we have, I think, 
 the means of proving satisfactorily that the Apostle's language 
 was actually intended by him to express the sense which has been 
 assigned to it above. 
 
 In the third chapter of this Epistle we have the following 
 remarkable passage : — Nvi't Sc xwpis vo/jlov SiKaioavvr) Qeov 7T€<pavi\- 
 parrai, paprvpovpiivr] vtto rov vop.ov kclI twv TrpofyrjTwv, SiKaiocrw'77 
 Se Qeov Sia 7rtcrT£u>s 'I^crov XpicrTOu cts 7ravTas kolI cVi 7ravTas tovs 
 KLCTTevovTas. Rom. iii. 21, 22. No one can doubt that this is 
 a parallel passage with the one under consideration. But the 
 close correspondence of both these statements of the revelation 
 of Divine mercy which has been made to us in the Gospel will be 
 better seen by placing them side by side, leaving out the words 
 which have no connexion with the matter immediately in hand. 
 
 Rom. i. 17. 
 diKaioavwij . . . Qeov . . . . 
 6.TroKa\v7rTera.i 
 
 ex irlirreus 
 els ttLcttiv 
 
 Rom. iii. 21, 22. 
 
 SiKaioavfr} Qeov 
 
 irefpavipurai 
 
 diKaioavvi] oe Qeov 
 
 81a Trlo~Teus 
 
 th iravTas teal iwl iravTas 
 tovs irio-TevovTas 
 
 The bare inspection of these passages, thus placed in juxtapo- 
 sition, will make it easy to perceive all that I want to draw from 
 their connexion. 
 
 1. I have explained above how ets tc'ujtiv in the first passage 
 may mean to all who have faith, and now no one, I think, looking
 
 NOTE Z. 
 
 at the two passages together, and . wtarw in the I 
 
 corresponds to eh 7rairas kcu «Vi TrdVras tows irwrri in the 
 
 second, will be disposed to doubt thai this i- vrhal it realh i 
 mean. 
 
 2. As SiKawavvrj ©eou is ex pre . in th( 
 passage with eis 7rai'Tas tovs ttio-tci'oi'tus as well as with | 
 
 it will be hardly doubted, T suppose, thai it may be connected in 
 the first passage with eh tticttiv as well as with Ik -iotcws. 
 
 3. And, finally, when it is Been thai Sui r&rrcuc.. 
 
 pressly connected in the second passage with Sucatoowij '-'• 
 with 7T£<^av€pa)Tat, it will hardly be doubted thai in wttmm in 
 the first passage is to be connected not with d7roKaAi'7rrcrai bnt 
 with StKaioavvi] ©eov. 
 
 The repetition, Sikcuoo-wt/ Se Qeov, puts it beyond any que 
 that it is with the noun and not with the verb, that 8ia ttu it i <.>?... 
 is to be connected. And the reason why this repetition '"-curs 
 in the second passage, and not in the first, s< id. nth 
 
 be this: that, in the second passage, some words follow & I \, 
 
 7re<^avepo)Tat with which, to the ear at least, Sia it mighl seem 
 
 to be connected; or which, at all events, if tiny did not render 
 the proper connexion doubtful, so far interrupted it aa t" make it 
 expedient that it should be distinctly marked. There ifl ao such 
 reason for clearing up the connexion in the first passage. I 
 no one will doubt that if there had been the same reason 
 explaining himself there, St Paul would have given the same 
 explanation, and have made it clear, in the same way, that Ik 
 7r. cis it. is to be connected with 8. 0. and not with a7roKaAvrTt7.it. 
 
 I have allowed the temptation of clearing up this poinl 
 take me away much too long from what is my proper bush 
 with the text, viz., the determination of the meaning ..f Buaua o 
 ®eov in it. But this need not long delay us. because if thero 
 be any uncertainty about the words as they stand in the I 
 it may be removed, as in the case of the other pari of t ; 
 which we have just considered, by looking at them in another 
 passage in which they occur, and in which they are explained by 
 the Apostle himself. The passage to which I refer is PhiL iii 
 8, 9 : 'AXAa fiev OVV kcu ^yovixat irivra t,r,plav elvai 8ia to 
 4s yi/wo-cwsXpio-TOv 'I^o-ou TOU Kvpiov fiov, (BlSv TaTTUVTa iZ W titf V v,
 
 4S3 NOTE Z. 
 
 Kal vjyoiyxcu cncvfiaXa tivai iva XpioTov Kepbtjau), kou evptOuJ iv avrw, 
 p.i) t\div iprjv Sucaioorn/i' r>;i' eV vop.ov d\Xd n)v Sid 7r<.'crreu)s Xptarov, 
 
 Trjv Ik Qtov 5iKatooT.i*7/»' tVl Tfl 7rio"T£i") Now from the former 
 
 passages we learned that the distinguishing excellence of the 
 Gospel of Christ is that in it is revealed a SiKaiocrvn; 0cov which 
 is ck 7ri'(TT€a>s eis ttlotiv, Rorn. i. 17, or as it is more fully expressed 
 in iii. 21, 22, Sid 7ri'oTews tis 7rdrras *ai €7ri 7rdvras tovs 7riOTtvoiTas. 
 And here we find that the great blessing which St Paul expected 
 from embracing the Gospel, the blessing for which he cheerfully 
 gave up all his distinctions and privileges, was, that he might win 
 Christ and be found in Him, — having a cukcuoo-vv?; which he de- 
 scribes as not his own, not derived from [obedience to] the law, 
 but that which is Sid 7rio-rews Xpiarov, and eVt rrj ttio-tci. While 
 as a farther correspondence between them, the S. 0eov in Rom. i. 
 and iii. is described in the latter chapter as x°V"S vopov, and that 
 in Phil. iii. is specially noted as p.rj ti)v t« vop.ov. 
 
 That the SiKaiocrvvr) spoken of in the former passages, and that 
 in the latter are one and the same can hardly be doubted. But in 
 the former passages it is spoken of only as Sikouoowt; Qeov, so as to 
 allow the possibility of maintaining, as some have done, that by it 
 he means the righteousness which, whether it be understood as 
 justice or goodness, is undoubtedly an attribute of God, and, more- 
 over, an attribute which is undoubtedly manifested conspicuously 
 in the Gospel. But though the words of themselves bear this 
 interpretation, and though so interpreted they would express a 
 great truth concerning the Gospel, yet, in the connexion in which 
 they stand, this mode of interpreting them would seem to be very 
 unsatisfactory. It would seem much more likely that what was 
 meant was righteousness which had its source in God, but which 
 was given to man by faith, and was given to all icho had faith 
 And that this is really what the Apostle means is put beyond a 
 doubt by the passage in Phil, iii.; for there he expressly describes 
 it not only as rrjv Sid 7ri'cn-£ajs Xpicrrov, but further as -njv Ik Qeov 
 8iK(Li.oo~vvr]v e7rt rrj 7tiot«. 
 
 It cannot be doubted, therefore, that in the passages which 
 we have been looking at (Rom. i. 17, iii. 21 — 22) Sikouoo-vvt] 
 means righteousness, as bestowed upon man, and so belonging to 
 him. Whether, however, it were made his as a personal quality, 
 by infusion, or as a personal property, by imputation, could not,
 
 NOTE Z. 
 
 perhaps, be derived from these texta But then ii no want of 
 texts to decide that question. Those of chapter ir, indeed, upon 
 
 which so much has been said in the Sermons and N •■ par 
 tieularly Note N, are of themselves abundantly suffieii the 
 
 purpose. They show clearly, as has bees pointed out, tfa 
 way of justifying sinners is not by infusing right* 
 them, but by counting, reckoning, imputing right 
 them. (See also what is said in No. 1 1 1, of this Note.) 
 
 After what I have said, it can hardly be aec oosa rj to add, 
 that I do not agree with those who hold that the proper traa 
 tion of the words SiKaicxrvvr] 0€oO ck tti'otcw? i> just 
 faith, or the mode of justification by faith which God hat an 
 pointed. I do not question that this is, as to Bubstance, whal I 
 passage conveys, but I object to this mode of translating 
 because it is not a correct translation of the words Bikoioovvi) <■ 
 and therefore, if it expresses the meaning of the Apostle, it 
 expresses it in a different form of words from that which here 
 and in several other places he himself chooses to employ. II • 
 chooses in this place and elsewhere to speak not of jttsti 
 but of righteousness, as procured by faith. It is true that, 
 righteousness is the title to justification, and as to j the title 
 
 is the same thing under God's righteous government as to po^ess 
 the thing itself, the substance of the Apostle's meaning, as 1 have 
 said, is given in the proposed interpretation. But it is safer and 
 better to adhere to his own form of expressing his meaning, and 
 to translate rather than to paraphrase him*. 
 
 II. In the next place in which the word occurs | Rom. ii 
 it evidently stands for righteousness or justice as an attribut 
 the Most High, and therefore I need not dwell upon it. 
 next passage is Rom. iii. 21—22, which 1 have jusi considered, 
 and therefore may now pass by. I proceed therefore I i the 
 consideration of the next, which is a very importanl one, and 
 is closely connected with this last. Having stated that in 
 Gospel is revealed the righteousness of God by faith unto nil and 
 upon all them that believe, the Apostle adds (23, 24), "For i 
 
 • And the same applies to all the other texts in which it is pro] 
 to regard Sum^i? as equivalent to iucatons. See Suuri ■ enumeration 
 of them, quoted above, p. 482, note.
 
 490 XOTE Z. 
 
 is no difference : for all have sinned, and come short of the glory 
 of God*; being justified freely by EGs grace through the redemp- 
 
 B that is in [or by] Ch: And then he goes on (25, 
 
 : or Tpo€?ero 6 0eos IXacmjpiov Sid r^s T-urreos ev tu avrov 
 aifiaru e - - . tKaiocrvi-?;? oi'tov, 6va r>;v — a'pecr. - " rpo- 
 
 • ovortav afiapnjfid-wv ev ry avo\->j tov Oeov, -pos tt^v IrSei&y 7175 
 Bucaicxrii-r}<; wltoi eY r<2 irv xatp<p, eis to cTvai airoY StVaiov Kai 
 SoctuovtTa Tor ix -tcrr* 5 'I prow : "Whom God set forth to be a pro- 
 pitiatory offering [becoming efficacious] through faith in His 
 blood +. for the ma: : :>n of His righteousness, on account 
 
 of [i.e. Hris - what rendered the manifestation necessary] the 
 passing over of sins committed before, during the forbearance I 
 God [the time, that is, when He suffered all nations to walk 
 in their own way- A - xiv. 16), the times of ignorance which He 
 winked at, xvii. 30], for the manifestation of His righteousness in 
 this present time [in which those who had sinned and come short 
 of the praise of God were yet justified by Him freely, <kc. verse 
 24] that He may be [be proved and known to be] just and yet- 
 justifying [when he justifies] him who is of the faith in Jesus. 
 
 I am passing over a great deal that is very important in this 
 remarkable j a '^hen I confine myself to the inquiry, what is 
 the meaning here of Succucxn-n/ avrov [6. Qeov] ? Is it the rig/ I - 
 ousness (;•■-. of God regarded as a divine attribute, or the 
 righteousness which is bestowed by God upon sinners believing in 
 Christ I think either gives a consistent interpretation of the 
 passage. On the one hand, the ri j which God bestows 
 
 upon believers, derived as it is from the propitiatory offering of 
 Christ, when rightly understood, shows how God is just when He 
 justifies the sinner to whom it is given. And on the other hand, 
 when the rig: which is manifested is understood 
 
 to be His the sense of the passage is still easier. Chris! 
 
 was the lamb without Men 1 without spot, who verily 10 
 
 ■ordained before the foundation of the world, but was not to be 
 sent into the world until the 1 come. His 
 
 " -rr^ii- .- mean- God,— that praise 
 
 which, as a matter of right, would be bestowed bv God upon those who 
 had not sinned, but who had by obedience acquired the righteousn- ■-- 
 which merits and receives His praise. See what is said of the third 
 sense of StxtuotnVij, pp. 480. 4^1. 
 
 t See >"ote P, an; .
 
 VOTE Z 
 
 sacrifice wa.s from the fii ground of the f"iv 
 
 ners; but it w&s not distinctly made known as thi 
 
 which they -were forgiven, until the offering 
 
 And so, though God was really 
 
 before as after the coming of I i 
 
 manifested until Christ was set ft 
 
 through faith in His blood, — not set forth onlv 
 
 nessed his death, but evidently set forth be 
 
 •whom the Gospel "was preached, en - that 
 
 though I have no doubt that the inter] 
 
 righteousness of God here spoken of, the righteousness which !!•• 
 
 bestows on believers, is defensible, I think it i 
 
 fore better, to interpret it as Hisj 
 
 III. This brings us to chap. iv, which is roll 
 the use of 8iko.ioo\-vt] in connexion with the doctiine of Justifica- 
 tion. And I should have a great deal to say upon them 1. 
 but that I have been led to say so much upon them eln 
 The Apostle is speaking of Justification throughout the chapter ; 
 but, except once at the beginning [verse 2. et ydp 'A/Spaa 
 epywv idiK.ai<±>6-/] . . . ], and once at the end [verse 25, na. 
 Bid SikcuWu' i/fLon^], he nowhere employs the verb or noui. 
 which the act is directly expressed : everywhere el- uses 
 
 some one of the forms in which Stxatoarn/ is combined with Xoyi- 
 ceo-Oai, either in an active or passive sense. These I 
 been considered at length already, particularly in N - and 
 
 the second addition to it. I need not, therefor- 
 long Note by re-examining them here ; for though they v 
 noticed in the place referred to for that which is tin pur- 
 
 pose of the present Note— that of explaining and illu- : the 
 
 meaning and use of SiKcuoorn; in the >~ew Testament— 
 the course of the consideration which they underwent, it I 
 have sufficiently appeared that that word is 
 in them in its "proper sense of right W. «* i - 
 
 dered in our version ; and that there is nowhere an;, 
 looking for anv other meaning for it. 
 
 I need onlv add, therefore, that. all the i 
 
 portant uses which these texts may be made I 
 troversv. thev are peculiarly fitted to contribute to what I have
 
 492 NOTE Z. 
 
 kept in view as a subordinate object in this Koto. For as they 
 would be regarded, I presume, by all supporters of " the forensic 
 theory," as furnishing the most important of all the Scriptural 
 proofs of their view of the Doctrine, — inasmuch as they contain 
 the most distinct exposition of the Divine mode of proceeding in 
 the justification of Believers which is to be found in the Bible, — 
 and as in none of them is it necessary to render the word Sikcuo- 
 a-uvrj by any other word than that which our translators have 
 employed, viz., righteousness ; we seem to have in them the most 
 conclusive evidence of the error under which Mr Knox laboured 
 in supposing that it was essential to the maintenance of forensic 
 justification to treat hiKaioovvr) in St Paul's statements of the 
 doctrine as equivalent to SiKauao-is. 
 
 IV. Rom. v. 17, et yap tw tov tvos 7rapaTTTu>p.aTi o 6dva.To<; 
 e/3acrtA.£t'crev Sia tou «Vos, 7roAJ\.ai pdXXov ot rqv 7repto"<reiav rfj<; ya- 
 piros koX t>)s Swpcas Trj<; SiKaiocrvnys Xa/i./3avovT£S Iv £wfj /^acriAev- 
 aovcriv 8ia tou evos 'I^crou Xpicrrcw. Here there is no room for any 
 uncertainty as to the meaning which we are to give to the bmaiocrvvq 
 spoken of, for it is expressly desciibed as a gift. It is evidently, 
 therefore, the 8. Qeov Ik it. (Rom. i. 17), the 8. ©eov 8ia ir, '[rjaov 
 Xfucrrov (Rom. iii. 22), the 8. £k ®eov «rl rfj tt. (Phil. iii. 9), of 
 which we have spoken in the preceding number I. 
 
 Upon the words ol rrjv vepiaaeLav rfjs yapi/ros kcu Trjs Swpcus 
 •7-775 SiKcuocrwTjs Aa/A/SavovTcs, Dean Alford says, " The present 
 XapfidvovTes, instead of Xafiovrts, is not merely used in a substan- 
 tive sense, receptores (as Fritz and Meyer), but signifies that the 
 reception is not one act merely, but a continued process by which 
 the nepicratLa is imparted. (So Rothe, De W., Thol.)" 
 
 I have no apprehension that anything in the way of doctrine is 
 really intended here from which I should be disposed to dissent; 
 but I think it requires some notice. It is said just before that 
 BiKaiocrvvr) "answers to SiKatw/xa in verse 16," which is there ex- 
 plained as "a sentence of acquittal;" and this it is said "in fact 
 amounts to justif cation." Now some who hold that justification 
 is a continuous process as regards each individual who is justified, 
 might suppose that they had the support of this passage, as inter- 
 preted by the above high authorities, if there were not a word of 
 explanation and of caution added. I therefore think it advisable
 
 NOTE Z. 
 
 to say, that, even if we adopt the interpretation which I> 
 Alford prefers, we are not to suppose thai the pro© 
 he says, is shown by the use of the present participle b 
 continued one — is the justification of each individual, but of the 
 whole succession of individuals, who to the cud of time, ai they 
 become believers, are made partakers of the gift. The pro© 
 instantaneous in the former aspect, and continuous is the iatl 
 And if we are at liberty to regard the intimation of contiiiinni-iii.-s 
 or of constant repetition which is conveyed by the present parti" 
 ciple as referring to the process in the latter aspect, we undoubtedly 
 ought to do so, as thereby reconciling grammatical accuracy to 
 doctrinal truth. 
 
 And if it were doubted whether it is allowable t<> treat the 
 force of the participle as capable of this application, I do not 
 think there would be any difficulty in justifying it by ezamplea 
 Thus, Heb. vii. 5, koI ol fxkv i< twv vlwv Aevt rrjv Upartiav \ap(3d- 
 vovtcs ivroXrjv €\ovctlv OLTtoSeKarovv tov A.aoV k. r. A. Here the 
 ceiving of the priesthood was one act once for aU, as regarded 
 each individual, a continued process (in the sens.' « • t" being 'in- 
 stantly repeated), as regards the body. There can be no doubt 
 here that if we are to suppose the present participle used in its 
 distinctive sense, the continuousness which it implies is with n 
 ence to the reception of the office by the body, not by the indi- 
 vidual. 
 
 Thus explained, I can have no objection to the interpretation 
 in question, as regards the doctrine which it conveys; but I 
 must confess that upon other grounds I prefer the simpler U 
 pretation which regards ol \u/*/3avoi'T£s as taken substantively, 
 and as equivalent to recepiores. The Dean does not appear to 
 reject this interpretation altogether, but only to insist upon the 
 other as an addition to it. But I doubt that this is allowable. 
 When the present participle with an article is used substantively, 
 I apprehend that it is divested, like a substantive, of all refen 
 to time. We must, therefore, choose between the two interna 
 tions: we cannot combine them. Fortunately the diflferei 
 between them is not considerable. Those who interpret ol 
 pdvovT€saa = receptore8 of course understand thereby, ool 
 but the receivers— not some but all of those that receive the gift 
 According to Dean Alford's interpretation the deolaiation
 
 494 NOTE Z. 
 
 equally comprehensive : it cannot be more so. The difference is 
 that he finds in it an intimation that the reception spoken of is 
 not one act but a continued process. But if the explanation which 
 I have ventured fco BUggest be adopted, this interpretation would 
 not make the declaration assert anything but what is not only- 
 true in itself but consistent with what it asserts under the other 
 interpretation. For receptores is plainly indifferent to the ques- 
 tion whether there is a succession in the receivers of the gift or 
 not It does not imply that there is, but neither does it imply 
 that there is not. There is then no difference between the two 
 interpretations, as to any matter either of fact or doctrine, so 
 that it may seem hardly worth settling. But we are not to 
 think lightly of any question which seems to involve a principle 
 of interpretation. And I therefore think it right to state that 
 my judgment is in favour of the interpretation which Dean 
 Alford regards as defective. I do not, of course, doubt that those 
 who know a language vernacularly often observe, unconsciously, 
 many of its proprieties of which they would be little able to 
 render any satisfactory account. And 1 am sure that we should 
 be liable to be greatly mistaken if we were to attempt to settle 
 beforehand which of these proprieties would be likely to be 
 observed, and which to be overlooked, by uneducated men. But, 
 as a matter not of speculation but of fact, I am inclined to doubt 
 that the sacred writers did observe the distinction referred to by 
 Dean Alford, so steadily that it would be safe to reason back- 
 wards, and to infer whether a process was continued or instan- 
 taneous from the use of the participle of the present or the 
 Aorist. Thus, in Matt. xxvi. 52 we find, Tra'vTes yap ot Xa- 
 /3oVt€s fidxaipav iv fxayiaipri atroXovvTai. Are we at liberty to 
 say here, " The Aorist XaGoVre?, instead of the present \afx.fid- 
 voi'T«5, signifies that the taking up is not a continued process, but 
 one act" ? This would seem to be just as legitimate an inference 
 as the opposite one from the use of the present participle in the 
 text which we have been considering. And yet, surely, the two 
 cases are precisely the same, as regards every thing that ought to 
 determine the use of the tense. The act referred to by the 
 Blessed Lord is, like that to which the Apostle refers, momentary, 
 under one aspect of it, and under another, continuous. The taking 
 up of the sword is a single act with reference to each individual,
 
 NOTE Z. 
 
 who, like Peter, resorts to arms for offence or defence; bul if 
 a repeated act, and, iu that sense, a continued prooen with 
 regard to those who, in every age, adopt the same ooui 
 
 It may still be said that the use of a differ) •. itli 
 reference to similar acts, or even with reference t>. th< 
 does not show that the writei's or speakers were osing the t. uses 
 loosely or indifferently. Each may have used the tea he 
 employed in its strict and proper sense, the differa 
 from the fact, that they were viewing the act or evenl oi 
 different aspects. This is, no doul>t, true; and I do t tore 
 to say that the reason for the use of the Anrist in this declara- 
 tion of the Blessed Lord, may not be, that lb' viewed the >■ 
 which He spoke in the aspect in which the use "t' th 
 would be a matter of strict grammatical propriety; bu1 I should 
 find it very hard to believe that it really was. Tin- plain pur] 
 of the declaration was to proclaim the fate which was t" attend 
 upon such a course whensoever and by how many Boever it might 
 be adopted. To this object, the relation of the ad t" time 
 plainly of no importance whatever. Whether it wore single or 
 repeated, momentary or continued, would not in any way affect 
 the truth and importance of the warning, or the necessity of giv- 
 ing it, to those who were to be constantly under the temptati t 
 
 resorting to carnal weapons for their defence. And, therefore, it 
 is not easy to believe that the nature of the act in this respect 
 was at all in the Blessed Lord's mind, so as t>> regulate the form 
 of the declaration. But, to the matter in hand, this is a question 
 of no moment. For if this mode of accounting for the differ* 
 of the tenses in the two cases referred to be admitted, while it 
 would show that, both in the declaration of the Lord and in 
 that of the Apostle, the participles may have been used in the 
 proper sense of their tenses, respectively, it would at tl 
 time show that they might have been interchanged, and that 
 the Lord might have used Aa/x/Suvorm, and the Apostle \a- 
 jSovtcs, with just the same propriety. And if this be the • 
 it is plain that an inference as to the nature of the ad from the 
 tense used to describe it must be precarious. And, wh 
 much more importance, supposing Dean Alford, and the eminent 
 foreign critics whom he names, to be right in intern i 
 present participle in Rom. v. 17 signifies that tb noeptUm of the
 
 496 XOTE Z. 
 
 gift of righteousness there spoken of is not one act merely, bid a 
 continued pi-ocess, I trust that, without adducing any other exam- 
 ples, Heb. vii. 5 will be felt to be enough of itself to show that 
 the inference ought not to lead to any interpretation of the text 
 which would make it in any way inconsistent with the true doc- 
 trine of Justification. 
 
 -Many texts in which the word Bixaioo-vvr] occurs remain, and 
 I should find the investigation of them a very interesting occu- 
 pation. But the space which I have been led to give to the few 
 that I have examined has exceeded all reasonable bounds, and I 
 feel that I must pass over the rest. I trust, however, that what 
 has been said upon those that have been noticed may be of some 
 use in removing some artificial difficulties which have been at- 
 tached to the word, and, through it, to the great Doctrine which 
 it is the object of this volume to explain and defend.
 
 QI'EMADMODUM A RESTITUTIONS HUJIJS BT MM] UX I DO l'Klvv I ill.!-- 
 TIAXJE DE NOSTRI JUSTIFICATION K, TOTA RELIGIONI8 NOSTRA BI OTOIPI- 
 ENDA ET PETENDA EST RECONOINNATIO, ET RESTAUKATIO ; IT I I 
 PKOPTEREA AD LOCI HUJUS ELUCIDATIONKM KT BOLIDAM IAI'1.1' \TI 
 CONFERRE QUICUNQUE CURISTI SUNT, ET BJ ONI l BJU8 TORE RXPBTI 
 PR.ECIPUE VERO ECCLESIAEUM MIXISTRI, QTJISQ1 I. PEO SB, Ql [OQ1 tD 
 NINO CONFERRE AD HANC REM DONO OHRIST1 POTERUKT: OONFIDO B 
 OB REM, ET MEUM HOC QUALECUNQUE MINISTERU M. QUOD l.< « ii-il- DB1 
 IN EXPLICANDO ET ADSERENDO HOC Il'sn LOCO l'Ki-1 'ABB -M Dl I. AMAH- 
 TIBUS REGNUM CHRISTI HAUD FORE INfiRATlM. 
 
 Bucer. Disputati mes de Juttific 
 Batisbona habitat, L546. Ep. />■ lie. 

 
 CAMBRIDGE : 
 
 PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. 
 
 AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
 
 
 THE IJBRARY 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF < ALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 I 
 
 • »75i 
 
 .«• 
 
 . • 

 
 ; An attempt t 
 
 B^s&«^aW6^i^><^SJ!rif . 3i
 
 
 n