The Sun.
London, England, 1820-11-13 00:00:00

FOR THE SUN.

The confusion of the Author in this, and other parts of his

Answer, arises from not making a just distinction in Works,
with respect to their motives—upon which all their goodness
depends in the sense of our Articles.
tinder our Dispensation, if Faith in Christ is not the pre-
dominant motive, whatever may be our moral activity, all that
we do " is in the nature of sin, and consequently not good in
our acceptation"—which is the very language of the 13th Ar-
ticle, subjoined. like the 12th, to correct any error that might
arise from the preceding, and perfectly agrees with the senti-
ment of the Bishop, that we must be justified before we have
produced Good Works.

He never means to assert that we were not bound before
Justification to do those Works, which, by the Law of Nature
only may be called good, but which, if totally corrupt, we
should not be able to du; we were even then bound to do
such "works of righteousness as we could in our partially
corrupt state, before the goodness of our Saviour had appear-
ed to Us"—but then, they were such as not having been done
on the right principle, partake not of that goodness, and are
not positively good in his sight.
By the Answer to the Yd Question we might imagine that
all men, once justified, performed their duty—but how much
more consonant to general experience is the truth contained

in the ad?
All the confusion, however, seems to arise here from con-
founding, as before, justitication with everlasting salvation.—
Now by the former is meant admission to the Christian Cove-
nant—which absolves us from our past sins, but Hot from all
past, present, and to couw; henceforth we ghat' by indeed finally
Justified as Heirs of Salvation, if we perform the conditions
of that Covenant te which we ere admitted; and du those
works which are our " bounden duty"—and which " neces-
sarily spring out of a true and lively faith," and which will
be rewarded, as our Lord so often promises by himself and
his Apostles, more especially by St. Paul, who is said to be
so great an advocate for Faith alone, and who is quoted in
the 15th Question as " declaring that God will render to every
man according to his Deeds."
The very same works, if possible, before Justification, not
being performed on a Christian principle, will not meet with
the same reward, but there is a divine Energy beginning with

our first Justification, which we receive at Baptism—that not
only releases us from the Sentence of Condemnation, but
enables us both to will and do after God's good pleasure ; and
will, at last, if we persevere unto the end, lead to our dual
Justification.

The more J reflect upon this part of our subject, I em the
more convinced that the chief reason -of this difference be-
tween our Author and the Bishop, is the want of distinction
between the last and the first Justification—which he will al-
ways confound with everlasting Salvation! and it is to avoid
the fatal inference, that may he drawn from this confusion
that the Bishop has taken, in the first instance, so much
pains to separate them, and basing vindicated before his
opinion of their separation, I need spend but little more la-
bour to make any particular remarks upon many other parts
of this Chapter, which are founded solely upon the erroneous
hypothesis, so frequently confuted, that they are one and the
same.

The first justification is meant, when we art said to be jus.
titled by faith only; because it is only by this right disposition
and assent to the Covenant, that wecan at first be tried whether
we are fit to be a party to it. When OUCC admitted, we shall
so participate in its Divine influence, as continually to bring
forth more and wore those " fruits of a true and lively faith,"
which never could have conic to maturity without that enli-
vening first principle of all righteousness, which alone can
preserve us, as it first made us, faithful to the Covenant, and
in.which fidelity, if we persevere unto the end, we shall also
be finally justified.
There is indeed one example, and a most singular and ex-
traordinary example, quoted by one of the ancient Father.,
of the first and last justification being one and the same, and
that is, of the malefactor upon the cross, who was justified
by faith only, or by that right disposition, which Ha that
could look into the heart was alone able to discern ; and at
the same time to know, that if be had lived, he would have
been worthy, through the merits of his blood, pouring out
for him at that moment, of the Paradise which he so ex-
pressly promised. "If he had lived," says this Fattier, and
not regarded faith and its works, he should have lost his sal-
vation agaiu."
What can prove wore incontestibly than this the Scriptural
accuracy of the Bishop's 4th, sth, 6th, and 7th Questions, all
bearing upon this point ?
A man may be endued with faith that shall justify, or admit
him to the Christian Covenant, and yet, if he carry not that
principle into his life and practice, but suffer it, like the
young man in the Gospel, to be choked by the riches or
other temptations that are scattered in his way, to prove
him, though at first he may not be far from the kingdom of
Heaven, yet, falling short of the Commandments of his God,
he shall at last fall short also of his glory.
A man may have faith sufficient to carry him to a certain
point, and no further; there may he at one moment good
dispositions, even 'amounting to holy resolutions, which yet
may be checked in their course by the passion, that so easily
besets us, and leading the life, we shall meet with the death,
of unbelievers. The faith by which we were once justified,
was only a general, historical belief in the truth of Chris-
tianity, residing only in the memory and understanding, not
in the heart, and not the " true and lively faith,"-which is
known as a " tree by its fruit," and being barren, shall be
cut dowa for the fire, as fit for nothing else, and not like
that tree, which brings forth here its fruit in due season,
and shall hereafter flourish with everlasting wisdom, in the
paradise of God.

A. JR.

HOLY ORDERS.
(No. V.)
In my Reply to the Pamphlet upon Episcopal
Innovation, I observed that the former Article was addressed
to the Romanist', who believed to inherent righteousness,
went about to establish their own righteousness, and so a fund
for their church of human merit; and in orr that thenwho
believed in the other extreme might not receive the least
sanction ; if his 19th Article was framed to soften any expres-
sion that might appear to disparage good Works, as a means
of saltation--of which it is probable that some men had taken
advaatoge, to shelter their own vices—as if they could he
justified by Faith alone, without any regard to human con-
duct—and for this purpose, this Article is subjoined to the
former, which was published ten years before—to set aside all
the pretensions to salvation of such h 3 pocrites as profess to
believe in Christ, and yet belie their profession by their life

and practice.
This Article therefore maintains that though Good Works
cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's
judgment, yet, are they pleasing and acceptable to him, and
though they can boast no merit to put away sin, nor -perfec-
tion to endure the severity of his judgment.—they are never-
theless acceptable in his sight, and indeed from the sequel of
this Article they spring out necessarily of a true and lively
Faith, which by them may be as evidently known as a tree
discerned by the fruit"—though therefore they must not be
considered as meritorious or sufficient of themselves—yet,they
are necessary and absolutely indispensable to salvation.
In the Answer to the first of the Bishop's Questions upon
this Article, so harmonious with its spirit, a glaring absurdity
meets us in the onset : by this Answer, we arc bound to do
Good Winks before Justificatii , though then, according to
the same Author, me were totally corrupt and by conse-
quence totally incapable of doing them—therefore by his
argument, we are positively bound by God to do what is ab-
solutely impossible.