consummated by heed and watchful ness. And where is faith? that faith which was afterwards, as we have seen, so carefully separated by our own Homilies, from all other virtues, and held up as the sole justifying principle? We are bold to say, it is here not only exeluded, but excluded upon system and principle. And we must own, the whole plan on which these doctrines proceed appears to us little else than a secret and indirect, though civil, method of getting rid of faith altogether, as of no consequence in the work of justification, till from being made of no consequence, it dwindles, as in the above quotation, into an invisible point; and like one of the infinitely small quantities in the mathematics, at length vanishes into nothing! *

But to proceed with our quota tions (we should rather say our disclaimers) from the succeeding documents of Mr. Todd - They must be all of the same nature. The real Protestant view of justification was but one at home or abroad; and we cannot help again repeating our surprize, that it should never have struck Mr. Todd, notwithstanding some verbal agreement in the language of the "Necessary Erudition," and of his other documents, that such agreement could only be verbal; when, in fact, the whole Protestant code, the entire corpus confessionum, on justification, was more or less drawn from Luther, whose opposition to the popish views on this subject was intense, and who, whilst he was the source of the Augsburg *« Adversarii videri volunt magnificè ornare doctrinem bonorum operum. Et tamen de his spiritualibus operibus, de fide, de exercitiis fidei in invocatione, in omnibus vitæ negotiis, consiliis, et pericalis,nihil dicunt: ac ne potest quidem rectè dici de his exercitiis, si conscientiæ relinquantur in dubitatione, si nesciant Deum requirere fidem, tanquam præcipuum cultum, &c."-See Augsburg Confession extracted by Mr. Todd himself,

p. 157.

Confession quoted by Mr. Todd, was also at the very time in high controversy with Henry VIII. himself, from whose authority the "Necessary Erudition" was so far derived as to be denominated "the King's Book."

But we turn to the "Reformatio Legum," which remarks: "They are not to be listened to, who impiously impugn the doctrine of our justification, founded on Scripture, according to which, we must hold that the justification of man is not to be made to stand on the force and efficacy of works [non operum momentis justitiam hominum collocari.]" p. 112.

Here it is to be noted, that the Papists allow, as much as we do, the merits of Christ to be the sole moving cause of all other merit. (See Hooker above.) Consequently the opposition here meant is not between works and Christ's merits, but between works and faith, the first of which are here expressly excluded, as the means of attaining justification.

Again: Take the words of the Forty-two Articles.

"Justification by only faith in Jesus Christ, in that sense as it is declared in the Homily of Justification, is a most certain and wholesome doctrine for Christian men."

Is it possible for any thing to be a more blunt and plain denial of all the obscure, garbled, and guarded statements of justification by faith, after all amounting to nothing, which we have met with before in the "Erudition?" Never was there a more remarkable change of opinion in so short a space of time. The authors of the "Erudition" were beyond measure careful that justification should not be exclusively by faith. The documents of Cranmer and King Edward were grounded on the principle that it could never be too clearly understood to be by nothing else. It is quite obvious that the sentiment in the two cases was of an opposite nature; and the similarity, where

t existed, was merely verbal. "Cranmer and the Lutherans," as Collier says, "had a pious sense at bottom" but whatever it was, it was not the sense of Gardner, nor of the real framers of the "Necessary Erudition."

The next two articles of King Edward are nearly the same as our own; namely, on "Works before Justification," and "Works of Supererogation." On these we shall only remark, that it is very singular that Mr. Todd has given us nothing out of the "Institution" or "Erudi tion" to match them. We conclude, therefore, that they sprang out of principles adopted subsequently to those two publications, if not in opposition to them. We apprehend that the article on supererogation, in particular, is expressly levelled against that doctrine of human merit which is fostered by every page and line both of the "Institution" and the "Erudition." And what will be said to us if we aver our stedfast opinion, that the article against "works before justification" was precisely aimed at the afore-mentioned declarations of our semi-popish Reformers, which held "works before justification" to be necessary in order to procure justification, and whose whole doctrines of penance, or "acts of penitence," initial desires, satisfaction, charity, &c. led to, or rather supposed, a claim prior to justification either of condignity," or at least of "congruity"? We may be wrong in the immediate purpose which we assign for the formation of these two articles: but certainly the use and value of them were never so strongly and irresistibly impressed upon our minds, as upon the occasion which Mr. Todd has afforded us of so conveniently and fully collating and contrasting them with the preceding declarations.

In the "Brevis Catechismus," the same statements meet us as in the other Protestant documents; except only that our justification is here made much more strongly to pro

ceed from our “eternal election in Christ," and faith only is represented as a fiducial confidence in the merits of Christ, and as given to us for no works whatever of our own, but from the alone free mercy and grace of our heavenly Father. This faith justifies, or rather reports to us our justification; works being the necessarily attendant gift. We are surprised that Mr. Todd should have left these Calvinistic statements without a comment. But we leave them, as he does, for the present.

In Jewell's Apology we have the same disclaimer of works as the justifying principle, though with the express and uniform addition that true faith will be active: “ nihil præsidii in operibus"-yet, "vera fides viva est nec potest esse otiosa." (p. 139.) — Harding, the great popish antagonist of Jewell (and a greater controversialist never, perhaps, graced or disgraced any church), has himself done us the favour of commenting on this very passage of Jewell's Apology, and has particularly "elucidated" the term

66

præsidium," by his own "Catholica Institutio." In the defence of the Apology of the Church of England, contained in Jewell's Works (fol. London, 1610), p. 301, we have the following notable comment of Father Harding quoted:" With what face," says Harding, "can these defenders affirm that they teach the people to walk in good workes, whereas beginning the treatise of workes in this present Apology, they say that we have no help or aid in our works and deeds? For so their Latin word præsidium doth signify, which, in the English, is turned into meed. What, masters, is this the way to make men work well, to tell them before-hand that their works be nothing worth, and that they help them never a whit? Why, then, let the labourer's proverb take place, I had rather play for nothing than work for nothing. Is there any labourer so mad as to work for nothing? First, ye tell the

the remains of sin are freely pardoned. Therefore we must always feel that we obtain remission of sin, and that our person is pronounced righteous, that is, accepted freely, through Christ, by faith; but afterwards, that obedience paid to the law doth please, and is reputed a sort of righteousness, and merits rewards. For conscience cannot oppose to the judgment of God its own cleanness, or its own works, as the Psalm testifies, Enter not into judgment,' &c. But after that the person is reconciled and made just by faith, obedience pleaseth, and is esteemed a sort of righteousness, as John says, 'He that abideth in him sinneth not;' and Paul, Our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience*.'"

Again: "Of this obedience we teach, that those who commit mortal sins are not just, because God requires this obedience, that we resist sinful affections. But they who yield to them, against the law of God, and act against conscience, these are unjust, and retain neither the Holy Spirit, nor faith, that is confidence of mercy. For in those who delight in sin, and act not repentance, that fiducial trust cannot exist which would seek the pardon of sint."

The whole amount of these passages, properly considered, is this: We are justified, reconciled to God, accepted and made righteous before him, through faith only; but being accepted and reconciled, we must, of duty and necessity, bring forth good works, which are, one and all, the fruit of faith previously exercised. Further, if we do not these acts of righteousness-if we do not lead a holy and heavenly life, but give way to the indulgence of our corrupt passions and affectionswe do, in fact, lose our principles; our faith fails; we are fallen from grace. On the contrary, persever

"Item docent, quod cum fide," &c.

ing in a holy and righteous course. we are well pleasing to God; we receive from him larger measures of grace, to become still more holy and still more full of good works; and God is pleased, at last, to reward these good works, so produced by faith, and so persevered in to the end, with eminent blessings, not only in this life, but also in the world to come. Nor can any one, for a moment, doubt the substantial truth of these statements? Though some Christians fear the use of the term "reward" as at all applied to our poor deservings, yet is it not a doctrine strongly implied at least, in Scripture, that our bliss hereafter shall be in proportion to our advancement in holiness here; and that God is well pleased with the obedience of his justified servants? The converse is equally undeniable, that wilful disobedience and rebellion are inconsistent with a state of grace, and indicate a separation from the covenant of mercy, and a departure from that faith which alone produces an interest in it. But what mention do we find here of two kinds of faith; one, justifying; the other, not justifying, although it be the commencement of the Christian life? What is there here of improving that justification by which, through faith, we are accepted in JesusChrist? What is there of the meriting, not rewards, but everlasting life itself? that everlasting life expressly described by St. Paul as "the gift of God;" but described by the "Necessary Erudition" as meritoriously obtained by a perseverance in faith, hope, and charity. Where do we find the initiatory works of penance, contrition, &c. prior to a renewed justification, and conducive to it? Where do we find even the term "condition" applied, as of force, and we might say, of right, upon our side, no less than God's promise, upon his side, to impart justification? The term "condition," it is true, we somewhat freely use in the present day on all hands, claiming still

a safe conduct to all our Protestant principles. But the very term condition is disclaimed by the genuinely Protestant Augsburg Confession, and this, as given by Mr. Todd himself. "Although the Gospel requires penitence, yet that remission of sins may be certain, it teaches that they are freely forgiven; that is, not depending on the condition of our worthiness, or on account of any preceding works, or the worthiness of those that follow. ...So will remission be assured to us, when we know it depends not on the condition of our worthiness, but to be given for Christ's sake." (p. 145.) Is it possible that this could have been brought by a reflecting person (and such we unfeignedly beleve Mr.Todd to be), in elucidation of the uniform declarations of the "Necessary Erudition ?"-But it is time for us to advance towards a conclusion.

One head still remains, but one which needs not long detain us; namely, that

-

4. On good works. We are seriously as tired as we fear our readers must be of this invidious task of discrimination. We would willingly find in the "Institution" and "Necessary Erudition," all we wish to find in them, and all we do find uniformly and without exception in the other documents quoted by Mr. Todd. We would willingly forget the wrong doctrinal use made of "good works" by the " Erudition," as effecting or completing justification. We would confine ourselves to the kind of good works which it prescribes as accompanying faith, and leading to justification. We would even forget here all that we have heard about this said " Necessary Erudition," prescribing a multitude of good things as available to salvation; things not prescribed by the holy Scripture, such as Ave-Marias, Auricular Confession, Masses, Pray ers for the Dead, the Use of Images, Extreme Unction, and, in short, the Seven Sacraments. If we could but find in our own quotation, given in

the former Number, all that satisfied our Protestant taste upon the subject of good works, their nature and essence, as performed through Divine grace, we would say no more. And, in truth, we find there much to commend. We find a very correct delineation of what good works really are; and a very remarkable disclaimer of those popish and pretended works of merit, which had been the source of so much profit to the Church of Rome, and which, strange to say, are retained totidem literis, in other parts of the same Institution and Erudition. Religion is made, in that part which we have given from Mr. Todd, a work of the heart; and charity, in very deed that "charity which never faileth."

Where, then, have we any disagreement? We must mention two points. One is with respect to those initial " good works" with which our very quotation from Mr.

"In which kind of works many Christian men, and especially of them that were lately called religious (as monks, friars, nuns, and such other), have, in times past, put their great trust and confidence." (Necessary Erudition. Todd, p. 38.)-We are constrained, however, on this measured and slender dis. claimer, to remark, that it seems to us little better than a time-serving compli ment to the tyrannical Henry, who had cast his sacrilegious eyes on the temporalities of these Christian men, monks, friars, and nuns; whilst the grand "Mysterium Iniquitatis," or "mysterium MERETRICIS MAGNE BT BESTIÆ," so feelingly deplored as not revealed as it ought to be, at this very time, by Cranmer, and so eloquently, not to say angrily, hunted down in our own Homilies afterwards, is left here untouched, under the general charitable appellation of "Christian men"!! Nay, says our Homily," whoever denieth faith, &c. is not to be accounted a Chris. tian man." It is "the pharisaical and papistical leaven of man's feigned religion." "To be short, look what our Saviour Christ said of the Scribes and Pharisees; the same may be boldly, and with safe conscience, said of the Bishops of Rome....." "They and their adherents are not the true Church of Christ, &c." Yet "all-all-Christian men,' according to "Necessary Erudition."