sentences of his, which follow, but that in his system justification is confounded with sanctification? "He," (Mr. Newman,) "says, 'justification and sanctification, are substantially the same thing;-parts of one gift; properties, qualities or aspects of one.' In another place, he maintains, their identity in matter of fact, however we may vary our terms, or classify our ideas.'"-p. 54. Such are Mr. Boardman's statement and quotations, always without reference. The passage, from which these made-up sentences are violently torn, taken together, reads as follows. Whether his words are sustained, the reader is to judge. The parts which Mr. Boardman uses, we italicize. "Now in the last lecture, in which I stated, what I considered 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 RENEWAL 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 these 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 in another;-true in a popular sense, not true in an exact 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."—Newman, pp. 67, 68. sense. Now the Lecture to which Mr. Newman here refers as "the last Lecture," is the same from which Mr. Boardman culled the sentences, which next precede those which we have just cited, from his 52d page. The passage, taken in connexion, will bring out his real meaning. "It is usual, at the present day, to lay great stress on the distinction between deliverance from guilt and deliverance from 'sin; to lay down, as a first principle, that these are two co-incident, indeed, and contemporary, but altogether independent benefits, to call them justification and renewal, and to consider that any confusion between them argues serious and alarming ignorance of Christian truth. Now, in opposition to this, it may surely be maintained, that Scripture itself blends them together as intimately as any system of theology can do; and that such a system is not thereby dark and ignorant, unless Scripture is also. 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. In other words, I would say that this distinction, so carefully made at present, is not scriptural.”— Newman, pp. 42, 43. Into the extended illustration of this point from Scripture, the reader cannot now be led. A single sample may be furnished, from the 51st Psalm. "That this is an evangelical psalm, in the fullest sense, no one can doubt. It is David's prayer for restoration to God's favour, after his grievous fall. It contains in it the two ideas in question, of deliverance from guilt, and deliverance from sin; but does it accurately distinguish between them?" "For instance, which benefit does he speak of when he says, 'Wash me thoroughly from my wickedness, and cleanse me from my sin?' If we judge from a subsequent verse, 'Thou shalt purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean,' we shall say he must mean renewal by washing;' but if so, observe how the foregoing verse connects with it-Have mercy upon me, O God-do away mine offences, wash me.'" "Again, 'Thou shalt wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow; thou shalt make me hear of joy and gladness.' What then? Does joy follow from sanctification? The popular doctrine at present connects it rigidly with justification; as if immediately upon justification, and before sanctification, 'joy and peace in believing' ensued. I really do not understand how a man can read this most important Psalm, without perceiving (though I know many do not perceive it) that we are forgiven by being, or while we are renewed; and that the present broad separation of justification and sanctification, as if they were two gifts, is technical and unscriptural."-Newman, pp. 43, 4. Now it is by no means necessary to espouse these views, nor yet to be convinced by the reasonings, or the proofs from Scripture, on which the writer urges them. The present Brief Examination disavows, entirely, the question of adoption or rejection. And yet, is it not possible that theological statements, on this controverted subject, may have become technical, beyond the warrant of Scripture? Is it easy to draw, in the mere words of inspiration, the exact distinction between justification and sanctification? Is it the office of Holy Writ 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, (Romans iii. 28) "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law;" and St. James, (ii. 24,) "Ye see, then, how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only:" as when St. Paul says, (Philippians ii. 12, 13,) "Work out your own salvation, with fear and trembling; for it is God which worketh in you both to will, and to do, of his good pleasure:" as when Solomon says, (Proverbs xxvi. 4, 5,) "Answer not a fool according to his folly;" and again, "Answer a fool according to his folly." Is it the object of the sacred writers to instruct us in the rationale, near so much as to constrain us, by the abounding grace, of the salvation which is by Christ Jesus? How does the sentence marked in small capitals, from Mr. Newman, (on our p. 67.) "renewal cannot exist without acceptance, or acceptance without renewal," exceed, or differ from, the expression of Mr. Boardman, that “justification and regeneration are inseparably associated; that is, that all who are justified, are at the same time renewed and sanctified?" And, when Mr. Boardman, in the same sentence, denies that "this personal holiness, which is communicated by the Holy Spirit, in regeneration, constitutes any part of that righteousness, on the ground of which the sinner is pardoned and accepted of God, although," as he admits above, "inseparably associated," however just the exception, is it not technical, more than Scriptural? And is it more than just to allow to Mr. Newman the full benefit of an explanatory statement, such as this which follows? "Justification, then, viewed relatively to the past, is forgiveness of sin, for nothing more it can be; but, considered as to the present and future, it is more; it is renewal, wrought in us by the Spirit of Him, who, withal by his death and passion, washes away its still adhering imperfections, as well as blots out what is past. And faith is said to justify in two principal ways:-first, as continually pleading before God; and, secondly, as being the first recipient of the Spirit, the root, and, therefore, the earnest and anticipation, of perfect obedience."—Newman, p. 38. Is there not warrant for such an explanation in the Articles; of which the twelfth, entitled "Of good works," speaks of them as "fruits of faith," which follow after justification," while the thirteenth, entitled "Of works before justification," describes them as "works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his Spirit"—as if the phrases in italics were convertible terms? And, finally, is not this the very distinction of the Catechism? "I heartily thank our heavenly Father, that he hath called me to this state of salvation, through Jesus Christ our Saviour; and I pray unto God to give me his grace, that I may continue in the same unto my life's end"-where the "state of salvation," viewed relatively to the past, is attained "through Jesus Christ our Saviour;" but, considered as present and future, is to be continued in, by God's "grace:" the state attained to, and the state continued in, being, "the same;" therefore, both a state of justification-though, in the latter, most undoubtedly, including the renewal of the Spirit? Surely, there is a claim, before the sentence be pronounced, to listen to these words of Dr. Pusey; words, like all he writes, of soberness, and piety. "With regard to those who dread lest sanctification should be unduly mixed up with justification, these difficulties appear to have arisen chiefly from confounding the act of justification with the state of justification, (or, as our Catechism expresses it, of 'salvation;') God's gracious act with our condition; God's 'justifying' with our 'being justified:' and again, our condition upon our first entrance into that state with our subsequent continuance. For these would obviously be distinct subjects of inquiry, and would require different answers, wherein justification |