of the whole condition, as fummed up in the baptifmal vow, but the outward acts and exercises of obedience in the day of trial. And what may be the reason why thefe are not required at first ? Why furely this, and no other, that time and opportunity are needful for their full performance. That this is the true reafon appears from hence, that the difpofition to fuch acts is required at at all times, and the act alfo is required when the day of trial is enlarged." Remarks, p. 5.

We request the reader to confider the tendency of the Bishop's doctrine as we have stated it in his own words, and then to judge for himself, if it contain any thing at variance with the import of this extract from the Remarks now immediately under our review. It is true-his Lordfhip fays that the condition of our juftification at first, or at our admiffion to the ftate of grace, is faith only, and confidering the tendency of the age to the Solifidian herefy, it might have been prudent, perhaps, to have omitted the word only; but furely no candid man, who fhall read with attention the whole chapter on juftification, faith, and good works, can for a moment fuppofe that the Bifhop of Lincoln gives the smallest countenance to that herefy.

With refpect to the firft of thefe two particulars, therefore, which called forth thefe Remarks, it appears to us that the only queftion really at iffue between the Bishop and his friendly opponent, is about the ufe of one word. That word indeed might certainly have been omitted in fuch a view of, juftification as has been moft judicioufly taken in the Refutation of Calvinifm, of which the object was not to enter into minute diftinctions of a metaphyfical kind, but to guard from error the faith of the members of the Church of England.. Juftification is however fometimes understood as implying our readmiffion to that state which was forfeited by the fall of Adam, and recovered for us by the death and refurrection of Chrift; and of juftification in that fenfe, faith may be confidered, though not perhaps as the only condition, certainly as the condition, xxxv. Juftification was in this fense underflood by Warburton, whofe doctrine seems to be lefs generally comprehended than it deferves to be, as we fhall endeavour to fhow, when we have confidered the Remarks made on the fecond particular, which gave occasion to the tract before us.

"The point," fays the learned remarker, "may thus be stated. In order to reconcile the feeming difference in the language ufed by two of the facred writers when they freak of faith and works in terms which appear to vary, St. Paul in fome fuch teftimonies

4

is

is thought to speak of works under that notion of them which is proper only to a covenant of works, for which reafon he excludes them from the meritorious caufe of our falvation, confining that to the Redeemer's merits; and becaufe works are fo excluded, and the Redeemer's merits form the plea of faith, justification is by him faid to be by faith. He speaks therefore chiefly and principally of the meritorious caufe of our falvation, and urges that against the Jews. On the other hand, St. James is thought to fpeak of works as they are required in the terms or conditionsof the covenant of grace, confining his view to that branch of the fubject. This makes a perfect harmony in their doctrine." P: 27.

This was the doctrine of the late learned and excellent Dr. Pearson, in his Remarks on the Doctrine of Juftification by, Faith, published in the vear 1802. It is more clearly stated in that tract than in the Remarks under our prefent review; and as the reader may wish to fee it in its author's own words, we have only to refer him to page 410, &c. of our twenty,third volume. To Dr. Pearfon's doctrine the Bishop of Lincoln has made the following objections, though, the Doctor agrees with his Lordship in the very accurate diftinétion, made in the Refutation of Calvinifm, between, juftification and final falvation.

"It is manifeft," fays the bishop, "that the merits of Chrift cannot be fubftituted for faith in the 11th article of our Church, to which Dr. Pearfon refers his idea of meritorious cause. The words of the article are, We are juftified only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jefus Chrift by faith, without our own works. or defervings. For faith, fubftitute the merits of Christ, and thenthe propofition will be,-"We are juftified only for the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jefus Chrift, by the merits of Chrift, withoot our own works and defervings.' To fay nothing of the tau.. tology introduced by this fubftitution, the juftification of man becomes perfectly gratuitous and unconditional, and we are required neither to act nor to believe-a doctrine which Dr. Pearfon will be very far from fupporting. The word faith in this article, is the only one which conveys the idea of a condition to be performed, on the part of man, and is clearly diftinguished from the merits of

In the article it is" We are accounted righteous."

In the article it is" and not for our own works as deferv-ings." In the Latin copy of the article, the whole first claufe runs thus-Tantum propter meritum Domini ac Servatoris nof.. tri Jefu Chrifti, per fidem, non propter opera, et merita noftra, jufti coram Deo reputamur."

Chrift,

Chrift, to which faith owes its efficacy. If Dr. Pearfon would write in the three articles upon juftification, and in the whole of the celebrated paffage in the epiftle to the Romans, the expreffion the merits of Chrift inftead of the word faith, wherever he meets with it, I am perfuaded he would admit, that the merits of Chrift✨and faith are not fynonymous terms, in the language either of our Church or of St. Paul when fpeaking upon the fubject of juftifica tion *."

To this the author of the remarks ander review replies. for Dr. Pearfon.

"It is urged that the texts will not bear this interchange of phrafe, because faith and the merits of Chrift are not fynonymous; this is true and because this change alters the fenfe in those places; which is alfo true. But the doctrine which puts the me rits of Christ as the main thing which is oppofed to legal works, or to works of any kind when wrought for legal ends, and we may add to faith too, is, notwithftanding, unquestionably true, and forms the main drift of the apoftle in thefe very texts. The change of phrafe fo properly objected to is entirely needlefs in thofe paffages, or in any text, to enable them to bear the fenfe intended. The inaccuracy lies in making that change. Let the word faith keep its place and its import alfo, it will still be true that when St. Paul fpeaks of juftification by faith, as oppofed to juftification by works, the main thing which he intends is juftifi cation by Chrift's only merits, and for this indubitable reafon that by no other confideration than the merits of Chrift are works. of any kind excluded.

"The very article of our church, which is referred to by the diftinguished writer who objects fo juftly to the change, of phrafe, fhews that they who framed it, took the oppofition between the merits of the Redeemer, and all ground of human merit, to be the main thing intended, and not a mere oppofition between faith and works. Who are juftified, faith the article, only for the merit of our Lord Jefus Christ (by faith), and not for our own works or de. fervings; and therefore without faith too, or having any fuch de fert; and if that be not the main thing in the fentence, which puts a negative upon every thing elfe that is contained in it, we fhall: never find the principal affertion in any propofition. It is plain then from the article, that the oppofition there chiefly intended is not between faith and works; by enclosing the words (by faith) in that fentence, this appears more clearly, and is not defigned as an artifice in quoting t.

Refutation, &c. p. 128.

+ The words per fidem are actually inclosed between two commas ; in the Latin edition of the articles, which is at leaft of as great authority as the English.

"Allowing

5

Allowing then that there is a proper oppofition in the fcripture-teftimonies between faith and works, in order to defcribe what belongs to faith, yet to what does this amount? Does it refpect faith as the receptive means? This is granted, and in that capacity faith does ftand alone. Does it confider faith as the fummary condition? This is alfo granted; but in this refpect faith implies its own effects. Does it regard faith as the main principle of the Chriftian life? This is likewife granted; but obferve well that faith in this respect is taken for a moral principle, and not one which produces its effects by neceffary confequence as mere figns, in which cafe it could have no connection with a state of trial. But where then is the oppofition between faith and works? It lies precifely in that point where works are excluded as not ferving to establish any claim of debt. But has faith any fuch privilege? They who fay fo, must give faith a merit and a claim which would equally difplace the Redeemer's merits, and overthrow the covenant of grace. But ftill faith is named fome. times, and not works; and an oppofition is fuppofed and granted. How then is this to be maintained? The answer is, that the phrase "by faith" is ufed fometimes moft properly to exprefs the whole difference between juftification by any covenant or claim of works, and juftification by grace, in which the grant is freely given and received, and in which alfo the grant is received by faith." (Remarks, pp. 32, 34, 35-)

This we confefs appears to us a complete vindication of the means by which Dr. Pearson reconciles the doctrines of St. Paul and St. James; whilft it is by no means at such variance with the Bishop of Lincoln's doctrine of justification by faith, as his Lordfhip himself feems to imagine. The difference between the two doctrines-if they be indeed two -is but a mere fhade, which can be productive of no prac tical confequences on those who read with attention the whole of the Bishop's chapter on the fubject: and we have no helitation to fay that even Bishop Warburton's theory of juftification by faith has no tendency whatever to produce the neglect of good works. Of that theory the author of the Remarks before us thus expreffes himself.

"There is a fenfe indeed in which faith has been put for the fole condition by one eminent divine, who has endeavoured to abstract it from its fellow graces. The reafon which he gives is, that faith in Chrift is that which is alone peculiar to the gospel; the general duties of good life being in their own nature the perpetual requifites under every difpenfation. This is the view of the fubject which Bishop Warburton has taken, and which he

In the ninth book of the Divine Legation, &c.

has

has carried to a great length, with perfect fingularity of fentiment. He puts faith as the fole condition of the gospel (covenant) from firft to laft. He ftrikes out all other parts of the condition not as laid afide, nor as ceafing to oblige, but as not belonging to the gofpel-covenant, and yet he declares them to be the very ground and requifite fupport of faith itself." P. 7.

This is not a view of the theory of Warburton from which the reader can derive any accurate knowledge of that theory itself; a theory which, in all that is effential to it, is very far from being fo fingular as the remarker feems to imagine. In the learned author's attempts to illuftrate it, he advances indeed feveral paradoxes, which feem to be very fingular; whilft they difplay nothing of that learning fublimed by genius, which render even the paradoxes advanced in the former books of the Divine Legation, both interefting and inftructive to the found fcholar. Though the effentials of the theory had probably been often revolved in Warburton's mind whilft all his faculties were in full vigour, he seems not to have begun to arrange them in a fyftematic form, until the commencement of that decay, which fo ftrongly marked the declining years of his long life. Hence we find all that is valuable in the ninth book of the Divine Legation, transcribed from his own fermons, and other works, which had been long in the hands of the public; whilft fuch adjuncts of the theory of redemption and juftification as he deemed neceffary to its illuftration, can ferve no other purpose than to excite prejudices against the whole, in the minds of those who will not take the trouble to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Warburton appears to have fet out on the two following principles, of which, in the opinion of the present writer, the truth of neither can be called in queftion;-1. That no created being, not even the highest angel in heaven, is natu rally immortal; and 2. That every moral agent is entitled from a God of perfect goodness, to fo much more happiness than mifery, during the period of his existence, as to render that exiftence on the whole a bleffing, or preferable to non-existence, provided that the agent labour, though not always with complete fuccefs, to difcharge the duties refulting from his relation to his Maker and Preferver. If either of these propofitions be falfe, the whole of Warburton's theory is a balelefs fabric, and muft inftantly fall to the ground; but if they be both true, much of it will ftand immoveable as a rock. The fecond propofition flows obviously from the moral attributes of God; and in fupport of the firft, fo much has been faid by us in our various articles on the War. burtonian controversy, and on other topics nearly allied to

it