It is often regarded as a mere difference of opinion on a metaphysical question respecting the nature and definition of faith; but on deeper inquiry into the grounds on which the Sandemanian doctrine rests, and the arguments by which it is maintained, it will be found to resolve itself into one of the most important questions which ever engaged the attention of the Church. For that question, considered in its widest extent, and reduced to its ultimate analysis, amounts to this,-Whether the work of the Holy Spirit in applying to men individually the redemption purchased by Christ, and producing faith and repentance in them in order to their Justification, be, or be not, inconsistent with a free Justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ? Sandemanians are anxious to reduce faith to a mere intellectual assent, and to exclude from it trust, affiance, and assurance, with everything that is spiritual or holy, or that can be regarded as a moral duty,—for this express reason, that were it considered as including any of these fruits of the Spirit, or as being an act of moral obedience, we must be held to be justified by 'a work.' But this reason involves the tacit assumption that faith is itself the righteousness by which we are justified,—for if it be not that righteousness, but merely the means by which we receive and rest on the righteousness of Christ, it may be, as the Protestant Church teaches, a fruit of the Spirit, a holy principle, and even a moral duty, without implying the slightest departure from the doctrine of a free Justification. Let faith itself be excluded, as well as every other grace, from forming any part of the ground of our acceptance, and the work of Christ for us will still remain the only righteousness by which we are justified, while the work of the Spirit in us may be acknowledged in all its fulness and efficacy, as that by which alone we can be so

united to Christ as to become partakers of His righteousness. Instead of an intellectual, we may have a spiritual, apprehension of divine truth, and instead of a cold assent, a cordial consent, to the Gospel, without impairing in the slightest degree our reliance on Christ alone. The relation of the work of the Spirit in us to the work of Christ for us is one of the most important subjects in Theology. (19)

The HOPKINSIAN Theology, which sprung up in America early in last century, had an important bearing on the doctrine of Justification, because it rejected the imputation both of sin and of righteousness and traces of its influence may be discerned in the writings of many transatlantic divines, such as Prof. M. Stuart and Mr. Albert Barnes. If the fundamental principles of representation,substitution,-imputation,-and satisfaction, be discarded or tampered with, the ground, on which alone the scriptural doctrine of pardon and acceptance with God can be maintained, is undermined; and the Newhaven Theology would present but a feeble barrier to the inroads of Socinianism. But America has furnished a sufficient antidote to these errors in the writings of many distinguished theologians, especially in those of the venerable Dr. Hodge, and his associates in the Princeton Theological Review' and 'Essays.' The subject of Imputation will come under our notice in the sequel. (20)

The enumeration of so many diversities of opinion is apt to create, in some minds, a feeling of perplexity, instead of conveying useful instruction. But that feeling may be mitigated, by considering first, that whatever may be the fluctuations of human opinion, the word of the Lord'— the only rule of faith-is, like its Author, unchangeable

—'the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever,' and that this is His word which by the Gospel is preached unto us;' while the subordinate standards of all the great Protestant Churches have continued all along to bear their united testimony to the truth which was established at the Reformation; secondly, that the Scriptures teach us to expect differences of opinion, amounting even to heresies and divisions in the visible Church, and not only so, but to believe that they are wisely permitted, and will be overruled for good, by Him who can bring order out of confusion; for 'there must be heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest;" thirdly, that in point of fact, controversy has been the great means of defining the truth in all ages of the Church, and a powerful corrective of partial and one-sided views of it; and lastly, that, after all the discussion which it has undergone, the question of Justification may be reduced to two simple alternatives-since our pardon and acceptance must depend either on the free grace of God, or the free-will of man,and rest either on the imputed righteousness of Christ, or on an inherent righteousness of our own. These are the ultimate alternatives on the subject of Justification, and no one need feel much difficulty in deciding between them, if the opposite errors of Legalism and Antinomianism be both excluded by affirming the equal necessity, and the inseparable connection, of the work of Christ for us, and the work of His Spirit in us, for our actual salvation.

11 Cor. xi. 19.

LECTURE VII.

HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

THE

HE Church of England has often been described as the great bulwark of the Reformation,' and in some important respects the statement is true. The strongest Nonconformists have cheerfully acknowledged their obligations to the learning, ability, and sound piety of many of her divines. Their writings are a precious legacy to the universal Church of Christ,—an armoury richly furnished with all needful weapons in defence of the common faith,-and a storehouse of spiritual instruction for minds of the highest culture. They did signal service at an early period to the cause of the Reformation; and Protestantism is indebted to them for some of the ablest refutations of the errors of Rome. 'The Church of England,' says one who was thoroughly versed in the Popish controversy, contained then' (in the reign of Charles II.), 'as it had always done, men of great talent and consummate learning, ready and willing to contend for the cause of truth; and the works then produced by the divines of the Church of England not only constitute a very important part of the Popish controversy, but form one of the noblest monuments of talent and learning which any Church has ever erected in any one generation of its history. Besides many large treatises, in which particular subjects in the controversy between Protestants and Papists were elaborately discussed, an

immense number of smaller discourses were published, in which every topic bearing upon the points in dispute was illustrated with great success. Most of them were afterwards collected together by Dr. Gibson, Bishop of London, and published in three folio volumes under the title of "A Preservative against Popery," which is a complete storehouse of valuable materials upon every department of the controversy.' (1)

Such was the well-earned character of the Church of England in her earliest and best times. But, if we are to believe some of her modern divines, she never was distinctively Protestant, and was always fully more in accord with the Church of Rome, than with the Churches of the Reformation. In saying so, they refer not merely to her having retained the Episcopal form of government, and some of the litanies, ceremonies, and vestments of the Church of Rome, but also to her having rejected, or at least refused explicitly to sanction, the peculiar views of the Reformers on some important points of doctrine, and especially on the doctrine of Justification. They affirm that the 'Articles of Religion,' and even the 'Homilies,' do not contain that doctrine, as it was taught by the Reformers, but another, which is clearly distinguishable from it, and which they hold to be the only one that is truly Catholic and Apostolic. They have not attempted to prove that the German and Swiss Reformers, as a body, did not hold the commonly received doctrine of a free Justification by grace, through faith in Christ,— for they might well feel that any such attempt must be utterly hopeless; but they have endeavoured to raise a doubt, in the first instance, whether the same doctrine had been received by the framers of the Articles and Homilies, and then ventured more boldly to affirm that she differed from the first, and that she differs still, from

N