Page images
PDF
EPUB

the opinion, that, before, the destruction of the Roman empire, the Roman imperial dignities are to be revived; nor does the mistake alluded to interfere with my scheme of Apocalyptic synchronisms, or my general system of interpretation.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

I SHOULD not have thought it worth my while to take any further notice of an attempt to vindicate Mr. Penn's extraordinary view of the prophecy of Gog and Magog, which has been made by your correspondent M. J. A., if that correspondent had not been pleased grossly to misrepresent me in your Number for June last, p. 365. He asserts, that the whole of what I have said relative to the pretended descent of the Scythians from Magog, amounts to this: "That Josephus was not to be believed, when he affirmed the Scythians to have been the descendants of Magog; but that he (the Inquirer) was, when he affirmed the contrary."

In making this assertion, if M. J. A. believed himself to be speaking the truth, he can very little have attended to what I wrote op the subject.....

He represents me as rebutting a mere affirmation of Josephus, by another mere affirmation of my own; and is thus pleased to fasten upon me an absurdity, which is altogether of his own excogitation,

Josephus does indeed make a mere assertion, that, the Scythians (as he acknowledges that people to have called themselves) were the children of Magog: but did I repel this simple assertion by another simple assertion to the contrary; and did I require your readers to prefer my bare affirmation to his bare affirmation, as M. J. A. thinks it expedient to represent the matter? Nothing of the kind. On the contrary, I said, that, if we

CHRIST, OBSERV. No. 164.

believed Josephus, we must believe him on his bare assertion, without a shadow of historical proof.; whereas there was yet extant a variety of historical facts and documents, which absolutely demon strated that the Scythians were not descended from Magog, but from an entirely different patriarch., So far, in short, from requiring the reader to take my bare affirmation in preference to that of Josephus, I distinctly stated, that the affirma tion of Josephus was capable of being easily overthrown by a direct reference to historical documents. These, indeed, I did not bring forward, because they were not cal culated for your publicationa matter which I distinctly stated: but I never either have opposed, or thought of opposing, my bare affirmation to the bare affirmation of Josephus.

So much for my affirmation. In: return, I should be glad to hear some account of one hazarded by M. J. A. He says (p. 366), that

yeva dury may surely be ren dered that same generation. I have always been taught to under, stand, that auros, not doutes, is the Greek phrase which denotes. the same, Your correspondent, however, asserts, that such is the import of dyrn, which every school boy knows to be the feminine of Bros. If he will prove his assertion by a reference to any Greek author, I shall be happy to attend to it; at present I can only say, that I am not aware of i juzas ever bearing such a sense.

AN INQUIRER.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]

Dr. Marsh, I cannot help thinking, would never have brought forward so new, so erroneous, and so dangerous a doctrine upon the momentous subject of justification, if he had not confided in his controversial eminence; if he had not wished to surpass all his predecessors and confederates, as well 'as to overwhelm his antagonists, by some unexpected stroke of argumentation, some unexplored and surprising train of reasoning.

Justification, as explained in the 11th, 12th, and 13th Articles of our Church, is the subject which Dr. Marsh proposes to consider, and, tightly dividing the truth, to draw from them the full view which our church entertains of this most essential point in religion, a view distinguished from the tenets of the church of Rome, on the one hand, and from a fatal error of certain 'Protestants, on the other.

and rendered capable of producing the most salutary effects.

Such are the happy results which Dr. Marsh appears to expect from this his new hypothesis, from this at least unusual inference, which he professes to derive from the authentic representations of the doctrines of our church.

It becomes, then, my business to inquire into the proofs and authorities for this distinction.

1st, I look for this distinction in Scripture, and find no traces of it. There is but one sound, profitable faith acknowledged there, viz. that which "purifies the heart," and "works by love." All other faith is reckoned dead, vain, and useless." Being justified by faith," we are said to "have peace with God;" and if justifying faith thus produces peace with God, it gives surely no mean evidence of its vitality.

"Life and peace," in Scripture, go hand in hand, and constitute together "the spiritual mind." As there is "one baptism, one Lord," so there is "one faith,"-the instrumental cause by which the merits of Christ's death are applied to the believer for his justification and

To follow him through the whole ́chain of his arguments, and to unravel the certainly ingenious sophistry of his fictitious controversialist on the Papal side, would be tedious to your readers, and irrelevant to my present purpose. His capital argument is obviously, and by his own express de-salvation. *claration, the distinction between justifying and lively faith. He says, According to the tenets of our church, justifying faith neither is, nor can be, lively faith."

By this distinction our Articles are to be delivered from their approaching contact with their abhorred rivals, the decrees of the Council of Trent: By this distinction the hitherto foiled defender of the Church of England is to quash the triumphant boast of his subtle antagonist: By this distinction “the numerous inconsistencies and contradictions, in which the doctrine of justification has within these few years been involved," are to be entirely done away; and that doctrine, by these means of course, established upon principles sound and invariable,

2dly, I have recourse to the Articles; and I there only find (in the 11th) a high commendation of the doctrine of justification by faith only, as most wholesome and very full of comfort, and a reference to the Homily of Justification, which is universally allowed to be the Homily of Salvation.

and

3dly, To that Homily, then, I would apply: before its tribunal we are carried: by its test standard we must be tried, and by its decision we must abide. I would earnestly entreat Dr. Marsh to peruse the three parts of this Homily carefully, without prejudice, with serious prayer for enlightening grace, and with an humble willing ness to submit as a anthful son to his mother church; and he would, I think, rise up, delivered from

this vain fancy, which seems to have bewildered his judgment, and established in those principles in which the fathers and martyrs of our church lived and died. In several passages of the First Part the epithets true and lively are expressly applied to that faith which justifies. The following may serve as an instance.

"These three things must go together in our justificationupon God's part, his great mercy and grace; upon Christ's part, the satisfaction of God's justice; and upon our part, true and lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ: which yet is not ours, but by God's working in us. St. Paul declareth nothing on the part of man concerning his justification, but only a true and lively faith."

I will, however, select one sentence, out of the whole series of arguments all tending to the sanie point, which seems to have been written in prophetic anticipation of the Professor and his distinction.

After reciting from the ancient Fathers the cloud of witnesses to the truth" that we be justified by faith only, freely, and without works," we read (p. 21, Oxford edition): "Nevertheless, this sentence, that we be justified by faith only, is not so meant of them that the said justifying faith is alone in man, without true repentance, hope, charity, and the fear of God, at any time and season." And of subsequent works the Homily speak's distinctly in the next sentence: Nor, when they say that we should be justified freely, do they mean that we should or might afterward be idle, and that nothing should be required on our part afterward."

Is it got, then, in the very teeth of this most authentic record of our church-for such the particular Homily on Salvation may be said to be, as it has not merely the general sanction given to itself in common with its colleagues by the 35th Article, but the especial re

commendation of the 11th Article; is it not in the very teeth of this most authentic record; in defiance, however unintentional, of the cou-. federate piety and the collected wisdom of our reformers; that Dr. Marsh advances his distinction between justifying and lively faith? And does not his positive assertion, that it is an absolutely essential constituent of the tenets of our Church, rather argue too slender an acquaintance with those tenets; or, to speak more in the spirit of Christian charity, rather confirm the observation, universally appli cable, that the mist of prejudice may cloud the keenest sight, aud make us put darkness for light, and light for darkness?"

4thly. To adduce at length the authorities, which abound in number, and are each of the highest respectability and weight, among the chief pillars of our church, would be now as impertinent, as it would be in a pleader, after having stated the plain and direct words of an Act of Parliament, to occupy the time of the judge and the jury with the precedents and judgments that have been built upon it. I cannot, however, help referring Dr. Marsh to King Edward's Catechism, to Noel's Catechism, and to Bishop Jewell's Apology; which were, according to Bishop Ran dolph, the first, published by the Royal Authority, and the two latter publicly received and allowed by our church. He will there find no distinction insisted upon, except between a lively and a dead faith. It is lively faith, which in their view is the mean of justification. Unless it be lively, they affirm it cannot be true; and surely it must be true in order to be justifying faith. Vide Bishop Randolph's Encheiridion, vol. i.; King Edward's Catechism, pp. 42~44; Bishop Jewell's Apology, pp. 224226; and vol. ii. Noel's Catechism, 74-76, et alias.

If he requires a Calvinistic interpreter, let him consult Hooker's

Discourse on Justification, Oxford edition, vol. iii.; if an Arminian, Burnet on the 11th Article; and be will find both agreeing in the disclaimer of any faith, as available unto justification, which is not lively.

Even Bishop Bull, from whom perhaps Dr. Marsh would expect support, and to whose general views I would not give an unqualified assent, bears a decisive testimony on the opposite side, with the whole weight, not only of his own opinion, but of his extensive learning. Vide Harmonia Apostolica, chap. vi. §. 2.

Quotquot sunt Ecclesiarum Reformatarum Theologi (pauculis forsan e rigidioribus Lutheranis exceptis vel eo nomine indignis, qui in Reformatorum albo recenseantur) ii omnes consentientibus suffragiis agnoscunt fidem vivam, non mortuam, fidem, quæ conjuncta sibi habet bona opera, imó, quæ sine bonis operibus nec est nec esse potest, fidem illam esse veram et justificantem.

Chap, xviii. §. 8. Atqui hic statuendum omnino est ad primam justificationem opera tantum interna fidei, poenitentiæ, spei, charifatis, &c. esse absoluté necessaria, cætera verò externa opera, quæ in, factis exteris conspiciuntur, signa tantum esse fructusque pietatis internæ et justificationi posteriora, eâque demum lege præstanda, si non desit oportunitas.

If Dr. Marsh is impatient of antiquity, and wishes for more modern light, let him look to Dr. WaterJand, esteemed in his time, and by many since, as the champion of orthodoxy, and he will meet with an express declaration, that "faith, as the instrument of justification, is nothing worth, (i. e. does not justify) if it be not a vital and operative principle."

Let him look to Bishop Horsley, confessedly pre-eminent amongst our contemporary theologians for the soundness of his views, the vigour of his understanding, and the

depth of his learning, and he will find him, in the Charge published by the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, defining justifying faith to be "the first principle of that communion between the be liever's soul and the Divine Spirit, on which the whole of our spiritual life depends." And again, in the conclusion of his last Charge, which well deserves to be placed side by side with the other in the catalogue of our venerable Society, defining "good works" to be "the necessary fruits of that faith which justifies, and the symptoms of the believer's sanctification."

.

[ocr errors]

Some little difference is surely observable between these definitions, and that lifeless inoperative faith, to which Dr. Marsh assigns the office of instrumental justifica tion. Indeed, so unanimous is the opposition which his opinion meets with in all the eminent writers of our Church, in every age, that it must, we believe, be content to rest upon his own ipse dixit, unless the Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity will condescend to avail binself of the ingenious and able, but rather suspicious and ill-oniened, support afforded to him by the noted Mr. Taylor of Norwich, with whose statement in this point he appears singularly to coincide and agree. Vide Taylor's Key," pp. 100, 101.

(To be continued.)

FAMILY SERMONS, No, LXXX. Heb. x. 26.-If any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him*.

PRIDE is the great cause of our departing from God. As the Wise

*The following Sermon is an abridgment of the Eighth Homily of the First Book, entitled, “A Sermon, how dan gerous a Thing it is to fall from God." somewhat modernised, no liberty whatIn this abridgment, though the style be ever has been taken with the authoritative sentiments of our Church. These remain wholly untouched

[ocr errors]

Man instructs us, it is "the begin ning of sin*." And if we thus depart from God, he will also depart from us. While we continue to indulge pride and sin, in vain shall we hope by the most costly sacrifices to re gain his favour, or induce his return. Some depart from God by wor→ shipping idols, as Israel and Judah did; others, by a want of faith and confidence in him, as those in Isaiah's time, who placed their trust in the horses and chariots of Egypt, and put no confidence in the God of Israel; and others, by neglecting the commands of God respecting the exercises of cordial love to our neighbour. In short, all who hearken not to the word of God, "but walk in the counsel and in the imagination of their evil hearts, go backward and not for wardt." For he, whose heart and life are framed according to God's word, and devoted to his service; who meditates in his law day and night, and exercises himself in his commandments, is truly turned to God. On the other hand, the man who is occupied with lying vanities, or has his mind engrossed with this world's business or gain, and his affections set on this world's wealth or honour, is turned from God. He may do many things which appear to be religious, and which may seem in his own eyes, and those of others, to do more honour to God than this inward love of his word and devotion to his service; yet if these be wanting, his other doings are nothing worth; he is plainly turned from God.

This is illustrated by the case of Saul. He was commanded to destroy the Amalekites, with their goods and cattle; but moved partly by pity, and partly by a desire to make a splendid sacrifice to God, he saved Agag the king, and the best of the cattle. With this conduct God was so much displeased, that it repented him that he had made Saul king. And when Saul

Ecolus. x. 13. † Jerem. vii. 24.

endeavoured to excuse his conduct to Samuel, pleading his fear of the people, and his intention to honour God by a sacrifice, Samuel con demned all such religious services as are inconsistent with obedience to God's word: "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice," and to hearken than the fat of rams." "Becanse thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king."

Such examples prove, that as we forsake God, so will he forsake us. And to be properly impressed with the dreadful consequences of such a state, we need only consider the threatenings of the word of God, which are sufficient to cause the stoutest heart to tremble.

The displeasure of God is commonly expressed in Scripture by either shewing us his fearful countenance, or hiding his face from us. By the former is signified his visible judgments, which plainly manifest his wrath-as the sword, famine, or pestilence. But by hiding his face, much more is intended: it implies that he forsakes us, and gives us over. This he does, by withdrawing from us his word, the right doctrine of Christ, and his gracious influence and aid, and leaving us to our own wisdom, will, and strength. For as God has shewed, to all who truly believe his Gospel, his face of mercy in Jésus Christ, which doth so enlighten their hearts, that, if they view it aright, they are transformed into his image, made partakers of heavenly light, and of his Holy Spirit, and fashioned to him in all goodness; so if they should afterwards be negligent, or unthankful, and should not order their lives according to the example and doctrine of Christ, he will take from them his kingdom; that is, 'his holy word, whereby he should reign over them, because they bring not forth the fruit which he expected from them.

« PreviousContinue »