written in the book of life;" and ending with Bernard, of Clairvaux, A. D. 1130, a period of grossest corruption of the truth. Indeed it would seem that this great truth was, at least formally, the last to be corrupted or denied, although obscured and lost sight of amid overlaying idolatries. We have space now for but one or two of these testimonies of the Fathers to this doctrine as held by our Church, following the teaching of Holy Scripture and the Primitive Church. Clement, in his letter to the Corinthians,* thus writes, in reference to the Old Testament saints, "all, therefore, were glorified and magnified, not by themselves, or their own works, or their righteous doing which they wrought, but by His will: and we also, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or knowledge, or piety, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by the faith, by which Almighty God has justified all, from the first to the last; to whom be glory for ever, and ever, amen." St. Augustine's memorable words, in an elaborate treatise against the notion of human merit, are these: "If you desire to be an alien from grace, boast your own merits." It was not until the twelfth and thirteenth centuries that the schoolmen first broached that false theory of justification, which lies at the root of modern systems of error upon this subject. This theory we shall have occasion to see embodied in the dogmatic decisions of the Council of Trent. And it is the object of this treatise to contrast the doctrine of justification taught by the Romish Church, with the scriptural doctrine taught by our own Church. We are persuaded that the points of contrast between the teachings of the two Churches, upon this subject, are not clearly understood by many in our own communion; and more especially as the Romish doctrine, enunciated in the decrees of the Council of Trent, is enveloped in no little obscurity. A more important reason for the clear exposition of this contrast, arises from the humiliating fact, that a class of divines, in the Church of England, and in our own, hold views closely approximating to those of Rome, and deny that in this point, at least, the Church of Rome teaches very serious error. * Clement, Ep. 2d Cor. 32. † Ennanatio, in Ps. 31. This school took its rise with the illustrious and learned Bishop Bull, and its tenets were first promulged in the English Church by this prelate, in his Harmonia Apostolica Dissert. The doctrine boldly enunciated by him, was the doctrine of justification by works, with the single qualification that the works proceed from faith. To obviate the force of St. Paul's emphatic denial, he asserts that St. Paul's reference, in all such passages, is to ceremonial observances, or works of obedience to the Mosaic law, and not to moral duties. His mode of reconciling St. Paul and St. James upon justification, is accordingly to reverse the usual process, and to interpret the former by the latter, and to reconcile St. Paul to St. James. St. James, upon this theory, teaches that man is justified before God by works, which proceed from faith; and St. Paul harmonizes with this, since all his references to works, in the discussion of the ground of a sinner's justification, are alone to ceremonial performances. This school of divines has found its ablest advocate, in our day, in the eminent Archbishop Whately, of Dublin. In his admirable work "On the Errors of Romanism having their Origin in Human Nature," a work of great value, the design of which is to trace the corruptions of Rome back to their root, in the tendencies of our fallen nature; he purposely omits all reference to the Romish doctrine of justification. It would seem that no finer or more inviting field could have opened before him, than to trace the Trentine theory of justification by our own merits up to its origin in that powerful tendency to self-righteousness, which is, indeed, one of the strongest in our fallen nature. His own admission, in substance, is that the Roman doctrine of justification is not so essentially erroneous, "though they may, perhaps, have made an injudicious use of the word merit." It will be seen, then, that there are those in our Reformed communion who do not hold to any especial antagonism between the Anglican and the Roman doctrines of justification. Far different was the view of one of venerable name and memory, Richard Hooker. "We disagree," says he,-(treating of the difference between us and the Papists, about justification,)— "we disagree about the nature and essence of the medicine whereby Christ cureth our disease; about the manner of applying it; about the number and the power of the means which God requireth in us for the effectual applying thereof to our soul's comfort." We propose to place before our readers the contrast between the doctrine of justification, as held by Rome, and as held by our scriptural Church: to prove that, in the language of Hooker, "the mystery of the man of sin is in the Romish doctrine of justification;" that this error is the provvdos of Anti-Christ: that as Calvin declared, "if this one point were yielded, safe and entire, it would not pay the cost to make any great quarrel about other matters in controversy with Rome." Confronted by the revival of ancient scriptural truth, the Church of Rome was compelled to examine her own doctrines, and to settle anew, by authority, her creed. The result was, the convocation of a general council, by Pope Paul III, in May, 1542, to restore the peace of the Church now disturbed by the progress of the Reformation. Accordingly, in December, 1545, there assembled the memorable council, known as the Council of Trent, from the city where its sessions were held. This council sat at intervals until the year 1564. This great doctrine of justification was the one most vital in their view, and the one most dangerously perverted by the teachings of the Reformers. The divines of that council were exhorted to be "assiduous and exact in their studies" on this subject, "because all the errors of Luther were resolved into that point." The decrees of this council are regarded as the best and truest exposition of the doctrines held by the Church of Rome, and in this essay we shall be careful to set forth the doctrine of Rome in her own authorized standards. I. The Romish and the Reformed Churches differ as to the nature of justification. According to the teaching of the Reformed Church, the term justification has but one meaning in the Word of God. "It is acquittal from guilt. It is a judicial act on the part of God, accounting us righteous, not making us so. It is an act done for us, and not in us. It im parts a relative change in the state of an accused person in respect of the sentence of the Divine Law.* The Church of Rome, on the other hand, holds that justification and sanctification are one and the same. Says the Council of Trent, "justification is not only remission of sins, but the sanctification and renewing of the inner man by the voluntary reception of grace and gifts," or in the language of its most accomplished modern defender, Moehler, "It is a power truly emancipating, dissolving the bonds of evil, and extirpating sin." This, then, is the contrast: The Church of Rome holds the justification of a sinner to be the sanctification of his nature, the extirpation of all sin, the making him truly and personally holy. The Reformed Church holds the justification of a sinner to be the act of God accounting him righteous, his acquittal from guilt, the forgiveness of his sins, and his reconciliation to the favor of God. Here then, issue is made, and we boldly make our appeal to the Word of God, to decide between the two teachings. Deuteronomy xxv. 1, "If there be a controversy between men, and they come to judgment, that the judge may judge them; they then shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked." Proverbs xvii. 15, "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even both are an abomination to the Lord." Job ix. 20, "If I justify myself my own mouth shall condemn me." Psalm cxliii. 2, "Enter not into judgment with thy servant, for in thy sight shall no man living be justified." Romans viii. 33, 34, "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth, who is he that condemneth?" Romans v. 18, "Therefore as by the offence of one, judg ment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." In all these passages it is impossible to assign but one meanBishop Wilson, of Calcutta. †Sess. vi. cap. viii. + Moehler's Symbolism, p. 190. ing to the terms, justify and justification. The forensic or judicial sense is prominent in all. Justification is the opposite of condemnation; it is acquittal from guilt, a declaring to be righteous. But here let us draw the distinction necessary to guard this truth from perversion. We do not deny the great truth of the sanctification of the soul of man. We hold that sanctification is a result following justification; but not justification itself. It is the work of the Holy Spirit upon the soul, given to us at the moment of justification, and in consequence of our justification; renewing and making meet for heaven. See, then, the difference between the two. "The one work external, the other internal; the one a change of state, the other a change of nature; the one perfect and entire at once, the other gradual, and always imperfect in this world; the one entitling him to the inheritance of heaven, the other fitting him for that inheritance."* II. The second point of contrast in the teachings of the Romish and Reformed Churches concerning justification, is in reference to its ground or basis. Here great caution is needed to bring forth clearly the error of Rome, obscured as it is by the scholastic subtleties of the Council of Trent. The doctrine of the Reformed Church is most clearly stated in our XIth Article "of the Justification of Man. "We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings." The doctrine taught here so plainly, is that the ground or meritorious cause of our justification, is solely the merit of Christ. This the Church of Rome anathematizes. Hear the Council of Trent: "Whosoever shall affirm that men are formally justified by the righteousness of Christ, let him be accursed.”† Again, another decree says, "Whosoever shall affirm that men are justified solely by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, or the remission of sin, to the exclusion of grace and * Bishop Wilson on Colossians, p. 66. † Sess. vi. cap. x. |