Gibson on Article XI: Of the Justification of Man

In its present form this Article dates from the Elizabethan revision in 1563. The Edwardian Article on the same subject was much less explicit : ” Justification by only faith in Jesus Christ in that sense, as it is declared in the Homily of Justification, is a most certain and wholesome doctrine for Christian men.”

The Article, as finally drawn up by Parker, is indebted for some of its phrases to the Confessions of Augsburg and Wiirtemberg. In the latter of these documents we find these words: “Homo enim fit Deo acceptus, et reputatur coram eo Justus propter solum Filium Dei, Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum^ per fidem ” ; ^ while in the former we read as follows: “Item docent quod homines non possunt justificari coram Deo propriis virihus, Tneritis aut operihus, sed gratis justificentur propter Christum, per fidem, cum credunt se in gratiam recipi, et peccata remitti propter Christum, qui sua morte pro nostris peccatis satisfecit. Hanc fidem imputat Deus

pro justitia coram ipso, Rom. iii et iv.” ^ And again : ” Ut hanc fidem consequamur, institutum est ministerium docendi Evangelii et porrigendi sacramenta. Nam per verbum et sacramenta, tanquam per instrumenta, donatur Spiritus Sanctus, qui fidem efficit, ubi et quando visum est Deo, in iis qui audiunt evangelium, scilicet, quod Deus non propter nostra merita, sed propter Christum justificet hos, qui credunt se propter Christum in gratiam recipL”^ The expressions placed in italics in these extracts will show how far the Article is indebted to Lutheran sources. But while it is undeniable that Parker did to some extent borrow from these documents, yet it is significant that he stopped short, and did not transfer to the Anglican formulary what has been aptly termed ” the peculiar symbol of Lutheranism,” ^ viz. the statement that a man is justified when he believes himself to be justified, — an expression which occurs in these or almost identical words no fewer than seven times in the Confession of Augsburg.

The object of the Article is to state the mind of the Church of England on the subject of man’s justification, which was regarded in some quarters as the ” articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesise,” and which had unhappily given occasion for some of the worst excesses and extravagances of teaching which marked the course of the Eeformation.

The subjects which call for consideration in order to a right understanding of the Article are these —

1. Justification, its meaning and relation to Sanctification.

[…]

• Jb. art. V.

’ Forbes On the Articles, p. 182. What makes the omission the more remarkable is the fact that the expression is actually contained in the fourth Article *‘De Justificatione” agreed upon by the Conference of Anglicans and Lutherans in 1538. See Hardwick, p. 263.

•ii

2. The meritorious cause of Justification.

3. The instrument or formal cause of Justification.

4. The ” Homily of Justification.”

I. Justification, its meaning and relation to Sanctifi^ation.

The Article treats as convertible terms the expressions ” to be accounted righteous ” (Justus reputari) and ” to

be justified” G^stificari). We are accounted righteous … by faith… . Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most

wholesome doctrine. Both phrases are founded on the language of Holy Scripture. The former is based on Gen. xv. 6 : ” Abraham believed God, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness ” (LXX. iiriarevae Tft) Sew KaX iXoyMr) avrm ek hiKaioavvrtv \ Vulg. Credidit Deo et repiitattim est illi ad pistitiam). From this passage the phrase is adopted by S. Paul in the Epistle to the Eomans, c. iv., and throughout this chapter the Greek XoyLaOfjvat ek BtKaiocrvvrjv is always rendered by the Vulgate ” ad justitiam reputari” (see ver. 3, 5, 9, 11, 22, 23 ; and cf. Gal. iii. 6 ; S. James ii. 23). Justifimri, ” to be justified,” is also the invariable Latin equivalent for ZiKaiovaOai, — a verb which (in the active or passive) occurs nearly thirty times in S. Paul’s Epistles, although used but rarely elsewhere in the New Testament.

To discover the meaning of justification it is therefore necessary to examine and determine the sense in which hiKaiovv and SiKaiovaOai are used in Scripture.

(a) In the Old Testament the active voice is used by the LXX. as the translation of the Hebrew P’k in a judicial or ” forensic ” sense : to ” do right to a person,” i.e. to do justice to his cause, and so to acquit (see Ex. xxiii. 7 ; Deut. xxv. 1 ; 2 Sam. xv. 4 ; 1 Kings viii. 32; 2 Chr. vi. 23; Ps. Ixxxii. (Ixxxi.) 3; Is.

V. 23, 1. 8, liii. 11 ; Jcr. iii. 11 ; Ezek. xvi. 51, 52); in other words, its meaning is not to ” make a person righteous,” but to “make him out righteous,” or to “treat him as righteous.” i But in itself the word indicates nothing as to whether he is or is not righteous. So in the passive, a person is said to be “justified ” when he is regarded as righteous, held “not guilty,” or acquitted (see Gen. xliv. 16; Job xxxiii. 32; Ps. Ii. (1.) 5, cxliii (cxHi.) 2 ; Is. xliii. 9, 26, xlv. 25).

(h) In the New Testament outside the Epistles of S. Paul the word is not of frequent occurrence, but wherever it is found (eleven times in all 2) its meaning is just the same. ” Wisdom is justified by her works ” (S. Matt. XL 19; cf. S. Luke vil 35), i.e. not “made righteous,” but vindimted, proved to be righteous. In S. Matt. xii. 37 it is opposed to “condemned,” and thus is equivalent to […] By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” The lawyer, wilUng to Justify himseK, says : ” And who is my neighbour ? ” where the meaning evidently is to vindicate himself, or make himself out to be righteous (S. Luke X. 29 ; cf. xvL 15). The pubUcan ” went down to his house justified rather than ” the Pharisee (S. Luke xviii. 14). These are representative instances, and

» This is quite in accordance with the classical use of the word, and with what might be expected from the formation of the word. ” How can diKaiovy possibly signify to make righteous’^ Verbs, indeed, of this ending from adjectives of physical meaning may have this use, e.g. TV(p\ovu, ” to make blind.” But when such woi-ds are derived from adjectives of irwral meaning, as d^tovu, b<now, dtKuiovu, they do by usage, and must from the nature of things signify to deem, to account, to pr(m;, or to treat as worthy, holy, righteous.” TJie Speaker’s Commentary on 1 Cor. vi. 11, quoted in Sanday and Headlam On the Romans, p. 30.

2 S. Matt. xi. 19, xii. 37 ; S. Luke vii. 29, 35, x. 29, xvi. 15, xviii. 14 ; Acts xiii. 39 ; S. James ii. 21, 24, 25. In Rev. xxii. 11, which is sometimes cited for the meaning of ivftising righteousness, the reading is really biKatocvvriv TroiTjadTu.

H*

establish the meaning of the word outeide S. Paul’s writings. But as the phrase ” to be justified by faith ib due to him, it becomes necessary to exa”! his usage of the word. It is employed m his Epistles altogether twenty-five times ; and while in some cas it is unambiguous and mvst mean treat as rufhteous and so (in the case of the guilty) pardon and acquit, m no single instance can the meaning of ” make righteous be established for it. This statement is one that can easily be verified, and therefore only a few examples need be cited here. ” To him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt. But to him that worketh not, but beUeveth on Him tht jvtifath the un-odly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness (Rom. iv °4 5) All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of G;d: hemg justified freely by His gmce, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (f’ f 3, 24 With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment ; yea, I judge not mme own self. For I know nothing against myself ; yet am I not hereby jvstifid: but He that judgeth me is the Lord” (1 Cor. iv. 3, 4). In 1 Tim. iil 16 the word is used of Christ, who was ” manifested in the eh, jitstified

in the spirit.” , , ,

From these examples the meaning of the word maybe ascertained without difficulty. It is regularly employed of the sentence or verdict pronounced on a man by Uod, and does not in itself tell us whether the person over whom the sentence is pronounced is really righteous or not. When a man is justified he is “accounted righteous,

or regarded as righteous. ^r i ” 9

This leads to the inquiry, wJien is a man justihed i

I Rom. ii. 13, iii. 4, 20, 23, 24, 26 28, 30 iv. 2. 5 v. 1,J. vi. 7, viii. 30, 33 ; 1 Cor. iv. 4. vi. 11 ; Gal. ii. 16, 17, ui. 8, 11, 24, v. 4 , 1 Tim. ui. 16 ; Titus iii. 7.

’<^

And this raises the whole question of the relation of justification to sanctification.

Sandi/ico and sanctificatio are in the Vulgate the regular equivalent of cuyidecu and dyvleiVy and of afytaa-fio and dfyiaxrvvrj words which are all directly connected with the idea of making Iwly, Thus sanctification is a gradual work, the being really made holy in ourselves by the working of God’s Holy Spirit in us. To ” grow in grace ” is to be sanctified. The question, then, to be decided is not whether obedience and good works are necessary for salvation, not whether sanctification is required, but at what point in the Christian life is the act of justification to be placed ? in other words, the question is whether a man is first made righteous (sanctified) by God, and then declared to be so (justified) ; or whether God as it were anticipates what the man will become, and on his repentance accepts him, and for Christ’s sake pronounces him ” not guilty,” the Divine verdict of acquittal running (as it has been said) in advance of the actual practice of righteousness.

In the early Church the question was not raised, as the subject of man’s justification never came into controversy. But after the rise of Pelagianism it acquired a fresh importance, and assumed a new prominence, owing to the Pelagian assertion of human merit apart from grace ; and in the writings of Augustine, while against Pelagianism the absolute need of grace, and the freeness of God’s gift of salvation, is fully vindicated, the notion that justifico means to make righteous, and that justification is therefore an infusion of grace, can clearly be traced.^ This thought was further developed by the

» In Dt Sjnritu et Litera, § 45, Augustine admits that justifico may mean “reckon just,” but practically his whole theory is that of an infusion of the grace of faith by which men are made just.” Sanday and Headlam On the Itomajis, p. 150, where these quotations are given ; De

■I

schoolmen in the Middle Ages, and justification was defined us not only forgiveness of sins, but also an infusion of grace ; and thus it was practically made to include sanctification,^ — a view which was finally endorsed by the Council of Trent. The subject was considered at the sixth session of the Council held in January 1547, and justification was decreed to be ” not merely the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inner man, through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts, whereby man from unjust becomes just, from an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to the hope of eternal life.” It was also stated that (1) the final cause of justification is tlie glory of God and of Christ and eternal life; (2) the ejikient cause is the merciful God ; (3) the meritorious cause is the Lord Jesus Christ, Who merited justification for us by His Passion ; (4) the instncmental cause is the sacrament of baptism, “which is the sacrament of faith, without which justification never befell any man”; (5) the formal cause is the righteousness (justitia) of God with which we are endowed by Him.^ Further, the

Spiritu et LUera, § 18 : ** H.nec est justitia Dei qure in Testamento Veteri velata, in Novo revelatur : qu.T ideo justitia Dei dicitnr quod imjx^iendo eamjufUos/aeit.’* Enarratio, % 6 : “Credenti inquit in eum qui justificat impium, deputatur fides ejus ad justitiam si justificatur inipius ex impio Jit Justus.”

1 See the Summa of Aquinas, 1™ 2^ Q. cxiii. 2.

’- “Justificatio … non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptioneni gratine et donorum. Unde homo ex injusto fit Justus, et ex inimico amicus, ut sit hferes secundum spem vitae seternie. Hujus justificationis causre sunt, finalis quidem, gloria Dei et Christi, ac vita ceterna : efficiens vero misericorda Deus, … meritoria autem dilectissimus unigenitus suus, Dominus noster Jesus Christus, qui cum essemus inimici proper nimiam charitatem, qua dilexit nos, sua sanctissima passione in ligno crucis nobis justificationem memit, et pro nobis Deo satlsfecit : instrumentalis item, sacramentum Baptismi, quod est sacramentum fidei, sine qua ulli nunquam contigit justificatio : demum unica foi-malis causa est justitia

eleventh Canon passed at the same session anathematizes ” any who shall say that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the righteousness of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and charity which is shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost and is inherent in them.” ^

Thus according to the Roman view justification includes sanctification. On the other hand, as is well known, Luther and the Reformers generally insisted very strongly and even vehemently on the distinction between justification and sanctification, and on the forensic meaning to be given to the former. According to them, justification is the initial blessing, when God receives the repentant sinner, pardons, and accepts him. And on this point an examination of S. Paul’s usage of the word makes it clear that they were right. The Apostle certainly does distinguish between justification and sanctification, and uses the former word, not for final salvation, nor for infused holiness, but, as the Reformers insisted, for the initial blessing, when God accepts a man and, pardoning him, or ” not imputing his sins to him,” at the outset, treats him as ” not guilty.” ” All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God ; being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. iii. 23, 24 ; cf. iv. 5, where God is said to justify top aaefirj). To be justified, according to him, is to be pardoned and accepted ; to be taken into

Dei, non qua Ipse Justus est, sed qua nos justos facit, qua videlicet ab eo donati, renovamur Spiritu mentis nostras, et non modo reputamur, sed vere justi nominamur, et sumus, justitiam in nobis recipientes.” — Cone. Trid., Sess. VI. c. vii.

• “Si quis dixerit homines justificari, vel sola imputatione justitise Christi, vel sola peccatorum remissione, exclusa gratia et charitate, quae in cordibus eorum per Spiritum Sanctum diff’undatur, atque illis inhaereat ; aut etiam gratiam qua justificamur esse tantum favorem Dei ; anathema sit.” — lb. canon xi.

II

ij

II

I!

God’s favour all sinful and unworthy as we are : and justification, according to this view, contains these two ideas, (1) pardon for sin, and (2) a right and title to eternal life founded upon promise ; but the idea of an infused righteousness is not contained in the term. “Being made free from sin” — there is justification — ” ye have your fruit unto holiness ” — there is sanctification, distinct from justification, but not independent

of it.

On the whole, then, it may be safely said that if we are to follow the teaching and language of S. Paul we must at least in thought distinguish between these two blessings, the one (justification) the work of the Son of God /or us, the other (sanctification) the work of the Holy Spirit within us ; and so distinguishing them, must hold that in the order of the Christian life justification precedes sanctification. In the words of S. Chrysostom, God ” crowns us at the outset, making the contest light to us.”^ And if it be said that this introduces into God’s dealings with us an element of unreality, man being regarded as righteous when he is not really so, and Christ’s merits being “imputed” to him by a sort of legal fiction, it may be replied that there is no more unreality or fiction necessarily involved than is implied in all pardon, since the forgiveness of any wrong implies the treating of the doer of it as “not guilty.”* But

• JTom. in Bom, xiii.

• “There is something suflBciently startling in this. The Christian life is made to have its beginning in a fiction. No wonder that the fact is questioned, and that another sense is given to the words — that Si/caiowrtfat is taken to imply, not the attribution of righteousness in idea, but an imparting of actual righteousness. The facts of language, however, are inexorable : we have seen that fftJcaioOi’, Jtirotowrtfot have the first sense and not the second ; that they are rightly said to be ” forensic ” ; that they have reference to a judicial verdict, and to nothing beyond. To this conclusion we feel bound to adhere, even though it should follow that the state described is (if we are pressed) a fiction, that God is

when so much has been said, and the two blessings have been thus distinguished in thought and assigned definite theological names, it must never be forgotten that in actual life they are inseparable. In the order of thought justification precedes sanctification. But together the blessings stand or fall. If a man is justified we may be sure that he is being sanctified, however imperfect his condition may be. If he is not being sanctified, he has fallen from his state of grace, and can no longer be regarded as “justified.”

II. The Tneritoricnis Cause of Justification,

On this point the teaching of the Article is clear and distinct. The meritorious cause of our justification is the

atoning work of Christ. We are accounted Pighteoas before God only for the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (propter meritum Domini, etc.), … and not for our own works

or deservings (non propter opera et merita nostra). It will be observed that the same preposition, “for” (propter), is used in both clauses, whereas when faith is mentioned in connection with justification an entirely different preposition, “by” (per), is employed. It is

regarded as dealing with men rather by the ideal standard of what they may be than by the actual standard of what they are. What this means is, that when a man makes a great change, such as that which the first Christiana made when they embraced Christianity, he is allowed to start on his career with a clean record ; his sin-stained past is not reckoned against him. The change is the great thing ; it is that at which God looks. As with the prodigal son in the parable, the breakdown of his pride and rebellion in the one cry, ** Father, I have sinned,” is enough. The father does not wait to be gracious. He does not put him upon a long term of probation, but reinstates him at once in the full privilege of sonship. The justifying verdict is nothing more than the “best robe” and the ” ring” and the ” fatted calf” of the parable (Luke xv. 22 f.).” — Sanday and Headlam On the Homans, p. 36.

:i

FK ,

important to dwell on this, because it shows that the real antithesis in the Article (as in Scripture) is not between faith and works, but between the merit and work of our Saviour and human merit and work, i.e. between receiving salvation as God’s free gift, and earning it by our own efforts. That the meritorious cause of justification is the merit and atoning work of our Saviour, is recognised as fully and frankly by the Church of Kome as it is by the Church of England ; and indeed it is hard to see how it can be questioned theoretically by any except those who would deny altogether the need of the atonement. And yet there can be no doubt that p-actically the medieval system did tend to make men rely on their own merits as the cause of their justification,^ and led to the notion that they could earn it by what they did ; while in the opposite quarter there are traces of the same error among some of the Anabaptists.2 This error, it is to be hoped, has entirely passed away at the present day; and we may therefore proceed at once to the next subject that demands consideration.

ITT. The Instrument or formal Cause of Justification, This the Article asserts to be faith. We are

« “They [the Anabaptists] boste themselues to be ryghtuous and to please God, not purely and absolutely for Christes sake, but for theyr owne mortification of themselues, for theyr owne good workes and persecucion, if they suffre any.” — Hermann’s Consultation, fol. cxlii. (English translation of 1548), quoted in Hardwick, p. 99.

accounted righteous . […] faith (per fidem). • . • Wherefore that we are justified by faith only (sola fide) is a most wholesome doctrine, and Yery full of comfort.

There are several matters here which require elucidation—

(a) The meaning of ” faith.”

(b) The meaning of the expression ” we are justified by faith only”

(c) The reason why faith is the instrument of justification.

(a) The meaning of ”faith” — There is no Hebrew word exactly answering to our term ” faith.” The verb signifying to believe, to trust, is TP!!, which the LXX. habitually render by ‘jrurreveLv, from the important passage. Gen. xv. 6, onwards: “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness ” (LXX. Kal eTriarevaev Afipaa to) Geo) Kal ikoyiaOT) avr 69 iKaioavvTfv). This is one of the two great passages on which S. Paul bases his doctrine of justification by faith. But there is in Hebrew no substantive meaning faith as an active principle, i.e. trustfulness, or the frame of mind which relies upon another. The nearest approach is found in nDN, firmness or constancy, which is variously rendered by the LXX. dXrjOeia, irioTi, or by an adjective, aXrjOivo, iriaTOf;, dcoTnaTo:. The word, however, is rather passive than active, signifying trustworthiness, or the frame of mind that can be relied on; although in Hab. ii. 4 (S. Paul’s other great text) it seems to have a double or ” transitional ”

.^f

sense. ” The just shall live by faith ” (LXX. o Se hUam fiov €/e irldTem ^v<T€Tat). Here it is hard to say whether mD^ and Trurrt? represent “trustfulness” (active) or “trustworthiness” (passive): in fact, the two ideas seem to be blended together. But when we pass from the Old Testament to the New, we find ttutta? definitely stamped with the active sense, and as a Christian virtue it has the meaning of trust or belief} Still it is employed with considerable variations of meaning, from the bare sense of ” belief ” or intellectual assent, as when S. James says that “the devils believe (irurTevovai) and tremble” (S. James ii 19), rising to that “faith which worketh by love ” (TrtcrTt? 8a’ afyaTrrj<: ivepyovfiivrf, Gal. v. 6), to which all the achievements of the Old Testament saints are attributed in Heb. xi. This last is the sense in which it is ordinarily used by S. Paul ; and since he is the apostle who speaks of man being “justified by faith,” it is evident that this is the sense in which the word is to be understood in the Article. Faith, then, is a principle of trust and reliance on God and His promises, which leads to practical action and issues in good

works.^

(b) The meaning of the expression ” we are justified by faith only” — This faith the Article asserts to be the instrument of our justification.

See Bishop Lightfoot On Oalatians, p. 152 seq., “Excursus on the Words denoting Faith,” from which the above is mainly taken ; and cf. Sanday and Headlam On the Romans, p. 31 seq,

2 ‘The centre and mainspring of this higher fonn of faith is defined more exactly as ’ faith in Jesus Christ, Rom. iii. 22, 26. This is the crowning and characteristic sense with S. Paul ; and it is really this which he has in view wherever he ascribes to faith the decisive significance which he does ascribe to it, even though the object is not expressed (as in i. 17, iii. 27 tf., v. 1, 2). We have seen that it is not merely assent or adhesion, but mthusiastic adhesion, personal adhesion: the highest and most effective motive power of which human character is capable.”— Sanday and Headlam, uhi supra.

We are accounted righteous … by faith

(per fidem). The expression is strictly Biblical, and is drawn from Kom. iii. 28-30: “We reckon that a man is justified by faith (irurrei, Vulg. per fickm) apart from the works of the law. … He shall justify the circumcision by faith (eV irlarem) and the uncircumcision through faith […] irlarem, Vulg. per fidem) ; cf. Gal. ii. 16. Thus the Article keeps close to the actual language of the Apostle, and assigns to faith no other position than that of an instrument. Luther unhappily was not always so careful, and actually used language which would imply that faith was the meritorious cause of justification; asserting — what Holy Scripture never gays — that we are justified on account of (propter) faith.^ In such language, it is perhaps needless to say, the Church of England has never followed him.

But the Article is not content with assigning to faith the position of an instrument ; it speaks of it as if it were the soU instrument. “We are justified by faith only ” (sola fide). This expression, it must be admitted, is not contained directly in Scripture. But that faith is (in some sense) the sole instrument may be fairly inferred from the passage quoted above from Rom. iii 28, where S. Paul speaks of men being “justified by faith apart from the works of the law” Compare also Rom. iv. 2-5, ix. 30 ; GaL ii. 16, iii. 5 seq. In these passages the Apostle does not merely speak of faith as instrumental in justification, but expressly

excludes “works.”

On the other hand, S. James in his Epistle expressly includes “works,” and denies that man is justified by ” faith only ” (e/c irLcnem tiovov, Vulg. ex fide tantum), c. ii 14-26: “What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can

^ See his Commeut. ou Gal. ii. 16, iii. 6.

I ,

that faith save him ? If a brother or a sister be naked, and in lack of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled ; and yet ye give them not the things needful to the body, what doth it profit ? Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself. Yea, a man will say. Thou hast faith, and I have works ; show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith. Thou believest that God is one ; thou doest well : the devils also believe and shudder. But wilt thou know, 0 vain man, that faith apart from works is barren ? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar ? Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was his faith made perfect ; and the scripture was fulfilled which saith. And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness : and he was called the friend of God. Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. And in like manner, was not Kahab the harlot justified by works, in that she received the messengers, and sent them out another way ? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead.”

This passage, as far as words are concerned^ is certainly contrary to the teaching of S. Paul in the passages referred to above, especially Rom. iv., where the case of Abraham is considered, and his justification ascribed to faith and not works ; and compare Heb. xi. 17, 31, where the faith of Eahab as well as of Abraham is praised.

But though the words are difierent, yet the teaching of the two Apostles is identical. Their reconciliation may be established by pointing out —

1. The different senses which they give to Triari^. — In S. James it is merely intellectual assent, an affair of the heady not of the heart The devils ” believe ” (iria-Tevovai). In S. Paul, on the contrary, it is Trto-rt? 8t’ dyairi]^

€V€pyovfiivf), a ” faith that worketh by love ” (Gal. v. 6) ; and according to him, “with the heart man believeth (7naT€V€Tai,) unto righteousness” (Rom. x. 10).

2. The different senses which they give to epya. — In S. Paul’s writings this word, standing without any qualifying adjective, is always used in a depreciatory sense. When he would speak of works which are intrinsically good, he adds the qualifying adjective KaXd or dyaOd (see Rom. ii 7, xiii. 3; 2 Cor. ix. 8; Eph. iL 10, etc.). It is, however, of such good loorks that S. James is speaking, — works which are really included in that faith which is defined as one which ” worJceth by love.”

3. The different errors hefore the Apostles. — S. Paul, in contending against a self-righteous Pharisaism, which boasted of its ” works,” vehemently denies that such ” works ” can aid in man’s justification. S. James, on the contrary, has before him the case of those who thought that a barren orthodoxy was sufficient, and looked for justification from the correctness of their creed. To them he therefore says that such a faith, apart from works, is dead.

There is, then, no real contradiction between the teaching of the two Apostles ; and it is providential that both sides of the truth are thus stated in Scripture. The Epistle of S. James forms a valuable safeguard against the errors of the ” Solifidians,” who, resting on faith only (sola fides), denied altogether the need of good works ; while the teaching of S. Paul breaks down, once for all, all human claim to a reward.^

Returning now to the subject of faith as the instrument of justification, the question has to be asked : In

what sense is it the sole instrument of justification ? i.e. does it exclude good works, or the sacraments of the

gospel ?

With regard to the latter, if the description of justification given above is correct, and it includes (1) pardon of sin, and (2) a right and title to eternal life grounded on promise, then beyond all question it is granted in baptism: accordingly divines have frequently spoken of ” first justification ” as granted in it It would perhaps be better to say that the exclusive term ” alone,” when we say that we are justified by faith alone, is only meant to exclude any other instrument on man’s part for receiving, and is not intended to exclude God’s instruments for hestowiwj justification. Thus faith is as it were the hand, and the only hand, which man can stretch forth to receive the blessing ; while the sacraments of the gospel may be regarded as the channels through which God conveys the blessing to the faithful soul that is able

to receive it

With regard to good works the statement of the Article, that we are justified by faith only, is not meant in any way to exclude the necessity of good works, but only to shut them out /rom the office of justifying. That this is all that is intended is made perfectly clear by the statements of the Homily, to which the Article expressly refers us, as may be seen from the extracts quoted below in the next section. Repentance and obedience are necessary conditions or qualifications, but they are not the instruments for obtaining justification. Similarly, for a beneficial reception of the Holy Eucharist, charity is a necessary qualification ; but ” the means whereby the Body of Christ is received is faith.”

(c) The reason why faith is the instrument of justification.— It may be said without irreverence that the reason why, in God’s method of salvation, faith is selected

for this office is not because there is any special virtue in it, or because it is the greatest of all Christian graces, for charity is greater (1 Cor. xiii. 2, 13), but because faith is peculiarly fit for this particular office, since there is in it that element of self-surrender, of trust, confidence, and reliance on another, which necessarily excludes all reliance on self and our own merits. Had we been justified by something else, as love, there would have been the possibility of reliance on self, and the notion of earning salvation would not have been in the same way shut out Further, it is faith which enables us to realise the unseen. It is “the assurance of things hoped for, the proving of things not seen ” (Heb. xi. 1) ; and thus it makes things distant become near, and admits them to close embraces.

Before passing on to the next section, it may be well to call attention to the fact that the Article maintains a wise silence on more than one subject connected with the doctrine of justification by faith, which was keenly disputed between the Romans and Lutherans in the sixteenth century. It has already been mentioned that the Article, seemingly of set purpose, ignores the Lutheran statement (condemned by the Council of Trent ^) that a man is justified if he believes himself to be justified; but besides this there are two important matters on which the Article is markedly silent, (1) the question of the presence or absence of charity in justifying faith, and (2) the theory of an “imputed” righteousness. The first of these subjects was keenly debated at the time of the Reformation. The school-

• ’• If anyone shall say that a man is absolved from his sins and justified because he assuredly believes himself to be absolved and justified ; or that no one is truly justified save he who believes himself to be justified ; and that by this faith alone absolution and justification are perfected : let him be anathema.” — Sess. VI. canon xiv.

a;

:(

ft

men in their teaching on justification had drawn a distinction between « fides informis,” a bare faith, and •’ fides formate,” a faith informed by charity,» and had maintained that the latter alone is instrumental m iustifying In this they are naturally foUowed by the Tridentine divines.* Luther, on the other hand, while accepting the distinction thus drawn, insisted that it is ” fides informis ” which justifies, and argues that to say the contrary is to maintain justification by works.* The whole question is wisely ignored in the Article, though the Homily says pointedly that love is not excluded, but is ” joined with faith in every man that is

justified.” . ., >

The second subject mentioned above, the theory of an « imputed ” righteousness, is developed by Luther in his commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. According to it the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, and our sins are imputed to Him. It is in connection with this that the notion of a “legal fiction” comes mto most prominence, and it is difficult to free the theory as it is maintained by Protestant divines from the charge of unreaUty. But as (like the points just noticed) there is not a word concerning it in our own Article, there is no need to consider the subject further here.

[…]

’ Sess. VI. canon xi.

» Oommentary an Oalatians, li. 17.

IV. T/ie Homily of Justijication,

It only remains fco say a word or two on the Homily of Justification, to which the Article refers us for fuller treatment of the subject. On turning to the Books of the Homilies, however, we find that there exists no homily with this title ! That which is evidently referred to is the ” Homily of Salvation,” contained in the first book ; together with which should be read the two following ones ” Of the True and lively Faith ” and “Of Good Works.” In reading these the student is especially recommended to notice the emphatic way in which the writer insists (1) that faith alone has the office of justifying, (2) that good works are necessary, and (3) that faith has no merit any more than any other graces or good works. A few quotations shall be added by way of specimens.

” 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 all together. Nor that faith also doth not shut out the justice of our good works, necessarily to be done afterward of duty towards God (for we are most bounded to serve God in doing good deeds commanded by him in his holy Scripture all the days of our life) ; but it excludeth them so that we may not do them to this intent, to be made good by doing of them. For all the good works that we can do be imperfect, and therefore not able to deserve our justification; but our justification doth come freely, by the mere mercy of God ; and of so great and free mercy that, whereas all the world was not able of theirselves to pay any part towards their ransom, it pleased our heavenly Father, of

his infinite mercy, without any our desert or deserving, to prepare for us the most precious jewels of Christ’s body and blood, whereby our ransom might be fully paid, the law fulfilled, and his justice fully satisfied.”

Again : ” This sentence, that we be justified by faith only is not so meant of them [namely, the ancient writers, Greek and Latin] that the said justifying faith is alone in man, without true repentance, hope, chanty, dread, and fear of God, at any time or season. Nor when they say that we be justified freely, they mean not that we should or might afterward be idle, and that nothing should be required on our parts afterward; neither they mean not so to be justified without our (Tood works that we should do no good works at all, hke as shall be more expressed at large hereafter. But this saying, that we be justified by faith only, freely, and without works, is spoken for to take away clearly all merit of our works, as being unable to deserve our justification at God’s hands ; and thereby most plainly to express the weakness of man and the goodness of God the imperfectness of our own works, and the most abundant grace of our Saviour Christ; and thereby wholly for to ascribe the merit and deserving of our justification unto Christ only and his most precious

bloodshedding.”

And once more : ” The true understanding of this doctrme— We be justified freely by faith without works, or that we be justified by faith in Christ only— is not that this our own act, to believe in Christ, or this our faith in Christ, which is within us, doth justify us and deserve our justification unto us; for that were to count ourselves to be justified by some act or virtue that is within ourselves. But the true understanding and meaning thereof is, that, although we hear God’s word and believe it, although we have faith, hope,

charity, repentance, dread, and fear of God within us, and do never so many good works thereunto, yet we must renounce the merit of all our said virtues of faith, hope, charity, and all our other virtues and good deeds, which we either have done, shall do, or can do, as things that be far too weak and insufficient and imperfect to deserve remission of our sins and our justification ; and therefore we must trust only in God’s mercy, and in that sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour Christ Jesus, the Son of God, once offered for us upon the cross, to obtain thereby God’s grace, and remission, as well of our original sin in baptism as of all actual sin committed by us after our baptism if we truly repent and turn unfeignedly to him again. So that, as S. John Baptist, although he were never so virtuous and godly a man, yet in this matter of forgiving of sin he did put the people from him, and appointed them unto Christ, saying thus unto them, Behold, yonder is the Larrvb of God which takcth away the sins of the world ; even so, as great and as godly a virtue the lively faith is, yet it putteth us from itself, and remitteth or appointeth us unto Christ, for to have only by him remission of our sins or justification. So that our faith in Christ, as it were, saith unto us thus : It is not I that take away your sins, but it is Christ only ; and to him only I send you for that purpose, forsaking therein all your good virtues, words, thoughts, and works, and only putting your trust in Christ.”

’ 1

Notes

• De JustificatioTie. See Hardwick, p. 125.
• So in the Article ” Of Rites and Ceremonies,” in the Ten Articles of 1536 after an enumeration of a number of “laudable customs, rites, and ceremonies not to be condemned and cast away, but to be used and continued,” it was felt to be necessary to add the reminder, that “none of these ceremonies have power to remit sin, but only to stir and lift up our minds unto God, by whom only our sins are forgiven.” — Formularies of Faith, p. 16.
• “By” in old English is ordinarily equivalent to “through.” Cf. Lightfoot Oil Revision, p. 119 : “Where in common language we now say *by’ and ‘through’ [i.e. by means of) respectively, our translators, following the diction of their age, generally use ’ of and ’ by ’ respectively ; of’ denoting the agent (1^6), and ‘by’ the instrument or means (5id).”
• See, further, Lightfoot On the ChZaiiaiis, p. 162 ; Sanday and Headlam On the Romans, p. 102 seq. ; and Mayor On 8. James, p. Ixxxvii seq., and 204.