deed maintained their position, as usual, with something of a disdainful confidence that possibly gave needless advantage to their adversaries. Moreover, instead of understanding “justification of life,” spoken of in Romans v. 18, as signifying justification that brings life (which would certainly seem most consonant with St. Paul’s argument), they interpreted it as a justification based on the possession of spiritual life. This they regarded as a sort of extra, or supererogatory justification, accompanying rather than supplementing the already perfect forensic justification. Nevertheless, this interpretation lent colour to the accusations of their adversaries; though indeed it had no real organic association with their general scheme, for they stood with the first in upholding the great Protestant principle that justification is no more granted in consideration of works following regeneration than of works preceding it.
It is almost universally charged against the Brethren by their opponents, that they refuse to pray for the forgiveness of sins. A truly liberal divine of the Established Church, the late J. B. Marsden, has given a charitable explanation of their conduct. He says that “the Brethren, regarding themselves as, in theological language, in a state of grace, do not ask for blessings that they have already received, but rather for an increase of gifts of which they have already partaken”.[1] But this explanation does not cover the facts. The Brethren recognised from 1 John i. that even persons “in a state of grace” require forgiveness of the specific sins of their Christian course; but they escaped the apparent force of this passage by saying that, though our sins require to be forgiven, we are not told to pray that
