Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

grace. 3. Through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.-4. By faith of Jesus Christ: and 5. That it is not new, but was witnessed by the law and the prophets.

On the first of these points, Mr. Cooper thus ably argues.

“The justification of a sinner has no connection with his own personal obedience either to the moral or the ceremonial law. In the act of his justification his own performances are not taken into the account. The very idea of a transgressor of the law being justified by his past obedience to the law is a palpable absurdity, and a contradiction in terms. While his future obedience not only is the effect, and therefore cannot be the cause, of his justification; but being at the best imperfect, itself stands in need of forgiveness, aud consequently must for ever be excluded from the office of justifying." (p. 32.) The freeness of that grace, which bestows justification, is then contended for.

"The very notion of grace necessarily

excludes all intermixture of works. For

what is grace, but a free, unbought, unmerited exercise of mercy? Such is the act of a sinner's justification, so far as relates to himself. It springs from the exceeding riches of God's grace. It has no respect to meritorious services on the one hand, nor is it influenced by mercenary views on the other. It is not bestowed as a reward for any past performances, nor does it look for a compensation from future obedience. God justifies the sinner freely: imputes to him righteousness without works; which is therefore styled the gift of righteousness; the free gift of many of fences unto justification*." (p. 33, 34.)

But while God thus freely justifies the sinner, Mr. Cooper observes, under the third head, that "He makes full provision for the honour of his perfections. He sets forth a propitiation, which proclaims, in the most signal manner, his awful justice, holiness, and truth." (p. 35.) In other words" the righteousness of God is through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."-"This is the ransom paid for sinners, even the precious blood of Christ." Ib.

"But is every sinner," enquires our author, "alike justified?" To this question the fourth head supplies a satisfactory answer. "The righteousness of God is by FAITH OF JESUS CHRIST, unto all and upon all them that believe." (p. 36.) Faith, as that previously requisite disposition "to which

Rom. v, 16, 17.

the promises are madet," is explained to be "a cordial acceptance of the proffered mercy, and a hearty ac quiescence in this revealed method of justification." (p. 37.) "The gift of righteousness is freely offered to all. Faith is the hand which receives, applies, and appropriates the gift." (p. 38.) And the exercise of this faith is thus distinctly and scripturally explained.

The sinner, hearing the glad message of reconciliation, relies upon it as the word of Him who cannot lie; renounces all other grounds of dependence, confides in the promises given to him through Jesus Christ; and thus gradually finds his guilty fears and doubts removed. With the heart he believeth unto righteousness; and believ ing, he rejoiceth with joy unspeakable, and full of glory." (p. 39.)

Having thus stated with much precision the doctrine of justification, Mr. Cooper presses the reception of it upon his hearers with no less pertinence and fidelity.

"A cordial acceptance of the free gift of justification, is the commencement of true religion in the soul. For what is true reli gion? Is it not communion with God? Is it not confidence in his paterifal love? Is it not delight in his ordinances? Is it not admiration of his great perfections? But can these things exist together with an unhumbled heart? Till the sinner submits himself unto the righteousness of God, the breach which sin has made, remains unclosed. The wrath of God abideth on him. What communion then can he have with the Almighty? With what confidence can he look up to God as a reconciled father? What delight can he experience in religi ous ordinances? With what admiration can he contemplate the divine perfections? Can he glorify that holiness which he refuses to acknowledge? Can he adore that mercy which he disdaius to accept? He may form to himself some notions of religion. He may presume to stand before God on his own merits. He may think to conciliate the favour of heaven by services of his own invention. But such sacrifices are an abomination to the Lord. So long as the sinner forbears to come in the appointed way, in self-renunciation, in humble acceptance of the proffered deemer; the Lord will not respect his of mercy through faith in the crucified Refering." (p. 43, 44.)

The following passage is admirably adapted to the purposes of conviction, and displays, in the choice of its topics and the mode of its reasoning, much acquaintance with the human heart.

+ Acts xiii. 38, 39.

[ocr errors]

"Compare your actions, words, and of the question. He contends, that thoughts, your desires, affections, tempers, justification by faith does not "make and intentions, from the first dawn of rea- void the law," as it "tends, in its leson to the present moment, with the heart- gitimate consequences, neither to searching and comprehensive demands of weaken the obligation to obey the the moral law. Survey, reflected in this moral law, nor to reduce the measure faithful mirror, the number and the mag of the required obedience, nor to nitude of your sins. How repeatedly have you violated the letter of this most holy supersede the necessity of obedience." law, by doing what it prohibits, by leav- (p. 68.) ing undone what it enjoins? How incessantly have you violated the spirit of it? Nay, when did you ever fully comply with its spiritual injunctions? In numberless instances you have evidently broken its precepts. Even in those things, in which you have appeared to obey them, has your obedience been such as is required? In all your best actions, in all your seeming compliances with the divine commands, have you been actuated supremely by love to God, and by regard to his glory? Have not many selfish, inferior, unworthy motives continually interfered? Recollect, if you are able, that one single day, throughout which you have preserved, in the outward and in the inward man, a perfect conformity to the letter and the spirit of the divine law? Recollect, if you are able, that one single transaction of your life, which you could call upon the holy God to witness, as being free, both in the motive and in the execution, from any mixture of selfishness and impurity?

"Weighed in these balances (and they are the balances of the sanctuary) are you not found wanting? Measured by this standard, far from having a righteousness of your own commensurate to the demands of the law, are you not miserably defective? Are you not all as an unclean thing? Are not all your righteousnesses as filthy rags? Thus circumstanced, will you refuse the gift of righteousness? Will you reject the offer of that wedding-garment, in which alone you can be worthy to partake of the marriage supper of the Lamb? Deal not so unwisely. Look forward to the time, when, if you shall have persisted in this refusal, you will be speechless before God, and the assembled universe. Have mercy on your own souls. We pray you in Christ's stead, Be ye reconciled to God. As workers together with him, we beseech you, that ye receive not the grace of God in vain." (p. 46-49.)

Thus far we have followed our au thor through his statement of the momentous doctrine of justification. This part of the subject occupies his second sermon, and the third is devoted to the defence of the doctrine against misrepresentation, and to the display of its moral effects. In conducting this branch of the argument, the author evinces great acuteness of reasoning united with a clear conception

From the obligation to obey God, no lapse of time, no change of place or circumstance, Mr. Cooper argues, can set us free. But in the present case "the very circumstance of a provision being made for remitting the condemning power, establishes the previous obligatory power of the law. And does reconciliation with God diminish the obligation to obey him? Is the sinner less bound to render obedience when he is pardoned and taken into favour, than when he was in a state of guilt, and under the sentence of the law? Can any such conclusion be reasonably deduced from the doctrine of justification?" (p. 59.) Neither does that doctrine tend to lower the measure of that "universal unsinning obedience," which the law retent and spirituality of the moral law quires. On the contrary, "the exform a part of the foundation on which this doctrine rests."

"Why does it teach us, that we must be justified by faith? Because the unsinning obedience required by the law, renders it impossible that we can ever be jus tified by works. Were the law less holy, less rigorous in its demands; were it satisfied with less extensive services; did it require only a sincere but defective obedience; there would then be no necessity for this revealed method of justification. Man, in that case, might be justified by the deeds of the law." (p. 61.)

But does not this doctrine, says some objecter, supersede the necessity of any obedience at all by making works unnecessary to salvation? This objection is shewn by Mr. Cooper to arise from persons regarding justification and salvation as convertible terms, whereas justification is only a part of salvation, "that part by which the guilt of sin is removed, and made between God and man." because this doctrine

peace

But

pation in the office of justifying the sinner, "Excludes obedience from any particidoes it therefore imply that obedience is unnecessary to salvation? Because it declares, that no holiness of heart and life has any share in atoning for sin, or in reconciling us to God, but that these glori

ous privileges are conveyed to us solely through faith in the Redeemer's blood; does it therefore intimate that no holiness of heart and life are requisite to qualify us for the enjoyment of our purchased inheritance?" (p. 66, 67.)

With no colour of truth can this be said. On the contrary, adds Mr. Cooper, this doctrine

"Provides a remedy for the penal con. sequences, which past disobedience has incurred; but it leaves the necessity of personal holiness to rest on the same foundation, on which it always had rested, on which it would always have rested, had disobedience never been introduced; on the impossibility of holding communion with God, and of partaking of his felicity, without possessing corresponding disposi tions, and being made partakers of his holiness." (p. 68.)

For without a holy conformity to the will and image of God,

"Man would be unfit to enter into the presence of God, and unable to participate of the holy felicity of heaven. With out holiness no man shall see the Lord. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Under the dominion of evil, selfish, and tormenting passions, destitute of that peace, and joy, and love, of that devoted ness of every power and faculty to the service and glory of the great Creator, in which the essence of heavenly felicity consists; what meetness would the soul possess for partaking of the inheritance of the saints in light?" (p. 64.)

"How then," as Mr. Cooper justly remarks, “can man be saved without obedience to the moral law? Is not conformity to its most spiritual injunctions indispensably necessary to his salvation? On this ground the necessity of obedience rests." (p. 65.)

[ocr errors]

Mr. Cooper further contends, that the doctrine in question, not only does not make void, but establishes the law; that "far from producing effects unfavourable to the cause of morality," it "tends to strengthen and promote the interests of practical godliness.” For (pursues our author) the method of justification contended for, enforces the attainment of universal holiness, by motives of the most exalted nature and of the most constraining obligation." (p. 69.) These motives, and their practical influence, Mr. Cooper unfolds with great judgment and discrimination; and he reasons this part of his subject with a precision and warmth which display,

*Heb. xii. 14. Matt. v. 8.

at the same time, the exactness with which he has conceived the doctrine, and the holy jealousy which he feels for its moral reputation.

"Does the sinner then seek an evidence of his justified state; of his adoption into the family of God; of his being not under the law, but under grace? He must enquire, whether he can find a work of grace on his heart. Does he experience the sanctifying influences of the Holy Ghost? Is he renewed in the spirit of his mind? Having a hope that he is delivered from the penal consequences of transgression, is he praying, and watching, and striving, that he may be delivered also from the dominion of sin? While he abounds in the comforts of the gospel, does he also increase in humility, in meekness, in patience, in lowliness of mind, in purity, in gentleness, in self-denial, in conformity to the holy law and image of his Maker? Is he a follower of God as a dear child? Does he overcome the world? Is he careful to maintain good works? Does he labour to adorn the doctrine of God his Saviour in all things? Observe what a constraining motive is thus provided to the attainment of universal holiness. Is the peace, the hope, the joy, the consolation of a sinner inseparably connected with the evidence of his interest in Christ? So long as one unchristian temper is suffered to prevail; so long as one evil disposition continues unsubdued; so long as one sinful propensity is allowedly indulged; that evidence on scriptural grounds can never be obtained.

According to the very scheme of salvation, in which the sinner professes to confide, he cannot, till he shall have put on the new man, which after God is created in righte ousness and true holiness, give to his own heart a reason of the hope that is in him." (p. 72, 73.)

This is true evangelical morality, the genuine fruit of a true and lively faith. Compare with it the low and defective views of many of those, who represent their opposition to the doctrine of justification by faith to arise from their dread of the licentiousness of conduct to which it leads, and, perhaps, it will appear that the more probable cause of their enmity is, that "they love not the light, neither come they to the light, lest their deeds should be reproved.

We would gladly enrich our pages with some farther extracts from this admirable discourse, but the limits of our work restrain us. We cannot, however, dismiss it without presenting our readers with the following refutation of that unreasonable, yet ordinary, objection to the doctrine in

question, drawn from the licentious lives of some who profess it.

"My brethren, that too many such characters have at all times existed; that too many such characters do still exist, to the disgrace and sorrow of the christian church, is readily admitted; characters of whom it may be said in the words of the weeping apostle, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things. racters prove? Does it prove that the real tendency of the doctrine, which they affect to hold, is immoral and licentious? Let not such a conclusion be hastily adopted. Confound not the legitimate consequences of the doctrine with the unwarrantable abuse of it. Ascribe not to the doctrine those mischievous effects, which are to be imputed only to the depravity of human nature. Would you argue that the blessings of Providence are evil in their tendency; because mankind frequently pervert them into instruments of sin? Is the medicine proved to be originally bad, because from improper management it becomes a poison? If this mode of reasoning be allowed, will it not equally bear against christianity itself? In every age have not numbers of those, who have called themselves christians, disgraced by their unholy practices their holy calling? Professing to know God, have they not in works denied him? Is christianity, therefore, immoral in its tendency? Are you prepared to admit this conclusion?" (p. 78, 79.)

But what does the existence of such cha

Then addressing those who maintain this doctrine, he adds,

"Is so formidable an objection alleged against your fundamental doctrine? Let your whole life be a refutation of the charge. Are you reproached with the pernicious consequences of your tenets? Labour the more strenuously and circumspectly to shew, by your own example, that the doctrine which you profess is a doctrine according to godliness. Are you called to contend for what you conceive to have been the faith which was once delivered unto the saints? Contend with meekness of wisdom. Contend in the spirit of love. Prove that the way of truth is the more excellent way, by the excellency of the fruits which it displays. Let this be the object of your contention, to excel in good works; to abound more and more in all holy conversation and godliness; by well doing to put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. Finally, my brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtur, if there be any

praise, think on these things. Those things

which we have both learned and received from Christ and his Apostles do; and the God of peace shall be with you." (p. 80, $2.)

The misconceptions which are cur. rent in the present day, even among divines of the Church of England, respecting the doctrine of justification, that articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiae, will suggest a sufficient apology for the space we have al lotted to the review of Mr. Cooper's second and third sermons, in which that doctrine is clearly and scripturally stated, and is guarded at the same time against the possibility of abuse. These sermons contain, in our opinion, a lucid, satisfactory, and affecting exhibition of scriptural truth; and we trust they will prove an efficacious antidote to the errors which some writers, who profess themselves friendly to the interests of vital christianity, have sedulously employed their pens in disseminating. By comparing the two discourses, which have now passed under our review, with Mr. Pearson's Letters to Mr. Overton, Mr. Daubeny's Vindicia Anglicanæ, and a late work of the learned and candid archdeacon of St. Alban's, our readers will be better able to perceive the points in which these gentlemen differ from Mr. Cooper, and, as we conceive, from the Church of England, on this fundamental doctrine; as well as to appreciate, by a reference to scripture, the intrinsic merits of their respective systems.

(To be continued.)

CLVIII. Considerations on the general Conditions of the Christian Covenant, with a View to some important Controversies. By JOSEPH HOLDEN POTT, A. M. Archdeacon of St. Alban's. pp. 110. London, Rivingtons. 1803. It has seldom fallen to our lot to review any work of a controversial nature, which appeared to be written with more christian temper and moderation, than distinguish the tract before us. We enter, therefore, upon an examination of it, with much pleasure; and however we may find ourselves compelled to differ in opinion, as to some points, from the truly respectable author, many of the senti

*Phil. iii. 8, 9.

ments which it contains, as well as the design and spirit of the whole, are so commendable, that it will be our endeavour, in the remarks we make on what we conceive to be erroneous, to detract as little as possible from the estimation to which it is, on these accounts, entitled.

The object of the reverend archdeacon is to prove, that what are usually called the doctrines of grace, include and imply what he styles "the general conditions of the gospel;" that these doctrines and conditions, which are admitted on all sides to be true and necessary to salvation, "stand apart from some particulars of tenet and opinion," (meaning, as we apprehend, the points in dispute between moderate Calvinists and moderate Arminians,) "which, whether true or false, may be indifferently interwoven or detached from them;" and that, in consequence, "a real bond of union" subsists, between the parties who differ as to these points, which, for the peace and welfare of the church at large, ought to be mutually cultivated and improved.

In prosecution of this design, the general tendency of which cannot be too warmly commended, the reverend author begins by stating the conditions or terms of the christian cove nant, as they were propounded by John the Baptist, by our Lord, and his Apostles: viz. repentance, faith, and obedience to the precepts of the gospel. He then proceeds to apply the test which he conceives to be afforded by these conditions, to several leading branches of christian doctrine; and first, to the question of justification by faith only.

It is particularly to be lamented, that neither in this nor in any other part of his tract, has the author declared, in any clear and definitive manner, the sense in which he understands the very equivocal term "conditions." His meaning must, therefore, be collected from the general tenour of his remarks. In stating the meritorious cause of our salvation, nothing can be more satisfactory than the declarations of the learned archdeacon uniformly are. In every part of his work he has most distinctly as cribed our justification before God, to the sole sufficiency of the Redeem er's merits; so that as to this great point, we have only most cordially to agree with him. But when he comes CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 29.

to speak of the way in which the benefits of Christ's redemption are to be obtained, we fear that he will be found, unintentionally we have no doubt, to strike upon the dangerous rock of human merit.

There can be no question whatever as to the necessity of repentance, faith, and obedience, in order to salvation. Nothing can be more certain, than that they are indispensably required of every true christian; and we will venture to assert, that nothing is more generally and unequivocally admitted, or more strenuously con tended for, by those who are peculiarly the advocates of justification by faith only; as may be seen by a reference to the preceding article of our review. But how or in what sense are they "conditions?" to what end are they required? and in what manner are they produced? Here lies the distinction between the opinion of Mr. Pott, and what we conceive to be the decision of scripture and of our church concerning them. Mr. Pott, considering the christian covenant very much in the light of an agreement between one man and another, in which, for the sake of certain advantages to be bestowed by one party, the other binds himself to the performance of certain conditions; apprehends that justification, together with every other benefit of our Lord's redemption, is bestowed as the "covenanted privilege" of those who perform the general conditions of repentance, faith, and obedience; that is in reality, is bestowed in consequence of works done by us, through the assistance (we admit) of divine

grare.

That the representation here given of the sentiments of Mr. Pott is accurate, will sufficiently appear by the following extract from the writings of Dr. Randolph, which Mr. Pott says, gives "a short, simple, but complete and satisfactory statement of the whole matter.", "There are," saith he, "several things which concur to our justification; first, the mercy of God, who through his own free goodness sent his son to be a propitiation for our sins; secondly, the merits of Christ, who by his death made an atonement for us; thirdly, our faith, whereby we lay hold of and plead the grace of God in the manner prescribed by him; lastly, our own good works, which, though they have no Qq

« AnteriorContinuar »