It is clear from this note that the present Romanists require Christian obedience previously and in order to our justification.

On another passage, (Ephes. ii. 8, 9.) By grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God, not of works that no man may glory. (Rhemish Version.) The note of the Romanists on the words not of works is," as of our own growth, or from ourselves; but as from the grace of God," thus intimating that we are saved by works performed by divine grace.

This doctrine, which has been called justification by inherent righteousness, in opposition to the Protestant doctrine of justification by imputed righteousness,1 runs through their catechisms, their books of devotion, and their elementary treatises of instruction.

2

In the abridgement of Christian Doctrine, the answer to the question, "Why does the Church command us to fast?" is this, "That by fasting we may satisfy God for our sins."

In the abstract of the Doway Catechism3 we have the following questions and answers:

Q. How is mortal sin remitted ?

A. By hearty contrition and penance.
Q. How is venial sin remitted?

4

A. By the sacraments, by devout prayer and the like. Hence prayers in the Roman Missal are offered up for forgiveness by the merits of the Saints, and by the oblation of the sacrament;5 and the sacrament of penance is considered to absolve the penitent sinner from his sins.6 Justification is thus sought in part, at least, from the prayers, the doings, and the goodness of men.

Nay, in Bishop Baines' Sermon on Faith, Hope, and Charity, now circulated with such profusion and industry

1 Those who would wish to see the points in difference on the subject between the Romish and Protestant Churches stated and discussed, may refer to Bishop Davenant's "Prælectiones De justitiâ Habituali et actuali." Folio, 1631.

2 Published by Keating and Brown, 1816, p. 33.

3 Published by Keating and Brown, 1824, p. 71.

4 See Roman Missal, published by Keating and Brown, edition 1815, page xviii. 524, 527. 5 xliii. &c.

See Garden of the Soul, page 15.

by the Roman Catholics, you will find that he glories in the statement that his Church insists on confession to the Priest, and submitting to make atonement to God, by prayer, by fasting, and by works of self-denial, and by restitution, before the Romanist can obtain either absolution from the Priest, or forgiveness from God. 1

But let us 'proceed to quote the decrees and canons of the Council of Trent, which is, on doctrine, the highest authority of the Roman Church.

2

In the Sixth Session, ch. 7. we read this statement, "Justification itself is not only a remission of sins, but sanctification and renovation of the inner man by a voluntary reception of grace and of the gifts which ac-company it, whence man from unjust is made just, and from an enemy a friend, that he may be made an heir according to the hope of everlasting life." (P. 44.)

In the 10th chapter the Council speaks of the increase of the justification which we have received by advancing from virtue to virtue. (P. 47.)

In the 14th chapter, mention is made of those who by sin fall from the grace of justification, and it is said that they cannot rise again but by the sacrament of penance which is called a second plank after a shipwreck. (P.51.)

After the Chapters there are Canons against what the 1 The words of Bishop Baines, after mentioning repentance and confession to a Priest as necessary, are-" Nor is even this all. The sinner must moreover submit to make such atonement to his offended God by prayer, by fasting, by works of self-denial, and the like, as may be required; and if he has injured any neighbour in his good name, his property, or his person, he must, to the utmost of his ability, resolve to make full and ample satisfaction. Without such a resolution, no Catholic Priest in the world could, or would, consider himself authorized to give absolution to any penitent, and if he did presume to give it, his religion teaches, as an article of faith, that his absolution could be of no avail in the sight of God, but to add to the guilt both of the giver and the receiver.-Now let me ask, is this a doctrine which relaxes the Christian morality, which encourages guilt, and facilitates the commission of crime? What then must those doctrines be which admit the sinner to reconciliation upon the simple condition of repentance, and confession made to God alone."-This is just the reasoning of the carnal mind, supposing that law, and requirement, and exaction, can produce in fallen man those good works which the Scriptures set before us as the fruit of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus.

2 The Romanists have in fact, when pressed by Protestants, excluded remission of sins, in the notion of forgiveness, from justification, and in its place put expulsion of sin by infusion of righteousness. See Bellarmine, quoted by Downam, in his Treatise on Justification, page 83.

Council decrees to be erroneous, at the end of every one of which a solemn anathema is pronounced.

The 9th Canon is as follows, "If any one shall say that the wicked man is justified by faith alone, by which is meant, that to obtain the grace of justification, there needs no other thing to co-operate with it, and that it is not so much as necessary that he should prepare and dispose himself by the motions of his will, let him be accursed." (P. 58.)

The 11th Canon is, "If any one shall say that men are justified either by the alone imputation of Christ's righteousness, or only by the remission of sins, excluding grace and charity, which is diffused in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, and inheres in them,—or that the grace by which we are justified is only the favour of God, let him be accursed." (P. 58.)

66

The 24th Canon is, If any one shall say that the righteousness received is neither preserved nor increased by good works, but that those good works are only signs and fruits of justification received, and not a cause that increases it, let him be accursed." (P. 62.)

The 32d Canon says, "If any one shall say that the good works of a justified man are so the gifts of God that they are not also the merits of the same justified person; or that he, being justified by the good works which are performed by him through the grace of God and merits of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace and eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life, if he shall depart in grace and even the increase of glory, let him be accursed." (P. 64.)1

I feel persuaded that humble and contrite hearts are shocked and deeply grieved; that the intelligent Christian is struck with horror at such tremendous curses, pronounced on him who holds the life-giving doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent are published in Latin separately. The one in my possession is in 12mo. 1744. There is a full account of them in Dupin's Ecclesiastical History, and in Paul's History of the Council. Those who wish to see the Replies of Protestants to these decrees, may consult Calvini Antidotum, Vol. IX. of his works, and Chemnizii Examen Concili Tridentini. The writings of Chemnicius appear to be, as far as I have read them, very devout, evangelical, able, and profitable.

Though it will be observed that the Decrees and Canons are expressed with much subtilty, and leave on the mind an impression that Protestants denied sanctification as consequent to justification, a doctrine which every sound Protestant strenuously holds, yet the doctrine of justification by inherent righteousness is distinctly asserted.

That this is the deliberate doctrine of the Roman Church is confirmed by the treatment of those Romanists who have held different sentiments. An eminent Roman writer, Ferus, says, "We are justified before men on account of the law and works, but before God, who looks into the heart something greater is required, namely, faith. Observe a double justification of faith and works, both necessary to the Christian, that he may be just before God, and approved before men." This Protestant doctrine, expressed by a Romanist, is condemned in the Index Expurgatorius. 1

The devout Quesnel, in his Reflections on the New Testament, says, "God does not save us gratuitously, if there is any good thing in us which does not come from his grace, or which could merit it." 2 But the Pope issued a Bull, condemning one hundred and one propositions in this work; and Dr. Doyle asserts, "The very names of Pascal and Quesnel would cause every Catholic to revolt from you."

3

In fact, the Roman priests are required, by the Bull of Pius IV, to make a public profession that they embrace and receive each and all of the things which are declared by the Council of Trent, concerning justification, and to confirm the profession by a solemn oath. *

Here then is the doctrine of the Roman Church: they assert that sanctification is a part of our justification. On this point the Protestant Church is wholly at issue with them; and against this doctrine we, at this time solemnly renew our Protest, because we consider it

1 See Bishop Barlow on Justification, p. 80.

2 See Quesnel on Romans iv. 4.

3 See Dupin's History of the Church abridged, Vol. 4. p. 265. The words concluding the profession, after anathematizing all things contrary to the Decrees of Trent, are as follow: "Hanc veram Catholicam fidem, EXTRA QUAM NEMO SALVUS ESSE POTEST, quam in præsenti sponte profiteor et veraciter teneo, eamdem integram et immaculatam, usque ad extremum vitæ spiritum constantissime (Deo

to be directly contrary to multiplied express testimonies, and to laboured and lengthened statements of the word of God, and destructive of true faith and godliness.

Let us then proceed to consider,

II. THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

The true meaning of the term justification must first be cleared and established. The Romanists consider it to be the same as to pardon and make holy; we assert, on the other hand, that it is opposed to condemnation, and signifies to account and accept as righteous, in judgment.

We prove the assertion by the use of the word.1 Thus in the case of controversy, by the law of Moses, when they come to judgment the judges are directed to justify the righteous and condemn the wicked, (Deut. xxv. 1.) Here justification is distinctly opposed to condemnation, and stated as the sentence founded on a judgment entered into. Thus David prays, Enter not into judgment with thy servant, O Lord, for in thy sight shall no living thing be justified, (Psalm cxliii. 2.) Justification has here a clear reference to God's approval of the soul, as free from guilt. Thus again St. Paul asks, Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? - it is God that justifieth, who is he that condemneth? (Rom. viii. 33, 34.) Here justification is God's accounting us free from the charge of sin, and accepting us as righteous.

To imagine that the word justify signifies to make holy, would reduce many passages of Scripture to absurd conclusions. Thus it is said, He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are an abomination to the Lord, (Prov. xvii. 15.) But can it be an abomination to the Lord to make the wicked holy? Isaiah says, Woe unto them....that

adjuvante) retinere et confiteri; ATQUE A MEIS SUBDITIS, VEL ILLIS QUORUM CURA AD ME IN MUNERE MEO SPECTABIT, TENERI, DOCERI, ET PRÆDICARI, QUANTUM IN ME ERIT, CURATURUM, EGO IDEM N. SPONDEO, VOVEO, AC JURO: Sic me Deus adjuvet et hæc sancta Dei Evangelia." P. 391. Tridentini Canones et Decreta, 1774.

1 Downam gives all the places where the original words rendered to justify' are used, to show the exact meaning of the original Hebrew word and the Greek word dikaιow, to justify. See Lib. 2. ch. 1. 2. of his Treatise on Justification.