pists. Oxford and Rome unite in denying the distinction between justification and sanctification, so carefully made by the Reformers and all evangelical divines. The evangelical view of the nature of justification is thus briefly stated by Dr. Alexander:

46

The common, popular sense of the word Justification is exactly the same as its scriptural and theological meaning. When we speak of a person being justified, we never think of an internal change, but a declaration of the condition of that person in relation to some law or rule. The word justify is uniformly the opposite of the word condemn. When a man is condemned, no change is effected by the act on his moral character, but he is declared to be a transgressor. and obnoxious to the penalty of some law; so when a person is justified, no new moral qualities or dispositions are communicated by that act, but he is merely declared to be acquitted from every charge which may have been brought against him, and to have complied with the requisitions of the law by which his conduct is tried." p. 6.

According to this view, scriptural justification implies no change of character, no infusion of personal holiness, but a change of state, a change relative to the law,-the sinner being delivered from a state of condemnation and declared through the merits of Christ, to be in a state of justification.

It must be distinctly borne in mind that sanctification, according to the evangelical view, always follows justification. It is distinct from it in nature, although an invariable attendant upon it in fact. Moreover, this view of justification imperatively demands sanctification, as its legitimate fruit and evidence. Indeed no other view can authoritatively enjoin it. The distinction between the two doctrines is the only true basis from which to enforce scripturally their practical operation upon the hearts of men.1 Oxford and Rome unite in rejecting this distinction.

1. OXFORD, WITH ROME, CONFOUNDS JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTI

BISHOP DOANE.

FICATION.

"Is it easy to draw, in the mere words of inspiration, the exact distinc tion between justification and sanctification?" p. 69.

"The present broad separation of justification and sanctification, as if they were two gifts, is technical and unscriptural." p. 69. Quoted by Bishop Donne.

"Is it not possible that theological statements on this controverted sub

BISHOP M'ILVAINE.

"It is a distinction which the Church of Rome denies; and which the Church of England, with all the Churches of the Reformation, has most earnestly maintained, as fundamental in the Gospel plan of salvation." p. 65.

"The whole of Oxford Divinity is founded upon a denial of that distinction. . . . And this is the key to all the labyrinth of Oxfordism, precisely as it is also to all the sinuosities of Romanism." p. 65.

"The great matter is to keep clear the essential difference between justifi

"No sinner, since the fall, has ever been justified without being sanctified, or sanctified without being justified. But this does not warrant their being confounded; any more than we should be warranted to call justice mercy, and mercy justice, as they subsist in the divine nature, because the two are never found there in separation from each other."-DR. Wardlaw.

BISHOP DOANE.

BISHOP M'ILVAINE.

ject, may become technical, beyond the cation and sanctification; between the

warrant of scripture ?" p. 69.

"What is the Popish error in regard to justification? Is it taught at Oxford." p. 63.

"In truth, Scripture speaks of but one gift, which it sometimes calls renewal, sometimes justification, according as it views it-passing to and fro from one to the other, so rapidly, so abruptly, as to force upon us, irresistibly, the inference, that they are really one." Quoted, page 68.

"Justification and sanctification are substantially the same thing." p. 67.

"This is really and truly our justification, not faith, not holiness (with the Romanist) not-much less—a mere imputation (with the Lutheran) but through God's mercy the very presence of Christ." p. 75.

The last quotation of Bishop Doane develops in peculiar phraseology the Oxford view of Justification. It is "a presence!" This presence"-if any where-is "present " with our thoughts and feelings; that is, it must be ours; something in us truly our own. It is in reality nothing more than sanctification concealed under a new name; as is evident, and as we shall further have occasion to notice,

The Tractarians themselves call this divine presence, or gift, sometimes justification and sometimes sanctification. When pressed for an explanation they do not always like to be "exact and logical."

"Is it the office of the Holy Ghost to be exact and logical? Are we not rather taught in it to choose the mean between what seem to be opposing propositions? As when St. Paul says (Rom. iii. 28) 'a man is justified by faith; and St. James (ii. 24) by works a man is justified?" " P. 69.

"One would suppose that a coast, so undefined would afford but little guidance in keeping the middle way, except as when mariners, under fear of hidden shoals and currents on an unseen shore, keep as far away as possible. p. 36.

This is extraordinary language to be used by a theologian. Justification by a "mean"! And what does this mean? we respectfully ask. Is it that a man is justified partly by faith, and partly by works? If so, it is an "exact and logical" contradiction of the 11th Article of the Bishop's own Church. "on the Justification of man," which says: "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 is this "mean" that which, according to Oxford, is "not faith, not holiness," but "the very presence of Christ?" If so, the language is equally contrary to the Articles and the Scriptures, which know nothing of justification by a "presence," or by a "mean." They are very "exact” in

BISHOP DOANE.

"In the 17th century, the theology of the divines of the English Church was substantially the same as ours [Pusey] is. It was the true Via Media." p. 27.

"The Via Media, even Ovid knew was safest. P. 16.

"Medio tutissimus ibis.”

"Will any one still say, that on the subject of justification, Oxford teaches after Rome?" p. 92.

BISHOP M'ILVAINE.

"This Via Media (qu. Via Appia?) may be an old path, and yet it may not be so old as that Via Stricta, that narrow way that leadeth unto life, of which the Saviour spoke, in which one walks by faith, and of which it is written; Few there be that find it.'" p. 105.

"The doctrine of Oxford divinity and that of Rome, as to what justification consists in, is precisely the same." p. 164.

It appears from the preceding that Bishop M'Ilvaine has a full conviction of the identity of Oxford and Roman justification. Even Bishop Doane has to contend that on this fundamental point, the Bible is not very "exact and logical "[!] in order to vindicate the Tractarians for moving off into the mist. And he is obliged to resort to the invisible Via Media, as the only refuge from the arguments of his friend, who wisely prefers the Via Stricta of Christ and His Apostles.

2. OXFORD JUSTIFICATION, LIKE ROMAN, IS PROGRESSIVE; or in the language of Bishop M'Ilvaine, "Justification, according to this divinity, is progressive, increasing as sanctification increases." p. 77.

ascribing justification to faith alone, and the evidence of a living faith to works. In the passages quoted by Bishop Doane, Paul refers to the former; and James to the latter. The "mean" between the two, no logic," or rhetoric, of the most profound Scholasticism can ever analyze, without detecting Popery in elementary abundance.

1 Bishop M'Ilvaine aptly compares the Tractarians to "mistified mariners turning round and round." "So much [he adds] for losing sight of the true cross! There is all the difference in the world between steering by an object on shore, and an object in the boat." p. 100.

The occasion of this contradiction is explained by Mr. Newman's language. "Justification (says he) viewed relatively to the past, is forgiveness of sin; for nothing more it can be; [there is no room for progress here] but considered as to the present and future, it is more; it is RENEWAL, wrought in us by the Spirit of Him, who washes away its still adhering imperfections, [now it can make progress] as well as blots out what is past." (Doane p. 70.) Or in the language of Dr. Pusey, "It is a state admitting of degrees (although the first act did not.") In other words, justification is progressive, except at its beginning!

3. It may be objected against our view of Oxford justification which confounds it with sanctification, that the Oxfordists MAKE DISTINC. TIONS which separate their tertium quid from the errors of Popery. Let us then attend to this line of separation. In the language of Bishop M'Ilvaine, "Can it be expected that such a point of resemblance between them and Rome could be given up, without at least an attempt at some different showing?" p. 92.

BISHOP DOANE.

Dr. Pusey says "Justification, though productive of renewal, is distinct from it in idea." p. 65.

"This justifying principle, though within us-as it must be, if it is to separate us from the world-yet is not of us, or in us, not any quality or act of our minds, not faith, not renovation, not obedience, not any thing cognizable by man, but a certain divine gift in which all these qualifications are included." Quoted by Doane, p. 66.

"Neither the imputed righteousness of Christ, nor inherent righteousness is that in which a justified state consists; but the actual presence in a mysterious way, or indwelling in the soul, through the Spirit, of the Word incarnate, in whom is the Father." Quoted by Doane, p. 89.

"Our justification, or our being accounted righteous by Almighty God, consists in our being grafted into the

BISHOP M'ILVAINE.

"Of course Dr. Pusey denies it, and attempts to make such distinctions between their indwelling righteousness and what in all theology is called sanctification, as will enable them to hold to the former, without feeling convicted of going back to Rome." p. 93.

"This laborious distinction is unscriptural, unreal, mystical; in so serious a matter, it is mere trifling, and to all pretence of sober, biblical theology, disgraceful. It speaks for itself. Shadowy as it is, however, and vain, it shows to what straits these divines are driven, if they would even seem to keep clear of the downright charge of Popery." p. 97.

1 Oxford Justification is a very marvellous quod libet. It is within us, but not in us-it is not one thing, not another thing, not any thing, but something that includes all things!The reader, by this time, will perhaps agree with Bishop Doane, that Oxford writers are not very "exact and logical." The days of scholastic puzzles have returned; and it is high time to restore St. Duns Scotus and St. Thomas Aquinas to the calendar. Bishop M'Ilvaine says that "Thomas Aquinas is an Oxford man." p. 223.

The language of Hooker represents in its true light, the vain effort of Oxford to escape from Popery. Bishop M'Ilvaine shows, in one of the ablest chapters of his work, that this distinction of Oxford (whatever it be) dates from the schoolmen, and was never considered a departure from the Romish doctrine, being merely the trans. lation of a quiddity into an unknown tongue.1

4. No one who reads Bishop M'Ilvaine's work, can resist the evidence, that Oxford, like Rome, places our justifying righteousness in ourselves and NOT IN CHRIST.

In the words of Bishop M'Ilvaine, "Like Rome, the Oxford di vines ascribe the meritorious cause of justification only to Christ;

1 Bishop M'Ilvaine remarks: "this distinction, instead of being a dissent from Romanism, is of Romish origin. Mr. Newman himself assures us that it was a subject of debate in the Council of Trent, and was left undecided, and is therefore perfectly consistent with its established creed." p. 158.

2 Mr. Newman, in his "Lectures on Justification," calls the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us for justification, "an unreal righteousness and a real corruption," "bringing us into bondage to shadows;"-" another gospel." In regard to these mystical Lectures, there is some difference of opinion: "Mr. Newman's Lectures on Justification is a book, which would engage and well reward the careful study of such minds, so trained, as Horace Binney's, John Sergeant's, George E. Badger's, and David B. Ogden's." Bishop Doane, p. 159.

"Oh this sad, misty divinity, far too scholastic for the pulpit, far too vague and unphilosophic for the study." Bishop M'Ilvaine, p. 97.

It may be well to mention here that Oxford has taken the Platonic philosophy under its special patronage. According to Bishop M'Ilvaine, “ Platonism and the Middle Ages are quite hobbies in the Oxford school. Mr. Newman cannot account for "the close parallelism" between the Republic of Plato and the Church, without adverting to the idea of a "species of inspiration from the same Being who formed the Church!" Much of the mysticism of the Oxford school may be accounted for by its love of Plato. Enthusiasm, mysticism and fanaticism, have been the extravagancies of Platonism."