Forbes on Article XI: Of the Justification of Man

hath not anticipated us in this respect, not only is the spiritual life not perfect in us, but actually not begun. For if ” without Him we can do nothing,” certain ly we can neither begin His work nor bring it to an end. For of the beginning it is said, ” His mercy shall go before me ;” and of the end it is said, ” His mercy shall ibllow me all the days of my life x.”

x St. Augustine, vol. x. p. 115 1>.

TANTUH p ropier merit-urn Domini ae Serratoris nostri Jcsu Chrixt.i, per fidem, -non- propter opera ct merita nostra-j justi coram Deo repntamur. Quare sola fide nos jwtificari doctrina est sahiberrima, ae comolatio- nis plemssima, ut in how ilia de justificatione hominis fusins explicahir.

” Of the Justification of Man.

<t WE are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works, or deservings. AVherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.”

How man may be accounted righteous in the eyes of the all-holy and righteous God is the most important question that can concern him. For the truth of God requires that in some sense what He accounts righteous must be righteous. The doctrine, therefore, hinges on the relation of the creature to its Creator, on the spiri tual condition of man in reference to his eternal desti nies. It is no mere theological discussion, nor argument of the Schools ; it is the mighty question, how is fallen

man brought into relation with God in Christ, and when thus brought, what are the conditions of that relation ?

But not only is the question most important in view of its intrinsic merit, it has for us the additional ele ment that historically justification was one of the ralty- ing cries of the Reformation. At one particular phase of that event all other questions became subsidiary to it. The Schoolmen had perhaps carried system to its fullest legitimate result, and what followed ? The age of the great mediaeval saints a, of the earlier School- divines, and of the great intellectual Popes, was now past. The renaissance had set in. The triumph over the Hussites at the two great Councils of Basle and Constance had put to silence all public opposition to the Church. The fifteenth century is eminently barren in saints ; men were occupied with the fresh surging of political thought, and the sensual glories of heathen dom ; the classic authors for the scholar, and the pagan sculptures for the artist, really possessed men’s souls. The real leaders of European thought were no longer the pupils of Aquinas or Buenaventura, but Politian, and Marsilius Ficinus, and the Medici. The higher intellects sneered at those ceremonies and beliefs, which

a It is remarkable that the greater number of the saints of this period illustrate the first half only of the fifteenth century. St. Anto ninus of Florence died in 1459; St. Bernardinus of Siena in 1444; St. Laurence Giustiniani in 1431 ; St. Vincent Ferrer in 1414, and St. John Capistran in 1456. See the life and writings of Jacob Wim- pheling, by Paul von Wiskowatoft’, Berlin, 1867 ; also for the time of Louis XI. the sermons of Oliver Maillard.

they as princes and prelates were paid to maintain. Among the baser sort, ” the love of the many had waxed cold,” but they were in general sedulous in the external profession of religion. Dimmed as their spiri tual perceptions were, the belief in the great objective truths of religion remained unimpaired. They con tinued to place great faith in the external ordinances of religion, while divorcing them from their end as means of grace. And so they went on through life in an infructuous round of barren observances, till they came to the close of a life of alternative sacrament and sin.

And if the deep instincts of the regenerate soul, never entirely faithless to the grace of baptism, did from time to time acknowledge the hollowness of this condition of things, they were softened by an appli cation of the coarsest form of the power of the keys, by the indulgences of Tetzel and his companions.

It was in opposition to this corrupt state of things that a potent voice through Europe was heard pro claiming ” justification by faith,” justification in the true sense of the Apostle Paul. It thrilled through Christendom, it penetrated even the precincts of the Vatican; and Pole and Contarinib, and the Theatines, felt its power. It was a mighty reaction, and like most reactions it went too far, nay, ran into heresy. The power got into the hands of the more violent.

b ” ’ You have brought to light the jewel which the Church kept half-concealed/ was Cardinal Pole’s comment on a treatise on Justifi cation by Contarini.” — Ranke, vol. i. p. 138, eel. 1840.

The truths that God worked objectively in the soul through the Sacraments, as media between Himself and man, — and that man, responding to grace, whether given in or out of the Sacraments, must needs have a personal, immediate, and individual relation to God, — which had peacefully co-existed in the minds of Chris tians for sixteen hundred years, were precipitated into the sharpest opposition. Again, St. Paul was arrayed against St. James, no doubt to the intense astonish ment of those blessed Beings in their glorious home in heaven ; and in reaction against the coarseness of Tetzel was marshalled the coarseness of Luther.

But the treatment of the doctrine by Luther soon ed into great error. First of all, from his conception of the effects of original sin, he was obliged to eliminate all co-operation on the part of man in the work of sal vation. If man be utterly ruined by the Fall, the operation of God finds as little response in him as in the irrational brute. Secondly, he was obliged to main tain that justification was only a judicial act of God, whereby the believing sinner is delivered from the punishment of sin, but not from sin itself. All righte ousness is external to us c. It remains in Christ, and passes not into the inward life of the believer. Thirdly, concupiscence was regarded as subsisting original sin, no distinction being made between feeling it and con senting to it. Fourthly, he had to hold that all sins in themselves, whatever be their nature, accuse men equally before the tribunal of Christ ; faith being the c Solid. Declar. iii. de Fid. Jus1’<f. § 11. p. 665, § 48. p. 664.

only decisive distinction between sinners in the eyes of God. Lastly, on the ground that the faithful, on account of the obedience of Christ, are looked upon as just, although by virtue of corrupt nature they be truly sinners, and remain such unto death d, it follows that no internal and essential difference as to moral beins: is

O

recognised between the converted and the unconverted ; the Scriptural antithesis of the old and new man, the old and new creation, lose their point and significance ; the notion of penitence, whereb}r the transition is brought about, is mistaken ; and the impressive teach ings of Holy Writ, about a real deliverance from sin, wrought through Christ, and a real mortification or killing of sin in believers e, becomes the occasion of self-delusion. Furthermore, the doctrine became dan gerous, in that it was made to usurp the place of the Sacraments, that it swallowed up all the other factors in the life of the soul, and was substituted as the ground of man’s assurance, in place of these Sacraments, which not only are pledges to assure us of grace, but which themselves keep alive and nourish faith and grace within the soul. It was emphatically one-sided and im perfect, in that it ignored all those blessed truths thai, are conveyed to us by St. John, when he teaches us that we are branches of the True Vine, each branch partaking of the life and sap of that from whence it springs, the merit and grace and virtue of Christ flow ing forth from Him into all His members.

As there is no source of error so copious as a mis-

A Ibid. § 15. p. 657. e Rom. vi.; via. 1—4.

understanding of terms, when we proceed to treat of the very important question of justification it becomes our first duty to define the term. In its literal sense it means a making just or righteous, just as rectifica tion is a making right, or sanctification a making saintly or holy. And this subdivides itself into three acceptations. 1. As, in human affairs, the word must be restricted to a forensic sense, because man cannot alter or affect the heart, the term ‘to justify’ is- sometimes taken for to pronounce just, as when in the courts of law one who has been tried is absolved from the accusation and pronounced innocent of the crime by the judge. Thus in the Gospels : ” He, will ing to justify himself V or, “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that coiiclemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord s.” 2. To justify, in the strict sense of the term, and with reference to the work of God, is to make just. Thus St. Paul, con trasting the crimes of the Corinthians before their conversion with their after condition, says : ” But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of our God.” 3. To justify, is sometimes in Holy Scripture taken for to advance in justice or righteous ness. Thus, ” He that is righteous, let him be righte ous still ; and he that is holy, let him be holy still V

The word ‘justification’ is also taken actively and passively. It is taken actively, when it is described

f St. Luke x. 29. s prov. xvii. 15.

h 1 Cor. vi. 11 ; and Rev. xxii. 11, StKaiw6r,ra}.

as the proper work of God ; passively, when it is de scribed as a certain change in the right hand of the Most High, by which in an from being unjust becomes just.

]^ow the second is the genuine theological sense of the word ’ justification/ It is a real and not an ima ginary process, which takes place in the soul by the operation of God. That process is both external and internal; man is declared and accounted righteous be cause he is made righteous. Hence St. Paul describes the justified state as a change from the state of sinful- ness into the state of habitual grace and of Sonship, as, ” Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son *.” It is the destruction of the alliance between the human will and the old Adam, the removal of original sin, and every other sin committed previously to itself. It is the contraction of a real and living fellow ship with Christ the Righteous and Holy One ; such fellowship implying the remission of sin and the in fusion of sanctification. It is the making over and imparting of the righteousness of Christ, so as to be come inherent in the believer, who thus, no doubt im perfectly, becomes really just and well-pleasing to God. It restores him to the original righteousness in which he was constituted, by means of communion with the se cond Adam Jesus Christ. By it faith, hope, and charity, with an infinite power of increase, are infused into the soul, and the love of God shed abroad in our hearts

“l Col. i. 13.

by the operation of the Holy Spirit. These blessings, in technical language, may be summed up under four heads: — 1. Reconciliation with God, Who instead of slaves now treats us as friends. 2. The remission of sin, so far as the eternal punishment is concerned. 3. The renovation of the inner man, whereby we who were stained and foul by sin, weakened and diseased, stripped of spiritual goods and half dead, become beautiful in God’s eyes, members of Christ, so closely united to Him, that what is done by and in us is by Him in us done : ” I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me ; I merit, yet not I, but Christ meriteth in me ; I satisfy, yet not I, but Christ satisfieth in me.” 4. A right and title to eternal life.

From what has been stated, it will be seen that justi fication may be divided into — 1. First, 2. Second.

First justification is that whereby the unjust becomes just. Actively, it is a certain admirable and super natural act whereby God makes the unjust just. Pas sively it is a certain supernatural change by which a man from being unjust becomes just. By this a man, from being hateful and unpleasing to God, becomes dear to Him ; instead of an enemy to Him, His friend ; in stead of impious, pious; instead of wicked, holy; instead of the slave of sin, the servant of righteousness ; instead of guilty of eternal death, the heir of the kingdom of heaven.

The second justification, actively, is the operation of God whereby He makes the righteous, righteous still, more pleasing, more holy ; passively, it is the

supernatural change whereby man becomes still more righteous, still more holy; as it is written, “And grace for grace.”

Having defined the term ‘justification/ we now ad vance to the first proposition of the Article, — that its meritorious cause is the Lord Jesus Christ. We are accounted righteous before God only for the merits (jproptw meritum) of our Lord Jesus Christ by (per) faith, and not for (propter) our own works or deservings; and this is founded on the theological truth that He with His own most precious Blood has made satisfac tion for us to our Father in heaven, and, having ren dered a perfect obedience to Him in His most holy life, willed that His merits should subserve to our justifica tion. By His excellent virtues, by His endurance, toils, and labours, by His blessed good-will to us, He not only has satisfied superabundantly for our sins, but He has reconciled us to God, and merited our justification.

Nay, He not only merited our justification, — whereby we are restored to the grace of God, our sins are re mitted, our spirits renewed, and our adoption and heir- ship bestowed upon us, — but He merited 1. that the Sacraments should have a power of justifying, and that the good works which are necessary to the justification of adults should be sufficient for the purpose; and 2. that adults should have grace sufficient for such work, for unless these things happened to us for the merits of Christ, and had their sufficiency from Him, we could not say that we were accounted righteous for the meril of Christ, but only by the law and grace of Christ,

who of His great mercy freely appointed these reme dies for us who could in nowise obtain them of our selves ; whereas it cannot be doubted that Christ has actually satisfied for us, ad coudignum, and merited justification for us, do condiyno and according- to the severity of justice, giving, as lie has done, more than we owed by our sins ; for His life was better than our sins were bad ; seeing that His life was the life of God and of Man, infinitely well-pleasing to God. And His death was more dear in the sight of God than our offences were hateful i.

The next point to be considered is the office of faith in justification. Following the teaching of St. Paul,

J The sum of our hope and justification is this : ” For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin : that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him,” (2 Cor. v. 21). Nor can there be any other victim well-pleasing to God, or sacrifice for others, save the Word made flesh; of whom the Apostle says, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them ;” (ver. 19). For He imputeth not, who not only pardoneth freely, but truly giveth righteousness and holiness.

That the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, and that that im putation is necessary for justification, is quite true, but we must not say that men arc justified solely by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the exclusion of grace, whereby He makes us just by the Holy Spirit, the love of God being shed abroad in our hearts. More over, the merits of Christ are by faith not only imputed to us, but are applied and communicated to us ; by which process not only our sins are remitted, but a righteousness transmitted from Christ is poured into oi>r souls. This is the justification of the new man. St. Augustine says, ” We read that they are justified in Christ who believe in Him, by a hidden communication and inspiration of spiritual grace.” — Lib. i. de pec. mer. et rem., c.x.n. 11. Bossuet, Proj. de Reunion entre les Ca- fholiqiies et les Protestants d’ Allemagne. (Ev.vres, torn. xxvi. 19.

that we are justified freely, the Article asserts that we are accounted righteous for the merits of our Lord by faith.

Observe distinctly that the Article is here speaking of the first justification, viz. that whereby from being unjust man is made just, and that the faith here spoken of is not the fiducia of Luther, the confidence that one’s own sins are remitted, neither is it a bare speculative assent to the supernatural truths of religion, such as exists in the demons; but it is that beginning and root of the spiritual life, whereby we savingly believe that God is, that He is the rewarder of them that dili gently seek Him, and that He hath sent His only Son for the redemption of all men ; without which it is impossible to please Him ; the hand whereby God’s grace is apprehended; the intellectual power of soul which lays hold on revealed truth; the root whence springs the holy life, nay, which is the holy life itself in germ and possibility. It is a divine gift of God in the soul, a supernatural infused virtue.

It must be laid down as a principle that this first justification is the free gift of God. We are justified freely by faith, as the Apostle bears witness. St. Augus tine says, ” Wherefore grace ? because it is given gratis : wherefore is it given gratis ? because thy merits have not gone before, but the benefits of God have antici pated thee.” Elsewhere he saysk, ” The grace of -Christ, without which neither infants nor adults can

k cap. 4. De Zfatura et Gratia.

l}e saved, is not given as the reward of merit, but is given gratis, wherefore it is called grace, ‘being justi fied freely by His grace V ” This he says, explaining the words of St. Paul — “Who shall deliver me from the body of this death ? the grace of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

This faith is not mere speculative, but practical. Love is its vivifying principle. It does not, however, merit, it impetrates justification.

The justifying faith of Lutheranism, however, is not this. According to this system, man has faith when, he believes that he has been received by God into grace; and that for Christ’s sake, who by His death hath offered atonement for our sins, he receives for giveness of the same. Therefore no sin can damn a man, but unbelief alone ; and the word faith changes its meaning into confidence111.

1 Rom. iii. 21.

[…]

The form which this doctrine takes in modern English Evangelicalism seems to be of this nature : — •” We do not misrepresent their doctrinal system by stating- it as follows : St. Paul tells us, that a man is justified by faith ; that is, by having faith, and by the faith which he has. But when has a man this faith ? Is it sufficient that he has love to Christ, and puts his trust in His merits for salvation ? ’ Xot necessarily/ it is replied, ’ because he may be putting some trust in himself too.’ What, then, is necessary to constitute him the possessor of this saving faith ? ’ He must throw himself upon Christ’s merits entirely,’ is the answer. But what is the test whereby to judge whether he does trust in Christ thus entirely, or wherein does the entirety of his trust consist, and what is its essence? “It consists in his renouncing Ills own merits. When ti man does this, then and not till then he believes in Christ ; then and

The Article now proceeds : —

“And not for our own works and deservings.” The emphatic word here is for (propter). The antithesis is between the merit of Christ and our merit. We are said to be justified by the one and not by the other. That is to say, our works are not the meritorious causes of our justification. There is no antithesis between by (per) faith, and for (propter) our works ; so that the question between faith and works ought not strictly to be imported into an explanation of the letter of the Article, though the close connection of the two subjects tempts one to consider their relation. It is clear that, the first justification being the act whereby we are in grafted into Christ, before the justice or righteousness becomes habitual, faith must precede merit, which is the fruit of God the Holy Ghost working in those who are already in Christ.

It is next stated that the opinion that ” we are justi fied by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.” If faith is taken in an objective sense, that is to say, as an establishment in stituted by God in Jesus Christ, in opposition to Ju daism, or any human and arbitrary system of religion, and the modes of thinking, feeling, and acting, which such religions prescribe ; then it is absolutely, and with-

not till then he throws himself upon his Saviour’s merits; then and not tUl then he has saving faith.’

” First of all, the conviction is a negative one ; and, secondly, the conviction is no profound spiritual truth, but something about the man himself.” — Christian Remembrancer, vol. Ixiv. p. 353.

out restriction, true, that faith alone justifies. Thereby alone man is able to acquire God’s favour : ” There is none other Name given unto man whereby he may be saved, but only the Name of the Lord Jesus.” It is only through the mercy of God that this Name is given, without any merit on the part of mankind in general, •or of individual man in particular n.

” Very many of the Fathers affirm that we are justi fied by faith alone0. By the word ’ alone/ the Fathers never intended simply to exclude all works of faith and grace from the causes of justification and eternal sal vation : but in the first place the laws of nature and of Moses ; secondly, all works done in our own strength, without faith in Christ, and His preventing grace; thirdly, a false faith or heresy, to which and not to works they oppose faith ; fourthly, the absolute neces sity of external works, even those which are done through grace, as love, penitence, the reception of the Sacraments, and the like, whenever the power or the opportunity to do such works is absent : for then faith alone, without external works, is sufficient, yet not

” Mohler, SymloUJc, vol. i. p. 211.

0 Origcii in cap. 3 ad Eom. § 9 ; St. Hilary of Poitiers, Canon 8 in Matt. § 6, movct Scribas ; St. Basil, Horn, de Humilitate, § 3, t. 2, p. 158. The author of the Commentaries on St. Paul in cap. 3, Rom. v. 24, t. ii. p. 46 D ; St. Greg. Nazian/en, Or at. n. 32, § 25. t. i. p. 596 C; St. Chrysostom in 3 Gal. § 5, t. x. p. 699 ; St. Hieronyrnus in cap. 4. ad Rom. v. 3, v. 5, v. 11; Theodoreb. Therapeut. 7, t. 4, p. 892; St. Au- gustinus Cont. 2. Ep. Pelag., lib. i. c. 21, § 39, t. x. p. 429; St. Cyril of Alexandria, lib. x. in Job. cap. 18 ; Pope St. Leo, Ep. 70. Serin, iv. Epiph. St. Peter; Chrys. Serm. xxxiv. Sib. Pair., t. vii. p. 872; St. Prosper of Aquituine, t. i. p. 331.

without some good affections of penitence and charity, which are internal works ; fifthly and lastly, all vain assurance and boasting of our works of whatever sort,, not only those preceding faith, but those done, either externally or internally, from the grace of faith p.”

Again, the expression is, though not used in Scrip ture, true and undeniable, if we understand by faith, not a faith segregated from love and hope, and other virtues, no mere union of the phantasy or feelings with Christ, no barren recognition of Christian truth or conviction about our own spiritual state ; but a new, living spirit, a new divine sentiment regulating the whole man, forming an inseparable unity with charity, ” the very bond of peace and of all virtue, without which whoso ever liveth is counted dead before God.” While an element of hope and trust accompanies this informed faith, its essence does not consist in an assurance of divine grace in Jesus Christ, nor in a confidence in the- merits of the Redeemer, by the power of which sins are forgiven. Neither must we hold up this confidence as being able entirely of itself, and abstractedly, to win for its possessors the favour of God. This doctrine has no solid foundation in Holy Scripture; and it is a striking circumstance that, while this Article bears^ evident traces of having been founded upon a similar one in the Confession of Augsburg, the peculiar symbol of Lutheranism, that a man is justified if he believes- that he is justified (an expression whioh occurs at least

seven times in that document), has been rejected from, the Anglican Formulary.

The Article, in its close, sums up this teaching by saying that it is a most wholesome doctrine, and full of comfort, that we are justified by faith only ; and refers to the Homily of Justification. There is no Homily of Justification in either Book, but perhaps the Homily on the Salvation of All Men may be meant, as express ing this same teaching more largely. On this there is no point of controversy. Any question which would possibly arise, must relate not to our being justified by faith only, but to the character of the faith whereby we are justified. And on this all must be agreed. Faith, which had not love, would be the faith of devils, and this, of course, would justify none : faith, which had not the purpose of living to God, and according to His law, would be self-deceit q.

” We nowhere expressly read in Scripture ’ That the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us for righteous^ ness.’ We read, indeed, in Scripture that ’ faith is im puted unto us for righteousness, that because of Christ’s righteousness God does not impute to us our sins,’ and that ’ righteousness is imputed to us ;J but the Scripture

i Yet Bossuet puts the question, ” Does faith alone justify ?” He answers, ” In regard to the mercy of God and the merits of Christ, there is no doubt but that they truly justify us. But when the Lutherans, with this most excellent author (Molanus), agree that faith justifies, not a bare faith, or alone, in the sense of being solitary and destitute of the purpose of doing well, they would entirely satisfy Ca tholics.” — Projet de Reunion, t. xxv. p. 377.

Molanus had stated, “the word ‘alone’ (sola) is not to be taken for ‘solitary,’ i.e. for a dead faith, or a faith destitute of good works, or, at least, of the purpose of doing well.” — Ib., p. 286.

nowhere expressly says that God ’ imputes to us for righteousness the righteousness of Christ/… ’ That the righteousness, i.e. the obedience of Christ, is imputed to us, as to effect and fruit, i.e. remission of sins, inherent righteousness, and acceptance to everlasting life ; that it is communicated, attributed, and given to us, is, in fact, said in Scripture wherever it is expressly asserted that by the obedience and death of Christ righteous ness and salvation have been obtained for us, or that we have been redeemed from sin and reconciled to God : or when it is taught that Christ is of God made unto us righteousness : or that for us He is made sin, that in Him we might be made the righteousness of God : or that by His righteousness and obedience we are made just before God. Yet it would not be safe to say that the righteousness of Christ is the formal cause of our justification. It is more rightly held that Christ’s righteousness or obedience, imputed or applied to us, is the meritorious and impulsive cause of our justifica tion :’ that is, it is the external and objective cause, as opposed to an internal and subjective one1’. If im putation mean the collation of the gifts of Christ, the expression is a sound one ; but if it mean that Christ’s righteousness is taken instead of our righteousness — that His obedience takes the place of ours — it is sub versive of Christian morality.”

It was said at the beginning of this Article, that

a school of Catholic theologians, headed by Contarini

and Pole, resting mainly on the necessity of a stronger

subjectivity in religion, and relying on such authority

r Forbesii Consid. Mod., vol. i. p. 113.

as that of St. Bernard, had taught a theology in which many elements of Protestant thought existed. A little later, also, we have Catharinus, Cassander, and the emi nent Groper, attempting an Eirenikon; but logically such Eirenikon could not stand. Justification in the Catholic sense, as a real though imperfect deliverance from sin or stain, was incompatible with a covering of a sin-stained soul with the merits of Christ, so that the soul still remains sinful in itself, though for Christ’s sake the punishment is remitted. It was impossible to reconcile two such contrary theories, as one which makes the work of Christ in the soul a real process of right-making and holy-making, with a system which consisted merely in a feeling, a reflective act of the soul that it is certainly in a state of grace. Accord ingly, a distinct separation took place s.

s On the continent, also, justification by imputation was the turning- point of the Reformation ; yet hardly a single scientific Protestant theo logian now maintains it. (See a remarkable enumeration of Protestant theologians, in number exceeding forty-two, who have abandoned the doctrine of justification, as it is set forth in the Formula Concord ice and the Heidelberg Catechism, in fact the prevalent doctrine till 1760. — Dol- linger’s ” Church and Churches,” ed. Maccabe, p. 295.) And in England, though during the latter days of Elizabeth and the first of James, it was the dominant teaching in the Schools, it was so thoroughly demolished by Bull, Hammond, and Thorndike, within the Church, and by Baxter among the Nonconformists, its contradictions and destructive conse quences have been shewn to be so glaring, that it has ceased to maintain itself theologically; though a class of amiable writers — Toplady, Venn, Newton, and Hervey — are still quoted with admiration by their followers, who have specially adapted themselves to the well-to-do comfortable Englishman, who desires an intelligible, consolatory, and tranquillizing system. This he finds in the doctrine of justification by imputation. A man is there taught that by an ace of mere imputation of the righte ousness of Another, one may pass into a state of perfect security and cer-

Thus we have endeavoured to expound the holy and blessed doctrine of Justification by Faith, as it has been held in the Church of God from the beginning. From first to last the gift of God, like all His gifts, it blesses mankind by the elevation of every faculty of the soul. Consecrating the free-will to the glorious service of religion, it developes the notion of responsi bility, and so puts Christian ethics on a solid basis ; at the same time, recognising its absolute need of divine grace in every stage of its process, it renders high praise to God the Father, from whom descencleth every perfect gift. Herein also is the Son glorified, as the sole meritorious cause ; and the Holy Ghost honoured, through whose potent operation alone we are able to will and to do of God’s good pleasure.

tainty of salvation ; that by being clothed with the merits and righte ousness of the Saviour he may be regarded by God as righteous, although inwardly he is not so ; that he can never forfeit this state of grace, for that he is one of the elect. All this depends on his having a com pletely favourable opinion of his own state. This is assurance. Men announce the immediate and certain forgiveness of all sins, and assu rance of safetv, as the price of momentary excitement and concentration of feeling. This is called ’ Preaching the Gospel in its fulness and free dom.’ ” — Vide Dollinger, ” Church and Churches,” pp. 114, 175.

In short, to sum the matter up scientifically, “it is not faith but the imputation of the sufferings of Christ, which makes man appear justified before God, or that the process of justification is therewith fulfilled, that God attributes to man the sufferings and the fulfilment of the law by Christ, as if man himself had yielded the same obedience ; and that man, through faith, knows and becomes assured of this imputation.” —p. 299, note.

Notes

• Forbcsii Consid., vol. i. p. 58, Oxf. ed.