But it will be asked, If these works, though done in a state of sanctification, do neither themselves justify us, nor do render us meet to receive justification, why shall we be judged according to our works? We answer, Because works, though they be not the cause, are yet the proof, of justification; if we have not works, we have not faith; if we have not faith, we are not justified; and by our works will be judged the measure of our faith; by the measure of our faith, the fact of our justification. Yet does not this faith render us meet to receive justification, nor is justification given either for the faith or for the works (for both must contain so much sinfulness as to deserve nothing but God's wrath and damnation); but it will be given for the merits of Jesus Christ, which merits are freely reckoned to man by grace through faith, which faith is manifested and proved by works.

We conclude, therefore, that the scheme of redemption is thus arranged; viz., That justification, being solely by the merits of Jesus Christ, is freely granted to each man on his evincing faith, and that faith is immediately followed and accompanied by a state of sanctification, which state is realised and exhibited in good works; so that justification is freely given in Christ, is received by faith, is declared and proved by works; and thus are we "justified by grace," "justified by faith," "justified by works:" for grace is the primary actual cause; faith, the secondary conditional means; works, the declaratory proof. Grace is essentially necessary in justification; faith is indispensably necessary to justification; works are indirectly necessary as the consequence of justification. Grace is perfect, immutable, admits not degrees; faith is imperfect, wavering, and progressive, admitting degrees; works are imperfect, dependant on faith, and therefore wavering and progressive, admitting degrees. Grace as a perfect cause, and justification as its perfect effect, require no judgement; faith, as an imperfect receiver, must submit to and must be proved by judgement, and works will be its judicial test. Having thus, in a plain and straightforward manner, with an unbiassed and unprejudiced spirit, and in the earnest desire of arriving at truth, examined into the doctrines of justification as it is set forth in Scripture, and in Scripture alone, it will neither be uninteresting nor unprofitable to illustrate and confirm our view of the subject, by seeing how each part of the scheme of redemption-in the order in which we have shown it to come-is typified in the cases of those who received miraculous cures at the hand of Christ; for that such cures, and the means by which they were granted and received, are to be taken as illustrations of the means of justification, we are taught by Christ Himself; for it was to show what power of forgiving sins was possessed by the Son of God, that, on one of these occasions, He said to the sick of the palsy," Arise, take up thy bed and walk."

Now, in examining this cure of the palsied man, as it is related by St. Matthew, ch. ix., we remark—

1st, That the cure was in Christ alone, that it was received by faith (in that, when told to arise, the man believed that he was able to

do so), and that the fruit of it was the power to rise, and walk, and act. So, to trace the analogy, justification is the work of Christ alone, and is received by faith, which is followed by sanctification, or the power to do good works.*

2dly, As it would be absurd to suppose that the sick man could rise and walk before he received the cure; so is it vain to think that man can possess sanctification, or the power to do good works, before he has received justification.

3dly, As the sick man did not think to cure himself, either wholely or in part, but trusted solely to Christ; so neither must we think to justify ourselves, either wholely or in part, but must trust all to Christ.

4thly, As the sick man, when told to arise, did not pause to think whether he could do so, or to plead his weakness, nor trusted to his own strength in the effort, but at once obeyed, confident that sufficient strength was given to him (for that Christ would not give commands which could not be performed); so we, receiving the commandments of God, must not pause because of our own weakness, nor trust to our own means at all, but must simply and promptly obey them, in full confidence that God doth at once enable us to succeed.

5thly, As it is absurd to suppose that the act of believing Christ had any medicinal or healing power, or that the act of rising and walking formed any part of the cure; so it is absurd to believe that faith or good works form any part of the justification.

6thly, As the instant the cure was given it was accompanied by the command, Arise and walk,' and as, had this command not been obeyed, the cure would neither have been granted, nor of any use; so, the instant we receive justification, we receive also the command to do good works, and, unless we obey, our justification will not be available: and yet it is to be borne in mind, that as obedience formed not part of the cure, so obedience does not form part of justification, but is the natural fruit and springing out of that love of God which follows the gift of justification-which love is prompted, nourished, and strengthened by the Holy Spirit.

7thly, As the cure was in Jesus Christ before it was bestowed on the man, so justification exists in Christ before it is communicated to man. As the cure was instantaneous, so is justification an instantaneous act. As the power to walk was continuous, so is a state of sanctification a continuous state.

8thly, As the communication of the cure, the faith, the command, the obedience, the power necessary to obey, and the first effort to rise and walk, were simultaneous; so the gift of justification, faith, the individual reception of the command to work, obedience, the first beginning of sanctification, and the first starting forth to do good

*We hope to speak on this subject more fully on some future occasion, when we shall more completely prove and develope our present positions.

works, are all simultaneous, and therefore no good work can be before justification, and none but the first instantaneous effort can be anything but after justification.

We conclude, therefore, that the justification of man before God is solely by the merits of Jesus Christ; that faith is necessary to receive it; and that this faith, if true, will be immediately accompanied and followed by sanctification, and must be manifested and proved by good works ; which faith and which good works, however, (though taken as the test of our having received justification, at the last day,) do yet themselves form no part of justification whatever, inasmuch as, for their own private character, they must be totally condemned by an All-holy God.

And now, we cannot quit our subject without making a few concluding remarks on the beauty and perfection of the scheme of justification as it is set forth in Scripture and first, we say that the nature of this scheme is of itself sufficient to prove the Divine origin of the Scriptures; for in what system of human philosophy do we find such an idea, or anything corresponding to the idea of justification by faith? What man could have conceived the notion? If we examine the human heart, we shall find that there is no part or organ of it which could have produced such an idea; it possesses no germ from which it could have sprung, no material from which it could have been framed. It evidently, therefore, can have emanated from the mind of Deity alone; and is not the whole plan, method, and arrangement of it worthy of its Divine birth? It partakes of the nature of Him who formed it; it contains the characteristics, and displays the features, of the unfallen, unmarred creation of God, for it is perfect; since nothing can be added to it, nothing taken from it, without spoiling and destroying it. It is majestically simple, since it can be embraced in a word, and comprehended in an instant. It is pre-eminently sublime, since God alone could devise it, God alone execute it. It is essentially and indispensably necessary, since by no other possible or conceivable means could man, under existing circumstances, have been saved. It is beautifully and faultlessly adapted to the necessities of the case, since by it man is perfectly redeemed, God is perfectly glorified; and while it justifies man from the sinfulness of his nature, it justifies God in the excellence of his wisdom and his attributes; for by it the Eternal Mercy is perfectly appeased, and the Eternal Justice is for ever satisfied-Eternal Mercy appeased, in that pardon is a free gift, as regards man; Eternal Justice satisfied, in that no sin is remitted till the full penalty, even to the uttermost farthing, has been paid for it, as regards God. And lastly, it received its final approval, in words more expressive of perfection and completion than were uttered over any other work of God; when He, who could alone devise, alone execute it, stamped it with the character of unalterable, unimprovable excellence, and dismissed it from His hands-saying, "It is FINISHED."

THE HISTORY OF THEOLOGY.

PART I.

34. Scholastic Philosophy.-Before proceeding to the consideration of the Scholastic Philosophy, which occupies so large a space in the history of Theology, we will introduce a few brief remarks on the merits of the question which led to the separation of the Eastern and Western Churches. Subsequently, indeed, the Theology of the Western Church will occupy the whole of our attention; the Greek Church having rapidly subsided into a lethargic quiescence not less deadly to itself than barren of interest.

This debate, as is well known, turned on the question whether the procession of the Holy Spirit was from the Father and the Son, or from the First Person only. Theologians of the Greek Church main tained the latter doctrine; animated partly by the mode, habitual in their schools, of regarding the Father as the origin, root, and source of the Godhead-partly by a natural anxiety to avoid giving any colour to the heretical views of the Pneumatomachi, who sought to establish that the Holy Spirit was created by, and subordinate to, the Son. Fears of a similar nature, lest any support should appear to be given to the Arian heresy, led the theologians of the West to oppose the subordination of the Third Person as a dogmatic verity. Thus a purely speculative question became the overt means of separation between two large sections of the Christian Church. In the new states which arose in Western Europe on the fall of the Roman Empire, learning sunk more speedily and completely than in the East; but the ecclesiastical system still continued in possession of its authority. We shall subsequently make mention of the labours of Isidore (d. 636). A far more original writer, and one who exercised a wider and more lasting influence, was the Venerable Bede (d. 735). Alcuin (804), of York, a pupil in the school of Bede, as the counsellor of Charlemagne, contributed mainly to the revival of both sacred and profane literature which then took place. At that time, the attention of theologians was principally taken up with the questions connected with the worship of images and the Adoptian heresy; but in the following reigns, writers educated in the schools of Charlemagne gave their opinions to the world on several important points. Such were Agobard (à. 840), the Archiepiscopal Reformer at Lyons; Ratramn (868), whom to this day the Anglican Church regards as one of the chief pillars of her theory of the Eucharist; Paschasius Radbert (851), the chief supporter of Transubstantiation; and Gottschalk and Hincmar, the advocate and antagonist of absolute predestination.

35. Contemporary with Hincmar, the representative of the ecclesiastico-theological spirit of his age, was the celebrated Erigena

(d. 877), the undoubted philosophical chief. He it was who transplanted into the Western Church the writings of the Pseudo-Dionysius, the mystical tone of which was too favourable to the interests of the hierarchy not to be cherished and employed.

Such were the first results of the favour and protection shown by Charlemagne to study. But a more enduring activity was evoked at the close of the eleventh century by the sacramental disputes of Berengar (d. 1088) and Lanfrance (d. 1089), and that of the leader of the Nominalists, Roscelin, with Archbishop Anselm (d. 1109), the Father of Scholasticism. The sacramental controversy of Berengar may be considered as the era from which dates the reign of the Scholastic Philosophy. We shall follow in the present sketch the ordinary division, which closes its three periods respectively with the years 1250, 1330, and 1500.

36. During the first period of its existence its professors principally confined themselves to dialectical discussions on the system of faith, which, through the influence of Augustine, had been recognised as that of the Church. Anselm, in his work, "Cur Deus Homo," developed and established the orthodox doctrine of the mediatorial office of Christ on the basis of Scripture testimony and the uniform belief of the Church. But there is this great difference observable between the writings of this early schoolman and those of the third period-that in the latter the sum of orthodox belief is assumed by the dialectical champions of the day; whereas, by Anselm it is proposed as blem, although its incontrovertible truth is admitted. With the name of Roscelin, the most famous antagonist of Anselm, is connected the commencement of the great strife of the Realists and Nominalists on the meaning of Universals.

37. In Anselm, as in Hildebert of Lavardin (d. 1134), the speculative and ascetic tendencies appear to have been fairly balanced: but these severally found devoted representatives in Abelard and Bernard. Abelard, originally a pupil of William of Champeaux (d. 1120), a famous teacher of the Cathedral School at Paris, rapidly surpassed the popularity of his master. His speculative boldness drew upon him the censure of the Church, and with apparently good reason. quote one instance, his mode of establishing the doctrine of Trinity would seem to be inconsistent with the proper personality of the Father, Son, and Spirit.

То

The ascetic and hierarchical element, as represented by Bernard (d. 1158), was speedily aroused against the allurements of heretical speculation. Abelard was silenced by the exertions of this celebrated writer (the last of the Fathers). As a teacher of Gospel truths, and as enforcing the religion of the heart, St. Bernard stands conspicuously forward, not merely in that his labours did much to counterbalance the dry, cold philosophy of the time, but as one who revived the teaching of the Apostles with a warmth and savour which subsequent leaders have hardly surpassed.

38. The dangers of Abelard, and another distinguished teacher,