being an instrument, be meant that it is an instrument by which we accept Christ, and embrace the benefit of justification procured by him; he seems not averse from allowing it an instrument in this sense: but urges, that this act of embracing Christ is totally different from the act of justification; since the former is our act, but justification is the act of God alone: and that therefore, although it should be granted, that faith is the instrument of that act whereby we lay hold on Christ; yet it will not follow, that faith is therefore the instrument of justification alsoi: that is, he denies faith to be the instrument of justification; because he understands justification here in the active sense, as the act of God alone conferring it on man: but considered in the passive sense, as that by which we lay hold on Christ, and receive the benefit of justification so conferred, he seems to have no objection to calling it an instrument: and he confesses, in the next sentence, that though, if we will have faith to be an instrument, it can be so only when considered as a work prescribed to us, and performed by the grace of God; yet he confesses, I say, that faith, so considered, may in some sense be called a mean or instrument, as being that by which we obtain the thing which is promised upon that condition: that is, he allows that, though faith cannot be an instrument of justification in the active sense of justification, an instrument on the part of God who justifies; yet it may be an instrument in the passive sense, on the part of man who receives justification from the hand of God. I think I have here represented the learned Bishop's sentiments truly: and it appears to me therefore from thence, that he is not to be ranked among those who reject the instrumentality of faith absolutely. He seems to me to distinguish upon the case, much as our Author hath done: and though he dislikes the phrase, yet he rejects the thing as the instrument of conveyance only, not prorsus naráλngrov est, &c. Harmonia Apostol. dissert. i. cap. 11. sect. 9. p. 11. Conf. dissert. xi. cap. 18. sect. 6. p. 114. i Hunc actum amplectendi Christum a justificationis actu dis dià xaowy et toto cœlo distare; cum sit actus noster, justificatio vero solius Dei. Etiamsi igitur concederemus, habitum fidei esse instrumentum, istius actus, quo Christum amplectimur; qui tamen inde intulerit, fidem esse etiam justificationis instrumentum, manifestissimæ certe inconsequentiæ reus tenebitur. Ibid. diss. i. cap. 11. sect. 9. p. 11. Ut ergo quod res est dicam; Si fidem instrumentum esse velimus, fieri non potest, ut concipiatur alio modo instrumentum esse, quam quatenus opus est ex præscripto, et per gratiam Dei a nobis præstitum. Conditio enim, quatenus præstita est, aliquo modo medium, sive instrumentum dici potest, quo consequimur rem, quæ sub conditione promittitur. Ibid. as the instrument of reception; though he chooses to call it by another name: for, It may be noted, that there is this difference between Bishop Bull and our Author; that the Bishop looks upon faith, considered as the instrument of reception, to be a condition of justification: but Dr. Waterland distinguishes that faith which he reckons among the conditions of justification, from that faith which he makes the instrument of reception. Faith, as a condition, means the whole complex of Christian belief: but faith, considered as precisely the instrument of reception, means only, in his account, the laying hold on grace, and resting in Christ's mèrits, in opposition to our own deservings m. I have observed, that there hath risen of late among us a sect of enthusiasts, who contend, with the old Solifidians, that we are justified by faith alone, in such manner, as to exclude good works from being necessary conditions of justification; admitting them to be nothing more than necessary fruits, signs, or consequents of it. This doctrine hath been lately publicly maintained by one of the chief leaders of that sect; and, in order to support it, he is pleased to claim the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth Articles of our Church, as teaching the same doctrine with him ". As I did some time since publish a Vindication of the Church of England, in requiring Subscription from the Clergy to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion in general; I think it the more incumbent upon me, to take this opportunity of vindicating those particular Articles now mentioned, from teaching any such doctrine as they are here supposed to do: since, if they really could be proved to teach any thing so contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture, I should be so far from defending the requiring subscription to them, that I should most heartily join, as I have there declared P, in pleading against it. I shall therefore here take the liberty of giving a brief consideration of this 1 Si hoc sensu instrumentum sumatur (nempe pro conditione sive instrumento morali) fidem esse unicum justificationis instrumentum omnino negamus: cum (ut jam satis evicimus) etiam pœnitentiæ opera non minus necessaria ad justificationem obtinendam a Spiritu Sancto diserte statuantur. Ibid. He makes faith considered as an instrument, to be as much a condition as repentance. Conf. the foregoing note. Summary View, &c. p. 459. " Mr. Whitefield's Answer to the Bishop of London's Pastoral Letter, p. 24, &c. • A. D. 1739. P Church of England Vindicated, &c. sect. iv. p. 47. matter, as what may properly enough at this time, when such claims are advanced to our Articles, attend upon the treatise of justification now published. Before I enter upon this subject I shall observe, that it is, in general, objected to our Articles, that they are formed upon the plan of Calvinism. Now one of the five points of Calvinism is, that we are justified by faith alone; and therefore our eleventh Article, which so speaks, may be urged as teaching the Calvinistical doctrine concerning justifying faith: therefore I beg leave, for a confutation of this pretence, that our Articles are Calvinistical, to refer to Dr. Waterland's Supplement to the Case of Arian Subscription, vol. ii. where the reader may receive sufficient satisfaction on that head. I now pass on to the Articles themselves. ARTICLE XI. Of the Justification of Man. In this Article it is said, that "we are justified by faith only and not for our own works or deservings." And it is insisted upon, by those I am here concerned with, that the Article hereby ascribes our justification to faith only, in such sense as to exclude good works from being necessary conditions of it. But when the Article teaches, that we are justified by faith alone, it does not mean that all other virtues and good works are to be excluded thereby from being necessary conditions of justification; nor, that faith does more in the business of justification than other virtues do: but that this proposition, viz. "we are justified by faith alone," is true so far only as the word faith signifies such an obedience as is joined with a trust in Christ's merits, and a renouncing all merit of our own, all merit or deservings in our own workss. Such is the faith meant in the Article, Whitefield's Answer, &c. p. 24, 25. 9 P. 374-390. * Summam rei paucis complectar: cum veteres Protestantes docuerunt, sola nos fide justificari, illud non ita intellexerunt, quasi per eam fidem excludendæ essent cæteræ virtutes, cæteraque bona opera, tanquam ad justificationem obtinendam nullo modo necessaria, aut quasi fides plus aliquid ageret in ipso justificationis negotio, quam cæteræ virtutes; sed propositionem istam eatenus tantum ut veram recipi voluerunt, quatenus vox fidei denotat talem obedientiam, quæ cum fiducia de meritis Jesu Christi, ac meritorum nostrorum perfecta abrenuntiatione, conjuncta est, quæque adeo ea opera omnia excludit, quæ cum fiducia et opinione meriti nostri fiunt. Bull. Harmonia Apostolica, diss. ii. c. 18. sect. 6. p. 114. when it is said, "we are justified by faith only." Not such faith as excludes good works from being necessary conditions of justification: but a faith which excludes only such works as are done trusting in our own merits and deservings. So the Article itself plainly limits it. It does not merely say that we are justified by faith only; but explains it, by saying also, in the beginning of the Article, "we are accounted righteous before God, only for the "merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, "and not for our own works or deservings:" which plainly shows, that faith here means only a reliance on Christ's merits, in opposition to any merit of our own; excluding good works from the business of justification no otherwise, than from being pleaded as meritorious, not from being conditions. And the reason why justification is here particularly and eminently ascribed to faith only, is, because, as it is by faith only, of all our virtues, that we lay hold on the Gospel covenant, by which we are justified; therefore our justification may not improperly be attributed to faith alone that being emphatically the instrument whereby we receive the grant of justification: but obedience nevertheless is equally a condition or qualification; though not that act of the mind whereby we embrace the promises, as faith is "; which therefore is said, in the Article, emphatically, or eminently, to justify. And for the like reason it is, that Scripture expresses all evangelical obedience by the name of faith. That what I have been here giving is the true and only sense intended in the Article, we need no other evidence than the Homily of Justification. The Article itself sends us there for a more full explanation of its meaning: and in the Homily we find it actually explained in the sense I have here given of it: which Homily Bishop Bull hath alleged for the same purpose; maintaining and defending + Bishop Bull, after quoting a passage from the Homily of Justification, proceeds thus: Ex quibus verbis clare elucet, quid summum illud sit, quod in negotio justificationis ex Ecclesiæ nostræ sententia fidei distincte tribuendum sit; nempe quod, licet cæteræ virtutes non minus necessariæ sint ad hominis justificationem, quam ipsa fides, ac fides proprie nihilo plus agat in isto negotio, quam alia virtus; quia tamen ex omnibus virtutibus fides una promissum amplectitur Evangelicum, quo justificamur, ideo non incommoda locutione ipsi soli justificatio nostra tribui possit ac soleat; viz. per metonymiam quandam, qua actus ponitur pro objecto circa quod versatur. Ibid. p. 112. Conf. diss. i. c. 6. sect. 1. p. 26. Vid. Summary View of the Doctrine of Justification, p. 455, 456. this to be the plain sense, both of the Homily and the Article, against his opposers y. It is likewise worth observing, that our Articles were compiled, next to Scripture and antiquity, upon the plan of the Augustan Confession, drawn up by Melancthon, as learned men have sufficiently proved. Insomuch that Bishop Bull says, that he who is ignorant of this Confession, will scarce be able to understand the sense and meaning of our Articles a. The Augustan Confession. therefore may be produced as a comment upon our Articles. Now in the twentieth article of that Confession, they acknowledge repentance to be necessary to justification; and yet, nevertheless, they assert that we are justified by faith: and they explain their meaning to be, that, though repentance be a necessary condition of justification, yet we are not justified upon the account of any merit in our repentance, or other good works, but for Christ's merits only: but we cannot lay hold on this benefit any otherwise than by faith; by which we believe that we shall be forgiven, and justified for Christ's sake b. Therefore, the saying that we are justified by faith, is plainly here declared to be consistent with saying that repentance and other good works are necessary conditions of justification. And since this is declared by the Augustan Confession, upon the plan of which our Articles were formed; it is a very fair and equitable conclusion, that our Articles therefore meant not, by saying that we are justified by faith alone, to exclude thereby good works from being necessary conditions of justification. ARTICLE XII. Of Good Works. In this Article it is said, "that good works are the y Bulli Harmonia Apostolica, diss. ii. c. 18. sect. 6. p. 110-114. Examen Censuræ. Respons. ad Animadvers. xxiii. p. 103-106. Apologia pro Harmonia, sect. v. p. 28-34. Conf. Harmon. Apostol. diss. i. c. 6. sect. 1. p. 26. 2 Waterland's Supplement to the Case of Arian Subscription, vol. ii. p. 381, 382. Bulli Apolog. pro Harmon. sect. vi. §. 3. p. 35. a Harm. Apostol. diss. ii. c. 18. sect. 6. p. 110. Quanquam igitur contritio aliqua, seu pœnitentia, necessaria est, tamen sentiendum est, donari nobis remissionem peccatorum, et fieri nos ex injustis justos, id est, reconciliatos seu acceptos, et Filios Dei gratis, propter Christum, non propter dignitatem contritionis aut aliorum operum præcedentium aut sequentium. Sed fide hoc beneficium accipiendum est, qua credere nos oportet, quod propter Christum nobis donentur remissio peccatorum et justificatio. August. Confess. art. xx. De Fide. Vid. Corpus et Syntagma Confessionum, part ii. p. 17. Genev. 1654. • Conf. Bulli Harm. Apostol. diss. ii. cap. 18. sect. 6. p. 110. |