Boultbee on Article XI: Of the Justification of Man

The Latin text chiefly requires us to notice the prepositions in the following clauses : for the merit, propter meritum ; not for our own works, non propter opera ; bi/ faith, per fidem ; propter implies the meritorious cause, and per the medium of communication. This is changed in the last clause of the Article into the more direct ablative of the instnmient sold fide.

The first clause of this Article, compared with the Title and with the last clause, gives us this definition of justification: the being ^accounted righteous.* Since many controversies on this subject (as on others also) turn upon the definition of the terms used, this should be especially noticed.

The eleventh Article of 1552 was more brief than our present form ; it was thus expressed : * Justification by only

faith (ex sold fide) in Jesus Christ, in that sense as it is de- clared in the Homily of Justification, is a most certain and wholesome doctrine for Christian men.’

It is well known that none of the homilies bears or has borne this title. Yet it would seem hardly possible, without dis- ingenuity, to profess doubt which homily is meant. It cannot be seriously maintained that they who wrote both Articles and homilies, or who, in Elizabeth’s time, revised and recast this Article, forgot or carelessly miscalled the title of the homily. They evidently chose to speak of the one in question, viz., the homily of * The Salvation of Manhindy by a shorter name, describing its main subject, and identifying it more closely with this Article.

The Chief Topics of Article XL

1. The justification of the sinner is the same thing with God accounting him righteous.

2. The meritorious cause of justification is: A — positively, the merit of Christ; B — negatively, not our works or de- servings.

3. The instrumental cause of justification in the sinner himself is faith.

4. Nothing is coupled with fiiith in this peculiar office which it has in justification.

5. The salutary and consoling nature of this doctrine.

The student will consider and carefully compare these ^yq points with Holy Scripture. Especially he will repeatedly study the grand exposition of this doctrine in the Epistle to the Romans, until he has mastered its connection, and can quote and apply it readily.

Observations on Article XI.

The doctrine of Justification has of necessity been dealt with more or less by every Christian writer fi:om the first ; for the salvation of man is the Gospel itself. The sentiments of writers of all ages might be alleged in a series of quotations,

92 . ARTICLE XI.

in wHich every shade of opinion might be found as to the efficacy of faith and works, and as to the nature of Justifi- cation. It is satisfactory to know that the very earliest uninspired Christian writer is most distinctly in agreement with our own Article. Thus he writes : […] too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by our- selves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or god- liness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart ; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God hath justified all men/ ^

For reasons already given in tlie Prefece it is thought more useful, instead of attempting any general discussion based on a catena of authorities, to present to the student what may be a sufficiently full view of the doctrine of Justification, as held by the leading representatives of the schools of theology, with which we are more immediately concerned. The follow- ing may suffice for this purpose: I. The Scholastic Theology. II. The Decrees of the Council of Trent, m. Luther. rV. Calvin.

[…]

The student who has fairly understood the position of these representative men and documents will have an in- telligent understanding Df the subject, and will be able to enlarge his reading according to his opportunities.

L The Scholastic Theology/.

An able and interesting account of the views upon Justifi- cation held by the great scholastic writers will be found in Neander’s * History of the Church,’ vol. viii. pp. 276-301 (Clark’s Edition). What the student will chiefly require imder this head will be the meaning of some scholastic and metaphysical phrases. A few notes of this kind are therefore

subjoined :

1. Faith was classified under two Leads — Ftdes informisy and Fides formata. Fides informis may be described as the bare admission of a thing as true, corresponding to what we call a dead faith, or bare historical faith. It was called unformed, being conceived of as the imorganised shapeless matter out of which true £dth is to be shaped. When love, with its consequent life and action, was added to this it became Fides formata. It may be that what was meant’ by some of the best of these writers was not very different from what we call a living or divine ^th, as distinguished from one which is merely human and dead. But what has been, and is now, meant by the term Fides formata, is not faith considered full of life, and with a capacity and necessity for producing good works — the vera et viva fides of Art. XII. — but faith together with love and works considered under one term. It will at once be seen that such a definition involves most important doctrinal and practical consequences. For justification by faith may thus be verbally asserted, and justification by works intended.

2. In order to the proper understanding of many ex- pressions in our older divines (e.g., * Pearson on the Creed,’ Art. I. : * Faith is a hahit of the intellectual part of man ; ’ ^ The belief of the heart is the internal hahit residing in the soul ’), it may be desirable to add a few words on the scholastic use of the word hahit. The difference between the scholastic use and the modem popular use of the word mainly lies in this. We usually mean by this word some action which by use and repetition has become ^miliar to us. The philosophy of Aristotle (which was also that of the school- men) meant by the word habit, not the action, but the acquired mental state or condition which has made such an action natural to us. Aristotle held the human soul to be naturally neutral with regard to virtue and vice, and therefore every virtue, as distinguished from virtuous actions, to be an acquired habit} Virtue, therefore, he defines as a habit, A heathen could go no further. But Christian divines, adopting the same definition, baw in divine grace the power

’ Ethics, ii. 5.

which could implant in the soul at once the £icility and inclination to virtue, which otherwise could only come graduallt/ and imperfectly by a repetition of virtuous actions. Hence Aquinas defines virtue as a habit, and a habit as ’ a quality not easily removed, by which one acts easily and pleasantly.* And again he describes grace as a habit which is the principle and root of the virtues. Aristotle, then, held that the mental condition, which he styled habit, could be acquired. The schoolmen added that it could be infused or implanted at once by divine power, and that grace (according to their meaning of the term) was such an implanted habit. The student will now understand Bishop Pearson’s definition of Faith as an ^internal habit,^ and also the expression habitual righteousness, which he will meet with in * Hooker on Justification.’

3. Since many causes usually contribute towards bringing about any result, there was in the schools a fourfold classifi- cation of causes derived fi:om Aristotle :

(1.) The material cause. — ^That is, the matter, thing, or substance without the existence of which that which we are considering could not be — e.g. without clay, or something analogous, the work of the potter could not come into existence. Or, to take a difierent subject, the material cause of the Irish Church Disestablishment Act was the Parliament and that Church.

(2.) The. formal cause. — The combination of all the neces- sary conditions which, being present, give that shape to the result which actually comes forth. In the above example the formal cause of the Act was the combination of all the political and social influences and usages which gave the ultimate shape to it.

(3.) The efficient cause. — The first mover in the transaction as far back as it requires to be considered. In the above example the efficient cause was the Prime Minister.

(4.) The final cause. — The real end, aim, or object for which the thing was done. In the example taken, it was said to be the pacification of Ireland.

This accoimt of causes may be of some use to the student.

who may encounter such terms in the older theology, es- pecially in treatises on Justification. In the subsequent account of Tridentine theology, the classification of causes is enlarged by the addition of meritorious and instrumental causes. They sufficiently speak for themselves. The former really belongs to the class called formal causes, being a necessary condition towards the justification of man in that mode in which it was to take place. The material cause there was no need to name, being man and his sinful state.

II. The Council of Trent.

The Council of Trent dealt with the question of Justifi- cation in its sixth session.- It enacted a lengthy decree on this subject. The following extracts from it will illustrate the main points of the Eoman doctrine. The fiflh and sixth chapters speak of the necessity for a preparative work of divine grace on the heart. Then the seventh chapter pro- ceeds thus : ’ Justification itself follows this disposition or preparation ; and justification is not remission of sin. merely, but also sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man by the voluntary reception of grace and divine gifts, so that he who was unrighteous is made righteous, and the enemy becomes a friend, and an heir according to the hope of eternal life. The causes of justification are these: the final cause, the glory of God and of Christ, and life eternal ; the efficient cause, the merciful God, who freely cleanses and sanctifies, sealing and anointing with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance ; the meritorious cause. His well-beloved and only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who through His great love wherewith He loved us, even when we were enemies, merited justification for us by His most holy passion on the cross, and made satisfaction for us to God the Father ; the instrumental cause, the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no one can ever obtain justification ; lastly, the sole formal cause is the righteousness of God, not that by which He Himself is righteous, but that by a\ liich He makes us righteous, with

which, being endued by Him, we are renewed in the spirit of our minds, and are not only accounted righteous, but are properly called righteous, and are so, receiving righteousness in ourselves, each according to his measure.’

The tenth chapter asserts of the justified that * by the observance of the commandments of God and the Church, :l^th cooperating with good works, they gain an increase of that righteousness which was received by the grace of Christ, and are the more justified.’

The fourteenth chapter says that * those who by sin have fallen firom the grace of justification received may be justified again when, moved by divine influence, they succeed in recovering their lost grace by the sacrament of penance, through the merits of Christ. For this method of justification is that recovery of the lapsed which the holy fathers havo fitly called ” the second plank after shipwreck ” of lost grace.’

The sixteenth chapter teaches that, since the justified are imited to Christ, ‘it must be believed that they are in no respect deficient, but that they may be considered as fully satisfying the divine law (as fer as is compatible with our present condition) by their works, which are wrought in God, and as really deserving eternal life, to be bestowed in due time if they die in a state of grace … So that neither is our righteousness set up as if it were actually derived from ourselves, nor is the righteousness of God imknown or dis- allowed. For it is called our righteousness because we are justified thereby, through its in-dwelling in us ; and, at the same time, it is the righteousness of God, because it is infused into us by God, through the merits of Christ.’

It will be seen that the Eoman doctrine, thus defined, stands in sharply marked contrast with the doctrine of the English Church. The Eoman justification requires, indeed, as the Anglican does, a certain preparation of faith and repent- ance. But it is not a forensic act whereby God imputes or accoimts righteousness to the sinner, but an act whereby God infuses habitual righteousness. So that the habits of faith, hope, and love are thenceforward in the soul ; and in respect of, and by reason of, these, God views the soul as in itself

XiUTflER ON JUSTIFICATION. ’ 97

nghteons. Justification is thus identified with flanctifioation. Not only so, but the sanctification itself is regarded as perfect to such a degree as to ensure acceptance with God. The Romanist is accustomed to sneer at the doctrine of imputed righteousness as an imreal mockery. But rightly viewed it unites these two great facts : God’s willingness to save the penitent believer, and the believer’s imperfect sanctification. Whereas, when we consider that the Roman doctrine holds that all persons are justified (in the sense above defined) in and by baptism, and that God accepts them accordingly on account of the real, and not imputed, holiness that is in them, it becomes very difficTilt to reconcile this with the obvious facts of the unholiness of the majority of the baptized. The charge of unreality applies more strongly to such a daring assxunption than it can to the doctrine of an imputed right- eousness.

in. Luther on Justification,

First in order of time in the reformed theology we must place Luther’s doctrine. The student may be reminded how the doctrine of justification by faith was to him the means of deliverance from his own spiritual difficulties, and the key to his teaching. His revulsion from the bondage of the Roman theology led him at times to use incautious language as to good works of which his enemies took full advantage, but no one has in other passages more carefully guarded against Antinomian excesses than he has done. It was Luther who propounded the celebrated maxim that justification by faith was the articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesice. The following extracts from Luther’s commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians will illustrate his views on the subject. * This is the true mean of becoming a Christian, even to be justified by faith in Jesus Christ and not by the works of the Law. Here we must stand and not upon the wicked gloss of the school- men, who say that, faith then justifieth, when charity and good works are joined withal… . When a man heareth that he ought to believe in Christ and yet notwithstanding faith justifieth not, except it be formed and furnished with

II

charity, by-and-by lie falleth from faith, and then he thinketh : If feith without charity justifieth not, then is feith in vain and unprofitable, and charity alone justifieth ; for except faith be formed with charity it is nothing.’ Then follows a passage on the absolute necessity of good works and their right time and place. He then proceeds thus : ’ Christ is not the law : he is not my work, or the work of the law, he is not my charity, my obedience, my poverty : but he is the Lord of life and death, a mediator, a Saviour, a redeemer of those ^that are under the law and sin. In him we are by faith, and * Tie in us. The bridegroom must be alone with the bride in his secret chamber, all the servants and the household being put apart. But aflerwards when the door is open, and he cometh forth, then let the servants and handmaidens return to minister imto them : then let charity do her office and let

good works be done Christ is the Lamb of God,

that taketh away the sins of the world. This doth faith alone lay hold of, and not charity, which notwithstanding, as a certain thankfulness, must follow faith.’ ^

• These three things, faith, Christ, acceptation or imputation, must be joined together. Faith taketh hold of Christ, and hath him inclosed, as the ring doth the precious stone. And whosoever shall be found having this confidence in Christ apprehended in the heart him will God account for righteous.

And this acceptation or imputation is very necessary ;

first, because we are not yet perfectly righteous… When we have thus taught faith in Christ, then do we teach also good works.* ^

This was a theme of which Luther was never weary, Christ dwelling in the heart by faith, the true righteousness of the Christian, as opposed to the scholastic idea of the infused righteousness of charity, as a habit of the spiritual nature of man.

IV. Calvin on Justification,

Calvin has for three hundred years so deeply moulded the theology of a large part of Christendom that his views may be

• Luther on Gal. ii. 16.

considered as representative, beyond those of any writer of his age. We shall first give several extracts from his […] I must refute the nugatory distinction of the Schoolmen between formed and unformed faith. For they imagine that persons who have no fear of God, and no sense of piety, may believe all that is necessary for salvation, as if the Holy Spirit were not the witness of our adoption by enlightening our hearts unto faith… . They insist that faith is an assent with which any despiser of God may receive what is delivered by Scripture. But we must first see whether any one can by his own strength acquire faith, or whether the Holy Spirit,

by means of it, becomes the witness of adoption We

in one word conclude that they talk absurdly when they main- tain that faith is formed by the addition of pious affection as an accessory to assent, since assent itself, such,* at least, as the

Scriptures describe, consists in pious affection To

express the matter more plainly, faith consists in the know- ledge of Christ ; Christ cannot be known without the sancti- fication of the Spirit; therefore faith cannot possibly be disjoined from pious affection,’ ^

Again, Calvin defines Justification ’ as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favour as if we were righteous, and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins, and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.’ * He proceeds to argue that this is the proper and most usual signification of the term in Scripture.

In his * Antidote to the Council of Trent ’ (sixth session), when discussing the Koman doctrine as laid down by that Council, Calvin thus writes : * It is not to be denied that the two things. Justification and Sanctification, are constantly conjoined and cohere; but from this it is erroneously inferred

that they are one and the same There is no dispute as

to whether or not Christ sanctifies all whom He justifies. It were to rend the Gospel, and divide Christ Himself, to attempt to separate the righteousness which we obtain by faith from I’epentance. The whole dispute is as to the cause

Institutes, IH. ii. 8. ’ Ibid. HI. xi. 3.

u 2

of Justification. The Fathers of Trent pretend that it is twofold, as if we were justified partly by forgiveness of sins

and partly by spiritual regeneration I maintain that it

is one and simple, and is wholly included in the gratuitous acceptance of God. I, besides, hold that it is without us,

because we are righteous in Christ only I neither can

nor ought to let pass the very great absurdity of calling baptism alone the instrumental cause. What then will become of the Gospel? Will it not even be allowed the smallest comer ? … . Let them cease to sport with trifles such as — ^man receives j&ith, and along with it hope and love; therefore it is not faith alone which justifies. Because if eyes are given us, and along with them ears and feet and hands, we cannot, therefore, say that we either hear with our feet, or walk with our hands, or handle with our eyes. Next follows their worse than worthless distinction between an informal

and a formed faith They are dreaming of that faith

devoid of charity which is commonly called by the Sophists informal. For if the doctrine of Paul is true that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith, they can no more separate faith from charity, than Christ from ffis Spirit It is, there- fore, faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone ; just as it is the heat alone of the sun which warms the earth, and yet in the sun it is not alone, because it is constantly conjoined with light. Wherefore we do not separate the whole grace of regeneration from faith, but we claim the power and faculty of justifying entirely for faith.’

V. The Homily of the Salvation of Mankind.

Passing from foreign to English theology, this document first requires our attention.

The Article so distinctly refers us to this Homily for a further explanation of the doctrine in question, that it becomes of almost equal authority with the Article itself.

That this Homily is meant appears positively, because —

1. The reference being found in King Edward’s Article

fixes it to the first book of Homilies only, excluding the second book published in the reign of Elizabeth.

2. There are only twelve homilies in that book, and a glance at the titles will show that this is the only one bearing definitely on the subject.

3. In point of fact, Justification is by name the subject of this Homily from beginning to end, as may be seen in every page.

We subjoin an analysis of this treatise. All being sinners, every man needs a ’ righteousness of justification, to be received at God’s own hands, that is to say, the forgiveness of his sins and trespasses in such things as he hath offended. And this justification or righteousness which we so receive of God’s mercy and Christ’s merits embraced by faith is taken, accepted, and allowed of God for oiu: perfect and full justi- fication.’

Infants dying after baptism are by Christ’s sacrifice accepted.

They who sin after baptism, on repentance are entirely cleansed.

This justification is free to us. Yet by xmion of mercy with justice a ransom was paid by Christ, who * besides this ransom, fulfilled the law for us perfectly.’

• So the grace of God doth not shut out the justice of God in our justification, but only shutteth out the justice of man, that is to say, the justice of our works, as to the merits of deserving our justification. And, therefore, St. Paul declareth here (Rom. iii. xii. x.) nothing on the behalf of man concerning his justification, but only a true and lively faith, which never- theless is the gift of God, and not man’s only work without God. And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified ; but it shutteth them out from the office of justifying. So that although they be all present together in him that is justified, yet they justify not altogetiier; neither doth faith shut out the justice of our good works, necessarily to be done afterwards of duty towards God … but it excludeth them, so’ that we may not do them to this intent, to be made just by doing of them.’

102 ASnCLE XL

[…]

Clurist lias fulfilled the law as well as paid the ransom, fo that in Him we fulfil the law.

Three things are required in jnntififiation :

1. God’s mercy.

2. Christ’s justice.

3. A tme and livelj fiiith out of the which &ith spring good works.

The way of Faith is the way of Giace.

Twelve ancient authors from Origen to Bernard are next qikoted or referred to, as bearing out these statements.

’ This saying that we be justified by faith only, fireely, and without works, is spoken for to take away clearly all merit of our works, as being unable to deserve our justification at Grod’s hands, and thereby most plainly to express the weakness of man and the goodness of God ; the great infirmity of ourselves, and the might and power of (rod ; the imperfection of our o^vn works, and the most abundant grace of our Saviour Christ; and, therefore, wholly to ascribe the merit and deserving of our justification to Christ alone, and his most precious bloodshedding.’

This is the doctrine of Scripture and antiquity. It exalts Christ, and lowers man. He who denies it is an adversaiy to Christ.

The importance of clearly holding this doctrine is urged, lest carnal men abuse it to live a worldly life, therefore a further explanation of it is added. ’ Justification is not the

ofiSce of man but of God It is not a thing which we

render to Him, but which we receive of Him, not which we give to Him, but which we take of Him by His free mercy, and by the only merits of Christ.’

Hence this doctrine * is not that this our oivn act to believe in Christ, or this our faith in Christ which is within us, doth justify us, and deserve our justification imto us.’ But that, although we have all virtues and good deeds, yet we renoimce their merit as * things far too weak and insiiflScient and im- perfect to deserve remission of our sins and our justification,’

and therefore we must trust only in God’s mercy and Christ’s sacrifice.

Faith, like John the Baptist, puts us away from itself to the Lamb of God.

Man’s duty to God follows.

Not to strive how little good we may do, much less to live carnally. A faith that so acts is a coimterfeit, dead and devilish.

For even devils believe the facts of Christ’s life, &c. * The right and true Christian Faith is, not only to believe that holy Scripture, and all the Articles of our Faith are true, but also to have a sure trust and confidence in God’s merciful promises to be saved from everlasting damnation by Christ : whereof, doth follow a loving heart to obey His commandments.’

No devil or man living an ungodly life can have this Mth.

These things rightly considered stir us up to good works.

VI. Hooker on Justification,

Hooker has been spoken of by so many divines of all shades of opinion as a true representative of the Reformed English Church after the first heat of controversy had passed, that his writings are generally supposed to carry more weight than those of other divines considered as individuals. We, there- fore, next subjoin the following epitome of his opinions on this subject.

Analysis of Hooker’s Discourse on Justification. *The wicked doth compass about the righteous * (Hab. i. 4).

Chapter II. — ^AU have sinned. No human being is natu- rally void of unrighteousness, not even tlie Blessed Virgin. We have, therefore, to show how Christ is made our righteous- ness.

Chapter III. — The different kinds of righteousness are thus defined :

1. The glorifying righteousness in the world to come which is both perfect and inherent.

2. The righteousness whereby we are here justified, which is perfect, but not inherent.

3. The righteousness whereby we are sanctified, which is inherent, but not perfect.

[N.B. — ’ Inherent,’ from its derivation, implies that which abides in us so closely as to become part of ourselves and to belong to us. Accordingly, in other words, the justifying righteousness above spoken of, is the righteousness of Christ not in us or of us, as being or becoming part of our own nature, but as imputed to us ab extra^ and appropriated to us by genuine justifying faith. But the sanctifying righteous- ness is that which is ^vrought in us by the Holy Spirit working in and with us. So far as this is the work of the Spirit it must be perfect ; so far as it is the result of our co-operation with the Spirit, it must be imperfect. This righteousness is manifestly ah intra, inherent, abiding in us, and growing in us.] ’

Chapter IV. — How &r we agree with Rome.

1. That infants, before actual sin, are by nature corrupt.

2. Tl^at in making men righteous none do efficiently work with God.

3. That none ever attained to righteousness but by the merits of Christ.

4. That Christ as God is the efficient cause, and as man the meritorious cause of our justification.

5. But that something is required by which his merits are to be applied to us for our justification.

Chapter V. — ^Where we disagree with Rome on justifi- cation.

• We disagree about the nature and essence of the medicine whereby Christ cureth our disease; about the manner of applying it ; about the number and the power of means which God requireth in us for the effectual applying thereof to our soul’s comfort.’

They say that justifying righteousness is a divine quality infused into the soul, capable of increase or diminution, so that we are more and more justified by receiving more of it. That the first justification takes place in baptism, and then by good works more grace is received, and the justification is

increased, which they call the second justification. If the justification is diminished by venial sins, the decay may be repaired by holy water and the like. If it be lost by mortal sin, it may be restored by the sacrament of penance, howbeit, not so perfectly but that purgatorial pains are needful.

Chapter VI. — The error of the Eomanists in their doctrine of justification is argued from the following passage, Phil. iii. 8, 9 : * And be found in him, not having mine own righteous- ness which is of the Law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God through faith.’ * Whether they speak of the first or second justification, they make the essence of it a divine quality inherent. They make it righteousness which is in us. If it be in us, then it is ours as our souls are ours.’ … But from the above passage it appears that ’ the righteousness wherein we must be found, if we will be justified, is not our o-svn ; therefore, we cannot be justified by any inherent quality. Christ hath merited righteousness for as many as are found in Him. In Him God findeth us if we be faithful, for by faith we are incorporated into Christ. Then although in ourselves we be altogether sinful and unrighteous, yet even the man who is impious in himself — ^full of iniquity, full of sin — him, being found in Christ through faith, and having his sin remitted through repentance ; him God beholdeth with a gracious eye, putteth away his sin by not imputing it, taketh quite away the punish- ment due thereimto by pardoning it, and accepteth him in Jesus Christ as perfectly righteous, as if he had fulfilled all that was commanded him in the Law. Shall I say more perfectly righteous than if himself had fulfilled the whole Law ? I must take heed what I say ; but the Apostle saith, ” God made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” Such we are in the sight of God the Father as is the very Son of God Himself.’

Thus the Church of Eome in teaching justification by inherent grace, perverts the gospel.

The righteousness of sanctification is inherent, and cannot exist without works; it is different in its nature from the righteousness of justification ; we are righteous the owe way by

the feith of Abraham ; in the other way, except \f e do the works of Abraham, we are not righteous. Of the one, says St. Paul (Rom. iv. 5), * to him that worketh not, but believeth, his feith is counted for righteousness.’ Of the other, St. John says (1 John iii. 7), * he that doeth righteousness is righteous.’ Thus also St. Paul is reconciled with St. James, if the former is speaking of justifying righteousness without works, and the latter of sanctifying righteousness with works.

In Romans vi. 22, St. Paul distinguishes between these two kinds of righteousness ; * being made free from sin ’ — this is the righteousness of justification — * ye have your fruit unto holiness ’ — ^this is the righteousness of sanctification.

Chapter VII. — The imperfection of sanctifying righteous- ness. All Christians have the title of saints, because it is concluded that they are partakers of the sanctifying righteous- ness ; some, however, have no more of this than the title, and the best are very far from perfection, and dare not rely for sal- vation on their greatest advances in this inherent, sanctifying, righteousness, but only on the jfW5^(/^iw^ righteousness, where- by God does not impute their trespasses unto them.’ [This noble chapter should be thcughtfulfy read throughout for its truly spiritual perception of the imperfection of man’s highest holiness.]

Chapters VIII.-XX., inclusive. — The question is discussed whether Roman Catholics can be saved, being in error on the doctrine of justifying righteousness. Hooker concludes that they may, through God’s mercy, provided they hold fast by the foundation of Christ crucified for our sins.

Chapter XXI. — *We have already showed that there be two kinds of Christian righteousness; the one without us, which we have by imputation ; the other in us, which con- sisteth of faith, hope, and charity, and other Christian virtues, and St. James doth prove that Abraham had not only thf» first, because his fkith was counted to him for righteousness, but also the second, because he offered up his son. God giveth us both the one justice and the other; the one by accepting us for righteous in Christ ; the other by working Christian righteousness in us.’

The efficient cause of the righteousness of sanctification is

the spirit of adoption in our hearts ; it consists of the infused virtues proper to saints, love, &ith, hope, &c., which the Spirit brings with it from the first moment of its abode ; the effects of it are good works, fruits of the Spirit.

We may therefore divide the righteousness of sanctification into two kinds, analogous to the root and the fruit ; these are called habitual and acttmL

First, habitual ;* the inward graces of holiness, with which the soul is imbued when it becomes a temple of the Holy Ghost. This we hold the thief on the cross possessed.

Second, actual*^ that which comes out in act, and adorns the life. This the thief on the cross could scarcely possess.

The question may be asked, which do we first receive ? It is answered, the imputed righteousness of Christ to our justification, and the habitual righteousness of sanctification we must receive at one and the same time, when we are made temples of the Holy Ghost ; but though we receive them at the same time, they are not one and the same thing.

But the actual righteousness of sanctification must of neces> sity follow afterwards in point of time.

So far a perfect identity of doctrine on the essential pomt of justification will have been seen in the reformed theology. With very slight variation of language, Luther, Calvin, our Homily, and Hooker are at one with each other and with our present Article. Justification is kept distinctly apart, as a theological term and spiritual fact, from sanctification. The essence of the latter is habitual holiness inherent in the soul, and infused into it by the Holy Spirit, and capable of many degrees. Justification, on the other hand, is * not the office of man, but of God.’ It is the act of God towards us, by which He not only forgives our sins, but also accounts us righteous. This, considered as a spiritual fact, is quite distinct from the former. Therefore to confuse justification with sanctification is not a pardonable blunder in mere theological phraseology, but it mistakes two distinct spiritual processes upon and in the soul of man. It therefore destroys the clearness of the anatomy of the divine life in the soul, and proportionally renders less certain the Christian hope. Yet the other point, brought out

See Note on Habits, p. 93.

108 AETica:^ XI.

no less distinctly in the above extracts, is of equal importance. Justification cannot be divorced firomSanctification for a ?7207ne/i^ As Hooker says, they * are received at one and the same time/ As Calvin tersely expresses it: * It is faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone.’ It is with these as with the great doctrine of the Incarnation. Separate the two natures in Christ, and we have lost our One Saviour. Confuse them, and we have another, who is not He. So i^damental is this difference of definition which separates us from the doctrine of Rome in the great fact of our justification. The doctrine of the Reformation, thus defined, continued to be held with none but insignificant variations until the reign of Charles I. was well advanced. Nor had there even then arisen any other defined school of theology on this head. To this Bishop Bull may himself be called as a witness, that we fall not into the same error as Luther, and most of our own divines after his time.’ ^ But in the year 1669, Bidl, afterwards Bishop of St. David’s, published his ’ Harmonia Apostolica, or Agreement of St. Paul with St. James on Justification. This was the legitimate fruit and consequence of much of the English theology of the preceding forty years. A large part of the English clergy no longer used the language of the Reformation on this doctrine, and was ripe to receive Bull’s teaching. Its publication was an era in English theology. The following sketch is meagre, but the work itself does not possess the fulness and richness of our previous authorities, and we can do no more than attempt fairly to exhibit its main positions.

It is divided into two dissertations. The first is on St. James ii. 24, and the second on Romans iii. 28. The object of the whole work is to reconcile these two statements, which is done by accommodating the second to the first.

Dissertation I.

• Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith

only ’ (James ii. 24).

Chapter I. — The word justify is defined in a legal sense, as

• Justif. I. iii. 3.

‘meaning to acquit or pronounce guiltless.’ This would appear to fall short of the definition in Article XI. But it is supplemented (Ch. i. § 5) by the further statement that ‘the yvord justify both with St. Paul and St. James has exactly the same force as to impute a reward, to impute righteousness, and to impute for righteousness. Now it is weU understood that imputation denotes the act of God regarding a man as just, not making him just.’ It follows that the word justify is used in the sense of our Article, and of the Protestant writers. It is taken to be equivalent to forgiveness of sin, and accounting (not making) the sinner righteous.

The preposition hi/ in the passage fi*om St. James is further defined as taken in a lower sense, as signifying the means or condition, not the meritorious or principal cause. Since neither faith nor works can be a principal cause or a cause at all, tmless inaccurately speaking. The true cause is the grace of God, obtained through the merits of Christ.

In the remaining five chapters of this dissertation the author argues in favour of the absolute and tmqualified acceptation of the passage from St. James, as a distinct theological proposition, setting forth the true Christian doctrine, that a Christian * is justified by works and not by &ith only.’ The following is a sketch of his argument.

Chapter II. — Bishop Bull alleges those numerous passages of Scripture * which speak generally of good works, of piely, sanctity, and obedience (all which have the same meaning) as the conditions necessarily required that anyone should be acceptable unto God to salvation, i.e. be justified, for these are synonymous terms.’ Accordingly, whatever is said in Scripture to be necessary to salvation he takes to be equivalent to being necessary to justification. He denies to faith any spe- cial and peculiar force as an instrument in justification, urging that repentance, which includes at least eleven works (e.g, contrition, humiliation, confession, supplication, love of God, &c.), is equally necessary. [It is hoped that the student will see what a doctrinal confusion this is. Repentance can conduce to justification only in so far as it brings to Christ, at which moment it passes into the substance of faith, and this uniting

the sinner to Christ, he is justified according to the words of our Saviour (John iii. 18).]

Chapter III. — Sets forth the Decalogue, as explained and perfected by Christ, as the law by which Christians will be acquitted or condemned, and concludes that by £iith without works no one is justified.

Chapter IV. — ^Faith is analysed into its three acts of knowledge, assent, and confidence. Each of these is asserted to be possible to evil men, and to have no necessary justifying power.

Chapter V. — The future judgment is said by Scripture to be according to our works. It is inferred that justification now must follow the same law.

Chapter VI. — It is argued that Protestant divines confess that the £dth which justifies must be a living &ith, that is, productive of good works. Therefore, on their own showing, good works are necessary to salvation, or in other words, are necessary to justification.

The foregoing reasoning of Bishop Bull seems to reduce theology into a hopeless chaos. In Holy Scripture the words justify, sanctify, save, feith, works, obedience, salvation, &c., are not used indiscriminately. Each has its own place and degree of necessity in the great and complex work of the sinner’s salvation. This, as ^applied to the soul, is the work of the Holy Ghost, convincing the soul of sin, reveal- ing to it Christ with a peculiar and distinct perception of the necessity and sufiiciency of all that He has done, and all that He is, in order to the salvation of that soul for ever. This work is not one that terminates. The Holy Spirit^ which has wrought this, continues to dwell in that soul, which is now a * temple of the Holy Ghcst.’ Consequently, though with a sad residue and admixture of the fallen nature which remains beside it, good thoughts, words, and works of neces- sity flow forth from that pure fountain. Salvation, therefore^ is one work and act of the great vivifying and renewing Spirit. But viewed in its complex action upon man, it is susceptible of a great number of divisions. Repentance, faith, obedience are all necessary to it. To say otherwise were, in Caivin’a

words, before quoted, * nothing else than to rend the Spirit,’ who is One. But they are not all necessary precisely in the same office. And for the work of Justification it has pleased God to set apart faith, * that it might be by grace,’ and that the sinner may learn that union with Christ is the sure and only condition of the life of the saved.

The second dissertation takes for its text Bomans iii. 28 :

• Therefore w^e conclude that a man is justified by laith without the deeds of the law.’ It is much longer than the first. Its object is to bring the meaning of St. Paul to a coincidence with the doctrine laid down in the first disserta- tion as the right interpretation of St. James.

The first three chapters discuss some of the principal modes for reconciling the conflicting passages in St. Paul and St. James, which have been given by different divines, and are here rejected.

The fourth chapter sets out with the principle that * the words of St. James being express, clear, and evident ’ … .

• whatever obscurity there is must be attributed to the Epistles of St. Paul.’ It is then decided that the ambiguity lies not in the vfoid justifies, but in the wordB faith and works, which * St. Paul uses with a different meaning upon different occasions.’

The following definition is then laid down. ‘Faith, to which justification is attributed by St. Paul, is not to be understood as one single virtue, but denotes the whole con- dition of the Gospel covenant ; that is, comprehends in one word all the works of Christian piety.’ It is added somewhat naively, * If we prove this point, we shall find less difficulty with the other passages of St. Paul.’ The general method used to establish this sweeping assertion is to allege such passages as these — * But they have not all obeyed the Gospel, for Esaias saith. Lord, who hath believed our report.’ On which Bishop BuU thus comments, * Who does not here perceive that to ” believe ” and to ” obey ” the Gospel, signify the same thing with St. Paul ? ’ It is a strange mod© of reasoning to confuse the result, obedience, with the ground of it, which IB faith. Such a theology cannot be safe to follow.

112 ’ ARTICLE XI,

This meaning of the word faith having been further pressed in the fifth chapter, Bishop Bull proceeds in the sixth chapter to St. Paul’s use of the word works.

The sixth chapter begins thus : * There is another diffi- culty in the word works as used by St. Paul, and this is indeed the consequence of what we have already proved ; namely, that Faith in St. Paul’s Epistles means all the works of Christian piety. This being allowed, it is certain that the works which St. Paul excludes from justification are not all kinds of works, but of a certain description only. Distinctly to explain of what kind these are is a matter of no little labour, and we have now arrived at the chief difficulty of our work.’ This * difficulty ’ is solved by pronouncing the works excluded by St. Paul to be ‘the works prescribed in the Mosaic law ’ in the case of a Jewish convert ; and in the case of Gentile converts to be the works done by the light of natural conscience, and by human strength only,

A discussion of this view of works from various passages and in various lights occupies the greater part of the re- maindier of the work. The argument by which he seeks to evade what the Apostle says of boasting being excluded by the law of faith, though not by the law of works (Eom. iii. 27), is the same as that of the Eomanists. ’ Those good works which we perform, are not so much ours, as those of God within us. But no man can properly boast before God of that which is owing to God.’ The student will discern the fallacy of this, and the contrast with Hooker’s doctrine on the same subject (p. 105). At the same time Bishop Bull protests warmly against the Roman doctrine of the merit of good works, since * the right which the good works of the just have to eternal life is founded only in the Gospel covenant and promise.’

The Eleventh Article is disposed of in this summary manner. * Although other virtues are no less necessary to justification than faith, and faith in reality has no more effect in it than any other virtue ; but yet of all the virtues faith is that one by which we embrace the Gospel promise, by which promise we are justified : therefore by a convenient phrase,

our justification may be and is usually attributed to faith only.’ If tbe solemn statements of our Articles may be passed over as * convenient phrases,’ any lengthened com- mentary on them would be superfluous. In this case we have the comment on this phrase furnished by the homily to which the Article itself refers us for further explanation of its meaning. ‘Faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of God to be joined with faith in every man that is justified ; but it shutteth them out from the office of justifying.’

Lastly, Bishop Bull cautions the reader to distinguish between the first and second justification. ’ It must be imder- stood that only the internal works of fiiith, repentance, hope, charity, &c., are absolutely necessary to the first justification ; but the other external works, which appear in outward actions, or in the exercise of the above-named virtues, are only the signs and fruits of internal piety, being subsequent to justification, and to be performed provided opportunity be given.’

Nelson, in his * Life of Bishop Bull,’ says of the controversy raised by this publication, that *in a very few years the strife ceased, forasmuch as the victory was so complete, as none were found able to rally their forces in this cause against our judicious harmoniser.’ This is true, though it was by no means due entirely to Bishop Bull. The nonjurors and high churchmen of William’s and Anne’s days belonged to the Laudian and Sacramental School, to which this view of justification was exceedingly congenial. The other chief section of the clergy, comprising such men as Tillotson and Burnet, was called the Latitudinarian party. In their efforts for comprehensiveness they were only too much inclined to break down the barriers of doctrine. How far Burnet sympathised with such views as those of Bishop Bull may be judged from his definition of faith^ when writing on the Eleventh Article. ‘Faith, in the New Testament, stands generally for the complex of Christianity in opposition to the Law.’

Such doctrines easily led to the condition of semi-Socianism

I

And apathy into which the Church of England lapsed under the first Georged. And when the great Reformation doctrine of justification by faith was again preached by the forerunners of the Svangelical reyival in the last century, it was received by thd ioaass -of the so-called orthodox divines, as though some ‘new and -strange heresy were promulgated. A few concluding notes and cautions may be added.

1. Holy Scripture and our Church know nothing of any justification but one. Before this no works acceptable to God are done (Art. XIIL), and after it the Christian is firuitful in good works (Art. XII.). It is not possible, imless by arbitrary assertion, to distinguish the justification in the Eleventh Article from that in the Twelfih and Thirteenth. The Bomanist distinction of a first and second justification being repudiated, many evasions of the Eleventh Article fall away at once.

2. Bomanist divines and their followers in attacking the doctrine of justification by faith have always foimd it con- venient to strip faith as far as possible of every moral attribute, and to reduce it as nearly as may be to a bare assent of the tmderstanding and the will. They also omit what we consider the essence of the doctrine, that the faith which justifies, is not alone in the heart, but is joined with contrition and other graces, and is the direct gifl; of the Holy Spirit to the heart in which it abides.

We always distinguish it, therefore, firom that feith which is the act of the human reason and will.

3. Protestant divines, who have not accepted this doctrine simply imderstood, enlarge the idea of faith so as to make it include the whole or a large part of Christianity, instead of perceiving that where faith in its true sense is, there the Holy Spirit dwells, and therewith all of Christianity must be associated. It may not be necessary for all minds to grasp the distinction. But there can be no clear theology, and therefore no clear and salutary teaching, unless the Christian minister discerns it plainly.

4. As a test of Bishop BulFs exegesis of the word faith as used by St. Paul, the test of substitution may be applied.

\

Occasionally, no doubt, this word is used objectively of the thing believed, as all words of this class are (e.g. Gral. i. 23). But it is most oommonly used subjectively, and it occurs (it must be remembered) sometimes in the form of the verb, sometimes in the form of the noun. We may give two instances which may be multiplied to any extent. St. Paul perceived that a certain cripple ‘had faith to be healed* (Acts xiY^ 9). Did he perceive that he had ‘the complex of Christian graces,’ or * all the works of Christian piety ’ ? Again he said to the jailor at Philippi, * Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved ’ (Acts xvi. 31). Is it possible to substitute for the word believe any such com- plexity of periphrasis ? or was it not a single spiritual act to which the man was called?

Again, with regard to the use of the word works in the Epistles to the Eomans and Galatians ; were the works of the ceremonial and strictly Mosaic law those which were re- pudiated as capable of justifying the sinner, or was it not rather the moral law, whether written in the conscience, or enjoined in the Mosaic law (Rom. iii. 10-18) ? This subject should be carefully studied with a very close examination of those epistles, * calling no man master ’ in this vital matter.

5. He who would form a scriptural system of doctrine, on which he might feel that he could rely, should frame for himself a tabulated system of passages with the help of a Greek concordance. An English one will not suffice, because our translators have not adhered to one rendering of the same word.

[…]

It need scarcely be noted how very rarely this is done ; in other words, how rarely our divines make a thorough ex- amination of Scripture for themselves.

6. It may be useful, to bring together some of the principal methods of interpreting St. James ii. 24,

(1.) Bishop Jewel and others held that St. James refers to evidential justification; i.e. to justification, as it may be

I 2

manifested to man, which cannot be without works (Matt. vii. 16), inasmuch as faith is invisible; while St. Paul speaks of justification before God.

(2.) Hooker, as we have seen, holds that St. James means the righteousness of sanctification. But it may be asked if the New Testament anywhere else’ uses the word justify in this sense.

(3.) Bishop Bull and others take St. James absolutely, and stretch St. Paulas use of the word faith so as to include works.

(4.) Many hold that St. James is arguing with false pro- fessors on their own grounds ; and, taking up their own word faith in their sense of it, shows that on their meagre notion of faith, justification by faith only would not convey the meaning of Scripture.

Notes

• Clemens Rom. Ep. i. 32.