as such, renews the heart; Augustine says, a loving faith;-Luther would call faith the tree, and works the fruit; Augustine, rather, the inward life or grace of God or love' the tree, and renewal the fruit. The school of Luther accuse their opponents of selfrighteousness; and they retort on them the charge of self-indulgence: the one say that directly aiming at good works fosters pride; the other, that not doing so sanctions licentiousness.

Such are the two views of justification when placed in contrast with each other; and as so placed, I conceive, that as the former is a perversion of the truth, the latter comes short of it. What is wanting to complete it, we learn from other parts of St. Austin's writings, which supply what Luther, not finding in Rome, expressed in his own way. I say this, lest I should appear to be setting up any private judgment of my own against a Father of the Church, or to speak of him as I might speak of Luther'. St. Austin doubtless was but a fallible man, and, where he opposed the voice of the Catholic Church, is not to be followed; yet others may be more fallible than he; and when it is a difference of opinion between

1 Non enim fructus est bonus, qui de caritatis radice non surgit. De Spir. et Lit. 26. On the other hand, Luther says, "Qui volet fructus bonos habere, ab arbore incipiat, et hanc bonam plantabit; ita qui vult bona operare, non ab operando, sed a credendo incipiat. De Libert. Christ. f. 8.

2 It is but fair to Luther to say that he indirectly renounced the extravagant parts of his doctrine at the end of life; (that is, the distinctive parts. Vid. above, p. 10, note.) Laurence, Bampton Lectures, iv. Note 14.

one mind and another, the holy Austin will weigh more even with ordinarily humble men than their own thoughts. The Roman doctrine of justification is not complete, because St. Austin, and the other Fathers, go beyond it: the doctrine of the continental Protestants is extravagant, because the Fathers interpret Scripture otherwise. What the Romanists omit, St. Austin contains; but the Protestants in question distort it to the denial of other truth. St. Austin contemplates the whole of Scripture, and harmonizes it into one consistent doctrine; they, like the Arians, entrench themselves in a few favourite texts. Their great Masters, men of original minds, spoke as no one before them; St. Austin, with no less originality, was contented to minister to the promulgation of what he had received. They have been founders of schools; St. Austin is a Father in the Holy Apostolic Church.

F

LECTURE III.

PRIMARY SENSE OF THE WORD JUSTIFICATION.

PSALM Xxix. 4.

"The Voice of the Lord is mighty in operation; the Voice of the Lord is a glorious Voice."

ENOUGH has now been said to make it appear that the controversy concerning Justification, agitated in these last centuries, mainly turns upon this question, whether Christians are or are not justified by observance of the Moral Law. I mean, this has been in matter of fact the point in dispute; whether, or how far it has been a dispute of words, or went to the root of the question doctrinally, or to the root of the difference between them ethically, considerations which I do not now dwell upon, but mention by way of explaining my meaning. That in our natural state, and by our own strength, we are not and cannot be justified by obedience, is admitted on all hands, agreeably to St. Paul's forcible statements; and to deny it is the heresy of Pelagius.

But it is a distinct question altogether, whether with the presence of God the Holy Ghost we can obey unto justification; and, while the received doctrine in all ages of the Church has been, that through the largeness and peculiarity of the gift of grace we can, it is the distinguishing tenet of the first Protestants, that through the incurable nature of our corruption we cannot. Or, what comes to the same thing, one side says that the righteousness in which God accepts us is inherent, wrought in us by the grace flowing from Christ's Atonement; the other says that it is external, reputed, nominal, being Christ's own sacred and most perfect obedience on earth, viewed by a merciful God as if it were ours. And issue is joined on the following question, whether justification means in Scripture counting us righteous, or making us righteous;-that is, as regards our present condition, for that pardon of past sins is included under its meaning both parties in the controversy allow.

Now, in the last Lecture, in which I stated what I consider as, in the main, the true doctrine, two points were proposed for proof: first, that justification and sanctification were substantially the same thing; next, that, viewed relatively to each other, justification followed upon sanctification. The former of these statements seems to me entirely borne out by Scripture; I mean, that justification and sanctification are there described as parts of one gift, properties, qualities, or aspects of one; that re

newal cannot exist without acceptance, or acceptance without renewal; that Faith, which is the symbol of the one, contains in it Love, which is the symbol of the other. So much concerning the former of the two statements; but as to the latter, that justification follows upon sanctification, that we are first renewed, and then and therefore accepted, this doctrine, which Luther strenuously opposed, is true in one sense, but not true in another,—true in a popular sense, not true in an exact sense. Now, in the present Lecture, I propose to consider the exact and philosophical relation of justification to sanctification, in regard to which Luther seems to be in the right in the next Lecture, the popular and practical relation of the one to the other, which St. Austin and other Fathers set forth and in the Sixth and following, what has partly been the subject of the foregoing Lecture, the real connexion between the two, or rather identity, in matter of fact, however we may vary our terms, or classify our ideas.

If it be asked how I venture, as in the above avowal, to prefer Luther in any matter even of detail to St. Austin, I answer, that I believe St. Austin really connects justification and sanctification, as Luther would do, though with less of uniformity in expression, and no exaggeration, and a preference of practical to scientific statements. Nor is it in any way strange, supposing the two are really united in one subject, as its properties or qualities, as light and heat co-exist in the sun, that the same author