W: Lºsſº-
*** * · ·:： -
~~ ~~~~） • • • • • • • • • • •∞ ··~--~-, ， ， º' .----· & && ！
***！--><！s

My ºl
tº G
#2. Tº ſºft's
sº
º B
- º
t
• •ær w=•---- - - -
• -3----=） •=v_a）=
HņIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIĘŚNN
* _ - ___ ^.^*_****... ~ …« — -^a>: (…ſãºſ*** * r.№ſº
Zºº-2
%%VIIIŅIIIIIIIIIII
！
|||||||||||||||||||
2：2
ŕ：

/ X ^s.
gT
74%
W55
£f 63 ºf
LECT U R ES
ON THE
DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION
By JOHN HENRY NEWMAN
SOMETIME FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE
S/X7 H EDIT/OAV
LONDON
LONG MANS, GREEN, AND CO.
AND NEW YORK : I 5 EAST 16" STREET
I 892
TO THE RIGHT REW, FATIIISR, IN GOD
RICHARD,
LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD, DEAN OF CANTERBURY,
AND
CHANCELLOR OF THE MOST NOBLE ORDER OF THE GARTER,
THIS WOLUME IS INSCRIBED
WITH A FEELING
OF VENERATION FOR HIS SACRED ORDER,
OF DUTIFUL SUBMISSION TO HIs DIOCESAN AUTHORITY,
AND OF GRATITUDE FOR KINDNESSES RECEIVED,
BY HIS LORDSHIP's
FAITH FUL AND ATTACHED SERVANT,
THE AUTHOR,

3.
cº-4-
&4, a -º/--&xe-
(e - / ſ. 34 S.
(5.2 p → (
A/O WAEA 7/S/E/FAW 7 7TO 7 Aſ E A/AST
A./O/ 7TWOAV.
HE present Volume originated in the following way:
It was brought home to the writer from various
Quarters, that a prejudice existed in many serious minds
against certain essential Christian truths, such as Baptis-
mal Regeneration and the Apostolical Ministry, in con-
sequence of a belief that they fostered notions of human
merit, were dangerous to the inward life of religion, and
incompatible with the doctrine of justifying faith, nay,
with express statements on the subject in our Formu-
laries; while confident reports were in circulation that
the parties who advocated them could not disguise even
from themselves their embarrassment at those statements.
Moreover, it was suggested, that, though both these
lines of doctrine had in matter of fact been continuously
followed out by the great body of our divines for two
centuries and more, yet. Such historical considerations
did not weigh with men in general against their own
impressions; and that nothing would meet the evil but
plain statements on the subject argued out from Scrip-
ture, statements which, if not successful in convincing
vi Advertisemzeſzá to the Aºrsá Adžázozz.
those who refused to trust Tradition and the Church,
might at least be evidence to the world, that the persons
so suspected did themselves honestly believe that the
doctrines of our Articles and Homilies were not at
variance with what they thought they saw in the Services
for Baptism, Holy Communion, and Ordination, and in
other Forms contained in the Prayer Book.
These considerations have led the writer on, first to
deliver, and then to publish, the following Lectures, in
the hope that he might be thereby offering suggestions
towards a work, which must be uppermost in the mind
of every true son of the English Church at this day,
the consolidation of a theological system, which, built
upon those formularies which were framed in the 16th
century, and to which all Clergymen are bound, may
tend to inform, persuade, and absorb into itself religious
minds, which hitherto have fancied that, on the peculiar
Protestant questions they were seriously opposed to one
another. Such have been the occasion and the object of
these Lectures; and if in them, or in anything else he
has written, there be what readers consider more severe
or contentious than such an object admits, let them
impute it to his firm belief that no wound is cured
which is not thoroughly probed, and that the first step
in persuasiveness is decision.
Since they were delivered, Mr. Faber has published
his work on the “Primitive Doctrine of Justification,”
with a special reference to Mr. Inox's opinions. Thus the
Advertisement to the First AEdition. vii
writer finds himself engaged in a discussion even more
delicate and anxious than he had anticipated ; but, as
he Originally drew up his remarks without reference to
either of those respected authors, so he has judged it
best not to take part in a dispute which in no sense
belongs to him, and very little to his work. How far
he assents to Mr. Knox, how far to Mr. Faber, will there
appear; but while the points from which he starts are
different, so too are his arguments, as being drawn not
from Primitive Christianity but from Scripture.
Another recent work on Justification, Dr. O’Brien's
Sermons on Faith, should also here be mentioned, from
the station and reputation of the Author; though no
reason has occurred for referring to it elsewhere, as it
does but advocate, in opposition to Bishop Bull and the
greater number of English Divines, the pure Lutheran
theory, which has been sufficiently considered in these
Lectures, as far as it fell under their scope.
ORIEL COLLEGE,
March 12, 1838
A/O VAFA 7T/SAE/MASAW 7" 7"O 7TAZAZ 7TA//A’/O
A: /O/7”/OAV.
HESE Lectures on the doctrine of Justification
formed one of a series of works projected by the
Author in illustration of what has often been considered
to be the characteristic position of the Anglican Church,
as lying in a supposed Via Media, admitting much and
excluding much both of Roman and of Protestant
teaching.
Their drift is to show that there is little difference
but what is verbal in the various views on justification,
found whether among Catholic or Protestant divines; by
Protestant being meant Lutheran, Calvinistic, and thirdly
that dry anti-evangelical doctrine, which was dominant
in the Church of England during the last century, and
is best designated by the name of Arminianism.
Unless the Author held in substance in 1874 what
he published in 1838, he would not at this time be re-
printing what he wrote as an Anglican ; certainly not
with so little added by way of Safeguard. Of course
there are points of detail, as to which he cannot accept
X Advertisemzeſzá áo Zhe 7%27a. Fażzoz.
what these Lectures contain ; but even such incidental
errors of opinion he has thought he might let stand,
except where they became offensive by repetition, con-
tenting himself with notes in brackets at the foot of
the page, drawing attention to them and setting them
right.
However, a few words of explanation are called for
here in relation to two main propositions of the Volume,
which he distinctly professed to be at variance, but (as
he now believes) are not really at variance, with the
doctrine held in the Roman schools of recent times on
the subject of Justification. The first of these is the
proposition that more than one formal cause can be
assigned to the justified state ; and the Second that One
of those forms is the Presence of Our Lord in the Soul,
whether the Eucharistic Presence, or a Presence Cognate
to it.
1. As to the former of these, it is quite true that the
Fathers at Trent pronounced that there was but one
formal cause of justification as a state of the soul, and
that, in opposition to the Protestant view, that form was
an inward gift. “Unica formalis Causa, justificationis,”
they say, “est justitia Dei, quâ, nos justOS facit, quá re-
novamur spiritu mentis nostrae, et Verè justi nominamur
et Sumus, justitiam in nobis recipientes.” And so far
as the author of these Lectures contradicts this categori-
cal statement, he now simply withdraws what he has said
in them. But he was mistaken if he supposed that it
Advertisemzemż żo £he 7%27a. Fa'izzoz. xi
was thereby determined what the “unica forma” really
was, or again that there might not be more forms than
One (whether improper forms, or forms of the justifying
justice or renovation); and he says so for the following
T628, SOIlS —
IFirst, Bellarmine, though he quotes the words of the
Tridentine Fathers, declaratory of the “unica formalis
causa” of Justification (de Justif. ii. 2), does not hesitate
to say that it is an Open question whether grace or charity
is the justice which justifies ; and, though he holds for
his own part that these are different names for one and
the same Supernatural habit, yet he allows that there are
theologians who think otherwise (ibid. i. 2). Though,
then, there be but one formal cause (and there never can
be more than one proper form of anything), still it is not
settled precisely what that form is. We are at liberty to
hold that it is, not the renewed state of the soul, but the
Divine gift which renews it.
And Pallavicino, as he is quoted in the Appendix
(infra, p. 351), says “Adhibitam datā operä fuisse à
Patribus, vocem nunc gratiae, nunc charitatis, et interdum
etiam utiamgue, ut se abstinerent ab ea declaratione,
dua res an una eadenque res, illa forent.”
Vasquez too allows (infra, p. 353) that there are two
possible forms, “per quas homo justificari possit apud
Deum.”
Sporer holds two partial forms, as making up the
“unica forma,” an external Divine act and internal Divine
xii Advertisemeſzá áo the 7%zra Adžioſe.
work, “favor Dei” and “habitus justitiae" (ibid.),
which, with grace as an internal gift going between the
two, make three forms, proper or improper.
Bellarmine furnishes a fourth, when he lays down
that, according to the Council, living faith, “fides viva,
est vera et Christiana justitia” (de Grat. i. 6, p. 401); and
Says also (de Justift v. 15, p. 986), “Formalem causam
justificationis . . . esse fidem charitate formatam.”
Moreover, Petavius speaks of another, or fifth, viz.
the substantial Presence of the Holy Ghost in the soul,
as infra, pp. 352, etc. He speaks of the “infusio sub-
stantiae Spiritàs Sancti, quá . . . efficimur . . justi et
sancti.” And he calls this substantial Presence a “tan-
quam principalis,” and a “primaria forma,” and a
“proxima causa, et, ut ita dixerim, formalis.” And he
maintains this to be the doctrine of the early Fathers.
So much on the first point.
2. With these authorities preceding him, the author
went on to speak of the Eucharistic Presence, or a
Presence such as that in the Eucharist, as an additional
form of Justification; and, in speaking of the fact of such
a permanent Presence in the Soul, he held nothing very
different from what is taught by mystical theologians of
authority such as Schram, who writes as follows:–
“Quintus modus unionis [per Praesentiam Christi
personalem Eucharisticam] est, quëd, corruptis etiam
speciebus, non Solum maneat Christus per gratiam et
charitatem unitus animae dignè communicanti, Sed etiam
Adverfäse//2e/zz zo //2e 7727ra Æa'jzzo72. xiii
per8onaliter pene8 8uam, hypostasìm et deitatem; ita nimi-
rum ut, sicuti in omni justificatione, non modo per
gratiam, sed etiam personaliter Spiritus Sanctus fit animæ
justi præsens, . . sic etiam Christus personaliter scilicet
penes suam hypostasim, virtute SS. Eucharistiæ, speciali
modo, cum incremento gratiæ unionisque cum Deo, etiam
corruptis speciebus, permanet.” -
And he goes on to mentiom a further ** modus unionis”
in the Eucharist, accorded Only to very holy persons, by
means of the continued Presence of the SOVl of Christ :
a mode of union, “ quo se Christus umiendum perma-
menter offert, non solùm per deitatem, hypostasim, et per-
sonam suam, sed etiam per $uam, Sacratí$$imam anìmam,
quatenus, corruptis speciebus, adeoque recedente corpore
et sanguine, . . tamen . . cum [animâ] velut immediato
instrumento, Verbo conjuncto, specialius quam per solam
deitatem, permanet specialissime unitus nonnullis ami-
mabus valde perfectis.”—Theol. Myst. p. 1, § 152, 153.
These passages do not indeed countemance the idea
that the Ordinary fo7'm, of Justification is the Real Pre-
sence of the Crucified and Risem Saviour in the soul, a
doctrine which was mever, it is conceived, even imagined
by any Writer in the Catholic Church; but they are suffi-
cient to show that the hypothesis of a Personal Presence
of our Lord in the soul, apart from His Incarnate Pre-
sence which is vouchsafed in the Eucharist, though not
as a form of justification, is in itself meither preposterous
mor inadmissible.
xiv Advertisement to the 7%ard Adition.
It may be well to explain the principle of succession
on which these Lectures are arranged.
1. The first two introduce and open the subject
which is to be discussed, by an exposition, first, of the
Protestant, then of the Catholic doctrine of Christian
Justification.
2. Then follows in three Lectures—the 3d, 4th, and
5th—an inquiry into the meaning of the term “Justi-
fication.”
3. In the next four—the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th–is
determined what is the real thing which is denoted by
the term “Justification.”
4. In the 10th, 11th, and 12th, the office and nature
of Faith is discussed in its relation to Justification.
In the 13th and last, a practical application is made
of the principles and conclusions of the foregoing Lec-
tures, to the mode of preaching and professing the
Gospel, popular thirty or forty years since, called
“evangelical.”
THE ORATORY,
January 6, 1874
C O AV 7" A M 7T.S.
LECTURE I.
FAITH CONSIDERED AS THE INSTRUMENTAL CAUSE OF
JUSTIFICATION
*
LECTURE II.
LOVE CONSIDERED AS THE FORMAL CAUSE OF JUSTIFI-
CATION & © tº º
LECTURE III.
PRIMARY SENSE OF THE TERM “JUSTIFICATION " .
LECTURE IV. Af
SECONDARY SENSES OF THE TERM “JUSTIFICATION "
LECTURE W.
MISUSE OF THE TERM “JUST’’ OR “RIGHTEOUS ’’
LECTURE WI.
THE GIFT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS
LECTURE WII.
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GIFT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS
PAGE
30
62
85
104
130
155
xvi Conteſtás.
LECTURE WIII.
RIGHTEOUSNESS VIEWED AS A GIFT AND AS A QUALITY
\
LECTURE IX.
RIGHTEOUSNESS THE FRUIT OF OUR LORD's RESURRECTION
LECTURE X.
THE OFFICE OF JUSTIFYING FAITH
LECTURE XI.
THE NATURE OF JUSTIFYING FAITH * > t
LECTURE XII.
FAITH VIEWED RELATIVELY TO RITES AND WORKS
LECTURE XIII.
ON PREACHING THE GOSPEL .
A PPENDIX.
ON THE TORMAL CAUSE OF JUSTIFICATION
FAGE
179
223
252
274
312
343
LECTURE I.
FAITH CONSIDERED AS THE INSTRUMENT OF
JUSTIFICATION.
WO main views concerning the mode of our justifica-
tion are found in the writings of English divines;
on the one hand, that this great gift of Our Lord's passion
is vouchsafed to those who are moved by God’s grace to
claim it, on the other, to those who by the same grace
are moved to do their duty. These separate doctrines,
justification by faith, and justification by obedience,
thus simply stated, are not at all inconsistent with one
another ; and by religious men, especially if not divines,
will be held both at once, or either the one or the other
indifferently, as circumstances may determine. Yet,
though so compatible in themselves, the case is alto-
gether altered when one or other is made the elementary
principle of the gospel system,--when professed exclu-
sively, developed consistently, and accurately carried out
to its limits. Then what seemed at first but two modes
of stating the same truth, will be found, the one to be
the symbol of what goes by the name of Romanism, the
other of what is commonly called Protestantism.
It shall be my endeavour in these Lectures to take
such a view of Justification, as may approve itself to
E
2 Aa2th considered as
those among us who hold whether the one or the other
doctrine in an unsystematic way, yet falls in with neither
of them, when they are adopted as the foundation or
“ leading idea" of a theology. Justification by faith only,
thus treated, is an erroneous, and justification by obedi-
ence is a defective, view of Christian doctrine. The
former is beside, the latter short of the truth. The
former legitimately tends to the creed of the rigid
Lutherans who opposed Melanchthon; the latter to that
of Vasquez, Caietan, and other extreme writers of the
Roman school. That we are absolutely saved by obedi-
ence, that is, by what we are, has introduced the proper
merit" of good works; that we are absolutely saved by
faith, or by what Christ is, the notion that good works
are not conditions of our Salvation.
In this and the following Lecture I propose to set
down some chief characteristics of the Lutheran and
Roman Schemes of justification ; and first, of the Lu-
theran.
2.
The point at which it separates from the doctrine of
our Liturgy and Articles is very evident. Our formu-
* [Catholics hold that our good works, as proceeding from the grace
of the Holy Ghost, cannot be worthless, but have a real and proper
value; on the other hand, that the great reward of eternal life is
due to them only in consequence of the promise of God. Good works
have on this ground a claim on God’s faithfulness to His promises, and
thereby a claim on His justice, for it would be unjust to promise and
not fulfil. The Council of Trent says: “Vita aeterma est et tanquam
gratia misericorditer promissa, et tanquam merces ea: ipsius Dei pro-
missione fideliter reddenda. Again : “Quae justitia nostra dicitur, illa
eadern Dei est, quia & Deo nobis infunditur per Christi men'itum.”
Sess. vi. cap. 16. J
the Instrument of Žusáfication. 3
laries speak of faith as in many ways essential to Our
justification, but not as the instrument of originally
gaining it." This peculiar instrumentality of faith is
the Lutheran tenet here to be discussed; and is plainly
the consequence of what has been already adverted to,
the attaching an exclusive importance to the doctrine of
justification by faith only. Those who hold that this
doctrine declares only one out of several truths relating
to the mode of our justification, even though they
express themselves like the strict Lutherans, may really
agree with our Church; but it is far otherwise with
those who hold it as comprehending all that is told us
about that mode.
This then is peculiarly the Lutheran view, viz. that
faith is the proper instrument of justification.” That
justification is the application of Christ's merits to the
individual,” or (as it is sometimes expressed) the im-
parting a saving interest in Him, will not be denied by
English divines. Moreover, it will be agreed that His
merits are not communicated, or a Saving interest se-
cured, except through an instrument divinely appointed.
Such an instrument there must be, if man is to take
part in the application supposed ; and it must be di-
Vinely appointed, since it is to convey what God Himself,
* The passage in the Homily on the Passion will be explained in
Lecture X.
* Fides non justificat vel meritorie, vel per modum dispositionis, ut
volunt Pontificii, Sed organice et per modum apprehensionis, quatemus
meritum Christi in verbo Evangelii oblatum complectitur.—Gerhard.
de Justif. § 153.
* Beneficia Christi . . . in quorum applicatione modus ac forma
justificationis consistit.—Gerhard. de Justif. § 148,
4. Aa2z/; considered as
and He alone, dispenses. It is then a means appointed
by God and used by man, and is almost necessarily
involved in the notion of justification. All parties seem
to agree as far as this; but when we go on to inquire
what it is which God has made His instrument, them, as
I have said, we find ourselves upon the main subject of
dispute between ourselves and the strict followers of the
German Reformer. Our Church considers it to be the
Sacrament of Baptism;’ they consider it to be Faith.
These two views indeed need not be, and have not
always been, opposed to one another.” Baptism may be
considered the instrument on God's part, Faith. On ours;
Faith may receive what Baptism conveys. But if the
word instrument be taken to mean in the strictest sense
the immediate means by which the gift passes from the
giver to the receiver, there can be but one instrument ;
and either Baptism will be considered to convey it
(whether conditionally or not, which is a further ques-
tion), or Faith to seize, or, as it is expressed, to apprehend
it, either Faith will become a subordinate means, con-
dition, or qualification, or Baptism a mere sign, pledge,
or ratification of a gift which is really independent of it.
And this is the alternative in which the question has
practically issued at all times.
I am in this Lecture to consider the system of
doctrine arising out of the belief that Faith, not Baptism,
1 Baptismus . . . est signum regenerationis, per quod, tanguam per
instrumentum, recte Baptismum suscipientes, Ecclesiae inseruntur, etc.—
Artic. XXVII.
2 Gerhard. de Justif. §§ 64, 153. Wid. Baxter, Life of Faith, iii. 8,
error 20.
the Znstrument of Žusáfication. 5
is the instrument of justification. What I think of that
system may be gathered from what I say as I proceed.
I have tried to delineate it fairly; at the same time I
am sensible that I shall seem not to have pursued the
subject to its limits. Yet I think I have reached the
limits of the meaning of those who have brought it into
discussion ; and if I am obscure, it is because I have to
use their language.
3.
Its advocates then suppose that Faith is the One
principle which God's grace makes use of for restoring
us to His favour and image. Born in sin, and the heir
of misery, the soul needs an utter change of what it is
by nature, both within and without, both in itself and in
God's sight. The change in God’s sight is called justifi-
Cation, the inward change is regeneration; and faith is
the One appointed means of both at once. It is awakened
in us by the secret influences of the Holy Spirit, generally
Co-Operating with some external means, as the written
word; and, as embracing the news of Salvation through
Christ, it thereby also appropriates Salvation, becoming
at the same time the element and guarantee of subse-
quent renewal. As leading the Soul to rest on Christ
as its own Saviour, and as the propitiation of its own
sins in particular, it imparts peace to the conscience,
and the comfortable hope of heaven ; and, as being
living, spirituals and inseparable from gratitude towards
Christ, it abounds in fruit, that is in good works of
every kind.
Such is the first general sketch which may be given
of this doctrine, according to which justification means a
6 Aa2z/; considered as
change in God’s dealings with us and faith means trust,
Our Article too so understands the word justification ; SO
we need not stop to consider it here. Let us rather con-
fine ourselves to the examination of what is meant by
faith or trust, to which such great effects are ascribed.
It is commonly found the most ready answer to this
inquiry to enlarge upon what it is not. Accordingly, it
is not unusual to explain that faith is not mere belief in
the being of a God, nor in the historical fact that Christ
has come on earth, suffered and ascended. Nor is it
the submission of the reason to mysteries, nor the SOrt
of trust which is required for exercising the gift of
miracles. Nor, again, is it the knowledge and acceptance
of the sacred truths of the New Testament, even the
Atonement, however accurate that knowledge, however
implicit that acceptance. It is neither the faith of Judas
who healed diseases, nor of Simon Magus who submitted
to baptism, nor of Demas who might be orthodox in his
creed, nor of devils who “believe and tremble.” All
such kinds of faith are put aside as fictitious, as not
deserving the name, and as having no connection what-
ever, except in the accident of an homonymous term,
with that faith which justifies. \
Such justifying faith or trust is supposed to be, con-
sidered negatively : when, a more direct account of it is
demanded, answer is made as follows;–that it is a
spiritual principle, altogether different from anything
we have by nature, endued with a divine life and efficacy,
and producing a radical change in the sºul: or more
precisely, that it is a trust in Christ's merits and in them
alone for Salvation. It is regarded as that very feeling
Žhe Znstrument of Žusážcation. 7
exercised towards our Almighty Benefactor, which we
are on the contrary Warned against, when directed to-
wards anything earthly, as riches, or an arm of flesh.
It is the feeling under which we flee in any great tem-
poral danger to Some place or means of refuge ; the feel-
ing under which the servant in the parable asked
forgiveness of his debt, with a simple admission that it
lay solely and entirely with his lord to grant it. It
consists then in a firm reliance on Christ's mercifulness
towards even the worst of sinners who come to Him,_
an experimental conviction that the Soul needs a Saviour,
and a full assurance that He can and will be such to it,
a thankful acceptance of His perfect work, an exalta-
tion and preference of Him above all things, a surrender
of the whole man to Him, a Submission to His will,—
a perception and approval of Spiritual things, a feeling
of the desirableness of God's Service,—a hatred of sin,_
a confession of utter unworthiness, a Self-abhorrence of
what is past,-and a resolution, in dependence on God's
grace, to do better in future. Some such description is
often given of it ; Or, in a word, it is spoken of as being,
or implying all at Once, love, gratitude, devotion, belief,
holiness, repentance, hope, dutifulness, and all other
graces.
• 4.
This description however, it is obvious, includes too
much, as the former Said too little, let us then dis-
miss such popular accounts as meet us in every quarter
on first opening the Subject, and endeavour to fix our
minds on it more steadily. What then are we to say that
justifying faith really is ? The Lutheran divines define
8 Aa2th considered as
it to be a “fiduciary apprehension” of gospel mercy,
a belief, not only that Christ has died for the sins of the
world, but that He has died specially for the individual
so believing, and a sense of confident trust in conse-
quence,” a claiming as one's own, with full persuasion of
its efficacy, what He has done and suffered for all. This
is an intelligible account of it certainly ; but it is not at
all sufficient for the purpose, for this plain reason ; that
justifying faith is always supposed in the Lutheran
Scheme to be lively or to lead to good works, but such
a “fiduciary apprehension,” or confident persuasion, may
exist without any fruit following to warrant it. Trust-
ing faith is not necessarily living faith. The servant in
the parable knew he owed his master a large sum ; he
knew his master only could remit the debt. He applied
to him ; he appropriated to himself his mercy, in the
Only way he could, by falling down and throwing himself
upon it. He did not in any degree trust in himself or in
anything else; he discovered no pride, no self-righteous-
ness; his trust was absolute, unless we choose to Say
that his promise for the future interfered with it. Yet
he went away and sinned ; trust them is not necessarily
lively faith.
Shall we then define the justifying faith of the
Lutherans to be faith which "is lively . This is a
more adequate account of it, but a less consistent One.
For what is meant by lively 2 is it to be explained as
* Propria et specifica fidei.justificantis forma est fiducialis apprehensio
Christi Mediatoris ac beneficiorum ejus, quae in verbo Evangelii nobis
offeruntur.—Gerhard. de Justif. § 117.
* Gerhard. de Justif. § 127, et seq.
the Instrument of Žustification. 9
merely that, which in the event is fruitful, without having
in itself anything discriminating or characteristic' But
surely that which results in good works must have
Some principle in it which is the cause of that result ;
and this is confessed by calling it lively. What then is
the life of faith ? What is that which makes it what it
is ? What is that, not on account of which it is accept-
able (for we all acknowledge that Christ is the only
meritorious cause of our acceptance), but what is that
property in it which makes it (for Christ's sake) accept-
able % What is the formal quality of justifying faith?
Let us but ascertain this, and we shall be able to under-
stand what the Lutherans mean when they treat of it.
Many divines accordingly, of various schools, con-
sider this life of faith to be love ; and it must be con-
fessed that even the strict followers of the German
Reformer speak in a way to sanction the notion. Thus
at all times they have indulged in descriptions of faith
as an adhering to Christ, a delighting and rejoicing in
Him, and a giving oneself up to Him; all which seem
to be nothing more or less than properties of love.
Luther, however, himself, as we shall presently find,
opposed himself most earnestly and vehemently to such
a doctrine, under the notion that to say that love made
faith living was to deny the innate life and power of
faith as such, and to associate another principle with
it as a joint instrument in justification." Let us for
argument's sake grant that love is not the life of justi-
* Non enim dicit [Paulus], Charitas est efficax, sed, Fides est
eſficax ; non, Charitas operatur, Sed, Fides operatur. Charitatem vero
facit fidei velut instrumentum, per quod operatur.—In Gal. v. 6. (f. 407).
IO Aaith considered as
fying faith ; but, if so, the question recurs, what is the
faith that justifies 2
Considering how important its office is, considering
what exclusive stress is laid upon it in the School of
doctrine under review, considering what severe protests
Illa charitas, vel sequentia opera, nec informant meam fidem, nec
ornant ; Sed fides mea informat et Ormat charitatem.—In Gal. ii. 19
(f. 316). Quisquis spiritualis vitae particeps factus per fidem, is eandem
exerit per charitatem, sicut per externas operationes vita hominis
naturalis manifestatur.—Gerhard. de Justif. § 153. Yet Melanchthon
and Calvin take the sober tone of our Homilies in denying that justiſy-
ing faith can for a moment exist without love, contrary to Luther and
his school. “Fides significat fiduciam ; in fiducia inest dilectio, ergo
ctiam dilectione sumus justi.” Comcedo in fiducia, inesse dilectionem,
et hanc virtutem et plerasque alias adeSSé oportere ; Sed cum dicinus,
Fiducia Sumus justi, non intelligatur nos propter virtutis istius digni-
tatem, Sed per misericordiam Tecipi propter Mediatorem quem tamen
oportet fide apprehendi. Ergo hoc dicinus correlative.—Melanchth.
Loc. Com. f. 213. Wid. Calv. Justific. iii. 11, n. 6. But what Melanch-
thon gains in reasonableness, he surely loses in the controversy with
Rome. For what is the real difference between saying with him that
faith is not justifying unless love or holiness be with it ; or with Bellar-
mine, that it is not so, unless love be ºn it !—What is the distinction
between the metaphors conveyed by in and with ? Nay, the approxi-
mation is nearer still, for, while Melanchthon grants that love “inest,”
is in faith, Bellarmine grants that the love which makes ſaith living is
not part of faith, but external to it. He says, “Apostolus Paulus
explicat dilectionem formam esse eſctrinseca'm fidei, non intrinsecam, et
qua dot illi, non ut sit, Sed ut moveatur.”—In Justif. ii. 4. And on
the other hand the Lutheran Gerhard : “Fides a dilectione sejuncta non
justificat, quia non potest a dilectione nisi vonparticós sejungi; et sia
dilectione sejungatur, non est Vera fides.”—S 175. The sole question then
is, whether love, which on all hands is allowed to be a sine guá mon,
communicates to faith its justifying power. But what is meant by com-
municates ? Luther's doctrine, on the other hand, that justifying faith
is without love when it justifies, is plain enough, and no matter of
words.
the /nstrument of Žustification. 'I I
are raised by that School against anything but faith,
whether virtue or good work, being assigned a share in
our justification, considering that the knowledge of Our
possessing true faith is made a characteristic of the
healthy state of that true faith," surely we may fairly
demand in the outset, what faith is ; what that is, as
separate from everything else, which exclusively of
everything else is the instrument of So great a work.
Surely it is fair to ask whither we are being led, before
we consent to move a foot. They who are vehement in
maintaining that faith Only justifies, are bound to speak
only and distinctly of faith.
5.
In answer to this objection, it is usual in the first
place to prohibit the consideration of it. We are told
that such inquiries are an undue exaltation of human
reason, or at least an unseasonable exercise of it : that
to contemplate and dwell upon faith at all, or to ask any
questions about it, is a fundamental mistake, considering
we should fix our eyes and rest our hearts on the Divine
Object of it. Only. Faith, it appears, is to be defined,
not by its nature, but by its office; not by what it is, but
by what it does. It is trust in Christ, and it differs from
all other kinds of faith in That towards which it reaches
forward and on which it rests. Thus it differs from
historical faith, or intellectual knowledge, in that it is
a taking Christ for Our portion, and (to use a familiar
phrase) closing with His offers of mercy. It consists,
as has been already Said, in this “fiduciary appre-
1 Gerhard. de Justiſ. § 88.
I 2 Aºazz/; considered as
hension ” of the merits of Christ, in a willingness, most
opposite to the bent of our proud nature, to be saved
fully and freely with an everlasting Salvation, “without
. money and without price,” without merit, or labour,
or pain, or sacrifice, or works of any kind on our part.
Or to put the subject in another point of view ;-
the gospel mercy is proclaimed openly and universally
to all who will accept it. No special state of mind is
necessary for appropriating it ; a person has not to ask
himself if he is fit ; his warrant for making it his is the
freeness of the proclamation—“Whosoever will, let him
take of the water of life freely ;” if a man feels his need
of being justified, and desires it, he has but to ask, he
has but to look at the great work of Redemption, and it
is his own in all the fulness of its benefits. Faith then
as little admits of a definition as putting out the hand
or receiving alms; it has as little of a permanent form
Or shape as running or kneeling; it is a momentary act
or motion rather than a moral virtue or grace, though it
is the work of the Spirit, and productive of all virtues,
—or at least it must not be regarded as a virtue. It is
the reaching forward of the heart towards Christ, deter-
mining and resting in the thought of Him, as its limit,
and thus deriving its character, and, as it may be called,
its form from Him."
This is the first answer made to the dilemma I have
* Ego Soleo, ut hanc rem melius captem, sic imaginari, quasi mulla
sit in corde meo qualitas, quae fides vel charitas vocetur, sed in loco
ipsarum pono ipsum Christum, et dico, haec est justitia mea, ipse est
qualitas et formalis, ut vocant, Justitia mea, ut sic me liberem ab
interitu legis et operum.—Luther. ad Brentium Ip. apud Gerh. de
Justif. § 163.
the /nstrument of Žustification. I 3
been stating, by those whom it is directed against. It
is urged on them that either faith is more than personal
trust, and if so, that addition, whatever it is, is a joint
instrument with it in our justification ; or that it is
nothing more, and then it is not necessarily living
and operative faith. And they answer, as if by way
of escaping from the dilemma, that to inquire what
it is in faith which makes it justifying, as distinct
from all other kinds of faith, is all one with asking
what it is in faith on account of which faith justifies ;
that the discriminating mark is the same as the merito-
rious cause ; and therefore that Christ Himself and He
alone, the Object of the faith, is that which makes the
faith what it is, and to name, to hint, to look for what
it is in faith which makes it lively, is to open the door
to what Luther calls “the cursed gloss of Sophists.”
However, such a reply is evidently no real explanation
of the difficulty. Accordingly, when brought fairly to
consider it, they seem frankly to confess that it is a
difficulty, and that it must be left to itself. They seem
to allow that faith is in itself something more than trust,
though man may be unable to Say what it is more.
“What is not really faith may doubtless,” they say,
“appear to be faith; of course there must ever be false
brethren in the church ; yet there may be true, there
must, there will be true nevertheless. If any men
* Pereant itaque sophistae cum Sua maledicta glossa, et damnetur
voxilla fides formata; et dicamus constanterista vocabula, fides formata,
informis, acquisita, etc., diaboli esse portenta, nata in permiciem doctrinae
et fidei Christianæ.—In Gal. iii. 12. (f. 347). Bp. Bull, on the contrary,
holds the doctrine of fides formata. So does Bp. Davenant in Col. i.
p. 28, Saying that faith precedes love maturá, not in fact.
I4. Aa2th considered as
pretend to faith or trust, and do not go on to obey, then
they have not real trust. This is a proper inference, not
that trust can exist without obedience." Still it may be
true, that the only way of becoming righteous in God's
sight, the only way of becoming really fruitful in well-
doing, is thus to embrace and appropriate Christ's atoning
power as Ours in the first instance, without standing still
to speculate whether our trust is as it should be, whether
We embrace and appropriate that mercy as we ought.
This is God's way, and we may safely leave the difficulty
to Him who has imposed it on us. We may be unskilled,
if it so happen, in definitions and distinctions; we may
be unable to determine how true and false faith differ ;
Seeds which are essentially distinct may baffle the dis-
crimination of mortal eye; yet after all we are told,
simply to look at Christ and to believe that we are
justified, in Order to our being so; and this is all that
concerns us.” * •
Moreover, this supposed difficulty of distinguishing
between true and false faith is not, it may be urged, in
reality So great as it appears in controversy. It does
not follow that faith may not admit of being ascertained,
because we cannot define it in the language of human
* Non est in arbitrio and potestate nostra situm hamc libertatem, per
Evangelium jam invulgatam, Celare homines aut revocare, quia Christus
eam nobis donavit, ac Suá morte peperit. Neque posswinºus illos porcos,
quitoto impetu Tuunt in licentiam carnis, cogere ut corpore et rebus
suis Serviant aliis. Ideo quod posswimus, facimus ; hoc est, adm0nemus
diligentereos debere hoc praestare. Sihis monitis nostris nihileſficimus,
committimus rem Deo. . . . Interim tamen hoc nos solatur, quod labor
et diligentia, mostra non est imamis apud pioS.–Luther in Gal. v. 13 Wid.
also Calvin. Institut. iii. 2, n. 11, 12.
the Instrument of Žustification. 15
science. If there be such a thing as a real apprehension
of Christ, it must necessarily be beyond explanation.
It is a feeling, a spiritual taste, perception, sight, known
only to him who has the blessedness to experience it.
It is something beyond and above nature. It is a state
of mind for which no terms have been invented. We
cannot explain what sight is to the blind; in like
manner, before the mind is enlightened by God's grace,
it cannot discern those tokens which are to the true
believer plain demonstration that he does believe and is
under no delusion. If words be attempted, they must
be used in new Senses, unintelligible to the world at
large. Hence this doctrine, however true, will never
appear to advantage, or be described with justice, in con-
troversy, which employs the language of the unregene-
rate. It is true its maintainers have attempted to argue
and refute their opponents; but to do so was a mistake ;
they ought not to argue where they cannot refute ; for
from the nature of the case they will always appear, to
all but themselves and those who agree with them,
defective in their definitions and illogical in their
reasonings. Yet all the while it may be true, that those
who are Savingly converted are converted by means of
this simple trust, which the self-deceived and carnal
misuse, and which controversialists stumble at.
6.
I have been endeavouring to represent the Lu–
theran, or extreme Protestant idea of justifying faith in
its internal consistence; to examine how its parts hang
together, and how it disposes of objections which arise,
I6 Faith considered as
apart from the arguments on which it rests. What these
are, will come next to be considered, but the above seems
to be the doctrine which they will be required to prove,
viz. –Faith, an act or motion of the mind produced in-
deed by Divine Grace, but still utterly worthless, applies
to the soul the merits of Him on whom it looks, gaining
at the same time His Sanctifying aid, and developing
itself in good works; which works are the only evi-
dence we can have of its being true. It justifies then,
not as being lively or fruitful, though this is an insepa-
rable property of it, but as apprehending Christ, which is
its essence."
The alleged ground of this doctrine, which of course
is the principal point to be considered, is twofold,—
Scripture and the reason of the thing. As to Scripture,
all those many texts which speak of the freeness of salva-
tion, one of which was just now cited, are brought in
behalf of the principle that confident trust is the sole
qualification for being justified. “Ask, and it shall be
given you ; seek, and ye shall find ; knock, and it shall
be opened unto you ; for every one that seeketh findeth ;”
—“Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters;”
—“What things soever ye desire when ye pray, believe
that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.” No words,
it is urged, can express more strongly the title of every
one who hears of the great gift of God, to make it his
own ; and his immediate possession of it, without any
1 Gerhard. de Justif, $179. Calvin. Institut. iii. 18, n. 10. This
doctrine has sometimes been thus expressed by its defenders: “Fides,
foeta bonis operibus, justificat ante partum.” Wid. Bull, Harm. i. 6,
§ 2. * Matt. vii. 7. Is. lv. 1. Mark xi. 24.
the Instrument of Žustification. I 7
intermediate channel or instrument of gaining it, if he
does but believe he has it.
To these must be added the more distinct announce-
ments of St. Paul about faith in particular ; which, though
they do not go to the extent of teaching we are justified
by faith only, yet, as no one can deny, speak of the connec-
tion of faith with justification in a very remarkable way.
I mean such texts as these —“Being justified freely by
His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through
Jaith in His blood; and again, “Being justifted by faith,
we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;”
and again, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified
by faith without the deeds of the law ; ””—texts which
certainly do speak of our being justified by faith in
Some very especial sense, and without the aid of deeds of
the law, and therefore (it is urged) without the aid of
any instrument, condition, or qualification at all, whether
Christian grace or good work.
Scripture then, by telling us to come for the gifts of
grace and that we shall at Once receive them, is supposed
to imply that they are dispensed without any interme-
diate channel between God and the Soul; on the ground
that they would not be freely given, if given through.
any of God's servant's or ministers, Angel or Apostle,
Prophet or Priest.
7.
Such is the Scripture evidence adduced for this
view of justification;–however, it is considered, instead
of needing evidence from Scripture, rather to be itself an
* Rom. iii. 24, 25, 28; v. 1.
C -
I 8 A.ai/ considered as
evidence of the inspiration of Scripture. Other systems
(it seems) have attempted to melt the heart and restore
our corrupt nature by severity, threats, or motives of ex-
pediency ; but the gospel alone has dared to trust itself
to the principle of free and unconditional favour, yet
with success as signal as has been the failure of all other
methods; for the mere preaching of reconciliation with
God, the doctrine of pardon, the command to take and
enjoy the blessings of redemption, has been found to act
upon the soul in a remarkable way for its conversion
and renewal. This argument has sometimes been prac-
tically considered as a substitute for elaborate Scripture
evidence, as if it approved itself to men's minds at Once,
as a short and easy proof of the truth of the doctrine;
—for though numberless conversions have been made
through a long course of ages without the doctrine
(utter revolutions indeed in the principles and frame-
work of society, the laws of nations, and the habits both
of barbarian and educated minds), still (it is said) these
conversions were but outward, as not being attended
by an enlightened and heartfelt perception of the free
grace of the gospel, and of its abolition of all rites and
ordinances ; and though doubtless, Since this instrument
has been used, multitudes have abused it to their ever-
lasting ruin, yet all this does not interfere with the
blessedness of its effects, wherever it has operated on a
truly penitent heart, and been used for its legitimate
purposes with meditation, prayer, watchfulness, godly
fear, and a conscientious walk.
This is a practical argument in behalf of the sole
instrumentality of Faith in our justification ; and it is
the /nstrument of %ustificatiom. 19
supported by amother of am abstract character, derived
from (what is called) the apprehensive power of faith.'
Paith alone of all the fruits of the Spirit, and not love,
hope, fear, or resignation, contemplates the expiatory
sacrifice of Christ ; and, as havingit for its Object, it must
be believedto have it for its po$$e$$ior. It is the instru-
ment of appropriatimg the gîft, for the very reasom that it
is the means by which the mind receives the neus of it.
Eaith, it is argued, Sees the purchased redemption, and
therefore must be able to take amd apply it. It is the
eye, and therefore of Courseitis the hand. Or, in a Word,
it apprehends Christi ; a suitable, Or rather convenient
term as vaguely including both ideas, Of accepting the
message and receiving the gift, Without marking the
distinction between them.
8.
This however is but a portion of the argument
derived from the apprehensive power of Faith. It is mot
* Si fides, antequam sequantur opera, Christum apprehendit, verum
esse oportet, solam fidem redemptionem sibi applicare, id quod est justi-
ficari.—Luther. Libell. ad Ed. August. Vid. also in Gal. iii. 13 (f. 351).
Fides justificat apprehendendo Christum ; eadem vero justificans fides
hanc habet proprietatem, quod Deo summum obsequium præstet et
gloriam veritatis eitribuat ; est ergo unicum illa medium, per quod pro-
missionibus divinis de remissione peccatorum invitemur, et hac ratione
bonorum in illa oblatorum participes reddimur.—Gerhard. de Justif. §
156. Nec aliud volunt nostri cum dicunt sóla fide justificamur, quam
quod jam dixi, gratis fide propter Christum consequimur remissionem
peccatOrum, non propter nostram dignitatem. . . . . . . Sumtque
correlativè intelligendæ hæ sententiæ, Fide, id est, fiducia, Christi
sumus justi, hoc est propter Christum sumus justi.—Melanchthon.
Loci Theol. de vocab. Gratiæ. (Op. vol. i. f. 202.) Vid. also Apol.
Conf. Augustam. (f. 64). Loc. Theol. in voc. Fidei (f. 197, 199).
2O Aºazáſ, considered as
only considered to justify correlatively,' (to use the con-
troversial expression), from the supposed fitness that
the principle through which the soul desires and owns
God’s mercy should pso facto be the instrument of
obtaining it; but besides, something is alleged from the
very nature of faith, as well as from its function, in
proof of its being the sole justifying principle. For, as
being the mere turning and adhering of the soul to
Christ, it may be said by a figure of speech to live in
Him in whose image it rests. Other graces are complete
in themselves; or at least have something in themselves
excellent and praiseworthy. Thus they do not neces-
sarily lead to Christ, but remain within their own limits,
contented (as it were) with themselves, and sufficient for
their own enjoyment. But faith has no such inward
principle on which to depend ; it looks out of doors for
that in which it centres, and is altogether animated and
absorbed by its divine Object. It depends upon, it holds
of the thought of Him ; it is alive only as the thought
of Him pervades and informs it. Since then the
thought of Him is ever present in it, therefore He
may be said to be ever present in it, or (what is Sup-
posed to be the same thing) He is spiritually present
in it ; and if He is present, His merits are present in it,
and are in this way conveyed to the soul which exercises
it. In this sense Luther seems to speak as if Christ
were the forma fidei,” or that which makes faith what it
* Gerhard. de Justif. § 163, etc. etc.
* Christus in me vivit: is est mea forma, Ornans fidem mean, ut
color vel lux parietem ornat.—Luther, in Gal. ii. 20 (f. 318). Fides
justificans non caret debita forma, quae est fiducialis apprehensio
the /ns/rument of Žusáfication. 2 I
is, justifying; for Christ being the One true Justifier,
and the thought of Him being (as it were) He himself,
and Faith being filled with the thought of Him, a justi-
fying power is imparted to faith which in itself it has
not. On the other hand his opponents, whether of the
Roman or Anglican School, are accustomed to urge that
the thought of Christ may be possessed by those who
have not Christ, and therefore that it is in no sense the
form or characteristic principle of justifying faith; rather
that love, as I noticed above, is the true form, the dis-
criminating mark and moulding principle under which
belief is converted into Faith and made justifying. This
doctrine, however, Luther rejects with great abhorrence,
from the notion that it makes our thoughts centre on
ourselves, cuts off the communication between earth and
heaven, fixes our faith on that love with which it is sup-
posed to be instinct, instead of its mounting up worthless,
rude, and unformed, to receive subsistence, fashion, and
acceptableness in Christ. By way of protest against the
doctrine, which he calls “a most pestilent and Satanical
gloss,” he declares, very differently from the language of
Our Homilies, that faith justifies before and without love."
Christi.-Gerhard. de Justif. § 120. Wid. also $ 71 (col. 505). Wid.
Calvin. Institut. iii. 11, 20.
* Fides . . . quando in proprio Suo officio est, nullum prorsus
objectum habet, quam Jesum Christum, Filium Dei, traditum pro
peccatis totius mundi. Non respicit charitatem : non dicit, Quid
fui ? quid merui ? Sed quid fuit Christus 2 . . . Quare quae sophistae
docuerunt de fide justificante, si sit charitate formata, mera verborum
portenta Sunt. Ea enim fides, quae apprehendit Christum Filium Dei,
et eo ornatur, non quae includit charitatem, justificat. Nam fidem,
Si certa et firma esse debet, nihil apprehendere oportet, quam solum
22 A/a??/2 co72sódeprea as
It follows that, by a strong figure, Faith may be Said
to elaîm, the promised blessings, as if it WeTe meritOrious,
that is, by virtue of the intimate correspondence amd
sympathy between it and Christ. Hence we may be
Said to be justified, not only by Or through, faith (as our
Article Words it), but om accowmt of faith ; for faith is
Christum, etc. . . . . Quare, qui Christum fide apprehendit, quam-
tumvis lege perterrefiat, etc. . . . . . gloriari potest se justum esse.
Quomodo aut per quid ? per gemmam Christum, quem fide possidet.
Hoc adversarii non intelligunt ; ideo abjiciumt gemmam Christum,
et im, locwm, ejus rep0^^Vmt charitatem, quam, dicùnt gemmam eSSe.
Luther. in Gal. ii. 4, 5 (f. 296, 7). Hic nihil te moveat impia glossa
sophistarum, qui dicunt, fidem tum demum justificare si accesserit
charitas et bona opera. Ista, pestilenti glossa, hanc et similes sentem-
tias in Paulo, quibus diserte tribuit justificationem fidei, obscurarumt
et; depravarunt sophistæ. . . . Et pro hae sua perniciosa, et pestilenti
glossa comprobanda, allegant adversarii locum, 1. Cor. xiii. Si linguis
hominum, etc. . . . . . Vitanda, est ut vememum infernale, conclu-
dendumque cum Paulo, sola, fide mom fide formata, charitate nos justifi-
cari ; quare non isti formæ gratificamti tribuenda est vis justificandi,
sed fidei, quæ apprehendit et possidet im corde ipsum Christum
Salvatorem. Hæc fides sine et amte charitatem justificat.—In Gal. ii.
16, (f. 309, 310). Vid. also in iii. 12. Si formatam fidem distinguerent
contra, falsam seu fictam fidem, nihil me offenderet ista, illorum
distinctio. Sed . . . . faciunt . . . duplicem fidem, informem et
formatam. Hanc pestilemtissimam et Satanicam glossam non possum
non vehementer detestari. . . . Juxta hoc pestilens figmentum
sophistarum, fides illa misera virtus erit quoddam informe chaos,
nullius operis, efficaciæ, et vitæ, sed tantum passiva, materia. Ista
omnia, blasphema im Deum et Satanica sunt . . . mam si charitas
est forma, fidei, ut ipsi mugantur, statim cogor semtire ipsam charitatem
esse principalem et maximam partem Christianæ religionis ; et sic
amitto Christum, sanguinem, vulnera, et omnia beneficia ejus, et
imhæreo charitati, et diligo ac venio in facere morale, ut Papa, Gentilis
philosophus, aut Turca.—In Gal. iii. 11 (f. 346). Vid. also ff. 312
(I and 2), 316 (1 and 2), 318 (2), 347 (2). Vid. also Melanchthom.
Apol. Conf. August. (f. 67). Calvim. Institut. iii. 2, n. 8, 4], etc.
the Instrument of Žustification. 23
absorbed into its Object, of which it is but the outward
receptacle, and consequently the symbol and representa-
tive. And in this sense faith is considered by Luther
and his followers as imputed to us for righteousness, by
a mode of speech; Christ really, who is spiritually
present in the faith, and not the faith itself, being our
sole and true Righteousness, in which our acceptance
with God consists.' And here additional light is thrown
upon the statement, as used by them, that we are justi-
fied by faith only, faith not thereby excluding the neces-
sity of works, nor becoming meritorious, but the formula
“by faith only, not by works,” meaning simply this, “by
the merit of Christ only, not of works, nor even of faith.”
9.
This is an outline of a scheme of doctrine which,
with more or less of system, is very prevalent at this day,
and which has been usually associated with the name of
Luther. The reasons which led to his insisting upon it
were chiefly the two following, both arising from his
opposition to the Roman doctrine concerning good works;
—first, his wish to extirpate all notions of human merit;
next, to give peace and Satisfaction to the troubled con-
science.” -
* Gerhard. de Justif. § 163. For the imputation of faith, vid.
Luther. in Gal. f. 335 (2), f. 417. For propter fidem vid. (e.g.) in
Gal. ii. 16 (f. 308), f. 347 (2). Est Christiana justitia imputatio
divina pro justitia vel ad justitiam, propter fidem in Christum, vel
propter Christum.–In Gal. iii. 6 (f. 336). Wid, the whole passage.
In this sense he calls faith formalis justitia, in Gal. ii. 16 (f. 308).
See also a very eloquent passage on the same subject in f. 334, “Paulus
his verbis, etc.” Also Melanchth. Apol. (f. 70).
* These two points are treated of by Calvin, Institut. iii. 13.
24. Aazz/; considered as
In effecting these objects, however, he also adopted
another tenet, which in his system is the counterpart of
the sole instrumentality of Faith. He taught that the
Moral Law is not binding on the conscience of the
Christian ; that Christ has fulfilled it by His own
obedience ; that He is our Righteousness, in the Sense of
His obedience being the substitute for ours in the sight of
God’s justice; and that Faith is the instrument by which
that Righteousness becomes ours. Such a view of the
gospel covenant met both the alleged evils against which
it was provided. For if Christ has obeyed the Law in-
stead of us, it follows, that every believer has at Once a
perfect righteousness, yet not his own ; that it is not
his own, precludes all boasting, that it is perfect pre-
cludes all anxiety. The conscience is unladen, without
becoming puffed up. With a few remarks under each of
these heads I shall conclude. -
1. First then, as to the proper merit of works; it is
urged by the school of Luther, that that doctrine is not
banished from theology, so long as works are allowed to
have any share whatever in our justification, in spite of
St. James's affirming that they have. While they have
any share in it, it is possible to rest in our works—they
do not imply or remind of Christ's all-sufficiency; but
we cannot lean upon our faith, for in fact (as I have said)
it has no real substance or strength of its own, nothing
to support us; it does but give way and carry us back
and throw us on the thought of Christ, in whom it lives.
To this argument it may be replied, that since no good
works can be done but through the grace of God, those
works are but evidence that that grace is with the doer;
the /nstrument of Žusáfication. 25
~”
so that to view them as sharing in our justification tends
to elate us, neither more nor less than the knowledge that
we are under divine influences is elating. But they
answer, that we are not concerned here with formal
admissions and distinctions, but with practical impres-
sions; that to say, that Christ is but the remote source of
justification, and that our own doings, though through
His grace, are the proximate cause, is in fact to fix the
mind on ourselves, not on Him ; whereas to teach that
He actually in His own person has obeyed the Law for
each of us is a most efficacious means of deterring us
from thinking about our own obedience to it at all, and
faith again, however much insisted on, has so little in it
to recommendit or to restin, so little in it holy, precious,
or praiseworthy, that it cannot seduce us to self-gratula-
tion or spiritual pride or pharisaical exclusiveness, Seeing
our best doings in the Spirit are neither better nor more
acceptable to the Divine Majesty than those natural
righteousnesses, which Scripture calls “filthy rags,” and
“an unclean thing.” On the other hand, this doctrine
does not tend, they say, to widen the way which Christ
has pronounced to be narrow ; for, though faith is so
worthless, and therefore so safe a feeling, yet it is not easy
to acquire. The pride of man resists this way of salvation
from its very easiness, and is not subdued without much
inward conflict. In proportion, however, as faith takes
* Luther, in Gal. iii. 2 (f. 331). It would seem, however, as if the
stricter Lutherans, who maintained that faith justified before and with-
out love, made much more of the dignity of faith than the school of
Melanchthon, who considered it to be inseparable from love, and to
justify correlative. Wid. Bellarm. de Justif. i. 12. Gerhard. de
Justif. § 163.
26 Aa2th considered as
the place of pride, its Divine Object is contemplated by
the mind,-presented, not intercepted by that which is
the medium of the mind's possessing it.
Another similar use of these doctrines is to secure us
against Self-contemplation. Prayer, alms, fasting, and
the like, which are but modes of approaching God, will
be dwelt on as ends, as objects for Self-complacency, and
sources of those spiritual benefits which in profession
are but sought through them, unless Christ's righteous-
ness be insisted on as that in which immediately our
justification lies, and faith that by which it is gained."
It follows moreover, from what has been observed,
that though, according to the system before us, it may be
Scripturally said that Faith is taken for righteousness,
yet it will be safer, as well as more correct, for us to say
that Christ is our righteousness; lest we should think
that our justification lies in anything of ours, and not
in Christ.
10.
2. Reliance then on self, in whatever shape, is
one of the two evils which it is supposed are destroyed
by the doctrine of faith as the instrument, and Christ's
righteousness as the form, of justification ; the other is
the state of doubt about our justification which must ever
attend the belief that it depends on our graces and works,
though produced by divine influences. It is urged that
the great end of the gospel is to give peace to the troubled
conscience, to take from it the fear of eternal death, and
to assure it of pardon and acceptance with God. With-
out the certainty of Salvation,-(at least so far as to
* Luther. in Gal. ii. 20 (f. 318).
the Znstrument of Žusáfication. 27
know that, were we to die at the present moment we
should be secure of heaven,” whatever may be our
chance of losing it in time to come), but at least without
an assurance that we are at present accounted sinless and
unreproveable in God’s sight for Christ's sake, that no
charge lies against us, that all our past sins up to this
hour are absolutely forgiven, and that no future judgment
on them need be dreaded,—without all this, the gospel has
hardly done its work, but leaves us, as far as Our peace
is concerned, under the bond of the Law.” Now if this
certainty of our present salvation be a part of our
Christian privileges, evidently it can never be attained
by works,” because we can never know when we have
done enough ; whereas Faith is a principle which a person
may easily Satisfy himself that he has, which is naturally
adapted to be its own evidence, and which moreover
inspires its possessor with this peculiar comfort, that he
has nothing more to do to secure his salvation, and need
but hold on as he is, looking at Christ's perfect work,
and appropriating it to himself. Christ has fulfilled the
Law for us; faith makes that fulfilment ours; and places
us above the Law. In observing the Law, though
we shall observe it, we are not performing a duty;
We are merely stooping from that heavenly state in which
* Gerhard. de Justif. § 81, etc.
* Is [Christus] solus dominetur in justitia, securitate, lactitia, et
vita, ut conscientia laeta obdormiat in Christo, sine wilo sensu legis
peccati, et mortis.-Luther. in Gal. iv. 3 (f. 373).
* Equidem si ab operibus aestimandum sit qualiter affectus sit erga
nos Dominus, id ne tenui quidem conjectura possemus assequi fateor;
sed quum simplici et gratuitºe promissioni respondere fides debet,
nullus ambigendi locus relinquitur.—Calvin. Institut. iii. 2, n. 38.
28 ' Æaz?/, co72sjdepred' as
Christ has placed us, amd condescending to take part in
things of this earth.* To allow we are under it, is (it is
urged) necessarily polluting our conscience with a sense
ofguilt ; for, since we allsin continually, while we subject
our conscience to the Law, we cam as little enjoy the
assurance of our salvatiom, as We cam exercise implicit
faith in the all-sufficiency of Christ's meritS. Nor must
it be hence inferred that the Christiam is not in fact fruit-
ful in good works, but only that they flow naturally
from such a, simple trust as has been described ; nor
that, he is at liberty to violate the Law, but Only that, it
is mot a matter of conscience to him to keep it ;* mOr
* Dicimus autem supra, quod lex in Christiano non debeat, excedere
limites suos, sed tantum habere dominium in carnem, quæ et ei subjecta
sit et sub ea, maneat ; hoc ubi fit, consistit lex intra limites suos. Si
vero vult occupare conscientiam, et hic dominari, vide ut tum sis bonus
dialecticus, recte dividas, et legi mom plus tribuas quam ei tribuendum
est ; sed dicas, Lex, tu vis ascendere in regnum conscientiæ, et ibi
dominari, et eam arguere peccati, et gaudium cordis tollere, quod habeo
ex fide in Christum, et me in desperationem adigere, ut desperem et
peream. Hoc præter officium tuum facis, consiste intra, limites tuos, et
exerce dominium in carnem. Conscientiam autem me attingas mihi;
sum enim baptizatus, et per Evangelium vocatus ad communionem
justitiæ et vitæ æternæ, ad Regnum Christi, in quo acquiescit con-
scientia mea, ubi nulla est lex, etc. . . Hanc [justitiam Christi] cum
intus habeo, descendo de cælo, tamquam pluvia, foecundans terram, hoc
est, prodeo foras in alíud regnwm, et facio bona, opera, quæcúmque mihi
Occurrent, etc. . . . Quicumque certo movit Christum esse justitiam
suam, is mon solum ex animo et cum gaudio bene operatur in vocatione
sua, sed subjicit se quoque per charitatem magistratibus, etc. . . .
quia scit Deum hoc velle et placere hanc obedientiam.—Luther. Argum.
in Gal. (f. 274). Perhaps it is a, happy thing that all of Luther's
followers are not ** boni dialectici” enough to carry Out his principles
to this length.
* Quamquam sic liber est [Christianus] ab omnibus operibus, debet
the /nstrument of Žusáfication. 29
that he will not labour to grow in grace, but only that
he is not more acceptable to God, if he does;" nor that
he will not be watchful against falling away, but only
that he is sure (unless his faith is weak”) that he has
Salvation at present.
And now perhaps enough has been said in explana-
tion of a theology familiar to all ears at present, which
differs from our own in these two main points among
others;–in considering that Faith and not Baptism is
the primary instrument of justification, and that this
Faith which justifies exercises its gift without the exer-
cise or even the presence of love.
tamen rursus se exinanire hac in libertate, formam servi accipere, in
similitudinem hominum fieri, etc.—Luther. de Lib. Christ. f. 9 (2).
* Episcopus sacer, templum consecrans, pueros confirmans, aut aliud
quippiam officii sui faciens, non consecratur iis ipsis operibus in Epis-
copum, etc. . . ita Christianus per fidem suam consecratus bona facit
opera, Sed non per haec magis sacer aut Christianus efficitur ; haec enim
Solius fidei est, etc.—Luther. de Lib. Christ. (f. 8).
* Si . . . adest conscientiae pavor, Signum est hangjustitiam ablatam,
gratiam amissam esse à conspectu, et Christum obscuratum non videri,
—Luther. Argum, in Gal. (f. 273).
LECTURE II.
LOVE CONSIDERED AS THE FORMAL CAUSE
OF JUSTIFICATION.
HAVE hitherto been employed upon a view of justi-
fication which happens to be very extensively pro-
fessed in our Church at this day, either systematically or
not ; and has great influence, as a system, in consequence
of the many religious men who hold it without System.
I cannot for an instant believe that so many would ad-
here to it, if they understood what it really means when
brought out as distinct from other views on the subject,
and made consistent with itself. They professit, because
it is what is put into their hands, and they graft it upon
a temper of mind in many cases far higher and holier
than it.
Now I come to consider the opposite scheme of
doctrine, which is not unsound or dangerous in itself,
but in a certain degree incomplete, truth, but not the
whole truth ; viz., that justification consists in love, or
Sanctity, or obedience, or “renewal of the Holy Ghost.”
In describing it then, I am describing not a perversion,
* Tit. iii. 5. Hoc est Justitia Dei, quam non solum docet per
Legis praeceptum, Verum etiam dat per Spiritus down.—August. de
Spir, et Lit. 56. Cum timore et tremore suam ipsorum salutem operen-
tur ; Deus est enim qui operatur in eis et velle et operari pro bona
/...ove considered, &c. 3 I
but what Saints and Martyrs have in substance held in
every age, though not apart from other truths which
Serve to repress those tendencies to error, which it, in
common with every other separate portion of the Scrip-
ture Creed, contains, not in itself, but when exclusively
cherished by the human mind. But in the Roman
Schools, it has often been thus detached and isolated ;"
to use the technical language which even the Council of
Trent has adopted, spiritual renewal is said to be the
“unica formalis causa,” the one and only true description
of justification; and this seems to be the critical differ-
ence between those schools and such divines, whether of
the Ancient Church or our own, as seem most nearly to
agree with them.—Now, however, to describe it in itself,
voluntate. Hoc est justitia Dei, hoc est quod Deus domat homini, cum
justificat impium. Hanc Dei justitiam ignorantes superbi Judaei, etc.
August. ad Honoratum, 53, 34, Ep. 140. I.egimus justificari in Christo
qui credunt, in eum propter occultam communicationem et inspirationem
gratiae spiritalis, qua quisquis haret Domino, unus Spiritus est.—August.
de Peccat. Rem. i. 11.
* [This charge only comes to this, that when the Roman schools
are treating of one point of theology, they are not treating of other
points. When the Council of Trent is treating of man, it is not treat-
ing of God. Its enunciations are isolated and defective, taken one by
one, of course. If we desire a warmer exhibition of Christian truth
than a treatise on Justification admits, we may go to mystical writers
such as Schram, whose doctrine on the Holy Eucharist, quoted above
in the Advertisement to this edition, is the supplement to an account of
formal causes. All theological definitions come short of concrete life.
Science is not devotion or literature. If the Fathers are not cold, and
the Schoolmen are, this is because the former write in their own per-
sons, and the latter as logicians or disputants. St. Athanasius or St.
Augustine has a life, which a system of theology has not. Yet dogma-
tic theology has its use and its importance notwithstanding.]
32 Zove considered as
that is, So far as it may be considered as common to the
Fathers, the Romanists, and (to say the very least) the
greater number of our own writers.
2.
It is affirmed then, that since man fell, he has lain
under one great need, in which all other needs are in-
cluded, in Supplying which all blessings are secured ;
and which, in proportion as he has understood his real
state, he has ever desired, ever struggled after, in vain.
He is by nature born in sin, and consequently the child
of wrath ; and he needs a new birth unto righteousness,
that he may become the child of God. He needs a
destruction of the old Adam, of the body of original
death, and thereby a restoration to the light of God’s
countenance. What has made him hateful to Infinite
Purity, what exposes him to death eternal, is disobe-
dience ; take away that disobedience, and you take away
his guilt, peril, misery, all that needs taking away ; and
in proportion as you rid him of the one, you rid him of
the other. This then is really our one burden; not
merely a sense of guilt, or guilt itself, but that which is
the cause both of guilt and the sense of guilt. Man did
not become guilty except by becoming sinful; he does
not become innocent except by becoming holy. God
cannot, from His very nature, look with pleasure and
favour upon an unholy Creature, or justify or count
righteous one who is not righteous. Cleanness of heart
and spirit, obedience by word and deed, this alone in us
can be acceptable to God; that is, this alone can con-
stitute our justification. And as certain is it, we cannot
the Aorma/ Cause of Žusážcation. 33
acquire it for Ourselves; but, if it is to be ours, it must
come from God only. The one thing we need is the
ability to please God, or to be righteous; and it is God's
gift. As His gift, good men have at all times sought
it ; as His gift, it was promised under the Law ; and
as His gift, it is possessed by the regenerate under the
Gospel.
Till the Gospel came, with its manifold gifts of grace,
there was a contrariety and enmity between the Divine
Law and the heart of man : they confronted each other,
the one all light, the other all corruption. They ran
parallel to each other, not converging ; the Law detect-
ing, condemning, terrifying, not influencing except for
the worse ; the human heart Secretly acquiescing, but
not loving, not obeying. In consequence we were
unable to please God by what we did, that is, we were
unrighteous; for by righteousness is meant obedience
such as to be acceptable. We needed then a justifica-
tion, or making righteous; and this might be vouchsafed
to us in two ways, either by Our Maker's dispensing with
that exact obedience which the Law required, or by His
enabling us to fulfil it. In either, but in no other con-
ceivable way, could our moral state, which by nature is
displeasing, become pleasing to God, our unrighteousness
become righteousness. Now, according to the doctrine
I am engaged in expounding, the remedy lies in the
latter alternative only ; not in lowering the Law, much
less in abolishing it, but in bringing up our hearts to it;
in preserving, in raising its standard, and in refashioning
them, and so (as it were) attuning them to its high har-
monies. As regards the past indeed, since it cannot
D
34 Zove considered as
literally be undone, a dispensation or pardon is all that
can be given us; but for the present and future, if a gift
is to be vouchSafed us, and we may anticipate what it
should be, this is what we have to pray for, not to have
the Holy Law taken away, not to be merely accounted
to do what we do not do, not a nominal change, a
nominal righteousness," an external blessing, but one
penetrating inwards into our heart and spirit, joints and
marrow, pervading us with a real efficacy, and wrapping
us round in its fulness; not a change merely in God’s
dealings towards us, like the pale and Wan Sunshine of
a winter's day, but (if we may seek it) the possession of
Himself, of His substantial grace to touch and heal the
root of the evil, the fountain of our misery, our bitter
heart and its inbred corruption. As we can conceive
God blessing nothing but what is holy, so all our notions
of blessing centre in holiness as a necessary foundation.
Holiness is the thing, the internal state, because of which
blessing comes. He may bless, He may curse, according
to His mercy or our deserts; but if He blesses, surely it
is by making holy ; if He counts righteous, it is by
making righteous; if He justifies, it is by renewing ; if
He reconciles us to Himself, it is not by annihilating the
Law, but by creating in us new wills and new powers
for the observance of it.”
1 Wide John Smith, Discourse of Justification, ch. v. fin, ed. 1673.
pp. 321–324.
* Lex ergo data est, ut gratia quaereretur; gratia data est, ut lea:
Żmpleretur. Neque enim suo Vitio non implebatur lex, Sed vitio
prudentiae carnis ; quod vitium per legem demonstrandum, per gratiam
sanandum fuit. . . Propter veteris hominis noxam quae per literam
jubentem et minantem minime sanabatur, dicity illud testamentum
£he Aorma/ Cause of Žusážcation. 35
3.
Nature then desires, whether it be granted or not,
that that Law which we behold without us should be set
up within us; that an inward power should be imparted
to us, enabling us to please God or to be justified, and
converting that which is by nature an occasion of con-
demnation into an instrument of acceptance. Of course,
even though we did all that the Law commanded, we
should after all be but unprofitable servants, and could
claim nothing on the score of merit ; but, since the
Great Creator deigns to accept the service of his crea-
tures, we should, as giving it, be pleasing Him by our
obedience. In the same sense then in which it can be
said that God is glorified by our obedience, though His
perfection is infinitely above the need of it, so can it be
said that we are justifted by our obedience, though His
favour is infinitely beyond the value of it. And this
great blessing, it is affirmed, really is bestowed on us in
the Gospel; which, by the gift of the Holy Ghost, works
in us a new and spiritual life, such as at Once glorifies
God before His creatures, and justifies us before Himself."
And that this will be the privilege of Saints hereafter,
as of the Angels now, is, I suppose, allowed on all hands;
the characteristic of the Schools of doctrine under review,
as distinct from that of Luther, being that they conceive
Vetus; hoc autem novum, propter novitatem spiritus quae hominem
novum Sanat a Vitio vetustatis. . . . August. de Spir. et Lit. 34, 35.
* Quae [mandata] ut possit homo facere, Dews operatur in homime
per fidem Jesu Christi, qui finis est ad justițiam Omni credenti, id est,
per Spiritum incorporatus factusque membrum ejus, potest quisque,
illo incrementum intrinsecu's dante, operari, justitiam.—August. de
Spir, et Lit, 50,
36 /Love co/zsädered' as
that in the sense in which God's grace emables us to
glorify God at present, in the same it emables usto please
GOd Or become righteous at present ; for mo obediemce
cam homOur Him in the sight of His creatures, except
Such as makes us pleasant Or righteous in His OWm sight.
Justification, then, viewed relatively to the past is
forgiveness of sim, for nothing more it cam be ; but con-
sidered as to the present and future it is more, it is re-
mewal wrought in us by the Spirit of Him who by His
merits completes What is defective in that remeWal. And
Paith is said to justify in tWo principal Ways :—first, as
contimually pleading our LOrd's meritS before God, and
secondly, as being the first recipient of the Spirit, the
root, and therefore the earnest and anticipation of perfect
obedience.*
4.
NoW for the truth of these representations we are
referred to Scripture, amd that not to one or two texts
* Ideo quippe propomitur justitia, legis, quod qui fecerit eam, vivet
im illa, ut cum quisque infirmitatem suam cognoverit, mon per suas vires,
neque per literam ipsius legis, quod fieri non potest, sed per fidem com-
cilians Justificatorem, perveniat et (ut ?) faciat et vîvat în eâ. Opus enim
quod qui fecerit, vivet in eo, non fit nisi a justificato. Justificatio autem
ex fide impetratur, de qua scriptum est, ** Ne dixeris im cordibus,” etc.
[Rom. X. 6]. In tantum justus, in quantum salvus . . . . Fide igitur
Jesu Christi impetramur salutem et quantum nobis ómchoatwr îm, re, et,
quantum perficienda, expectatur in spe . . . . . Per fidem confugiat
[anima] ad misericordiam Dei, ut det quod jubet, atque ìnspirata, gratiæ
suavitate per Spíritwm Sanctwm, faciat plus delectare quod præcipit quam
delectat quod impedit. Ita multa multitudo dulcedimis ejus, hoc est,
leæ fidei, ca7'itas ejus conscripta in cordibus atque diffusa, perficitur
sperantibus in eum, ut anima sanata non timore pœnæ, sed amore
justitiæ operetur bonum.—August. de Spir. et Lit. 51,
Žhe Aorma/ Cazºse of Žusážcaſion. 37
only, detached from their context, as in the case of the
Lutheran view of the subject, but to an extended Survey
of the inspired word in both Testaments. Scripture in
its various portions conspires together as a whole to this
simple doctrine. From first to last what Psalmists long
after, and Prophets promise, and Apostles announce as
given by Almighty God, is one and the Same, the capacity
of serving God acceptably, or the gift of righteousness,
not a shadow but a substance, not a name but a power,
not an imputation but an inward work.
1. First, appeal is made to the book of Psalms; which,
whether in the way of aspiration, prayer, or prophecy,
so clearly assigns to the Evangelical Covenant the gift
of inwardly justifying, that we may as well maintain
that that Covenant has not been made as that inward justi-
fication is not accorded. This actual inherent righteous-
ness is the one main thought of the Psalms, not of course
to the exclusion of other blessings, but as the centre and
scope of them all. Let us take, for instance, the 119th
Psalm, which may be considered as the standing prayer
of the Church Militant in every age, as of old time for
things longed for, so now for things pledged to it. Now
One great gift is there contemplated again and again, in
various forms, and that is nothing short of renovation of
mind, the power to obey God, His quickening, illuminat-
ing, cleansing, comforting “Word” (as it is there called),
or “Truth,” or “Law,” or “Judgments,” or (as the Latin
version speaks) “Justifications.” “O that my ways
were made so direct that I might keep Thy statutes |
Thy words have I hid within my heart, that I should
not sin against Thee. My Soul cleaveth to the dust, O
38 Zove considered as
quicken Thou me according to thy word. Quicken Thou
me in Thy way ; stablish Thy word in Thy servant, that
I may fear Thee ; quicken me in Thy righteousness :
Thy word hath quickened me ; my eyes long sore for
Thy word, saying, O when wilt Thou comfort me? Thy
word endureth for ever in heaven. I will never forget
Thy commandments, for with them Thou hast quickened
me ; O how sweet are Thy words unto my throat ; my
eyes are wasted away with looking for Thy health, and
for the word of Thy righteousness; when Thy word goeth
forth, it giveth light and understanding unto the simple ;
I opened my mouth and drew in my breath, for my de-
light was in thy commandments. Thy righteousness is
an everlasting righteousness, and Thy law is the truth ;
my heart standeth in awe of Thy word.”
In these passages “Righteousness” is sought after by
name ; in such as the following it is promised or anti-
cipated ; and still inward holiness is the heavenly gift
which is spoken of “Thou, Lord, wilt give Thy blessing
unto the righteous, and with Thy favourable kindness
wilt Thou defend him as with a shield.” “The Lord
alloweth the righteous.” “The righteous Lord loveth
righteousness; His countenance will behold the thing
that is just.” “God is in the generation of the righteous.”
“Who shall dwell in Thy tabernacle? even he that lead-
eth an uncorrupt life.” “Be Thou my judge, O Lord,
for I have walked innocently. Do well, O Lord, unto
those who are good and true of heart.” “Offer the sacri-
fice of righteousness, and put your trust in the Lord.”
“Give sentence with me, O God, according to my right-
* Ps. cxix. 6, 11, 25, 37, 38, etc.
the Forma/ Cause of Żzzsážcation. 39
eousness, and according to the innocency that is in me.
O let the wickedness of the ungodly come to an end, but
guide Thou the just. For the righteous God trieth the
very hearts and reins.” The sacred writer is not satis-
fied with an external or nominal righteousness, but he
feels a want within, and he prays for what he knows to
be the very substance of religion.
5.
If it be objected that such passages only show that
obedience is necessary for God’s favour, which no one
denies, and that therefore an accumulation of them,
however great, is nothing to the purpose, it may be
replied, that on the contrary it is everything ; that, as
only one such text would show that obedience was a
condition of God’s favour, so these multiplied Statements
show that it is the one condition, the one thing in us
which involves acceptance on God's part, that one
requisite, in naming which all we need is named. It is
usual at the present day to lay great stress on the
distinction between deliverance from guilt and deliverance
from sin ; to lay down as a first principle that these are
two coincident indeed and contemporary, but altogether
independent benefits, to call them justification and
renewal, and to consider that any confusion between
them argues serious and alarming ignorance of Christian
truth. Now, in opposition to this, it may surely be
maintained that Scripture itself blends them together as
intimately as any system of theology can do : and that
* Ps, iv. 5; v. 13; vii. 8-10 ; xi. 6, 8; xiv. 9; xv. 1, 2; xxvi. 1;
cxxv. 4.
4O Alove considered as
such a system is not thereby “dark” and “ignorant,”
unless Scripture is so also. In truth, Scripture speaks
of but one gift, which it sometimes calls renewal, some-
times justification, according as it views it—passing to
and fro from one to the other so rapidly, so abruptly, as
to force upon us irresistibly the inference, that they are
really one, and but in idea two; that our righteousness
is but a quality of our renewal. In other words, this
distinction, so carefully made by many men at present,
between being righteous and being holy, is not Scrip-
tural. -
This might first be shown from the Psalms; for
instance, the 51st. That this is an evangelical Psalm in
the fullest sense no one can doubt. It is David's prayer
for restoration to God's favour after his grievous fall.
It contains in it the two ideas in question, of deliverance
from guilt and deliverance from sin; but does it ac-
curately distinguish between them? So far from it, as
to make it impossible to doubt, that in the mind of the
inspired writer the one benefit immediately involved the
other as being a part of it, that renewal involved external
justification or God’s favour, and that God's favour was
given through renewal. For instance, which of the two
benefits does he speak of when he says, “Wash me
throughly from my wickedness, and cleanse me from my
sin”? If we judge by a subsequent verse, “Thou shalt
purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean,” we shall
say that by “washing” he must mean renewal; but if so,
observe how the foregoing verse connects with it—“Have
mercy upon me, O God, . . . do away mine offences, wash
me.” He says not, “Both have mercy and renew,” con-
the Æorma/ Cause of Žustification. 4. I
templating two gifts, but “show mercy by renewing me.”
Again, “Thou shalt wash me, and I shall be whiter than
Snow ; Thou shalt make me hear of joy and gladness.”
What then 2 does joy follow from sanctification ? The
doctrine popular at present connects joy rigidly with
justification ; as if immediately upon justification, and
before sanctification, “ joy and peace in believing” ensued.
I really do not understand how a man can read this most
important Psalm without perceiving (though I know
many do not perceive it), that we are forgiven by being,
or while we are renewed, and that the present broad
Separation of justification and sanctification, as if they
were two gifts, not in idea only two, but in fact, is
technical and unscriptural.
6
2. Now let us proceed to the Prophets, who pro-
mise the blessings which the Psalms pray for. It is
needless to observe that they name “Righteousness” con-
tinually as the great gift of the New Covenant, and the
fruit of Christ's earthly ministry. What then is this
Righteousness which is bestowed on us? a mere external
gift, a nominal qualification for heaven 2 is it the virtue of
Christ's incarnation and sufferings, not imparted to the
Soul, but imputed merely 7 Let us turn to a passage
from the 51st chapter of Isaiah for an answer. “A Law
shall proceed from Me, and I will make My judgment
to rest for a Light of the people. My Righteousness is
near, My Salvation is gone forth, and Mine arms shall
judge the people; the isles shall wait upon Me, and on
Mine arm shall they trust.” Now the Righteousness or
42 Zoze considered as:
Salvation promised was to be a Law and a Light; how
can the personal obedience which Christ wrought in the
days of His flesh, by being counted as ours in God's sight,
become a Law and a Light 2 but what follows makes this
still clearer. “Hearken unto Me, ye that know righteous-
ness, the people in whose heart is My Law.” Righteous-
ness then is a Law in the heart, and those who think
otherwise do not, in the Prophet's words, “know right-
eousness.”
Again, the 35th chapter of the same Prophet might
be quoted at length, as showing that the characteristic
gift of the Gospel is more than the mere name of being
what our Saviour really is, righteous. “Then,” says the
Prophet, “the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the
ears of the deaf shall be unstopped . . . An highway
shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called, The way
of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it.” Again,
in the 26th chapter, which also is a prophecy of the
Christian Church, “The way of the just is uprightness;
Thou, most upright, dost weigh the path of the just.
Yea, in the way of Thy judgments, O Lord, have we
waited for Thee . . . Lord, Thou wilt ordain peace for
us, for Thou also hast wrought all our works in us.”
Peace is made to depend on an internal work.
If it be said that there is no lack of passages in
the Psalms and Prophets which speak of forgiveness as
the gift of the Gospel, as David's words, “Blessed is he
whose unrighteousness is forgiven,” and Isaiah's, “The
Lord hath sent Me to bind up the broken-hearted,”
this may be freely granted. All that is here maintained
| Psalm xxxii. 1. Isaiah lxi. 1.
the Aorma/ Cause of Žusážcaſion. 43
is, that forgiveness is but a part of that one gift ; that
the gift relates not only to the past but to the present,
not only to what is without but to what is within ; that
in its fulness, in its essential character, it is not pardon
merely but righteousness, not merely righteousness in
name but in deed and truth.
What can be more emphatic than the passage in
Jeremiah, which St. Paul singles out more than once
as being, what it is in its very wording, the formal
announcement, or (as it were) the charter of the New
Covenant? “This is the Covenant that I will make
with them after those days, saith the Lord; I will put
My laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write
them, and their sins and iniquities will I remember no
more.” It is plain from this passage, that the direct
promise of the Gospel, the clear intelligible view which
meets us here, as in Isaiah, is a renovation of our nature,
in which pardon is involved as an essential part, but
Only a part, of the free gift.
7.
3. Let us now, without leaving the Old Testament,
turn to the Epistles of St. Paul, of whose doctrine the
passage just referred to will prove to be but an ordi-
nary specimen. St. Paul again and again speaks of our
1 Heb. x. 16, 17.
Quid sunt ergo leges Dei ab ipso Deo scriptae in cordibus nisi ipsa.
praesentia Spiritus sancti, qui est digitus Dei, quo praesente diffunditur
caritas in cordibus nostris quae plenitudo legis est et praecept finis . . .
Dicitur, “Dabo leges meas,” etc., unde significavit eos non forinsecus
terrentem legem formidaturos, sed intrinsecus habitantem ipsam legis jus-
titiam dilecturos. –August, de Spir, et Lit. 36.
44 Zove considered as
justification as being not from without but from within;
from God indeed as its origin, but through our own
hearts and minds, wills and powers. He attributes it to
the influences of the Spirit working in us, and enabling
us to perform that obedience to the Law, towards which
by ourselves we could not take a single step. For
instance, he describes the natural man after David’s
manner, as “born in sin and shapen in iniquity,” as
“brought into captivity,” as having “a law of sin in his
members,” and bearing about with him “a body of death.”
And then he thanks God that in Christ he is delivered
from this bondage ; but how 2 by “the law of the Spirit
of life making him free from the law of Sîn and death.”
“For,” he continues, “what the Law,” that is the External
Law, “could not do, in that it was weak through the
flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of
sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh,
that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled
Žn us,” not independent of us, but in us, “who walk
not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Can words
be stronger to prove that the righteousness of the Law
is not abolished under the Gospel, is not fulfilled by
Christ only, but by Him as the first-fruits of many
brethren, by usin our degree after Him, that is, by Him in
us, tending day by day towards that perfection which He
manifested from the first 2 Can words more conclusively
show that Gospel righteousness is obedience to the Law
of God, wrought in us by the Holy Ghost? Can we
desire a more exact counterpart to the language of the
Psalms and Prophets already pointed out? Even if we
* Rom. viii. 1-4.
the Formal Cause of 7ustification. 45
could otherwise interpret St. Paul’s language, which we
cannot fairly, shall we be inconsistent enough to give one
meaning to the word “righteousness” in the prayer of
the Saints, another in the answer to them? one meaning
to it in the Prophecy, another in the fulfilment 7 Shall
we explain away the Apostle's language, of which
“prophets and kings” had fixed the interpretation
beforehand, and make the Epistles say the less, and the
Psalms say the more ?
Again, to the Corinthians: “Ye are manifestly
declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us,
written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the Living
God, not on tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the
heart.” God “hath enabled us to be ministers of the
New Covenant ; not of the Letter, but of the Spirit; for
the Letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth Life.” Can words
be clearer to show that, as the Letter or External Law is
that which condemns us to death, so the Spirit, that is
the Law written on the heart, or spiritual renovation, is
that which justifies us ºf Surely, if we may deny that
the Spirit justifies, we may, for all St. Paul says, deny
the Law condemns. But he continues more plainly :
“But if the ministration of death" (or external Law)
“was glorious . . . how shall not the Ministration of the
Spirit be Father glorious 2 for if the ministration of
* 2 Cor. iii. 3-6. Lea, Dei non ex omni parte deleta per injustitiam,
profecto Scribitur renovata per gratiam. Nec istam inscriptionem, qua,
justificatio est, poterat efficere in Judaeis lex in tabulis scripta, sed
solum praevaricationem.—August. de Spir. et Lit. 48.
* Novi Testamenti, ministrationem Spiritus et ministrationem justi.
tige dicit, quia per dom/wm Spiritus opera/mwr justičam et a praevarica-
tionis damnatione liberamur.—August. de Spir. et Lit. 31.
46 Zove considered as
condemnation be glory, much more doth the Minis-
tration of Righteousness exceed in glory.” Is it not
almost too clear to insist upon, that what is first called
the ministration of the Spirit, is next called the minis-
tration of righteousness ; Or, in other words, that the
Spirit ministers righteousness, that is, justifies? to say,
as Some do, that righteousness here means mere Sanc-
tification, is but a gratuitous statement to avoid a diffi-
culty; and being so very gratuitous, shows how great
the difficulty is.
8.
But this passage leads to a further remark; in it
allusion is made to the tables of the Decalogue. No one
can doubt that the giving of the Ten Commandments
from Mount Sinai was the ministration of condemnation ;
the corresponding event then to this in the Gospel
Dispensation would seem to be the ministration of
righteousness, or justification. Now what is it? What
season in the history of the Gospel answers to the Feast
of Weeks on which the giving of the Law was com-
memorated? The day of our Lord's Crucifixion ? no ;
the day of Pentecost ; but what was the great event at
Pentecost? The coming of the Holy Ghost, to write
the Divine Law in our hearts: that Law then so im-
planted is our justification." *
* Ibi populus accedere ad locum ubi Lex dabatur, horrendo terrore
prohibetur ; hic autem in eos supervenit Spiritus Sanctus, qui eum
promissum expectantes in unum fuerant congregati. Ibi in tabulis
lapideis digitus Dei operatus est; hic in cordibus hominum. Ibi ergo
Lex extrinsecus posita est, qua injusti terrerentur ; hic intrinsecus data.
est, qua, justificarentwr.—August. de Spir. et Lit. 29.
the Formal Cause of Žustification. 47
It accords with this view of the subject that justi-
fication, or the imparting of righteousness, is not
unfrequently mentioned as an act depending On Our
Lord's Resurrection, and therefore, according to the
analogy of faith, more naturally connected with the
Holy Ghost. For instance: “who “ (our Lord) “was
delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our
justification.” Again, in another Epistle, the Apostle
says, “If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain : ye
which surely implies that justifi-
3.
are yet in your sins; ”
cation is through the Spirit; for how was Christ's
resurrection our deliverance from sin or our justification,
unless it was so, as issuing in the mission of the Holy
Ghost? And so in the Psalms: “Truth shall flourish out
of the earth,” Christ shall be raised in His human nature,
“and righteousness hath looked down from heaven,” that
is, the Spirit shall descend, as our Homily explains it.”
And in Hosea, “Sow to yourselves in righteousness, reap
in mercy;”—here, even without going further, is the
doctrine of justifying obedience ; but in what follows
the gift of the Spirit is more distinctly implied ; “Break
up your fallow ground, for it is time to seek the Lord,
till He come and rain righteousness upon you.” With
which may be compared the words of the Psalmist,
“Thou art gone up on high, Thou hast led captivity
captive, and received gifts for men : yea, even for Thine
enemies, that the Lord God might dwell among them.
Praised be the Lord daily, even the God who helpeth us
* Rom. iv. 25 ; 1 Cor. xv. 17 ; Ps. lxxxv. 11 ; Hos. x. 12; Ps.
lxviii. 18, 19, 35.
* Sermon of the Resurrection,
48 Zove considered as
and poureth His benefits upon us . . . He will give
Strength and power unto His people ; blessed be God.”
Is not justification a gift 2 therefore it must be com-
prised in this mission of the Spirit. With these texts
let such passages of Scripture be compared as the Hymn
of Zacharias, in which the inspired speaker blesses God
for having “visited and redeemed His people, as He
Spake by the mouth of His holy prophets, which have been
since the world began ; * to perform the mercy promised,”
—“His holy covenant,” and His “ oath ; ” and then
goes on to describe the benefit to consist in our “Serving
Him without fear, in holiness and 'righteousness, before
Him all the days of our life.” Presently “the remission
of sins” is mentioned, as if incidentally; which brings
out still more strongly the meaning of the words which
I have quoted, viz. that renovation is the real gift of the
Gospel, and justification is implied or involved in it.
9.
This correspondence between the giving of the Law
on Sinai, and the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, has
been mentioned as conducing to the proof of the Spirit
being our justification, as the Law is our condemnation ;
a similar contrast is observed in Scripture between the
ºrites of the Law and the influences of the Spirit.” The
Jews thought to be justified by circumcision ; St. Paul
replies, circumcision in the flesh is nothing, but Spiritual
circumcision, or renewal of heart, is all in all. IDoes not
1 Luke i. 63-77. -
* August. Ep. ad Asell. 196. Serm. 169; vid. also Bull, Harm,
ii. 14.
the Formal Cause of Žustification. 49
this imply that the renewal through the Spirit really
effects what the Jewish rites attempted but in vain,
justification ? For instancé, St. Paul says: “He is not
a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is that circum-
cision which is outward in the flesh ; but he is a Jew
which is one inwardly ; and circumcision is that of the
heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is
not of men, but of God.” What can God’s praise IOT 628, Il
but justification ?” To the same purport are the follow-
ing passages: “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision
availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creature ;
and as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on
them and mercy” (and forgiveness, Surely), and upon the
Israel of God.” And the other two parallel texts, “In
Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth anything, nor
uncircumcision; but faith, which worketh by love;” and,
“Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing,
but the keeping of the commandments of God.” -
To the same purport too is our Lord's warning;
“Except your righteousness shall exceed the right-
eousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case
enter into the kingdom of heaven.” No one can doubt
that an inward righteousness is here intended ; that it
is such as to introduce us into the kingdom of heaven ;
that it is that in substance which the Pharisees had only
in pretence. The same doctrine is implied also in St.
Paul's avowal, that he stands, not having his own right-
* Rom. ii. 28, 29. -
* Cf. 1 Cor. iv. 4 with 5; Luke xviii. 14, with Matt. xxv. 21;
1 Thess. ii. 4.
* Gal. vi. 15; iv. 6. 1 Cor. vii. 19.
E
5O Zove considered as
eousness, which is of the Law, but that which is through
the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God
by faith.” If legal righteousness is of a moral nature,
why should not the righteousness of faith be moral also?”
The same explanation applies to other passages of
St. Paul, the force of which is often overlooked at the
present day. For instance: “By the deeds of the Law,”
that is, by a conformity to the external Law, “there
shall no flesh be justified in His sight ; for by the Law
is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of
God” (that is the new righteousness, introduced and
wrought upon the heart by the “ministration of the
Spirit),” “without the Law is manifested, being witnessed
by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness
of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and
upon all them that believe . . . whom God hath set
forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood,
for the setting forth of His righteousness,”—a righteous-
ness of His making, “on account of the remission of
past sins . . . that He might be just, and the justifier
of Him which believeth in Jesus;” that is, that He who
* Matt. v. 20; Phil. iii. 9.
* Qui enim crediderit in eum, non habebit suam justitiam, quae ex
Lege est, quamvis sit bona Lex, sed implebit ºpSam legem, non sua.
justitia Sed data ex Deo. Ita enim non confundetur. Caritas enim
est Legis plenitudo. Et undeista caritas diffusa est in cordibus nostris :
Non utique a nobis, sed per Spiritum Sanctum qui datus est nobis.-
August. Serm. 169.
* Rom. iii. 20-26. “Justitia,” inquit, “Dei manifestata est.”
Non dixit, justitia hominis, vel justitia propriae voluntatis, sed
“justitia Dei,” non qua Deus justus est, sed qua induit hominem cum
justificat impium. Haec testificatur per Legem et Prophetas; huic
quippe testimonium perhibent Lex et Prophetae. Lex quidem hoc ipso
Že Aorma/ Cause of 72/sºftcaäoſa. 51
is righteousness in Himself, may also be a source of
righteousness in all who believe.
Again, he says, in another Epistle, “By grace are
ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is
the gift of God,” the great gift, even that of the Spirit ;
“not of works,” done by your unaided strength, in Con-
formity to the natural Law, “lest any man should boast :
for we are His workmanship ;” He has made us a new
creation, “created in Christ Jesus unto good works.”
Here the difference is marked between the works of the
Spirit, which are “good,” and those of the Law, which
are worthless. -
Once more : “Not by works of righteousness which
we have done ;” for we have none such to produce ; all
our works done in the flesh are but worthless in God’s
sight ; “but according to His mercy. He saved us by the
washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost,
which he shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ
Our Saviour; that being justifted by His grace, we should
be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”
quod jubendo et minando, et neminem justificando satis indicat, dono
Dei justificari hominem per adjutorium, Spiritus: Prophetae autem, quia
id quod praedixerunt, Christi implevit adventus . . . Justitia Dei sine
Lege est quam Deus per Spiritum gratiº credenti confert Sine adjutorio
Legis, hoc est, non adjuto a Lege . . . Voluntas nostra Ostenditur in-
firma per Legem, ut Sanet gratia voluntatem, et Sanata voluntas
ºnpleat Legem, non constituta Sub Lege, nec indigens Lege.—August.
de Spir. et Lit. 15. It must be borne in mind all along that St.
Austin is arguing with the Pelagians, who said we could be justified by
the Law in our natural state. “No,” he answers, “we are justified
only by the Spirit enabling us to fulfil the Law.” This consideration
makes the argument derived from his statement stronger.
* Rom, iii. 20-26; Eph. ii. 8-10; Tit. iii. 5-8. Cf. Gal. v. 18, etc.
52 Zove considered as
And then, as before, the Apostle proceeds to speak of
the necessity of those who have gained this mercy
excelling in “good works.”
10.
Such is St. Paul's testimony to the life-giving and
justifying nature of the New Law ; which, unlike
the External Law, is not only perfect in itself and a
standard of truth, but influential also, creative as well
as living, “powerful, and sharper than any two-edged
Sword;” Or, in David's words, “perfect, converting the
soul;” or, as St. James calls it, “the word of truth,”
through which we are begotten, “the engrafted word,
which is able to save our souls.” Accordingly, the last-
mentioned Apostle also calls it “a royal Law,” and “a
Law of Liberty;” by which he seems to mean, that it is
not an outward yoke, but an inward principle, a brighter
and better conscience, so far as we have succeeded in
realizing our evangelical state ; a law indeed, but in the
Same general Sense in which we speak of its being a law
of the mind to rejoice in, love, or desire certain objects.
It is henceforth the nature of the mind to love God;
the Law of God is not a master set over us; it is our-
selves, it is our will. Hence St. Paul says, “Where the
Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;” and elsewhere he
says, that “the Law is not made for a righteous man,”
not made for him, because he is the Law ;” he needs not a
* Heb. iv. 12. Ps. Xix. 7. James i. 21.
* Sub Lege . . . vivit, in quantum quisque peccator est; id est,
in quantum a vetere homine non est mutatus. Sua enim vita vivet, et
ideo Lex supra illum est; quia qui eam non implet, infra illam est.
the Forma/ Cause of Žustification. 53
law to force him externally, who has the Law in his heart,
and acts “not by constraint, but willingly,” “not
grudgingly, or of necessity,” but from love.
And hence, moreover, it is that love is said to be the
fulfilling of the Law, or righteousness; because being
the one inward principle of life, adequate, in its fulness,
to meet and embrace the range of duties which externally
confront it, it is, in fact, nothing else but the energy
and the representative of the Spirit in our hearts.
Accordingly, St. Paul, describing the course of sanctifi-
cation, begins it in faith but finishes it in love; “Faith,
hope, charity,” he says, “these three.” Again, “The
love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy
Ghost, which is given us.” Again, “the end of the com-
mandment is love out of a pure heart, and of a good
conscience, and of faith unfeigned.”" And St. John,
in like manner, “He that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in
God, and God in him.” Love, then, being the perfection
of religion, and Love being the fulfilling of the Law,
to fulfil the Law is the summit of evangelical blessed-
mess.” &
11.
Again, justification, as all allow, and as has been here
assumed throughout, is a state in which we are accept-
able and pleasing to God ; as then is the mode in
Nam justo Lex posita non est, id est imposita, ut supra illum sit ; in
illa est enim potius quam Sub illa.-August. in Gal. ii. § 17.
* 1 Cor. xiii. 13. Rom. v. 5. 1 Tim. i. 5, 1 John iv. 16.
* Caritas ergo inchoata, inchoata justitia est; caritas provecta,
provecta justitia est; caritas magna, magnajustitia est; caritas perfecta,
perfecta justitia est.—August. de Nat. et Grat. 84.
54 Zoze considered as
which we please God, so is the mode of our justification.
Now it is plain, from St. Paul, that the regenerate please
God, not merely by the imputation of Christ's obedience,
but by their own obedience: by their obedience therefore
are they justified. If they were justified only by
imputation of Christ's obedience, they could only please
Him by virtue of that obedience ; but so far as they
are enabled to please Him by what they are and what
they do, so far may they be said, through His secret
grace, to justify themselves. For instance, St. Paul
says. “The God of grace . . . make you perfect in every
good work to do His will, working in you that which is
well pleasing in His Sight, through Jesus Christ ;” he
does not say, “imputing to you what is pleasing.” Christ
then does not keep the power of justification solely in
His own hands, but by His Spirit dispenses it to us in
due measure, through the medium of our own doings.
He has imparted to us the capacity of pleasing Him ;
and to please Him is that in part, which justification is
in fulness, and tends towards justification as its limit.
That this power is the characteristic of the Gospel is
evident from St. Paul’s words elsewhere, “They that are
in the flesh cannot please God; but ye are not in the
flesh, but in the Spirit.”"
Parallel with such texts is that in the Epistle to the
Philippians, on which much might be said : “Work
out your own salvation with fear and trembling ; for it
is God who worketh in you both to will and to do of
His good pleasure.” Salvation is here described, as
justification elsewhere, not as coming direct from God
* Heb. xiii. 21 ; Rom, viii. 8, 9.
the Forma/ Cause of Žusážcation. 55
upon us, but as coming to us through ourselves, through
our sanctified wills and our religious doings; as wrought
out for us by the power of God actively employed with-
in us.
Texts which speak of our receiving a reward for
our obedience enforce the same conclusion still more
strongly. For what is the reward of a religious action,
but God’s favour, accorded to us in consequence of good
things wrought in us by the Holy Spirit”
12.
Lastly, a number of passages may be referred to,
which have a peculiar cogency, as flowing spontaneously,
as it would seem, from the Scripture speakers and writers,
and so showing the genius of the evangelical system.
As when Our Lord says, “Rather give alms of Such things
as ye have; and behold all things are clean unto you.”
“Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of un-
righteousness.” “This do,” that is, the Commandments,
“and thou shalt live.” “Fear God, and keep His Com-
mandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” “Not
the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers
of the Law shall be justified.” “Laying up in store for
themselves a good foundation against the time to Come,
that they may lay hold on eternal life.” “If we walk in the
light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with
another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth
us from all sin.” “Blessed are they that do His com-
mandments, that they may have right to the tree of life.”
* Luke Xi. 41, xvi. 9, x. 27 ; Eccles. xii. 13 ; Rom. ii. 13 ; 1 Tim.
vi. 19 ; 1 John i. 7 ; Rev. xxii. 14; James ii. 24; Matt. xxv. 31, etc.
56 Zove considered as
“By works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”
And, above all, perhaps, our Lord's declaration that the
righteousness wherein we must stand at the last day is
not His own imputed obedience, but our good works.
13.
Such is the doctrine concerning our justification,
which has the testimony of the whole Christian Church
in its favour, and which, I suppose, all sober minds would
admit at once, except from Some notion that it contradicts
our Articles. What our Articles add to it, and in what
respect it is incomplete though true, and how it may be
unscripturally used, shall be considered in subsequent
Lectures; here I will but say this, that at any rate it is
what the rival doctrine is not, a real doctrine, and contains
an intelligible, tangible, practical view which one can take
and use. That the scheme of salvation should be one of
names and understandings; that we should be but said
to be just, said to have a righteousness, said to please
God, said to earn a reward, said to be saved by works;
that the great wounds of our nature should remain un-
staunched; that Adam's old sinfulness should so pervade
the regenerate that they cannot do anything in itself good
and acceptable, even when it is sprinkled with Christ's
blood, all this would of course be matter of faith, if
Scripture declared it ; but when merely propounded
fifteen centuries after Christ came, it has no claims up-
on us, and might be rejected, even if it were not so very
alien as it is to the genius of the Evangelical Covenant.
That Covenant is a substance ; Judaism was the time of
ſhe Formal Cause of Žusážcation. 57
shadows; it was Judaism which contained but the pro-
fession, the appearance of great things, exciting hopes
which it could not gratify, and seeming to promise when
it did but enforce the need. When, then, divines, how-
ever high in repute, come to me with their visionary
system, an unreal righteousness and a real corruption, I
answer that the Law is past, and that I will not be
brought into bondage by shadows. “Shadows of re-
ligion,” to use an expression of a holy Bishop," these
things fitly may be called; like the Jewish new-moons
and sabbaths which the Judaizers were so loth to part
with. Reputed justification was the gift of the Law;
but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. Away then
with this modern, this private, this arbitrary, this unscrip-
tural system, which promising liberty conspires against
it ; which abolishes Christian Sacraments to introduce
barren and dead Ordinances; and for the real participation
of the Son, and justification through the Spirit, would, at
the very marriage feast, feed us on shells and husks, who
hunger and thirst after righteousness. It is a new
gospel, unless three hundred years stand for eighteen
hundred ; and if men are bent on seducing us from the
ancient faith, let them provide a more specious error, a
more alluring Sophism, a more angelic tempter, than this.
It is surely too bold an attempt to take from our hearts
the power, the fulness, the mysterious presence of Christ's
most holy death and resurrection, and to soothe us for
our loss with the name of having it.
* Bishop Wilson.—Family Prayers.
58 Aloze considered as
14.
Dismissing, howeyer, a train of thought, which
scarcely belongs to the present Lecture, I conclude by
summing up the opposite characteristics of the two
systems of doctrine, which have been under review, and
of which Luther and St. Austin are the respective ex-
pounders. -
The main point in dispute is this ; whether or not
the Moral Law can in its substance be obeyed and kept
by the regenerate. Augustine says, that whereas we are
by nature condemned by the Law, we are enabled by
the grace of God to perform it unto our justification ;
Luther, that whereas we are condemned by the Law,
Christ has Himself performed it unto our justification ;-
Augustine, that our righteousness is active ; Luther, that
it is passive;"—Augustine, that it is imparted; Luther,
that it is only imputed;—Augustine that it consists in
a change of heart; Luther, in a change of state. Luther
maintains that God’s commandments are impossible to
man ;” Augustine adds, impossible without His grace;”
* In Galat. Argum. &
* Etsi igitur offenduntur viri politici, cum Lex Dei dicitur impos-
sibilis, tamen id dictum verum est de hac corrupta natura. . . . .
Ideo donat nobis Spiritum sanctum ut in tanta infirmitate tamen
inchoetur Lex.-Melanchth. Loci Theol. de Lib. Arb. f. 169. Gerhard
explains St. Austin's statements about grace enabling us to fulfil the
Law, by understanding “grace” to mean forgiveness ; or that we ful-
fil the Law, by God's mercy not imputing to us our non-fulfilment.
Gerh. de Lege Dei, $ 196.
* Eo quippe ipso quo firmissime creditur, “Deum justum et bonum
impossibilia non potuisse præcipere,” hinc admonemur, et in facilibus
quid agamus et in difficilibus quid petamus. Omnia quippe fiunt
facilia caritati, etc.—De Nat. et Grat. 83.
the Forma/ Cause of Žusáñcaſion. 59
—Luther, that the gospel consists of promises only ;”
Augustine that is also a Law ;-Luther, that Our highest
wisdom is, not to know the Law ;” Augustine says in-
stead, to know and keep it —Luther says, that the Law
and Christ cannot dwelltogether in the heart;” Augustine
says, that the Law is Christ ; –Luther denies, and
Augustine maintains that obedience is a matter of con-
Science ; *—Luther says, that a man is made a Christian
not by working but by hearing ;” Augustine excludes
those works only which are done before grace given ;
—Luther, that our best deeds are sins;" Augustine, that
they are really pleasing to God. Tuther says, that faith
is taken instead of righteousness ; Augustine, in earnest
of righteousness;–Luther, that faith is essential, because
it is a subsititute for holiness; Augustine, because it is
the commencement of holiness;–Luther says, that faith,
as such, renews the heart ; Augustine says, a loving faith;
—Luther would call faith the tree, and works the fruit ;
Augustine, rather, the inward life, or grace of God, or
love," the tree, and renewal the fruit. The school of
* Luther in Gal. iii. 11; f. 272. (2.) f. 274, f. 407. Bull, Harm.
i. 3, § 3. * In Gal Argum.
* In Gal. v. 4. Discat igitur pius Legem et Christum duo contraria
esse, prorsus incompatibilia.
* Debemus extra conscientiam facere ex ea [Lege] Deum ; in com-
Scientia vero est vere diabolus. Quia in minima tentatione non potest
erigere et consolari conscientiam, etc. . . . . Nullo modo Sinamus eam
dominari in conscientia.—Luther in Gal. iv. 3.
* In Gal. iii. 2.
* He seems to have meant that they had sin in them ; but his
words are, Opus bonum optime factum est mortale peccatum secundum
judicium Dei.-Gerhard. de Bom. Op. § 38.
* Non enim fructus est bonus, qui de caritatis radice non surgit.—
6O Zove considered as
Luther accuse their opponents of Self-righteousness; and
they retort on them the charge of Self-indulgence : the
one say that directly aiming at good works fosters pride ;
the other that not doing So Sanctions licentiousness.
Such are the two views of justification when placed
in contrast with each other ; and as so placed, I conceive
it will be found that the former is false, and the latter
is true, but that while the former is an utter perversion
of the truth, the latter does in Some respects come short
of it. What is wanting to complete it we learn from
other parts of St. Austin's writings, which supply what
Luther, not finding perhaps in the theology in which he
had been educated, expressed in his own way. I say
this, lest I should appear to be setting up any private
judgment of my own against a Father of the Church, or
to speak of him as I might speak of Luther." St. Austin
doubtless was but a fallible man, and, if in any point he
opposed the voice of the Catholic Church, so far he is
not to be followed; yet others may be more fallible than
he ; and when it is a question of difference of opinion
between one mind and another, the holy Austin will
weigh more, even with ordinarily humble men, than their
own speculations. St. Austin contemplates the whole of
Scripture, and harmonizes it into One consistent doctrine;
De Spir, et Lit. 26. On the other hand, Luther says, “Qui Volet
fructus bonos habere, ab arbore incipiat, et hanc bonam plantabit; ita
qui vult bona operare, non ab operando, sed a credendo incipiat.—De
Libert. Christ. f. 8.
1. It is but fair to Luther to say that he indirectly renounced the
extravagant parts of his doctrine at the end of his life; (that is, the dis-
tinctive parts. Wid. above, p. 10, note). Laurence, Bampton Lectures,
iv. note 14.
the Forma/ Cause of Žustification. 6 I
the Protestants, like the Arians, entrench themselves in
a few favourite texts. Luther and the rest, men of
Original minds, spoke as no one spoke before them ; St.
Austin, with no less originality, was contented to mini-
ster to the promulgation of what he had received. They
have been founders of sects; St. Austin is a Father in
the Holy Apostolic Church.
LECTURE III.
PRIMARY SENSE OF THE TERM JUSTIFICATION.
NOUGH has now been said to make it appear that
the controversy concerning Justification, agitated
in these last centuries, mainly turns upon this question,
whether Christians are or are not justified by observance
of the Moral Law. I mean, this has been in matter of
fact the point in dispute; whether, or how far, it has been
a dispute of words, or went to the root of the question
doctrinally, or ethically, are considerations which I do
not now dwell upon, but mention by way of explaining
my meaning. That in our natural state, and by our
own strength, we are not and cannot be justified by
obedience, is admitted on all hands, agreeably to St.
Paul's forcible statements; and to deny it is the heresy
of Pelagius. But it is a distinct question altogether,
whether with the presence of God the Holy Ghost we
can obey unto justification; and, while the received
doctrine in all ages of the Church has been, that through
the largeness and peculiarity of the gift of grace we can,
it is the distinguishing tenet of the school of Luther, that
through the incurable nature of our corruption we cannot.
Or, what comes to the same thing, one side says that the
righteousness in which God accepts us is inherent,
Primary Sense of Žusáfication. 63
wrought in us by the grace flowing from Christ's Atone-
ment ; the other says that it is external, reputed, nominal,
being Christ's own sacred and most perfect obedience on
earth, viewed by a merciful God as if it were ours. And
issue is joined on the following question, whether justi-
fication means in Scripture Counting us righteous, or
making us righteous;–as regards, that is, Our present
condition ; for that pardon of past sins is included under
its meaning, both parties in the controversy allow.
2.
Now, in the foregoing Lecture, in which I stated
what I consider as in the main the true doctrine, two
points were proposed for proof; first, that justification
and sanctification were in fact substantially one and the
same thing ; next, that in the Order of our ideas, viewed
relatively to each other, justification followed upon sancti-
fication. The former of these statements seems to me
entirely borne out by Scripture; I mean that justification
and Sanctification are there described as parts of one gift,
properties, qualities, or aspects of one ; that renewal
cannot exist without acceptance, or acceptance without
renewal; that Faith, which is the symbol of the one,
contains in it Love or Charity, which is the symbol of
the other. So much concerning the former of the two
statements; but as to the latter, that justification follows
upon Sanctification, that we are first renewed, and then
and therefore accepted, this doctrine, which Luther
strenuously opposed, our Church seems to deny also. I
believe it to be true in One Sense, but not true in another,
—unless indeed those different Senses resolve themselves
64 Primary Sense
into a question of words. In the present Lecture, then, I
propose to consider the exact relation of justification to
Sanctification theologically, in regard to which our
Church would seem to consider Luther in the right: in
the next Lecture I shall consider the relation of the one
to the other, viewed popularly and as a practical matter,
as Augustine and other Fathers set it forth ; and in
those which follow, returning to the subject which has
already employed us, I shall show the real connection
between the two doctrines, or rather their identity, in
matter of fact, however we may vary our terms, or
classify our ideas.
If it be asked how I venture, as I do, as regards any
proposition which the doctrine of justification involves, to
prefer Luther to St. Augustine, I answer, that I believe
St. Augustine really would consider, that in the order of
ideas Sanctification followed upon justification, though he
does so with less uniformity of expression than Luther,
and no exaggeration, and a preference of practical to
scientific statements. Nor is it in any way wonder-
ful, supposing the two are really united together, and
belong to One gift of grace committed to the heart, as its
properties or qualities (as light and heat co-exist in the
sun), that Augustine should not make a point of being
logically correct, but should in familiar language speak
of the Sun of righteousness, both as shining on us, in
Order to warm us, and as shining on us with his genial
warmth, that is justifying unto renewal, and justifying
by renewing.
In adopting the middle course I have thus prescribed
to myself-allowing Luther's statement, and maintain-
of the Zerm jºustification. - 65
ing St. Austin's doctrine,—I am but following our
Articles; which, in One place, speak of justification as
synonymous with our being “counted righteous before
God,” or as being in idea separate from Sanctification,
following, as I have said above, Luther : and in another
as equivalent to “the grace of Christ and the inspiration
of His Spirit,” or as actually consisting in Sanctification,
following St. Austin and the other Fathers.
3.
Now to proceed to the subject of the present Lecture,
viz. that in logical Order, or exactness of idea, Almighty
God justifies before He sanctifies; or that, in rigid pro-
priety of language, justification is counting righteous, not
7making. -
I would explain the distinction I am drawing, thus;
—to “justify” means in itself “counting righteous,” but
includes under its meaning “making righteous;” in
other words, the Sense of the term is “counting righteous,”
and the nature of the thing denoted by it is making
righteous. In the abstract it is a counting righteous, in
the concrete a making righteous. An illustration will
clear my meaning. No One doubts what the word
Psalmist means in Scripture ; yet that one undeniable
sense which it has, viewed in itself, is of course very far
short of its full sense, when applied to this or that person.
Then it stands for much more than this bare and abstract
sense. A Psalmist is one who sings Psalms; but the
Psalmist may be David, a given individual, living at a
certain time and place, and with a certain history
attached to him, The meaning of the name is one thing;
F
66 Primary Sense
of the object another. If one said, “the Psalmist wept
over his son Absalom,” it would be absurd to maintain
on the one hand that the word Psalmist meant “a Father,”
or on the other that the person signified by the word was
merely “a singer of Psalms.” So, again, a shepherd slew
Goliath, but not as a shepherd; and the “man after God's
own heart” numbered the people, yet not as being after
God’s heart. In like manner, justification, in the mere
meaning of the word, may be a counting or declaring
righteous (as the 11th Article implies), yet the justifica-
tion given under the Gospel, the concrete thing denoted
by the word, may (as the 13th implies) be as much more
than a mere external, reputed, conventional righteousness,
as “the Sweet Psalmist of Israel” was more than a
Psalmist. It may be as true that it is in fact the giving
of “the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his Spirit,”
as that the Psalmist was also a king, the man after God's
own heart, and a type of Christ. Justification, then, as
Such, is an imputation ; but the actual Gospel gift called
justification is more, it is renewal also.
Here I am to consider it, not as it is in fact, but as
it is in idea : as an imputation of righteousness, or an
accounting righteous; and I shall offer remarks in behalf
of three positions, which arise out of what has been said ;
first, that justification is, in the proper meaning of the
word, a declaration of righteousness; secondly, that it
is distinct from renewal; thirdly, that it is the antecedent
or efficient cause of renewal. “The Voice of the Lord,”
says the Psalm, “is mighty in operation; the Voice of
the Lord is a glorious Voice.” Justification then is the
Voice of the Lord designating us ;-designating us what
of the Zerm justification. 67
we are not at the time that it designates us; designating
us what we then begin to be.
4.
1. Justification is “the glorious Voice of the Lord”
declaring us to be righteous. That it is a declaration,
not a making, is sufficiently clear from this one argument,
that it is the justification of a Sinner, of one who has been
a sinner; and the past cannot be reversed except by
accounting it reversed. Nothing can bring back time
bygone ; nothing can undo what is done. God treats us
as if that had not been which has been ; that is, by a
merciful economy or representation, He says of us, as to
the past, what in fact is otherwise than what He says it
is. It is true that justification extends to the present as
well as to the past ; yet, if so, still in spite of this it
must mean an imputation or declaration, or it would
cease to have respect to the past. And if it be once
granted to mean an imputation, it cannot mean any-
thing else ; for it cannot have two meanings at once.
To account and to make are perfectly distinct ideas.
The subject-matter may be double, but the act of justi-
fication is one ; what it is as to the past, such must it be
as to the present ; it is a declaration about the past,
it is a declaration about the present.
This being so clearly the case, it is scarcely necessary
to quote passages from Scripture in proof; one or two
shall be adduced by way of sanction.
For example; in the fourth chapter of his Epistle to
the Romans, St. Paul makes justification synonymous
with “ºmputing righteousness,” and quotes David’s words
68 Primary Sense
concerning the blessedness of those “whose iniquities
are forgiven, and whose sins are covered,” and “to whom
the Lord will not impute sin.” Righteousness, then, is
the name, character, or estimation of righteousness
vouchsafed to the past, and extending from the past to
the present as far as the present is affected by the past.
It is the accounting a person not to have that present
guilt, peril, odiousness, ill-repute, with which the past
actually burdens him. If a wrong has been done you,
and you forgive the offender, you count it as though it
had not been, you pass it over. You view him as before
he did it, and treat him as on his original footing. You
consider him to have been what he has not been, fair
and friendly towards you ; that is, you impute righteous-
mess to him or justify him. When a parent forgives a
child, it is on the same principle. He says, “I will
think no more of it this time; I will forget what has
happened; I will give you one more trial.” In this
sense it is all one to say that he forgives the child, or
that he counts him to have been and to be a good child,
and treats him as if he had not been disobedient. He
declares him dutiful; and thereby indirectly forgives
that past self, which lives in his present self, and makes
it a debtor.
Again : In the eighth chapter of the same Epistle,
St. Paul says, “Who shall lay anything to the charge of
God’s elect 2 It is God that justifieth.” Here justift-
cation is contrasted with accusation ; accordingly it is a
judicial word, and is, therefore, concerned with the past.
It comes apon the past, and takes up man in his natural
* Rom. viii. 33.
of the Term jºustification. 69
state, as found a sinner. Whatever blessings besides
are intended for him, still it is the commencement of
blessing, and if so, is necessarily, in the first place, a
declaring, whatever it may do afterwards. It is, as being
a judicial act, an act concerning the present as influenced
by the past ; they who have sinned are criminals, and
they are justified from what they have done. Unless it
can be shown, then, that courts of law make men inno-
cent instead of declaring them so, justification is a de-
Claration, not a making.
Again, in the fifth chapter : “The judgment was by
one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences
unto justification. . . . As by the offence of one, judgment
came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the
righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men
wnto justification of life.” Now here it is objected by
members of the Church of Rome and others, that Adam’s
Condemnation included an inward destitution, and there-
fore justification includes an inward gift. I grant it,
but this is a further question ; whatever condemnation
or justification may or may not involve or imply, the
point before us is, not this, but what the word means.
A declaration on the part of God may in itself presup-
pose, or involve, or attend, or cause, or in any other way -
imply, the actual communication of the thing declared :
still it does not thereby cease to be a declaration, and
justification need not cease to be in itself an accounting,
though it may involve a making righteous. Condemna-
tion, in like manner, though it implies, Surely does not
mean making guilty, but what follows upon guilt ; and so
* Rom. v. 16-18.
7O Primary Sense
justification does not mean cleansing, even though it
turn out to be the antecedent or cause of it.
In like manner Our Lord says to the Pharisees, “Ye
are they which justify yourselves before men ; ” does
this mean “make yourselves righteous,” or merely
“declare, profess yourselves” so
These are one or two out of various passages from
the New Testament, which show the sense in which the
word justification is to be taken ; indeed, but one passage
can be produced where it is used for “making righteous,”
and there the reading is doubtful." I mean St. John's
words at the end of the Apocalypse, “He that is righteous,
let him be righteous still ; ” which in the Greek runs,
“let him be justified still.” .
5.
There are many collateral arguments leading us to
the same conclusion. For instance ; St. James says
“that Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto
him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of
God.” No one can doubt that these phrases are synony-
mous with being justified; justification, then, is a “call-
'ng,” that is, a declaring, accounting, treating as the friend
of God. That he also was the friend of God, and well-
pleasing to Him, is certain too; but his justification was
his being declared so. -
Again; the Jews considered they were justified by
the rites of the Law, such as circumcision, observing the
Sabbath, paying tithes, and the like ; and St. Paul says,
“By the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.”
* Bull, Harm. i. 1, § 6.
of the Zerm 7 usáñcaſion. 71
Now, the Jews did not consider such works made them
holy, but made them holy towards God, or recommended
them to Him ; and St. Paul condemns them for Substi-
tuting them for holiness. The Apostle goes on to say,
that the only true justification is the being made holy or
renewed ; does not this imply, from the very nature of
the case, that renewal is not just the same thing as justi-
fication, but that in which God justifies men, instead of
justifying in the observance of rites? What the Jews
thought justification through ceremonies to be, that
gospel justification really is, acceptableness; and as the
word was attached to circumcision among the Jews with-
out being synonymous with it, so it attaches to renewal
now, without standing for it, or being an equivalent
expression.
The same distinction is seen in passages where men-
tion is made of being “counted worthy of eternal life : ”
—for instance, when our Lord speaks of those “which
shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the
resurrection from the dead ; ” + or bids us watch and
pray that we “may be accounted worthy to escape all
these things which shall come to pass;” and when St.
Paul speaks of our “being counted worthy of the kingdom
of God,” no one can deny two things;–on the one
hand, that those who are counted worthy, are worthy
(for Our Lord says in the Apocalypse, “They shall walk
with me in white, for they are worthy;”*) on the other,
that to be “counted worthy” does not, in the very sense
of the words, mean to be worthy, though it implies it,
* Luke xx, 35, and xxi. 36.
* 2 Thes. i. 5. 3 Rev. iii. 4.
72 Primary Sense
but means a declaration of that which really is, though,
or rather because, it is declared. In like manner, justi-
fication, as such, may properly be a declaration, though
it involves in fact a gift of righteousness.
(3.
2. And secondly, it not only declares, but in order of
ideas it is distinct from the gift which it declares; it is
the “Voice of the Lord,” calling righteous what is not
righteous till He calls it so. This will appear from
examining what justification is, as a real and gracious
act on God's part towards us sinners. Now, the doctrine
of our justification not only implies, but derives its
special force from our being by birth sinners and culprits.
It supposes a judicial process, that is, an accuser, a
judgment-seat, and a prisoner. Such is our condition
by nature, the devil is our accuser, as of old time he
accused Job ; and the natural man, not being righteous
as Job, has so much more cause for amazement and con-
fusion. Yet even Job says, “Behold I am vile, what
shall I answer Thee? I will lay my hand upon my mouth.
Once have I spoken, but I will not answer; yea twice,
but I will proceed no further.” Or as Ezra speaks, “We
are ashamed and blush to lift up our faces to God, for
our iniquities are increased over our heads, and our
trespass is grown up unto the heavens.” If this be the
case with holy men, what should it be with the world at
large, when the heavy catalogue of their sins is spread
out in the sight of Divine Holiness | Then, as St. Paul
says, “Every mouth is stopped, and all the world is guilty
* Job xl. 4, 5. Ezra ix. 6.
of the Zerm jºustification. 73
before God.” Under these circumstances, when there is
no health or hope in us, when we hide our faces and are
speechless, the All-merciful God, as we are taught in the
Gospel, for Christ's sake, freely pardons and justifies us.
He justifies instead of condemning; that is, He exalts us
by how much we were overwhelmed and cast down, by
a Salvation as strange as the peril was imminent.
This correspondence between the depth of our misery
and the fulness of our recovery will enable us to estimate
the wonderful character of the latter. It is an act as
signal, as great, as complete, as was the condemnation
into which sin plunged us. Whether or not it involves
renewal, it is evidently something of a more formal and
august nature than renewal. Justification is a word of
state and Solemnity. Divine Mercy might have renewed
us and kept it secret; this would have been an infinite
and most unmerited grace, but He has done more. He
justifies us; He not only makes, He declares, acknow-
ledges, accepts us as holy. He recognises us as His own,
and publicly repeals the sentence of wrath and the penal
statutes which lie against us. He sanctifies us gradu-
ally ; but justification is a perfect act," anticipating at
once in the sight of God what sanctification does but
tend towards. In it, the whole course of sanctification
is Summed, reckoned, or imputed to us in its very begin-
ning. Before man has done anything as specimen, or
* [i.e. Perfect in relation to the past, as being a simple reversal of
the state of guilt, and a bringing into God's favour; but as God's
favour towards us will grow as we become more holy, so, as we become
more holy, we may receive a higher justification. The words in the
text are inconsistent with an increase of justification, which Catholics
hold.]
74. Primary Sense
paid anything as instalment, except faith, nor even
faith in the case of infants, he has the whole treasures
of redemption put to his credit, as if he were and had
done infinitely more than he ever can be or do. He is
“declared” after the pattern of his Saviour, to be the
adopted “Son of God with power, by a " spiritual
“resurrection.” His tears are wiped away ; his fears,
misgivings, remorse, shame, are changed for “righteous-
ness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost ; ” he is clad
in white, and has his crown given him. Thus justifica-
tion is at first what renewal could but be at last ; and,
therefore, is by no means a mere result or consequence
of renewal, but a real, though not a separate act of God's
mercy. It is a great and august deed in the sight of
heaven and hell; it is not done in a corner, but by Him
who would show the world “what should be done unto
those whom the King delighteth to honour.” It is a
pronouncing righteous while it proceeds to make right-
eous. As Almighty God in the beginning created the
World Solemnly and in form, speaking the word not to
exclude, but to proclaim the deed,—as in the days of
His flesh He made use of the creature and changed its
properties not without a command; so does He new-
create the soul by the breath of His mouth, by the
sacrament of His Voice. The declaration of our right-
eousness, while it contains pardon for the past, promises
holiness for the future.
7.
Such is the force of passages like the following:—
“To show forth His righteousness for the remission of
sins that are past—to show forth, I say, at this time His
of the Zerm jºustification. 75
righteousness.” “Who shall lay anything to the charge
of God’s elect 2 who is he that condemneth ?” as if
publicly challenging the world. “Having spoiled prin-
cipalities and powers, He made a show of them, openly,
triumphing over them by ” the Cross. Or let us con-
sider the vision in the book of Zechariah:-‘‘ He showed
me Joshua the High Priest standing before the Angel of
the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist
him. And the Lord said to Satan, The Lord rebuke thee,
O Satan, even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem, re-
buke thee; is not this a brand plucked out of the fire 2
Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood
before the Angel. And He answered and Spake unto
those that stood before Him, saying, Take away the filthy
garments from him ; and unto him he said, Behold, I
have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee; and I will
clothe thee with change of raiment. And I said, Let
them set a fair mitre upon his head. So they set a fair
mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments.”
The parable of the Prodigal Son would supply another
illustration in point.
Hence, again, so much stress is laid upon taking our
Shame away, this being one characteristic benefit of
justification as distinct from renewal. Guilt makes us
veil our eyes in the sight of God and His Angels; when
God justifies, He clears us from reproach, from the sus-
picions of holy creatures and the accusations of the
devil. The Psalmist, for instance, says, “They looked
unto him, and were lightened, and their faces were not
ashamed.” “All they that hope in Thee, Shall not be
* Rom, iii. viii. 33, 34. Col. ii. 15. Zech. iii. 1-5.
76 Primary Sense
ashamed.” And the Prophet, in like manner, “For your
Shame ye shall have double, and for confusion they shall
rejoice in their portion.” “My people shall never be
ashamed.” And so again St. Paul, quoting Isaiah, Whoso-
ever believeth in Him shall not be ashamed.” In these,
and similar passages, the great recovery or justification
of the sinner in God's sight is not the silent bestowal of
a gift, but an open display of His power and love.
This particular force, as belonging to the idea of
justification, might be illustrated in other ways from the
Psalms. I will but refer, as a specimen, to a verse of
the 37th, as commented on by St. Athanasius. The
Psalmist says, “He will bring forth thy righteousness as
clear as the light, and thy just dealing as the n007 day.”
Now in this particular case obedience goes before justifica-
tion, So it is not an exact parallel of the justification of a
Sinner. I quote it then merely as illustrating what is
meant by the word justification; and with that view, add
the words of the illustrious Father in question. “Then
will He bring forth,’ that is, He will establish manifestly,
and make clear in the sight of all; not suffering the
beauty of holy living to lie hid. For thy righteousness
shall be evident to all, shining forth as the light, the light
of the noon-day. Not only doth He justify him who con-
fesses, and apply to him a merciful judgment, but He
bringeth his righteousness to the light ; that is, He makes
Änown to all that He hath justified him. So it was with
the penitent thief, whose sentence Jesus, when on the
Cross at mid-day, thus published at noontide; and the
righteousness which was upon him. He brought into the
light, that is, to the knowledge of all. For when He said
of the Term jºustification. 77
of him, ‘Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with
Me in paradise,’ it became clear to the whole earth, or
rather it became a light to the earth ; an encouragement
to all who were in a state of penitence. ‘The brightness
of righteousness,’ says the Psalmist, ‘shall not be hidden,
as now ; but shall be very manifest, as the Sun at noon-
day, or, in our Lord's words, ‘Then shall the righteous
shine forth as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.’”
Our Lord’s justification, as St. Paul terms it, which
took place upon His resurrection, to which I referred
just now, supplies another illustration. Christ differs
from us in this, that He was the true and eternal Son,
we sons only by adoption; He holy by nature, we made
holy beyond mature ; but He does not differ in His
justification, which, simply considered, was what I have
been showing ours to be, an open acknowledgment of
Him by the Father as righteous and well beloved, yet
not nominally such (God forbid) but really. St. Paul, who
in one place says that Christ was “justified by the Spirit,”
explains himself elsewhere by saying that he was “de-
clared" to be the Son of God, with power, according to
the Spirit of Holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.”
With this agree the words of the Psalm, “I will declare
the decree; the Lord hath said unto Me, Thou art My Son,
this day have I begotten Thee.” As then, Christ's jus-
tification did not supersede but implied His inherent
righteousness, yet was in itself distinct from it, and a
testimony to it, SO is our justification God’s announcement,
concurrent with His own deed so announced ; yet in our
case, preceding, not following, His deed, because we are
* Öpto:6&vros. Cf. Luke xxiii. 47.
78 Primary Sense
but made righteous, and not as Christ, righteous from
our birth.
8.
3. In His case, indeed, justification could be but a
witness to what was true from everlasting ; but in ours
it is much more than a witness, may more than an
antecedent, as indeed has been already intimated. Our
justification is not a mere declaration of a past fact, or a
testimony to what is present, or an announcement of what
is to come, much less, as those who follow Luther say, ,
a declaration of what neither has been, is, nor ever will
be, but it is the cause of that being which before was
not, and henceforth is.’ Strange it is, but such is the
opinion of one of the two schools of divinity which
have all along been mentioned, that God’s calling us
righteous implies, not only that we have not been, but
that we never shall be, righteous. Surely it is a strange
paradox to Say that a thing is not because He says it is ;
that the solemn averment of the Living and True God
is inconsistent with the fact averred ; this His accepting
our obedience is a bar to His making it acceptable, and
that the glory of His pronouncing us righteous lies in
His leaving us unrighteous. Surely it is a paradox to
maintain that the only safeguard of the doctrine of our
being accepted freely and without price, is that of our
* Est differentia attendenda circa gratiam Dei et gratiam hominis;
quia enim bonum creaturae provenit ex voluntate divina, ideo ex
dilectione Dei quae vult creaturae bonum, profluit aliquod bonum in
creatura. Voluntas autem hominis movetur ex bono praeexistente in
rebus, et inde est quod dilectio hominis non causat totaliter rei
bomitatem, Sed præsuppomit iſ Sam vel in parte vel in toto,-S, Thom.
Quæst. 110, 1.
- of the Zerm jºustification. 79
hearts being left odious and offensive to God. How does
it diminish the freedom of the gift that He does more ?
how does it exalt His grace, to Say that He lets remain
in the “filthy rags” of nature those whose obedience
His omnipotence Surely might make well-pleasing to
Him, did He so will? We, indeed, can claim nothing;
and if it be proved that Scripture promises no more,
then it is presumptOus to seek it ; but it is very certain
that Scripture, again and again, speaks of Our hearts and
bodies, our thoughts, words, and works, as righteous; so
it is not for want of Scripture warrant that we shrink
from believing this gracious truth, but we are determined
that the word righteous, in such passages, shall not really
mean righteous ; we put a second sense upon the word,
we explain away the Sacred text, and deny a sacred doc-
trine, all because we have a notion that we are exalting
the fulness and richness of God's mercy by circumscrib-
ing it.
Alas! it is an opinion too widely spread, too
pertinaciously held, to need formal statement, that if God
be supposed to impart any intrinsic acceptableness to
our services, this must diminish our debt to Him ; that
the more He does for us, the less we must necessarily
feel indebted to Him ; and, though He give us all other
graces, He cannot give humility with them. Far be from
us notions as contrary to Scripture as they are disparag-
ing to God’s love ; no, let us believe the comfortable
truth, that the justifying grace of God effects what it
declares. “The Voice of the Lord is mighty in operation,
the Voice of the Lord is a glorious Voice.” It is not
like some idle Sound, or a vague rumour coming at random,
8O Primary Sense
and tending no whither, but it is “the Word which goeth
forth out of His mouth;” it has a Sacramental power, being
the instrument as well as the sign of His will. It never
can “return unto Him void, but it accomplishes that
which He pleases, and prospers in the thing whereto He
sends it.” Imputed righteousness is the coming in of
actual righteousness. They whom God’s sovereign voice
pronounces just, forthwith become in their measure just.
He declares a fact, and makes it a fact by declaring it.
He imputes, not a name but a substantial Word, which,
being “ingrafted” in our own hearts, “is able to save
our souls.”
* Quando Deus justificat impium, declarando justum, facit etiam
justum, quomiam judicium Dei Secundum veritatem est.—Bellarm. de
Justif. ii. 3. Werbum Domini ejusque voluntas efficax est, et hoc ipso
quod aliquem justum esse pronunciat, aut Suppomit justum eum esse,
aut re ipsa, justum facit, ne verbum ejus mendax sit.—Wasquez, Quaest.
112, Disp. 202, c. 5. Wid, also Ysambert de Grat, ad Quaest. 113,
Disp. 1, Art. 2. Davenant, though a Calvinist, says Cum Deus
ineffabili amore complectatur filios Suos, necesse est ut nota/m. Sew charac-
terem paterni Sui amoris illis imprimat et insculpat. Hoc autem aliud
non est quam imago quaedam et similitudo Sanctitatis Suae.-De Habit.
Just. c. 3. Nay, Calvin himself, Fatemur ergo simul atque justificatur
quispiam, necessario innovationem quoque sequi.-Antid. p. 324.
But then he adds that it is only a necessary accident. Denique ubi de
causá quaeritur, quorsum attinet accidens inseparabile obtrudiº Vid.
also Chemnitz de Justif p. 128, fin. This then it seems, after all, is
the point at issue ; God speaks, and a new creation follows: is this
new creation involved in the essence of the justifying act, or only joined
as a necessary accident 2 [Cordis renovatio] justificationis obtentie mon
causa (no one says it is a “cause" eacept in the philosophical sense,
that whiteness is the cause of a white wall, to take the common illustra-
tion)sed comes, simul tempore adveniens, 3ed Ordine causalitatis Subsequens.
—Davenant de Habit. Justit. c. 24. Cf. Bitontinus's language at Trent,
quoted below, in Appendix, $14, also Ysambert de Gratia, Disp. iv. Art, 4.
of the Zerm jºustification. 8 I
9.
God’s word, I say, effects what it announces. This
is its characteristic all through Scripture. He “calleth
those things which be not, as though they are,” and they
are forthwith. Thus in the beginning He said, “Let
there belight, and there was light.” Word and deed went
together in creation; and so again “in the regeneration,”
“The Lord gave the word, great was the company of the
3
preachers.” So again in His miracles, He called Lazarus
from the grave, and the dead arose; He said, “Be thou
cleansed,” and the leprosy departed ; He rebuked the
wind and the waves, and they were still ; He commanded
the evil spirits, and they fled away; He said to St. Peter
and St. Andrew, St. John, St. James, and St. Matthew,
“Follow Me,” and they arose, for “His word was with
power ;” and so again in the Sacraments His word is the
consecrating principle.” As He “blessed” the loaves
and fishes, and they multiplied, so He “blessed and
brake,” and the bread became His Body. Further, His
voice is the instrument of destruction as well as of crea-
Chamier de Sanct. x. 2, § 16, well states the case, “Quaerebatur an
homo, cum justificatur, acquirat justitiam et sanctitatem inhaerentem :
Immo, inquam, illud cum justificatºr Sophisticum quia ambiguurn ;
itaque ineptum constituendo statui controversiae. Potest enim signifi.
care conjunctioneem temporis, ut sensus sit, an simulac justificatur homo,
acquirat etiam illam Sanctitatem, ut quum quis deambulans in sole
simul calefit, et colorem mutat in fuscum. Potest etiam identitatem,
ut ita loquar, re? » ac si dicam, utrum cum ambulat, moveatur homo.”
The latter alternative is the Roman, the former the Calvinistic ; that
in the text follows St. Chrysostom, who says, 'O Mév a Taupos Thy karápav
&\varev, # 6é Tío Tus Thu Čukatoo-tſumu eio ſyayev, h 6é Öukawa ſum Too Tvetſ-
paros Thu Xáplv ćTea Tâgato.—In Gal. iii. 5.
* The same illustration is made use of by Mr. Knox, Remains, vol.
i. p. 265. * Wid. also Rom. iv. 17.
G. f
82 Primary Sense
tion. As He “upholds all things by the word of His
power,” so “at the Voice of the Archangel, and at the
trump of God,” the visible world will dissolve ; and as
His “Voice” formerly “shook the earth,” so once more
“the Lord shall roar out of Zion, and utter His Voice
from Jerusalem, and the heavens and the earth shall
shake.”"
It would seem, then, in all cases, that God’s word is
the instrument of His deed. When, then, He solemnly
utters the command, “Tet the soul be just,” it becomes
inwardly just ; by what medium or in what manner or
degree, is a further question not now to be discussed.”
Here it will be more in place, in conclusion, to mention
another instance of God's dealings with us, which is ana-
logous to the process of justification as above considered;
I mean, the mode in which prophecy is introduced in
Scripture, and the purposes which it is made to answer
in Sacred history. It has been noticed before now,” as
a characteristic of Scripture prophecy, that it precedes
and introduces into the world the great providences of
God's mercy. When He would set apart a family or
people for some extraordinary end, He reveals His pur-
pose in the case of the first father of the line. He puts
His word upon it in its origin, and seals up for it its
destinies in that word, which, like some potent charm,
works secretly towards the proposed end. Thus, when
the chosen people were to be formed, Almighty God not
Only chose Abraham, but spoke over him the promises
which in due time were to be accomplished. The twelve
tribes had each its own character and history stamped on
it from the first. When the royal line of the Messiah
* Joel iii. 16. * Wid. Lecture WI. * Wid. Davison on Prophecy.
of the 7erm jºustification. 83
was to be begun in Judah and renewed in David, on
each patriarch in turn did Providence inscribe a pre-
diction of what was to be . Such as this is justification
as regards an individual. It is a sort of prophecy, recog-
nizing God’s hidden election, announcing His purposes
before the event, and mysteriously working towards their
fulfilment ; even “the oath which He sware” to us, “more
abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the im-
mutability of His counsel,” “that we might have a
strong consolation who have fled for refuge to lay hold
upon the hope set before us.” And in thus openly Set-
ting forth what is secretly in course of operation, it is an
appointment especially characteristic of that supernatural
system which we call Revealed Religion. As God Con-
ducts His Scripture Dispensations by Prophecy, and
anticipates Nature by Miracle, so does He in a parallel
way infuse holiness into our hearts through justification.
10.
On the whole then, from what has been said, it ap-
pears that justification is an announcement or fiat of
Almighty God, which breaks upon the gloom of our
natural state as the Creative Word upon Chaos; that it
declares the Soul righteous, and in that declaration, on the
One hand, conveys pardon for its past sins, and on the
other makes it actually righteous.* That it is a declaration,
* What is here called a declaration, Calvin calls an acceptation ; with
this verbal diſſerence, the following passage from him, as far as it goes,
expresses what is stated in the text –“Tota nostra disceptatio est de
causa justificationis. Hanc Tridentini patres duplicem esse fingunt ;
ac si partim remissione peccatorum, partim Spirituali regeneratione justi
€SSCIOlllS . . . . . Ego autem w/nicam et Simplicem esse assero, quaº
tota continetur in gºal wità, acceptione.”—Antid. p. 324.
84 Primary Sense of Žusáfication.
has been made evident from its including, as all allow,
an amnesty for the past ; for past sins are removable
only by an imputation of righteousness. And that it
involves an actual creation in righteousness has been
argued from the analogy of Almighty God's doings in
Scripture, in which we find His words were represented
as effective. And its direct statements most abundantly
establish both conclusions ; the former, from its use of
the word justification ; the latter, from its use of the
word just or righteous ; showing, that in matter of fact,
he who is justified becomes just, that he who is declared
righteous is thereby actually made righteous.” Lastly,
as I have said, both doctrines are laid down in Our
Articles: the former in the eleventh Article, the latter
in the thirteenth.
* Davenant's statement on the subject may be entirely received,
though he was a Calvinist –“Ex usu quotidiani sermonis, qualitas
inhaerens, praesertim si praedominans sit, denominat Subjectum, licet
simul inhaereat aliquid contrariae qualitatis. Dicimus enim non modo
miven album, aut cygnum candidum esse, sed candida tecta vocamus
et vestimenta candida, quibus tamen Sæpissime maculae aliquae Offusae
Sunt, et aspersiones migredinis. Sic etiam aquam calidam vocamus,
non modo eam quae ebullit præ fervore, sed etiam quae acquisivit gradus
aliquot caloris, frigore nondum totaliter expulso. Ex quibus patet,
eaden ratione renatos omnes ab inhaerente justitia were nominari et
censeri justos, quamvis ea inchoata adhuc sit et imperfecta. Justos
dico non justificatos, quia justi vocabulum, ut nunc loquimur de justo,
nihil aliud designat quam praeditum infuso habitu Seu inhaerente
qualitate justitiae, et justificati vocabulum includit absolutionem ab
omni peccato et acceptationem ad vitam aeternam.”—De Habit. Just.
c. 3, fin. It must be carefully kept in view, that the object proposed
in these citations from divines of very various sentiments, is that of
showing how they one and all converge and approximate to one main
clear and consistent doctrine, whatever be the precise language of
their respective schools.
LECTURE IV.
SECONDARY SENSES OF THE TERM JUSTIFICATION.
F justification be God's great act declaring us right-
eous, and thereby as its direct, necessary, and instant-
aneous result making us (in our degree) righteous, if it
be an act external to us, continued on into an act within
us, if it be a divine Voice issuing in a divine work,
acceptance on the One part leading to acceptableness on
the other, imputation to participation,--it requires very
few words to explain how it comes to have been taken
for what it involves; in other words, how justification
has been said to be renewal, or to follow on or consist
in renewal, or renewal said to be justification. And yet
not a few words may be necessary to make familiar to
our imaginations what is so obvious to the reason, may,
to allay the feelings of distrust with which the very
notion of such an attempt is commonly received at this
day. Little indeed can anyhow be effected in the course
of a single Lecture, yet suggestions on the subject may
be of service to inquirers.
I say, then, if the direct result of pronouncing right-
eous be actual righteousness, it is not at all unnatural
or strange, that righteousness or renewal should be called
our justification (as little as Saying, as we do without
scruple, that a man has no “life” in him, when we mean
86 Secondary Senses
no “activity” or no “heat,”—heat and activity being
effects of life, or in using “animation’ first for life, then
for liveliness); nor is it at all justifiable, after the fashion
of the day, to set down such a mode of speech to spiritual
blindness, and to stigmatize it as perilous to its main-
tainers. My reasons are as follow —
2.
1. Justification renews, therefore I say it may fitly
be called renewal. Is not this an allowable variety of
expression which is exemplified every day ? For in-
stance, to tempt is to Solicit or assail with temptation, to
invite towards evil; yet it not unfrequently means to
overcome by temptation, or to seduce. To persuade
means either to use persuasives or to succeed in persuad-
ing. To cure a patient, that is, to heal or restore to
health, is properly nothing more than to take care of him.
To gain a battle means to gain a victory, conquest being
the intended object of engaging. A commander is one
who is obeyed as well as commands. To call spirits from
the deep is not merely to call, but so to call that they
come, or to evoke. In such cases we anticipate the
result of an action from its beginning, and contemplate
it in its completeness. Certain implications or effects
are necessary for the adequate notion of a thing, and
in speaking of it we take their presence for granted; we
realize the thing itself in our minds by affixing to it
names which properly belong to its effects. To call
spirits implies an effectual call; and to declare just is to
make just.
It is a parallel mode of speaking, to say that justifi-
of the 7erm ºustification. 87
cation consists in renewal, or that renewal constitutes
justification. This is much the same as saying, which
we are apt to do, that a certain remarkable event is a
Providence. It is a result, a manifestation of Divine
Providence. And so our works of obedience are said to
be a justification or a declaring righteous, as being the
result and token of that declaration. To be justified by
or through works is nothing more or less than to be
justified in works; and it may suitably be urged against
the thoughtless, lukewarm, formal, and Superstitious,
how they can suppose themselves justified, seeing that
God justifies in works, or that works are the mode,
medium, or state of justification.
I have before now spoken of justification as a sort
of Sacrament ; it is so, by a figure of speech, being an
external word effecting an inward grace. Here, then,
we shall have another illustration of the matter in hand,
which is the more apposite because our Catechism
becomes a party to it, allowing itself, as it so happens, in
the same verbal inaccuracy, in explaining the nature of
a sacrament, as is committed when justification and re-
newal are made equivalents of One another. A Sacrament,
it will be recollected, is there defined to be “an outward
visible sign of an inward spiritual grace.” But if so, the
inward grace is not part of the Sacrament, but a result
distinct from it. Yet in the very next answer, upon the
question, “ How many parts are there in a Sacrament 2"
we are told there are “Two ; the outward visible sign,
and the inward Spiritual grace,” as if the inward grace
were not distinct, but an internal result or essential part
of the Sacrament. Who does not see the real meaning
88 Secondary Senses
in spite of this apparent inconsistency 2 viz. that the act
of administering a sacrament so involves and secures the
inward grace, that the grace comes under the meaning
of the term, so that whether or not it be part of the
Sacrament, is a mere question of words, the term in its
elementary sense denoting the outward act, in its full
meaning comprising the inward grace also. And in like
manner we may say, without any inconsistency and with
truth, first, that justification is only that acceptance on
God’s part, which is the earnest of renewal; next, that
it consists of two parts, acceptance and renewal. Justi-
fication tends to Sanctify ; and to obstruct its sanctifying
power, is as if we stopped a man’s breath ; it is the death
of that from which it proceeds. -
Again, we speak of being baptized with God’s grace;
and thus we may allowably say that we are justifted or
accepted by obedience. And we might of course with
propriety urge that baptism is not a mere outward lite,
but an inward power ; and so we may say that justift-
cation is a change of heart.
3.
2. I have been arguing from the essential union
between justification and renewal, that they are practi-
cally convertible terms; but there are still more urgent
reasons why they should be so. God’s justification does
not merely work some change or renewal in us; but it
really makes us just. But how can we, children of Adam,
be said really and truly to be righteous, in a sense dis-
tinct from the imputation of righteousness? This re-
quires a word or two in explanation.
of the Zerm ºustification. 89
I observe, then, we become inwardly just or righteous
in God's sight, upon our regeneration, in the Same Sense
in which we are utterly reprobate and abominable by
nature, or (to use the strong language of the Homilies)
as we are since Adam's fall “corrupt and naught,” “with-
out any spark of goodness in us,” “without any virtuous
or godly motion,” “the image of the devil,” “firebrands
of hell and bondslaves to the devil,” “having in ourselves
no one part of our former purity and cleanness;” but
being “altogether spotted and defiled,” and “nothing else
but a lump of sin.” Now these fearful words, however
true, do not imply that our original nature is pure evil,
as Satan's now is, though even to Satan's nature, left to
itself, it assuredly tends; they are not inconsistent with
an admission that the natural man may have many high
thoughts and wishes, and may love and do what is
noble, generous, beneficent, courageous, and wise. But
the writer means that, whatever good principles there
be, in whatever degree, remaining to us since Adam's
fall, they are, to use his own expression, “altogether
spotted and deftled,” thoroughly and hopelessly steeped
in evil, saturated with evil, dissolved in evil. They do not
exist by themselves in their unmixed nature, as if we
could act on them and nothing but them, whatever might
be their worth if so exerted ; but though good, viewed
in themselves, still they are, in fact and as found in us, of
a sinful nature. All that we do, whether from better
principles or from worse, whether of an indifferent nature
or directly moral, whether spontaneously, or habitually,
or accidentally, all is pervaded with a quality of evil so
* Sermons of the Nativity, Passion, and Whitsunday.
QO Secondary Senses
odious to Almighty God, as to convert even our best
services almost into profanations; or, in the expressive
words of St. Paul, “They that are in the flesh cannot
please God.” This, I conceive, is a definition of unright-
eousness, to call it a moral condition displeasing,
offensive to God; or, again, of Original sinfulness, a
state of wrath and alienation. Hence our Article says,
“Works” done in this state, or “before justification,”
“are not pleasant to God,” but “have the nature of sin.”
It is true He has before now, in His great mercy,
accepted such works, as the zeal of Jael, the self-abasement
of Naaman, or the faith of the widow of Sarepta ; but
(as the last-mentioned expresses it in her own case) their
“sin” was still in “remembrance ;” it was not abolished,
it still “stank” before God and was loathsome ; and if
He vouchsafed to admit them to any measure of His
favour, He did so from respect to the merits of that
Atonement which was to be made, and in consideration
of those good feelings, good in the abstract, not in the
concrete, which lay in their Souls, only as precious metal
in the Ore, or as generous liquor or sweet fruit in corrup-
tion. Also those good feelings came from the grace of
God, as their first source ; but still they were not such
as to Sanctify their persons, or make their works pleasing,
or good and righteous in the sight of God.
This, then, is the sense in which we are unrighteous
or displeasing to God by nature ; and in the Same sense,
on the other hand, we are actually righteous and pleasing
to Him in a state of grace. Not that there is not abun-
dant evil still remaining in us, but that justification,
coming to us in the power and “inspiration of the Spirit,”
of the Term 7 usážcation. 9 I
so far dries up the fountain of bitterness and impurity,
that we are forthwith released from God’s wrath and
damnation, and are enabled in our better deeds to please
Him. It places us above the line in the same Sense in
which we were before below it. By nature we were not
absolutely devilish, but had a curse within us which
blighted and poisoned our most religious offerings; by
grace we are gifted, not with perfection, but with a
principle hallowing and sweetening all that we are, all
that we do religiously, Sustaining, hiding, and (in a sense)
pleading for what remains of sin in us, “making interces-
sion for us according to the will of God.” As by nature
sin was sovereign in us in spite of the remains of heaven,
So now grace triumphs through righteousness in spite of
the remains of sin.
4.
The justifying Word, then, conveys the Spirit, and
the Spirit makes our works “pleasing” and “acceptable”
to God, and acceptableness is righteousness; so that the
justified are just, really just, in degree indeed more or
less, but really so far as this, that their obedience has
in it a gracious quality, which the obedience of unre-
generate man has not. And here we see in what sense
Christians are enabled to fulfil the Law, which they
certainly are, in spite of modern divines, because St.
Paul Says SO. He says expressly, that Christ came that
“the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us,
who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” He
Says, “in us,” not only 60-termally to us. And to make
his statement still more certain, and to explain it, he adds,
“The minding of the flesh,” our natural state is “enmity
92 Secondary Senses
against God; for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither
indeed can be. So, then, they that are in the flesh, cam-
not please God.” “But ye,” he continues, “ ye are not in
the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be the Spirit of God
dwell in you ;” that is, Ye who have the Spirit are
subject or obedient to the Law, and you can please God;
in you the righteousness of the Law is fulfilled. Chris-
tians, then, fulfil the Law, in the sense that their obedience
is pleasing to God ; and “pleasing” is a very significant
word when well weighed. Not that we are able to please
Him simply and entirely (for “in many things we offend
all;” and “if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves,
and the truth is not in us”), but that the presence of the
Spirit is a Sanctifying virtue in our hearts, changing the
character of our services, making our obedience new in
kind, not merely fuller in degree, making it to live and
grow, so that it is ever tending to perfect righteousness
as its limit, and in this Sense making it a satisfying
obedience, rising up, answering to the kind of obedience
which is due from us, to the nature of the claims which
our Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier has upon us.
And this, Surely, is St. John's doctrine as well as St.
Paul's, though brought forward by him in the way of
warning, rather than encouragement. He declares
solemnly in his general Epistle, that “He that doeth
Tighteousness is righteous;” as if doing righteousness was
that in which righteousness consists. And then, that
there may be no mistake, he adds, “even as He is right-
eous.” What very strong words implying that our
righteousness is a resemblance, and therefore a partial
communication or infusion into our hearts, of that super-
of the 7erm justification. 93
human righteousness of Christ, which is our true justi-
fication. Again, presently, after Saying that our possess-
ing “love” gives us “boldness in the day of judgment,”
he adds, “ because as He is, so are we in this world.”
That love, then, which He had in infinite perfection, and
which, as being in him the fulfilling of the Law, is im-
puted to us for our justification, is also actually given us
in measure, “shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy
Ghost” as an earnest of what will be given without
measure hereafter.
It seems, then, that a Christian's life is not only
moral as opposed to vice and crime, not only religious
as opposed to unbelief and profaneness, not only renewed
as opposed to the old Adam, but is spiritual, loving, pleas-
ing, acceptable, available, just, justifying ; not of course
the origin or well-spring of Our acceptableness (God for-
bid!) but we believe this, that He who eighteen hundred
years since purchased for us sinners the gift of life
eternal, with His own blood, and who at our baptism
spoke over each of us the Word of acceptance, and ad-
mitted us at Once to His presence, by the same Word
forthwith proceeded to realize His gracious purpose;
that “His word ran very swiftly,” as being “living and
powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword,”
that it reached even to our hearts, conveying its virtue
into Our nature, making us what the Almighty Father
can delight in, and so returning to Him not “void,” but
laden with the triumphs of His grace, the fruits of right-
eousness in us as “an odour of a sweet smell,” as “spirit-
ual sacrifices acceptable to God, by Jesus Christ.” He
works out His justification towards us, in us, with us,
94. Secondazty Senses
through us, and from us, till He receives back in produce
what He gave in seed. It was His very purpose from
the beginning, as announced by His Prophets, to form a
people to Himself, who might show forth His praise, and
magnify Him, and be as jewels in the robe of His glory,
who might be a “chosen generation, a royal priesthood,
a holy nation, a peculiar people.” Saints, not sinners,
are His delight and His honour.
5.
3. There is yet a third sense which has naturally led
to statements of our being justified by renewal of mind
or by obedience, which I will briefly notice. We can do
nothing good of ourselves; with God’s grace we can do
What is good. This is what I have been hitherto Saying;
but this is not all,—with His grace we are gifted not
only with the capacity of being led into truth and holi-
ness, but with the power of co-operating with Him.
God’s grace unfetters the will which by nature is in
bondage, and thus restores to us the faculty of accept-
ing or rejecting that grace itself. It enables us to obey,
not as instruments merely, but as free agents, who, while
they obey, are not constrained to obey, except that they
choose to obey ; and whose obedience is for that reason
more pleasing to God, as proceeding more entirely from
themselves, “not by constraint,” but “willingly” and
“heartily.” It does not follow from this, that there is
any one good thought, word, or deed of ours, which pro-
ceeds from ourselves only, and which we present to
God as Ours; but the circumstance that in Such accept-
able offerings as we render to Him, there has been a co-
of the Zerm justification. 95
Operation on our part, has proved a reason, over and
above those already mentioned, why justification has
been Said to consist in our services, not in God's imputa-
tion ; those services forming a concurrent cause of that
imputation being ratified. Without such co-operation,
that imputation would be void ; as the grace of a sacra-
ment is suspended when the recipient is not duly pre-
pared. Hence, St. Peter urges us to “make our calling
and election Sure ;” St. Paul, to “work out our own
Salvation with fear and trembling;” and St. John declares
that “whatsoever we ask, we receive of Him, because we
keep His commandments, and do those things that are
pleasing in His sight.”
Eor these reasons, then, though justification properly
means an act external to us, it may be said to consist
in evangelical obedience; first, because obedience is one
with God's imputation by association ; next, because
they are one in fact, since He implants in part within
us the very thing which in its fulness He imputes
to us; and, lastly, because our concurrence in being
justified is a necessary condition of His justifying.
6.
Eurther light will be thrown on what has been said
by considering certain circumstances, which have tended
still more to vary the language of theology on the subject.
1. Over and above the various senses attached to the
word justify, the word justification varies in its gram-
matical force, and gives rise in consequence to no Small
apparent difference between parties who really agree
together. I mean, it has two senses, an active and a
. 96 Secondary Senses
passive; and though it is not always plain in which
sense writers use it, yet on the whole, one class of divines
use it actively, and another passively. The word may
either mean justifying, or being justifted; in the latter
sense it is what man receives, in the former what God
gives. This holds in the case of many other words; we
speak, for instance, of a Bishop's confirmation and a
child's confirmation ; but the child is confirmed, the
Bishop confirms." In like manner justification sometimes
stands for an act on God’s part, sometimes for an event
or a state which comes upon man. Now it so happens
that Protestant writers, for the most part, take the word
to mean God’s justifying us; whereas Roman writers
seem to use it for our being or continuing justified. For
instance, the Council of Trent defines it to be “not the
mere remission of sins, but the Sanctification, and the
renovation of the inner man by the voluntary acceptance
of grace and gifts.” And St. Thomas Speaks of it as a
change, passage, or motion of the Soul from one state to
another. Here the word is used in a passive sense. On
the other hand, our own controversialists, of whatever
cast of opinion, following the Protestants of the Conti-
ment, understand by justification the act on God’s part,
whether instantaneous or sustained, by which He justifies
the sinner. Melanchthon used the word in both senses ;
—so do our Homilies, as the following passages will show.
When, for instance, they declare that “justification is not
* [In like manner Voss of the word “creation :” “Creatio nunc
active sumitur, ut est volitio divina. . . res creams; nunc passive, ut
est ortus rei cum relatione quam ad creamtem habet, ut effectus ad
causam.”—Thes. Theol. i. p. 1, ed. 1658.]
o/ //ie 7ermo %zzszófìcatiom. 97
the office of mam, but qf God." they adopt its active sense ;
yet, elsewhere, they speak of “ this justification Or right-
eousness, which we so receive of God's mercy and Christ's
merits embraced by faith," as being “ taken, accepted, and
allowed qf God for our perfect and full justification,”
where the word denotes our state of acceptance, Or that
in which acceptance consistS.*
7.
Now this difference affects the language of the com-
troversy in the following respect among Others. Justifi-
catiom, I have Said, is in its fulmeSs a great appointment
of God towards am individual, beginming in His Word
spokem, and returning back to Him through him Over
* Nimirum illi [Pontificii] justìficatum considerant, nos potius in
abstracto justìficationem.—Chamier de Justif. xxi. 1. Dicendum quod
justificatio passive accepta, importat motwm, ad justitiam. . . . . . .
Justificatio [impii] importat transmutationem quandam de statu
injustitiæ ad statum justitiæ prædictæ.—S. Th. quæst, 113, Art. 1.
Ysambert, ibid. Disp. ii. Art. ii. S. Th. also uses it actively. Augus-
tine says, Donec ad Christum transeatur et auferatur velamen, id est
transeatur ad gratiam, et intelligatur ab ipso nobis esse justificationem,
qua faciamus quod jubet.—De Sp. et Lit. 30. Justificatio est acceptio
remissionis peccatOrum et reconciliationis seu acceptationis gratuitæ
propter Filium Dei.—Melanchth. Exam. (tom. 1, f. 312). In this
passage the word is takem passively ; but in the following, actively.
Justificatio est remîssîo peccatorum et acceptatio coram Deo, cum qua
conjuncta est domatio Spiritus sancti. — Melancth. Catech. Art. de
Justif. Nos justificationem simpliciter interpretamur acceptìonem qua
nos Deus in gratiam receptos pro justis habet.—Calvim. Justif. iii. 11,
2. Apparet justificationem . . . nihil aliud esse quam gratuitum Dei
actum, etc.—Bull, Harm. Diss. 1, i. §4. Vid. also Perkins, Ref. Cath.
4. Davenant de Just. Hab. 34, p. 329. Barrow, vol. ii. Serm. 5, p.
55. Forbes, Inst. Hist. Theol, viii. 23, etc. etc,
EI
98 Secondary Senses
whom it is spoken, laden with fruit. It is a Word
having a work for its complement. Such is the cha-
racteristic of God's doings, as manifested in Scripture,
that what man does by working, God does by speaking.
Man labours, and a work follows; God speaks, and a
work follows. When man would raise a fabric, or achieve
an object, he exerts himself by hands and strength, by
thought and tongue, by ingenuity of contrivance, and
multiplicity of resources, by a long and varied course of
action, terminating in the work proposed. All the acts
of the Divine Mind are of course an incomprehensible
mystery to worms such as we are; but so much Scripture
tells us, whatever it means, that God accomplishes His
work not by a process, but by “the word of His power.”
When man makes a thing, it is an effort on his part
passing into a result ; when God creates, it is by His
fiat, by a word issuing in a work. He does not make,
He says, “Let it be made.” The Hebrew style accurately
sets forth this token of Divine Majesty. The Psalmist
says, not “He spake, and He did,” but “He spake, and it
was done.” It was only a word on His part, but a sub-
stantial Word, with a work close upon it as its attendant
shadow. In like manner it seems a true representation
of the Scripture statements on the subject, to say, that
He does not make us righteous, but He calls us righteous,
and we are forthwith made righteous. But, if so, justifi-
cation, which in its full meaning is the whole great
appointment of God from beginning to end, may be
viewed on its two sides, active and passive, in its
beginning and its completion, in what God does, and
what man receives; and while in its passive Sense man
of the Zerme jºustification. 99
is made righteous, in its active, God calls or declares.
That is, the word will rightly stand either for imputation
or for sanctification, according to the grammatical use of
it. Thus divines, who in the main agree in what the
great mercy of God is as a whole, may differ as to what
should be called justification ; for according as they view
it as active or passive, God’s giving or man's receiving,
they will consider it God’s accounting righteous or man's
becoming righteous. One party, then, in the controversy
consider it to be a mere acceptance, the other to be mainly
renewal. The one consider it in its effects, the other in
its primary idea. St. Austin, that is, Caplains it, and
Protestants define it. The latter describe it theoretically,
and the former practically. The Protestant sense is more
close upon the word, the ancient use more close upon the
thing. A man, for instance, who described bread as “the
staff of life,” need not disagree with another who defined
it only chemically or logically, but he would be his in-
ferior in philosophy and his superior in real knowledge.
If God’s word and work be as closely united as action
and result are in ourselves, surely as we use the word
“work” in both senses, to mean both the doing and the
thing done, so we may fairly speak of justification as if
renewal, as well as mere acceptance. Serious men, deal-
ing with realities, not with abstract conceptions, entering
into the field of practical truth, not into the lists of con-
troversy, not refuting an opponent, but teaching the poor,
have ever found it impossible to confine justification to
a mere declaring of that, which is also by the same grace
effected. They have taken it to mean what they saw,
felt, handled, as existing in fact in themselves and others
IOO Secondary Senses
When they speak of justification, it is of a wonderful
grace of God, not in the heavens, but nigh to them, even
in their mouth and in their heart, which does not really
exist at all unless brought into effect and manifested in
renewal; and they let their idea of it run on into renewal
as its just limit, there being no line of demarcation, no
natural boundary in its course till it reached renewal.
Till then, it was in their minds but a deed inchoate (as
it is called); not complete, till it had sought and found,
and assimilated to itself, the soul which was its subject.
Unless it was thus ratified it passed away, as rays of light
where there is nothing to reflect them, or a sound where
there is lack of air for it to vibrate upon.
Such is the contrast existing between the practical and
the exact sense grammatically of the word justification ;
and it is remarkable that both the one and the other have
been adopted by our standard writers, as has been already
instanced from the Homilies. As controversialists they
are Protestants, as pastoral teachers they are disciples of
the Ancient Church. Who, for instance, is more clear
than Bishop Bull in laying down that justification means
counting righteous 2 yet who more strenuous in main-
taining that it consists in being righteous 2 What he is,
such are Hammond, Taylor, Wilson, and a multitude of
others; who in this day are called inconsistent, as if hold-
ing two views, whereas those two views are rather proved
to be one, because the same divines hold them.
8.
2. This difference, I say, in the grammatical sense
attached to the word justification, even by those who
of the Term jºustification. IOI
mainly agree what it is to justify, is one additional cause
of misunderstanding in the controversy. Another is the
difference of aspect under which justification appears,
according as this or that stage is taken in the whole
period through which it continues. For we must con-
sider that since we are ever falling into sin and incurring
God's wrath, we are ever being justified again and again
by His grace. Justification is imparted to us continually
all through our lives. Now though it is substantially
the same from first to last, yet the relative importance
of its constituent parts varies with the length of its con-
tinuance. Its parts are differently developed as time
goes on ; and men may seem to differ as to what they
understand by it, when they are but surveying it at a
different date, and therefore in a different light. A very
few words will show this.
The great benefit of justification, as all will allow, is
this one thing, the transference of the soul from the
kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of Christ. We
may, if we will, divide this event into parts, and Say
that it is both pardon and renovation, but such a division
is merely mental, and does not affect the change itself,
which is but one act. If a man is saved from drowning,
you may, if you will, say he is both rescued from the
water and brought into atmospheric air ; this is a dis-
crimination in words not in things. He cannot be brought
out of the water which he cannot breathe, except by
* [This is incorrect. If by “sin” is meant grievous sin, those who
are in the grace of God need not ever be falling into it; and if
lighter sins are meant, these do not bring us back again under “God’s
wrath.”]
I O2 Secondary Senses
entering the air which he can breathe. In like manner,
there is, in fact, no middle state between a state of wrath
and a state of holiness. In justifying, God takes away
what is past, by bringing in what is new. He snatches
us out of the fire by lifting us in His everlasting hands,
and enwrapping us in His own glory.
Such is justification as manifested in us continually
all through our lives; but is it not plain that in its
beginnings it will consist of scarcely anything but
pardon 2 because all that we have hitherto done is sinful
in its nature, and has to be pardoned; but to be renewed
is a work of time, whereas as time goes on, and we be-
come more holy, it will consist more in renewal, if not
less in pardon, and at least there is no Original sin, as
when it was first granted, to be forgiven. It takes us
then at Baptism out of original sin, and leads us all
through life towards the purity of Angels. Naturally,
them, when the word is used to denote the beginning of
a justified state, it only, or chiefly, means acceptance ;
when the continuance, chiefly sanctification. Writers,
then, of congenial sentiments, or the same writers on
different occasions, will speak of it first as consisting in
the remission of sins, with Calvin or Melanchthon, next,
with the Roman Catholics, as consisting in renewal.
To conclude: all these things being considered it does
seem like a want of faith not to hold, and a superstition
not to profess, that in some sufficient sense Christ, as our
righteousness, fulfils the Law in us as well as for us:
that He justifies us, not only in word, but in power,
o/ //ie 7 emrm, %/sz£ficafiom. IO3
bringing the ark with its mercy seat, into the temple of
our hearts ; manifesting, setting up there His meW king-
dom, and the power amd glory of His Cross.*
* Chemnitz makes the following curious confession, that common
sense is against the Lutheram doctrine :—“ Et sane, sò h^Wma^a, consu-
lenda, essent judicia, novitati renatorum omnîum, calculis tribueretur
gloria justitiæ coram Deo ad vitam æternam. Non enim est opus seu
effectio humanarum virium, sed est domwm, et operatio Spíritus Sancti,
umde bona opera, vocantur fructus Spiritus (Eph. v.) Et est beneficium,
Deô Mediatoris, propter cujus meritum credentes renovantur spiritu
mentis suæ, ut per Spiritum sanctum ίη choetwr in ipsis conformitas cum
lege Dei, secundum interiorem hominem (Rom. vii.) Et í77a, movifas
vocatwr justitia, (Rom. vi. 1 Joan. iii.) De rematorum etiam bomis
operibus dicit Scriptura (Tit. iii.), * Hoc acceptum est coram Deo,'" etc.
(1 Joan. iii.) “ Ea, quæ placita sunt coram ipso facimus,” etc. ** Hæc
profecto valde magna et præclara sunt.”—Examen, de Justif. p. 134.
And them he goes on to argue that Other passages of Scripture negative
the idea.
LECTURE W.
MISUSE OF THE TERM JUST OR. RIGHTEOUS.
LAINER words can hardly be found than those
of Scripture itself, to express the doctrine I have
been insisting on. Christ, who is the Well-beloved,
All-powerful Son of God, is possessed by every Christian
as a Saviour in the full meaning of that title, or becomes
to us righteousness; and in and after so becoming, really
communicates a measure, and a continually increasing,
measure, of what He is Himself. In the words of the
Apostle, “We are complete in Him,” and again, of the
Evangelist, “Of His fulness have all we received, and
grace for grace.” He makes us gradually and eventually
to be in our own persons, what He has been from eter-
nity in Himself, what He is from our Baptism towards us,
righteous. That acceptableness, which He has ever had
in the Father's sight, as being the reflection of the
Father's perfections, He first imputes, then imparts to
ll.S.
This especially St. Paul lays down, when he says in
the fifth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, “As by
one man's disobedience many were made sinners, So by
the obedience of One shall many be made righteous.”
He says that by Christ's righteousness we are made right-
eous ; made, not accounted merely. Christ, who is
the Son by birth, makes us sons by adoption ; Christ,
Misuse of the Zerm 7 usá or Æighteous. IOS
who is “the righteous” in Himself, makes us righteous
by communication, giving us first the name, then caus-
ing the name to change into the substance.
Now, over and above what is so plain that the phrase
“made righteous,” in this passage of St. Paul, is some-
thing beyond being accounted righteous, two circum-
stances may be mentioned as making it still plainer.
In the original Greek the word means not merely made,
but brought into a State of righteousness. It is the same
word as is used by St. Peter, when he says, “If these
things,” faith, charity, and other graces, “be in you and
abound, they make you,” that is, constitute you as being
“neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our
Lord Jesus Christ.” It is the word used also by St.
James, when he says that “so is the tongue,” has such
a place, “among our members, that it defileth the whole
body;” and again, when he says that “whosoever will
be a friend of the world, is,” or is constituted “the enemy
of God.” Is the world’s friend but accounted God’s
enemy 2 or is the tongue accounted a defilement 2 or are
mature Christians but accounted fruitful in the knowledge
of Christ 2 When, then, St. Paul says that we “become
righteous” by Christ's obedience, he is speaking of our
actual state through Christ, of that internal nature,
frame, or character, which Christ gives us, nor gives only,
but constitutes ours. He speaks of our new nature as
really righteousness.
But, again, he parallels our privilege in Christ to
our loss in Adam ; “as by One man's disobedience,” he
says, “many were made sinners; so by the obedience of
One shall many be made righteous.” Now, who will
IO6 Misalse of the Zerme
deny that Adam's sin is both imputed and imparted to
us? If any one did, we should call him a Pelagian.
So indeed we should consider him, and justly ; but how
shall we argue with him if we deal with the latter half
of the verse, as he disposes of the former ? We cannot
take just so much as we will of a free interpretation ;
we may open the door to heresy, we cannot close it.
Though these words of St. Paul, then, were the only
passage of Scripture adducible, it would be clear, I think,
that Christ's obedience, which is All-righteousness, does
also work righteousness in us, according to our measure.
2.
But here another line of argument is commonly
taken, which will furnish matter for the present Lecture.
It is said that, though it be true that our Lord not only
is our righteousness by imputation, but works righteous-
ness in us, still there two distinct and unconnected Senses
in which the word “righteous” may be taken, one of which
belongs to Him, the other to us. It is owned that Chris-
tians really are righteous, but then not righteous in the
sense in which Christ is righteous, but in another sense.
Now if by this is merely meant that He has an incom-
municable righteousness, as He has an incommunicable
wisdom, holiness, and bountifulness, it is of course most
true. None but He has infinite perfection in any respect.
Yet He does impart to us a measure of these latter ex-
cellences notwithstanding, and in like manner He may
impart to us a measure of His righteousness. There is
no controversy what righteousness means; and certainly
it is an attribute which admits of being imparted. All
jºzºsé or /ćighteozºs. Io'7
parties seem to allow that the word denotes, as I have
already intimated, what is intrinsically good, what admits
of being contemplated and accepted as such by Almighty
God. In this sense Christ is Righteousness in God’s
sight ; He is the Well-beloved Son, in whom the Father
is well pleased, as being “the Brightness of His glory,
and the express Image of His Person,” “the unspotted
Mirror of the power of God, and the Image of His good-
ness.” Nothing can He absolutely delight in, but what
is like Himself; hence he is said to “put no trust even
in His servants, and to charge His Angels with folly.”
None but the Eternal Son, who is incommunicably like
the Father, can be infinitely acceptable to Him or simply
righteous. Yet in proportion as rational beings are like
the Son, or partake of His excellence, so are they really
righteous; in proportion as God sees His Son in them,
He is well pleased with them. Righteousness is no-
thing else than moral goodness regarded in its intrinsic
worth or acceptableness, just as love, truth, and peace,
are other names for the same moral goodness, according
as it is viewed in different aspects. It is love, or truth, or
goodness, viewed relatively to God’s judgment or approval
of it ; or, in words already used, it is the quality in love,
truth, or goodness, of being intrinsically pleasing to
Him. And, being acceptableness, it is surely as capable
of being imparted to man, as love, truth, or goodness;
and that in fact it is so imparted, and imparted from and
through the Eternal Son, is the literal and uniform de-
claration of Scripture. Not only is the word “righteous”
applied to Christians in Scripture, but the idea is again
and again, in various ways, forced upon us. We read,
Io8 M7s2/se of the Zerme
for instance, of “God working in us that which is well.
pleasing in His sight;" of our being “holy and without
blame before Him in love ;” of Christ, “who is His
image,” “shining” and “living” in our hearts; of His
“making us accepted” or gracious “in the Beloved ; ”
and of His “knowing what is the mind of the Spirit” in
our hearts, because “He maketh intercession for the Saints
'n God's way.”
Such passages, I Say, make it clear that acceptable-
ness or graciousness is imparted to us as really as any
other excellence belonging to Christ; and if acceptable-
ness be what is meant by righteousness, it follows that
the thing as well as the word righteousness is ours in the
sense in which it is Christ's. Christ's righteousness,
which is given us, makes us righteous, because it is
righteousness ; it imparts itself, and not something else.
In other words, such texts as the above show that the
word has not two different senses, according as it is ap-
plied to Christ or to us, but one ; as St. John expressly
declares, if we will listen to him, “He that doeth right-
eousness, is righteous, even as He is righteous.” This,
however, is denied by the majority of Protestant divines,
who grant indeed that we are made righteous, yet, not
righteous, as He is righteous, but in an entirely different
sense, as distinct from what is meant by His righteous-
ness, as foresight or ingenuity, as possessed by brute
animals, differs from the same properties when belonging
to rational beings; Christ's righteousness having intrinsic
excellence, ours, though the work of the Spirit, being
supposed to have none. This they maintain ; and as if
* Heb. xiii. 21. 2 Cor. iv. 4. Eph. i. 4, 6. Rom. viii. 27.
}''ust or /ćighteous. IOQ
distinctions would serve instead of proof, they lay down,
as a principle to start with, that there are two kinds of
righteousness, the righteousness of justification, or intrinsic
acceptableness, which Christ alone has, and the righteous-
mess of Sanctification, which is the Christian's. Now,
then, let us consider the principle of interpretation which
such a distinction involves.
3.
Considering, them, that St. Paul all through the
chapter in his Epistle to the Romans, to which I have
referred, has been speaking of justification and righteous-
ness simply in its higher sense, as sustaining God's
judgment, as involving pardon, favour, acceptableness,
praise, worth, a title to heaven, and the like, I do not
see on what plea it can be urged, that all at once he
changes the meaning of the word, and makes it stand
for an obedience which is not thus intrinsically approv-
able. He has spoken of our “being justified by faith,”
“justified by His blood,” of “the free gift being of many
offences unto justification,” of “the gift of righteousness,”
of “the righteousness of One,” and of “justification of
* Justitia, alia, justificationis, Sanctificationis alia.-Chamier, de
Justif. xxi. 17, § 5. It is deeply to be regretted that a work like
Davenant's de Just. Habit. should have been written under the influence
of the same theology. Yet with him it is in a great measure a matter
of words. He lays it down as an axiom, that the words righteousness
and just cannot be used except in that sense in which they belong to
God, (i.e. to denote the highest possible perfection), and therefore when
applied to us they must have a different sense. He allows that in
Christians righteousness is begun, but says it cannot be called right.
eousness till it is perfected, which it is not while on earth.
I IO Misuse of the Zerm
life ;” and at the end of the chapter, he speaks of “grace
reigning through righteousness unto eternal life ;” can
we suppose that just in one place, in this continuous
argument, he should without notice use the word in a
Sense perfectly distinct 2 He says that Christ is our
righteousness, and that thereby we are made righteous;
why is this not to mean “Christ stands for our accept-
ableness before we have it, and then imparts it to us”?
An intelligible argument, indeed, may be raised, whether
justification means making or imputing righteous, but
there can be none, one would think, what just or right-
eous means in itself. In short, what reason is there for
this change of meaning, except the exigences of the
theory making it 7
Yet, in spite of this fundamental objection, the
supposed distinction between the two senses of the
word is laid down as a great and observable canon of
interpretation by one divine after another. In vain
does St. Paul declare again and again, that we are
righteous; the Protestant Masters have ruled that we
are not really so. They have argued that, if we were
really made righteous, Christ would cease to be our
righteousness, and therefore we certainly are not really
made righteous; which is much the same as arguing,
that Christ must cease to be our “Sanctification,” because
we are made holy, or that we are not made holy because
5
He is our “sanctification ;” in a word, that He in his in-
finite fulness cannot give without a loss, and we in our
utter nothingness cannot be in the continual receipt of
benefits without thereby ceasing to be dependent.
} usć or Righteous. I I I
4.
It is, perhaps, not too much to say that the whole
structure of this modern system is made up of reasonings
such as these, and interpretations in conformity ; and
that it dare not trust itself freely to any text of Scrip-
ture, dare not, without the protection of Some ante-
cedent principle, and that an assumed one. For instance,
St. Paul bids us “yield our members as instruments of
righteousness unto God ;” he tells us we are “servants”
or slaves “of righteousness,” that “the kingdom of
God is righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy
Ghost ;” he speaks of “the fruits of our righteousness,”
of “ministers of righteousness,” of “the new man being
created in righteousness and true holiness,” of “the fruit
of the Spirit being in all goodness, righteousness, and
truth ;”* yet all these testimonies, and many more,
whether found in him or in the other Apostles, in
behalf of the doctrine of God’s really giving us in due
Season and measure what He begins by imputing to
us, are, I Say, put aside summarily by the gratuitous
position, that righteousness cannot in such texts mean
what (if so be) it means in the verse before and the
verse after.
Again : we read of “righteous Abel ;” we are told
that “Noah was a just man, and perfect in his genera-
tions;” that Job was “perfect and upright,” that Lot
was “righteous,” that Moses was “faithful in all God's
house,” that Elias was “a righteous man,” that Daniel
was “righteous” and “greatly beloved,” that Zacharias
and Elizabeth were “both lighteous,” that Joseph was
* Rom. vi. 13, 18; xiv. 17, 2 Cor. ix. 10; xi. 15. Eph. iv. 24.
I I 2 Misuse of the Zerm
“a just man,” that Simeon was “just and devout,” that
Joseph of Arimathea was “a good man and a just,” that
St. John the Baptist was “a just man and an holy,” that
Cornelius was “a just man, and one that feareth God,”
that “the righteous shall shine forth as the sun in the
kingdom of their Father,” that “the righteous” shall go
“into life eternal,” that there shall be “a resurrection of
the just,” that “the Law lieth not against a just man,”
that a “Bishop must be sober, just, holy, temperate.”
We read of the “spirits of the just made perfect,” of
“the righteous scarcely being saved,” and of “him who
is just becoming more just ;” but when we would apply
these statements to the great evangelical canon, “The
just shall live by faith,” as explaining who are the “just *
there spoken of, we are forbidden, on the arbitrary
assumption that such texts speak of a sort of Jewish
righteousness, even though some of them relate to times
before the giving of the Law ; or that they mean Christ's
imputed righteousness, even though containing in them
other epithets which undeniably are personal to us.
Again : when our Lord says to the scribe who had
rehearsed to Him the commandments, “This do and
thou shalt live,” it is replied that He spoke in a sort of
irony.
Again, when He says, that unless our righteousness
exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, we shall in no
* Matt. xxiii. 35. Heb. xi. 4. Gen. vi. 9. Job. i. 1. 2 Pet.
ii. 7, 8. Num. xii. 7. James v. 16. Ezek. xiv. 14. Dam. ix. 23.
Luke i. 6. Matt. i. 19. Luke ii. 25. Mark vi. 20. Acts x. 22.
Matt. xiii. 43 ; xxv. 46. Luke xiv. 14. 1 Tim. i. 9. Tit. i. 8. Heb,
xii. 23, 1 Pet. iv., 18. Rev. xxii, 11.
} usć or /ćigh/eous. I I 3
case enter into the kingdom of heaven ;' and pronounces
them blessed “who hunger and thirst after righteous-
ness,” and who “are persecuted for righteousness' sake,”
and bids us “seek the kingdom of God and His right-
eousness;” it is sometimes openly, often by implication,
answered, that all this was spoken by Our Lord before
St. Paul Wrote.
Again : when St. Paul, who is thus appealed to, says
expressly, that “the righteousness of the Law is fulfilled
in us,” then Luther is summoned to lay it down as a
first principle, that the doctrine of Our justification with-
out any inherent righteousness is the criterion of a
standing or falling church ; or an appeal is made to our
Articles, as if they too (which is quite otherwise) were
committed to so artificial a theory.
Again : when St. Paul says, “I can do all things
through Christ which strengtheneth me,” this is supposed
to mean all things except fulfilling the Law ; and when
he says, in another place, that “love is the fulfilling of
the Law,” and that love is not only attainable, but a
duty, we are arbitrarily answered by a distinction, that
such love as suffices for the fulfilling of the Law is one
thing, and such love as is enjoined as a Christian grace is
another.
Again : when we urge what Hezekiah says, “Re-
member now, O Lord, I beseech Thee, how I have
walked before Thee in truth and with a perfect heart,
and have done that which is good in Thy sight;" or
Nehemiah, “Remember me, O my God, concerning this,
and wipe not out my good deeds that I have done for the
1. Matt. v. 20.
I
II.4. Misuse of the Term
house of my God, and for the offices thereof;” all the
answer we obtain is, that, whatever comes of Hezekiah
and Nehemiah, it is evidently self-righteous and a denial
of the merits of Christ, and shocking to the feelings of
the Serious mind, to say that we can do anything really
good in God's sight, even with the grace of Christ, any-
thing in consideration of which God will look mercifully
upon us.
Again : St. Paul speaks of things “just,” of “virtue”
and of “praise,” of providing “things honest in the Sight
of the Lord,” of being “acceptable to God;” but in vain
does he thus vary his expressions, as if by way of
commenting on the word “righteous,” and imprinting
upon our minds this one idea of inherent acceptableness;
—no, this has become a forbidden notion ; it must not
even enter the thoughts, though an Evangelist plead
and a Prophet threaten ever so earnestly.
Again : “Work” must have two senses; for though
we are bid to work out our salvation, God working in
us, this cannot really mean “Work out your salvation
through God's working in you;” else justification would
be, not of grace, nor of faith, but of works of the Law.
And “reward” too, it seems, has two senses ; for
the reward which Scripture bids us labour for, cannot, it
is said, be a reward in the real and Ordinary sense of the
word ; it is not really a reward, but is merely called
such, by way of animating our exertions and consoling
us in despondency.”
* Isaiah xxxviii. 3. Neh. xiii. 14.
3 Phil. iv. 8. 2 Cor. viii. 21. Rom. xiv., 18.
* Calvin. Instit. iii. 18, § 3.
} usá or Righteous. II 5
{).
Many other reasons are offered by the Protestant
school in behalf of “righteous” and kindred words
having two senses in Scripture, but without being more
conclusive than those which I have already given. For
instance, “To him that worketh not, but believeth on
Him that justified the ungodly, his faith is counted to
him for righteousness:” from these words it is argued,
that, since God justifies those who are as yet ungodly
When justified, therefore they cannot be righteous after
justification, nay, not even really godly, but only ac-
Counted godly."
Again : the “righteousness,” which justifies, though
spoken of as a quality of our souls in Scripture, cannot
mean anything in us, because the Jews sought a justi-
fying righteousness, not “through Christ, but by the "
easternal “works of the Law ;” and therefore if we seek
justifying righteousness solely from Christ, and not at
all from works done in our own strength, in inward re-
novation not external profession, we shall stumble and
fall as the Jews did.
* “All they whom God justifies,” says Mr. Scott, “are considered
as wngodly. True faith is indeed the effect of regeneration, an import-
ant part of true godliness, and inseparable from all other holy exercises
of the soul towards God; yet the believer, considered as he is in
himself, according to the Holy Law, is liable to condemnation as un-
godly, and is justified solely and entirely, as viewed in Christ according
to the Gospel.”—Essays, On Justif. That is, not only are we to believe
that Christ accounts us just without making us just, but that He
accounts us ungodly when He has made us godly. When are these
conventional representations to end ? When are we to escape from the
city of Shadows, in which Luther would bewilder the citizens of the
Holy Jerusalem
II 6 Misuse of the 7erm
Another argument is drawn from St. Paul's saying
that “righteousness” is “without the Law ;” for it is
argued, since our righteousness is without the Law,
therefore it is without the Law for justification, and with
the Law for sanctification.
Again : “Righteous” cannot be applicable to us in
the sense of justifying, because St. Paul had “counted
all things but dung,” that he might “win Christ, and be
found in Him, not having his own righteousness which
is of the Law, but that which is of the faith of Christ, the
righteousness which is of God by faith.” If, then, the
Apostle rejects the righteousness of works done in his
own strength, before faith, and without grace, as worth-
less, and desires a righteousness of God, it is supposed
to follow that that new righteousness cannot consist in
works, though done in consciousness of their manifold
imperfections, and in faith, and by the grace of Christ.
Again : it is argued that justifying righteousness
cannot be of the Law, because if a man “offend in one
point, he is guilty of all ;” that is, since St. James says,
that, when love is away, we offend the Law in many
points, therefore when love is present, we cannot fulfil it
consistently, however imperfectly, like Zacharias.
Lastly : “Righteousness” is said to have two senses,
because St. Paul declares, that as “Christ was made sin
for us who had known no sin,” So “we are made the
righteousness of God in Him ;” for, it is argued, since
when we were unrighteous, Christ was imputed to us for
righteousness; therefore, now that Christ has been im-
puted to us for righteousness, we shall ever be unright-
eous still.
7 usá or /ćighteous. I I 7
6.
Such is the nature of the arguments on which it is
maintained that two perfectly separate senses must be
given to the word “righteousness;” that justification is
one gift, Sanctification another ; that deliverance from
guilt is one work of God, deliverance from sin another;
—that reward does not mean really reward, praise not
really praise, availableness not really availableness, worth
not really worth, acceptableness not really acceptableness;
—that none but St. Paul may allowably speak of “work-
none but St. Peter, of “Baptism
saving us;” none but St. John, of “doers of righteousness
being righteous;”—that when St. Paulspeaks of “all faith,”
he means all but true faith ; and when St. James says, not
by faith only,” he means nothing but true faith ;-that it
is not rash to argue, that justification cannot be by works,
because it is by faith, though it is rash to conclude that
Christ is not God, because He is man; and that, though
it is a sin, as it surely is, to infer that Christ is not God,
because Scripture calls the Father the only God, yet it
is no sin to argue that works cannot justify, because
Tuther, not Scripture, says that faith only justifies.
Surely, all this is very arbitrary; and though not so
5
ing Out Our Salvation ;’
intended by the multitude of persons who give in to it,
yet in itself very disrespectful (to say the least) to the
sacred text. It goes in fact far beyond what is claimed
by the most strenuous advocate of the right of private
judgment ; being nothing less than the attempt to
subject Scripture to a previously-formed system ; for no
One can maintain that such a system is really gained
* 1 Cor. xiii. 2. James ii. 24.
II 8 Misuse of the Term
from Scripture. It is to make Scripture not a volume
of instruction to which we must reverently draw near,
but at best a magazine of texts in behalf of our own
opinions; and no maintainer of private judgment has
gone these lengths. Let any candid person decide why,
in the passages just now quoted, two distinct senses
are assigned to the word “righteousness;” whether
because Scripture intimates it, or because a particular
human system requires it. Such modes of interpretation
then call for a very serious protest from all who are
jealous of the pure and unmutilated Sense, as well as the
letter of the Bible. It is but a Jewish blindness to count
syllables, while we are heedless about their import ; to
guard the text from addition or diminution, yet not
from glosses; to be busy in versions, yet helpless in
interpretation ; to be keepers of a treasure, yet not to
use it. Except to those who know its meaning, Scripture
is as a sealed book, though translated into every language
under heaven; and its words Surely have their own
particular and absolute meaning over and above the
accident of their being in Greek, or Latin, or English;-
and as all this, it seems to me, is forgotten in the scheme
of doctrine under review, I shall endeavour in the rest
of this Lecture to enforce it.
7.
I say, then, that the words of Scripture, as of every
other book, have their own meaning, which must be
sought in order to be found. St. Paul does not use his
words indiscriminately; he does not mean by “righteous”
at One time really, at another nominally righteous, at
}''ust or Righteous. II 9
random and without a reason. If it be as great a peril
as it is often now thought, to confuse these supposed
two distinct senses of the word, it is an equal impro-
bability that St. Paul should have given it two senses so
distinct. Words stand for one idea, not two ; if the same
word seems to have several, these are really connected
together. The words of Scripture were appropriated to
their respective senses by their writers; they had a
meaning before we approached them, and they will have
that same meaning, whether we find it out or not. And
our business is to find the real meaning, not to impose
what will serve for a meaning. Abstract antecedent
reasonings will never help us to the real meaning;
systems of the schools are not comments on the text.
The minds and the meaning of the inspired writers were
deeper than ours are. Such remarks will be called
truisms, yet they almost immediately apply to the subject
in hand; for what but neglect of them can account for
the common interpretation of such verses, for instance,
as that with which this Lecture began 2 When St. Paul
says that we are made righteous, what but antecedent and
established theories could be strong enough to persuade
men either that “righteous” does not imply “acceptable-
mess,” or else that “made” means nothing but accounted 2
We must not then interpret the terms used in
Scripture by Our scholastic theories; but again, neither
can we always interpret them by some one or other
particular passage of Scripture in which they are
found. Of course, to consult the context in which a
word occurs is a great advance towards the true inter-
pretation, but it is not enough. In Scripture, as else-
I 2 O Misuse of the Zerm
where, words stand for certain objects, and are used
with reference to those objects, and must be explained
by them. They may severally have many shades of
meaning, but these, though manifold, are of one family,
and but varieties of one meaning, if we could find it.
In this or that passage where the word occurs, it may
disclose its one full sense more or less ; but the degree in
which it is brought out by the context depends on the
accident of those other words with which it there stands
connected. Therefore, I say, we shall never arrive at
its real and complete meaning, by its particular context;
which generally comes in contact with but two or three
points, or one aspect of it. What would be thought of
the commentator (to recur to a former illustration) who
decided that Psalmist meant father, because the Psalmist
wept over his Son, or meant Shepherd, because he rescued
a lamb from the lion and bear ; or meant king, because
he was a type of the Messiah 3 Yet, in this way are the
sacred terms of the Apostles treated; and not only by
those who interpret on a theory, of whom I have been
hitherto speaking, but by others also who are clear-sighted
enough to disown the bondage of modern Systems, or too
heedless or self-willed to learn them. The words of
Scripture are robbed of their hidden treasures, and frit-
tered away among a multitude of meanings as uncertain,
meagre, and discordant, as the One true Sense, like a
great luminary, is clear and gracious. Righteousness
sometimes is to mean God's strict justice, sometimes His
merciful acceptance, sometimes Superhuman obedience,
sometimes man's holiness, without any attempt at harmo-
mizing these distinct notions; faith is interpreted by
jºust or /ćighteous. I 2 I
trust, or obedience, or conscience, or unconditional
assent ; justifying is said to be used by St. Paul for
declaring righteous, by St. James for evidencing that
God has declared us righteous; the Law is sometimes
the moral law, sometimes the ceremonial, sometimes the
Christian. What account is to be given of such changes?
none is attempted. Yet Irepeat, Surely if a word has so
many senses at once, this is because those senses are but
modifications of one and the same idea, according as it is
viewed: and our business is to find Out, as far as may
be, what it is which admits of such diversified applica-
tion. Our business is, if so be, to fix that One real Sense
before our mind’s eye, not to loiter or lose our way in
the outward text of Scripture, but to get through and
beyond the letter into the spirit. Our duty is to be
intent on things, not on names and terms; to associate
words with their objects, instead of measuring them by
their definitions; to speak as having eyes, and as if to
those who have eyes, not as groping Our Way in the
dark by intellectual conceptions, acts of memory, and
efforts of reason—in short, when we speak of justification
or faith, to have a meaning and grasp an idea, though at
different times it may be variously developed, or variously
presented, as the profile or full face in a picture.
Here is the especial use of the Fathers as expositors
of Scripture ; they do what no examination of the parti-
cular context can do Satisfactorily, acquaint us with the
things Scripture speaks of They tell us not what words
mean in their etymological, or philosophical, or classical,
or scholastic Sense, but what they do mean actually, what
they do mean in the Christian Church and in theology.
I 22 Mászse of the Zerme
It is an objection frequently made to the orthodox
interpretation of certain passages, that they need not
mean what they are said to mean, as far as the wording
goes ; that there is nothing in the passage itself to force
such a meaning upon it. For instance, when Christ is
called the Son of God, this (it is objected) does not prove
His divinity, because we are sons also ; and when He
declares that “He and the Father are one,” this need only
refer to unity of will, as Paul and Apollos were “one ;”
and when He says, “I am with you always,” He may
mean the Apostles only, or at least only those, and all
those, who have living faith; and when He says, that He
gives us “His flesh to eat,” this admits of being figura-
tively taken for the benefits of His death generally ; and
when St. Paul says, that “in Adam all die,” it is enough
to suppose he means “after the pattern of Adam,” as
Pelagius thought ; and when he says, that we are
“justified by faith,” the abstract word “justified” only
means, and therefore St. Paul need only take it to mean,
juridically justified or acquitted. Let us grant all
this for argument's Sake ;–certainly such objections
would tell against Our proof, if we professed to argue
merely from the context ; they might prove we were
bad reasoners;–but is there not also a further question,
and one more to the point, not what the Sacred text may
mean, but what it does mean 2 Does the word Psalmist
necessarily involve father, shepherd, and king 2 Yet, I
suppose, the most minute measurer of terms will grant
“the sweet Psalmist of Israel” was all three ; and in like
manner, if it so happen, other words too may mean more
than they need mean grammatically or logically ; and
7 usá or Æighteous. 123
what they do mean may be determinable historically,
that is, by the records of antiquity, as we do explain
words and statements when they relate to matters of this
world. If no word is to be taken to mean more than its
logical definition, we shall never get beyond abstract
knowledge, for it cannot possibly carry its own explana-
tion with it. They who wish to dispense with Antiquity,
should, in consistency, go further, and attempt to learn
a language without a dictionary. This, then, is the use
of the Fathers in interpreting Scripture ;--those who
always go by the particular context, proceed argumenta-
tively, but come to no conclusion ; those who go by
Scholastic systems come to a conclusion, but without
sure premisses; but those who consult Antiquity, gain
at Once an authority and a guide.
8.
I will go further ; not only is the context insufficient
for the interpretation of the Scripture terms and phrases,
but a right knowledge of these is necessary for inter-
preting that context. Acquaintance with the subject
spoken of can alone give meaning to the connective
particles, the turn of the sentence, and the cast of the
argument. What can St. Paul be supposed to mean by his
contrasts, arguments d fortiori, or climaxes, by those who
have no clear understanding what he is speaking of?
What does he mean by “like as,” and “much more,” and
“not only,” and “even,” in the judgment of those who
have dim and partial notions of what justification means,
or the law, or righteousness, or the spirit, or faith, or
works? It must, I should think, come home to most
I 24. Misuse of the Term
thoughtful persons, if not from their own experience, at
least on consulting commentaries, that we very little enter
into the course and substance of the Apostle's teaching.
The utmost attempt commonly made is to comprehend an
isolated sentence here and there, and we make the most
of Such success in interpreting, whatever it be, from its
rarity. What do the average of those readers, who pro-
fess they see into Scripture with a certainty which the
mass of men have not, what do they understand by
“Who was delivered for our offences, and raised again for
our justification”? or “While we were yet sinners, Christ
died for us; much more then, being now justified by His
blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.”? or
“The Spirit is life, because of righteousness”? or “Ye
are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, for
as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have
put on Christ”?
There are, doubtless, difficulties in Scripture in pro-
portion to its depth ; but I am speaking of a mode of
interpretation which does not feel depth nor suspect
difficulty. And this contented ignorance not only im-
plies a very superficial state of mind, because it is con-
tented, but great indifference towards the sacred writers.
Surely, it is not only shallow, but profane, thus to treat
the argumentative structure of an inspired volume. If
“much more,” and “not only,” and the like, be what this
exegetical method supposes them to be, then the Apostles
give less force and meaning to words than ordinary
reasoners. On this explanation, St. Paul must be sup-
posed to use his contrasts and analogies as rhetorical
ornaments, rather than as matters of fact and serious
} usá or Æighteous. I 25
reasoning. This is in fact the conclusion which is forced
on those who are more consecutive and daring thinkers
than the generality of men. They seem to allow that
St. Paul does abound in mere Oratory or poetry; and
having so decided, no wonder they go on to look upon
the science of Catholic doctrine also as a great system
of words for things, a vast labyrinth of dogmas without
meaning, of reasonings without conclusions, of maxims
without point, of logical compensations for logical diffi-
culties, of shadow opposed to shadow, one against another.
I am sure a large part of Hooker's teaching, for instance,
about the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Sacra-
ments, appears to acute reasoners of the Protestant School
to be a mere arbitrary and artificial arrangement of
notions. Nay, that they do in like manner SO regard
St. Paul's inspired pages is plain from the remarks of
some of them, who have been desirous to relieve Chris–
tianity of the burden thence, as they Suppose, attaching
to it. This they have done, as they think, by Surrender-
ing his arguments, on the ground that these did not fall
under the province of inspiration, and were fair subjects
for criticism in this searching and sifting age, as it is
called ;-searching and sifting, because it shuts out the
sun, gropes about in the dark, and has the fitting fruit
of its wilfulness in never grasping what it professes to
be searching after. But supposing, for argument's Sake,
the Apostle's reasonings are separable from his conclu-
sions, and he is only inspired in the latter, yet, is it
indeed come to this, that, in order to defend the Gospel,
an Apostle must be supposed to indulge in words and
arguments which mean nothing? Is One who is greater
I 26 Misuse of the Zerm
than man so far forth as he is inspired, less than man
So far as he is not ? Are his antitheses, and amplifica-
tions, and similitudes, are his words of emphasis and
weight, are “light,” “power,” “glory,” “riches,” “height
and depth,” “inward working,” “spirit,” “mystery,” and
“Christ indwelling,” to stand for nothing? Are they
random words uttered for effect, or from a sort of habit,
as sacred names are now habitually used by sinners to
make their language tell? Are his expressions glowing,
not because his subject is great, but because his temper-
ament was sanguine ! Is he antithetical, not because he
treats of things in real contrast, but because he was
taught in the schools of Tarsus? or does he repeat his
words, not from the poverty of human language, but from
the slenderness of his vocabulary? Yet this age is dis-
posed, out of mere consideration for St. Paul, to adopt
the latter alternative, choosing rather that he should
speak beyond or beside his own meaning than beyond
its comprehension ; so that it has become a fashion almost
to give over searching for any particular meaning in dis-
courses, which the Angels desire to look into. To
acquiesce in a confined idea of them, has been thought a
sign of deference rather than of neglect ; as if to seek
more were unfair to the great Apostle, I had almost
Said, ungenerous.
9.
Thus a popular writer protects the inspired Teacher
of the Nations, by the following considerations —“St.
Paul, I am apt to believe, has been sometimes accused of
inconclusive reasoning, by our mistaking that for reason-
jºust or Æighteous. I 27
ing which was only intended for illustration. He is not
to be read as a man, whose own persuasion of the truth
of what he taught always or solely depended upon the
views under which he represents it in his writings; ”
otherwise, of course, his faith would have been illogical.
The writer continues: “Taking for granted the certainty
of his doctrine, as resting upon the revelation that had
been imparted to him, he exhibits it frequently to the
conception of his readers, under images and allegories,
Žn which, if an analogy may be perceived, or even SOme-
times a poetic resemblance be found, it is all perhaps that
is required.”" This able writer is evidently afraid lest
Christianity, as it stands integrally in the Bible, should
fail under the ordeal of this educated age.
Again : “There is such a thing as a peculiar word or
phrase cleaving, as it were, to the memory of a writer or
speaker, and presenting itself to his utterance at every
turn. When we observe this, we call it a cant word, or
a cant phrase. It is a natural effect of habit ; and would
appear more frequently than it does, had not the rules
of good writing taught the ear to be offended with the
iteration of the same Sound, and oftentimes caused us to
reject, on that account, the word which offered itself first
to our recollection. With a writer who, like St. Paul,
either knew not these rules, or disregarded them, such
words will not be avoided. The truth is, an example of
this kind runs through several of his Epistles, and in
the Epistle before us,” to the Ephesians, “abounds; and
that is in the word riches, used metaphorically as an aug-
* Paley's Horæ Paul. vi. 1.
I 28 Misuse of the 7erm
mentative of the idea to which it happens to be sub-
joined.”" -
Elsewhere, he thus remarks:—“Their doctrines,” those
of the Apostles, “came to them by revelation, properly SO
called ; yet in propounding these doctrines in their
writings or discourses, they were wont to illustrate,
support, and enforce them by such analogies, arguments,
and considerations as their own thoughts suggested. . . .
The doctrine” [of the call of the Gentiles] “must be re-
ceived ; but it is not necessary, in order to defend Chris-
tianity, to defend the propriety of every comparison, or
the validity of every argument, which the Apostle has
brought into the discussion.”
These conclusions, I doubt not, will be painful to
many a man who adopts the principles from which they
follow. For we have all been detained by circumstances
or, as I may say, are frozen, in an intermediate state be-
tween Protestant premisses and their rightful inferences.
Those circumstances are now, after several centuries,
dissolving, and we are gradually gaining a free course,
and must choose our haven for ourselves. We must
either go forward on a voyage where we can discover
only barrenness, or return home to our ancient country,
and the sepulchres of the prophets. To see where we
shall end, if we go forward, may, through God's mercy,
persuade us to go back.
To conclude; what has been said concerning the in-
terpretation of the Sacred terms of Scripture comes to
* Paley's Horae Paul. vi. 2.
* Evidences, Part iii. ch. 2, fin.
}ºst or /ćighteous. I 29
this ; that we must not distort the sense of those terms
by our own antecedent theories and systems ; that we
must not so interpret them, as to make Scripture incon-
sistent with itself; that we must not think of determin-
ing their meaning by One or two particular passages, in
which they occur, instead of seeking it in a large survey
of the inspired text.
These are the cautions with which I pass on from
considering the word “righteousness,” to consider the
thing which the word denotes.
LECTURE WI.
THE GIFT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS.
USTIFICATION, being an act of Divine Mercy ex-
erted towards the soul, does not leave it as it found
it, cannot but make it what it was not before, as has
been shown at length. It stands to reason that a Soul
that is justified is not in the same state internally as if
it had not been justified,—is not in the state of others
which are not justified. No one would assert that one
who is justified is in all respects the same in his inner
Self as another who is not ; even a professed Antinomian
will generally allow that he has certain spiritual feelings,
as he falsely calls them, or experiences, or an assurance,
or the consciousness of renouncing merit, to distinguish
him from those who remain in a state of Wrath.
We know well what that state of wrath consists in,
or what is the formal character and condition of those
who are in it ; disobedience, an evil heart of unbelief,
hatred of the truth, guilt, fear of judgment to come,
hardness of heart ; such as these are the constituting
parts of that state, and go to make up or define it. Now,
on the other hand, what is the state of a justified man 7
or in what does his justification consist A This is the
question which is now more exactly to be treated, as
was proposed in a former place ; and it is one of no
Small importance.
The Gift of Æighteousness. I31
2.
As far as the name is concerned, there is a general
agreement among all parties; it is called “righteousness.”
But this is not the question ; nor, again, what the mean-
ing of the name is, which all allow to be equivalent to
acceptableness, or acceptable obedience, though one
School of opinion puts a second sense upon that word,
and understands it also to mean an obedience which is
short of acceptable, or a righteousness of sanctification.
Nor is it now the question what is meant by justification,
which some take for accounting, others for being made,
righteous. But the question is, what is that which is
named righteousness? what is that object or thing, what
is it in a man, which God seeing there, therefore calls
him righteous 2 what is the state in which a justified
person is, or that which constitutes him righteous in
God’s sight? just as one might ask what is really meant
when it is said that a man is alive, what is the thing
denoted by Scripture in saying that God “breathed into
Adam the breath of life"?—the sense of the word breath
being indisputable.
Now Luther, as we have seen, considers it to be
Christ's obedience imputed; the Roman Schools consider
it to be the new and spiritual principle imparted to us
by the Holy Ghost. But before entering upon the sub-
ject, I wish to insist that there really must be, as I have
Said, in every one who is justified, some such token or
Substance of his justification ; I insist upon it, because
many persons will try to slip away from so plain a truth.
They so greatly dread our priding ourselves on anything
that is good in us, that one cannot assert that there are
I 32 The Gift of Kighteousness.
distinctions between the justified state and the state of
nature, without being at Once accused of treating these
as meritorious causes ; therefore, I will insist on the
point at the hazard of being tedious.
It is certain, then, that all men are not justified;
some are, some are not ; what is it they differ in 2 To
justify is to account or declare righteous; this is God’s
act ; this is a movement of the Divine Mind, and alto-
gether external to the Subject of that justification. If the
only real difference between a justified man and a man
unjustified, be Almighty God's thoughts concerning him,
then those who are justified are justified from eternity,
for God sees the end from the beginning. They are in
a justified state even from the hour of their birth; before
their conversion, while they are wallowing in all sin and
unholiness, they are justified, if justification be an act
of the Divine Mind and nothing more, a conclusion
which has before now been maintained. Yet, unless we go
these lengths, we must allow that there is a certain dis-
tinctive state of Soul to which the designation of right-
eousness belongs. What, then, is the criterion within us,
which God sees there (of His giving surely, but still given)
the seal and signature of His elect, which He accepts
now, which He will acknowledge at the last day ?
In asking, then, what is our righteousness, I do not
mean what is its original Source, for this is God’s mercy ;
nor what is its meritorious cause, for this is the life, and
above all the death of Christ ; nor what is the instrument
of it, for this (I would maintain) is Holy Baptism ; nor
what is the entrance into it, for this is regeneration ; nor
what the first privilege of it, for this is pardon ; nor what
The Gift of Righteousness. I 33
is the ultimate fruit, for this is everlasting life. I am
not inquiring about anything past, or anything future,
or anything on God's part, but of Something present and
inward. We should not say that animal life consisted
in being born, or in having parents, or in breathing, or
in sensation, or in strength, or in a certain period of years,
or in God’s will, or in God's attributes, or in God's
knowledge of us. We should feel that nothing past, or
to come, or external, could be a fit account of that which
we call animal life, and that all answers so framed were
beside the mark. It would be intelligible, for instance,
to say that life consisted in the presence of the soul;
but whether we said this or anything else, in any case
we should fix on Something in us, not out of us. And
in like manner, when I ask what is that called righteous-
ness, which God first clothes us with as with a robe, then
looks upon and accepts, I do not ask why God so looks
upon it, but what it is He looks upon.
3.
1. This being the case, we may pronounce that
Luther's answer to the question—viz., that Christ's
obedience imputed to us is our righteousness—is in itself
no answer at all, and needs explanation before it will
apply. Properly speaking, I suppose it means, not that
Christ's obedience imputed, but that the imputation of
His obedience, is our righteousness. Christ's obedience
in the days of His flesh, centuries since, must be brought
near to the soul of the individual; therefore that present
applying or imputing of His obedience must be
meant, when it is called Our righteousness, not what is
I 34. The Gift of Æighteousness.
past. But that applying or imputing is the act of God;
and the question now before us is, not what is God's
act in justifying, but what is the state of the justified
soul. It is perfectly intelligible to say that Christ's
obedience is the procuring, or the meritorious cause of
our righteousness ; but to say that our present state of
being accounted righteous is nothing else than the fact
of Christ's having obeyed the Law eighteen hundred
years since, if literally taken, is like Saying that our
animal life consists in the creation of Adam, or that the
pangs of guilt consist in the fall of Satan, which are
words without meaning.
IFor the same reason, it is no answer to the present
question to Say that a state of justification consists in
the forgiveness of sins, or in acceptance, or in adoption,
all these being God’s acts, and as little in point here, as
if I said that obedience was divine aid. ©
Again: if it be laid down that our justification Con-
sists in union with Christ, or reconciliation with God,
this is an intelligible and fair answer; and then the
question will arise, what is meant by union with Christ Ž
It may or may not be possible to explain it ; if we con-
sider Scripture to be silent on this point, then we shall
say that justification consists in an unknown, unrevealed,
mysterious union with Christ ; if we do not allow that
there is a mystery, then we shall be bound to Say what
that union does consist in.
For the same reason, to say with Roman divines,
that justification consists in spiritual renovation, whether
correct or incorrect, is perfectly intelligible. It is a real
3.]]SW61'.
The Gift of Æighteousness. * I 35
And Protestants, who say that it lies in Christ's obedi-
ence, seem to have felt this ; for when pressed, they have
sometimes said that faith is the discriminating mark of
justification, or that in which it consists. But for the
most part, only when they were pressed ; for though such
an answer, whether correct or not, is clear and apposite,
yet they seem to have feared that it was all one with
Saying that faith had merit, or an intrinsic expiatory
power in the remission of sins. At the same time, this
has not hindered some of them from so resolving the
question;' and as it is the only serviceable answer which
* “The difference betwixt the justification and obedience required
by the Old and New Covenant, doth not consist, as the Bishop”
[Beveridge] “Saith it is, in this, that, in the first, obedience in our own
persons was required as absolutely necessary ; in the second, obedience
in our surety is accepted as completely Suſicient ; but in this, that
whereas the Old Law required perfect obedience, in order to our justi-
fication, allowing no pardon for sins committed, but leaving all under the
curse, who ‘continue not in all things written in the Law to do them,'
the New Covenant requires only faith in the blood of Christ, for the re-
mission of our past sins.” Again, “What interpretation of the Apostle's
words can be more uncouth and unsound than this, ‘Faith is imputed
to us for righteousness,’ that is, it is not faith, but Christ's active
righteousness, which is imputed to us for righteousness?”—Whitby,
Discourse on Imputed Righteousness. Melanchthon puts the objection
made to his doctrine clearly and pointedly, but is very circuitous in his
reply. “Sed dicat aliquis, Si per misericordiam Salvandi Sumus, quid
interest inter nos quibus contingit Salus et quibus non contingit Num
pariter sperabunt misericordiam boni et mali ? Hoc argumento viden-
tur moti Scholastici ad quaerendum meritum condigni. Necesse est
enim discrimen esse inter Salvandos et dammandos.” . . He answers,
that in order for the conscience to be at rest, it must have a “certa
spes;” and a “certa Spes” can only come from God's mercy; and
God's mercy is given to faith. “Fides justificat, quandocumque et quo.
cunque tempore apprehendunt eam homines.”—Apol. f. 77.
I 36 7%e Gift of Æighteousness.
I can find on the Lutheran side of the question, I shall
make use of it.
These then are the two views which at first sight
come into consideration, whether our state of justification,
or righteousness in God's sight, consists in faith or in
renovation.
4.
Now, however intelligible each of these answers may
be, neither will be found sufficient and final. I mean,
neither seems to pursue, and, I conceive, neither does
pursue, the inquiry So far as it might ; neither traces up
the criterion of a justified state to its simplest and most
elementary form. When Faith is said to be the inward
principle of acceptance, the question rises, what gives to
faith its acceptableness : Why is faith more acceptable
than unbelief? Cannot we give any reason at all for it 2
or can we conceive unbelief being appointed as the
token, instrument, state, or condition (it matters not
here which word we use) of justification ? Surely not ;
faith is acceptable as having a something in it, which
unbelief has not ; that something, what is it? It must
be God’s grace, if God’s grace act ºn the soul, and not
merely externally, as in the way of Providence. If it
acts in us, and has a presence in us, when we have
faith, then the having that grace or that presence, and
not faith, which is its result, must be the real token, the
real state of a justified man.
Again : if we say that justification consists in a
Supernatural quality imparted to the Soul by God’s grace,
as Roman writers Say, then in like manner, the question
Z%e Gift of Ægh/eousness. I 37
arises, is this quality all that is in us of heaven 2 does
not the grace itself, as an immediate divine power or
presence, dwell in the hearts which are gifted with this
renovating principle 2 It may or it may not ; but if it
does, then surely the possession of that grace is really
our justification, and not renewal, or the principle of
renewal.
And thus, by tracing farther back the lines of
thought on which these apparently discordant views are
placed, they are made to converge ; they converge, that
is, supposing there to be vouchSafed to us, an inward
divine presence or grace, of which both faith and spirit-
ual renovation are fruits. If such a presence be not
vouchsafed, then certainly faith on the one hand, reno–
vation on the other, are the ultimate elements to which
our state of righteousness can be respectively referred in
the two theologies. But if it be vouchsafed, neither
Protestant nor Romanist Ought to refuse to admit, and
in admitting to agree with each other, that the presence
of the Holy Ghost shed abroad in our hearts, the Author
both of faith and of renewal, this is really that which
makes us righteous, and that our righteousness is the
possession of that presence.
2. So much is gained from the views of the con-
tending parties; next, I observe, in corroboration of
the conjectural inference to which they have led us,
that justification actually is ascribed in Scripture to the
presence of the Holy Spirit, and that immediately,
neither faith nor renewal intervening. For instance,
St. Peter speaks of our being “elect through sanc-
tification,” or consecration “ of the Spirit, unto,” that is,
I 38 7%e Gift of Æighteousness.
in order to, “obedience and Sprinkling of the blood of
Jesus Christ,” that is, the Holy Ghost is given us unto,
or in order to, renovation and justification. Again : we
are said by St. Paul to be “washed, Sanctified, and justi-
Jied, in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit
of our God.” The same Apostle says, “Ye have not
received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but ye have
received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba,
Father.” Again : “The law of the Spirit of life hath
made me free from the law of sin and death.” Again :
Christ says, “It is the Spirit that giveth life,” life being
the peculiar attribute or state of “the just,” as St. Paul,
and the prophet Habakkuk before him, declare. These
passages taken together, to which others might be added
from a former Lecture, show that justification is
wrought by the power of the Spirit, or rather by His
presence within us. And this being the real state of a
justified man, faith and renewal are both present also,
but as fruits of it ;—faith, because it is said, “We
through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness
by faith , ” and renewal, because in another passage,
“renewing of the Holy Ghost” is made equivalent to
“being justified by His grace.”
Such is the doctrine of Scripture, which our Church
plainly acknowledges, as is evident from the following
passages in her formularies. In the 13th Article, for
instance, which I have already cited, what in the title
are called “works before justification,” are in the body
of the article called “works done before the grace of
1 1 Pet. i. 2. 1 Cor. vi. 11. Rom. viii. 2, 15. John vi. 63. Gal.
V, 5. Tit. iii. 5-7.
The Gift of Righteousness. I 39
Christ, and the inspiration of his Spirit; ” that is, justi-
fication may fitly be called an “inspiration of the Spirit
of Christ,” or a spiritual presence. Again in the
Baptismal Service . in which we pray God that the
child to be baptized may “receive remission of his sins,”
which Surely implies justification, “by Spiritual regene-
'ration,” which is as surely the gift of the Spirit. The
Homilies are in accordance ; in which we are told, by
way of comment upon St. Paul’s words, “Who rose
again for our justification,” that Christ “rose again to
send down His Holy Spirit to rule in our hearts, to
endow us with perfect righteousness; ” and that in this
way David’s words in the 85th Psalm are fulfilled,
“Truth hath sprung out of the earth, and righteousness
hath looked down from heaven,” in that “from the
earth is the Everlasting Verity, God's Son, risen to life,
and the true righteousness of the Holy Ghost, looking out
of heaven, and in most liberal largess dealt upon all the
world.” Justifying righteousness, then, consists in the
coming and presence of the Holy Ghost within us.
5.
3. But further, Scripture expressly declares that
righteousness is a definite inward gift, while at the
same time it teaches that it is not any mere quality of
mind, whether faith Or holiness; as I shall now proceed
to show.
By a gift I mean a thing given. Now, there are
four words" used in Scripture to describe the special
abiding gift of the Gospel, which either is, or at least
* xãptopa, 6&pov, Öapeč, and Ötöpmua.
I4O 7%e Gift of Æighteousness.
includes justification, may, which is expressly said to be
justification, and they all signify a thing given, not a
mere giving;-not a favour (as if we should say, “it is
a great mercy we are saved,” that is, an act, display,
proof of mercy), but, as indeed the word gift means in
|Bnglish, a possession ; as when you Say a man has the
gift of languages, it is a faculty in him ; whereas you
would not say that popularity was a gift, which is some-
thing external, but rather the talent of becoming
popular, or influence, is the gift ; nor would you say
acceptance was a gift, but acceptableness.
For instance, in Rom. v. 17 we read, “They that
receive the abundance of grace, and of the gift” of
righteousness, shall reign in life by One, Jesus Christ.”
The word gift here used certainly must mean a thing
given; implying that the righteousness of justification,
whatever it turn out to be, is a real and definite
Something in a person, implanted in him, like a talent
or power, and not merely an act of the Divine Mind
externally to him, as the forgiveness of sins may be.
But the preceding verses contain a still more con-
vincing statement, on which indeed one might not be
unwilling to rest the whole question. St. Paul says,
“Not as the offence, so also is the gift” . . . . the gift
is of many offences unto justification.” Here, observe,
he distinctly declares that justification is the result of a
gift. Now the word used for “gift” in the original, is
the very word used elsewhere for extraordinary gifts,
Such as of healing, of tongues, and of miracles; that is,
a definite power or virtue committed to us. Nowhere
* Šapeãs. * Xóptopa.
Z%e Gift of Ā’ighteousness. I4 I
else does the word occur in Scripture without this
meaning; indeed, it necessarily has it from its gram-
matical form. For instance, St. Paul says, he “longs to
See" the Romans, “that he may impart unto them some
Spiritual gift ; ” again, that “the gift of God is eternal
life.” He enumerates as gifts, prophecy, ministry,
teaching, exhortation, giving, ruling, and showing mercy.
Speaking of continence, he says, “Every man has his
proper gift from God.” He says, there are “diversities
of gifts, but the same Spirit.” He exhorts Timothy
“not to neglect the gift that was in him,” but to stir up,
to re-kindle, “the gift of God which was in him.” St.
Peter too speaks of Our “ministering” our “gifts as good
stewards.”
If, then, by a gift is meant a certain faculty or talent,
moral, intellectual, or other, justification is some such
faculty. It is not a mere change of purpose or disposi-
tion in God towards us, or a liberty, privilege, or (as it
may be called) citizenship, accorded to us, but a some-
thing lodged within us.
To the same effect is St. Paul’s intimation, that
righteousness is ministered or dispensed by the Spirit;”
for Surely the idea of dispensing, as well as the general
office of the gracious Dispenser, lead us to conclude that
the righteousness dispensed is a thing, and not a name.
6.
To these passages we shall be right in adding a
number of others which speak of the Gospel Gift, though
* Rom. i. 11 ; vi. 23 ; xii. 6-18. 1 Cor. vii. 7 ; xii. 4. 1 Tim. iv.
14. 2 Tilm. i. 6. 1 Pet. iv. 10. * 2 Cor. iii. 8, 9.
I42 7%e Gift of Righteousness.
not calling it justification. For they speak as if there
was one great benefit given to us under the Gospel; and
So great and essential is justification, that it must be
either this or must be included in it.
For instance, Our Lord says to the Samaritan woman,
“If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that
saith to thee, Give Me to drink, thou wouldst have asked
of Him, and He would have given thee living water.”
The water was a real thing to be given and received.
Again : St. Peter says to the multitude, “Repent and
be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of
the Holy Ghost;” can we doubt that this is identical
with the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteous-
ness of which St. Paul speaks?
Again: the latter Apostle alludes elsewhere to “those
who were Once enlightened and have tasted of the
heavenly gift.” Will it be said this means sanctifica-
tion ? then is Sanctification represented as greater than
justification; else why is not justification mentioned in
a passage which is expressly speaking of a case in which
a second justification is pronounced to be impossible %
The contrast Surely requires that justification should be
mentioned; yet unless included in “the heavenly gift,”
it is passed over. We may add such passages as the
following: “The water that I shall give him shall be in
him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.”
And “He that believeth on Me, as the Scripture hath
said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.”
With such compare the words in the Prophet: “Then will
* John iv. 10. Acts ii. 38. * Heb. vi. 4.
The Gift of Righteousness. I43
I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean ;
from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I
cleanse you.” This means justifying purification, for
renewal is not mentioned till the next verse —“A new
heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put
within you.” By water, I say, is typified justification,
which accordingly is a Something applied and communi-
cated, not a change in the Divine Mind merely.
The same doctrine is implied in the Sacrament of
Baptism, which certainly typifies the justifying gift.
But if so, that gift is not an act merely on God’s part,
but a Something, proximate and one, received and em-
braced by us.
Once more : whatever be the more precise meaning
of the words, does not “the Bread of Life” which is to
be “eaten,” imply an inward gift, not merely an imputa-
tion ? Yet who can deny that that gift carries with it
the application of Christ's merits to the soul, that is,
justification ?
Moreover, these passages show that this gift, whatever
it is, is not any moral excellence or grace, such as faith
or a renewed state. For instance, to recur to the last
instance, faith is but the recipient of the heavenly Bread,
and therefore cannot be identical with it.
Thus an examination of the promises made to us in
Scripture bears out the conclusion I had already drawn
On other grounds, that the righteousness, by virtue of
which we are called righteous, or are justified,—that in
which justification results or consists, which conveys or
applies the great gospel privileges, that this justifying
* John iv. 14 ; vii. 38. Ezek. xxxvi. 25.
I 44. 7%e Gift of Æighteousness.
power though within us, as it must be, if it is to separate.
us from the world, yet is not properly speaking of us, not
any quality or act of our minds, not faith, not renovation,
not obedience, not anything cognizable by man, but a
certain divine gift in which all these qualifications are
included.
7.
4. Now to proceed a step further. I have said that,
while justification is the application of Christ's merits to
the individual, that application is the imparting of an
inward gift ; to this conclusion I have come chiefly by a
consideration of the language of St. Paul. Now, turning
to the gospel we shall find that such a gift is actually
promised to us by Our Lord ; a gift which must of
necessity be at Once our justification and Our Sanctifica-
tion, for it is nothing short of the indwelling in us of God
the Father and the Word Incarnate through the Holy
Ghost. If this be so, we have found what we sought :
This is to be justified, to receive the Divine Presence
within us, and be made a Temple of the Holy Ghost.
God is everywhere as absolutely and entirely as
if He were nowhere else; and it seems to be essen-
tial to the existence of every creature, rational and
irrational, good and evil, in heaven and hell, that in
some sense or other He should be present with it and be
its life. Thus we are told concerning mankind, that
“in Him we live, and move, and have our being.” And
He who lives in all creatures on earth in order to their
mortal life, lives in Christians in a more divine way in
order to their life immortal; and as we do not know how
7%e Gift of Righteousness. I 45
the creation exists and lives in Him as a Creator, and
use words about it beyond our comprehension, so much
more (were not comparison out of the question) are we
ignorant of the mode or nature of that life of God in the
soul, which is the wellspring of the Christian's sanctity,
and the seed of everlasting happiness. If this notion of
the literal indwelling of God within us, whether in the
way of nature or of grace, be decried as a sort of mysti-
cism, I ask in reply whether it is not a necessary truth
that He is with and in us, if He is everywhere? And
if He is everywhere and dwells in all, there is no ante-
cedent objection against taking Scripture literally, no
difficulty in supposing that the truth is as Scripture
says, that as He dwells in us in One mode in the way
of nature, so He is in us in another in the way of grace ;"
that His infinite and incomprehensible Essence, which
once existed by and in itself alone, and then at the crea-
tion so far communicated itself to His works as to
sustain what He had brought into existence, and that
according to the different measures of life necessary for
their respective perfection, may in the Christian Church
manifest itself in act and virtue in the hearts of Chris-
tians, as far surpassing what it is in unregenerate man,
as its presence in man excels its presence in a brute or a
vegetable. And those who without any antecedent
difficulty still refuse to accept the literal interpretation
of Scripture, should be reminded, that, since the promise
expressly runs that we shall be made one as the Father
1 The angelic appearances in the Old Testament, to which divine
titles are given and divine honours paid, may be taken as an instance
of such a presence of Almighty God in a created nature,
T
4-)
I46 7%e Gift of Æighteousness.
and the Son are one, we are necessarily led either to think
highly of the union of the Christian with God, or to
disparage that of the Father and the Son; and that such
schools of religion as maintain that the former is but
figurative, will certainly be led at length to deny the real
union of our Lord with His Father, and from avoiding
mysticism, will fall into what is called Unitarianism.
With these thoughts let us turn to the review of the
texts in which this wonderful promise is made to us.
Our Saviour, then, thus speaks of our communion
with the Father and Son;–“At that day ye shall know
that I am in My Father, and ye in Me, and I in you.”
“He that loveth Me, shall be loved of My Father; and
I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him. . .
My Father will love him, and We will come unto
him, and make Our abode with him.” Again, He prays
to His Father that His disciples “all may be one, as Thou,
Father, art in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be
one in Us. . . . I in them and Thou in Me, that they
may be made perfect in one.”
Accordingly, St. John says, in his General Epistle,
that “if we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and His
love is perfected in us. . . . . He that dwelleth in love,
dwelleth in God and God in him. . . . He that keepeth
His commandments dwelleth in Him, and He in him.”
“We are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus
Christ.” “Truly our fellowship is with the Father and
with His Son Jesus Christ.”
Further, this fellowship with the Son, and with the
1 John xiv. 20, 21, 23 ; xvii. 21-23.
* I John iv. 12, 16 ; iii, 24; v. 20; i, 3,
Z%e Gift of Æighteousness. I47
Father in the Son, is made through the Spirit. “Hereby
we know that we dwell in Him and He in us, because
He hath given us of His Spirit.” Hence St. Paul speaks
of the “fellowship of the Holy Ghost;” and that “we
are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God
dwelleth in us;” and that “our body is the temple of
the Holy Ghost which is in us, which we have of God,
* Agreeably to which are our
Saviour's words, who, when He promised the indwelling
of Father and Son in His followers, said also, “I will
pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter
that He may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of
Truth. . . . . He dwelleth in you, and shall be in you.”
And then He adds: “I will not leave you comfortless,
I will come to you.” -
Moreover, this indwelling had been promised as the
distinguishing grace of the Gospel. St. Paul declares
both the prophecy and its fulfilment, when he says: “Ye
are the temple of the Living God; as God hath said, I
will dwell in them, and walk in them ; and I will be
their God, and they shall be My people.” Again, in our
Saviour's words, “He that believeth on Me, as the
Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of
living water ; but this spake He of the Spirit, which
they that believe on Him should receive ; for the Holy
Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not
yet glorified.” Accordingly, in some of the texts just
quoted, He who dwells in Christians is called “He that
and we are not our own.”
* 1 John iii. 24; iv. 13. 2 Cor. xiii. 14. 1 Cor. iii. 16 ; vi. 19.
John xiv. 16-18.
* 2 Cor. vi. 16. John vii. 38, 39.
I48 Z%e Gift of Æighteousness.
is True,” and the Comforter is “the Spirit of Truth,”
grace and truth being the characteristics of the New
Covenant.
And further let it be remarked that the Divine
Presence vouchsafed to us, besides being that of the
Holy Trinity, is specially said to be the presence of
Christ ; which would seem to imply that the “Word
made flesh” is in Some mysterious manner bestowed
upon us. Thus He says: “If any man hear my voice,
and open the door, I will come in to him, and will Sup
with him, and he with Me.”" This allusion to a feast is
conveyed in still more Sacred and wonderful language in
the following passage, to which I have already referred :
“I am the Living Bread which came down from heaven ;
if any man eat of this Bread, he shall live for ever, and
the Bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give
for the life of the world.” . . . . “He that eateth My
flesh and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me and I
in him.” Again : “We are members of His body, from
His flesh and from His bones.”
8.
Such, as far as the words of Scripture go, is the great
gift of the Gospel which Christ has purchased for all
believers ;-not many words are necessary to connect it
with justification. I observe them—
1. First, this indwelling accurately answers, as I
have already said, to what the righteousness which
justifies has already been shown to consist in ; an inward
1 Rev. iii. 20.
* John vi. 51, 56. Eph. v. 30. Wid. also 2 Pet. i. 4.
7.%e Gift of Æighteousness. 149
gift conveying the virtue of Christ's Atoning Blood. The
coincidence of one and the other in such a definition
proves their identity; if to justify be to impart a certain
inward token of our personal redemption, and if the
presence of God within us is such a token, our justifica-
tion must consist in God’s coming to us and dwelling in
us. It were the same to maintain, though knowing that
God lives in us in the way of nature, that our mortal life
does not consist in that indwelling, as to allow that He
dwells in us Christians in a supernatural and singular
way, yet deny that our new life of privilege and blessing
depends on that Mystical Presence,—to believe that we
are temples of God, yet are not justified thereby. On
the other hand, since this great gift is the possession of
all Christians from the time they become Christians,
justification, whatever be the measures of increase
which it admits, as certainly presupposes the gift, as the
gift involves justification. In a word, what is it to have
His presence within us, but to be His consecrated
Temple? what to be His Temple, but to be set apart
from a state of nature, from sin and Satan, guilt and
peril? what to be thus set apart, but to be declared
and treated as righteous 2 and what is this but to be
justified ?
2. Next, it may be remarked that whatever blessings
in detail we ascribe to justification, are ascribed in
Scripture to this sacred indwelling. For instance, is
justification remission of sins 3 the Gift of the Spirit
conveys it, as is evident from the Scripture doctrine
about Baptism : “One Baptism for the remission of sins.”
Is justification adoption into the family of God? in like
I 50 7%e Gift of Ag/teousness.
manner the Spirit is expressly called the Spirit of adop-
tion, “the Spirit whereby we cry, Abba, Father.” Is
justification reconciliation with God? St. Paul says,
“Jesus Christ is in you, unless ye be reprobates.” Is
justification life 2 the same Apostle says, “ Christ liveth
in me.” Is justification given to faith ? it is his prayer
“that Christ may dwell in " Christian “hearts by
faith.” Does justification lead to holy obedience 3 Our
Lord assures us that “he that abideth in Him and He in
him, the same bringeth forth much fruit.” Is it through
justification that we rejoice in hope of the glory of God 2
In like manner “Christ in us” is said to be “the hope
of glory.” Christ then is our Righteousness by dwelling
in us by the Spirit : He justifies us by entering into us,
He continues to justify us by remaining in us. This is
really and truly our justification, not faith, not holiness,
not (much less) a mere imputation; but through God’s
mercy, the very Presence of Christ.
3. It appears, moreover, that this inward presence is
Sometimes described as God’s presence or indwelling ;
Sometimes that of Father and Son ; sometimes of the
Holy Ghost ; sometimes of Christ the Incarnate Medi-
ator; sometimes “of God through the Spirit;” sometimes
of Christ, of His Body and Blood, of His Body in “flesh
and bones,” and this through the Spirit. Different degrees
or characteristics of the gift are perhaps denoted by these
various terms, though to discriminate them is far beyond
Our powers. What is common to all Christians, as
distinguished from good men under other Dispensations,
is that, however the latter were justified in God's in-
Scrutable resources, Christians are justified by the
The Gift of Righteousness. I 5.1
communication of an inward, most Sacred, and most
mysterious gift. From the very time of Baptism they
are temples of the Holy Ghost. This, I say, is what is
common to all; yet it is certain too, that over and above
what all have, a still further communication of God's
glory is promised to the obedient, and that so considerable
as sometimes to be spoken of as the special communica-
tion, as if there were none previously. “He that loveth
Me,” says our Lord, “shall be loved of My Father, and
I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him ;”
and “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see
God.”
9.
4. Further, we here see in what sense it is true
that justification admits of increase, and in what not.
The fact that we are the temple of God does not admit
of more or less; such words have no meaning when
applied to it. Righteousness then, considered as the
state of being God's temple, cannot be increased ; but,
considered as the divine glory which that state implies,
it can be increased, as the pillar of the cloud which
guided the Israelites could become more or less bright.
Justification being acceptableness with God, all beings
who are justified differ from all who are not, in their
very condition, in a certain property, which the one body
has and the other has not. In this sense, indeed, it is as
absurd to speak of our being more justified, as of life, or
colour, or any other abstract idea increasing. But when
we compare the various orders of just and acceptable
beings with one another, we see that though they all
I 52 The Gift of Æighteousness.
are in God’s favour, some may be more “ pleasant,”
“acceptable,” “righteous,” than others, and may have
more of the light of God's countenance shed on them ;
as a glorified Saint is more acceptable than one still in
the flesh. In this sense then justification does admit of
increase and of degrees; and whether we say justifica-
tion depends on faith or on obedience, in the same de-
gree that faith or obedience grows, so does justification.
And again (to allude to a point not yet touched On), if
justification is conveyed peculiarly through the Sacra-
ments, then as Holy Communion conveys a more awful
presence of God than Holy Baptism, so must it be the
instrument of a higher justification. On the other hand,
those who are declining in their obedience, as they are
quenching the light within them, so are they diminish-
ing their justification." -
5. And this view of the subject enables us to under-
stand how infants may be regenerate, though they give
no indications of being so. For as God dwelt Secretly
in His material Temple, ever hallowing it, yet only in
season giving sensible evidences of what was there, so
may He be present with their Souls, rescuing them from
Satan, and imparting new powers, manifesting new ob-
jects, and suggesting new thoughts and desires, without
their being conscious, or others witnesses, of His work.
6. Moreover, if justification be the inward applica-
tion of the Atonement, we are furnished at once with a
sufficient definition of a Sacrament for the use of our
Church. The Roman Catholic considers that there are
seven ; we do not strictly determine the number. We
* Wid. Jerom. in Jovinian. ii. 27-29.
The Gift of Righteousness. 153
define the word generally to be an “outward sign of an
inward grace,” without saying to how many Ordinances
this applies. However, what we do determine is, that
Christ has ordained two Special Sacraments, as générally
necessary to Salvation. This, then, is the characteristic
mark of those two, separating them from all other
whatever; and what is this but saying in other words
that they are the only justifying rites, or instruments of
communicating the Atonement, which is the One thing
necessary to us? Ordination, for instance, gives power,
yet without making the soul acceptable to God; Con-
firmation gives light and strength, yet is the mere com-
pletion of Baptism ; and Absolution may be viewed as a
negative ordinance removing the barrier which sin has
raised between us and that grace, which by inheritance
is ours. But the two Sacraments “of the gospel,” as
they may be emphatically styled, are the instruments of
inward life, according to our Lord's declaration, that
Baptism is a new birth, and that in the Eucharist we
eat the living Bread."
* “As for the number of them [the Sacraments], if they should be
considered according to the exact signification of a Sacrament—namely,
for visible signs eaſpressly commanded in the New Testament, wherewnto
7s anneaced the promise of free forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness
and joining to Christ—these are but two ; namely, Baptism, and the
Supper of the Lord. For, although Absolution hath the promise of
forgiveness of sin, yet by the express word of the New Testament it
hath not this promise annexed and tied to the visible sign, which is
imposition of hands. For this visible sign (I mean laying on of hands)
is not expressly commanded in the New Testament to be used in Abso-
lution, as the visible signs in Baptism and the Lord's Supper are, and,
therefore, Absolution is no such Sacrament as Baptism and the Com-
munion are. And though the ordering of ministers hath this visible
I54. .7%e Gift of Æighteousness.
10.
7. Lastly, We now may see what the connection
really is between justification and renewal. They are
both included in that one great gift of God, the indwell-
ing of Christ in the Christian soul. That indwelling is
'pso facto our justification and Sanctification, as its neces-
sary results. It is the Divine Presence that justifies us,
not faith, as say the Protestant schools, not renewal, as
say the Roman. The word of justification is the substan-
tive living Word of God, entering the soul, illuminating
and cleansing it, as fire brightens and purifies material
substances. He who justifies also sanctifies, because it is
He. The first blessing runs into the second as its neces-
sary limit ; and the second being rejected, carries away
with it the first. And the one cannot be separated from
the other except in idea, unless the Sun's rays can be
separated from the Sun, or the power of purifying from
fire or water. I shall resume the subject in the next
Lecture. -
sign and promise, yet it lacks the promise of remission of sin, as all
other sacraments besides the two above mamed do. Therefore, neither
it, nor any other Sacrament else, be such Sacraments as Baptism and
the Communion are.”—Homily of Common Prayer and Sacraments.
[Catholics hold that there are two justifying Sacraments, in the
sense in which the word “justification” is mainly used in this volume
—that is, Sacraments which reconcile the sinner to God, or sacramenta.
mortuorum—viz. Baptism and Penance. The other five are Sacramenta
vivorum, that is, they presuppose the subject of them to be in a state
of grace, or justified, and increase his justification. To regard the Holy
Eucharist as justifying, in the same light as that in which Baptism
justifies, is to confuse the first justification of the sinner with the
farther justification of the already just.]
I, ECTURE WII.
TEIE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GIFT OF
FIGHTEOUSINESS.
T is not uncommon in Scripture, as all readers know,
to represent the especial gift of the Gospel as a robe.
or garment, bestowed on those who are brought into the
Church of Christ. Thus the prophet Isaiah speaks of our
being “clothed with the garments of Salvation, covered
with the robe of righteousness,” as with a rich bridal dress.
A passage was quoted in a former place from the prophet
Zechariah to the same purport ; in which Almighty God
takes from Joshua the high priest his filthy garments,
and gives him change of raiment, and a mitre for his
head. In like manner, when the prodigal son came
home, his father put on him “the best robe,” “and a
ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet; ” agreeable to
which is St. Paul's declaration that “as many as have
been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.”
Now such expressions as these in Scripture are too
forcible and varied to be a mere figure denoting the pro-
fession of Christianity; as if our putting on Christ were
a taking on us the name and responsibilities of a Chris-
tian —this I shall take for granted. It is much the
same kind of evasion or explaining away, to say that by
God’s clothing us in righteousness is only meant His
156 7%e Chayacáezzsäcs
counting us as if righteous; all the difference being that
in the former interpretation the clothing is made to stand
for our calling ourselves, and in the latter for God's call-
ing us, what really we are not.
Nor, again, can these expressions be very well taken
to mean newness of life, holiness, and obedience ; for
this reason, if for no other, that no one is all at once
holy, and renewed, in that full sense which must be im-
plied if the terms be interpreted of holiness. Baptized
persons do not so put on Christ as to be forthwith alto-
gether different men from what they were before ; at
least this is not the rule, as far as we have means of de-
ciding. Thus there is a call on the face of the matter
for Some more adequate interpretation of such passages
of Scripture, than is supplied either by the Roman or
the Protestant schools; and this surely is found in the
doctrine of the last Lecture. If that doctrine be true,
the robe vouchsafed to us is the inward presence of
Christ, ministered to us through the Holy Ghost; which,
it is plain, admits on the one hand of being immediately
vouchsafed in its fulness, as a sort of invisible Shekinah,
or Seal of God's election, yet without involving on the
other the necessity of a greater moral change than, is
promised and effected in Baptism.
With this, too, agrees what is told of our own duties
towards this Sacred possession, which are represented as
negative rather than active ; I mean, we are enjoined not
to injure or profane it, but so to honour it in our outward
conduct, that it may be continued and increased in us.
For instance, our Lord says, “Thou hast a few names
even in Sardis, which have not defiled their garments;
of the Gift of Righteousness. I57
and they shall walk with Me in white, for they are
worthy.” Such words are more naturally interpreted of
an inward gift than of a mere imputation ; and scarcely
admit of being explained of a moral condition of heart,
attained (under grace) through our own exertions. They
are parallel to St. Paul's Warning against “grieving the
Spirit of God; ” which may just as reasonably be inter-
preted of mere moral excellence, as in some heretical
schools has been done. Of the same character are exhor-
tations such as St. Paul’s, not “to defile the temple of
God ; ” to recollect that we are the temple of God, and
that the Holy Ghost is in us.
2.
Moreover, it may throw light on these metaphors to
inquire whether (considering we have gained under the
Gospel what we lost in Adam, and justification is a re-
versing of Our forfeiture, and a robe of righteousness is
what Christ gives) it was not such a robe that Adam
lost. If so, what is told us of what he lost, will ex-
plain to us what it is we gain. Now the peculiar gift
which Adam lost is told us in the book of Genesis;
and it certainly does seem to have been a supernatural
clothing. He was stripped of it by sinning as of a
covering, and shrank from the sight of himself. This
was the sign of his inward loathsomeness; and accord-
ingly all through Scripture we find stress is laid on one
especial punishment, which is hereafter to result from sin,
of a most piercing and agonizing character, the manifesta-
tion of our shame. When we consider what our feelings
* Rev. iii. 4.
I 58 7%e Characteristics
are now as connected with this subject, we may fancy
what an inexpressibly keen anguish is thus in store for
sinners, when their eyes shall be opened, who at present
“glory in their shame, and mind earthly things.” Such
then was Adam's loss in God’s sight, as visibly typified;
and, therefore, such as what he lost is the nature of the
Gospel gift, so far as it is a return to what he lost. And
as such our Lord speaks of it in the Apocalypse, warning
us, as of our natural destitution, so of His power and
willingness to remedy it. “I counsel thee,” He says, “to
buy of Me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayst be rich ;
and white raiment, that thou mayst be clothed, and that
the shame of thy nakedness do not appear.” And again,
“Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments,
lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.” Christ
then clothes us in God’s sight with something over and
above nature, which Adam forfeited.
Now that Adam’s Supernatural clothing was not a
mere imputed righteousness, need not formally be proved;
it was a Something, of the loss of which he was him-
self at once conscious, which he could not be of acts
passing in the Divine Mind. Nor was it real inherent
holiness ; at least we may so conjecture from this cir-
cumstance, that such a habit is the result of practice and
habituation, and, as it would be attainable but gradu-
ally, So when attained it would scarcely yield at once
to external temptation. But whether or not we may
trust Ourselves to such arguments, the early Church
Supersedes the need of them by explaining, that what
* Rev. iii. 18, * Rev. xvi. 15.
of the Gift of Æighteousness. . I 59
Adam lost on sinning, was in fact a supernatural endow-
ment, and agreeably with the view of justification already
taken, was nothing less than the inward presence either
of the Divine Word, or of the Holy Ghost.
The Catholic fathers, as Bishop Bull has collected
their testimony," teach that the principle of Sanctity
in Adam, to which was attached the gift of immortal
life, was something distinct from and above his human
nature. That nature, indeed, did look towards such a
perfection, but could not in itself reach it. Without
this heavenly possession, man was not able to keep the
Law according to the Covenant of Life, but with it he
could serve God acceptably, and gain the reward set
before him.
This interpretation of the Scripture account of man's
original nature and fall is confirmed by various passages
of St. Paul. For instance, he speaks of man as being
by mere creation what he calls a Soul; “The first Adam
was made a living Soul;” now just before, he has used
a derived form of the same word, though in our version
it does not appear. He says, “there is a natural body,”
that is, “a body with a soul.” Elsewhere he says, “the
natural man,” that is, the man with a Soul, “receiveth
not the things of the Spirit of God.” Human nature
then, viewed in itself, is not spiritual, and that neither
in soul nor body. Accordingly St. Paul contrasts with
this mere natural state that which is spiritual, which
alone is pleasing to God, and which alone can see Him.
“The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit
* State of Man before the Fall, p. 115.
* 1 Cor. xv. 44, 45; ii, 14, 15, 1 Thess, v. 32.
I6O The Characteristics
of God ; for they are foolishmess unto him, neither can
he know them, because they are Spiritually discerned ;
but he that is spiritual discerneth all things.” In like
Imanner, after Saying there is a natural, he adds,
“there is a spiritual body;” and after Saying that Adam
in himself was but a living Soul, he adds, that Christ,
the beginning of the new creation, is “a quickening
Spirit.” In accordance with this distinction, in an-
other Epistle he prays for his disciples, that their
whole spirit, and Soul, and body, may be preserved
blameless.
Whatever else, then, Adam had by creation, this
seems to have been One main Supernatural gift, or rather
that in which all others were included, the presence of
God the Holy Ghost in him, exalting him into the family
and service of His Almighty Creator. This was his
clothing; this he lost by disobedience; this Christ has
regained for us. This then is the robe of righteousness
spoken of by Isaiah, to be bestowed in its fulness here-
after, bestowed partially at Once : less at present than
what Adam had in point of completeness, far greater in
its nature ; less in that he had neither decaying body
nor infected soul, far more precious in that it is the
indwelling and manifestation in our hearts of the
Incarnate Word. For what in truth is the gift even in
this our state of humiliation, but a grafting invisibly
into the Body of Christ ; a mysterious union with Him,
and a fellowship in all the grace and blessedness which
is hidden in Him? Thus it separates us from other
children of Adam, is our badge and distinction in the
presence of the unseen world, and is the earnest of
of the Gift of Æighteousness. 161
greater good in store. It is an angelic glory which
good spirits honour, which devils tremble at, and which
we are bound reverently to cherish, with a careful
abstinence from sin, and with the offering of good works.
Well then may Prophets and Apostles exult in it as the
great gift of Divine Mercy, as the rich garment of
Salvation, and the enjewelled robe of righteousness; as
linen clean and white, or, as it is elsewhere expressed,
as “Christ in us,” and “upon us,” and around us; as if it
were a light streaming from Our hearts, pervading the
whole man, enwrapping and hiding the lineaments and
members of our fallen nature, circling round us, and
returning inward to the centre from which it issues.
The Almighty Father, looking on us, sees not us, but
this Sacred Presence, even His dearly beloved Son
spiritually manifested in us; with His blood upon our
door-posts, in earnest of that final abolition of sin which
is at length to be accomplished in us. *
Such is the great gift of the Gospel conveyed to us
by the ministration of the Spirit, partly now, fully here-
after, and to it a number of passages in the New
Testament seem to refer. I shall now proceed to
consider it, under two chief designations which are
there given to it ; by attending to which we shall
conceive more worthily of our privilege, and gain a
deeper insight into the Sacred text ; I mean glory and
power. Both these titles are applied to the gift in the
following passages —
“It,” the human corpse, “is sown in dishonour, it is
raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in
M
I62 7%e Characteristics
power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual
body.”
St. Paul prays to God for his brethren, “that He
would grant you, according to the riches of His glory,
to be strengthened with power by His Spirit in the inner
man, that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith ; that
ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to
comprehend with all Saints what is the breadth and
length, and depth and height.”
“Made powerful with all power, according to the
might of His glory, unto all patience and long-suffering
with joy, giving thanks unto the Father, who hath made
us equal to sharing the inheritance of the Saints in
light.” -
“It is impossible for those who were once enlightened,
and have tasted of the Heavenly Gift, and were made
partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good
word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if
they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repent-
ance.”
3.
Let us then consider this great gift, first as it is glory,
then as it is power.
1. Besides the usual sense which the word glory bears
in Scripture in relation to our duties to Almighty God,
as when we are told to “do all to the glory of God,” it
has also, I need hardly say, in a number of places a
mysterious sense, denoting some attribute, property,
virtue, or presence of the Divine Nature manifested
* I Cor. xv. 43, 44; Eph. iii. 16; Col. i. 11, 12; Heb, vi. 4-6,
o/ the Gift of Zöghteousness. I63
visibly. Thus we read of the glory of the Lord appearing
over the Tabernacle, and entering into the Temple; and
in like manner of the glory of the Lord shining round
about the shepherds. Cases of this kind must occur to
every attentive reader of the Scriptures. In the places
just referred to it seems to mean a presence of God;
but sometimes it stands for His moral attributes. Moses
gained leave to see the skirts of His glory, and the
permission was conveyed in these words, “I will make
all My goodness pass before thee.” Accordingly, Almighty
God was proclaimed, as He passed by, as “the Lord,
the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering,
and abundant in goodness and truth.” -
Now as long as Scripture uses the word glory to de-
note the general awfulness attendant on the presence of
Almighty God, there is nothing to surprise us, for every
thing that attaches to Him is mysterious ; but it becomes
remarkable, when we find, as in other passages, the same
mysterious attribute, which belongs to Him, ascribed
to us.
In considering this point, it is obvious first to men-
tion our Saviour's words to His Almighty Father in His
prayer before His passion —“The glory which Thou
gavest Me, I have given them.””
What is this glory which has passed from Christ to
us? It is some high gift which admits of being trans-
ferred, as is evident. What it was in Christ, we see in
some degree by the following words of St. Paul —“Like
as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the
Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
* Exod. xxxiii. 18, 19 ; xxxiv. 6. John xvii. 22; xi, 40. Rom. vi. 4.
I64 The Characteristics
Whatever else it was, it appears hence that it was a pre-
sence or power which operated for the resurrection of
His body. In this connection it may be well to direct
attention to a passage which, otherwise, with our present
notions, we should explain (as we should think) more
naturally. Before Our Lord raises Lazarus, He says to
Martha, “Said I not unto thee, that if thou wouldest
believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?” What He
had said before to her was simply, that He was the
Besurrection and the Life.
And when granted to us, it is characterized by the
same operative power; St. Paul Speaks in a text already
cited of “the might of God's glory in us;” of our being
“strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man,
according to the riches of His glory.” And elsewhere of
“the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the Saints;”
and St. Peter of our being called “to glory and virtue;”
of the “Spirit of glory and of God resting on us;” and
St. Paul again of our being “changed from glory to
glory.” The gift then is habitual; both permanent and
increasing. Again : “Ye were Sometimes darkness, but
now are ye light in the Lord ; walk as children of light.”
“Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and
Christ shall give thee light.” “The God of this world
hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest
the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, who is the
image of God, should shine unto them.” To these may
be added a text, which we now understand differently,
“All have sinned, and come short of,” or are in need of
“the glory of God.”
* Eph. v. 8, 14. 2 Cor. iv. 4, Rom. iii. 23. Šg repoſvrat ris Šošns
of the Gift of Æighteousness. 165
Lastly, these mentions of glory are distinctly COIl-
nected with the gift of “righteousness.” St. Paul speaks
indifferently of the “ministration of the Spirit,” and “ of
the ministration of righteousness, exceeding in glory.”
Now, without knowing at all what “glory” means, all
these passages seem to show that it is a gift directly
proceeding from God's nature, and intimately united to
the Christian. Here then is additional evidence that an
endowment is bestowed upon us distinct from any moral
gift, or any mere external title or imputation; and that
this endowment thus distinguished is nothing else than
our righteousness.
4.
2. The same general conclusion will follow from con-
sidering the gift as power.
Properly speaking, the word “power,” denotes a
divine attribute or prerogative. As glory seems to
designate the inherent perfection of Almighty God from
eternity (as, for instance, when the Son is called “the
brightness of God’s glory”), so “power” is a character-
istic of that perfection as manifested in time. Creation
is the offspring of His power; again, He “upholds all
things by the word of His power.”
Next, it is used to denote the particular attribute
manifested in the Economy of Redemption and in the
Egent glorià Dei. Vulg—St. Cyprian makes the sense of the word
clearer by reading claritas for gloria, ad Quir. ii. 27. Also ris Ščms
&roatepff Töv yöp Tpogkekpovkörov et Ó 6é Tpookekpovkö’s of tdºv
60%aſopévay, &\\& Töv karmaxuppévov, Chrys, in loc. “That is, the
fruition of God in Glory:” Whitby in loc. Wid, also Bucer in loc.
* 2 Cor. iii. 8, 9.
I 66 7%e Characteristics
Berson of the Redeemer; for instance,—“The power of
the Highest” overshadowed the Blessed Virgin in order
to the Incarnation. “Jesus returned in the power of the
Spirit into Galilee.” Christ was “declared to be the Son
of God with power, according to the Spirit of Holiness,
by the resurrection from the dead.” St. Paul speaks of
“knowing Him and the power of His resurrection,”
“Jesus immediately perceived that virtue” or power (for
the word is the same in the original), “had gone out of
Him.” “There went power out of Him, and healed them
all.” “Mighty works do show forth themselves in Him,”
that is, “these virtues or powers do energize, act, live, or
work, in Him.”
Next, let it be observed that this virtue or power
was given by Him to His disciples, and then in our
Version the word is commonly translated miracle. It is
true, it does sometimes mean precisely the miraculous
act or work itself ; but it often means, not the work, but
as the word virtue implies, the faculty or gift of power
within the agent which effects the work. For instance :
“He gave them power and authority over all devils, and
to cure diseases.” “Ye shall receive the power of the
Holy Ghost coming upon you.” “My speech, and my
preaching, was not with enticing words of man's wisdom,
but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power.” In
like manner Simon Magus, when he bewitched the
Samaritans, was called by them “the great power” or
virtue “ of God.”
* Luke i. 35 ; iv. 14. Rom. i. 4. Phil. iii. 10. Mark v. 30.
Luke vi. 19. Mark vi. 14. .
* Luke ix. 1. Acts i. 8. 1 Cor. ii. 4. Acts viii. 10.
of the Gift of Æighteousness. 167
Further, the effects of this indwelling gift in the
Apostles are described as similar to those which our
Lord allowed to appear in Himself; I mean, it showed
itself as a virtue going out of them, so as to take away
all pretence of its being considered a mere act of the
power of God, external to themselves, accompanying
their word or deed, and not an effect through them and
from them. Thus of St. Paul it is said, that “God
wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul, so that
from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs
and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and
the evil spirits went out of them.” Again : “By the
hands of the Apostles were many signs and wonders
wrought among the people ; insomuch that they brought
forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds
and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing
by might overshadow some of them.” The instance
of the virtue of Elisha's bones in raising the dead is
another remarkable instance of the inward gift of the
Spirit, and anticipates Gospel times.
And, lastly, such in kind, though not miraculous
(in the common sense of the word), is the gift bestowed
upon the Christian Church and its members. The same
word being used, we may well believe that it is an in-
ward yet not a moral gift, but a Supernatural power or
divine virtue. Thus, for instance, Our Lord speaks of it
as being in the body or Church ; and says, on one occa-
sion, that there were some about Him, “who should not
taste of death, till they had seen the kingdom of God
come with power.” The Gospel is said to be “the power
1 Acts xix. 11, 12 ; v. 12-15.
I 68 7%e Characteristics
of God unto salvation ;” Christ, “unto the called, both
Jews and Greeks,” is “the power of God and wisdom of
God.” And so as regards the Apostles and Christians
generally. Thus we read of St. Paul's ministerial power
as a similar inward gift ; –“ whereof,” he says, that
is, of the Gospel, “I was made a minister, by the gift
of the grace of God, which was given to me by the
inward working of His power.” Again, he speaks of
his “striving according to His working, which worketh in
me mightily.” Again : “Most gladly therefore will I
rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ
may rest upon me.” Now this expression, “rest upon
me,” is in the original “rest upon me as in a tabernacle ;”
and is used elsewhere. For instance, in an earlier part
of this same Epistle, the word “tabernacle” has been
used for the mortal body. What, then, St. Paul rejoices
in, is that the power of Christ is upon his tabernacle or
body; and the weight of this privilege is intimated by
the adoption of the word in the Apocalypse, to describe
the characteristic of future glory, “He that sitteth on
the throne shall tabernacle over them.”
To the same purport are the following passages: “I
can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth
me,” that is, more literally, “I am every way strong in
the power-imparting Christ,” or “in Christ who worketh
power in me.” And it is observable, that this power is
said to be the same as wrought the Resurrection, or what
is elsewhere called glory; St. Paul, as I have said,
prays for the Ephesians, that “the eyes of their under-
1 1 Cor. i. 18-24. Eph. iii. 7. Col. i. 29.
* 2 Cor. xii. 9. Rev. vii. 15 ; xxi. 3.
of the Gift of Righteousness. 169
standing may be enlightened, that they may know what
is the hope of His calling, and what the riches of the
glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the
exceeding greatness of His power to us-ward who believe,
according to the inward working of the might of His
strength, which He wrought in Christ when He raised
Him from the dead.” He returns thanks and praises
“unto Him that is able to do exceeding abundantly
above all that we ask or think, according to the power
that worketh in us.” He desires for himself that he
“may know Him, and the power of His resurrection.”
He speaks of “the work of faith with power.” He bids
Timothy “be partaker of the afflictions of the Gospel
according to the power of God.” He declares that Christ
is made a priest “not after the law of a carnal command-
ment, but after the power of an endless life ;” His eternal
and spiritual existence becoming, through His Sacerdotal
intercession, an inward power to His followers, such as
could not be imparted by any mere earthly system.
Again, St. Peter speaks of Christians being “kept by the
power of God through faith unto salvation;” and of God
having given us, “according to His divine power,” “all
things that pertain unto life and godliness.”
Here then, as before, I conclude that an endowment
is vouchSafed to us, not simply moral, yet internal, so as
fitly to answer and corroborate the description I have
already given of “the gift of righteousness.”
* Eph. i. 18-20; iii. 20. Phil. iii. 10. 2 Thes. i. 11. 2 Tim, i.
8. Heb. vii. 16. 1 Pet. i. 5. 2 Pet. i. 3.
I7O 7%e Characteristics
5.
Since, then, the gift of righteousness is a supernatural
presence in our moral nature, distinct from it, yet dwell-
ing in it and changing it, it is not wonderful that the
change itself should sometimes be spoken of in Scripture
as the gift or as included in the gift. Thus, for instance,
the garment of Salvation put on us, is such as to cleave
to us, and to tend to become part of us; what was at
first a covering merely, becomes our very flesh. The glory
of the Divine Nature, of which St. Peter says we are
partakers, first hides our deformity, then removes it.
Again : Our Saviour asked the brother Apostles,
whether they were able to drink of His cup, and to be
baptized in His baptism? Can a draught be separated
from the drinking it, or a bath from being bathed in it
In like manner the gift of righteousness, which is our
justification as given, is our renewal as received.
Or again : the seal, mould, or stamp, with which our
souls are marked as God’s coin impresses His image upon
them. He claims them as His own redeemed property,
that is, by the signature of holiness: He justifies us by
renewing. How natural this continuance is of the one
idea into the other, is shown in the literal sense of the
words which I am using figuratively. The word mark
stands both for the instrument marking, and the figure
which it makes. So again, the word copy sometimes
stands for the pattern, sometimes for the imitation. In
like manner, image Sometimes means the original, some-
times the duplicate or representation. Thus, in one text,
man is said to be formed “after the image of God;” in
of the Gift of Æighteousness. I 71
another he is said to be “the image of Christ.” And in
like manner, though the inward law commonly stands for
the new creature, yet it may be said to justify, as stand-
ing also for that Archetype of which the new creature is
the copy. And again, we may be said to be “saved”
by the “ingrafted Word,” that is, the Word which is
ingrafted, but which for all that does not cease to be what
it was when first imparted, the presence of Christ.
The following passage in the Book of Wisdom well
illustrates, in the case of the attribute from which it takes
its name, what I would enforce,—the indivisible union
between the justifying gift of the Divine Presence and
the inherent Sanctity which is its token.
“All men,” says the writer, “have one entrance into
life, and the like going out. Wherefore I prayed, and
understanding was given me; I called upon God, and the
spirit of wisdom came to me. I loved her above health
and beauty, and chose to have her instead of light; for
the light that cometh from her never goeth out. All
good things together came to me with her, and innumer-
able riches in her hands. I learned diligently and do
communicate her liberally; I do not hide her riches; for
she is a treasure unto men that never faileth, which they
that use become the friends of God, being commended for
the gifts that come from learning.”
Now, if this were all that were said on the Subject,
unbecoming complaints would be uttered in some schools
of religion, that in this passage an internal gift, called
wisdom by the writer, was considered to make us “friends
* Perhaps there is some difference in the sense of these two phrases.
Wid. Petav. Dogm. de Opific. ii. 2. * Wisdom vii. 6-14.
172 7%e Characteristics
of God,” or to justify; and a tendency to Pelagianism
would be freely imputed, and an ignorance that justifi-
cation was God’s act, in spite of the strong expression
which occurs of the spirit of wisdom coming to the writer,
which surely implies a Divine Agent, not an implanted
excellence, and in spite of our Lord's plain declaration,
that we are His friends if we do what He commands us.
However, as the description proceeds, it will be found
that the Wisdom spoken of is no created gift, no inward
renewal, but none other than the Eternal Word Himself,
who afterwards took flesh, in order thus supernaturally
to be imparted; and who was announced beforehand
by holy men in terms which inspired Apostles in due
time adopted. The sacred writer, then (for so surely
he may well be called, considering what he says), pro-
ceeds as follows:– “In Her” [Wisdom] “is an under-
standing spirit, holy, only-begotten, manifold, subtle,
lively, clear, undefiled, plain, incorruptible, a lover of
good, keen, free to act, beneficent, kind to man, stedfast,
sure, free from care, all-powerful, all-surveying, and
pervading all intellectual, pure, and subtle spirits. For
Wisdom is more moving than any motion; She passeth
and goeth through all things because of her pureness.
IFor she is the Breath of the power of God, and a pure
Effluence from the glory of the Almighty; therefore can
no defiled thing fall into her. For she is the Brightness
of the Everlasting Light, the unspotted Mirror of the power
of God, and the Image of His goodness. And being but
One, She can do all things; and remaining in herself,
She maketh all things new ; and in all ages entering into
of the Gift of Æighteousness. I 73
2) I
holy Souls She maketh them friends of God and prophets.
Here then, while wisdom is said to be our justification, no
clear distinction is made between the created wisdom and
the Increate. -
6.
One more illustration shall be adduced ; justification
is the setting up of the Cross within us. That Cross,
planted by Almighty Hands, is our safeguard from all
evil; dropping grace and diffusing heavenly virtue all
around, and hallowing the spot where before there was
but strife and death. It is our charm against number-
less dangers ghostly and bodily ; it is our refuge against
our accusing and seducing foe, Our protection from the
terror by night and the arrow by day, and our passport
into the Church invisible. But how does this Cross
become ours? I repeat, by being given ; and what is
this giving, in other words, but our being marked with
it 3 Let us see what this implies. We know that in
Baptism a cross is literally marked on the forehead.
Now suppose (to explain what I mean) we were ordered
to mark the cross, not with the finger, but with a sharp
instrument. Then it would be a rite of blood. In such
a case justification and pain would undeniably go to-
gether; they would be inseparable. You might separate
them in idea, but in fact they would ever be one. One
act would convey both the one and the other. If the
invisible presence of the justifying Cross were conveyed
to you in marking it visibly, you could not receive the
justification without the pain. Justification would
involve pain. Now it is in this way that justification
1 Wisdom vii. 22-27.
I 74 Z%e Characteristics
actually does involve a spiritual circumcision, a crucifixion
of the flesh, or sanctification. The entrance of Christ's 4.
Sacred presence into the soul, which becomes our right-
eousness in God's sight, at the same time becomes right-
eousness in it. It make us travail and be in pangs with
righteousness, and work with fear and trembling. Such
is the account given of it by the son of Sirach ; who
uses the same image of Wisdom already referred to —“If
a man,” he says, “ commit himself to Her, he shall inherit
Her, and his generation shall hold Her in possession.
For at the first She will walk with him by crooked ways
and bring fear and dread upon him, and torment him
with her discipline, till She may trust his soul and try
him by her laws.”
It is very necessary to insist upon this, for a reason
which has come before us in other shapes already. It
is the fashion of the day to sever these two from one
another, which God has joined, the Seal and the impres-
sion, justification and renewal. You hear men speak of
glorying in the Cross of Christ, who are utter strangers
to the notion of the Cross as actually applied to them in
water and blood, in holiness and mortification. They
think the Cross can be theirs without being applied,—
without its coming near them,--while they keep at a
distance from it, and only gaze at it. They think indi-
viduals are justified immediately by the great Atonement,
—justified by Christ's death, and not, as St. Paul says,
by means of His Resurrection,-justified by what they
consider looking at His death. Because the Brazen
Serpent in the wilderness healed by being looked at,
- * Ecclus. iv. 16, 17.
of the Gift of Righteousness. I 75
they consider that Christ's Sacrifice saves by the mind's
contemplating it. This is what they call casting them-
Selves upon Christ,-coming before Him simply and
without self-trust, and being saved by faith. Surely we
ought so to come to Christ ; surely we must believe ;
Surely we must look; but the question is, in what form
and manner He gives Himself to us; and it will be found
that, when He enters into us, glorious as He is Himself,
pain and self-denial are His attendants. Gazing on the
Brazen Serpent did not heal; but God’s invisible com-
munication of the gift of health to those who gazed. So
also justification is wholly the work of God; it comes
from God to us; it is a power exerted on Our Souls by
Him, as the healing of the Israelites was a power exerted
on their bodies. The gift must be brought near to us;
it is not like the Brazen Serpent, a mere external,
material, local sign ; it is a spiritual gift, and, as being
such, admits of being applied to us individually.
Christ's Cross does not justify by being looked at, but by
being applied ; not by as merely beheld by faith, but by
being actually set up within us, and that not by our act,
but by God's invisible grace. Men sit, and gaze, and
Speak of the great Atonement, and think this is appro-
priating it ; not more truly than kneeling to the material
CrOSS itself is appropriating it. Men say that faith is an
apprehending and applying ; faith cannot really apply
the Atonement ; man cannot make the Saviour of the
world his own ; the Cross must be brought home to us,
not in word, but in power, and this is the work of the
Spirit. This is justification; but when imparted to the
Soul, it draws blood, it heals, it purifies, it glorifies.
I 76 Z%e Characteristics
7.
With one or two passages from St. Paul in behalf of
what I have been saying, I will bring this Lecture to an
end. We shall find from the Apostle that the gift of the
Justifying Cross as certainly involves an inward cruci-
fixion as a brand OT stamp causes sharp pain, or the cure
of a bodily ailment consists in a severe operation.
For instance, writing to the Galatians, he says, “God
forbid that I should glory save in the Cross of Our Lord
Jesus Christ ; **—what Cross 2 He goes on to tell us;
—“by whom,” or, rather, by which “the world is cruci-
fied unto me, and I unto the world,”—that is, the Cross
on Calvary, issuing and completed in its reflection on
his own soul. An inward crucifixion was the attendant
process of justification. This passage is the more remark-
able, because St. Paul is alluding to certain bodily wounds
and sufferings, as being actually the mode, in his case,
in which the Cross had been applied. He says to his
converts, “The Jews compel you to be circumcised,
but we Christians glory in another kind of circumcision,
painful indeed, but more profitable. Our circumcision
consists in the marks, the brands, of the Lord Jesus;
which effect for us what circumcision can but typify,
which interest us in His life while interesting us in His
passion.” The saving Cross crucifies us in Saving.
Again : in a previous passage, “A man is not
justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of
Christ.” “ Do we conceive this to be a light and pleasant
doctrine, and justification to be given without pain and
discomfort on Our part 2 so freely given as to be given
* Gal. vi. 14, * Gal. ii. 16, 20,
of the Gift of Righteousness. I 77
easily,–so fully as to be lavishly 7 fully and freely doubt-
less, yet conferring fully what man does not take freely.
He proceeds;–“I am crucifted with Christ, nevertheless
I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.” O easy and
indulgent doctrine, to have the bloody Cross reared with-
in us, and our heart transfixed, and our arms stretched
out upon it, and the sin of our nature slaughtered and
Cast out !
Again ; in the same Epistle, “They that are Christ's
have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.”"
It is remarkable that these three passages are from that
Epistle in which the Apostle peculiarly insists on justi-
fication being through faith, not through the Law. It is
plain he never thought of mere faith as the direct and
absolute instrument of it. It should be observed how
coincident this doctrine is with our Saviour's command
to His disciples to “take up their Cross and follow Him.”
Our crosses are the lengthened shadow of the Cross on
Calvary.
To the same purport are the following texts —“We
are buried with Him by baptism into death . . . . our old
man is crucified with Him.”—“Put ye on the Lord Jesus
Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the
lusts thereof.”—“Always bearing about in the body the
dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might
be made manifest in our body; for we which live are
alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life
also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal
flesh.” ” i
As then the Cross, in which St. Paul gloried, was not
* Gal. v. 24. * Rom. vi. 4, 6 ; xiii. 14. 2 Cor. iv. 10, 11.
N
178 7%e Characteristics, &c.
the material cross on which Christ suffered,—so neither
is it simply the Sacrifice on the cross, but it is that Sacri-
fice coming in power to him who has faith in it, and con-
verting body and soul into a sacrifice. It is the Cross,
realized, present, living in him, Sealing him, separating
him from the world, sanctifying him, afflicting him. Thus
the great Apostle clasped it to his heart, though it pierced
it through like a sword ; held it fast in his hands, though
it cut them ; reared it aloft, preached it, exulted in it.
And thus we in our turn.are allowed to hold it, com-
memorating and renewing individually, by the ministry
of the Holy Ghost, the death and resurrection of our
Lord.
But enough has been said on the matter in hand.
On the whole, then, I conclude as follows: that though
the Gift which justifies us is, as we have seen, a some-
thing distinct from us and lodged in us, yet it involves
in its idea its own work in us, and (as it were) takes up
into itself that renovation of the soul, those holy deeds
and sufferings, which are as if a radiance streaming
from it.
LECTURE VIII.
RIGHTEOUSNESS WIEWED AS A GIFT AND AS
A QUALITY. o
NOW propose to contrast the view of justification
which has been drawn out in the last Lectures with
that to which certain writers of the Roman School
consider themselves committed by the wording of the
Tridentine Decree, into which also some of our writers
have virtually fallen, and which, moreover, is unfairly
imputed to many of our standard divines. As to the Pro-
testant doctrine, on the other hand, which was a third in
the discussion, I cannot go more deeply into what seems
to me a system of words without ideas, and of distinc-
tions without arguments. If I am told, in reply, that such
a view of it arises from Want of spiritual perception,--
those who are blind to heavenly objects not understanding
heavenly words,--I answer, that, though undoubtedly
divine words express divine things, and divine things
are hidden from all but divinely enlightened minds, yet
this does not tell against a man for stumbling at words
which are not divine. Luther's words are his own,
reasoned out from Scripture, which every one of us has
equal right to do. If I receive the doctrine of the
Church Catholic as divine, it is as guaranteed by many
concordant witnesses, which converge to one place and
I8O A’ighteousness viewed
one time, the day of Pentecost, when the Apostles were
with one accord assembled in one place." And if I bow
to Some individual teacher, as Irenaeus or Augustine, it is
not from a notion of his infallibility, but on the grounds
of his representing the whole Church, or from a sense
of the authority of men of holy and mortified lives in
questions of religion. But what binds me to yield a
submission to the sixteenth century, which I withhold
even from the second 2 why must I measure spiritual
discernment in myself and others, by our apprehension,
not of Scripture, but of comparatively modern treatises,
and accept terms and distinctions which, over and above
their human Origin, have no internal consistence,—no
external proof-no part or lot in Antiquity; which, in
short, have but a praiseworthy object for their excuse,
the overthrow, as they think, of Roman error? Surely
the reverse of wrong is not right; yet this doctrine
mainly rests its pretensions upon the errors of a rival
doctrine, assumes itself true because it is serviceable,
proves itself Scriptural by proving Romanism unscrip-
tural, flatters itself that it has a meaning viewed out of
* “Nay, moreover, I shall persuade myself, that from this one in-
stance (among many) you will learn from henceforth the modesty of
submitting your judgment to that of the Catholic doctors, when they
are found generally to concur in the interpretation of a text of Scrip-
ture, how absurd soever that interpretation may at first appearance Seem
to be ; for upon a diligent search you will find, that ‘aliquid latet, quod
non patet, there is a mystery in the bottom ; and that what at the
first view seemed even ridiculous, will afterwards appear to be a most
important truth. Let them, therefore, who reading the Fathers are
prone to laugh at that in them which they do not presently understand,
seriously consider, ‘quanto Suo periculo id faciant.”—Bull, State of
Man before the Fall, p. 99.
(ZS (?, Gift and as a Qua/ºy. I 8 I
Romanism, and thinks to live and flourish though
Romanism came to an end.
On these grounds, as regards the three doctrines above
drawn out, of the righteousness of Christ imputed
only, imparted only, and both imputed and imparted by
His real indwelling, I omit the first in the comparison
between them, which now naturally follows, as being
partly negative, partly extravagant. It is a negative
statement to say that justification is not by works ; it
is extravagant to say that it is by faith as the primary
and sole instrument. Whether a disputant says nothing
positive or nothing literal,” in neither case is there room
for discussion, which claims to touch and handle, to sift,
to weigh, to adjust, to distribute. There is nothing pre-
cise, nothing to grapple with, when we are told, for
instance, that faith justifies independent of its being a
right and good principle—that it justifies as an instru-
ment not as a condition,--that love is its inseparable
accident, yet not its external criterion,--that good works
are necessary, but not to be called so in controversy or
popular preaching;” and that nothing in us constitutes
* Melanchthon, the most judicious defender of the chief doctrine of
Protestantism, justification by the apprehensive power of faith, whom
our Church follows, makes that doctrine intelligible and true by admit-
ting that it is not to be taken literally, but as a mode of symbolizing a
protest against the doctrine of human merit. The Confession of Augs-
burgh (Ed. 1538), which is his composition, says, “Jam bonas mentes
nihil offendat novitas Paulinae figurce, “Fide justificamur,’ si intelli-
gant proprie de misericordia dici;” on which Bull observes, Exipsorum
doctrina liquido liquet . . . figurata quidem sed. Inon incommoda
locutione dici posse, nos Sola fide justificari.-Harm. Apost. ii. 18, § 6.
* Dav. de Just. Habit. 31, who observes also, Multi qui recipiunt
hanc propositionem, “Bona opera sunt fidelibus necessaria,” rejiciunt
I 82 Zeighteousness viewed
our being justified. Such a doctrine is, what it makes
justification to be, a shadow.
2.
I proceed, then, to suggest some points of contrast
between the two other views of justification mentioned,
the doctrine of the justifying Presence, which I have
been maintaining, and that of justifying obedience, as
found among ourselves; for there certainly has been a -
school of divines in our Church, who by a very different
road have practically approached the doctrine of Rome
on this subject. What Roman writers have brought
about by insisting exclusively on the effects of grace,”
many among Ourselves have done by disparaging its
Sacramental means. The former raise man to the
capacity, the latter have reduced him to the necessity,
of being justified by his obedience and nothing else. By
the latter divines I mean the Arminians who rose in
Charles the First's time, and have exercised an
extensive influence in our Church since 1688. Those
who conceive duly of the gift of justification, exalt the
sacramental instruments of possessing it, as feeling that
nothing short of means ordained of God can convey
what is so much above them. Thus their glowing
language about the Sacraments is but the measure of
their estimation of their spiritual privileges. And if
they go on to say that obedience justifies, it never
occurs to them to suppose that they can be taken to be
et damnant eandem, si hoc additamentum apponatur “Sunt necessaria
ad justificationem,” vel “sunt necessaria ad Salutem,” . . . E contra
reperirenture Protestantibus nonnulli, qui haud verentur concedere,
bona opera esse ad Salutem necessaria.
as a Gift and as a Quality. I83
speaking of anything but the State of Soul in which the
heavenly gift resides, and by which it is retained, not
that which really causes, or procures, or purchases it."
Thus the high doctrine of the Sacraments held by Rome
is a safeguard against any such defective or incomplete
view of justification as is sanctioned by certain of her
writers. But they who see nothing supernatural and
mysterious in the Gift, though in words they refer it to
the Sacraments, will practically associate it with that
which they do see, and which seems to them naturally
connected with it, viz., their own obedience. Not
believing in any true sense that they are temples of the
Holy Ghost, inhabited by Christ, and members of His
Body, they consider their justification properly to
consist in works, because they do not discern, they do
not believe in, anything else, in which it can consist.
Justification by obedience, then, is their distinguishing
tenet ; doubtless it is also the doctrine of the English
Church, as it is of St. James; yet not only it, but much
more besides. To put a parallel case, one man might
Say that our bodily life consisted in organization, or in
a certain state of the nerves, or in the circulation of the
blood ; and another might ascribe it to the presence of
the Soul. The latter doctrine is the former and some-
thing besides; but the former by itself is defective. He
* Davenant grants as much as this —“Bona opera justificatorum
Sunt ad salutem necessaria, necessitate ordinis non causalitatis, vel
planius, ut via Ordºnata ad vitam deternam, non ut causae meritoriae vitae
aeternaº.” He also freely grants that they are “media seu conditiones
sine quibus Deus non Vult justificationis gratiam in hominibus conser-
ware.”—c. 31. That is, we are saved neither by faith, nor by works,
but as Walking in the way both of faith and of works.
I84 A’ighteousness viewed
who holds the former is not wrong, but he who holds
only the former. Religious men may ascribe life to the
heart, and thought to the brain ; but those who say
these are the only constituting causes of life and
thought are materialists. In like manner St. Austin
and others who, though they place justification in
renewal, refer renewal to the indwelling presence of
the Holy Ghost, are not to be compared with those who
enlarge on what is seen, and explain away the mystery.
This analogy holds in many other points; but I confine
it to what is before us. I say, then, justification by
obedience is anyhow true ; it is sound doctrine, if we
hold another doctrine too; it is incomplete, if we omit
that other doctrine ; it becomes erroneous, if we deny it.
When it is held exclusively among ourselves, it
often takes the following shape : that God accepts our
sincere obedience, as if it were perfect ; or that God will
save us if we do our part ; or that God has done His
part in Baptism, and now we must do ours. Such state-
ments are most true and Scriptural, if they are not
meant to deny (what may be called) our Sacramental
life, the fount of grace which Holy Baptism has stored
within us, and the awful realities of Holy Communion,
those invisible facts (as I may call them) in which we
stand, in which we breathe, on which we feed. For if
our Life be verily and indeed hid with Christ in God, it
follows, that, though we are bound to do our part and
work with Him, such co-operation is the condition, not
of our acceptance, or pardon, but of the continuance of
that sacred Presence which is our true righteousness, as
an immediate origin of it. I believe this distinction is no
as a Gift and as a Qua/2.Éy. I85
matter of words, but real and practical, as a few remarks
will show.
3.
Now, when you teach as follows, that Christ's Atom-
ing Death, eighteen hundred years since, and Our Own
personal Baptism in our infancy, so changed our state
in God's sight once for all, that henceforth Salvation
depends on ourselves, on our doing our part in the
Covenant, that those gracious events put us indeed on
a new footing, wiped out what was passed, set us off fair,
and are still operative as gaining for us heaven, if obe-
dient, and present aids if believing, but that faith and
obedience are the conditions of grace and glory, true
as all this is to the letter, yet if nothing more is added,
we shall seem, in spite of whatever we say concerning
the Atonement and the influences of the Holy Ghost if
duly sought, to be resting a man's Salvation on himself,
and to be making him the centre of the whole religious
system.* All has been done for him ages ago, or when
* “God is pleased to grant remission of all past sins, for the sake of
His Blessed Son, on account of faith only ; but He requires from those
whom He thus graciously receives into His favour, an implicit obedi-
ence to His commands in future ; if they disobey, their pardon is cam-
celled, the State of acceptance forfeited, and liability to punishment
ensues.”—p. 124. . . . “If he really performed these conditions, he
continued in a state of justification, and if he persevered to the end of
his life, his Salvation was secured. But if he did not perform these
conditions,” etc.—p. 134. The continuance of justification “depends
upon their abstinence from those sins which are forbidden, and upon
the practice of those virtues which are enjoined in the Gospel. By the
indulgence of any criminal passion, or by the neglect of any practicable
duty, the state of justification is forfeited.”—p. 142, —Tomline on
Calvinism. It is not imsinuated that the author is at all wanting in
I86 A’zghteozºsness viewed
he was an infant ; and all that has been done, seems as
though a condition of his existing at all, as benefits on
which he cannot be said to repose his mind, because
they are presupposed in his being himself, which do not
come to him from without, nor admit of being viewed
by him objectively. I would not say that this doctrine
will so affect men of high religious attainments ; but
that, viewed as the multitude will view it, it does not
come up to the idea of the Gospel Creed as contained in
Scripture, does not fix our thoughts on Christ in that
full and direct way of which Scripture sets the pattern,
as being not only the Author of Salvation to the whole
race, but the Saviour of each of us individually through
every stage of our Christian course, and in every act of
our lives. This seems to be the real meaning of the
popular saying, that “Christ ought to be preached,” and
of the anxiety felt by a portion of the community to
maintain the Supremacy and all-sufficiency of His right-
6OUISIOléSS.
Hence the charge against Romanism, not unfounded
as regards its popular teaching," that it views the influ-
ences of grace, not as the operations of a living God, but
as a something to bargain about, and buy, and traffic with,
explicit statements concerning the influence of divine grace, nor that
what he says is not true, (e.g. Jerome thus speaks in Jovinian. ii. 32.
fin.), but the prominence he gives to this view of justification makes
the doctrine what would popularly be called cold : approximates it,
theologically speaking, to the whica formalis causa of the Council of
Trent ; and, when analyzed, will be found to arise from a neglect of the
doctrine of the Real Présence.
* [It requires a considerable acquaintance with the working of the
Catholic system to have a right thus to speak of it.]
as a Gºſz and as a Qata/7/y. 187
as if religion were, not an approach to Things above us,
but a commerce with our equals concerning things we
can master." And this is the cause of the suspicions
entertained in many quarters against those who in any
sense teach that obedience justifies, as if it implied we
had something in ourselves to rely upon ; whereas, if
the Presence of Christ is our true righteousness, first
Conveyed into us in Baptism, then more Sacredly and
mysteriously in the Eucharist, we have really no in-
herent righteousness at all. What seems to be inherent,
may be more properly called adherent, depending, as it
does, wholly and absolutely upon the Divine Indwelling,
not ours to keep, but as heat in a sickly person, sus-
tained by a cause distinct from himself. If the Presence
of Christ were to leave us, our renovation would go with
1 46 Disdaining to be anticipated by God Himself, [the soul of man]
prevents Him in His supernatural gifts by a previous display of her
own meritorious deeds, challenging, as a congruous right, that which
only could have been otherwise conferred as a favour undeserved.
Approaching the throne of mercy, not with a conscious sense of frailty,
but with a confident persuasion of her inherent dignity, she wrests from
a somnivolent Deity, hitherto but a slumbering spectator of her efforts,
an ornamental grace, enabling her to merit that reward by condignity,
which, without any defect of virtue, but merely by the appointed orden
of things, she is incapable of meriting by congruity.”—Laurence, Bampt
Lect. 4, quoting in the notes the following striking passage of Luther
“Quisque Monachus hanc habet imaginationem: “Ego per observantiam
Sanctæ Regulae possum mereri gratiam de congruo ; operibus autem,
quae post acceptam gratiam facio, tantum meritum accumulare possum,
ut non tantum mihi sufficiat pro consequenda vita aeterna, Sed etiam
hoc aliis communicare et vendere possim.’” [Luther's language is
vigorous, though slanderous; but did any one ever come across so
elaborate a specimen of pretentious writing, as is this passage of the
Bampton Lecturer's J
I88 A’ighteousness viewed
it ; and to say we are justified by renovation, only means
that we are interested in Him from whom it flows, that
we dwell beneath the overshadowing Power of Him who
is our Justifier.
And further, it is not nearly so consoling yet awful
a doctrine to say, that we have had mercy and shall have
reward, and are at present in Some measure in a middle
state, expected to move and promised grace upon moving,
as to know, which I conceive is the full truth of the
Gospel, that that perfection, which is as yet but begun
in our own nature, is anticipated, pledged, and in One
sense realized within us by a present gift, and that the
centre on which our thoughts must be fixed, and the
foundation from which our exertions must proceed, is not
ourselves, but His Presence, in whom “We live, and
move, and have our being.” And though it is most
necessary to exhibit to men the severer side of the
Gospel, and to dwell on their duties, and responsibilities,
and the conditions on which grace is given, yet this is
but one side ; and when it is exclusively presented to
Christians, as it is in the School of divinity in question,
a complaint will not unfairly arise against it as cold
and narrow, and unlike what it is popular to call “the
freeness and fulness” of the Gospel.
4.
And here I am reminded of another objection which
may be urged against this Same school of theology, viz.
that it disparages certain doctrines which are very pro-
minent in Scripture, those of predestination and election.
The Gospel is a free gift ; it comes to the unworthy, to
as a Gºſz and as a Qua/úy. 189
those who have done nothing to earn it, who can do
nothing right towards God before He shows mercy to-
wards them. That spontaneous mercy is abundantly
taught in the doctrine of the Atonement itself and the
Ordinance of Baptism ; but, these being, as I said just
now, past events in our own case, and as if conditions
of Our existence rather than objects presented to us, the
Covenant of God’s unsearchable grace becomes one of
man's free election ; and man has rather to choose
Heaven than Heaven man. The great mercies of God
are done and over ; and we have now to act, if we would
receive additional benefits. Thus, in this view of the
Gospel, there is a tendency, which in our Church has
been realized, to put out of sight the doctrines of election
and Sovereign grace ; a circumstance which by itself
would separate it, in spite of partial resemblance, from
the teaching of St. Austin, who is known to have laid an
unprecedented stress on those doctrines, and to have
given them a new direction.
Moreover, it is no slight evil in the mode of teaching
here censured, that by withdrawing a portion of truth,
countenance is given to those false Protestant views now
so popular among us. Truth always avenges itself; and
if kept in bondage, it breaks forth irregularly, burying
itself with the strong man in the overthrow of its oppres-
Sors. And So if our Church has at any time forgotten the
Living Presence conveyed in the Sacraments, an opening
has been at Once made for the meagre and artificial
doctrine of a nominal righteousness. So many passages
are there which speak of the Atonement as still living
in Christians, that if we will not enforce them literally,
I90 A”ghteousness viewed
we must be content to hear them explained away into
a mere imputation of it in God's dealings with us, or
into a contemplation of it by our faith.
I say, the view of justification taken by a school of
divines in the Roman Church" and among ourselves,
tends to fix the mind on self, not on Christ, whereas that
which I have advocated as Scriptural and Catholic,
buries self in the absorbing vision of a present, an indwell-
ing God. And as So doing, it is a more awakening and
fearful doctrine even, than that mode of teaching which
insists mainly and directly on Our responsibilities and
duties. For to what does it point as the great and
immediate condition of justification ? to faith and holi-
mess of our own 2 or, on the other hand, to the mere title
of righteousness, which cannot be literally approached
or profaned by us? no-but to the glorious Shekinah of
the Word Incarnate, as to the true wedding garment in
which the soul must be dressed. Does not such a view
far increase, instead of diminishing, our responsibilities 7
does it not make us more watchful and more obedient,
while it comforts and elevates us '' Surely it takes our
minds off ourselves, in order to fill us with triumph, awe,
and godly fear at what our state is, and what we hold
* [This school is elsewhere called in these Lectures ultra-Roman or
extreme Romanist. Such Catholic divines as Caietan, Vasquez, and
Bellarmine were intended by this title, who, by making justification
consist in the habit of charity, or again in good works, not in sanctify-
ing grace as an initial and distinct gift from above, seemed to the
writer to fix the mind, equally with Anglican Arminians, not on a
Divine inward Presence vouchsafed to it, but on something of its own,
as a ground to rest upon and take Satisfaction in. Of course, such a
judgment seems to him now unreal and arbitrary.]
as a Gift and as a Quality. I9 I
within us. When are we the more likely to dread
sinning, when we know merely we ought to dread it, or
when we see the exceeding peril of it? When are we
the more likely to keep awake and be sober, when we
have a present treasure now to lose, or a distant reward
to gain Is it not more dreadful, when evil thoughts
assail us, more encouraging and ennobling in affliction,
more kindling in danger and hardship, to reflect (if the
words may be said) that we bear God within us, as the
Martyr Ignatius expresses it, that He is grieved by us
or suffers with us, according as we carry or renounce
His Cross-I say, has not this thought more of per-
suasiveness in it to do and suffer for Him than the views
of doctrine which have spread among us? is it not more
constraining than that which considers that the Gospel
comes to us in name not in power; deeper, and more
sacred than a second, which makes its heavenly grace a
matter of purchase and trade ; more glowing than a
third, which depresses it almost to the chill temperature
of natural religion?
5.
Such are some of the doctrinal respects in which
what I consider the Scriptural view of justification
recommends itself to the Christian mind. It is open
however at first sight to one objection, which some
persons may think not inconsiderable ; but which I
believe, when examined, will be found rather to be an
additional argument in its favour. To this I shall now
direct attention.
It may be said then that the doctrine of righteousness
I92 A”ghteousness viewed
as consisting in the Indwelling of Christ in the soul
labours under this difficulty, that, supposing it true, the
word “justification” has different senses in the Old and
New Testament. If under the Gospel it consists in the
inward Presence of the Incarnate Word, therefore, this
gift being peculiar to the Gospel, Abraham (for instance)
who was justified, was justified in some other way;
whereas St. Paul certainly does liken the one justification
to the other, as if, whatever the word meant in the Old
Testament, such it meant in the New. For instance, it is
said that faith “was imputed to Abraham for righteous-
ness ; now it was not written for his sake alone that it
was imputed to him, but for us also, to whom it shall be
imputed.” Here, it may be objected, that faith is said to
justify us as it justified Abraham ; which it is supposed
to do both in the Roman system and in the Protestant,
but not in that which has been here explained. Whether
faith be taken as a mere instrument, as the Lutherans
say, or for a sanctifying element with divine love for its
life as the Romanists, in either case righteousness means
a state of divine acceptance ; whereas (it may be ob-
jected), if it consists under the Gospel in being a temple
of Christ, this could not be Abraham's state, who lived
before the Son became the Christ; and then the question
arises, What did Abraham's justification consist in, and
why is it compared to ours?
As far as this objection relates to an interpretation of
Scripture, I do not consider it requires much notice ;
since all that St. Paul says is that righteousness or
acceptableness is imputed to Abraham and us on faith,
which I take as literally as Romanist or Lutheran ; the
as a Gift and as a Quality. I93
distinction between Abraham and us relating to a further
point, viz. what this righteousness is under the Gospel;
or in what way this acceptableness is conveyed, whether
by a mere act of God's will or by a positive gift on His
part? There is nothing contrary to St. Paul’s argument
in supposing that that same blessing which was conveyed
before Christ came in one way, should under the Gospel
come to us in another and more precious way. For in-
stance, animal life belongs to men and to brutes ; but,
whatever be the mode of its existence in the case of the
latter, in the former it lies in the special gift of a rational
soul. However, let us consider the state of the case
more attentively.
Now this circumstance, which at first sight seems a
difficulty, that the attribute of righteousness, however
conveyed to the Old Saints, should since Christ's coming
be the attendant on a divine gift, even His own sacred
Presence, will in truth be found, as I have said, an argu-
ment in favour of the doctrine. For such a transforma-
tion of shadows into substances, and human acts into
divine endowments, far from being anomalous, is the very
rule of the New Covenant. Christ came for this very
purpose, to gather together in One all the elements of
good dispersed throughout the world, to make them. His
own, to illuminate them with Himself, to reform and
refashion them into Himself. He came to make a new
and better beginning of all things than Adam had been,
and to be a fountain-head from which all good henceforth
might flow. Hence it is said that “in the dispensation
of the fulness of times” Almighty God “gathered
together in one all things in Christ, both which are in
O
I94. A”ghteousness viewed
heaven, and which are on earth.” ". How He became a
new commencement to things in heaven, we know not ;
nor know we adequately in what way He recapitulated
or Ordered anew things on earth. But this we know, that,
the world being under the dominion of Satan, and truth
and goodness in it being but as gems in the mine, or
rather as metal in the ore, He came to elicit, to disengage,
to combine, to purify, to perfect. And, further than this,
He came to new-create,_to begin a new line, and con-
struct a new kingdom on the earth: that what had as
yet lain in sin, might become what it was at the first, and
more than that. In His incomprehensible mercy He
designed that man, instead of being a child of wrath,
should be quickened and impregnated with Divine Life ;
and Sooner than this should not be, (as the Creed says)
He was made man. He took on Him our nature, that
in God that nature might revive and be restored; that
it might be new born, and, after being perfected on the
Cross, might impart that which itself was, as an incor-
ruptible seed, for the life of all who receive it in faith,
till the end of time. Hence He is called in Scripture the
Beginning of the Creation of God, the First-begotten of
the dead, the First-fruits of the Resurrection.
6.
If this be so, we see how wide and essential a
difference there is, there must be, in this life, between
good men before His coming and good men after.
Whatever they were, however high in God’s favour,
however influenced by God’s secret aids, they could not,
* Ephes. i. 10.
(ZS (2. Gift and as a Qua/2.Éy. I 95
while here below, be partakers of that which as yet did
not exist; the Body and Blood of the Incarnate Son.
God had His favoured servants them as afterwards, and
had His own inscrutable ways both of blessing them at
the time, and of incorporating them afterwards into His
Christ. But taking a general view of human nature, and
not dwelling on exceptions, we may say that its highest
piety and devotion, out of Him, though the fruit (as it
Surely is) of divine assistance, is but the poor effort
after that righteousness which it never can really reach,
and which He is. Its services at best are but an
imitation, not a likeness, of Him. They do not tend to
that perfection which they testify; like the moonlight
which never rivals, though it comes from the radiance
of the Sun. They may be shadows and auguries of God’s
merciful purposes; but they cannot rise out of their
feeble selves, or claim to be His work and not man's.
Such is human nature in its fallen state; but at length
its Redeemer came. He left His Father's courts, He was
manifested, He spake ; and His voice went out into all
lands. He has taken to Himself His great power and
reigned; and, whereas an enemy is the god and tyrant
of this world, as Adam made it, so, as far as He
occupies it, does He restore it to His Father. Hence-
forth He is the one principle of life in all His servants,
who are but His organs. The Jewish Church looked
towards Him ; the Christian speaks and acts from Him.
What is prior to Him is dark, but all that comes after
Him is illuminated. The Church, before His manifes-
tation, offered to Him material elements “which perish
with the using;” but now He has sent His Spirit to fill
I96 Aighteousness viewed
such elements with Himself, and to make them living
and availing sacrifices to the Father. Figures have
become means of grace, shadows are substances, types
are Sacraments in Him. What before were decent
ordinances and pious observances, have now not only a
meaning but a virtue. Water could but wash the Body
in the way of nature; but now it acts towards the
cleansing of the soul. “Wine which maketh glad the
heart of man,” and “bread which strengthens man's
heart,” nay, the “oil which maketh him a cheerful
countenance,” henceforth are more than means of
animal life, and Savour of Him. Hands raised in
blessing, the accents of the voice of man, which before
could but symbolize the yearnings of human nature, or
avail for lower benefits, have now become the “unutter-
able intercessions” of the Spirit, and the touch and the
breath of the Incarnate Son. The Church has become
His Body, her priests His delegates, her people His
members.
This is what Christ has done by His doming; but
observe, while He did all this for His Church, He
claimed all. He did as His own. Henceforth whatever
is done is His doing, and it is called what it is. As He
is the unseen Source, so must He be acknowledged as
the Agent, the present Object of worship and thanks-
giving in all that is done ; and His instruments are not
even so much as instruments, but only the outward
lineaments of Him. All is superseded by Him, and
transmuted into Him. Before He came there were
many masters, but henceforth only One ; before He
came many Fathers, but He is the One Father of the
as a Gift and as a Quality. I97
coming age, as the Prophet styles Him ; before He
came, all to whom the word of God came were called
gods, but He is the One God manifested in the flesh ;
before He came, there were many angelic appearances
with the name of God on them, but now the great
Angel of the Covenant is alone to be worshipped ; before
He came, there were many priests who had infirmity,
offering sacrifices year by year continually, but now
there is but One High Priest, “who is set on the right
hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens, a
minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle,
which the Lord pitched, and not man;” before, there
were innumerable sacrifices of bulls and calves which
could never perfect the worshippers, now One Immacu-
late Lamb who taketh away the sin of the world ;
before, there were judges, kings, and rulers of various
ranks, but now there is but One King of kings, and
Lord of lords, in His kingdom. Those former kings,
prophets, priests, and sacrifices, those masters, teachers,
and fathers, not being from Him, were not claimed by
Him as His ; they were ordained according to the old
constitution of nature ; they were but little glorious,
yet, what they were, they were in themselves, and had
a sort of Substantive existence, and gained some benefit
by their functions. Their priests were real priests,
Sacrificing real propitiations, and gaining thereby real
blessings, namely temporal. Their cities of refuge were
really sanctuaries, and saved from death of the body.
Their kings were real representatives of God, and
Suffered and wrought for the real good of their people.
* Heb. viii. 1, 2.
I98 A’ighteousness viewed
There were mediators many, and prophets many, and
atonements many. But now all is superseded by One,
in whom all offices merge, who has absorbed into Him-
Self all principality, power, might, and dominion, and
every name that is named ; who has put His holy and
fearful Name upon all, who is in and through all
things, and without whom nothing is good. He is the
sole self-existing principle in the Christian Church, and
everything else is but a portion or declaration of Him.
Not that now, as then, we may not speak of prophets,
and rulers, and priests, and Sacrifices, and altars, and
saints, and that in a far higher and more spiritual sense
than before, but that they are not any of them such of
themselves; it is not they, but the grace of God that is
in them. There is under the Gospel but One proper
Priest, Prophet, and IKing, Altar, Sacrifice, and House
of God." Unity is its characteristic sacrament ; all
grace flows from One Head, and all life circulates in
the members of One Body. And what is true of priests
and Sacrifices, is true of righteous and holy men.
It is their very privilege thus to be taken into Christ,
to exist in Christ, as already in their mortal life they
“have their being” in God. They had indeed before
what was more their own than they have now ; but to
what did it tend, and how far did it aspire? It aspired
to earthly blessings, and it tended to an earthly end.
* [It is true that there is but one Priest and one Sacrifice under the
Gospel, but this is because the Priests of the Gospel are one with
Christ, not because they are only improperly called Priests. “Christus
et Sacerdotes sunt ºnws Sacerdos.”—Catech. Roman. ii. 84. “Profiteor
in Missa offerri Deo verum, proprium, et propitiatorium sacrificium
pro vivis et defunctis.”—Profess. Fid. Trident.]
as a Gift and as a Qua/čy. 199
Better surely to be the mere stones of the Everlasting
Pavement, than the head of the corner in the Jewish
Temple. Better to be the least in the Kingdom of
Heaven, even than the greatest of all that were born of
women before it. Far better Surely than Solomon in all
his glory, is that chosen generation, that royal priest-
hood, that holy nation, that peculiar people, whose life
is hid with Christ in God, who live because He lives in
them, who are blessed because He is blessed, who are
the fragrance of His breath, the myrrh, aloes, and cassia
from His garments; nay, are One spirit with Him, as
His dove, “His undefiled one,” His sister and spouse.”
“coming up from the Wilderness leaning upon her
Beloved.”
7.
Now to apply these remarks to our immediate subject,
unless this has been sufficiently done in the course of
them.—If in other things Christ changed the application
of words, it is surely but fitting and natural that He
should have in a similar way changed the application of
the words “righteousness” and “justification.” Priests,
I have said, offered sacrifices under the Law : Christian
Ministers also offer sacrifices, but it is their privilege to
know that those Sacrifices are not independent of Christ,
or complete in themselves, but continuations, as it were,
of His Sacrifice, and shadows cast from His Cross; and
that though, distinct as visible and literal acts, yet, as
being instinct with that which they commemorate, they
are absorbed and vivified in it. And so in like manner
the inherent righteousness of a true Christian, viewed as
2OO Zºghāeousness viewed
distinct from Christ's inward presence is something real,
and doubtless far higher than that of a Jew; but why
should we so degrade ourselves, so disparage our own
high privilege, as to view it separately, to disjoin it from
Him through whom we have it, to linger in the thought of
it instead of tracing it back to that which is its immedi-
ate Source ; as if a man were to praise the daylight, yet
forget the Sun? No; whatever might be the righteousness
of the Jews, we certainly know what is ours; and it is
what they could not have had ; it is “Christ,” our pro-
pitiation, “within us;” on it we rely, not on ourselves.
It is our boast thus to look back from the ultimate mani-
festations of life, in which is our sanctification, upon that
Glory within us, which is its fount, and our true justifi-
cation. It is our blessedness to have our own glory swal-
lowed up in Christ's glory, and to consider our works and
our holiness, to avail merely as securities for the continu-
ance of that glory; not as things to be dwelt upon and
made much of for their own sake, but as a sort of Sacra-
mental rite addressed to Him, for the sake of which He
may be pleased still to illuminate us, and as tokens
that His grace is not in vain. And after all, what we are,
whatever it is, could not avail, were it tried in the
balance, for more than this, to prove our earnestness and
diligence. Even what is acceptable in us, is still So
imperfect that the blood of Christ is necessary to com-
plete what His Spirit has begun; and, as His regenerat-
ing grace has infused sweetness into what was bitter, so
must His mercifulness overlook the remaining bitterness
in what He has made sweet. -
as a Gift and as a Qua/Záy. 2O I
In this way then, let me reply to what seems at first
sight a specious argument against what I consider to be
the Catholic doctrine. It is a more simple theory,
doubtless, to say that righteousness should be to the
Christian what it was to the Jew ; as it is a more simple
theory that we should have real priests, sacrifices, and
altars now." But those who believe that Christ has set
up a new creation in unity, and that He Himself is the
One principle in His Church of all grace and truth, will
not be surprised to find that He has superseded the right-
eOusness, as He has abolished the victims, of the ancient
time; and that as the grace of the Holy Eucharist is the
Presence of Christ Crucified, so the justification of those
who approach it is the Indwelling of Christ risen and
glorified.
* [Vid. p. 198, note. The Christian Priesthood is real and proper.
“Cum in N. T. Sanctum Eucharistiae sacrificium visibile ex Domini
institutione Catholica Ecclesia acceperit, fateri etiam Oportet, in ea
novum esse visibile et externum Sacerdotium, in quod vetus translatum
est.”—Conc. Trid. Sess, 23, cap. 1.]
LECTURE IX.
RIGHTEOUSNESS THE FRUIT OF OUR LORD'S
RESURRECTION. -
HAT our justification, or our being accounted right-
eous by Almighty God, consists in our being grafted
into the Body of Christ or made His members, in God
dwelling in us and our dwelling in God, and that the
Holy Ghost is the gracious Agent in this wonderful
work, - all this has been argued from Scripture in
various ways; first from righteousness being there spoken
of as a gift internal to the Soul; or, again, from the great
gift of the Gospel (which righteousness confessedly is)
being spoken of as inward; secondly, on the ground that,
if so high a privilege as God's indwelling be vouchsafed,
it must necessarily involve justification as one of its
benefits; thirdly, from righteousness being represented
as an ornament of the Soul beyond nature, and Such an
endowment having actually been lost in Adam,_from
which it seemed to follow, that what is gained in Christ
is a like ornament, which Scripture confirms by speaking
of it as a glory and a power; and fourthly, from the
analogy of such a view of justification to the special
character of Christian privileges. In the present Lecture,
following up a consideration already touched upon, I
shall treat the matter thus:—whatever is now given to
A’ighteousness the Pruit, &c. 2O3
us by the Spirit is done within us; whatever is given us
through the Church since Christ's ascension, is given by
the Spirit ; from which it follows that our justification,
being a present work, is an inward work, and a work of
the Spirit. This, I conceive, is supported, together with
other passages of Scripture, by the emphatic words of St.
Paul, that He “who was delivered for our offences was
raised again for Our justification,” for, in saying that
Christ rose again for our justification, it is implied that
justification is through that second Comforter who after
that Resurrection came down from heaven. In consider-
ing this view of the subject, I shall, as in the foregoing
Lecture, appeal rather to the harmony of Sacred doctrine
and the light which the view in question throws upon
particular texts, than to the passages of Scripture which
prove it, that having been already incidentally done in
the 2d, 6th, and 7th Lectures.
Christ's work of mercy has two chief parts; what He
did for all men, what He does for each ; what He did once
for all, what He does for one by one continually; what
He did externally to us, what He does within us ; what
He did on earth, what He does in heaven ; what He did
in His own Person, what He does by His Spirit; His
death, and the water and the blood after it; His
meritorious sufferings, and the various gifts thereby pur-
chased, of pardon, grace, reconciliation, renewal, holiness,
spiritual communion ; that is, His Atonement, and the
application of His Atonement, or His Atonement and
our justification; He atones by the offering of Himself on
the Cross; and as certainly (which is the point before us)
He justifies by the mission of His Spirit.
2O4. Righteousness the Fruit
His Atonement is His putting away the wrath of God
for Our Sins. In order to this, He took flesh ; He accom-
plished it in His own Person, by His crucifixion and
death. Justification is the application of this precious
Atonement to this person or that person, and this He
accomplishes by His Spirit. For He ceased, I say, to act
towards us by His own hand from the day of His ascen-
sion; He sent His Spirit to take His place, “I will
not leave you orphans,” He says, “I will come unto you.”
—“I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another
Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever.””
Whatever then is done in the Christian Church is dome
by the Spirit; Christ's mission ended when He left
the world; He was to come again, but by His Spirit.
The Holy Spirit realizes and completes the redemption
which Christ has wrought in essence and virtue. If the
justification, then, of a sinner be a continual work, a
work under the New Covenant, it must be the Spirit's
work and not simply Christ's. The Atonement for sin
took place during His own mission, and He was the
chief Agent ; the application of that Atonement takes
place during the mission of His Spirit, who accordingly
is the chief Agent in it.
2.
We know nothing of the reasons of God’s wonderful
providences; why an Atonement was necessary, why the
Son of God was the sacrifice, why that sacrifice must be
applied in order to “wash away the sins” of individuals;
let us accept what is given, adore God's wisdom, and be
* John xiv. 16-18.
of our Zord's Resurrection. 2O5
thankful and silent;-but, whatever be the deep reasons,
this seems to be the rule of His counsels as to our justi-
fication ; that, as the Atonement was a work of flesh and
blood, a tangible, Sensible work, wrought out in this ma-
terial world,—not, as the heretics said of old, an imagi-
nary act, the suffering (God forgive the blasphemy ) of a
phantom, a mere appearance (for such was the heresy
which St. John and St. Paul especially opposed)—as
Christ really “came in the flesh,” which none but de-
ceivers and antichrists can deny, and Suffered in the real
body and blood of man —so on the contrary the commu-
nication of this great and adorable Sacrifice to the indivi-
dual Christian, is not the communication of that Body and
Blood such as it was when offered upon the Cross, but, in
a higher, glorified, and Spiritual state. The Son of God
suffered as the man Christ Jesus, “with strong crying
and tears,”—“in weakness” and a body of “flesh ;" the
crucified Man, the Divine Son, comes again to us in
His Spirit. He came once, then He ascended, He has
come again. He came first in the flesh ; He has come
the second time in the Spirit. He did not come the
Second time carnally, nor the first time invisibly, but
He came first in the flesh, and secondly in the Spirit.
As in God's counsels it was necessary for the Atonement
that there should be a material, local, Sacrifice of the
Son Once for all: So for Our individual justification, there
must be a Spiritual, ubiquitous communication of that
Sacrifice continually. There was but One Atonement;
there are ten thousand justifications. What was offered
“under Pontius Pilate” in flesh and blood, is partaken
again and again in every time and place, in the power
2O6 A’ighteousness the Fruit
and virtue of the Spirit. God the Son atoned ; God the
Holy Ghost justifies.
Further; it would appear as if His going to the
Father was, in fact, the same thing as His coming to us
spiritually. I mean there is some mysterious unknown
connection between His departing in His own Person,
and His returning in the Person of His Spirit. He said
that unless He went, His Spirit would not come to us;
as though His ascending and the Spirit's descending, if
not the same act, yet were very closely connected, and
admitted of being spoken of as the same. And thus
His rising again was the necessary antecedent of His
applying to His elect the virtue of that Atonement which
His dying wrought for all men. While He was on the
Cross, while in the tomb, while in hell, the treasure
existed, the precious gift was perfected, but it lay hid ;
it was not yet available for its gracious ends; it was
not diffused, communicated, shared in, enjoyed. Thus
He died to purchase what He rose again to apply.
“He died for our sins; He rose again for our justifica-
tion ;” He died in the flesh ; He rose again “according
to the Spirit of holiness,” which, when risen, He also
sent forth from Him, dispensing to others that life
whereby He rose Himself. He atoned, I repeat, in His
own Person; He justifies through His Spirit.
3.
And here I have touched upon another part of the
harmony of the Divine Dispensation, which may be
profitably dwelt upon. For He Himself was raised
again and “justified” by the Spirit; and what was
of our Zord's Resurrection. 2O7
wrought in Him is repeated in us who are His brethren,
and the complement and ratification of His work. What
took place in Him as an Origin, is continued on in the
succession of those who inherit His fulness, and is the
cause of its continuance. He is said to be “justified by
the Spirit,” because it was by the Spirit that He was raised
again, proved innocent, made totriumph over His enemies,
declared the Son of God, and exalted on the holy Hill
of Sion. It had been declared, “Thou art My Son, this
day have I begotten Thee,” and in these words He was
justified or recognized, and owned before the world as
the Dearly-beloved of the Father. This, I say, was His
justification ; and ours consists in our new birth also,
and His was the beginning of ours. The Divine Life
which raised Him, flowed over, and availed unto our
rising again from sin and condemnation. It wrought a
change in His Sacred Manhood, which became spiritual,
without His ceasing to be man, and was in a wonderful
way imparted to us as a new-creating, transforming
Power in our hearts. This was the gift bestowed on the
Church upon His ascension ; for while He remained on
earth, though risen, it was still withheld. During that
interval, too, if we may speak without presumption, He
seems to have been in an intermediate state, passing by
an orderly course from what He had been during His
humiliation to what He is in His glory. Then He was
neither in His body of flesh simply, nor in His glorified
body. He ate in the presence of His disciples; He suffered
them to examine His hands and feet, and wounded side.
Yet, on the other hand, He now appeared, and now
vanished, came into the room, the doors being shut, and
2O8 A”ghteousness the Fruit
On one occasion said, “Touch Me not.” When, how-
ever, on His ascension, He became a lifegiving Spirit,
in the power of His Spirit. He came to us, to justify us
as He had been justified. Hence the force of St. Paul's
expressions, which I elsewhere cited, concerning “ the
exceeding greatness of God's power to us-ward that be-
lieve according to the working of His mighty power,
which He wrought in Christ, when He raised Him from
the dead;” and the blessedness of “knowing Him and
the power of His resurrection ;” and again, our being
“made alive together with Christ, and raised up to-
gether, and made to sit together in heavenly places in
Christ Jesus.”
Here I would observe of this part of the wonderful
Economy of Redemption, that God the Son and God the
Holy Ghost have so acted together in their separate
Persons, as to make it difficult for us creatures always
to discriminate what belongs to each respectively.
Christ rises by His own power, yet the Holy Ghost is
said to raise Him ; hence, the expression in St. Paul,
“according to the Spirit of Holiness,” as applied to His
resurrection, may be taken to stand either for His
Divine nature or for the Third Person in the Blessed
Trinity. The case is the same as regards the mystery
of the Incarnation itself. It was the Word of God who
descended into the Virgin's womb, and framed for Him-
self a human tabernacle, yet the man so born was
“conceived of the Holy Ghost.” And hence some early
writers seem to have doubted whether by “the power of
the Highest,” and “the Holy Spirit,” the Angel Gabriel
meant the Second or Third Divine Person ; whether He
of our Zora's Aesºrrection. 2O9
who took flesh may not be also spoken of as the Maker
of that flesh which He took ; whether That which
anointed the Manhood of the Saviour with the fulness of
grace, was not rather the Divine Fulness of the Saviour
Himself than the Holy Ghost." I notice this merely by
way of explaining myself, if in speaking upon this most
Sacred subject I have said, or may say, anything which
would seem to “confound the Persons” of the Son and
Spirit, which are eternally distinct and complete in
Themselves, though in nature and operation One. Let
me then proceed to comment on several important texts
of Scripture, which are adapted to throw light on the
main doctrine which is now under review, that our
ascended Lord, in ascending, has returned to us invisibly
in the attributes of a Spirit.
4.
1. In His discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum,
recorded in the sixth chapter of St. John, after saying,
“If any man eat of this Bread, he shall live for ever,
and the Bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will
give for the life of the world,” thereby intimating both
the Sacrifice of His Sacred Body upon the cross, and the
real and individual communication of it to all who shall
be saved, He was misunderstood to mean that He
intended thereby that what they saw before them, an
extended and material form, was to be eaten carnally
with the teeth. On this He said, “Doth this offend
* e.g. Tertullian passim, Cyprian de Van. Idol. fin. (p. 538, ed.
Ven.) Iren. Haer. v. 1. Just. Apol. 2. Wid. Grotius on Mark ii. 8,
and Praef. Bened, in Hilar. § 57-67.
P
2 IO A”g//eousness the Aºrati:
you ? what, and ºf ye Shall See the Son of man ascend up,
where He was before ? It is the Spirit that is the life-
giver; the flesh profiteth nothing.;”—that is, if without
presumption we may attempt an explanation of such
words, “You, being flesh, understand Me to speak of
mere flesh, mortal flesh; whereas when I speak of My
flesh, though I do speak of My body and blood, yet it is
not of anything carnal and earthly, it is not of what you
see with your eyes, but of this My body and blood, My
Humanity, when, having passed through its state of
humiliation, and having been perfected upon the cross,
It shall ascend to heaven in a new way, the same and not
the same, by the power of the Spirit. Then It shall no
longer be a substance that can be seen and handled ; It
shall be a spiritual body; It shall be spiritual, and this is
that which giveth life. It is the Spirit that quickeneth.
This is what I spoke of, when I said that whoso eateth
My flesh, and drinketh My blood, shall have eternal life ;
I spoke of my spiritual and glorified body. It is the Spirit
that is the Life-giver ; when I come to you again in the
power of the Spirit, when He imparts My spiritual body,
then It shall be etermal life to all who eat of It.”
Observe especially, our Lord connects this spiritual
coming with His resurrection and ascension. “What
and if ye see the Son of man ascend up, where He was
before ?” He had been, He was ever, in Heaven ; but
His flesh, which He had assumed for our SakeS, had not
yet been there. When It had overcome death, when It
touched the throne of God, It was no longer what It
had been. Death had no more dominion over Him.
“He liveth unto God.” -
of ozer Zora's Aesºrrecázoz. 2 I I
o. ,
2. Again: consider St. Paul's words, “There is a
natural body, and there is a spiritual body. . . . The first
man Adam was made a living Soul, the last Adam was
made a quickening Spirit. . . . The first man is of the
earth, earthy ; the second man is the Lord from
heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are
earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that
are heavenly.” And recollect, this is said in answer to
the question, “With what body do the dead come 2"
An objection might be made, then as now, that since the
component particles of our body are ever changing
during life, since on death they are dissipated to the
four winds, the same body cannot be raised; what is
meant then by its being called the same body? St. Paul
answers that it will be the same body in the sense that
a blade of wheat is the same with the seed; being con-
tained within it, and at length developed out of it.
So also there is a natural body, and a spiritual body;
and the natural body comes first, as the seed does. The
Spiritual body, how or what we know not, is formed
Within it, the same as it, yet different in its accidents.
Corruption, dissolution, mortality, are but the accidents
of the Christian's body, and are separated from it for
ever On its rising again. What we see is not the real
body, it is but the outward shell; the real body of the
regenerate Soul is not only material, but spiritual, of
which the seed is now deposited within us.
The Apostle then goes on to say how this takes place,
viz. by a new birth from Christ. The first man Adam
* 1 Cor. xv. 44-48.
2 I 2 A’ighteousness the Fruić
had at first life given him, but he lost it and became
earthy; all who are born from him are earthy like him.
Such is the generation of those who are born after the
flesh. But the second Man is not merely living, but
life-giving; He is a “quickening or life-giving Spirit ;”
the very words (be it observed) which our Saviour had
used in His discourse at Capernaum. He is life-giving ;
and what He is, such are E[is followers ; “as is the
Heavenly, such are they that are heavenly.” As Adam
diffused death, so the life-giving Spirit is the seed and
principle of spiritual bodies to all who are His. “Flesh
and blood,” says the Apostle, “cannot inherit the king-
dom of God;’ here, too, is a parallel to our Lord’s words,
“The flesh profiteth nothing.” And further, as our Lord
referred to His ascension and exaltation, so here again
the life-giving Spirit is said to be “the Lord from heaven.”
Thus this passage, equally with the foregoing, speaks of
our ascended Lord as a Spirit present in His people, and
that, apparently, because He has ascended.
6.
3. Another passage of the same description, though
the Ascension is not mentioned in it, is St. Paul's de-
claration to the Corinthians, that “he that is joined to the
Lord is one spirit” Taking these words in their context,
they have a remarkable force in showing the extent of
our Lord’s condescension towards us under the Gospel.
But I quote them here in Order to point out that the
gift of the Spirit is none other than the entrance into us
of the ascended and invisible Saviour. To be joined as
* 1 Cor. vi. 17, 19.
of our Zord's Aesurrection. 2 I 3
one spirit to Christ and to be a Temple of the Holy
Ghost are spoken of as the same gift. It is to be ob-
served, moreover, that St. Paul, who here speaks of
Christ as a Spirit, elsewhere speaks of Him as still
possessed of a bodily Substance, and as communicating
Himself to us as such. “We are members of His Body,
from His flesh and from His bones.”
Another remarkable text of the same kind occurs
where St. Paul, after describing the “glorious ministration
of the Spirit,” which is “righteousness” or justification,
proceeds: “Now the Lord is that Spirit; and where
the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty; but we all
with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the
Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to
glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.” I am not
here concerned to explain the course of the Apostle's
teaching in this chapter ; but it would appear on the
face of it, that the righteousness of the Gospel, which is
also “liberty” and “glory,” is “ministered” to us by One
who is first called “the Spirit,” and then “the Lord”
Christ. The manner too in which are interchanged the
words, “the Spirit,” “the Lord,” and “the Spirit of the
Lord,” is very observable.
7.
4. That our justification is connected in some un-
known way with Christ's ascension and going Out of
sight, is also implied in His own words concerning the
Holy Ghost in His last discourse with His disciples.
“When He is come, He will reprove,” or convince, “the
* Eph. v. 30. 2 2 Cor. iii. 17, 18.
2 I4. A’ighteousness the Fruit
World of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of
sin, because they believe not on Me ; of righteousness,
because I go to My Father, and ye see Me no more.” "
Surely it is impossible to doubt that the “righteousness”
so solemnly and emphatically announced in this dis-
course concerning His coming kingdom, is that “right-
eousness of God,” concerning which St. Paul speaks, and
in which he glories. Now I do not say the passage
quoted shows in what it consists; but thus much it
seems to show, that Our Lord's ascension out of sight is
connected with the gift. Men had refused to believe,
therefore there was a charge of sin against them ; Christ
had disappeared from the world and gone to God, there-
fore there was the news of righteousness. The words
“because I go to My Father, and ye see Me no more,”
seem, I say, in accordance with the other texts quoted,
to connect our justification with some hidden necessity on
the part of the Justifier, of removing from us His corporal
presence and coming to us invisibly. -
And here perhaps we may see Somewhat of the mean-
ing and depth of the doctrine of justification by faith
when rightly understood. If justification, or the impart-
ing of righteousness, be a work of the Holy Ghost, a
spiritual gift or presence in the heart, it is plain that faith,
and faith alone, can discern it and prepare the mind for it,
as the Spirit alone can give it. Faith is the correlative,
the natural instrument of the things of the Spirit.”
While Christ was present in the flesh, He might be seen
by the eye ; but His more perfect and powerful presence,
which we now enjoy, being invisible, can be discerned and
1 John xvi. 8-10. * Wid. August. Serm. 143.
of our Zord's Aesurrection. 2 I 5
used by faith only. Thus faith is a mysterious means of
gaining gifts from God, which cannot otherwise begained;
according to the text, “If thou canst believe, all things are
possible to him that believeth.” If it was necessary for
our justification that Christ should become a quickening
Spirit and so be invisible ; therefore it was as necessary
for the same, in God's providence, that we should believe;”
as necessary a condition, in St. Paul’s language, for “the
heart to believe unto righteousness,” as any one thing is a
necessary condition of another, as (in this world) eating
and drinking are necessary for animal life, or the Sun
for ripening the fruits of the earth, or the air for
transmitting Sounds. We have no reason for Supposing
that the supernatural providences of God are not
Ordered upon a system of antecedents or Second causes
as precise and minute as is the natural system. Faith
may be as a key unlocking for us the treasures of divine
mercy, and the only key. I say there is no d, priori
improbability in the idea; and we see, from the nature
of the case, that Christ could not enter into the hearts
of the ten thousand of the true Israel, till He came
* Mark ix. 23.
* Luther speaks well on this point : “Fit ut anima, quae firma fide
illis adhaeret, sic eis uniatur, imo penitus absorbeatur, ut hon modo
participet, Sed Saturetur et inebrietur omni virtute eorum. Si enim
tactus Christi Sanabat, quanto magis hic tenerrimus in Spiritu, imo
absorptio Verbi, Omnia quæ Verbi Sunt, animae communicat?” And
then he diverges to his private conclusion, which is either a truism or
a paradox, ‘‘Hoc igitur modo anima per fidem Solam, Sime operibus, e
Verbo Dei justificatur, sanctificatur, verificatur, pacificatur, liberatur, et
Omni bono repletur, wereque filia Dei efficitur, sicut Joannes dicit,
Dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri, iis qui credunt in nomine ejus.”—
Luther de Lib. Christ. f. 5.
2 I 6 Ā’ighteousness the Fruit
differently from His coming in the flesh,_till He came
in the Spirit. And as the Spirit is the only justifier, so
faith is the only recipient of justification. The eye sees
what is material; the mind alone can embrace what is
spiritual. -
8.
5. And these considerations will serve to throw
Some light on a difficult passage in the end of St. John's
Gospel, where our Lord says to St. Mary Magdalen—
“Touch Me not, for I am not yet ascended to My Father.”
The question arises here, Why might not our Lord be
touched before His ascension, and how could He be
touched after it? But Christ speaks, it would seem,
thus (if, as before, we might venture to paraphrase His
sacred words)—“Hitherto you have only known Me
after the flesh. I have lived among you as a man.
You have been permitted to approach Me Sensibly, to
kiss and embrace My feet, to pour ointment upon My
head. But all this is at an end, now that I have died
and risen again in the power of the Spirit. A glorified
state of existence is begun in Me, and will soon be
perfected. At present, though I bid you at one moment
handle Me as possessed of flesh and bones, Ivanish like
a spirit at another ; though I let one follower embrace
My feet, and say, ‘Fear not, I repel another with the
words, ‘Touch Me not.’ Touch Me not, for I am fast
passing for your great benefit from earth to heaven,
from flesh and blood into glory, from a natural body
to a spiritual body. When I am ascended, then the
change will be completed. To pass hence to the Father
* John xx. 17,
of our Zord's Aesurrection. 217
in My bodily presence, is to descend from the Father to
you in spirit. When I am thus changed, when I am
thus present to you, more really present than now
though invisibly, then you may touch Me,"—may touch
Me, more really though invisibly, by faith, in reverence,
through such outward approaches as I shall assign.
Now you but see Me from time to time; when you see
most of Me I am at best but ‘going in and out among
you.' Thou hast seen Me, Mary, but couldst not hold
Me ; thou hast approached Me, but only to embrace
My feet, or to be touched by My hand; and thou Sayest,
‘O that I knew where I might find Him, that I might
come even to His seat I O that I might hold Him and
not let Him go!’ Henceforth this shall be ; when I
am ascended, thou shalt see nothing, thou shalt have
everything. Thou shalt “sit down under My shadow
with great delight, and My fruit shall be sweet to thy
taste. Thou shalt have Me whole and entire. I will
be near thee, I will be in thee; I will come into thy
heart a whole Saviour, a whole Christ,-in all My fulness
as God and man,—in the awful virtue of that Body and
Blood, which has been taken into the Divine Person of
the Word, and is indivisible from it, and has atoned for
the sins of the world,—not by external contact, not by
partial possession, not by momentary approaches, not by
a barren manifestation, but inward in presence, and
intimate in fruition, a principle of life and a seed of
immortality, that thou mayest bring forth fruit unto
God.’”
* Vid. Leon. Serm. 74, c. 4, ed. Ballerin. Vigil. Taps, contr.
Eutych. iv. Sub fin.
2 I 8 A”ghteousness Žhe Aºzzzz
9.
6. This leads me to offer a suggestion as to the sense
of another text, which has no great obscurity on the
face of it, yet seems to mean more than cursory readers
are apt to consider. I mean St. Paul's words to the
Colossians,—“your life is hid with Christ in God.”"
Now, when we come to consider these words, are
they not harsh and strange, if they mean nothing more -
than what is contained in the popular view of them
taken in our day ? If life means, what men at present
are content that it should mean, the life of religion
and devotion, spiritual-mindedness (as it is sometimes
called), is it not a very violent phrase to say, “it is hid
in God 2* Is it not irreverent, taken literally 3 Can it be
made reverent without explaining away its wording 2 If,
however, the foregoing remarks be admitted as true, we
are able to take this and similar statements of Scripture
literally. For it would seem that, in truth, the principle
of our spiritual existence is divine, is an ineffable
presence of God. Christ, who promised to make all
His disciples one in God with Him, who promised that
we should be in God and God in us, has made us so,
—has in some mysterious way accomplished for us this
great work, this stupendous privilege. It would seem,
moreover, as I have said, that He has done so by ascend-
ing to the Father; that His ascent bodily is His
descent spiritually ; that His taking our nature up to
God, is the descent of God into us; that He has truly,
though in an unknown sense, taken us to God, or
1 Col. iii. 3.
of ozºr Zora's Aceszºrrection. 2 IQ
brought down God to us, according as we view it."
Thus, when St. Paul says that our life is hid with
Him in God, we may suppose him to intimate that Our
principle of existence is no longer a mortal, earthly
principle, such as Adam’s after his fall, but that we are
baptized and hidden anew in God’s glory, in that
Shekinah of light and purity which we lost when Adam
fell,—that we are new-created, transformed, spiritualized,
glorified in the Divine Nature, that through the
participation of Christ, we receive, as through a chan-
nel, the true Presence of God within and without us,
imbuing us with Sanctity and immortality. This, I
repeat, is our justification, our ascent through Christ to
God, or God's descent through Christ to us; we may
call it either of the two ; we ascend into Him, He
descends into us; we are in Him, He in us; Christ
being the One Mediator, the way, the truth, and the
life, joining earth with heaven. And this is our true
Righteousness, not the mere name of righteousness,
not only forgiveness or favour as an act of the Divine
Mind, not only Sanctification within (great indeed as
these blessings would be, yet it is somewhat moré),
—it implies the One, it involves the other, it is the
indwelling of our glorified Lord. This is the one great
gift of God purchased by the Atonement, which is light
instead of darkness and the shadow of death, power
instead of weakness, bondage and suffering, spirit instead
of the flesh, which is the token of our acceptance with
1 On this subject, vid, the Author's Via Media, vol. ii., edit. 1884,
pp. 235, &c.
22O A’ighteousness the Fruit
\
God, the propitiation of our sins in His sight, and the
seed and element of renovation.
10.
7. I will conclude with directing attention to the
vision of Our Lord to St. John in the book of Revelation,
which also seems to me to be an intimation of the doc-
trine which I have been explaining. We know how our
Lord appeared “in the days of His flesh;” in hunger
and thirst, in Weariness, in Sorrow, in pain, in mortality.
Such He is described in the Gospels, while His disciples
saw Him ; what His Presence is now, when they see
Him not, we learn from St. John's vision. First He is
said to be “in the midst of the Seven Candlesticks,” or
Churches ; an expression which marks both that He is
here and that His presence is spiritual. Then He is
described, as follows:—“His head and His hair were
white as wool, as white as Snow, and His eyes were as
a flame of fire, and His feet were like unto fine brass, as
if they burned in a furnace, and His voice as the sound
of many waters. And He had in His right hand seven.
stars, and out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged
sword, and His countenance was as the sun shineth in
his strength.” What words could be devised to express
more forcibly the power and spirituality of His presence
It is the same description which is given of Him at His
transfiguration, only this is far more fearful. Then He
anticipated that spiritual state which was to be after
“His decease, which He should accomplish at Jeru-
salem.” And on that occasion the Apostles “fell on
their face and were sore afraid ;” but now, St. John him-
of our Zord's Resurrection. 22 I
self, the beloved disciple, who had undergone the former
vision, and since seen Him risen from the grave, never-
theless at the sight “fell at His feet as dead.” Then
Moses and Elias talked of the death “which He should
accomplish ;” but now He said, “I am He which liveth
and was dead, and behold I am alive for evermore, and
have the keys of hell and of death.”
Here them is certainly a representation of our Lord,
the risen and glorified Saviour, living and ruling in His
Church. Now it is very remarkable that, though He
thus appears as Christ in the vision, yet in what follows
He is spoken of as the Spirit, not as Christ, though He
still speaks of Himself as Christ; as if to intimate that
all the gifts His blood has purchased are ministered by
the Spirit, and that what Christ was to His Apostles
when on earth, such, and far more than such, is the
Holy Ghost to us now. Here we seem to see something
of the meaning of the words,-"The Holy Ghost was
not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified;”
for the gift brought by the Spirit was really this and
nothing else, Jesus Himself glorified, ascended and in-
visibly returned. -
11.
To conclude :-What has been said will serve to
throw light upon a peculiarity of the Apostles' preaching,
which has sometimes caused remark. They insist on
Our Lord's Resurrection, as if it were the main doctrine
of the Gospel; but why so, and not on His Divinity or
the Atonement 2 Many good reasons may be given for
this ; as, for instance, that the Resurrection was the
great miracle and evidence of the divinity of the religion;
222 Righteousness the Fruit, &c.
or that it is the pledge of our resurrection ; on the other
hand, that His Divinity and Atonement were doctrines
too sacred to preach to the world. But if, as we have
seen, the Resurrection be the means by which the Atone-
ment is applied to each of us, if it be our justification,
if in it are conveyed all the gifts of grace and glory
which Christ has purchased for us, if it be the com-
mencement of His giving Himself to us for our spiritual
sustenance, of His feeding us with that Bread which has
already been perfected on the Cross, and is now a medi-
cine of immortality, it is that very doctrine which is
most immediate to us, in which Christ most closely ap-
proaches us, from which we gain life, and out of which
issue our hopes and our duties. Christ is God from
everlasting ; He became man under Caesar Augustus;
He was an Atonement for the world on the Cross ; but
He became a Saviour on His resurrection. He was
then “exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour ; ” to come
to us in the power of the Spirit, as God, as Man, and as
Atoming Sacrifice.
LECTURE X.
THE OFFICE OF JUSTIFYING FAITII.
USTIFICATION consisting in the Presence of Christ
within us, and that Presence manifesting itself in
newness of heart and conduct, the question arises, where,
under such a view of the doctrine, Faith is found, what
is its position, what are its bearings upon the points
already settled, and how are its claims satisfied as ac-
knowledged in our Formularies 2 This is the subject
which shall now engage our attention.
Our eleventh Article says that “we are justified by
Faith only;” agreeably with which we are told in the
Homily on the Passion, that Faith is the one mean and
Žnstrument of justification. “As it profiteth a man
nothing,” says its very perspicuous author, “to have
salve, unless it be well applied to the part affected, so
the death of Christ shall stand us in no force, unless we
apply it to ourselves in such sort as God hath appointed.
Almighty God commonly worketh by means, and in
this thing He has also ordained a certain mean whereby
we may take fruit and profit to our Souls' health. What
mean is that ? forsooth it is faith. Not an unconstant
or wavering faith, but a sure, stedfast, grounded, and
unſeigned faith. ‘God sent His Son into the world,’
says St. John. To what end ? ‘That whosoever believeth
224 The Office of
in Him should not perish, but have life everlasting.’
Mark these words, ‘that whosoever believeth in Him.”
Here is the mean, whereby we must apply the fruits of
Christ's death unto our deadly wound. Here is the
mean, whereby we must obtain eternal life, namely faith.”
Then, after quoting other texts of Scripture, he continues,
“By this, then, we may well perceive that the only
mean and instrument of Salvation required on our parts
is faith, that is to say, a sure trust and confidence in the
mercies of God.” He adds, towards the end of the
Homily, “Let us, then, use that mean which God hath
appointed in His word, to wit, the mean of faith, which
is the Only instrument of Salvation now left unto us.
Let us stedfastly behold Christ crucified with the eyes
of our heart ;” and so he concludes in a very serious and
impressive strain.
In the judgment, then, of this Homily, faith is cer-
tainly in some distinct and important sense the sole
mean and instrument of justification. The question is,
in what sense.
2.
Now, on the one hand, I observe, what all will allow,
that the faith spoken of is not any faith, but a lively
faith. This indeed is implied in the passage just quoted,
which speaks as concerning “not an unconstant or
wavering faith, but a sure, stedfast, grounded, and ul-
feigned faith.” Faith which does not trust, as the devil's
faith, or faith which does not love, though it could
“remove mountains,”—Or faith which cannot work, such
as his to whom “to will is present,” but “not to perform
that which is good,”—all such faith does not justify.
}''ustifying Faith. 225
It is, then, not mere faith, but faith under certain cir-
cumstances or conditions, faith when it trusts, loves, and
lives, a fruitful faith, which is the sole mean and instru-
ment of justification.
On the other hand, I do not understand faith to be
a general term, ineaning nothing more or less than trust,
love, life, and all other excellences of the new mind or
creature together. When the Homily calls it “the sole
mean,” it speaks by way of contrast with other graces.
The writer would not call it the sole mean, if it were the
Sole grace. By faith is not meant religiousness generally,
nor obedience, nor spiritual life, nor love, nor hope, nor
trust ; whatever is meant, something is meant distinct
from all these. I do not deny that faith often stands for
these in Scripture, in the Homilies themselves, and else-
where ; nay, I will not deny that the Homily before us,
as being a popular discourse, does speak of faith, as if
it were something more than faith, viz. trust, confidence,
hope, and perseverance, because it is really inseparable
from them, and one with them ; still, when it is called
the Sole instrument of justification, it must stand in
contrast with them, and be contemplated in itself, as
being one certain property, habit, or act, of the mind.
This is explicitly stated by another Homily, when it
says 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.”
Here I draw an important conclusion ; that the in-
strumental power of Faith cannot interfere with the
4 Sermon of Salvation, Part 1,
Q
226 The Office of
instrumental power of Baptism ; because Faith is the
sole justifier, not in contrast to all means and agencies
whatever, (for it is not surely in contrast to our Lord's
merits, or God’s mercy), but to all other graces. When,
then, Faith is called the Sole instrument, this means the
sole intermal instrument, not the sole instrument of
any kind.
There would be nothing inconsistent, them, in Faith
being the sole instrument of justification, and yet Baptism
also the sole instrument, and that at the same time, be-
cause in distinct senses; an inward instrument in no
way interfering with an outward instrument. Baptism
might be the hand of the giver, and Faith the hand of
the receiver. However, this is not the exact relation of -
faith to baptism, as is plain, for this reason, that Bap-
tism occurs but Once, whereas justification is a state,
and faith “abides.” Justification, then, needs a per-
petual instrument, such as faith can be, and Baptism
cannot. Each, then, has its Own Office in the work of
justification; Baptism at the time when it is adminis-
tered, and faith ever after. Faith Secures to the soul
continually those gifts, which Baptism in the first instance
conveys. The two Sacraments are the primary instru-
ments of justification; faith is the secondary, subordinate,
or representative instrument. Or we may say, varying
our mode of expression, that the Sacraments are its in-
strumental, and Faith its sustaining cause."
* [Catholics hold that, not faith only, but faith, hope, and charity,
are the “sustaining cause” of justification. “Fides, nisi ad eam spes
accedat et charitas, neque unit perfecte cum Christo, neque corporis
ejus vivum membrum efficit.”—Concil. Trid, Sess, vi, 7.]
}''ustifying Faith. 227
IFaith, then, being the appointed representative of
Baptism, derives its authority and virtue from that
which it represents. It is justifying because of Baptism ;
it is the faith of the baptized, of the regenerate, that is,
of the justified. Justifying faith does not precede
justification ; but justification precedes faith, and makes
it justifying. And here lies the cardinal mistake of the
views on the subject which are now in esteem. In
those views faith is considered as the sole instrument,
not after Baptism but before ; whereas Baptism is the
primary instrument, and causes faith to be what it is
and otherwise is not, giving it power and rank, and, as
it were, constituting it its own successor.
3.
That this is the doctrine of our Church appears
from the Homilies. These are addressed, not to heathems
but to Christians, they are practical and popular exhorta-
tions to Christians. They inform a baptized congrega-
tion, or, as they speak, “dear Christians,” “good
Christian people,” how they may be saved, not how God
will deal with the heathen. They are not missionary
discourses, directing pagans how to proceed in order to
be justified, but are composed for the edification of those
who through God's mercy are already “dearly beloved in
Christ.” And, as regards the point before us, they lay
down “what the lively and true faith of a Christian man,
is.” Clear, however, as this is, at first sight, I will make
Some extracts from them, to impress it upon the mind.
Take, for instance, the very passage I quoted in the
opening, in which faith is called the Sole instrument of
228 The Office of
justification; it will be found that the writer is teaching
a Christian congregation what they must do. He does
not, cannot, say with St. Peter, “Be baptized every one
of you for the remission of sins ;” that sacred remedy
has been long ago applied, and may not be repeated.
What is left, then, after sinning, but, as it were, to renew
our Baptism, at least its virtue, by faith, as “the only
instrument of Salvation now left unto us”? And this is
why stress is laid upon “a stedfast, not a wavering
faith ;” he does not simply say lively, but stedfast,
because faith is to be the abiding, Sustaining means of
justification, or, in the words of St. Paul, “By faith we
stand ;” as Moses uplifted hands continued on the
victory of his people over Amalek. The writer says so
in express words, “Here we must take heed that we do
not halt with God through an unconstant and wavering
faith, but that it be strong and stedfast to our lives' end.
. . . . Peter coming to Christ upon the water, because
he fainted in faith, was in danger of drowning. So we,
if we begin to waver or doubt, it is to be feared lest we
should sink, as Peter did, not into the water, but into
the bottomless pit of hell-fire.” All this, I say, shows
that, when the Homily speaks of faith as an instrument,
it means a sustaining instrument ; what the primary
instrument is, being quite a separate question. Those
who now speak of faith as the Sole means of justification,
too commonly consider the mass of Christians unre-
generate, and call them out of their supposed heathen
state through faith, as the Sole initiation into Christ's
kingdom. How different is the tone of this Homily
Attend to the very words which precede the strongest of
} us?ſying Faith. 229
the passages cited above. “Therefore, dearly beloved,
if we chance at any time, through frailty of the flesh, to
fall into sin . . . . and if we feel the heavy burden
thereof to press our souls . . . . let us then use that
mean which God hath appointed in His word, to wit,
the mean of faith, which is the Only instrument of
salvation now left unto us.” -
But, it may be said, there is nothing about Baptism
here ; let us then turn to the Homily on Salvation or
Justification, to which the 11th Article refers, where
we shall find that doctrine clearly stated, though it does
not enter into the scope of the Homily already cited.
“Infants, being baptized and dying in their infancy, are
by this Sacrifice washed from their sins, brought to
God’s favour, and made His children, and inheritors of
His kingdom of heaven. And they which in act or deed
do sin after their Baptism, when they turn again to
God unfeignedly,” that is, come to God in faith, as the
Homily forthwith goes on to say, “they are likewise
washed by this Sacrifice from their sins.” Here is dis-
tinct mention of faith justifying after Baptism, but no
mention of its justifying before Baptism ; on the contrary,
Baptism is expressly said to effect the first justification.
The writer proceeds: “This is that justification or
righteousness which St. Paul speaks of, when he saith,
“No man is justified by the works of the Law, but freely
by faith in Jesus Christ.’” So it seems that St. Paul
too, when he speaks of justification through faith, speaks
of faith as subordinate to Baptism, not as the immedi-
ate initiation into a justified state.
And as Holy Baptism, in the judgment of the
23O 7%e Office of
Homilies, is the immediate initiation into God’s grace,
So is Holy Communion, not the initiatory, but still an
immediate and proper instrument of receiving it also ;
though this is not the place for proving it." Here the
question before us simply is, in what sense faith is the
“Sole instrument ; ” and I have answered it by show-
ing from the Homilies, that it is the sole, not as opposed
to external means, but to the other graces, and as pre-
ceded and made an instrument by the secret virtue of
Baptism. As to the Holy Eucharist, in whatever sense
it justifies, certainly faith, as taking the place of Baptism,
can as little interfere with its office as Baptism itself
interferes. One proof, however, may be mentioned by
the way, that our Church assigns to faith the same sub-
Ordinate function as regards the second Sacrament, as
it bears towards the first.” I mean the Rubric in the
Service for the Communion of the Sick; which instructs
us that faith, so far from Superseding, is to represent
* “Thus much we must be sure to hold, that in the Supper of the
Lord there is no vain ceremony, no bare sign, no untrue figure of a
thing absent. . . . . Thus much more the faithful see, hear, and
know ; the favourable mercies of God sealed, the satisfaction by Christ
towards us confirmed, and the remission of sin established. . . . . Take,
then, this lesson, O thou that art desirous of this Table, of Emissenus,
a godly Father, that when thou goest up to the reverend Communion,
to be satisfied with spiritual meat, then look up with faith upon the
Holy Body and Blood of thy God, then marvel with reverence, then
touch it with thy mind, then receive it with the hand of thy heart, and
then take it fully with thy inward man.”—Sermon concerning the
Sacrament, Part I.
* “That faith is a necessary instrument in all these Holy Cere-
monies, we may thus assure ourselves, for that, as St. Paul Saith,
‘without faith it is impossible to please God.” When a great number
of the Israelites were overthrown in the wilderness, Moses, Aaron, and
}''ustifying Faith. 23 I
the Eucharist, only when, from whatever cause, it can-
not be obtained. It continues on and pleads in God's
sight the sick person's former reception of it.
|Paith, then, considered as an instrument, is always
secondary to the Sacraments. The most extreme case,
in which it seems to supersede them, is found, not in
our own, but in the Ancient Church ; in which the
faith of persons, dying in the state of Catechumens, was
held to avail to their reception on death into that king-
dom, of which Baptism is the ordinary gate. How
different is the spirit of such a guarded exception, from
the doctrine now in esteem, that faith, ipso facto, justifies,
the Sacraments merely confirming and Sealing what is
complete without them
4.
Let us proceed to Scripture, which will be found dis-
tinctly to declare the same general doctrine. And here
I cannot desire a more cogent argument than is furnished
by the account of St. Paul's conversion, who surely, if
any one, would have received justification, not in Bap-
tism, but before it ; I mean at the time of Christ's ap-
pearance to him, or during his three days' fasting and
prayer. Faith surely would have been immediately
justifying in his case, if in any ; yet, so far from it,
Ananias, after pointedly referring to his having seen
“that Just One,” who is also “the justifier of him that
believeth,” still bade him be baptized “ and wash away
Phineas, did eat manna, and pleased God,” etc.—Ibid. And so the 28th
Article. “The mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten
in the Supper, is Faith.”
232 The Office of
his sins.” The Apostle himself teaches the same doctrine
to the Galatians, when, after discoursing at large con-
cerning faith as justifying, and that as a very observable
and important truth, he ends thus: “Ye are all the chil-
dren of God by faith in Christ Jesus; for as many of
you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on
Christ.” That is, ye are God's children by faith, because
ye have put on Christ in Baptism. Putting on Christ
by Baptism has brought you into the condition of being
God’s children by faith. Or, in other words, Faith justi-
fies, because Baptism has justified. Again, he says to
the Hebrews, “Let us draw near with a true heart, in
full assurance of faith, having been sprinkled in heart
from an evil conscience, and having been washed in body
with pure water.” Why is this cleansing of the con-
Science, and baptismal Washing mentioned, except as a
warrant in order to drawing near in assurance of faith ?
To the same purport is St. Peter's teaching, that God
“ hath begotten us again unto a lively hope,” and “to an
inheritance incorruptible,” and that they who are thus
chosen “are kept by the power of God through faith.”
Lively faith comes after regeneration, not before it.
In these passages faith is made a permanent Or sus-
taining means, and not the beginning of justification ;
with which agree others, which speak of our faith as
securing our state of favour. For instance, “By faith ye
stand.” Again : “Because of unbelief they were broken
off, and thou Standest by faith.” Again : “I declare unto
you the Gospel which I preached unto you, which also
* Acts xxii. 14, 16. Gal. iii. 26, 27. Heb. x. 22, 1 Pet, i. 3-5.
Wide also Acts x. 47.
}''ustifying Faith. *. 233
ye have received, and wherein ye Stand.” And again :
“By whom also we have access by faith into this grace,
wherein, we stand.” Once more : “Yet a little while and
He that cometh will arrive, and will not tarry ; now the
just shall live by faith, but if he draw back, My Soul shall
have no pleasure in him.”
These passages also prove that only faith has this
sustaining power, from the circumstance that while it is
so repeatedly ascribed to faith, and that absolutely and
without contrast, it is not ascribed to other graces. If
by “standing” be meant, as I conceive, being in a justi-
fied state, faith surely, and not any other grace, is that
which operates in keeping us in it. Why it does so, is
altogether a distinct question, and One perhaps which we
cannot adequately determine. But, whatever be God’s
inscrutable reasons for thus connecting faith immediately
with His evangelical gifts, so has He done.
Moreover, it will be observed that the greatest and
most Sacred gifts are again and again ascribed to faith,
and not to other graces; as if there certainly were some
special connection between those gifts and faith, though
we may be unable to define what it is. For instance, the
forgiveness of sins —“Whom God has set forth to be
a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His
righteousness for the remission of Sins that are past.”
The presence of the Spirit –“That we might receive the
promise of the Spirit through faith.” Sanctification —
“Purifying their hearts by faith.” Perseverance;—“Who
are kept by the power of God through faith.” The re-
surrection of the body —“He that believeth in Me, though
he were dead, yet shall he live.” Eternal life —“That
234 The Office of
whosoever believeth in Him, should not perish, but have
everlasting life.” The Body and Blood of Christ :—“I
am the Bread of Life ; he that cometh to Me shall never
hunger, and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst.”
Or, as all God's ineffable gifts may be compendiously
stated in one word, justification —“That He might be
just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.”
And here a strong confirmatory argument is afforded
by Christ's conduct, when on earth, to those who came
to Him to be healed. What faith was in the “days of
the Son of Man” for temporal blessings, such surely is
it now under the ministration of the Spirit for heavenly.
So strict, then, it would seem, was the necessity of faith
as a mean of receiving His bounty, that when the sick
person did not or could not show it, it was exacted of
the parties who brought him. Our Lord said to the
woman with an issue of blood, who touched His garment,
“Thy faith hath made thee whole ;” to the blind men,
“Believe ye that I am able to do this 2° and “according
to your faith, be it unto you ;” to the woman of Canaan,
“O woman, great is thy faith; be it unto thee even as
thou wilt.” Seeing the faith of those who let down the
paralytic through the roof. He said to the sick man, “Son,
thy sims be forgiven thee;” in His own country, “He
did not many mighty things, because of their unbelief;”
nay, “He could do there no mighty works, save that He
laid His hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.”
In like manner, St. Paul at Lystra, “stedfastly beholding”
the cripple, “and perceiving he had faith to be healed,
1 Rom. iii. 25, 26. Gal. iii. 14. Acts xv. 9. 1 Pet. i. 5. John
xi. 25 ; iii. 16 ; vi. 35.
%ustifying Faith. 235
said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet.” And
St. Peter also, fastening his eyes upon “the lame man at
the Beautiful gate,” and saying, “Ilook on us,” “took him
by the right hand, and lifted him up ;” and in conse-
quence, he says presently, that Christ's “Name, through
faith in His Name, hath made this man strong.” More-
over, our Lord lays down on several occasions this broad
doctrine: “If thou canst believe, all things are possible to
him that believeth;” “If ye have faith as a grain of
mustard-seed, ye shall say to this mountain, Remove
hence to yonder place, and it shall remove ; and nothing
shall be impossible unto you.” “All things whatsoever
ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.” Our
Lord's words seem to have become proverbial, for St.
Paul speaks of faith “removing mountains.” Surely, it
is not without the purpose of a permanent lesson in the
Church, that the inspired word has thus uniformly re-
corded this connection between faith and the gifts of the
Gospel; Surely, what is true of its visible miracles, is
true also of its invisible, which still remain to us. It is
not love nor humility which has the special office of
co-operating with God's outwärd signs, with the divine
“breathing” and “touching,” with the divinely tempered
“clay,” or the divine word, but faith. And let it be
observed that this assignment of a particular office or a
special blessing to a certain grace, is quite according to
the analogy of Scripture ; so that, even could we see no
reasons at all for it, it need not surprise us, that the re-
1 Matt. ix. 22, 28, 29 ; xiii. 58; xv. 28 ; xvii. 20; xxi. 22. Mark
ii. 5; vi. 5; ix. 23. Acts iii. 4, 7, 16 ; xiv. 9, 10.
* 1 Cor. Xiii. 2.
236 7%e Office of
ception of God’s grace should be a prerogative of Faith.
Thus, “the pure in heart” “shall see God;” and “the
meek” “shall inheriff the earth.”
On all accounts, then, from the instances, statements,
and analogy of Scripture, we may safely conclude that
there is a certain extraordinary and singular sympathy
between faith and the grant of Gospel privileges, such as
to constitute it, in a true sense, an instrument of receiv-
ing them, that is, of justification, which includes them
all;-in a true Sense, which is to be determined by that
same Scripture, and not by antecedent arguments, as if
the definition of faith implied it, or the condition of man
required it (man being unequal to works, or faith being
“apprehensive,” or trusting to our own merits being
perilous and uncertain, or comfort being thus Secured to
us),-not clashing with other truths, such as the instru-
mentality of the Sacraments, nor Superseding condi-
tions, such as repentance and obedience,—nor inconsist-
ent with the priority of love to faith, at least implicitly,
both in order of nature and of time.*
5.
While then we reserve to Baptism our new birth, and
to the Eucharist the hidden Springs of the new life, and
to Love what may be called its plastic power, and to
Obedience its being the atmosphere in which faith
breathes, still the divinely appointed or (in other words)
* [Catholics hold that, whereas faith, as a disposing condition, is
prior to justification, love or charitas is posterior to it. It is a pia,
affectio and a boma voluntas, not charitas, which precedes faith. On the
“pia affectio,” vid, the next Lecture.]
%ustifying Faith. 237
the mysterious virtue of Faith remains. It alone coa-
lesces with the Sacraments, brings them into effect, dis-
solves (as it were) what is outward and material in them,
and through them unites the soul to God." It alone,
while it develops, also Sanctifies in God's sight all other
graces, like Salt or incense on sacrifices, which neither
buys the victim, nor supersedes it, but recommends it to
God’s acceptance. Such is justifying faith, justifying
not the ungodly, but the just, whom God has justified
when ungodly; justifying him under God, and under
God’s means ; justifying the just, as being the faith of
the justified, who through Baptism first were justified,
when as yet they were unjust. And hence the Gospel
is called “the law of faith,” and discipleship “the obedi-
ence of faith; ” for though faith is the principle of all
religion, yet under the Gospel it has a special office, and
that with an evident fitness So far as it is formally as-
signed it, though we dare not antecedently decide how
far it is so.
It may indeed be objected to this doctrine that faith,
thus restricted in its office, is after all only a higher kind
of condition, or what is called Sine gua mon, in justifica-
tion, instead of a positive instrument ; that, whereas the
Sacraments convey the gift, faith has but the negative
office of not impeding its bestowal, and this office any
other grace has equally, for, if love, or purity, or repent-
* Aéléas divövmta Tijs vogukås iépoup'ytas Tõ eiðm, ÖTruoxveira, Tây
âuaptmuárov Tiju dipeau' àu äuä Toi Tavaylov 8atttapatos éðapjaaro.
’Eyð elut 6 &#axelºptov rás Ópapttas, K. T. N. (Is. xlii. 25), où yöp 6% 6t'
ëpywy détetralvøv, d\\ö, äuä, p.6wns triotews róv pºva Tuków Tervyākauev
dyabâv.—Theod. Adv. Gent. viii. p. 892.
238 The Office of
ance were absent, the Sacraments would not savingly
operate, and that it is unmeaning to make faith more
than a condition and less than an immediate and proper
instrument. But I would reply that this is but to in-
dulge in the same antecedent sort of reasonimg as before.
What do we know of the instruments, means, qualifica-
tions, and conditions of Salvation ? What do we know
of the real efficacy of anything we do? What of the
mode in which prayer operates ? What of the means
through which actions change the character ? What of
the sense in which Adam's sin is our sin 3 Let us not
think God's system narrow, because we are ignorant.
Let us believe, if His word so intimates, that faith has
an office for which we have not a word, as not having a
definite idea; that, without its being that on which solely
and immediately God grants His heavenly gifts, still
there is some connection between it and them, more than
Ordinary –as, to take a parallel instance, gaining bless-
ings for the Church is associated by our Lord and His
Apostles with perseverance in prayer.
6.
It may be said, however, that there are passages of
Scripture which distinctly speak of faith as justifying,
not after, but before Baptism. Such are the following:
“Being justified by faith we have peace with God,”
Baptism not being named; or, where both are mentioned,
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;” or,
in the way of precept, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and
thou shalt be saved ;”—and how can these be reconciled
with the doctrine which I have been maintaining?
} ustifying Faith. 239
Now if this objection is worth anything, its force must
lie in this; that, not in laying down principles, as the first
of these (for in such passages truth is stated in an abstract
way), but in precepts and directions, as in the last, faith
is pointed out as the instrument of justification apart
from Baptism. The first of these texts then may be at
once dismissed from the discussion ; the last may fairly
be urged, but nothing will follow from it. The words
“Believe, and thou shalt be saved,” as little negative the
use of a divine instrument, (such as Baptism), interven-
ing between faith and its reward, as the Centurion's faith,
such as was not in Israel, dispensed with Our Lord's
speaking the word that his servant might be healed.
The jailor to whom St. Paul spoke was baptized forth-
with ; if St. Paul's silence about Baptism be an argument
against its instrumental power, it would be an argument
also against its administration ; that is, the objection
proves too much. Texts, then, in which Baptism is not
mentioned, prove nothing, So long as there are texts in
which it is mentioned; else the Omission of faith in St.
Peter's exhortation on another occasion to “repent and
be baptized,” is a valid argument against the necessity of
faith. And as to the Second of the three passages quoted,
in which faith comes first and Baptism follows, such
passages as little prove that faith and not Baptism is the
true instrument of grace, as Our Saviour's call to “repent
and believe the Gospel” shows that repentance justifies,
and not faith. Such texts, then, as the three instanced,
neither prove the One doctrine nor its opposite : they
may be taken either way. The state of the case is this :
there are texts which speak of Baptism as the beginning
240 The Office of
of a state of grace; are there any which so speak of
faith ? The new birth is an act, an initiatory act, for-
giveness is an act; but justification is a state, being in
God’s favour is a State. It is nothing to the purpose then
to show that faith is connected in Scripture with justifi-
cation, or with God's favour. How is it connected with
the new birth, with the washing away of sing this is the
question. Now Baptism is an act, an initiatory act and
nothing beyond, and therefore a fit attendant on an
inward initiatory act, such as regeneration ; whereas
faith, though an act, is something beyond an act, it is
an abiding habit, and therefore more fitly constituted to
attend upon an abiding state. And next, I repeat, the
act of justifying is expressly ascribed to Baptism as
an immediate means; is it anywhere ascribed to faith?
Amanias bids St. Paul be baptized and wash away his
sins; but we are told in the text I have already quoted,
“By faith ye stand.” Are we anywhere said to rise up
by faith, as well as to stand? Is faith ever said to wash
away sins, as Baptism is ? to effect our new birth, as
Baptism is ? to begin that new life, which doubtless it
sustains, to gain what it certainly holds 3 The silence of
Scripture on this point is the more remarkable from the
circumstance that so many high gifts—Sanctification,
eternal life, and resurrection of the body—are connected
in Scripture with faith; all but the new birth ; all but
the first step, and this is in other passages said to be.
through Baptism.
But it may be replied, that in matter of fact faith
does come before Baptism ; men are not baptized till
they believe ; whatever then be the office of faith, it has
} usćſying Faith. 24. I
that office independently of Baptism ; and if it be an
instrument of justification, it is not made so by Baptism.
I answer, that though faith comes before Baptism, yet
before Baptism it is not the instrument of justification,
but only one out of a number of qualifications necessary
for being justified. Nothing is said in Scripture of faith
before Baptism, that is not said of repentance, or of the
resolve to lead a new life, which also are necessary con-
ditions, together with faith, in order to Baptism ; but
before Baptism, it, as well as they, is without “availing”
power, without life in the sight of God, as regards our
justification. After all these preparatives (as they may
be called), not in and through them, comes Gospel grace,
meeting, not co-operating with them, by a distinct process
and with an interval. “As many as received Him,” says
the Evangelist, “to them gave He power to become the
sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.”
Their faith was their coming; is coming the instrument
of a beggar's receiving alms, or rather a necessary
previous step 2 is it the same as the hand that takes, or
the hand that gives? Those who believe, says St. John,
are thereupon born of God; yet he does not say, “as
many as had faith in Him, they, ipso facto, were born
again,” but “as many as received Him, they received
power to be born again.” There was an intervening step
in the process; that step was reception into His Church
or Kingdom. Faith then must not be called the new
birth, till Scripture is proved to say so ; and this is
why we hear so much in Protestant Schools and congre-
gations of “apprehending,” “applying,” “appropriating,”
“interesting oneself in " Christ by faith; words not in
R
242 The Office of
Scripture, and instead of Scripture terms which cannot
be found.
But it may be urged in answer to this, that to con-
sider faith first as a condition, and then as the instru-
ment of justification, and Baptism as the means of
changing it from the One to the other, is an arbitrary
and unnatural view of the subject ; that, in fact, it is
the same fault which in another connection I charged
on those who give two senses to the word righteous, in
order to obviate a difficulty in the way of their parti-
cular theory. But the answer is obvious ; I objected
to giving two senses to the word righteous as being un-
reasonable ; but I do not assign two Senses to the word
“faith,” but two offices. What is there unreasonable in
holding that, whereas all We have and all we are is
exalted by Baptism, the office of faith is exalted also :
that, while faith is renewed in knowledge, upon Christ
being revealed as an Object, it should also be renewed in
power, upon Christ being imparted as a Spirit 7 that, as
it is variously exercised in the Law and the Gospel, so
it should be variously endowed also 2 that, when it has
changed its character, it should also change its func-
tion ? Surely it is not at all strange that faith, when
a grace, should do more than faith when but a human
virtue; when lively, than when it “willed ” without
“performing.” Tather it is strange that faith, before
Baptism, like the jailor's, full of terror and disquiet,
or that of his household, vague and dull-minded,—that
feeble, sickly, wayward, fitful, inoperative faith, should
be taken even as a condition, except that a man “is
accepted according to that he hath, not according to
9 ustifying Faith. 243
that he hath not ;” that the principle of faith is capable
of great things, though it be nothing till Christ regene-
rate it ; and that when it comes for Baptism, it is on
the point of being rid of itself and hid in Him. It
comes to the Fount of life to be made alive, as the dry
bones in the Prophet's vision were brought together in
preparation for the Breath of God to quicken them ;
and He who “makes all things new,” and takes into
Him, and assimilates unto Him, all that is “in heaven
and earth,” as He makes sinners righteous, their persons
“pleasant,” their works “acceptable,” and their alms,
instead of a mere “memorial,” a “sweet-smelling sacri-
fice,” so also by His presence, converts what is a con-
dition of obtaining favour into the means of holding and
enjoying it.
The faith then of the justified continues and pre-
serves his justification; the faith of the sinner prepares
the way for his justification. From the first it is a con-
dition, and afterwards it is an instrument, its office
varying in importance with its character.—However,
there is a point of view in which both its character and
its office are the same always, and its relation towards
justification One and the same. With some notice of
this I shall conclude.
7.
Unless, indeed, it were substantially the same habit
of mind under all circumstances, it would not be called
faith; and so far as it is the same habit, it always has
the same office, of which one especial characteristic is
this, that it magnifies the grace of God, and is a sort of
244. 7%e Office of
witness of its freeness and largeness. In consequence it
is a symbol of the nature and mode of our justification,
and of its history; and hence is said by Protestant divines
to “justify alone,” that our minds may be affected with a
due sense of our inability to do any good thing of our-
selves. This is Melanchthon’s view, in which he is
followed by parts of our Homilies;–and now to explain
it.1
I Say, then, that when Melanchthon and his school
Speak of faith only justifying, they neither say with
Luther that it is the primary instrument (which it is
not), nor with our Homilies, that it is an instrument
after Baptism (which it is), but with parts of our first
book of Homilies, that it is an emblem or image of the
free grace of our redemption. To say we are justified
by faith only was in that Reformer's mouth a lively
mode of speech (he calls it figurative), for saying that
we are justified neither by faith nor by works, but by
God only. I do not deny that such a figure has some-
* “Cum dicitur, Fide justificamur, non alivd dicitur, quam quod
propter Filium Dei accipiamus remissionem peccatorum et reputemur
justi . . . . Intelligatur ergo propositio correlative, Fide Sumus justi,
id est, per misericordian propter Filium Deisumus justiseu accepti.”—
Melanchth. Loc. Theol. de voc. Fidei (f. 199, 2).
“In ecclesiis nostris dicitur, Fide sola justificamur, quod sic intelli-
gimus et declaramus, Gratis propter Solum Mediatorem, non propter
nostram contritionem, seu alia nostra merita, donamur remissione
peccatorum et reconciliatione.”—Confess. Eccl. Saxon. (ibid. f. 126).
“Sancti patres Sæpe dicunt, nos per misericordiam Salvari. Quoties
igitur fit mentio misericordiae, Sciendum est quod fides ibi requiratur,
quae promissionem misericordiae accipit. Etrursus quoties nos de fide
loquimur intelligi volumus objectum, Scilicet misericordiam promissam.”
—Apol. Confess. August, de Justif. (ibid. f. 64).
}''ustifying Faith. 245
thing refined about it, but it served effectually to excul-
pate the doctrine, which he had received from Luther, from
the charge of superseding good Works, as showing that
really and practically it had nothing to do either with
faith or works, but with grace. And since when thus
explained it was most true, and was a protest against
errors, which then were said to be widely spread in the
Church, it was adopted by Our Reformers, without aban-
doming the modified instrumental sense of it as above
commented on. -
A few illustrations will bring out its meaning. We
speak of “the Throne,” or “the Crown,” when we mean
the King. “The rights of the Crown’ is a phrase,
absurd, if analyzed literally, but intelligible as a figure.
Such, according to Melanchthon, is justification by faith
Only.
Again: faith is the tenure on which we enjoy the
gifts which Christ has merited for us; as one who had
served his country might receive from it large possessions
for his children on the condition of Some yearly ac-
knowledgment on their part, the presentation of a banner
or the like, worthless in itself, but, under the circum-
stances, a memorial both of his claims and of his depend-
ence on his country for the fulfilment of them. We
might speak of their holding their estates by such ac-
knowledgment, without meaning more than that it was
the sole symbol, not in any sense the Sole condition of
enjoying them, or the Original means of gaining them.
Again : our Lord commits to St. Peter the keys of
the kingdom of heaven, and gives him the name of rock,
or foundation. This does not exclude the other Apostles
246 7%e Office of
from holding the keys and being foundations also : in-
deed they are expressly so called. He is not sole among
them, or the channel through whom they are Christ's
Apostles. Why, then, is he singled out by our Lord?
Protestants answer that he is a specimen of what all the
Apostles are, and a type and symbol of them all. His
name expresses what all of them, including himself,
really are, foundations. In like manner, according to
the explanation before us, faith is said to justify, not
that it really does justify more than any other grace ;
but it has this peculiarity, that it signifies, in its very
nature, that nothing of Ours justifies us, or it typifies the
freeness of our justification. Faith heralds forth divine
grace, and its name is a sort of representation of it, as
opposed to works. Hence it may well be honoured
above the other graces, and placed nearer Christ than
the rest, as if it were distinct from them, and before
- them, and above them, though it be not. It is suitably
said to justify us, for the very reason that it says itself
that it does not justify, if one may so speak; as a SOrt
of reward made to it. In so determining, the Reformers
are not laying down a practical direction how to proceed
Žn order to be justified, what is required of us for justifi-
cation, but a large abstract principle or doctrine ever to
be held and cherished, viz. that in ourselves we deserve
eternal ruin, and are saved by Christ's mercy, and that
not through faith only, but through faith and all other
graces.
8.
Now about this interpretation of the doctrine I will
only say, first, that nothing can be more Scriptural than
Žustifying Faith. 247
the sense thus elicited from it ; next, that it is more
suited to the Schools, than to the taste of a people like
the English at the present day ; but, lastly, that if our
Iłeformers have chosen thus to express what is in itself
true, and to transmit it to us, it is right to maintain it,
as Bishop Bull has incidentally done in his instructive
Harmony of St. Paul with St. James. -
Let us then now turn to the first book of Homilies ;
which will be found clearly to teach, not with Luther
that faith is solitary at the time when it first justifies,
but with Melanchthon that, whereas it never is solitary,
it is but said to be the sole justifier, and that with a view
to inculcate another doctrine mot said, viz. that all is of
grace. -
“This sentence, that we be justified by faith only, is
not so meant by them,” the Fathers, “that the said justi-
fying faith is alone in man, without true repentance, hope,
charity, dread and the fear of God, at any time or season.”
Again, in a passage which has been already cited, we are
told, “Paith doth not shut out repentance, love, dread and
the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every one that
is justified, but it shutteth them out from the office of
justifying.”
What is the office here spoken of ? not the office of
conveying, but of symbolizing justification. For in-
stance : “As great and godly a virtue as the lively faith
is, yet it putteth us from itself, and remitteth or appointeth
us unto Christ, for to have only by Höm remission of our
sins or justification. So that our faith in Christ (as it
were) Saith unto us that, ‘It is not I that take away
your sins, but it is Christ only, and to Him only I send
248 The Office of
gow for that purpose, forsaking therein all your good
virtues, words, thoughts, and works, and Only putting
your trust in Christ.’” It is plain that, according to this
Homily, “faith only” does not apprehend, apply, or ap-
propriate Christ's merits; it does but preach them ; and
thus surely conveys a “most wholesome doctrine, and
very full of comfort.”
The formula, then, “justification by faith only,” on
this interpretation, is not a practical rule, but an abstract
principle. Accordingly, it will be observed, the Homilies
do not attempt to explain it literally, but declare it to be
a Sentence, Saying, or form of Speech, one too, which, when
drawn out, assumes quite a new shape, as far as its letter
is concerned.
Tor instance : “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;” let it be
observed, the drift of “the saying,” is given, not an inter-
pretation. The writer proceeds, “and thereby most plainly
to eayress the weakness of man and the goodness of God;
the great infirmity of ourselves, and the might and power
of God; the imperfectness of our own works, and the most
abundant grace of our Saviour Christ ; and thereby wholly
to ascribe the merit and deserving of our justification
unto Christ only, and His most precious blood-shed-
ding.”" Can words be clearer to prove that faith is
1 Sermon of Salvation, part ii.
In like manner, “Justification is the office of God only, and is not
a thing which we render unto Him, but which we receive of Him ; not
which we give to Him, but which we take of Him, by His free mercy,
%ustifying Faith. 249
considered to justify not as an instrument, but as a
symbol? it is to do nothing, but it is to “Say,” to
“express,” to “ascribe,” to warm, to bring g00d tidings.
In like manner, in the third part of the same Homily :
“The very true meaning of this proposition or saying,
We be justified by faith only (according to the meaning
of the old ancient authors) is this, We put our faith in
Christ, that we be justified by Him only.” Justification
and by the only merits of His most dearly beloved Son, our only Re-
deemer, Saviour, and Justifier, Jesus Christ ; so that the true wºnder-
Standing of this doctrine, 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,”—let it be observed, we are told what the words do not
mean,—in what sense it is not true that faith justifies, viz, not by
having any real merit; it would have been natural then to have gone
on to say in what sense faith does justify. Instead, however, of thus
closing with the words, and sifting their meaning, well understanding
they are the emblem of a principle, not a literal statement, the writer
continues —“but the true understanding and meaning thereof is, that
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 that Sacrifice which
our High Priest and Saviour, Christ Jesus, the Son of God, once offered
for us upon the Cross.” It must be recollected that Melanchthon (vide
note, Supra, p. 181) calls justification by faith, “Paulina figura.”
* Again : “Because faith doth directly send us to Christ for remis-
sion of our sins, and that by faith given us of God we embrace the
promise of God's mercy and of the remission of sins (which thing none
other of our virtues or works properly doth), therefore Scripture useth
to say, that faith without works doth justify.” Here is the reason for
saying “faith only,” and not “love only,” or “obedience only,”
250 7%e Office of
by faith only is here said to be a saying ; consider how
astonished and pained we should be, were the doctrine
of the Atonement or of Christ's divinity insisted upon
merely as a proposition, Saying, or form of speaking.
This last-mentioned title is actually given it in
another passage —“This form of Speaking use we, in the
humbling of ourselves to God, and to give all the glory
to our Saviour Christ, who is best worthy to have it.”
9.
Enough has now been said upon the symbolical office
of faith. If more were needed, it might be further
observed that such a view of it is congenial to the tone
of thought which the Reformers discover in other matters.
As they considered prayers as lectures, Absolutions as
declarations, the Eucharistic Commemoration as a visible
memento, Mystical Rites as edifying eachibitions (which
they certainly are also), so they regarded faith as the
symbol of justification. Of course this is not the highest
view of the doctrine ; and our own Homilies, in another
portion of the Book, go on to the higher, according to
which it is an instrument, as has been shown. Well
would it have been if all Protestant writers had done the
Same ; but others, following out the view which was more
peculiarly their patrimony as Protestants, have ended in
because faith directly “Sendeth us to,” or preaches “Christ.” Observe,
too, that still, as in the former cases, the Homily does not so much
affirm that faith only does justify, “but is said to justify.” Elsewhere
faith is compared to the Baptist, who “did put the people from him,
and appointed them unto Christ.” Was St. John an instrument, or only
a preacher? “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance,” etc.
%ustifying Faith. 25 I
the notion, that justification is the feeling of Satisfaction
which belief in God's mercy inspires, and nothing more.
To sum up what has been said:—the question has
been in what sense faith only justifies, for that it is neces-
Sary to Our justification, all parties allow. I answer, it
justifies only, in two ways, as the only inward instrument,
and as the Only symbol. Viewed as an instrument, it
unites the Soul to Christ through the Sacraments; viewed
as a symbol it shows forth the doctrine of free grace.
Hence it is the instrument of justification after Baptism;
it is a symbol both before and after."
* The reader will find several statements contained in this and in
the 4th and 6th Lectures, more or less confirmed by Waterland (on
Justification, Works, vol. ix.)
LECTURE XI.
THE NATURE OF JUSTIFYING FAITH.
ETER considering the office of Faith, it fitly follows
to inquire what it is, both in itself, and as existing
in the regenerate. This I propose now to do, and in
doing it shall have the guidance of a text, which ap-
proaches as nearly as any statement in Scripture to a
formal definition —“Faith is the substance of things
hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Our Church
has nowhere defined faith. The Articles are entirely
silent; and though the Homilies contain many popular
descriptions, they present, as is natural, nothing consist-
ent and accurate.
Beligious faith is “the substance,” or the realizing of
what as yet is not here, but only “hoped for ;” it is the
making present what is future. Again: it is “the evi-
dence” of what is not seen, that is, the ground or medium of
proof, on or through which the unseen is accepted as really
existing. In the way of nature, we ascertain the things
around and before us, by sight ; and things which are to
be, by reason ; but faith is our informant about things
present which we do not see, and things future which we
cannot forecast. And as sight Contemplates form and
colour, and reason the processes of argument, So faith rests
7%e AWažure of Žustifying Faith. 253
on the divine word as the token and criterion of truth,
And as the mind trusts to sense and reason, by a natural
instinct, which it freely uses prior to experience, so in a
parallel way, a moral instinct, independent of experience,
is its impelling and assuring principle in assenting to
revelation as divine. By faith then is meant the mind's
perception or apprehension of heavenly things, arising
from an instinctive trust in the divinity or truth of the
external word, informing it concerning them.” Whether
it acts upon that knowledge so obtained, depends upon
something beyond with which we are not now concerned,
—its particular moral state in a given case.
In other words, faith, as such, is not a practical
principle or peculiar to religious men. Thus, in matters
of this world, men believe, but are not influenced, unless
they feel the matter to be important. On the other hand,
if they are interested in it, they believe what they other-
wise would not believe. So far, then, from faith directly
causing action, action in a particular case may depend on
circumstances on which faith also depends. Accordingly,
there is nothing in the text to confine its definition to
religious faith, except the indirect expression “hoped
for;” which no one would say was strictly part of the
definition. None, doubtless, but religious men can hope
for what God’s word announces; but leaving out this
incidental word, the text might even be taken to describe
the faith of evil spirits, which St. James both recognises
as faith, and discriminates from religious faith. Reli-
* &gtep 3 p66)\pi}s betrat payrös étručeukviſvros T.& 6pató, oùra, Öh ağ ka?
ô vojs 6étrat Trio Tea’s étruścikvvoča ms Tú, 6eſa, kal Thu Trept Toºray 66%av
quxattoiſans 3e3atav.–Theodor, adv. Gent. i. p. 714.
254 7%e AWa/2/7′e
gious men believe and “hope;” “the devils believe and
tremble.” They believe in a judgment to come, for on
one occasion they exclaimed against being “tormented
before their time;” and on what, but on God's infallible
word announcing it ! Thus dread and despair are inse-
parable attendants upon the devils' faith ; hope and trust
upon religious faith ; but both are in their nature one
and the same faith, as being simply the acceptance of
God’s word about the future and unseen. Religious faith
is nothing else but the faith of the religious, and despair-
ing faith is the faith of the despairing. Dead faith is the
faith of the dead; lively faith is the faith of the living.
Justifying faith, strictly speaking, is not trust, or adher-
ence, or devotedness, though in familiar language it allow-
ably be so called, but faith, the faith of trusting, adher-
ing, devoted minds.
Faith, then, is not a virtue or grace in its abstract
nature ; else evil spirits could not possess it. It is
so only under circumstances or in the particular case ;
Abraham's faith involved self-denial, the Blessed Virgin’s
faith implied love and hope. Faith is but an instrument,
acceptable when its possessor is acceptable. And in this
respect it differs from most other virtues, that it is not
an excellence, except it be grafted into a heart that has
grace. The devils cannot have love, humility, meekness,
purity, or compassion,-they have faith. When, how-
ever, it is so grafted, then it makes progress, and the last
becomes the first. “He raiseth up the poor out of the
dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set
them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne
of glory.” And then it becomes the instrument of secur-
of Žustifying Faith. 255
ing that favour which more properly attaches to the Soul
exercising it ; as the eye is said to See, whereas it is the
organ of the mind.
2.
But though faith, considered by itself, is not a grace,
it must be borne in mind that it never does exist by
itself; it always exists in this person or that, and, as
exercised by the one or the other, it must be either a grace
or not. Faith in the abstract does not exist except as a
mere conception of Our minds. The devils believe, and
Christians believe ; we may compare the two together,
and observe that the outline of the faith in each is the
same ; they both realize the unseen and future on God’s
word. But an outline never exists by itself ; it ever
exists in a certain body or Substance. One man is said to
be the same as another man, when the mind contemplates
them as man; yet after all the mind can but contemplate,
it cannot create or alter what is external to it. In spite
of our arbitrary abstractions, each existing man exists to
himself, as an individual, complete in himself, independ-
ent of all others, differing from all others, in that he is
he, and not they nor one with them, except in name.
No one thing can be another thing ; faith in this man is
not faith in that ; nay, the One is not necessarily like
the other, except in Outline, or as One kind of animal,
for instance, is like another, or as a good spirit is like an
evil one. An animal in the abstract, is neither man nor
brute, but then there is no such thing as an abstract
animal; every animal must be man or brute; and so
faith, as actually existing, either is an excellence or it is
256 7%e AWa/2/7′e
not, though considered in its abstract nature it has no
positive character." -
Or, to take another illustration —the animal nature,
when found in man, is the Organ of doing what neither
the Soul can do without it, nor it can do without the soul.
It sees, and enables us to read; yet no one would so
confuse the case, as to say that the animal nature, as
Such, reads, because we read through it. In some such
way does faith stand towards a right state of mind. To-
gether they make up religiousness; the one reports, the
other feels and acts on the report. Moral rectitude with-
out faith is a Soul without eyes; faith without moral
rectitude is perception without appreciation. It may see,
but it cannot read the message of mercy, though it gaze
ever so hard ; it is said to do so, as the eye is said to
read, but it does not of itself really appreciate or obey
that message from above.
It would seem, then, that Luther's doctrine, now so
popular, that justifying faith is trust, comes first,
justifies by itself, and then gives birth to all graces, is
not tenable ;-such a faith cannot exist, and if it could,
would not justify. For, as faith cannot exist except in
this or that mind, so it cannot be as much as trust,
without being also hope,” nor hope without having Some
* Wid, the author's Essay on Assent, ch. viii. § 2, pp. 272-275.
* Luther and Calvin both virtually grant that faith and hope are
inseparable, or parts of one thing, though Luther, and perhaps Calvin,
deny this of faith and love. “Reipsa igitur fides et spes vix discerni
possunt, et tamen est aliquod discrimen inter ipsas. . . . . Sicut . . . . .
in politia prudentia sine fortitudine vana est, ita fides in Theologia sine
Spe nihil est, quin spes fert et perdurat in malis et vincit ea. Et
vicissim, sicut fortitudo sine prudentia temeritas est, ita spes sine fide
of Žustifying Faith. 257
portion of love. Mere trust as little gives birth to other
graces as mere faith. It is common indeed to say that
trust in the mercy of God in Christ ensures all other
graces, from the fertilizing effect of the news of that
mercy on the heart. But surely that blessed news has
no such effect unless the heart is softened to receive it ;
that softening then is necessary to justification, and by
whatever name it is called, religiousness, or love, or
renewal, it is something more than trust." That is,
Something more than trust is involved in justifying
faith ; in other words, it is the trust of a renewed or
loving heart. But after all, it is an abuse of terms to go
so far as to define faith to be trust, unless one might also
praesumptio in spiritu.—Luth. in Gal. v. 5. Fieri non poterit quin
sperm aeternae salutis comitem secum habeat individualm, vel potius ex
se gignat et exerat, etc.—Calv. Instit. iii. 2, § 42. As to faith producing
hope, this, supposing they are parts of one, is a distinction merely in
the way of viewing it.
* Calvin attempts to overcome this obvious inference thus: Quo-
niam res maxime dubia est, uno verbo statuimus, eos inepte loqui quum
fidem formari dicunt, accessione piae affectionis ad assensum facta ;
quum assensio quoque pia affectione constet.-Instit. ii. 2, 8. That is,
assent is not made justifying by the presence of spiritual feeling, because
justifying assent consists in Spiritual feeling. Bucer is not more suc-
cessful. Vera utique fides, certaque de Dei erga nos bonitate persuasio,
illico ex se ejus quoque summum amorém ac reverentiam gignit,
studiumque omnium quae Deo probantür, et Odium eorum quae ille de-
testatur.—Enar. in Matt. viii. f. 83. Jackson puts the case clearly in
his definition of faith, as “a firm and constant assent or adherence unto
the mercies and loving-kindness of the Lord, or generally to the spirit.
ual food exhibited in His Sacred word, . . . . grownded upon a taste or
relish of their sweetness, wrought in the Soul or heart of man by the
Spirit of Christ.”—B. iv. c. 9, p. 667. Jackson, however, does not
allow this “taste of their Sweetness” to involve love ; but this seems
a question of words. (Wide supra, p. 236, note.)
S
258 - The Nature
call the devil's faith despair. Faith is neither trust nor
despair, but faith; though it takes the colour of trust or
of despair, according to the mind into which it is
received. But this is a subject which admits of fuller
statement.
3.
Justifying faith, then, may be considered in two
main points of view; either as it is in itself, or as it
exists in fact in those who are under grace. In the
former point of view it is not necessarily even a moral
virtue ; but when illuminated by love, and ennobled by
the Spirit, it is used as a name for all graces together,
as having them all as its attendants and companions.
In the alternative, then, of thus narrowing and of thus
extending its meaning, our Homilies have chosen the
latter course and the Romanists the former. The
Boman schools define it almost in its bare distinctive
outline, as it is in itself viewed apart from all circum-
stances or states of mind, as found in good and bad, as
living and dead. They consider it an assent of the
mind to God’s word. On the other hand, our Homilies
seem to consider that grace so changes its nature, that
a description which answers to it, both before and after
justification, is but a verbal generalization and a practi-
cal fallacy, as if a living body and a corpse were called
by one name ; and therefore they teach that faith must
not be called real unless it is living. Accordingly, in-
stead of attempting a strict definition, they enlarge upon
its properties or adjuncts in the regenerate, and Set it
before us in all the health, energy, and fulness of stature
which grace bestows. Each party appeals to St. Paul,
of Žustifying Faith. 259
but Roman controversialists stop short at the words
“substance” and “evidence,” as including the whole
essence of faith, which in consequence is nothing more
than evil spirits may have. Our Homilies, on the con-
trary, writing popularly, describe it to be trust and obedi-
ence as well as bare faith; as if arguing, that St. Paul
speaks of it as the substance of things hoped for, and ap-
pealing for its practical character to the various instances
of obedience which follow in the course of the Chapter.
This will be plain to any one who consults the
Homilies; which, as far as the words go, speak of faith,
not in its characteristic features, but as instinct with
the whole “mind of the Spirit,” as illustrated by the
entire assembly of graces which belong to the regenerate.
For instance, first they develop it into trust and hope,
laying it down that a quick and living faith “is not only
the common belief of the Articles of our faith, but it is
also a true trust and confidence of the mercy of God
through Our Jord Jesus Christ, and a stedfast hope of all
good things to be received at God's hand.” Of course
this does not mean that faith is hope, or that, strictly
speaking, faith is trust, which would be a misuse of
words, but that that faith which justifies, is not mere
faith, but faith in trust and hope, and trust and hope
in it. Next, they say “Dead faith is not the sure and
substantial faith which saveth sinners. Another faith
there is in Scripture, which is not, as the foresaid faith,
idle, unfruitful, and dead, but ‘worketh by charity,’ as
St. Paul declareth Gal. v.” Here then is another
element of lively faith, love; mere faith does not justify,
* Sermon of Faith, Part I.
26O 7%e AWa/2/7′e
but faith which is one with love, animated and impreg-
nated with love, and pouring itself out into trust or
hope without ceasing to be faith. They continue :
“This is the true, lively, and unfeigned Christian faith,
and is not in the mouth and outward profession only,
but it liveth and stirreth inwardly in the heart. And
this faith is not without hope and trust in God, nor
without the love of God and of our neighbours; nor
without the fear of God, nor without the desire to hear
God’s word, and to follow the same, eschewing evil, and
doing gladly all good works.” Thus faith, according to
these Homilies, is one with a spirit of godly fear and
holy obedience also ; and what makes this passage
clearer is the circumstance that, whereas faith is here
said to be “not without hope and trust,” it was in the
former passage said to be hope and trust, which shows
that hope and trust are not to be taken as mere addi-
tions or consequences, but as characteristic appendages
of justifying faith itself; therefore that godly fear and
that holy obedience, which in this last passage it is said
not to be “without,” are to be taken as characteristics
also. Elsewhere they are still more express: “There is
one work in the which be all good works, that is, faith
which worketh by charity. If thou have it, thou hast
the ground of all good works; for the virtues of strength,
wisdom, temperance, and justice, be all referred unto
this same faith.” Thus all “virtues,” which are the
“ground” of good works, exist in and with the faith
that justifies.
1 Of Good Works, Part I. [This is “fides formata,” which is justi-
fying.]
of Žustifying Faith. 26 I
Such is the view taken of justifying faith in the Homi-
lies, as extended out into that circle of graces of which it
becomes the outline and peculiarity; whereas the Roman
Church views it in that outline taken separately. The
Homilies, being popular discourses, speak of it practi.
cally ; Rome, speaking theologically, traces it to its ele-
ments. The one views it in the abstract, the other as it
is in fact ; the one considers it as the faith of the rege-
nerate, the other as regenerate faith. Either notion is
intelligible, whichever is the more advisable ; but what
is not at all intelligible is the notion of the Protestant
Schools, which makes it neither the one nor the other,
but more than one, and less than the other, something
between abstract and concrete, not mere assent to God's
word, yet not so much as obedience, not bare faith, yet not
living. Its upholders indeed boldly call their justifying
faith, living, and reject the notion of its being bare faith;
So far is well; but then they go on to define it to be
mere trust, or a fiduciary apprehension of Gospel mercy,
which, though certainly more than bare faith, is not
necessarily living. It will be said that our Homilies
sometimes so speak of it; certainly they do, but they are
popular addresses. It is quite another thing when state-
ments, which contain a true and impressive teaching, are
taken as adequate and accurate definitions of the matter
in hand. No such statements occur in our Articles;
they do occur in the German Confessions" from which the
* Et fidei vocabulum, non solum cognitionem historiae de Christo
significat, sed etiam credere et assentiri huic promissioni, quae est
Evangelii propria, in qua propter Christum nobis promittuntur re-
missio peccatorum, justificatio, et vita aeterna. — Conf. August. 2,
262 - 7%e AVa/2/7′e
Articles are taken. The silence then of the Articles is sig-
nificant. What I am here speaking of is a formal decla-
pation that faith is trust ; and I ask on what intelligible
principle is it that the Divines who make it, leave assent
without going on to obedience 3 Why, if they begin to
tint their outline, do they not finish the colouring? Why,
if they will consider it as confident assurance, do they
not allow it, as the Homilies allow it, to represent hope,
love, joy, peace, thanksgiving, devotedness, and all kinds
of virtue, whatever indeed is necessary for “the measure
of the stature of the fulness of Christ”? Why do they
say it only works by love and results in obedience, if they
maintain that it is trust 2 why must trust be part of its
essence, yet love and obedience external to it 2 why must
trust be any more than its necessary exhibition, if obedi-
ence is to be considered as nothing more? why should it
cease to be justifying faith if called love or obedience,
yet not if it be called trust? Yet such is the way of
viewing it, to which multitudes have accustomed them-
selves. They escape from the strict definition, then pitch
1540. Illa fides, quae justificat, non est tantum notitia historiae sedest
assentiri promissioni Dei.-Apol. Conf. August. Hec fides simul est
fiducia acquiescens in Mediatore...—Confess. Saxon. Jackson says that
“confidence, fiducia, or trust,” is “so nearly allied to faith, that some
include it in the essence or formal signification of the word in the
learned tongues; which opinion may seem to have some countenance
from the Book of Homilies. But what there is said of faith to this
purpose is a popular description, not an accurate or artificial definition,
like as also we may not think the author of those Homilies meant
formally and essentially to define faith, when he said that “faith is a
firm hope,” for so in the same place doth he describe it.”—B. iv. ch. 10,
S. 6, p. 673. Jackson differs in some points from the view contained
in these Lectures.
of Žustifying Faith. 263
their tent in the very middle of their route, dread to go
forward, and fire up at the very notion of going back,
and have recourse to Cries of alarm, protestations, and
threats, if any the most gentle persuasion or most intelli-
gible reasonings be used to turn them one way or the
other. *
4.
This then is the false position, if I may so speak,
which the schools in question have taken up. Their idea
of faith is a mere theory, neither true in philosophy nor
in fact ; and hence it follows that their whole theology
is shadowy and unreal. I do not say that there is no
such thing as a trusting in Christ's mercy for salvation,
and a comfort resulting from it. This would be resisting
what we may witness daily, and what, under circum-
stances, it is our duty to exercise. Bad and good feel it.
What is so unreal, is to say that it is necessarily a holy
feeling, that it can be felt by none but the earnest, that
a mere trust, without anything else, without obedience,
love, self-denial, consistent conduct, conscientiousness,
that this mere trust in Christ's mercy, existing in a mind
which has as yet no other religious feeling, will neces-
sarily renew the Soul and lead to good works. This is
the mere baseless and extravagant theory I speak of.
Men may be conscious they trust ; they may be con-
scious they gain comfort from trusting ; they cannot be
conscious that such a trust is of a practical character;
they cannot be conscious that it changes the heart. The
event alone determines this. That it raises present
emotions they may be conscious; that it is such as per-
manently to impress their inner man they cannot know,
264 7%e AWa/2/7′e
except they be prophets; for that is a thing future. It
may, or it may not ; and it is permicious to say it must.
However, to enter into its practical results is beside my
present Subject. -
Viewed in its theological aspect, in which it is now
before us, the Protestant account will be found to give a
character of vagueness and equivocation to the whole
system built upon it. What indeed can be expected but
arbitrary distinctions and unreal subtleties in the confor-
mation of a theology, which has a flaw in its leading prin-
ciple, which starts with maintaining that faith is, what
nothing ever was or can be, an abstraction in actual ex-
istence,—an object or thing which contains in it in fact
only what the name contains,—an aspect, Side, quality,
and property standing by itself—and, as if this were
not enough, which lays down, when we go on to inquire
what faith is, that it is mere trust, and yet necessarily
spiritual 3 Hence, not unnaturally, it is a source of
never-ending disputes between persons who seem to agree
together, yet go away and act differently, and still
wonder why they differ. I describe faith, and another
describes it, and perhaps we even use the same terms,
yet agree in nothing else. Why is this? because I aim
at contemplating things as they are, and must be, in
their embodied form ; and he, on the contrary, has a
notion that he may seize a certain portion of the idea
conveyed by the word faith, more than assent, less than
obedience, and may give it a substantive existence, and
carry it on to results such as he pleases to assign to it.
The one view then differs from the other as the like-
ness of a man differs from the Original. The picture re-
of Žustifying Faith. 265
sembles him ; but it is not he. It is not a reality, it is
all surface. It has no depth, no substance; touch it, and
you will find it is not what it pretends to be. When I
assign an office to faith, I am not speaking of an ab-
straction or creation of the mind, but of Something
existing. I wish to deal with things, not with words.
I do not look to be put off with a name or a shadow.
I would treat of faith as it is actually found in the
soul; and I say it is as little an isolated grace, as a
man is a picture. It has a depth, a breadth, and a thick-
ness; it has an inward life which is something over and
above itself ; it has a heart, and blood, and pulses, and
nerves, though not upon the surface. All these indeed
are not spoken of, when we make mention of faith; nor
are they painted on the canvas; but they are implied
in the word, because they exist in the thing. What has
been observed above, of the distinction between the
meaning of the word and of the thing, righteousness,
applies here. Love and fear, and heavenly-mindedness,
and obedience, and firmness, and Zeal, and humility, are
as certainly one with justifying faith, considered as a
thing existing, as bones, muscles, and vital organs, are
necessary to that outward frame of man which meets
the eye, though they do not meet it. Love and fear and
obedience are not really posterior to justifying faith for
even a moment of time, unless bones or muscles are formed
after the countenance and complexion. It is as unmean-
ing to speak of living faith, as being independent of
newness of mind, as of solidity as divisible from body,
or tallness from stature, or colour from the landscape.
As well might it be said that an arm or a foot can exist
266 • 7%e AWa/7/2-e
out of the body, and that man is born with only certain
portions, head or heart, and that the rest accrues after-
wards, as that faith comes first and gives birth to other
graces. This illustration holds with only one limitation;
that faith, though connatural with other graces, has a
power of reacting upon them, by placing more constrain-
ing objects before them, as motives to their more vigorous
exercise.
This then is what is meant by the doctrine that faith
is not justifying unless informed or animated by love ;
isolated or bare faith being impossible in a Christian, or
in any one else, and existing only in Our conceptions, and
not being a grace or virtue when so conceived. That
such is the doctrine of Scripture has been variously shown
in the discussion of the subjects which have come before
us. Here I will but cite two celebrated passages from
St. James and St. Paul, St. Paul says, “Though I have
all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have
not love, I am nothing.” And St. James, after warning
his brethren against “holding the faith” of Christ “in
respect of persons,” that is, in an unloving spirit, as the
context shows, proceeds to say, that it is “perfected by
works,” and that “without works” it is “dead,” as a body
without the soul. That is, as the presence of the Soul
changes the nature of the dust of the earth, and makes it
flesh and blood, giving it a life which otherwise it could
not have, so love is the modelling and harmonizing prin-
ciple on which justifying faith depends, and in which it
exists and acts.
5.
I conclude, then, by stating what is, as I conceive, the
of Žustifying Faith. . 267
special fruit or work of faith under the Gospel, and its
influence upon the Christian ; in doing which I shall
assume, what this is not the place to prove, that it is an
original means of knowledge, not resolvable into sense, or
the faculty of reasoning, confirmed indeed by experience,
as they are, but founded on a Supernaturally implanted
instinct; an instinct developed by religious obedience,
and leading the mind to the word of Christ and of His
Apostles as its refuge. - – -
The Gospel, then, as contrasted with all religious
systems which have gone before and come after, even
those in which God has spoken, is specially the system
of faith and “the law of faith,” and its obedience is the
“obedience of faith,” and its justification is “by faith,”
and it is a “power of God unto Salvation to every one
that believeth.” For at the time of its first preaching
the Jews went by sight and the Gentiles by reason; both
might believe, but on a belief resolvable into sight or
reason, neither went simply by faith. The Greeks
sought after “wisdom,” Some original and recondite philo-
sophy, which might serve as an “evidence” or ground of
proof for “things not seen.” The Jews, on the other
hand, “required a sign,” Some sensible display of God's
power, a thing of sight and touch, which might be “the
substance,” the earnest and security “ of things hoped
for.” They wanted Some carnal and immediate good, as
“the praise of men;” for this they did their alms, fasted
and prayed, not looking on to witnesses unseen, but for
an earthly reward; Or, if they wrought for God, it was
in a grudging, calculating Way, as if to make their ser-
vices go as far as possible, resting in them as ends, and
268 7%e AWa/7/7'e
suspicious of God as of a hard or unjust Master. Such
was the state of the world, when it pleased Almighty
God, in furtherance of His plan of mercy, to throw men's
minds upon the next world, without any other direct
medium of evidence than the word of man claiming to be
His ; to change the face of the world by what the world
called “the foolishness of preaching” and the unreason-
ing zeal and obstinacy of faith, using a principle in
truth’s behalf which in the world’s evil history has ever
been the spring of great events and strange achieve-
ments. Faith, which in the natural man has mani-
fested itself in the fearful energy of superstition and
fanaticism, is in the Gospel grafted on the love of God,
and made to mould the heart of man into His image.
6.
The Apostles then proceeded thus:–they did not
rest their cause on argument ; they did not rely on
eloquence, wisdom, or reputation ; nay, nor did they
make miracles necessary to the enforcement of their
claims." They did not resolve faith into sight or reason ;
they contrasted it with both, and bade their hearers
* Wid. Acts xvii. 23; xxiv. 25. Paley, whose work on the Evi-
dences is founded on the notion that the miracles wrought by Christ
and His Apostles are to be the ground of our faith, feels the difficulty
that in fact they were not so accounted in early times. After quoting
passages of the Fathers in his favour, he adds, “I am ready, however,
to admit that the ancient Christian advocates did not insist upon the
miracles in argument So frequently as I Should have dome. It was their
lot to contend with notions of magical agency, against which the mere
production of the facts was not sufficient for the convincing of their
adversaries. I do not know whether they themselves thought it quite de-
of Žustifying Faith. 269
believe, sometimes in spite, sometimes in default, some-
times in aid, of sight and reason. They exhorted them
to make trial of the Gospel, since they would find their
account in so doing." And of their hearers “some
believed the things which were spoken, some believed
not.” Those believed whose hearts were “opened,”
who were “ordained to eternal life ; ” those did not
whose hearts were hardened. This was the awful
exhibition of which the Apostles and their fellow
workers were witnesses; for faith, as a principle of
knowledge, cannot be exactly analyzed or made intelli-
gible to man, but is the Secret, inexplicable, spontaneous
movement of the mind (however arising) towards the
external word, a movement not to the exclusion of
sight and reason, for the miracles appeal to both, nor of
experience, for all who venture for Christ receive daily
returns of good in confirmation of their choice, but
independent of sight or reason before, or of experience
after. The Apostles appealed to men's hearts, and,
according to their hearts, so they answered them. They
appealed to their secret belief in a superintending pro-
vidence, to their hopes and fears thence resulting; and
they professed to reveal to them the nature, personality,
cisive of the controversy.”—Part iii. c. 5, fin. Then on what did they
believe 3 Again : are not philosophical objections as cogent now
against miracles as the belief in magic then
* Tórepov 3éAttöv éotiv atroſs d’Aóya's Tuo reſovoſt kateard X6at tra's r&
#0m kal dºeNāoffat, Ötö. Töv Tept Töv koWašopévov ćtt & papriats kal ruto-
uévay €irl épyots xpmaroſs triotiv, 3) pil Tpoorleq 0at airów Thu Tuorpoq}}v
per& pºſs trforews, 80s &v étruðógv Šavroës éetáaev Nõyajv : . . . .
# Tept toà Tê Kpeltrova kal rô Kat' etxàu áTavrijaegôat triotis roMuſiv
ºrduras Troteſ, Kal étri Tô domxa Kai Övvatā āN\ws ovg|37val.—Orig. in
Cels. i. 9-11.
27O . 7%e AWa/2/7′e
attributes, will, and works of Him “whom their hearers
ignorantly worshipped.” They came as commissioned
from Him, and declared that mankind was a guilty and
Outcast race,—that sin was a misery, that the World
was a Snare, that life was a shadow, that God was
everlasting, that His Law was holy and true, and its
Sanctions certain and terrible ;-that He also was all-
merciful,--that He had appointed a Mediator between
Him and them, who had removed all obstacles, and was
desirous to restore them, and that He had sent themselves
to explain how. They said that that Mediator had come
and gone ; but had left behind Him what was to be His
representative till the end of all things, His mystical
Body, the Church, in joining which lay the salvation of
the world. So they preached, and so they prevailed;
using indeed persuasives of every kind as they were
given them, but resting at bottom on a principle higher
than the senses or the reason. They used many argu-
ments, but as outward forms of something beyond
argument. Thus they appealed to the miracles they
wrought, as sufficient signs of their power, and assuredly
divine, in spite of those which other systems could
show or pretended. They expostulated with the better
sort on the ground of their instinctive longings and dim
visions of something greater than the world. They
awed and overcame the passionate by means of what
remained of heaven in them, and of the involuntary
homage which such men pay to the more realized
tokens of heaven in others. They asked the more
generous-minded whether it was not worth while to
risk something on the chance of augmenting and per-
of Žustifying Faith. . 271
fecting those precious elements of good which their
hearts still held; and they could not hide what they
cared not to “glory in,” their own disinterested suffer-
ings, their high deeds, and their sanctity of life. They
won over the affectionate and gentle by the beauty of
holiness, and the embodied mercies of Christ as seen in
the ministrations and ordinances of His Church. Thus
they spread their nets for disciples, and caught thousands
at a cast ; thus they roused and inflamed their hearers
into enthusiasm, till “the Kingdom of Heaven suffered
violence, and the violent took it by force.” And when
these had entered it, many of them, doubtless, would
wax cold in love, and fall away ; for many had entered
only on impulse ; many, with Simon Magus, on wonder
or curiosity; many from a mere argumentative belief,
which leads as readily into heresy as into the Truth.
But still, those who had the seed of God within them,
would become neither offences in the Church, nor
apostates, nor heretics; but would find day by day, as
love increased, increasing experience that what they
had ventured boldly amid conflicting evidence, of sight
against sight, and reason against reason, with many
things against it, and more things for it, they had ven-
tured well. The examples of meekness, cheerfulness,
contentment, silent endurance, private self-denial, forti-
tude, brotherly love, perseverance in well-doing, which
would from time to time meet them in their new
kingdom, the Sublimity and harmony of the Church's
doctrine,—the touching and subduing beauty of her
services and appointments, their consciousness of her
virtue, divinely imparted, upon themselves, in subduing,
272 7%e AWa/7/7′e
purifying, changing them,-- the bountifulness of her
alms-giving, her power, weak as she was and despised,
over the statesmen and philosophers of the world,—her
consistent and steady aggression upon it, moving forward
in spite of it on all sides at once, like the wheels in the
Prophet's vision, and this in contrast with the ephemeral
and variable outbreaks of Sectarianism,”—the unanimity
and intimacy existing between her widely-separated
branches, the mutual sympathy and correspondence of
men of hostile nations and foreign languages, the simpli-
city of her ascetics, the gravity of her Bishops, the awful
glory shed around her Martyrs, and the mysterious and
recurring traces of miraculous agency here and there, once
and again, according as the Spirit willed, these and the
like persuasives acted on them day by day, turning the
whisper of their hearts into an habitual conviction, and
establishing in the reason what had been begun in the
will. And thus has the Church been upheld ever
since by an appeal to the People, to the necessities of
human nature, the anxieties of conscience, and the
instincts of purity ; forcing upon Kings a sufferance or
protection which they fain would dispense with, and
upon Philosophy a grudging submission and a reserved
and limited recognition.
* &offea to pièv yöp attika, Tpös ačTàs évépyelas &TeXeyxögeva rö. Töv
éx0pów étratexviipata, āNAwv čT' &\\ats aipéoewy Kaworopoupévov Štrop-
peovoſºv del Töv Tpotépov, Kai els ToMurpótrovs Kal troXupóppovs toéas
ãNNote àNAws p0elpop.évov trpoffel 6'els atºmatv kal péyé00s, &et kará tê.
aúrò Kal do attos éxovoſa, h Tås ka0ó\ov ka? p.6vms &\m000s ékk\matas
Naptºpórns, to geuvov Kal elNukpuès kai éAev0éptov, Tó Te oróppov Kal
Kadapów Tàs évôéov Toxttetas Te Kal (pi)\ogoſplas els áirav yévos"EXX #voy Te
kal 6apgåpov &Tootſ\Bovara.-Euseb. Hist. iv. 7, fin.
of Žustifying Faith. 273
7.
Such was the triumph of Faith, spreading like a
leaven through the thoughts, words, and works of men,
till the whole was leavened. It did not affect the
substance of religion ; it left unaltered both its external
developments and its inward character ; but it gave
strength and direction to its lineaments. The sacrifice
of prayer and praise, and the service of an obedient heart
and life, remained as essential as before ; but it has
infused a principle of growth. It has converted grovel-
ling essays into high aspirings, partial glimpses into
calm contemplation,-niggard payments into generous
Self-devotion. It enjoined the law of love for retaliation;
it put pain above enjoyment; it Supplanted polygamy
by the celibate ; it honoured poverty before affluence,
the communion of Saints before the civil power, the next
world before this. It made the Christian independent
of all men and all things, except of Christ ; and pro-
vided for a deeper humility, while it supplied an overflow
of peace and joy.
LECTURE XII.
IFAITH VIEWED RELATIVELY TO RITES AND WORKS.
NOW proceed to show that though we are justified,
as St. Paul Says, by faith, and, as our Articles and
Homilies Say, by faith only, nevertheless we are justified,
as St. James says, by works; and to show in what sense
this latter doctrine is true, and that, not only in the case
of Works of righteousness, but also of ritual services,
such as Baptism, as St. Paul and St. Peter teach. Of
course I do not forget St. Paul's declaration that “a man
is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law,” but
he does not thereby assert that justification is inde-
pendent of the deeds of the Gospel, as a few remarks will
suffice to show.
Now, I say at first sight it is no contradiction of St.
Paul to assert that we are justified by faith with evan-
gelical works, unless St. James contradicts him also.
Those who object to the doctrine of justification through
good Works, must first object to St. James's Epistle,
which they sometimes have done ; on the other hand,
the temper of Christian reverence which will lead the
disciple of St. Paul to submit to St. James, is also a spirit
of charity towards those who speak with St. James, from
a fearlest in condemning them it should resist an Apostle.
With those then who judge severely of the maintainers
Aaith viewed relative/y, &c. 275
of justification by works, I would expostulate thus :
—Why be so bent upon forcing two inspired teachers
into a real and formal discordance of doctrine? If you
could prove ever so cogently that when St. Paul Said,
“deeds of the Law,” he meant to include Christian
works, you would not have advanced one step towards
interpreting St. James, or impairing his authority; you
would have only plunged into a more Serious perplexity.
Difficult if it be to account for St. Paul insisting on faith,
and St. James at a later date insisting on works, Surely
it is a greater difficulty when it is insisted on that St.
Paul excludes the very works which St. James includes.
Is our Gospel like the pretended revelation of the
Arabian impostor, a variable rule, the latter portion con-
tradicting the former ? Let men speak out then : what is
their latent theory, which is sufficient to reconcile their
minds to this primá facie difficulty, and inspirits them,
under cover of a presumed contrariety in Scripture, to
move forward against Catholic and Apostolic truth?
I believe the latent view to be this: that the Scrip-
ture question was settled Once for all three centuries
since, when the words of both the Holy Apostles were
harmonized and merged in the formula of “justification
by faith only;” which henceforth, in spite of the sup-
posed liberty of private judgment, is practically a dogma
to Protestants, as the canons of the Tridentine Council
are binding on the faith of Roman Catholics; and fur-
ther, that because our Articles and Homilies contain the
phrase “by faith only,” therefore they must mean by that
phrase all that the Protestant schools have meant by it.
But Surely, while we accept fully this form of speech, as
276 Faith viewed relatively
has been done in the foregoing Lectures, we may reason-
ably maintain that an assent to the doctrine that faith
alone justifies, does not at all preclude the doctrine of
works justifying also. If indeed Isaid that works justify
in the same Sense as faith only justifies, this would be a
contradiction in terms; but faith only may justify in one
Sense, good works in another, and this is all that I here
maintain. After all, does not Christ only justify? How
is it that the doctrine of faith justifying does not inter-
fere with our Lord's being the sole justifier? It will of
Course be replied that Our Lord is the meritorious cause,
and faith the means; that faith justifies in a different
and subordinate sense. As then Christ alone justifies,
Žn the Sense in which He justifies, yet faith also justifies
us in its own sense, so works, whether moral or ritual,
may justify us in their own respective senses, though in
the Sense in which faith justifies, it only justifies. The
Only question is what is that sense in which works justify,
so as not to interfere with faith only justifying? It may
indeed turn out on inquiry, that the sense alleged will
not hold, either as being unscriptural or for any other
reason; but, whether so or not, at any rate the apparent
inconsistency of language should not startle men; nor
should they so promptly condemn those who, though
they do not use their language, use St. James's. Indeed,
is not this argument, as has been suggested already, the
very weapon of the Arians in their warfare against the
Son of God? They said, Christ is not God, because the
Father is called the “Only God.”
to A'ites and Works. 277
2.
I might seem just now to grant that St. Paul's words,
at first sight, countenanced the extreme Protestant view
of them ; but this was not at all my meaning. The
truth is, we put a particular Sense upon those words,
from having heard it again and again assigned to them,
and thus every other interpretation comes to seem un-
natural. The state of the case is as follows:–The Jews
sought to be justified by works done in their own unaided
strength, by the Law of Nature, as it was set before them
in the Mosaic Covenant ; and the Apostle shows them
a more excellent way. He proposes to them the Law of
Paith, and says that a man is justified by faith without
the deeds of the Law; moreover, that in thus teaching, so
far from making the Law void through faith, He estab-
lishes it. He means then to speak to the Jews as fol-
lows:– “Throw yourselves on God's mercy, surrender
yourselves to Him; the Law in which you pride your-
selves, holy as it is in itself, has been to you but an
occasion of sin. You are in bondage; you have no real
sanctity, no high aims, no inward growth, no power of
pleasing God. Instead of having done anything good,
you have everything to be forgiven. You must begin
over again; you must begin in a new way, by faith ;
faith only, nothing short of faith, can help you on to a
justifying obedience. But faith is fully equal to enabling
you to fulfil the Law. Far then from invalidating the
Law by the doctrine of faith, I establish it.” Now I do
not ask whether there is no other possible interpretation
of his words besides this (though I do think this the
only natural One), but whether, at least, it is not natural,
278 Faith viewed relatively
t
whatever becomes of others; and then, whether it is not
perfectly consistent with St. James's doctrine. It con-
cerns those who are dissatisfied with it to assign one
equally unexceptionable in itself, equally consistent with
the rest of Scripture.
Justification comes through the Sacraments; is re-
ceived by faith; consists in God’s inward presence; and
lives in obedience. Let us take some parallel cases.
Supposing one saw a Pagan or Mahometan at his de-
votions, or doing works of charity, and were to say, “Alas !
your prayers and works will profit you nothing; you
must believe on Christ ; which will stand you in stead
of all that you now do;” would any one suppose it to be
meant that Christians said no prayers, or gave no alms?
Or only that prayers and alms, when separate from Christ,
were but dead and vain?
Again : Scripture Says that “the prayer of the wicked
is an abomination to the Lord ;” does this prove that
the prayer of the righteous is an abomination also :
Again : when Almighty God says by the prophet, “I
Will have mercy, and not sacrifice,” does this mean that
the Jews were thenceforth to leave off their sacrifices,
or that Sacrifices were useless unless they also showed
mercy 3
Again : when Our Lord censures the “long robes” of
the Pharisees, does He censure such garments as are worn
at present by His ministers in Church 2
Again : when St. Paul declares that the Jewish Sab-
bath is abolished, does this prove there is no Christian
Sabbath, or Lord's day ?
This then is a mode of arguing, which would carry us
to A'ites and Worás. 279
much further than we dare to go. It does not follow
that works done in faith do not justify, because works
done without faith do not justify ; that works done in
the Holy Ghost, and ordinances which are His instru-
ments, do not justify, because carnal works and dead rites
do not justify. There is nothing in the text I have quoted
to exclude the Works and Sacraments of faith; all that
can be said is that they are not mentioned. St. Paul is
urging upon his brethren the one way to Salvation, which,
as it is Christ Himself in God's sight, so it is faith on
our part. He tells them they must be justified on a
new principle ; new, that is, as being used under the
Gospel for higher purposes than heretofore, and because
publicly recognized as the one saving principle. He
guides them to heaven along a path by which alone they
can ascend the mountain of the Lord, and which is called
the way of faith, not that it does not lie through hope
and charity too, but faith is the name designating the
track. The principle of faith directed and sanctified their
services: did it follow from this that it was (what is called)
substantive, and could stand by itself, instead of being
a quality or mode of obedience 2 or that obedience itself,
or what St. James calls works, could not be that sub-
stance 2 If we refuse, not to modify, but even to com-
plete One text of Scripture by another,--if we will not
admit the Second, merely because we prefer an interpreta-
tion of the first which contradicts it, if we will not hold
two doctrines at once, merely because the text that de-
clares the one does not also declare the other, if we
will not say with St. James that works of faith justify,
merely because St. Paul Says that faith justifies and
28O Aaith viewed relatively
works without faith do not justify, if we will demand
that the whole of the Gospel should be brought out into
form in a single text, then Surely we ought to hold
that Baptism is sufficient for Salvation, because St. Peter
says it “Saves us,”—or hope sufficient, because St. Paul
says “we are saved by hope,”—or that only love is the
means of forgiveness because our Lord says, “Her sins
are forgiven, for she loved much,”—or that faith does not
save, because St. James asks, “Can faith save him 2"—Or
that keeping the commandments is the whole Gospel,
because St. Paul says it has superseded circumcision.
Nothing Surely is more Suitable than to explain justifying
faith to be a principle of action, a characteristic of obedi-
ence, a sanctifying power, if by doing so we reconcile St.
Paul with St. James, and moreover observe the while the
very same rule of interpretation which we apply to
Scripture generally.
3.
Thus much at first view of the subject; now let us
take separately the two parts into which it divides,
gospel Ordinances and gospel works; and show in each
case more distinctly their relation to faith. e
1. It is objected, then, that under the Gospel, Ordi-
nances are of little account, and that to insist on them
is to bring the Church into bondage ; that if Baptism
convey regeneration, or the Apostolical Succession be the
warrant for the Ministry, or Imposition of hands be a
spiritual benefit, or Consecration be required for giving
and receiving the Eucharist, or its Celebration involve a
Sacrifice, in a Word, if outward signs are necessary means
fo A'złes and Works. 28 I
of gospel grace, then St. Paul's statement does not hold
that we are “justified by faith without the deeds of the
Law.”
Now, I observe, that this argument, on the face of it,
proves too much ; it proves that Christian rites should
altogether be superseded as well as Jewish. Faith super-
seded circumcision ; it did not supersede Baptism ; there
is then, on the face of the matter, some difference be-
tween Jewish and Christian Ordinances; and if the
latter be necessary under the Gospel and the former not,
perhaps they are necessary for Some certain purpose, and
perhaps that purpose is justification. Whether they are
or not is another matter ; but certainly the text in ques-
tion is not inconsistent with such a doctrine, or else is
inconsistent with much more. If faith is compatible
with their use, it may be compatible with their virtue.
But here it may be urged that, specious as this mode
of arguing may be, it does not touch the real reluctance of
religious persons to believe in the power of Sacraments
under the Gospel, or the grounds of their considering such
belief unscriptural ; that, as every one knows, there are
explanations of the Sacred text, which, however specious,
are felt to be evasions; and that the interpretation pro-
posed is utterly subversive of St. Paul's doctrine, and
uncongenial with his spirit. No one can doubt, it may
be said, that by the doctrine of Faith he meant to
magnify God’s grace, to preach Christ's Cross, to incul-
cate its all-sufficiency for pardon and renewal, and our
dependence on the aid of the Holy Spirit for the will
and the power to accept these blessings; that, on the
other hand, to say that Sacraments are the means of
282 Faith viewed relatively
justification, obscures the free grace of the Gospel, and is
“putting a yoke on the necks of the disciples.” Now
Certainly, this argument, in its place, demands attention ;
I say in its place, lest I should seem to allow of its being
used, after the fashion of these later centuries, as a
“leading idea” of the Christian Dispensation, and a
short and easy way into a comprehensive view of it. No ;
We must abandon all such methods, if we would enter
in at the strait and lowly gate of the Holy Jerusalem;
bowing Our heads and bending our eyes to the earth, not
thinking to command the city, or letting the eye range
over its parts, or flattering ourselves we can “mount up
with eagles' wings,” before we have first “waited on the
Lord.” Philosophizing upon the inspired text is a very
poor method of interpreting it, though it be allowable
under due limitations, after gaining its meaning in a
legitimate way. With this caution, I proceed to con-
sider the objection which has been stated.
4.
I say then, that fully allowing, or rather maintaining
that the scope of St. Paul's words is to show the nothing-
ness of man and the all-sufficiency of Christ, and that this
is the proper meaning of the doctrine of justification by
faith, yet so far is the Catholic doctrine concerning
Sacraments from interfering with this undeniable truth,
that I might apply the Apostle's words, and Say, “Do we
make void faith through the Sacraments? yea, we estab-
lish faith.” The proof of this is simple.
I allow then that faith exalts the grace of God; this
is its office and charge ; accordingly, whatever furthers
to A'ztes azza! Works. 283
this object, co-operates with the Gospel doctrine of faith ;
whatever interferes with this object, contradicts the
doctrine. Salvation by faith only is but another way of
saying Salvation by grace only. Again, it is intended to
humble man, and to remind him that nothing he can do
of himself can please God; so that “by faith” means,
“not by works of ours.” If then the Sacraments obscure
the doctrine of free grace, and tempt men to rest upon
their own doings, then they make void the doctrine
of faith; if not, then they do not ; if they magnify God
and humble man, then they even Subserve it. This was
the evil tendency of the Jewish rites when Christ came,
that they interfered between Christ and the soul. They
were dark bodies, eclipsing the glorious Vision which
faith was charged to receive. Now I would say, that
the Sacraments have a directly reverse tendency, and
subserve the object aimed at by the doctrine of faith, as
fully as the Jewish ordinances counteracted it. If this
be so, the doctrine of justification by Sacraments is alto-
gether consistent, or rather coincident with St. Paul's
doctrine, when he says, that we are justified by faith
without the deeds of the Law.
Upon Adam's fall, the light of God's countenance was
withdrawn from the earth, and His presence from the
souls of men; nor was the forfeited blessing restored but
by the death of Christ. The veil which hung before the
Holy of Holies, was a type of the awful “covering” which
was “cast over all people ;’
2
and, when the Atoming
Sacrifice was made, it rent in twain. Henceforth, heaven
was opened again upon man, not on rare occasions, or in
the instance of high Saints only, but upon all who be-
284 Aaith viewed relatively
lieve. Such being the state of things before Christ came
and such the state after, the Law which was before could
not be the means of life, because life as yet was not ; it
was not wrought out, it was not created ; it began to be
in Christ, the Word Incarnate. The Law could not justify,
because, whatever special favour might be shown here
and there by anticipation, Gospel justification was not
yet purchased in behalf of all who sought it. God justi-
fied Abraham, and He glorified Elijah ; but He had not
yet promised heaven to the obedient, nor acceptance to
the believing. He wrought first in the few what He
offered afterwards to all; and even in those extraordinary
instances, He acted immediately from Himself, not
through the Jewish Law as His instrument. Abraham
was not justified through circumcision, nor Elijah raised
by virtue of the Temple. Judaism had no life, no
spirit in its Ordinances, to connect earth and heaven.
Accordingly, the ceremonies of the Law, though given
by God, were wrought out by man; I mean, as has been
explained before, they were men's acts, not God’s acts.
They were done towards God, in order (if so be) to ap-
proach that which was not yet accorded ; and thus were
tokens, not of the presence of grace, but of its absence.
Sacrifices and purifications, circumcision and the sabbath,
could not take away sins, could not justify. Visible
things are but means of grace at best ; and they were
not so much, before grace was purchased. They were
attempts in a bad case towards what was needed ; they
were the humble and anxious representation of nature,
making dumb signs for the things it needed, as we provide
pictures and statues when we have not the originals.
zo A’zzes azad. Works. 285
Such was human nature in its best estate before Christ
came ; its worst was when it mistook the tatters of its
poverty for the garments of righteousness, and, as in our
Lord’s age, prided itself on what it was and what it did,
because its own, its sacrifices, ceremonies, birth-place,
and ancestry:--as if these could stand instead of that
justification which it needed. This was that reliance on
the works of the Law, which St. Paul denounces, a
reliance utterly incompatible of course with the doctrine
of free grace, and, in Consequence, of faith.
5.
This then was the condition of the Jews; they had
been told to approach God with works, which could not
justify, as if they could ; and the carnal-minded among
them mistook the semblance for the reality. But when
Christ came, Suffered, and ascended on high, then at
length the promised grace was poured out abundantly,
nay, for all higher purposes, far more so than on Adam
upon his creation. What, therefore, to the Jews was im-
possible even to the last, is to us imparted from the first.
They might not even end where we begin. They wrought
towards justification, and we from it. They wrought
without the presence of Christ, and we with it. They
came to God with rites, He comes to us in Sacraments.
Now Supposing, when any one desired and prayed
for the gospel gifts, they were conveyed to him through
the visible intervention of an Angel, would that Angel's
presence be a memento of free grace, or a temptation to
Self-righteousness? Or did Naaman's bathing in Jordan
naturally lead to Self-trust and a practical forgetfulness
286 Faith viewed relatively
of God's power? Did the necessity of coming to the
Apostles for a cure inculcate the law of works or of faith?
But it may be answered that such appointments are
capable of being used in a Superstitious dependence.
Angels may be worshipped; Apostles venerated, as if
they were not “also men.” Let me then put the
question in another shape, does the possibility of the
abuse destroy the natural and direct meaning of the ap-
pointment 2 Was not the Brazen Serpent worshipped
in a corrupt age 2 yet Our Lord still appeals to its
legitimate meaning as a token of God's free grace. If
the ordinance of the Brazen Serpent, which had been
abused, still conveyed the doctrine coupled with it by
Christ Himself, of “everlasting life” to those that
“believe,” Surely Baptism, which had not been abused,
might in St. Paul’s mind be deemed consistent with the
doctrine of justification “by faith without deeds of the
Law;” surely he might discard those deeds without mean-
ing to include Baptism among them. St. Peter teaches us
the same lesson after curing the lame man; he and St.
John had been the visible means of the cure ; “all the
people ran together unto them greatly wondering.” If
there be a tendency anywhere superstitiously to rest in
the outward part of Baptism or of the Lord's Supper, or
in their circumstances, or in other Christian rites, with
that “amazement” which the Jews felt towards the
Apostles, why must we deny their instrumentality in
order to our giving glory to God? Why is it not enough
with St. Peter, to lead the mind, not from, but through
the earthly organ to the true Author of the miracle, not
denying a subordinate truth in order to enforce a higher?
to A'ites and Worés. 287
“Ye men of Israel,” he says, “why marvel ye at this?
or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own
power or holiness we had made this man to walk?”
And surely, what St. Peter proclaimed by word of mouth,
that the Sacraments proclaim from the first by their
symbolical meaning and their simplicity. Nay, and in-
dependent of this, Surely what is professedly a channel
of mercy, is an emblem of that mercy; what conveys a
gift, speaks of a gift. Under the Law, God was in
“clouds and darkness;” in heaven, “the Lord God will
lighten” the Temple face to face; but under the Gospel,
He is as upon the Mount of Transfiguration, in “a bright
cloud over-shadowing” us; and as well may such a
cloud be said to obscure the Sun which gilds it, as Sacra-
ments to obscure that grace which makes them what
they are. Hence Baptism was even called of old the
Sacrament of faith, as being, on the part of the recipient,
only an expression by act of what in words would be “I
believe and I come.” And what is meeting together for
prayer but an act of faith and nothing more? What the
Jews by journeying up to Jerusalem were wont, not to
receive, but to ask, is brought home to us, almost to our
very doors, not in promise merely, but in Substance;
according to our Saviour's condescending words, “If any
man hear My voice and open the door, I will come in to
him, and will sup with him, and he with Me.” And all
this is “without money and without price;” expensive
sacrifices were required of the Jews, and intricate rules
prescribed ; but the Gospel rites are so simple, that the
world despises them for their very simplicity.
In a Jewish ordinance, then, man worked and God
288 Faith viewed relatively
accepted ; in a Christian, God speaks the word, and man
kneels down and is saved. Such is the relation between
Faith and Sacraments;– in considering which I have
taken “faith” in the sense in which the objection uses
it, not in its proper sense of submission to what is un-
Seen, but as trust founded upon that submission ; and
it appears, that while the Sacraments are an exercise of
Submission, they are also a lesson of trust. Faith is in-
culcated in their outward sign, and required for their
inward grace ; and is as little disparaged by the Catholic
doctrine concerning them, as Christ Himself by the
doctrine of faith.
6.
2. Now let us proceed to the second part of the sub-
ject, the relation between Faith and Works, which,
though quite distinct from the former, may be con-
veniently considered in connection with it.
St. Paul says that we are “justified by faith without
the deeds of the Law ;” and St. James, “not by faith only
but by works;” are these statements inconsistent?
Now, as I said before, to condemn works without faith
is surely quite consistent with condemning faith without
works. St. James says, we are justified by works, not
by faith only; St. Paul implies, by faith, not by works
only. St. Paul says, that works are not available before
faith ; St. James, that they are available after faith.
And now I will make this clearer.
(1) St. Paul says, we are justified without works;
what works? “works of,” or done under, “the Law,” the
Law of Moses, through which the Law of Nature spoke
zo A'zzes azza! Worás. 289
in the ears of the Jews. But St. James speaks of works
done under what he calls “the royal Law,” “the Law of
liberty,” which we learn from St. Paul is “the Law of
the Spirit of Life,” for “where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is liberty;” in other words, the Law of God, as
written on the heart by the Holy Ghost. St. Paul
speaks of works done under the letter, St. James of works
done under the Spirit. This is Surely an important
difference in the works respectively mentioned.
Or, to state the same thing differently : St. James
speaks, not of mere works, but of works of faith, of good
and acceptable works. I do not suppose that any one
will dispute this, and therefore shall take it for granted.
St. James then says, we are justified, not by faith only,
but by good works. Now St. Paul is not speaking at all
of good works, but of works done in the flesh, and of
themselves “deserving God's wrath and damnation.” He
says, “without works;” he does not say without good
Works; whereas St. James is speaking of good works
solely. St. Paul speaks of “works done before the grace
of Christ and the inspiration of His Spirit;” St. James
of “good works which are the fruits of faith and follow
after justification.” Faith Surely may justify without
such works as, according to our Article, “have the nature
of sin,” and yet not justify without such as “are pleasing
and acceptable to God in Christ.”
Now in proof of this distinction it is enough to ob-
Serve, that St. Paul never calls those works which he
says do not justify “good works,” but simply “works,”—
“works of the Law,”—“deeds of the Law,”—“works not
in righteousness,”—“dead works ; ” what have these to
U
29O Aaith viewed relative/y
do with works or fruits of the Spirit 3 Of these latter
also St. Paul elsewhere speaks, and by a remarkable con-
trast he calls them again and again “good works.”
For instance, “By grace are ye saved through faith, . . .
not of works, lest any man should boast ; for we are His
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.”
This Surely is a most pointed intimation that the works
which do not justify are not good, Or, in other words, are
works before justification. As to works after, which are
good, whether they justify or not, he does not decide SO
expressly as St. James, the error which he had to resist
leading him another way. He only says, against the
Judaizing teachers, that our works must begin, continue,
and end in faith. But to proceed; he speaks elsewhere
of “abounding in every good work,” of being “fruitful in
every good work,”
of being “well reported of for good works,” “diligently
following every good work,” of “the good works of some
being open beforehand,” of being “rich in good works,”
of being “adorned with good works,”
of being “prepared unto every good work,” of being
“throughly furnished unto all good works,” of being “unto
every good work reprobate,” of being “a pattern of good
works,” of being “Zealous of good works,” of being “ready
to every good work,” of being “careful to maintain good
works,” of “provoking unto love and to good works,”
and of being “made perfect in every good work.” Now
surely this is very remarkable. St. James, though he
means good works, drops the epithet, and only says
1 2 Cor. ix. 8. Eph. ii. 10. Col. i. 10. 2 Thess. ii. 17. 1 Tim.
ii. 10; v. 10, 25; vi. 18. 2 Tim. ii. 21; iii. 17. Tit. i. 16 ; ii. 7,
14; iii. 8, 14. Heb. x. 24; xiii. 21,
fo A'zzes aſza! Wo%s. 29 J
works. Why does not St. Paul the same 2 why is he
always careful to add the word good, except that he had
also to do with a sort of works with which St. James had
not to do, that the word works was already appropriated
by him to those of the Law, and therefore that the
epithet good was necessary, lest deeds done in the Spirit
should be confused with them : *
St. Paul, then, by speaking of faith as justifying with-
out works, means without corrupt and counterfeit works,
not without good works. And he does not deny what
St. James affirms, that we are justified in good works.
7.
Such has ever been the Catholic mode of reconciling
the two Apostles together, and certainly without doing
violence to the text of St. Paul. But now, before pro-
ceeding, let us for a moment inquire, on the other hand,
what attempts have been made on the side of Protes-
tant writers to reduce the language used by St. James
to a Lutheran Sense.
“By works,” says St. James, “a man is justified, and
not by faith only.” Now, let me ask, what texts do
their opponents shrink from as they from this? do they
even attempt to explain it 2 or if SO, is it not by some
harsh and unnatural interpretation? Next, do they not
proceed, as if distrusting their own interpretation, to
pronounce the text difficult, and so to dispose of it? yet
who can honestly say that it is in itself difficult 2 rather,
can words be plainer, were it not that they are forced into
connection with a theory of the sixteenth century; and
* Bull, Harm. ii. 12, § 3.
292 Faith viewed relatively
then certainly they become as thick darkness, “as a
book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is
learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee; and he saith, I
cannot, for it is sealed.” If St. James is difficult, is
St. Paul plain 2 will any one say that St. Paul is plainer
than St. James? Is it St. James in whose Epistles are
“some things hard to be understood 7” What then is
this resolute shutting of the eyes to an inspired Apostle,
but the very spirit which leads the Socinian to blot out
from certain texts, as far as his faith is concerned, the
divinity of Christ 2 If we may pass over “By works a
man is justified, and not by faith only,” why may we not
also, “I and My Father are One” 2 Cam we fairly call it
self-will to refuse the witness of the latter text, while we
arbitrarily take on Ourselves to assign or deny a sense to
the former ? What is meant by maintaining the duty
of a man's drawing his Creed from Scripture for himself,
and yet telling him it is a deadly heresy to Say, just
what St. James says, and what St. Paul (to say the least)
does not deny ? But in truth, after all, men do not
make up their mind from Scripture, though they profess
to do so; they go by what they consider their inward
experience. They fancy they have reasons in their own
spiritual history for concluding that God has taught
them the doctrine of justification without good works;
and by these they go. They cannot get themselves to
throw their minds upon Scripture ; they argue from
Scripture only to convince others, but you may defeat
them again and again, without moving or distressing
them ; they are above you, for they do not depend on
* Isaiah xxix. 11.
to A'ites and Works. 293
Scripture for their faith at all, but on what has taken
place within them." But to return —
8.
(2) A clearer view of faith and works will be gained
by considering that faith is a habit of the Soul: now a habit
is a something permanent, which affects the character ;
it is a something in the mind which develops itself
through acts of the mind, and disposes the mind to
move in this way, not in that. We do not know what
it is in itself, we only know it in its results; rela-
tively to us, it exists only in its results. We witness
certain deeds, a certain conduct, we hear certain prin-
ciples professed, all consistent with each other, and we
refer them to something in the mind as the one cause
of what is outwardly so uniform. When we speak of a
bountiful man, we mean a man who thinks and does
bountifully ; and if we were to say that God will reward
bountifulness, we should mean bountiful acts. In like
manner then, when we speak of a believer, we mean a
man who thinks and does, that is, of a mind that acts,
—believingly; and when we say that God justifies by
faith on our part, we mean by acts of whatever kind,
deeds, works, done in faith.
It will be replied that this is true indeed, but that
the acts in which faith shows itself are not actions, deeds,
* A candid writer has confessed this —“It is diſficult,” says Milton,
“to conjecture the purpose of Providence in committing the Writings
of the New Testament to such uncertain and variable guardianship,
unless it were to teach us, by this very circumstance, that the Spirit
which is given to us is a more certain guide than Scripture, whom
therefore it is our duty to follow.”—Christian Doctrine, i. 30.
2.94. Aaith viewed relatively
works, but good feelings, thoughts, aspirations, and the
like. Let it be so ; let us so take it for argument's sake.
The acts then in which faith shows itself are to be con-
sidered, not as deeds or services, but what are popularly
called spiritual desires, and a willingness to renounce
Self and adhere to Christ. Let us suppose this ; even
then, it seems, some manifestations are required. So much
is this felt by the persons against whom I am arguing,
that they consider baptized infants cannot be regenerate,
because they show no signs of regeneration; a poor reason
truly, for habits may exist without showing themselves
to us, and, for what we know, God may bestow on infant
in Baptism the element of justifying faith, though by
reason of their tender age it be latent and undeveloped,
as the Lutherans themselves have before now main-
tained (though now, such is the course of error, they
rather deny them regeneration than attribute to them
faith); however, this insisting upon signs and tokens at
least proves how strongly the persons in question hold
that faith cannot exist without its manifestations. They
do certainly think both that faith only justifies, and yet
that faith does not justify, does not exist, except in certain
manifestations. Now supposing St. James had spoken
thus: “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man
Say he hath faith, and has no experience of the love of
Christ, no spiritual-mindedness, no renewed taste, and
holy affections? can faith save him? If he has no
knowledge of his sin and deadness, if he has not brought
himself to renounce his own merit and fly for Safety to
the appointed refuge for sinners, what doth it profit 2
Even so faith, if it be not truly warm and experimental,
Žo A'zzes azaſ Wozºás. 295
is dead. . . . Ye see then, my brethren, that a man is
justified by having a renewed and converted heart, and
not by faith only.” I say, supposing St. James had thus
spoken, would they have found any repugnance between
his doctrine and St. Paul's 2 would they have denied the
Epistle to be genuine, or maintained it was difficult, or
gone into this or that rival extravagance of interpretation
in order to cripple an Apostle into Lutheranism 2 No,
surely, they would have taken its words as they stand,
and thought them a powerful argument in behalf of what
they miscall “spiritual religion.” As then they would
not have declined the inspired message, had it said that
faith without a change of heart was dead, not justifying,
why should there be any insuperable difficulty, any con-
tradiction to St. Paul, in its saying that good works are
necessary concomitants of the faith that justifies, as
they themselves make spiritual emotions to be —that
its life is like the life of other graces, of benevolence,
or zeal, or courage, not good feelings only, but services or
works? What contradiction indeed is there between St.
Paul and St. James but one of their own making, arising
from their assumption that faith, unlike benevolence or
Courage, manifests itself or lives, not in deeds, but in
passive impressions ! -
9.
3.) And that this assumption, contrary as it is to
philosophy, is contrary also to revealed truth, is plain,
from this One circumstance, which should be carefully
noticed —that whereas St. Paul says we are justified by
faith, and St. James by Works, yet St. Paul's illustrations
296 Aaith viewed relative/y
of justification by faith are taken from occasions, not on
which men felt anything unusual, but when they did
Something unusual. St. Paul, instancing justifying faith,
does not say, Abraham said he was “dust and ashes,”
(which he did say), and so was justified ; Moses desired
to see God’s glory, and so was justified; David, as his
Psalms show, was full of holy aspirations, and so was
justified ;-mo, but Abraham and the Patriarchs, Moses
and the Prophets, David and the Confessors, did strong
deeds of righteousness : they not only “confessed they
were strangers and pilgrims upon earth,” but they
“obeyed;” they “went out,” they “chose affliction with
the people of God:” they “stopped the mouths of lions,
quenched the violence of fire, waxed valiant in fight; they
wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, in deserts
and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth; they
had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, of bonds and
imprisonment ; they were tortured, they were stoned,
they were sawn asunder, they were slain with the sword;”
—these are the acts of justifying faith, these are its life,
and no one can deny that they are deliberate and com-
pleted works; so that, if faith be justifying, it justifies
in and by acts, and not when divested of them.
(4.) But this is not all; St. Paul uses the same in-
stances as St. James. He says, “By faith Abraham,
when he was tried, offered up Isaac ;” and St. James,
“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when
he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar 2 St. Paul,
“By faith, the harlot Rahab perished not with them that
were disobedient, when she had received the spies with
peace ;” St. James, “Likewise also was not Rahab the
to A'ites and Works. 297
harlot justified by works, when she had received the
messengers, and had sent them out another way ?” Do
not these parallels show that faith is practically identical
with the works of faith, and that when it justifies, it is
as existing in works? And farther, the Apostles are so
coincident in expression, as to lead forcibly to the
notion, which obtained in the early Church, that St.
James was alluding to St. Paul’s words, and fixing their
sense by an inspired comment. Nor yet is this all ; as
if with a wish to show us how to harmonize his teaching
with St. Paul’s, he uses words, which exactly express and
sanction the very mode of reconciliation which I have
been enforcing. “Seest thou,” he says, “how faith
wrought with his (Abraham's) works, and by works was
faith made perfect º' Thus works are the limit and com-
pletion of faith, which gives them a direction and gains
from them a substance. He adds to the same purport :
“As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith with-
out works is dead also ;” action is the very life of a habit
10,
(5) The same doctrine is contained all through
Scripture; in which God's mercies are again and again
promised to works, sometimes of one kind, sometimes
of another, though in all cases as acts and representatives
of faith. For instance, Solomon speaks of alms-giving
as justifying: “By mercy and truth iniquity is purged.”
So does Daniel, saying to Nebuchadnezzar, “Break off
thy sins by righteousness, and thy iniquities by showing
mercy to the poor.” Our Lord also, “Rather give alms
of Such things as ye have, and behold all things are
298 Faith viewed relatively
clean unto you.” And St. James, “mercy rejoiceth
against judgment.”
In the Prophet Isaiah justification is ascribed to good
works generally. He proclaims the gracious message
that, “though our sins be as scarlet, they shall be as
white as snow,” and “though they be red like crimson,
they shall be as wool.” Here is an evangelical promise ;
why then is there nothing about justifying faith? why,
but that faith is signified and is secured by other requi-
sites, by good works? Accordingly the Prophet thus
introduces the message of pardon —“Wash you, make
you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before
Mine eyes, cease to do evil, learn to do well, seek judg-
ment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead
for the widow.” In like manner, Ezekiel: “If the wicked
restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk
in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity, he
shall surely live, he shall not die; none of his sins that
he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him.” Here
again the promise must be evangelical; for under the
Jewish Law there were no “statutes of life.”
Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, was justified by an
act of zeal: “Then stood up Phinehas and executed
judgment, and so the plague was stayed. And that
was counted unto him for righteousness unto all genera-
tions for evermore.”
Zacharias and Elizabeth were “both righteous before
God, walking in all the commandments and Ordinances
1 Prov, xvi. 6. Dam. iv. 27. Luke xi. 41. James ii. 13.
* Isa. i. 16-18. Ezek. xxxiii. 15, 16.
8 Ps, cvi. 30, 31.
to Rites and Works. 299
of the Lord blameless.”* Words cannot be stronger to
express the justification of these holy persons, than that
they were “blameless and righteous before God; ” yet
this gift is not coupled with faith, but with acts of
obedience paid to the special and particular command-
ments of God.
In like manner St. John teaches, that “walking in
the light” justifies us: “If we walk in the light, as He
is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and
the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all
Sin.” 2
To these may be added particular texts in the
Gospels, such as Christ's warning to the two brethren of
the consequences of becoming His disciples; His bidding
us count the cost of following Him, and to take up our
CrOSS, deny ourselves, and come after Him; moreover in
His going into the wilderness, whither the multitudes
had to seek Him at the price of privation and suffering.
(6.) And as works are acts of faith, so the mental act
of faith is a difficult work. Thus our Saviour says to
the father of the demoniac, “If thou canst believe, all
things are possible to him that believeth;” and he
answers, “Lord, I believe; help Thou mine unbelief.”
In like manner St. Paul Speaks of Abraham “staggering
not at the promise of God through unbelief, but being
strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully per-
Suaded what He had promised He was able also to
perform.” “And therefore,” he adds, “it was imputed to
him for righteousness.”
1 Luke i. 6. * 1 John i. 7; iii. 7.
3OO Aaith viewed relatively
11.
(7.) Lastly, leaving Scripture, I will quote a passage
from Luther, in which he will be found to corroborate by
his testimony what has been said; not willingly as the
extract itself shows, but in consequence of the stress of
texts urged against him. I take him, then, for what he
Says, not for what he does not say: —
“” It is usual with us,” he says, “to view faith, some-
times apart from its work, sometimes with it. For as an
artist speaks variously of his materials, and a gardener
of a tree, as in bearing or not, so also the Holy Ghost
speaks variously in Scripture concerning faith ; at one
time of what may be called abstract faith, faith as such :
at another of concrete faith, faith in composition, or
embodied. Faith, as such, or abstract, is meant, when
Scripture speaks of justification, as such, or of the justi-
fied. (Wid. Rom. and Gal.) But when it speaks of re-
wards and works, then it speaks of faith in composition,
concrete or embodied. For instance : “Faith which
worketh by love ;’ ‘This do and thou shalt live;’ ‘If
thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments;’
‘Whoso doeth these things, shall live in them ;’ “Cease
to do evil, learn to do well.’ In these and similar texts,
which occur without number, in which mention is made
* Deinde hoc modo etiam distinguere solemus fidem, quod fides
aliquando accipiatur extra opus, aliquando cum opere. Ut enim
artifex varie de sua materia, et hortulanus de arbore vel nuda vel
gestante fructum loquitur, ita et Spiritus Sanctus in Scriptura varie de
fide loquitur, jam de fide (ut sic dicam) abstracta vel absoluta, jam de
fide concreta, composita, seu incarnata, etc. etc.—In Gal. iii. 10. Wid.
also f. 347 (1 and 2) Gerh. de Justif. p. 570.
Žo A'zfes aſzd Worás. 3O I
of doing, believing doings are always meant ; as, when it
says, “This do and thou shalt live, it means, ‘First see
that thou art believing, that thy reason is right and thy
will good, that thou hast faith in Christ ; that being
secured, work.’” Then he proceeds —“How is it won-
derful, that to that embodied faith, that is, faith working,
as was Abel's, in other words, to believing works, are
annexed merits and rewards? Why should not Scrip-
ture speak thus variously of faith, considering it so
speaks even of Christ, God and man; sometimes of His
entire Person, sometimes of one or other of His two
matures, the Divine or human 2 When it speaks of one
or other of these, it speaks of Christ in the abstract ; when
of the Divine made one with the human in one Person, of
Christ as if in composition and incarnate. There is a
well-known rule in the Schools concerning the ‘com-
municatio idiomatum, when the attributes of His divinity
are ascribed to his humanity, as is frequent in Scripture;
for instance, in Luke ii. the Angel calls the infant born of
the Virgin Mary, ‘the Saviour’ of men, and ‘the Lord’
both of Angels and men, and in the preceding chapter,
‘the Son of God.” Hence I may say with literal truth,
That Infant who is lying in a manger and in the Virgin's
bOSom, created heaven and earth, and is the Lord of
Angels. . . . . As it is truly said, Jesus the Son of Mary
created all things, SO is justification ascribed to faith in-
carnate or to believing deeds.”
12.
Such, then, is justifying faith ; why the gift of
justifying has been bestowed upon it, and what its con-
3O2 Aaith viewed relatively
nection is with hope, love, and universal holiness, has
been discussed in former Lectures; here I am speaking
of its relation to works, and I say that, viewed as justi-
fying, it lives in them. It is not (as it were) a shadow
or phantom, which flits about without voice or power,
but it is faith developed into height and depth and
breadth, as if in a bodily form, not as a picture but as
an image, with a right side and a left, a without and a
within ; not a mere impression or sudden gleam of light
upon the Soul, not knowledge, or emotion, or conviction,
which ends with itself, but the beginning of that which
is eternal, the operation of the Indwelling Power which
acts from within us Outwards and round about us, works
in us mightily, so intimately with our will as to be in a
true sense one with it ; pours itself out into our whole
mind, runs over into our thoughts, desires, feelings,
purposes, attempts, and Works, combines them all together
into One, makes the Whole man its one instrument, and
justifies him into one holy and gracious ministry, one
embodied lifelong act of faith, one “sacrifice, holy, accept-
able to God, which is his reasonable service.” Such is
faith, springing up out of the immortal seed of love, and
ever budding forth in new blossoms and maturing new
fruit, existing indeed in feelings but passing on into acts,
into victories of whatever kind over self, being the
power of the will over the whole soul for Christ's sake,
constraining the reason to accept mysteries, the heart
to acquiesce in suffering, the hand to work, the feet to
run, the voice to bear witness, as the case may be.
These acts we sometimes call labours, sometimes endur-
ances, sometimes confessions, Sometimes devotions, some-
Žo A’zzes and Worås. 3O3
times services; but they are all instances of self-
command, arising from Faith seeing the invisible world,
and Love choosing it.
It seems, then, that whereas Faith on our part fitly
Corresponds, or is the correlative, as it is called, to grace
On God’s part, Sacraments are but the manifestation of
grace, and good works are but the manifestation of faith;
So that, whether we say we are justified by faith, or by
works or by Sacraments, all these but mean this one
doctrine, that we are justified by grace, which is given
through Sacraments, impetrated by faith, manifested in
works.
NOTE ON LECTURE XII.
ON GOOD WORKS AS THE REMEDY OF POST-BAIPTISMAL SIN.
FROM what has been said, it would seem that, while works before
justification are but conditions and preparations for that gift,
works after justification are much more, and that, not only as
being intrinsically good and holy, but as being fruits of faith.
And viewed as one with faith, which is the appointed instru-
ment of justification after Baptism, they are, (as being con-
natural with faith and indivisible from it, organs through which
it acts and which it hallows),-instruments with faith of the
continuance of justification, or, in other words, of the remission of
sin after Baptism. Since this doctrine sounds strange to the ears
of many in this day, and the more so because they have been
taught that the Homilies, which our Church has authoritatively
sanctioned, are decidedly opposed to it, I make the following
extracts from that important work, for the accommodation of the
general reader who may not have it at hand. Deeply is it to
be regretted that a book, which contains “doctrine” so “godly
and wholesome and necessary for these Times,” as well as for the
sixteenth century, should popularly be known only by one or two
extracts, to the Omission of such valuable matter as shall now be
quoted —
“Our Saviour Christ in the Gospel teacheth us, that it pro-
fiteth a man nothing to have in possession all the riches of the
whole world, and the wealth and glory thereof, if in the mean
season he lose his soul, or do that thing whereby it should
become captive unto death, sin, and hell-fire. By the which
saying, he not only instructeth us how much the Soul's health is
to be preferred before worldly commodities, but it also serveth to
stir up our minds and to prick us forwards to seek diligently
and learn by what means we may preserve and keep our souls
AVoće on Zecture X/Z. 3O5
ever in Safety, that is, how we may recover our health if it be lost
or impaired, and how it may be defended and maintained if
once we have it. Yea, He teacheth us also thereby to esteem
that as a precious medicine and an inestimable jewel, that hath
such strength and virtue in it, that can either procure or preserve
So incomparable a treasure. For if we greatly regard that
medicine or salve that is able to heal Sundry and grievous
diseases of the body, much more will we esteem that which
hath like power over the soul. And because we might be better
assured both to know and to have in readiness that so profitable a
Temedy, He, as a most faithful and loving teacher, showeth Him-
Self both what it is, and where we may find it, and how we may
wse and apply it. For, when both He and His disciples were
grievously accused of the Pharisees, to have defiled their souls
in breaking the constitutions of the Elders, because they went
to meat and washed not their hands before, according to the
custom of the Jews, Christ, answering their superstitious com-
plaints, teacheth them an especial remedy how to keep clean their
Souls, notwithstanding the breach of such superstitious orders ;
‘Give alms, Saith He, ‘and behold all things are clean unto
you.’
“He teacheth, then, that to be merciful and charitable in
helping the poor, is the means to keep the Soul pure and clean
in the sight of God. We are taught therefore by this, that mer-
ciful almsgiving is profitable to purge the soul from the infection
and filthy spots of sºn. The same lesson doth the Holy Ghost
also teach in Sundry other places of the Scripture, saying, ‘Mer-
cifulness and almsgiving purgeth from all sins, and delivereth
from death, and suffereth not the soul to come into darkness.’"
A great confidence may they have before the high God, that show
mercy and compassion to them that are afflicted. The wise
Preacher, the Son of Sirach, confirmeth the same, when he saith,
that ‘ as water quencheth burning fire, even so mercy and alms
resisteth and reconcileth sins.’ And sure it is, that mercifulness
Quaileth the heat of Sin So much, that they shall not take hold
upon man to hurt him ; or ºf ye have by any infirmity or weak-
1 Tobit, iv.
X
3O6 AVoće ozz / eczz/re X//.
ness been touched and annoyed with them, straightways shall mer-
cifulness wipe and wash them away, as salves and remedies to heal
their Sores and grievous diseases. And therefore that holy
father Cyprian taketh good occasion to exhort earnestly to the
merciful work, to giving alms and helping the poor, and then
he admonisheth to consider how wholesome and profitable is it
to relieve the needy and help the afflicted, by the which we may
purge our sins and heal our wounded souls.”
Such is the virtue of works, not before justification, but after,
as the means of keeping and restoring, not of procuring it, as
fruits of faith done in the grace of Christ and by the inspiration
of His Spirit, not as dead works done in the flesh, and displeas-
ing to God. Attention should be especially called to a parallel-
ism between one sentence in this extract and what was quoted in
Lecture X. (pp. 223, 224) from the Sermon on the Passion, as show-
ing how our Reformers identifted faith and works, not in idea, but
in fact. The one Homily says “It remaineth that I show unto
you how to apply Christ's death and passion to our comfort as a
7medicine to our wounds. . . . Here is the mean, whereby we must
apply the fruits of Christ's death unto our deadly wound, . . .
namely, faith.” The other speaks of alms as “a precious medi-
cine, a profitable remedy,” which we are to “use and apply,”
“Salves and remedies to heal” our “sores and grievous diseases.”
It must be observed, moreover, that though faith is the
appointed means of pleading Christ's merits, and so of cleansing
(as it were) works done in faith from their adhering imperfection,
yet that after all those works, though mixed with evil, are good
in themselves, as being the fruit of the Spirit. Hence, in the
passage which follows what has been quoted, very slight mention
is made of faith, and the grace of God is made all in all, as
“working in us both to will and to do,” and “giving us power
to get wealth ;” the contrast lying not between faith and works,
but between God’s doings and man's doings. Nay, even when
the image of the tree and fruit is introduced, it is interpreted of
the grace of God the Holy Ghost in us, and of the effects in us of
His gracious Indwelling.
* Deut. viii. 18.
AVože on Zecture X/Z. 3O7
“But here some one will say unto me, If alms-giving and
our charitable works towards the poor be able to wash away sins,
to reconcile us to God, to deliver us from the peril of dammation,
and make us sons and heirs of God's kingdom, then are Christ's
merits defaced, and His blood shed in vain, then are we justified
by works, and by our deeds may we merit heaven ; then do we
in vain believe that Christ died for to put away our sins and
that He rose for our justification, as St. Paul teacheth.” Now,
here let us observe, this is the very objection urged against our
Divines, such as Bishop Wilson, for words far short of those
admitted by the Homily as true. Let us see how the writer
answers it. “But ye shall understand, dearly beloved, that
neither those places of Scripture before alleged, neither the doc-
trine of the Blessed Martyr Cyprian, neither any other godly and
learned man,”—for instance, those excellent writers now so un-
worthily censured, “when they, in extolling the dignity, profit,
fruit, and effect of virtuous and liberal alms, do say that it
washeth away sins and bringeth us to the favour of God, do
mean, that our work and charitable deed is the original cause of
our acceptation before God, or that for the dignity or worthiness
thereof our sins be washed away, and we purged and cleansed
from all the spots of our iniquity ; for that were indeed to deface
Christ, and to defraud Him of His glory. But they mean this,
and this is the understanding of these and such like Sayings, that
God, of His mercy and especial favour towards them whom He
hath appointed to everlasting Salvation, hath so offered His
grace especially, and they have so received it fruitfully, that
although, by reason of their sinful living outwardly, they seemed
before to have been the children of wrath and perdition, yet now
the Spirit of God mightily working in them, unto obedience to
God’s will and commandments, they declare by their outward
deeds and life, in the showing of mercy and charity (which can-
not come but of the Spirit of God and His special grace), that
they are the undoubted children of God appointed to everlasting
life. . . . For as the good fruit is not the cause that the tree is
good, but the tree must first be good before it can bring forth
good fruit, so the good deeds of man are not the cause that maketh
308 AVože on ſect24.7% X//.
man good, but he is first made good by the Spirit and grace of
God that effectually worketh in him, and afterward he bringeth
forth good fruits. . . . . As the true Christian man, in the
thankfulness of his heart for the redemption of his soul, pur-
chased by Christ's death, showeth kindly by the fruit of his
faith his obedience to God, so the other, as a merchant with
God, doth all for his own gain, thinketh to win heaven by the
merit of his works, and so defaceth and obscureth the price of
Christ's blood, who only wrought our purgation. The meaning
then of these sayings in Scripture, ‘alms-deeds do wash away
our sins, and “mercy to the poor doth blot out our offences,’
is, that we doing these things according to God’s will and our
duty, have our sins indeed washed away and our offences blotted
out, not for the worthiness of them, but by the grace of God
which worketh all in all, and that for the promise that God hath
made to them that are obedient unto His commandments, that He
which is the Truth might be justified in performing the truth
due to His true promise.” (This seems an allusion to a statement
of St. Austin’s):—“Alms-deeds do wash away our sins, because
God doth vouchsafe then to repute us as clean and pure” (that is,
justify), “when we do them for His sake, and not because they
deserve or merit our purging, or for that they have any such
strength and virtue in themselves. . . . The godly do learn that
when the Scriptures say that by good and merciful works we
are reconciled to God's favour, we are taught then to know what
Christ by His intercession and mediation obtaineth for us of His
Father when we be obedient to His will ; yea, they learn, in such
manner of Speaking, a comfortable argument of God's singular
favour and love, that attributeth that unto us, and to our doings,
that He by His Spirit worketh in us, and through His grace
procureth for us. . . . Thus they humble themselves and are
exalted of God ; they count themselves vile, and of God are
counted pure and clean ; they condemn themselves, and are
justified of God ; they think themselves unworthy of the earth,
and of God are thought worthy of heaven.”—Sermon of Alms-
deeds, Part II.
To add passages to this most striking testimony would be
AVoffe on Zecture X/Z. 3O9
unnecessary, were it not important to show that our Formularies
Consistently put forth the doctrine contained in it. For instance,
in the first Sermon on the Passion, justification is said to be
gained through forgiveness of injuries and mutual forbearance :
“Let us then be favourable one to another, and pray we one for
another that we may be healed from all frailties of our life, the
less to offend one the other ; and that we may be of one mind
and One spirit, agreeing together in brotherly love and concord,
even like the dear children of God. By these means shall we
move God to be merciful to our sins; yea, and we shall be hereby
the more ready to receive our Saviour and Maker in His blessed
Sacrament, to our everlasting comfort and health of Soul.”
Again, soon afterwards: “Unless we forgive other, we shall never
be forgiven of God. No, not all the prayers and good works of
other can pacify God unto us, unless we be at peace and at One
with our neighbour. Not all our deeds and good works can move
God to forgive us our debts to Him except we forgive to other.’
Now it is presumed the word “move,” used in these passages,
implies that forgiveness of injuries is an immediate means or
instrument of our forgiveness at God’s hand; not indeed mere
forgiveness accorded from any motive, but forgiveness which is
of faith.
Again, at the end of the Sermon of Charity —“If we thus
direct our life by Christian love and charity, then Christ doth
promise and assure us, that He loveth us, that we be the children
of our heavenly Father, reconciled to His favour, very members
of Christ.”
To the same purpose Surely are such exhortations as the
following from the Sermon on the Resurrection —“ Apply
yourselves, good friends, to live in Christ, that Christ may still
live in you, whose favour and assistance if ye have, then have
ye everlasting life already within you, then can nothing hurt
you.” Godly and holy living was the immediate tenure of Christ's
inward presence, or of justification in God’s sight.
On turning to the Prayer Book, what first calls for remark is
the collection of introductory Sentences prefixed to the Exhorta-
3 IO AVože on Zecture X/Z.
tion. It is quite evident that these Sentences are intended to
proclaim God’s forgiveness of Sîn, as a fit introduction to the
Confession. They are a sort of gospel herald, inviting all who
hear to come to Christ. Now is faith mentioned as the mean by
which pardon and acceptance after sinning may be obtained by
a singular chance (so to speak) it is not mentioned in any one of
them ; most singular and observable indeed, considering the
Sentences are the selection of the Reformers, who, if any men,
were alive to the necessity of faith in order to justification.
Nothing can show more clearly that, while they considered it the
only instrument of justification, they considered also that good
works (of whatever kind) were in fact the coming to God, and
the concrete presence of faith. Certainly, the view of religion
popular in this day would have confined itself to such texts as
are most impressively cited in the Communion Service, instead
of putting forth the profitableness of “turning away from the
wickedness we have committed,” of “acknowledging our trans-
gressions,” and of “a broken spirit.” Contrition, confession,
humiliation, deprecation, repentance, and amendment, are sepa-
rately urged upon us; faith is omitted,—not as unnecessary, but
as being implied in all of these.
In like manner in the Exhortation we are enjoined to confess
our sins “with a humble, lowly, penitent, and obedient heart, to
the end that we may obtain forgiveness of the same.” Why are
we not told to “come in faith, and to apprehend and appropriate
the free gift 1"
Again, in the Collect for Ash Wednesday, we pray God to
“create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we worthily
lamenting Our sins and acknowledging Our Wretchedness, may
obtain perfect remission and forgiveness.” Are not renewal,
contrition, and confession, here represented as the immediate
causes or instruments, On Our part, of justification ?
So again, in the Visitation of the Sick, the directions given to
the sick person in order to the forgiveness of his sins, are “accus-
ing and condemning himself of his own faults,” “believing the
Articles of our Faith,” “repenting of his sins,” “being in charity
* John iii. 16 etc.
AVože owe Zecture X//. 3 I l
with all the world,” “forgiving all persons that have offended
him,” “asking forgiveness, if he have offended any other,”
“making amends for injuries and wrongs,” and, if of ability,
“being liberal to the poor.” Faith as an act apprehending and
appropriating Christ is not once mentioned, or the notice of it
even approached.
Lastly, in the Commination Service, recovery of the state of
justification is promised to us who “return to our Lord God
with all contrition and meekness of heart, bewailing and lament-
ing our sinful life, acknowledging and confessing our offences,
and seeking to bring forth worthy fruits of penance ; ” “if with
a perfect and true heart we return to Him ;” “if we come unto
Him with faithful repentance, if we submit ourselves unto Him,
and from henceforth walk in His ways; if we will take His easy
yoke and light burden upon us, to follow Him in lowliness,
patience, and charity, and be ordered by the governances of His
Holy Spirit, seeking always His glory and serving Him duly in
our vocation with thanksgiving ; this if we do, Christ will deliver
us from the curse of the Law.” How different from the popular
Protestant doctrine, which says, “If you have sinned, go to
Christ in faith, look upon Him who has borne the sins of the
world, cast your burden upon Him, apprehend Him, apply His
merits to your soul, believe you are justified, and you are justi-
fied, without anything else on your part.”
LECTURE XIII.
ON PREACHING THE GOSPEL,
T may be asked, What was the fault of the Jews in
their use of their Law, which led them to reject
Christ when He came 2 That Law was from God; they
honoured it as such ; they were told to adhere to it, and
they did adhere ; they thanked God for it; they thanked
God for the power of obeying it ; they thanked God for
the electing grace which had given them in it a pledge
of His favour above the rest of mankind. All this Surely,
it may be said, was right and praiseworthy; it was pro-
ceeding in the way of God’s commandments, and seemed
to promise, that when His perfect truth was revealed, it
would be obeyed as dutifully as that portion of it which
had already been given. This might have been expected ;
yet when Christ came, He was rejected.
We all know how to answer this question, viz. by
explaining that the Jews considered their Law, not
imperfect, as it was, but perfect ; not as a means, but as
the end. They rested in it, and though they nominally
expected a Messiah, they did not in their thoughts place
Him above the Law, or consider Him the Lord of the
Law, but made their Law everything, and “the Desire
of all nations” nothing. He was the true mode of ap-
proaching God, the sole Justifier of the soul; they
considered their Law to be such. And So, in the Words
Om Preaching the Gospel. 3 I 3
of the Apostle, “they, being ignorant of God's right-
eousness, and going about to establish their own right-
eousness, did not submit themselves unto the righteous-
ness of God.” They imagined that they could be both
justified and sanctified by the Law, whereas Christ was
the end of the Law both for holiness and acceptance.
Now it is a very common charge against the Ancient and
Catholic view of the Gospel, that it throws us back into
a Jewish state, and subjects us to the dominion of the
Law. On the other hand, from various remarks made
in the course of these Lectures, it may be seen that that
modern system, whose very life and breath (as I may
say) consist in the maintenance of this charge, is itself
not altogether free from the error which it denounces,
Rather, as I would maintain, it is deeply imbued with it,
having fallen, after the usual manner of Self-appointed
champions and reformers, into the evil which it professed
to remedy. This, them, shall be our subject in this
concluding Lecture, in which I shall suggest Some
remarks on the imputation of legalism, as it is called,
wrongly urged against Catholic Truth, rightly urged
against Protestant error ;-not that I propose to enter
upon a formal discussion of it, which would carry us far
away from Our lmain subject.
2.
1. It may be objected, then, that, as Judaism inter-
posed the Mosaic Law between the soul and Christ,
turning a means into an end, a resting-place into an
abode, so the Christian Church, Ancient and Catholic,
also obscures the sight and true worship of Him, and
3I4 On Preaching the Gospel.
that, by insisting on Creeds, on Rites, and on Works;–
that by its Creeds it leads to Bigotry, by its Rites to
formality, and by its doctrine concerning Works to Self-
righteousness. Such is the charge.
Now here I most fully grant that those who in their
thoughts substitute a Creed, or a Ritual, or external
obedience, for Christ, do resemble the Jews. Nay, I do
not care to deny (what, however, I leave it for others to
prove), that there are, and have been, Catholic Christians
open to the charge of forgetting the “One Thing needful”
in their over-anxiety about correct faith, ceremonial
observances, or acts of charity and piety. But I will
say this —that, on the face of the case, such an error is
a great inconsistency; and no system can be made
answerable for consequences which flow from a neglect
of its own provisions. When, for instance, the Church
bids us be accurate in what we hold concerning the
Person of Christ, she is thereby declaring that Christ is
the Object of our worship ; when she bids us frequent
His House, she implies that He is in it ; when she says,
good works are acceptable, she means acceptable to Him.
The Church has never laid it down that we are justified
by Orthodoxy only, or by Baptism only, or by Works
only ; much less by Some certain spiritual feelings or
experiences; and less still has she decided that to
believe this was the One fundamental truth of religion.
And if this be turned into a charge against her, that
whereas there is One only Saviour Invisible, she has
made the visible instruments and means of approaching
Him many, and so by their very multiplicity has hidden
Him, I reply, that if this were a fair argument, it ought
On Preaching the Gospel. 315
to tell against the Mosaic Law also, as if its divinely
appointed ceremonies themselves were to blame for the
blindness of the Jews ; but if the Jews themselves were
in fault, and not their Law, so there is no antecedent
objection against Catholic Christianity, (and such objec-
tions only have I here to consider), for its insisting on
Baptism and Orthodoxy and Works, and many things
more, even though in individual cases it has occasioned
forgetfulness of Him, by whom these conditions and
channels of grace have been appointed.
So much at first sight: now let us descend into
particulars.
3.
(1) As to the doctrine of works leading to self-right-
eousness, I pass it over here, though much might be said
about it, both because I have incidentally answered the
charge in the foregoing Lectures, and in various Sermons,
and because it is a mere theory set up to frighten the
mind from strict obedience, which a man will best refute
for himself, by obeying, and trying whether he becomes
self-righteous, except So far as all we are and all we do
will be used as weapons against Our Souls by our spiritual
enemy, unless we are on Our guard. So I pass on.
(2) Next, as to the Creeds of the Church ; I grant
that the Athanasian Creed certainly may be taken by
careless readers to imply that Orthodoxy is the ultimate
end of religion ; but Surely it will seem otherwise on due
consideration. For no One can deny, looking at it as a
whole, that it is occupied in glorifying Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost, in declaring Their infinite perfections; so
much so, that it has sometimes been considered what it
3 I6 On Preaching the Gospel.
really is in form, a Psalm or Hymn of Praise to the
Blessed Trinity, as the Te Deum is, rather than a Creed.
Nay, this is its characteristic, not only in its general
structure, but in its direct enunciation of the Sacred
Mystery; which is put forth not as an end in itself, but
evidently in order to glorify Godin His incomprehensible
majesty, and to warn us of the danger of thinking of
Him in a chance way, and of speculating concerning Him
without reverence. For instance, it begins by stating
that the purpose of the Catholic Faith is, not intellectual
accuracy, but “that we worship One God in Trinity, and
Trinity in Unity;” and ends its confession with a similar
intimation, that “in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity
in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped.”
And this agrees with what we know historically, that
doctrinal statements on these high subjects are negative
rather than positive ; intended to forbid speculations,
which are sure to spring up in the human mind, and to
anticipate its attempts at Systematic views by showing
the ultimate abyss at which all rightly conducted in-
quiries arrive, not to tell us anything definite and real,
which we did not know before, or which is beyond the
faith of the most unlearned. Or, again, they are Safe-
guards, summing up in brief what the whole Scripture
doctrine on the subject implies, and thus directing us as
landmarks in speaking and teaching on the subject.
Thus, for instance, the statement “Not by conversion of
the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the Manhood
into God,” has somewhat the same drift as the formula
of “justification by faith only,” as explained by Melanch-
thon and adopted by our Church ; except that the latter
On Preaching the Gospel. 3 I 7
expresses a principle, and the former a fact. However,
they both are framed by the mind's reflecting, in the
latter case on Christ's work, in the former on His Person.
By resting on our mere knowledge of the one or the
other, and making the statement itself our end, we become
bigots; and not less in the latter case than in the former.
As, then, the doctrine of justification, as held by our
Church, is not answerable for such abuse of itself, neither,
on the other hand, is the statement in the Athanasian
Creed. Each may be used as a touchstone or measure
of doctrine ; neither has a direct and immediate reference
to practice. I shall Say no more on this part of the
subject either ; but pass on to the consideration of the
Ordinances. -
(3) The Ordinances of the Church then are specially
accused of detaining the worshipper from Him towards
whom they profess to lead, and of causing formality
and Superstition. Now it must be borne in mind, that
whether our doctrine concerning them is superstitious or
not, depends simply on the circumstance whether it is
true or not. If it be not true, I grant it becomes ipso
facto superstitious. To ascribe regeneration to the Word
and Water in Baptism, is either a Scripture duty, or a
virtual breach of the Second commandment.
Superstition is the substitution of human for divine
means of approaching God. Before He has spoken, it
is religious to approach Him in what seems the most
acceptable way; but the same principle which leads a
pious mind to devise Ordinances, when none are given,
will lead it, under a Revelation, to adhere to those which
are given. He who made the creature, gives it its uses;
3.18 On Preaching the Gospel.
He can make bread of stones, or bid the fig-tree wither,
Things are what He makes them, and we must not
“make to ourselves,” lest we make idols. Thus it was
a, superstition in the Jews to use other than the appointed
rites under the Law, and a superstition to observe
those rites under the Gospel; a superstition to sacrifice
to Baal then, and to keep the Sabbath now. It was a
Superstition to worship graven images, no Superstition to
“rise up and worship” towards “the cloudy pillar” when
it “descended.” It is a superstition in the Christian
Church to assign such a virtue to penance or to an indul-
gence as Christ has not given ; it is a Superstition to pay
an honour to images, which Christ has forbidden. Super-
stition, then, keeps the mind from Christ, because it origi-
nates in a plain act of Self-will : a rite is not properly
superstitious, unless it is such will-worship. And hence
it is but one form of presumptuousness or profaneness,
as the history of the Jews shows us. It is superstitious
to ascribe power to the creature where God has not given
it ; and profane to deny it where He has. If, then, to
look for regeneration through Baptism be superSotitius,
as it would be, supposing God has not made Baptism
the channel of it, so, if He has, it is profane not to look
for it through that rite. The question lies in this alter-
native of profaneness or superstition. If the Catholic
doctrine be true, it is not superstitious ; if the Anti-
catholic be not true, it is profane. This is the real state
of the case, and can be settled only by an appeal to the
matter of fact, whether the doctrine is or is not revealed.
Hence it is plainly nugatory to urge against us that our
* Exod, xxxiii. 10.
On Preaching the Gospel. 3 I 9
Ordinances are superstitious, for this is (what is called)
“to beg the question.” The only real definition of a
Superstitious ordinance is, that it is one which God
has actually or virtually forbidden ; so the objection
when drawn out will really stand thus:—“The Catholic
Ordinances are mere inventions of man because they are
Superstitious ; and they are Superstitious, because they
are not divine appointments.” When they are proved to
be not divine, we will grant, without the intermediate
step, that they are human.
However, it may be objected that we are open to
the charge of formality at least, whatever difficulties may
beset the question of Superstition ; that any system of
religion which so multiplies and diversifies its visible
means of grace, as thereby to deny the direct commu-
nion of God with the soul, effectually shuts out the
thought of Him ; that it makes the worshipper practi-
cally dependent on things sensible, and introduces a
Pantheistic spirit into the Gospel. Whatever be the
force of this antecedent objection in a question of fact, such
as that concerning the contents of a Revelation, let those
answer to whom it applies. If there be a Church system
anywhere, which makes itself co-extensive with the Gos-
pel Dispensation, which professes to be the mirror of all
that passes before the Divine Mind, and the organ of His
diversified dealings with the conscience of man, which
keeps pace with what is infinite and eternal, and ex-
hausts the Abyss of grace, such a system is certainly
Open to the objection. And as far as any theology, such
as that of the Roman Schools, has approximated to such
an assumption in practice, so far it is concerned to
32O On Preaching the Gospel.
answer it. But how does it apply to our own, which on
the face of it has never so represented the Church’s
office, or claimed for her so vast a delegation of power ?
It is often said of us, by way of reproach, that we leave
Dissenters to the “uncovenanted mercies of God ;” nay,
in a sense, we leave ourselves ; there is not one of us
but has exceeded by transgressions the revealed Ritual,
and finds himself in consequence thrown upon those
infinite resources of Divine Love which are stored in
Christ, but have not been drawn out into form in the
appointments of the Gospel. How can we be said to
place the Church instead of Christ, who say that there
is no other ordained method on earth for the absolute
pardon of sin but Baptism ; and that Baptism cannot be
repeated? Surely, while English divines deny the ex-
istence of any Sacrament like Baptism after Baptism,
whatever objections are brought against them, they can-
not be accused of substituting the Church for Christ.
4.
But it may be said that the real objection to Forms
lies, not in their number, be they many or few, nor in
their being unauthorized, though this of course is an
aggravation, but in this, that they are forms; that by a
form is meant a standing rule, a permanent Ordinance ;
and that it is this which keeps the soul from God, what-
ever degree of spiritual benefit, greater or less, be ascribed
to the observance of it. Whatever Baptism be supposed
to effect, if it effects anything, if it is necessary for any
blessing, if it be of continual obligation in the Church,
so far it throws a shadow, not light, upon her.
On Preaching the Gospel. 32 I
All we mean by one thing being the cause of another,
it may be said, is its being its invariable antecedent.
As we all call the Sun the cause of Summer, because its
presence is the one necessary condition of Summer, with
as good a reason may Baptism be called the cause of
regeneration, if it must always precede regeneration.
And if even educated persons are found to consider the
Sun the cause of light, and forget God, much more will
the imagination of the multitude practically substitute
Baptism for regeneration. Accordingly this, it may be
argued, is the great advantage of considering preaching
as the ordinary means of regeneration and conversion,
that it obviates the possibility of an invariable condition,
and the formality consequent thereupon. Preaching
cannot be called a form, because it is not of a perma-
ment and uniform character. Preachers rise and fall,
come and go ; no two are alike ; no two speak in the
same way; they allow us the liberty of judging for our-
selves concerning them, and of depending on our own
convictions. They do but stimulate and feed our mind,
—they do not oppress it with a yoke of bondage. They
are amenable to their flocks; and are honoured, not
for their office-sake, but for their usefulness; whereas
the ministers and rites of the Church are idols, worse
than pagan, because the worshipper cannot break them
at his will.
Now it is plain that such a line of reasoning would
prove, did not our senses convince us otherwise, that the
Sun could not be constituted as the fountain of light and
heat. Were the arguments for considering Baptism an
ordained means of grace ever so insufficient, the danger
Y
322 On Preaching the Gospel.
of its superstitious use would be no proof against its be-
ing so ordained, while the miserable idolatries are on
record which have been directed towards the Sun. More-
over, this argument from the abuse of a thing against
the use, comes with a bad grace from an age, in which,
more than in any other, the powers of nature are extolled
to the neglect of Divine Providence and Governance.
If the doctrines of the Church are chargeable with hav-
ing led to reliance on the creature, are not the useful arts
much more? Does not Baptism, even when most mis-
taken and abused, remind us more of heaven, than do
those physical sciences, and mechanical and other inven-
tions, which are now regarded as almost the long sought
Summum bonum of the species 2 If Catholic teaching
has led to Superstition, has not the new philosophy led
to profaneness?
This objection is still more unreasonable when applied
to the visible instruments of religion, because neither
, under the Law nor under the Gospel have they been,
strictly Speaking, of an abiding nature, not permanent in
actual and material form, but only in the abstract ordi-
nance. The means, through which the gifts are conveyed,
are transitory; as Our Lord's appearances after His resur-
rection. His glory in the cloud, at which the people
“rose up and worshipped,” was but now and then and
according to his will; the manna might not be kept till
the morning; again, of the Paschal Lamb nothing was
to remain till the morning; and the Brazen Serpent,
which for a moment they were bid “look upon,” that
they might live, became an idol on being kept, and was
broken by Hezekiah because honoured “wnto those days.”
Om Preaching the Gospel. 323
and therefore, as was thereby necessarily implied, not as
a mere symbol, but for its own Sake, and with idolatrous
worship. In like manner our Ordinances are transitory;
and it is remarkable, that the imputation of idolatry cast
by Protestants upon the Church of Rome mainly arises
from her giving a permanence to objects or instruments of
devotion, as an examination of her religious observances
obviously suggests.
Moreover, it may fairly be questioned whether
religion does not necessarily imply the belief in such
sensible tokens of God’s favour, as the Sacraments are
accounted by the Church. Religion is of a personal
nature, and implies the acknowledgment of a particular
Providence, of a God speaking, not merely to the world
at large, but to this person or that, to me and not to
another. The Sacred Volume is a common possession,
and speaks to One man as much and as little as to his
neighbour. Our nature requires something special; and
if we refuse what has been actually given, we shall be
sure to adopt what has not been given. We shall set up
calves at Dan and Bethel, if we give up the true Temple
and the Apostolic Ministry. This we see fulfilled before
Our eyes in many ways; those who will not receive
Baptism as the token of God’s election, have recourse to
certain supposed experiences of it in their hearts. This
is the idolatry of a refined age, in which the superstitions
of barbarous times displease, in consequence of their
grOSSneSS. Men congratulate themselves on their eman-
cipation from forms and their enlightened worship, when
they are but in the straight course to a worse captivity,
3.24. On Preaching the Gospel.
and are exchanging dependence on the creature for
dependence on self.
5.
2. And thus we are led to the consideration of the
opposite side of the question before us, that is, whether
at this day it is not rather the accusing party itself than
the Church that is accused, to which the charge of
Judaism properly attaches. At first sight a suggestion
of this kind will look like a refinement, or as only a
sharp retort urged in controversy, and not to be seriously
dwelt on. But I wish it dwelt on most seriously, and
if rejected, rejected after being dwelt on. I observe,
then, that what the Jews felt concerning their Law, is
exactly what many upholders of the tenet of “faith
only,” feel concerning what they consider faith ; that
they substitute faith for Christ; that they so regard it,
that instead of being the way to Him, it is in the way;
that they make it a Something to rest in ; nay, that they
alter the meaning of the word, as the Jews altered the
meaning of the word Law ; in short, that, under the
pretence of light and liberty, they have brought into the
Gospel the narrow, minute, technical, nay, I will say
carnal and hollow system of the Pharisees. Let me
explain what I mean.
I would say this then —that a system of doctrine
has risen up during the last three centuries, in which
faith or spiritual-mindedness is contemplated and rested
on as the end of religion instead of Christ. I do not
mean to say that Christ is not mentioned as the Author
of all good, but that stress is laid rather on the believ-
On Preaching the Gospel. 3.25
ing than on the Object of belief, on the comfort and
persuasiveness of the doctrine rather than on the doctrine
itself. And in this way religion is made to consist in
contemplating ourselves instead of Christ ; not simply
in looking to Christ, but in ascertaining that we look to
Christ, not in His Divinity and Atonement, but in our
conversion and our faith in those truths. {
Of course nothing is more natural or suitable than
for a Christian to describe and dwell on the difference
between one who believes and one who does not believe.
The fault here spoken of is the giving to our “experi-
ences” a more prominent place in our thoughts than
to the nature, attributes, and work of Him from whom
they profess to come, the insisting on them as a
special point for the consideration of all who desire to be
recognized as converted and elect. When men are
to be exhorted to newness of life, the true Object to be
put before them, as I conceive, is “Jesus Christ, the
Same yesterday, to-day, and for ever;” the true Gospel
Dreaching is to enlarge, as they can bear it, on the
Person, natures, attributes, offices, and work of Him who
Once regenerated them, and is now ready to pardon ;
to dwell upon His recorded words and deeds on earth ;
to declare reverently and adoringly His mysterious
greatness as the Only-begotten Son, One with the
Father, yet distinct from Him ; of Him, yet not apart
from Him ; eternal, yet begotten ; a Son, yet as if a ser-
Vant ; and to combine and to contrast His attributes and
relations to us as God and man, as our Mediator, Saviour,
Sanctifier, and Judge. The true preaching of the Gospel
is to preach Christ. But the fashion of the day has been,
: 326 On Preaching the Gospe/
instead of this, to preach conversion; to attempt to
convert by insisting on conversion ; to exhort men to
undergo a change ; to tell them to be sure they look at
Christ, instead of simply holding up Christ to them ;
to tell them to have faith, rather than to supply its
Object; to lead them to stir up and work up their
minds, instead of impressing on them the thought of
Him who can savingly work in them ; to bid them take
care that their faith is justifying, not dead, formal, self-
righteous, and merely moral, whereas the image of Christ
fully delineated of itself destroys deadness, formality,
and self-righteousness; to rely on words, vehemence,
eloquence, and the like, rather than to aim at conveying
the one great evangelical idea whether in words or not.
And thus faith and (what is called) spiritual-mindedness
are dwelt on as ends, and obstruct the view of Christ,
just as the Law was perverted by the Jews.
6.
I will take two passages from writers of the last
century, out of a hundred which might be selected, in
illustration of this over-earnest dwelling upon the state
of our minds, with a view to effect in us real and
spiritual conversion. -
The following is an extract from a letter addressed to
a person ignorant of the truth, and whom the writer was
endeavouring to enlighten. After having mentioned the
doctrine of the Trinity, he says, “I believe, that, what-
ever motions a person may take up from education or
system, no one ever did, or ever will, feel himself and
own himself to be such a lost, miserable, hateful sinner,
On Preaching the Gospel. 327
unless he be powerfully and Supernaturally convinced by
the Spirit of God.” Doubtless; but the question is
whether we should simply preach the doctrine of the
Trinity, trusting to God to rescue it from being a mere
notion, and to bring it home with power to the mind, or
whether we are more likely to prevent its being a notion
by cautioning men against its being a motion. To
proceed : “There is, when God pleases, a certain light
thrown into the Soul, which differs not merely in degree,
but in kind, toto genere, from anything that can be
effected or produced by moral Suasion or argument. But,
(to take in another of your queries), the Holy Spirit
teaches or reveals no new truths, either of doctrine or
precept, but only enables us to wºnderstand what is
already revealed in Scripture.” Most true; but to tella
person so is not the way to convert him. We do not
affect people by telling them to weep or laugh; let us
preach Christ, and leave the effect to God, to prosper it
or not. He continues: “Here a change takes place; the
person that was spiritually blind begins to see. The
sinner's character, as described in the word of God, he
finds to be a description of himself; that he is afar off,
a stranger, a rebel; that he has hitherto lived in vain.
Now he begins to see the necessity of an Atonement, an
Advocate, a Shepherd, a Comforter ; he can no more
trust to his own wisdom, strength, and goodness; but
accounting all his former gain but loss, for the excellency
of the knowledge of Christ, he renounces every other
refuge, and ventures his all upon the person, work, and
promises of the Redeemer. . . . . Without this awakened
State of mind a divine, reputed Orthodox, will blunder
328 On Preaching the Gospel.
wretchedly even in defending his own opinions.” Now
that no effect follows upon such representations I am
very far from saying ; experience shows the contrary.
But for the most part it will be produced by sympathy,
and will consist in imitation. Men will feel this and
that, because they are told to feel it, because they think
they ought to feel it, because others say they feel it
themselves; not spontaneously, as the consequence of
the objects presented to them. And hence the absence
of nature, composure, unobtrusiveness, healthy and un-
studied feeling, variety and ease of language, among
those who are thus converted, even when that conversion
is sincere. Convulsions are in their view the only real
manifestation of spiritual life and strength.
The other passage which I proposed to quote runs as
follows:–“ Beware of mistaking mere easternal works for
true holiness. Holiness is seated in the heart; every act
receives its goodness from the principles from which it
flows, and the end to which it is directed. The external
works of the generally esteemed, devout, decent, and
charitable, are usually as far from being acts of real holi-
ness, as any of the enormities of those who proclaim their
shame as avowed children of disobedience : they proceed
from as unrenewed hearts, from as unchristian tempers,
and are directed to as unsanctified ends.” Still, Sup-
posing it, the question is whether one tends ever so little
* Newton's Cardiphonia, Letter II. to Mr. S. Again : “As you
tell me you never remember a time when you were not conscious before
God of great unworthiness, and intervals of earnest endeavours to serve
Him, though not with the same success, yet something in the same
way as at present ; this is but saying in other words, you mever re-
member & time when old things passed away, and all things became new.”
On Preaching the Gospel. 329
to escape the danger of having counterfeit holiness in-
stead of true in consequence of this sort of warning.
Just the reverse; the more you fasten men's thoughts on
themselves, the more you lead them to unconscious show,
pretence, and duplicity. To proceed : “You may attend
your Church twice on Sunday ; you may go on week-
days too. You may frequent the Sacrament. You may
Say prayer in your house and alone. You may read the
Psalms and Lessons for the day. You may be ‘no extor-
tioner or unjust.’ You may be in many things unlike
other men ; neither given to swear, nor drink, nor
lewdness, nor extravagance. You may be a tender
parent, a careful master, and what the World calls an
honest man ; yea, you may withal be very liberal to the
poor; be regarded in the world as a pattern of piety and
charity, and respected as one of the best Sort of people in
it ; and yet, with all this, be the very character, which,
‘though highly esteemed amongst men, is an abomination
in the sight of God.”
“For if you have never seen” (not your Saviour, but)
“your “desperately wicked heart,”—been united to Christ”
(by His love and grace? no, but) “by faith, renounced
your own righteousness to be found in Him, and receive
from Him newness,” (receive, as if the great thing was
not His giving but our taking), “if you know not eaſperi-
mentally what is meant by ‘fellowship with the Father
and His Son Jesus Christ;’” (observe, not “if you have
not fellowship,” but “if you know not you have ;” and
this Self-seeking, as it may be truly called, is named ea:-
perimental religion;) “if your devotion hath not been
inspired “by faith which worketh by love ; if your
33O On Preaching the Gospel.
worship hath not been in ‘spirit and truth, from a real
Sense of your wants, and an earnest desiré and eaſpectation
of receiving from Him ‘in whom all fulness dwells;” if
this hath not been your case, your devotions have been
unmeaning ceremony, your book, not your heart, hath
spoken : and instead of the fervent effectual prayer of
the righteous man, your babblings have been no better
than the sounding brass and tinkling cymbal.” Poor
miserable captives, to whom such doctrine is preached
as the Gospell What is this the liberty wherewith
Christ has made us free, and wherein we stand, the home
of our own thoughts, the prison of our own sensations,
the province of self, a monotonous confession of what
we are by nature, not what Christ is in us, and a resting
at best not on His love towards us, but in our faith
towards Him I This is nothing but a specious idolatry;
a man thus minded does not simply think of God when
he prays to Him, but is observing whether he feels
properly or not ; does not believe and obey, but con-
siders it enough to be conscious that he is what he calls
warm and spiritual; does not contemplate the grace of
the Blessed Eucharist, the Body and Blood of His Saviour
Christ, except—O shameful and fearful error
as a quality of his own mind.”
except
1 Haweis' Sermons, p. 221-3.
* A remarkable contrast between our Church's and this false view
of religion is afforded in the respective modes of treating a death-bed in
the Visitation of the Sick, and a popular modern work, the Dairyman's
Daughter. The latter runs thus:--‘‘My dear Friend, do you not FEEL
that you are Supported 2 The Lord deals very gently with me, she
replied.—Are not His promises very precious to you ? They are all yea
and amen in Christ Jesus.—Are you in much bodily pain? So little,
On Preaching the Gospel. 331
Even Luther, in his zeal against the undue estimation
of works in his own day, teaches his followers a lesson
that I almost forget it.—How good the Lord is And how unworthy
am I. . . . Do you eaſperience any doubts or temptations on the subject
of your eternal safety No, sir; the Lord deals very gently with me,
and gives me peace.—What are your views of the dark valley of death,
now that you are passing through it ! It is not dark,” etc. etc. Now,
if it be said that such questions and answers are not only in their place
innocent, but natural and beautiful, I answer, that this is not the point
here, but this : viz. they are evidently intended, whatever their merits,
as a pattern of what death-bed ea aminations Showld be. Such is the
Visitation of the Sick in the 19th century. Now let us listen to the
nervous and stern tone of the 16th. In the Prayer Book the Minister
is instructed to say to the person visited,—“Forasmuch as after this
life there is an account to be given unto the Righteous Judge, etc. . . .
I require you to examine yourself and your estate, both towards God
and man ; so that, etc. Therefore I shall rehearse to you the Articles
of Owr Faith, that you may know whether you do believe as a Christian
man should, or no. Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty "
etc. . . After mentioning the Objects of faith, the service proceeds to
speak of the Works: “Then shall the Minister examine whether he
repent him truly of his sins, and be in charity with all the world; ex-
horting him to forgive from the bottom of his heart all persons who
have offended him ; and if he hath offended any other to ask them for-
giveness ; and where he hath done injury or wrong to any man, that he
make amends to the utmost of his power. . . . . The minister should
not omit earnestly to move such sick persons as are of ability, to be
liberal to the poor.” Then the sick man is to be “moved to make a
special confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any
weighty matter.” Creeds and Works let but Rites be added, and
then we shall have all three offences, as men now speak, Bigotry,
Superstition, and Self-righteousness; and in truth the third stumbling-
block does follow. ... “After which Confession, the Priest shall absolve
him, if he humbly and heartily desire it, after this sort ; ‘Our Lord
Jesus Christ, who hath left power to His Church to absolve all sinners
who truly repent and believe in Him,” etc. Such is the contrast,
between the “dreamy talk” of modern Protestantism, and “holy fear's
stern glow” in the Church Catholic.
332 On Preaching the Gosſeſ.
here. Commenting on the text, “Yet not I, but Christ
liveth in me,” he uses the following emergetic words:–
“*Here,” says he, “the Apostle clearly shows how he
lives; and he teaches what Christian righteousness is,
viz. that with which Christ lives in us, not that which is
in our own person. And so when we treat of Christian
righteousness, we must altogether put away our person.
tº e º e º e If I look at myself only, Christ being excluded,
it is over with me. For then immediately the thought
comes across me, ‘Christ is in heaven, thou upon earth,
how wilt thou now come to Him?' I will live spirit-
ually, and do as the Law demands, and so as to enter
into life. Here reflecting on myself, and considering what
is the quality of my mind, or what it ought to be, also
what I ought to do, I let go Christ from my eyes, who is
my sole righteousness and life. . . . . We should accustom
ourselves, turning from ourselves, in such distress of Con-
science, from the Law and works, which only force us to
reflect on ourselves, simply to turn our eyes to the Brazen
Serpent, Christ fixed to the Cross, on whom fixing our
earnest gaze we may be sure that He is our righteousness
and life.” What Luther wrote against the conscience-
stricken Catholic of his day, applies still more forcibly
* Ibi ostendit clare, quomodo wivat. Et docet, quae sit justitia
Christiana, ea scilicet, qua Christus in nobis wivit, non quae est in per-
sona nostra. Itaque cum disputandum est de justitia Christiana,
prorsus abjicienda est persona. Nam si in persona haereo, vel de ea
dico, fit ex persona, Velim, nolim, operarius Legi subjectus. Sed hic
oportet Christum et conscientiam meam fieri unum corpus, ita ut in
conspectu meo nihil maneat nisi Christus crucifixus et resuscitatus. Si
vero in me tantum intuéor, excluso Christo, actum est de me, etc. etc.
—In Gal. ii. 20.
On Preaching the Gospel. 333
to the unduly triumphant Protestant ; for surely it is
better not to have Christ and to mourn, than to let Him
go and to think it gain. -
To the same purpose is a passage from the Homily
on Salvation —“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.”
7.
And now if we proceed to inquire where the real
difference lies between this view, which our Church
does hold, and that which pretends to be hers, it will be
found to be this, which it is worth while insisting on ;-
that the Church considers the doctrine of justification by
faith only to be a principle, and the religion of the day
takes it as a rule of conduct. Principles are great truths
or laws which embody in them the character of a system,
enable us to estimate it, and indirectly guide us in prac-
tice. For instance, “all is of grace,” is a great principle
of the Gospel. So are the following:—“we conquer by
Suffering,”—“the Saints of God are hidden,”—“obedience
is of the spirit not of the letter,”—“the blood of the
Martyrs is the seed of the Church,”—“to gain happiness
we must not seek it.” It is a characteristic of such
statements of principles to be short, pointed, strong, and
Often Somewhat paradoxical in appearance. Such, for
example, is the political maxim, which has a clear and
true meaning, but inform is startling, “The King can do
33
no wrong ;” or in physics, that “nature abhors a
3.34. On Preaching the Gospel.
vacuum.” They are laws or exhibitions of general
truths ; and not directly practical. I mean, a man will
be sure to get into difficulty or error if he attempts to
use them as guides in matters of conduct and duty.
They mean nothing, or something wide of the truth,
taken as literal directions. They are like the Sun in the
heavens, too high, too distant, to light your lamp by,
though indirectly and secondarily useful even for that.
Proverbs, again, are of the same nature ; we recognize
their truth in the course of life, but we do not walk by
them. They come after us, not go before. They confirm,
they do not explore for us. They are reflections upon
human conduct, not guides for it. Thus “Honesty is
the best policy,” suggests the natural reward of honesty,
not the way to be honest.
Such are principles:–rules, on the other hand, are
adapted for immediate practice; they aim at utility, and
are directed and moulded according to the end proposed,
not by correctness of reasoning or analysis. We follow
blindly ; content, so that we arrive where we propose,
whether we know how or not. We take them literally
and without reasoning, and act upon them. Thus, if I
ask my way, I shall be told, perhaps, to go first right
forward, then to take a bend, then to watch for a hill or
a river. There is no room for philosophy here ; it were
out of place ; all is practical.
Now justification by faith only is a principle, not a
rule of conduct ; and the popular mistake is to view it
as a rule. This is where men go wrong. They think
that the long and the short of religion is to have faith ;
that is the whole, faith independent of every other duty;
Om Preaching the Gospel. 335
a Something which can exist in the lmind by itself, and
from which all other holy exercises follow ;-faith, and
then forthwith they will be justified; which will as
surely mislead them as the great principle that “the
Saints are hidden’’ would mislead such as took it for a
rule, and thought by hiding themselves from the eyes of
the world to become Saints. They who are justified, cer-
tainly are justified by faith, but having faith is not
more truly the way to be justified, than being hidden is
the way to be a Saint.
The doctrine of justifying faith is a summary of the
whole process of salvation from first to last ; a sort of
philosophical analysis of the Gospel, a contemplation of
it as a whole, rather than a practical direction. If it
must be taken as a practical direction, and in a certain
sense it may, then we must word it, not, “justification
through faith,” but, “justification by Christ.” Thus,
interpreted, the rule it gives is, “go to Christ ;” but
taken in the letter, it seems to say merely, “Get faith :
become spiritual; see that you are not mere moralists,
mere formalists, see that you feel. If you do not feel,
Christ will profit you nothing : you must have a spirit-
ual taste ; you must see yourself to be a sinner ; you
must accept, apprehend, appropriate the gift ; you must
understand and acknowledge that Christ is the ‘pearl of
great price ;’ you must be conscious of a change wrought
in you, for the most part going through the Successive
stages of darkness, trouble, error, light, and comfort.”
Thus the poor and sorrowful soul, instead of being led
at once to the source of all good, is taught to make much
of the conflict of truth and falsehood within itself as the
336 On Preaching the Gospel.
pledge of God's love, and to picture to itself faith, as a
sort of passive quality which sits amid the ruins of
human nature, and keeps up what may be called a silent
protest, or indulges a pensive meditation over its misery.
And, indeed, faith thus regarded cannot do more ; for
while it acts, not to lead the soul to Christ, but to detain
it from Him, how can the Soul but remain a prisoner, in
that legal or matural state described by the Apostle in
the seventh of Romans?—a passage of Scripture which
the upholders of this doctrine Confess, may boast that
they feel to be peculiarly their own. Such is their first
error, and a second obviously follows. True faith is what
may be called colourless, like air or water; it is but the
medium through which the Soul sees Christ ; and the
soul as little really rests upon it and contemplates it, as
the eye can see the air. When, then, men are bent on
holding it (as it were) in their hands, curiously inspect-
ing, analyzing, and so aiming at it, they are obliged to
colour and thicken it, that it may be seen and touched.
That is, they substitute for it. Something or other, a feel-
ing, notion, sentiment, conviction, or act of reason, which
they may hang over, and doat upon. They rather aim
at experiences (as they are called) within them, than at
Him that is without them. They are led to enlarge
upon the signs of conversion, the variations of their feel-
ings, their aspirations and longings, and to tell all this
to others;–to tell others how they fear, and hope, and
sin, and rejoice, and renounce themselves, and rest in
Christ only ; how conscious they are that their best
deeds are but “filthy rags,” and all is of grace, till in
fact they have little time left them to guard against what
On Preaching the Gospel. 337
they are condemning, and to exercise what they think
they are so full of Now men in a battle are brief-spoken;
they realize their situation and are intent upon it. ...And
men who are acted upon by news good or bad, or sights
beautiful or fearful, admire, feioice, weep, or are pained,
but are moved spontaneously, not with a direct con-
sciousness of their emotion. Men of elevated minds are
not their own historians and panegyrists. So it is with
faith and other Christian graces. Bystanders see our
minds; but our minds, if healthy, see but the objects
which possess them. As God’s grace elicits our faith, so
His holiness stirs our fear, and His glory kindles our
love. Others may say of us “here is faith,” and “there
is conscientiousness,” and “there is love ;” but we can
only say, “this is God's grace,” and “that is His holiness,”
and “that is His glory.”
8.
And this being the difference between true faith and
self-contemplation, no wonder that where the thought of
self obscures the thought of God, prayer and praise
languish, and Only preaching flourishes. Divine worship
is simply contemplating Our Maker, Redeemer, Sanctifier,
and Judge; but discoursing, Conversing, making speeches,
arguing, reading, and Writing about religion, tend to
make us forget Him in ourselves. The Ancients
worshipped ; they went out of their own minds into the
Infinite Temple which was around them. They saw
Christ in the Gospels, in the Creed, in the Sacraments
and other Rites; in the visible structure and ornaments
of His House, in the Altar, and in the Cross ; and, not
content with giving the service of their eyes, they gave
Z
338 On Preaching the Gospel.
Him their voices, their bodies, and their time, gave up
their rest by night and their leisure by day, all that
could evidence the offering of their hearts to Him.
Theirs was not a service once a week, or some one day,
now and then, painfully, as if ambitiously and lavishly
given to thanksgiving or humiliation; not some extra-
ordinary address to the throne of grace, offered by one
for many, when friends met, with much point and
impressiveness, and as much like an exhortation, and as
little like a prayer, as might be ; but every day and
every portion of the day was begun and Sanctified with
devotion. Consider those Seven Services of the Holy
Church Catholic in her best ages, which, without encroach-
ing upon her children's duties towards this world, secured
them in their duties to the world unseen. Unwavering,
unflagging, not urged by fits and starts, not heralding
forth their feelings, but resolutely, simply, perseveringly,
day after day, Sunday and week-day, fast-day and festi-
val, week by week, Season by season, year by year, in
youth and in age, through a life, thirty years, forty years,
fifty years, in prelude of the everlasting chant before the
Throne,—so they went on, “ continuing instant in
prayer,” after the pattern of Psalmists and Apostles, in
the day with David, in the night with Paul and Silas,
winter and Summer, in heat and in cold, in peace and in
danger, in a prison or in a cathedral, in the dark, in the
day-break, at sun-rising, in the forenoon, at noon, in the
afternoon, at eventide, and on going to rest, still they
had Christ before them ; His thought in their mind,
His emblems in their eye, His name in their mouth,
His service in their posture, magnifying Him, and
On Preaching the Gospel. 339
calling on all that lives to magnify Him, joining with
Angels in heaven and Saints in Paradise to bless and
praise Him for ever and ever. O great and noble system,
not of the Jews who rested in their rights and privileges,
not of those Christians who are taken up with their own
feelings, and who describe what they should exhibit, but
of the true Saints of God, the undefiled and virgin souls
who follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth . Such is
the difference between those whom Christ praises and
those whom He condemns or warns. The Pharisee
recounted the signs of God's mercy upon and in Him;
the Publican simply looked to God. The young Ruler
boasted of his correct life, but the penitent woman
anointed Jesus' feet and kissed them. Nay, holy Martha
herself spoke of her “much service;” while Mary
waited on Him for the “one thing needful.” The one
thought of themselves ; the others thought of Christ.
To look to Christ is to be justified by faith; to think of
being justified by faith is to look from Christ and to fall
from grace. He who worships Christ and works for
Him, is acting out that doctrine which another does but
enunciate; his worship and his works are acts of faith,
and avail to his Salvation, because he does not do them
as availing.
9.
But I must end a train of thought, which, left to
itself would run on into a whole work. And in doing
so I make one remark, which is perhaps the great moral
of the history of Protestantism. Luther found in the
34O Ozz Preaching the Gospel.
Church great moral corruptions countenanced by its
highest authorities; he felt them ; but instead of meeting
them with divine weapons, he used one of his own.
He adopted a doctrine Original, specious, fascinating,
persuasive, powerful against Rome, and wonderfully
adapted, as if prophetically, to the genius of the times
which were to follow. He found Christians in bondage
to their works and observances; he released them by
his doctrine of faith ; and he left them in bondage to
their feelings. He weaned them from Seeking assurance
of Salvation in standing Ordinances, at the cost of teach-
ing them that a personal consciousness of it was promised
to every one who believed. For outward signs of grace
he substituted inward; for reverence towards the Church
contemplation of self. And thus, whereas he himself
held the proper efficacy of the Sacraments, he has led
others to disbelieve it ; whereas he preached against
reliance on self, he introduced it in a more subtle shape ;
whereas he professed to make the written word all in all,
he sacrificed it in its length and breadth to the doctrine
which he had wrested from a few texts.
This is what comes of fighting God's battles in our
own way, of extending truths beyond their measure, of
anxiety after a teaching more compact, clear, and Spiritual,
than the Creed of the Apostles. Thus the Pharisees were
more careful of their Law than God who gave it ; thus
Saul saved the cattle he was bid destroy, “to sacrifice to
the Lord ;” thus Judas was concerned at the waste of
the ointment, which might have been given to the poor.
In these cases bad men professed to be more Zealous for
Om Preaching the Gospel. 341
God’s honour, more devotional, or more charitable, than
the servants of God; and in a parallel way Protestants
would be more spiritual. Let us be sure things are going
wrong with us, when we see doctrines more clearly, and
carry them out more boldly, than they are taught us in
Revelation,
A PP END IX.1
—º-
ON THE FORMAL CAUSE OF JUSTIFICATION.
HE formal cause of a thing is generally explained to be
that which constitutes it what it is ; thus the soul
may be said to be that which changes the dust of the earth
into an organized and living body; Or, again, heat may be
considered the cause of a hot substance being hot, or that
in which its state as hot, consists. Comparing the formal
cause to other so-called causes or antecedents, it is the last
in the series by which a thing is brought to be, or the ulti-
mate state of the process which intervenes between the will
of the originator and its performance; at least this will
convey a motion of what is meant, sufficient for the matter
in hand. Thus, according to the Council of Trent, justifica-
tion, the work of God, is brought into effect through a
succession of the following causes: the mercy of God the
efficient cause, Christ offered on the Cross the meritorious,
Baptism the instrumental, and the principle of renewal in
righteousness thereby communicated the formal ; upon
which immediately follows justification. Or again, Faith
is, by various parties, considered successively as a disposing
1 [The purpose of this Appendix is to show that the cardinal question
to be considered by Catholics and Protestants in their controversy
about Justification is, What is its formal cause 2 When this is pro-
perly examined, it will be found that there is little or no difference of
view between the disputants, except when the Protestant party adheres
to the paradox of Luther —“Sola fides, non fides formata charitate,
justificat: fides justificat sine et ante charitatem,” and refuses to assign
a formal cause.]
344 A//endia.
cause, the instrumental, or the formal cause of justification,
thus being brought nearer and nearer to that of which it is
the cause, till it (as it were) falls into and coincides with it.
Hence the form is that, between which and the thing in
question nothing can be interposed in our ideas; and accord-
ingly it is sometimes really distinct from that effect, sometimes
not, though it is always supposed to be distinct. Thus, to
take one of the instances given, if the renovation in right-
eousness which follows Baptism, or the “justitia Dei qua nos
justos facit,” as the Council speaks, be considered as the
principle of renewal, as I have expressed it, it is the formal
cause of our renewed state itself as well as of justification;
and is or is not really distinct from that renewed state,
according as we believe the principle of renewal to be a
mere abstraction of the mind contemplating it, or a definite
divine gift residing in the soul. Again : heat, the formal
cause of a hot iron, is or is not really distinct from and
antecedent to its being hot, according as we view caloric as
an idea or as a substance. When what is considered the
formal cause is a mere abstraction of the mind, then it
nearly coincides with the logical differentia, or proprium, or
inseparable accident. Thus whiteness is at once the form
and the accident of a white wall; and animality is the form
and the généric difference of man as distinguished from a
vegetable.
The ordinary meaning of the word form serves to illus-
trate this scientific use of it. What discriminates a body
from everything else is its shape; which is the development
of that of which it is composed, into and unto a certain
determinate lineament and structure. The Form then is
Some such disposition or result, constituting a thing to be
what it is. For instance, the matter of a science is its
objective truth, its form is that truth when it has become
subjective, or knowledge, which is a sort of determinate
embodying of what was till then unappropriated.
Appendix. 345
Other instances of the formal cause are as follows:—
The muscles, claws, teeth, intestines, etc. of a beast of prey
so intimately harmonize with each other, as forcibly to
suggest the notion that they are necessary results of some
one element or principle, or that there is a certain latent
type on which its whole structure is formed and from which
it is developed. This, if it exists, will be the formal cause
of what we mean by a beast of prey.
Again :-It is often a difficult question in pathology to
determine the Seal of diseases. Fever, for instance, manifests
itself in certain symptoms, as quickness of pulse, restlessness,
etc.; and, speaking in a vague way, we might say that it
consisted in those symptoms, but it is natural to investigate
whether there be not some simple disarrangement of one or
other organ or function or department of the animal frame,
to which these symptoms may be referred. Thus insanity
has been supposed to consist in, i.e. to have for its formal
cause,_a certain determination of blood to the head; gout
to be an inflammation of the membrane which covers the
bones, etc. etc. In like manner, it has lately been a subject
of controversy in the medical world, whether the seat of
disease generally, and therefore its formal cause, was to be
sought in the solids or in the fluids.
Again:—If man be defined to be a rational animal, we
do not gain any real and tangible account of him, nor
advance in our knowledge of him ; it is an ideal, not a real
view of him; but if we are told that virtue is a power
of ruling the passions, or that happiness, as Aristotle says,
lies in action, we have brought before us, more or less clearly,
how virtue or happiness come to be, or of what they are
the issue ; that is, we approximate to their formal cause.
When Cicero suggests that “omne bonum in honestate
consistit” (Tuscul. Disp. v. 42), or that “honestas” is that
quality of a thing on account of which it is called good, he
is assigning the formal cause of goodness.
Again —It is often debated in what the union of Church
346 A%pendix.
and State consists; whether in the Church rates, or in the
legal protection of endowments, or in its Bishops having
seats in parliament, or in the Sovereign being an ea officio
member of it, and bound to support it ; that is, what is the
formal cause.
Once more :—Every one knows what is meant when we
speak of “endowments;” but a question may arise as to a
particular institution, object, or country, what in fact its
endowments consist in. For instance, the endowment of a
certain hospital may consist in land; of a certain bishopric
in tithes; of a certain preachership in railroad shares.
These may be considered as the respective formal causes of
“endowment” in the particular cases, as being the real
things in which the endowments in question lie.
2. This being the meaning of the term employed, it is
plain that to determine what is the formal cause of our
justification, or what it is which under the Christian cove-
nant constitutes us just in God's sight, or what it is in us
in which our justification consists, or what it is imme-
diately upon which we receive God's justification, is as
important an undertaking as any one in the controversy,
whatever difficulties may attend it, whatever chance there be
of verbal disputes (as there is almost the certainty), and
whatever danger, in consequence, of men finding themselves
on contrary sides, who are in reality like-minded. The
question may be thrown into the following more practical
shape : What is it which God will look on at the last day
and accept us in what will be the immediate antecedent
in our souls to the words, “Come, ye blessed.” Supposing
a religious man, unversed in controversy, to be asked this
question, the answer would at Once rise on his tongue, which
is suggested by the passage of Scripture referred to, viz. the
recognition of our good works on the part of God; “Come,
ye blessed, for I was an hungered,” etc. Next, on con-
sideration he might correct his answer so far as to say, that
since works are not good except done in a certain way, and
Aſpendix. 347
persevered in to the end, it is not the mere having done
certain works, but the presence of a renewed state of mind
developing itself in works, which is that upon which accept-
ance or justification falls. Further ; after a little more
thought, recollecting the parable of the Pharisee and Publi-
can, he might add, that of course he did not mean to Say
that our works or our inward state was such as to be able
in itself to stand the scrutiny of a Just and Holy God, but
that whatever was accepted in us must be accepted for the
sake of Christ's merits and under the covenant of mercy.
Lastly, recollecting the language of Hezekiah and Nehemiah,
and St. Paul's about “the rich storing up for themselves a
good foundation,” and about his own “good fight,” and St.
Luke's remark that Zacharias and his wife were “righteous
before God,” and Zacharias's prophecy about Gospel “holiness
and righteousness before Him,” and St. Paul's appeal to his
conscience, he would add further, by way of caution, that
Christ's merits did not supersede the necessity of our
doing our part. -
3. Here suppose two disputants to interpose, they would
perhaps each claim the speaker as on his own side. The
One would urge that he had decided that the formal cause
of justification was either our good works, or our inward
holiness, as the case was viewed. The other, that on the
contrary he had spoken of the necessity of Christ's merits
coming between us and God's sentence; these merits then,
after all, were the immediate antecedent of justification,
that upon and in which justification came, or its formal
cause. The former would rejoin that those merits were
not the immediate antecedent of justification, but the pre-
supposed ground-work of justification all along, without
which there would be no covenant, no works, no reward at
all; not the last step before justification, but the first step
towards it: not the formal cause, but the meritorious
* Wide Vasquez, Disp. 222.
348 Aſpendix.
And here they would join issue; viz, whether Christ's
merits, which are the original cause of our holiness and
works, are to be considered as the medium (as it may be
called) of the covenant in which we act, or the provimate
cause of our entering into life.” Such is the question on
which Some remarks are now to be attempted, and which
has been viewed by different schools in a variety of ways;
such as the following:—(1) It has been said that we are
justified directly and solely upon our holiness and works
wrought in us through Christ's merits by the Spirit; or (2)
upon our holiness and works under the covenant of Christ's
merits, or, in other words, sanctified and completed by
Christ's merits; or (3) that our faith is mercifully appointed
as the substitute for perfect holiness, and thus is the inter-
posing and acceptable principle between us and God; or (4)
that Christ's merits and righteousness are imputed as ours,
and become the immediate cause of our justification, Super-
seding everything else in the eye of our Judge, Of these
the first is the high-Roman view ; the last the high-Prote-
stant ; and the two intermediate are different forms of what
is commonly considered the high-Church view among our-
selves, and very nearly resemble Bucer's, among the Pro-
testants, and that of Pighius, Mussus, and many others of
the Roman School.
4. Indeed, it is no point of faith with the Roman
Catholics to take the view which I have called Roman,”
1 Quando formalem causam quaerimus justificationis nostræ, id
qugerimus propter quod peccator in gratiam Dei recipitur, per quod im-
mediate Deo gratus et ad acternam vitam acceptus stat.—Daven. Just.
Hab. 22. Statuendum est hanc justitiam sive hoc meritum Christi
mon intervenire solummodo in prima nostra justificatione, Sed Semper
objīci divino judicio, ita ut ejus intuitu non modo recipiamur in gratiam
ab initio, sed stemus in gratia ac perducamur ad finem gratiº, nempe
ad gloriam.—Ibid. p. 28.
2 [It was laid down in the Council of Trent that the “unica
formalis causa” of justification is “justitia Dei, qua nos justos facit,”
Appendix. 349
but still I shall so call it, as holding the place among them
which our so-called high-Church doctrine does among us,
that is, as being the generally received, Orthodox, and
legitimate exposition of their formularies. Romanists then
consider that that on which justification at Once takes place,
in which it consists, or its formal cause, is inherent right-
eousness (whether habitual or of works, which is an open
question); and they argue that it is so, on the plain ground
that no interposition of mercy between it and justification
is required, and therefore none is made. If justification is
the issue of inherent righteousness at all, there is no reason,
they say, why it should not be the immediate issue of it.
If it be replied to them, that nothing we can do, though
proceeding from the grace of Christ, is such as to stand the
scrutiny of God's judgment ; so that the most perfect human
righteousness cannot possibly proceed to justification as its
legitimate result, but even though real, and though not
infected with sin, yet as being but inchoate and incomplete,
needs to be pardoned, they deny it, and argue as follows:
—Nothing exposes us to God’s wrath but sin, and a state
of sin is incompatible with the existence at all of grace
in the soul." To deny this, they say, is almost a contra-
diction in terms; hence a habit of grace occupies the soul,
to the exclusion, not of infirmities, imperfections, and venial
sins,” but of everything which interferes with a state of
reconciliation with God; it may grow towards perfection,
and it tends to destroy all that remains of an earthly nature
or renovation of spirit and the good works thence proceeding; for there
can be only one form of any thing, and this inward righteousness being
that on which justification immediately follows, is therefore that one
form. At the same time there may be many improper forms; as
(according to the illustration used infra) the soul is the true form of
the body, and yet its organization in some sense its form also.]
* Wid. Jerom. Adv. Jovinian. ii. 2.
* About venial sins, vid. Vasquez, Disp. 222, ii. 17.
35O A/fendix.
in the soul, but by the fact of entering into the soul it expels
at once all that is hateful to God. The renewed soul is in a
state of favour, else it would not be renewed; Christ's merits
have been applied when it was renewed, and their virtue
lasts while the renewal lasts. If a man commits a mortal
sin, he is at once thrown out of this state both of favour
and renewal; and if he so died would die out of justification;
but, while he is in it, he is by the very force of the words
only in the commission of such sins as are not mortal, and
do not incur God's wrath and damnation. And in this the
Roman Schools differ from Luther, who taught that no sin
throws the soul out of a state of grace but unbelief, that is,
distrust. It appears then that they hold two things—that
the presence of grace implies the absence of mortal sin;
next, that it is a divine gift bringing with it the property
of a continual acceptableness, and thus recommending the
soul to God's favour, so as to anticipate the necessity of
any superadded pardon. tº:
Nay, some writers speak of the presence of the Holy
Ghost Himself, who is in the righteous, as being the formal
cause of their inherent righteousness, who of course may
easily be understood as continually applying to them Christ's
merits, while He continually Sustains their spiritual life.
But whether we consider the presence of the Holy Spirit as
the form of righteousness, or grace as the form, or grace as
the “justitia” which is mentioned as the form in the Council,
or even if grace be taken to be the same habit as love
viewed differently, yet in all these cases an inward gift is
supposed immediately from God, doing that for the soul,
which, whatever be its actual proficiency in holiness, it must
need, washing it in Christ's blood, and so presenting it to
God blameless and glorious without spot or wrinkle or
blemish. This doctrine seems expressed in the Canon of
the Council of Milevis (A.D. 416), in the time of St. Austin:
“Placuit, ut quicunque dixerit gratiam Dei, in qua justifica-
Appendix. • 351
mur per Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum, ad solam
remissionem peccatorum Valere quae jam commissa Sunt, non
etiam ad adjutorium ut non committantur, anathema sit.”
To the same effect, when Bucer in the Ratisbon Conference
objects to his opponent, as saying, “Homines non eo justOS
quia non eis imputentur, Sed quia legem Dei impleant,” the
Roman writer of the Acts observes, “Sed hoc non ita
posuerat Malvenda; sed quia gratiaſm habent delentempeccata,
et vires suggerentem ad implendam legem.”
5. This doctrine of a real distinction, to be drawn
between the divinely imparted principle of righteousness,
even after it has been imparted, and the actual righteousness
or renewed state of our minds, is allowed in the Church of
Rome and held by Roman divines, both before the Council
of Trent and after. Lombard even held that for justification
the indwelling of the Spirit takes the place of the habit of
love, etc. (Vasquez, Disp. 203, c. 1; Bellarm. de Gratia, i. 8.)
Again, St. Thomas contends that the “gratia justificans”
is not the same as the habit of love ; the latter belonging
to the will, and the former to the substance of the soul. In
which opinion he is followed by Caietan, Conradus, Soto,
and others. Bonaventura assents, so far as to consider
that there is a formal distinction between them. (Vasquez,
Disp. 198, c. 2.) This alleged distinction was a subject of
dispute at the Council of Trent between the Franciscans
and Dominicans (Sarpi, Hist, lib. ii. p. 187); on all which
accounts it was left unsettled by the Fathers there assembled.
“Observandum praeterea est,” says Pallavicino, Hist. viii.
14, § 2, “cum e Scholasticis aliqui putarent, hominem reddi
justum per gratiam a charitate distinctam, alii per ipsam
charitatem, præter quam non insit alia gratia quæ justum
faciat, adhibitam data Opéra fuissé a Patribus vocêm nume
gratiſe nunc charitatis et interdum etiam utramgue, velut in
Canone undecimo, ut se abstinerent ab ea declaratione, dua
res an una eademque res illae forent.” Indeed it may be
352 Appendìae.
obviously argued, that umless the habits of grace and of love
are distinct, infamts cammot be justified. Vasquez and
Bellarmine indeed, though theytreat it as an opem question,
consider that graCe and love are One and the same, which
would resolve the inward justifying primciple into a quality
of our minds ; but even then arises the question in reserve,
whether that love does not after all arise from the presence '
' of the Holy Spirit, who, therefore, and nothing of ours,
whatever strong terms be used about love, Will be the true
justifier ; and among moderns, Petavius, no meam authority,
does not scruple to call the Holy Ghost the formal cause of
the righteousness imparted to us.
This is so remarkable as to justify the insertion of
several passages out of the many which might be quoted
from his De Trinitate, lib. viii. “ Sic igitur cum fidelibus
ac justis impertiri communicarique Spiritus Sanctus legitur,
non ipsamet, illius persoma tribui, sed ejus efficientia videri
potest, idque communis fere sensus habet eorum, qui in
Patrum veterum lectione minus exercitati sunt. Quos qui
attente pervestigare voluerit, intelliget occultum quemdam
et inusitatum missionis communicationisque modum apud
illos celebrari, quo Spiritus Ille Divinus in justorum sese
animos insinuans cum illis copulatur ; eumque non acciden-
tarium, (ut ita dicam) esse,—hoc est, qualitate dumtaxat illa
cœlesti ac divina, perfici, quam in pectora nostra diffundit;
idem cœlestium donorum largitor ac procreatOr Spiritus,—sed
oÜ61óδη, hoc est substantialem ; ita ut substantia ipsa Spiritus
Sancti nobiscum jungatur, mosque sanctos et justos, ac Dei
denique filios efficiat."—4, § 5. “ Omnino itaque per occultam
quandam ínfusionem substantiæ suæ justificare homines Spiri-
tum Sanctum Didymus arbitratus est. Eadem et apud
Paschasium et Bernardum leges de participatione illa sub-
stantiæ Spiritus Sancti, qua boni vel sapientes efficimur, hoc
est, jusfi et sancti."—Ibid. § 15. “ Evidens est ex eorum
[Patrum] decretis, justitiæ ac sanctitatis statum non creata re
A1Z7e/adiae. 353
ulla vel qualitate, sed ipsa Spiritus Sancti substantia, tan-
quam principali forma, in nobis perfici."—5, § 1. “ Ac valde
sunt, illa consentanea Cyrilli, aliorumque Patrum sententiis
. . quæ Spiritum Sanctum To16rqτα velut quandam
divinitatis esse demonstrant, aut formam, quæ ποιούς τινας
reddit eos in quibus inest."—Ibid. § 15. “ Relegantur
omnia veterum Patrum testimonia, quæ superius exposita
sunt, et quod iis præstantius est Scripturæ loca illa recen-
seantur, quæ cum justis conjungi vel in iis habitare, aut
Deum simpliciter, aut privatim Filium, docent, inveniemus
eorum pleraque testari per Spiritum Sanctum hoc fieri, velut
proœimam causam et ut ita dixerim formalem."—6, § 8. It
would seem them as ifthere Were fwo formal causes of justi-
fication admitted by Romanists, love or inherent, righteous-
mess, and grace Or the presence ofthe Holy Spirit imdwelling.
Nor does Vasquez take am objection to the motiom of thus
viewing the subject ; On the contrary, he says, “ Neque enim
incommodum aliquod est, constituere duas fo7'mas, per quas
homo justificari possit apud Deum, nempe duos habitus.”'
Disp. 198, c. 3. Indeed, such a determinatiom of the matter
is just as intelligible and reasonable, as ifthe form of bodily
life were said to be either a certain organization, or the
presence of an animating spirit.
This admissiom of a double form in justification is worth
motimg, as it points towards that doctrine which I shall
presently notice as more exact and satisfactory tham the
* [Sporer goes further. In defending the thesis, that * justificatio
est effectus formalis gratiæ sanctificamtis ex Ordimatione divinâ,” he says,
mot indeed that there are two formal causes of justificatiom, since there
is “unica formalis causa,'' but that the causa is of a composite mature,
including am external and internal Divine act. ** Qualitas inhærens
seu habitus charilatis et Ordinatio seu favor Dei constituunt integraliter
Vnam causam formalem nostræ justificationis.” And he appeals to
the words of the Coumcil of Trent for this view.—Theol. Moral. Suppl.
p. 286.]
2 A
354 Appendix.
extreme Roman; nor does the argument urged by Vasquez
against it, that where one is enough, it is superfluous to
suppose two, tell for much, on the hypothesis that the gift
of grace is really the form, and inherent righteousness but
improperly so.
6. But to return : Such then is, on the part of the
extreme Romanists, the resolution of the question how
inherent righteousness stands the scrutiny of divine holiness
and constitutes our acceptance; they answer, that it consists
in an inward divine quality, which has the power of apply-
ing, or springs from the application of Christ's merits, and
so effects or pre-supposes the cleansing of all sin in us.
Protestants, on the other hand, are accustomed to consider
that the immediate antecedent to justification is an act of
pardon from without upon the soul to be justified, which
act, in consequence, is considered its formal cause. Now
there are many difficulties attending this theory, but its
strength in argument with Romanists lies in the authorities
which can be brought against them from among their own
friends. Some of these shall be mentioned, before we
consider the theory itself. A remarkable testimony, for
instance, of this kind is St. Austin's, who thus speaks in his
De Civitate Dei: “Ipsa nostra justitia, quamvis véra, Sił prop-
ter veri boni fidem ad quem refertur, tamen tanta est in hac
vita, ut potius peccatorum remissione Constet quam perfectione
virtuțum. Testis est oratio totius Civitatis Dei, quae pere-
grinatur in terris, per omnia quippe membra Sua clamat ad
Deum, Dimitte nobis debita nostra.”—xix. 27. And St.
Jerome: “Tunc ergo justi Sumus, quando nos peccatores
fatemur ; justitia nostra non ex proprio merito, Sed ea; Dei
consisti miséricordia.” — contra Pelag. (vol. ii. p. 179).
Against such statements it seems hardly in point to urge
passages from the Fathers on the other side which speak of
inherent righteousness as justifying; the sole question being
whether, granting this, it justifies after being sprinkled with
A//endºr. 355
the blood of Christ, which passages such as the above seem
clearly to imply. So again St. Ambrose: “Non gloriabor,
quia justus sum, Sed quia redemptus sum ; gloriabor, mon
quia vacuus peccatis sum, Sed quia mihi remissa Sunt pec-
cata; non quia profui, neque quia profuit mihi quisquam,
sed quia pro me Advocatus apud Patrem Christus est, Sed
quia pro me Christi sanguis effusus est.”—de Jacob et vit.
beat. i. 6. And Pope Gregory: “Justus Advocatus noster
justos nos defendet in judicio, quia nosmet ipsos et cognos-
cimus et accusamus injustOS. Non ergo in fletibus, non in
actibus nostris, Sed in Advocati nostri allegatione confida-
mus.”—In Ezek, lib. i. hom. 7, fin. And so St. Bernard
On his sick-bed, as Hooker after him : “Fateor, non sum
dignus, ego, nec propriis possum meritis regnum obtinere
coelorum ; caeterum duplici jure illud obtinens Dominus
meus, haereditate Scilicet Patris et merito passionis, altero
ipse contentus, alterum mihi donat ; 60, Cujus dono jure illud
nihi vendicans non confundor.”—Wit. S. Bern. i. 12, col. 1084.
And so again the words of the present Roman Mass, “intra
quorum [Sanctorum] nos consortium, non aestimator meriti
Sed vônia quæSumus, largitor admitte.” These passages are
not inconsistent indeed with the Roman view of the doctrine,
still they differ in tone from it. Lists of similar passages will
be found in Gerhard de Just. §§ 8, 213, etc.; de Leg. § 189;
Field, Of the Church, iii. Append. ch. 2.; J. White's Way to
the Church, Digress. 35 ; Davenant de Just. Habit. c. 29.
Of these I shall only cite in addition the testimony of
Bellarmine himself, often quoted in the controversy, and
remarkable because he advocates the high Roman view.
After saying that the Catholic Church goes along a middle
way, teaching that our chief hope and confidence must be
placed in God, yet 80mé in our services, he proves from
Scripture and the Fathers three propositions;–that the
confidence of the Saints in God arises not from faith alone,
but from good works: that when our services are proved
356 ...’ A//endix.
really to deserve the name, we may put some confidence in
them, so that we beware of pride ; and thirdly, which is the
statement in question, “Propter incertiludiném propriae jus-
titiae et periculum indnis gloride, fułissimum est fiduciam
totam in Sola Dei miséricordia et benignitate reponéré.” And
then he explains this by saying that he means, not that we
should not pursue good works with all our might, not that
they are not a true ground of confidence, are not real
righteousness, or are unable to sustain God's judgment, but
that it is Safer in a manner to forget what we have done,
and to look Solely at God's mercy, because no one can
know, except by revelation, whether or not he has done
any good works, or whether he shall persevere, and because
the contemplation of his good works, even if he could know
of them, is dangerous, as being elating.—Wide de Just. v. 7.
7. On this subject may be consulted to advantage Le
Blanc's Theological Theses, de Rel, bon, op. part. 2, Thes, 1,
who carefully discusses the views of the Roman doctors
concerning the value of good works, and shows that, in spite
of their doctrine ea condign0, many of them hold one or
other of the following opinions distinct from that of Vasquez,
which has been chiefly spoken of above:–that the merit of
the works of the regenerate depends on God's covenant, even
regarded as works of the Spirit; that these works are not
accepted for the reward of eternal life, except as sprinkled
with the blood of Christ;" that the word merit is not meant
to apply in the standard of justice but of mercy; and that
when the justice of God is spoken of in this relation His
faithfulness is meant, or conformity to the dictates of His
wisdom. Moreover he says, that they all confess that the
meritorious works in question are not such in themselves,
* Vid. also Davenport. “Nos dicinus nostram justitiam, si
praescindas acceptationem divinam et justitiam Christi, a quâ, suam
dignitatem meritorie derivat, parum valere.”—Franc. a Sanct. Clar.
Tractat. 26.
A//endºr. 357
but as done by the persons of the regenerate, who are God's
Sons, not servants, and that good works are not meritorious
of life, in the sense in which bad works are meritorious of
death. In a word, they do not consider our holiness or
good works a cause in the way of nature, but in the mind
and dealings of a gracious God; though, at the same time, as
is hardly necessary to add, the Roman doctors often use lan-
guage most grating and revolting to our ears, and (as we
cannot but think) very perilous to those who acquiesce in it.
To these authorities must be added the testimony of
many of the schoolmen, who distinctly state as general
doctrine what Bellarmine considered only to be safer to the
individual, that the regenerate cannot trust in the view of
God’s judgment on anything good in them, or any good
works of theirs. Vasquez makes mention of these writers
and of others of later date, in the following very observable
words, which have often been quoted:—“Non possum non
mirari antiquos scholasticos, quos hactenus memoravi, quod
de justitia nobis inhaerente ita abjecte Senserint, ut veram
ei adscribere formidaverint rationem justitiae et Sanctitatis
inhaerentis quae Suapte natura Deo necessario placeat ; recen-
tiores vero theologos multo magis miratus Sum, quod post
praeclaram Concilii Tridentini definitionem, quam inferius
explicabo, tam eacilém justitiam inhaerentem justis conces-
serint, ut ex se non habeat virtutem tergendi maculas
peccatorum, nec eas purgare Valeat, nisi favore et condona-
tione Dei relaxentur.”—Disput. 204, c. 2, p. 469.
8. Such are the confessions, Or, it may be said, conces-
sions, of Roman Divines, towards the doctrine of Protestants
on the subject of justification. But far from being content
with them, Luther, Calvin, and their followers, have main-
tained that nothing is really granted, while good works or
holiness are in any respect made the formal or constituting
cause of justification; and then their difficulty begins, for
they have forthwith to construct a doctrine of their own,
358 Aſpendix.
whereas Protestants seem by the force of their name to
disclaim the office of framing any positive theology." The
question is, what is the formal cause of our justification —
now let us grant that any divinely imparted Sanctity, any
good works are not the immediate antecedent to our being
justified; that justification does not depend on, or consist
in, anything we are or can do ; that Christ's merits must
ever interpose or intercede between us and God, and so
preclude the righteousness inherent in us from being the
formal cause ; the question recurs, what is the formal cause
of our justification 7 and on this question we shall find in
the writings of Protestants great diversity of opinion and
little satisfaction. Some say that faith is the formal cause,
some forgiveness of sins, some the imputation of Christ's
righteousness, and some that there is no formal cause at all.
9. Perhaps the best choice that can be made out of these
answers, is to say that it is faith. Such was the answer
originally given by the Lutherans, but they retracted it.
And such is the answer virtually given by Bishop Bull and
many others of our divines who have chosen to express
themselves in what may be called the calculus of Protes-
tantism. By faith, according to Bishop Bull, is meant fides
formata charitate et operibus, or the obedience which is of
faith; a doctrine which one is glad to find was admitted in the
deliberations of the Council of Trent,” and differs from the
view I have called properly Roman, in this, that by calling
inherent righteousness by the name of faith, it implies that
it is only in Christ that that righteousness is accepted, being
unable to stand God's judgment unless Sprinkled with His
Atoning blood. But, returning to Luther, I observe that
he too sometimes speaks of faith as our “formalis justitia.”
“Ubi ergo vera fiducia cordis est, ibi adest Christus ipsa
1 There is a dissertation on the formal cause of justification in
Pareus's Miscell. Catechet, vii. p. 171, but it does not help us in our
present inquiry. * Pallavic. Hist. viii. 4, § 3.
A.%pendiae. - 359
nebula, et fide. Eaque est formalis justitia, propter quam
homo justificatur, non propter charitatem, ut sophistæ
loquuntur."—In Gal. ii. 16. “ Hoc [tribuere Deo gloriam]
ratio non facit, sed fides ea consummat divinitatem, et, ut ita
dicam, creatrix est divinitatis, non in substantia Dei, sed in
nobis. . . . Ideoque illam gloriam posse tribuere Deo, est
sapientia, sapientiarum, justitia, justitiarum, religio religionum,
et sacrificium sacrificiorum. Ex hoc intelligi potest, quanta
justitia, sit fides, et per antithesin quantum peccatum
incredulitas.”—In Gal. iii. 6.* And Illyricus, Writing agaimst
Osiander, ascribes to Luther the doctrine, “ fiduciam, im
Christum esse nostram formalem, justitiam, seu imputari nobis
in justitiam."—E. 3, p. 6. Calvin says the same ; by way .
of showing that Works are not a cause of salvation, he ob-
serves that of the four received kinds of causes, “Efficientem
. vitæ æternæ nobis comparandæ causam ubique Scrip-
tura prædicat Patris cœlestis misericordiam et gratuitam
erga nos dilectionem ; materialem vero Christum cum sua
obedientia, per quam nobis justitiam aequisivit ; formalem
vel instrumentalem, quam esse dicemus nisi fidem ?”—Instit.
iii. 14, § 17. This solution of the question, however, seems
tO have been soom givem up, and the apprehensive notion of
faith substituted. Gerhard, de Justif. § 163, argues that;
faith cannot be the formal cause of justification ; '* cum
justificatio sit actio Dei;" which is to miss the questiom (vide
above, Lecture IV. pp. 96, 97), and says, §§ 197, 201, that
it is so called by Lutherans, nothing more is meant than
that faith is the means of apprehending Christ, who is our
righteousness in God's sight. -
10. This latter doctrine, which is Luther's, is reduced
by Gerhard from ChristuS fide apprehensus est justitia nostra,
§ 163, to Christi justitia, next to Christi obedientiæ impufafio,
them to justitiæ per Christum partae ìmputatio, and lastly to
remissio peccatorum, §§ 16, 197, 198; maintaining, as he does,
* Vide also Melanchth. Apol. vol. i. f. 77.
360 - Aſpendia.
that imputatio justitiae per Christum partae is identical with
remissio peccatorum, § 199, and the one formal cause of
justification. Calvin, on the other hand, assenting to the
doctrine that the imputatio justitiae, or non-imputatio or re-
missio peccatorum, is the formal cause (Instit. iii. 11, §§ 2, 4;
Antidot. p. 323; Eccles. Reform. Rat, p. 368; Chamier, de
Justif. xxii. 13, § 5), and that sanctification is not the formal
cause, but a “necessary accident,” present in justification
Comitanter not formaliter, a distinction difficult to master,
since a form need not be intrinsic, (vide Calvin, Antid. p.
324; Davenant de Just. Hab. fin.) determines with more
candour that Christus, or the obedientia Christi, is the matter
of justification." (Wide passage above quoted, and Instit. iii.
11, § 7; Chamier de Justif. xxi. 1, § 19.) But what he gains
thereby in truth, he loses in the argument; for whereas the
formal cause must be from its nature intimately connected
(whether accidentally or essentially) with that of which it is
the cause, this solution of the question gives up the notion of
such a connection altogether, as substituting with Gerhard
for the passive sense of justification that active sense which
belongs to God. (Wide Chamier, loc. cit.) To tell us that
justifying consists in God's pardoning sin, does not help us one
step towards determining what it really is to be justified;
whereas the phrases “Christus justitia nostra,” “Christus in
cordibus inhabitans,” etc., of the Lutherans are better
adapted to create at least a semblance of some real and in-
timate characteristic, and thus, granting nothing more than
Calvin, to break the force of an opponent's argument.
The Lutherans then argue that a form need not be any-
thing essential or internal; that the form, for instance, of
a Sunny bank is the Sun's shining, the form of news lies in
* It is remarkable that Davenant animadverts on Bonaventura's
making the merits of Christ the matter of justification, which he says
at once throws us upon inherent righteousness as the form.—De Just.
Hab. ch. 28, fin.
Aſpendix. - 361
him to whom it is news; moreover that love, the form, as
their opponents say, of justifying faith, is extrinsic only,
Vasquez grants this (Disput. 202, c. 3), but argues that
still there is always some real connection between a thing
and such extrinsic form ; for instance, it is part of the
Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation that Our Lord's human
nature is holy from its union with the Divine Nature as an
extrinsic form; here, however, the union between the two
natures is personal ; what then, in like manner, is that real
connection between Christ and the justified, whatever be its
precise nature, which will allow us to call Him the form of
our righteousness'. The Lutherans make answer that faith
is such a connection ; to which Vasquez replies by asking,
whether a man is called rich who by faith apprehends
riches', or noble who so apprehends nobility ? What do they
mean, in short, when they say that an act of our minds
changes our real state in God's sight Gerhard answers
(in controversy with Bellarmine), § 238, that it is a mystery;
a sufficient account, if his school kept to it, instead of going
On, as they do, to explain how it was, and turning the justi-
fying power of faith into a weapon against all mysteries,
such as the Sacraments. -
Further, Bellarmine goes on to urge (de Just. ii. 7), that,
even though the formal cause be extrinsic, still where there
is an intrinsic also, that is more properly the form (for instance,
it is more exact to say that fluidity is the form of melting
wax than its exposure to the fire); that a negro dressed in
white would still be called a black man; and that a sinner
to whom the righteousness of Christ is but imputed, has for
his truer form the sin which is in him, not the perfection
which is counted to him ; (and, in like manner, if he is
really made righteous by inherence, whether infection be
left or not, that inherent righteousness is more properly the
form of his justification than a mere imputed righteousness
which is without him); whereas, in the case of fides
362 A//endix.
formata which is alleged by Lutherans as an argumentum ad
hominem, no other form can be assigned but an external
one, namely love, whatever be the form of faith as such, and
love, far from being separated from faith, is united with it
by the closest and most real of all connections, as existing
with it in one and the same soul. To this Gerhard answers,
that the reason why the justified sinner is said to be in a
state of righteousness, because of what is external to him,
rather than of sin from what is internal, is that he is not
really a sinner in the same sense in which he was before ; for
sin in the regenerate has lost its formal part, which is guilt,
and has only its matter remaining, and even that is under
process of mortification. Further : he protests against the
notion that the Protestant doctrine of imputation is nominal,
shadowy, and putative. Davenant makes a similar com-
plaint ; yet, desirous as one may be to be fair to the theory,
it is difficult to speak of it in any other terms. Davenant's
words are these :—“Imputatio non fictionem cogitationis
humamae denotat, sed efficacissimam Dei Ordinationem et vali-
dissimam rei donationem. Si Bellarminus nolit advertere
quid intersit inter fictionem et donationem justitiae Christi,
dignus est qui coram tremendo illo tribunali sistatur, non
alia justitia indutus quam sua inharente.”—c. 34. This
Surely is unfair, as well as severe ; a gift or a possession is
of two kinds, personal, and for use and enjoyment; gold or
jewels put into one's hands is the former, and landed pro-
perty is the latter. Davenant means that the justitia
Christi is ours in the latter sense. He says (c. 28, fin.),
“Christijustitia imputata nihil aliud est quam Christi justitia
applicata et donata nobis ad Spiritualém aliquém effectum pro-
ducendum.” He does not regard it at all as a personal
possession; and Calvin grants as much, when he considers
the formal cause of justification, not the justitia Christi, but
remission of sins, that is, the spiritual consequence of His
righteousness, Bellarmine then assumes no more than
Aſpendix. 363
Calvin grants; that we are Said to be or named as having
Christ's righteousness in order to have the fruits of that
righteousness. Only he goes on to argue that such a mere
nominal and not real gift, or to make use of the foregoing
distinction, a gift not personal, cannot be called a formal
cause. Yet Davenant dispenses very different justice to his
acute opponent and his clear-headed and candid Master.
While he uses language which one would wish to forget,
because Bellarmine says that the imputation which is by
faith, by the very force of the terms used, cannot be a
personal characteristic of the Soul, yet when Calvin says that
Christ's righteousness is but the matter, not the form of
justification, and only is applied to us in its effects, in the
remission of sins, he says, “ut itaque Seponamus philosophicas
speculationes de natura causae formalis,” etc. Yet he is just
beginning a dissertation of eight chapters upon it ! The
Subject may be treated in a philosophical, or a common-sense
way; but must not be taken up and put down in one or
the other at pleasure. All this ambiguity, as I must call it,
is to be imputed not to Bishop Davenant, whose work is full
of noble passages, but to his system.
11. Another answer still more explicit than Calvin's, is
that there is no formal cause of justification at all. Such is
the final evolution of the Protestant theory, which beginning
in the bold, may correct language of Luther, that Christ
Himself is the form of our justification, is gradually attenu-
ated till the very notion of a form vanishes. This is the
ground taken by those of our writers who are not Calvinists,
yet retain partially the language of Protestantism, Jackson
plainly puts forward this view in the following words:–
“To demand of us what is the formal cause of Justification,
by which our sins are formally remitted, is as if we should
ask one of our young pupils, what were Latin for manus.
Justification taken (as we do) for remission of Sins, not by in-
herent righteousness, or aught within us immediately incom-
364 A//endºr.
patible with them, but by the eaſternal merits of Christ, is a
form or entity as simple as any formal cause can be, and
simple or uncompounded entities can neither have formal
causes, or aught in proportion answering to them. Where-
fore, as I said, it is either the folly or knavery of our adver-
Saries to demand a formal cause of their justification, that
deny themselves to be formally just in the sight of God.”—
Book iv. ch. 7, init. Yet surely, with deference to so great
a writer, if a justified state, or, as he expresses it, a state of
remission of sins by the external merits of Christ, consist
in anything, if he who is in that state differs from him
who is not, that in which it consists, that in which he differs
from the other, is a kind of formal cause : and he would be
the last to deny that there are such characteristics attaching
to a person justified. Yet from a fear of the Roman doctrine
of merit, and from a principle of maintaining, as far as might
be, their inherited doctrine, some of our most revered divines
have virtually denied with Jackson that there is any formal
cause of justification; that is, they have avoided the ques-
tion." Thus Hooker, in a note on the Christian Letter,
which asks, “Tell us whether you think, that not faith alone,
but faith, hope, and love, be the formal cause of our righteous.
mess!” answers, “Is faith then the formal cause of justifica-
tion', and faith alone a cause in this kind', who hath taught
you this doctrine l’” but he does not tell us what the formal
cause is.-Eccles. Pol, lib. i. n. 58, Ed. 1836. Again, Bull,
Taylor, and others who hold the doctrine of “fides formata
charitate,” and Barrow, Tillotson, Wake, and a number of
supporters of the same doctrine, nevertheless do not, as far
as I can discover, venture to speak of “justificatio formata
fide,” though by calling faith, or faith and obedience, the
1 Romanists are equally perplexed to determine the matter in
Penance; the Council of Trent calls contrition, etc., the “quasi
materia; ” just as Davenant calls Christ's righteousness instar causae
formalis.-c. 28, p. 369.
A%endix. 365
condition of justification, they call it the form virtually. In-
deed Bull, Apol. iv. 8, expressly recognizes the “remission
of sins and acceptation to eternal Salvation” as the formal
cause of justification. In spite of this, Grabe, in Harm. i. 1,
§§ 6 and 8, and Wells also, Covenants, p. 2, ch. 2, fin., do
not scruple to call faith the formal cause.
12. The reluctance, which writers like those just men-
tioned show, from the prudence necessary for their times,
becomes in all who are imbued with the proper Protestant
theory a feeling of zeal against a view, which, though exist-
ing in the Roman system, is not false, unless exclusively held.
Such divines go a step further yet than has been noticed,
and maintain not simply that there is no formal cause of
justification, but that any one who says there is, is thereby
assigning not a formal but a meritorious cause. Christ is
acknowledged on all hands to be the sole meritorious cause
of our justification: but the question is not, who is the
Author or Agent, or other cause of it more or less subordi-
mate, but simply what justification consists in, what immedi-
ately constitutes us righteous in God's sight? This question,
we will suppose, had been abused to the neglect of God's
grace and Christ's merits, and to an idolatrous reliance on
the creature, just as the doctrine that life consists in certain
physical conditions, or the brain is the Organ of thought, or
the system of gravitation, may be perverted to a denial of
God's creative and overruling power, or of the immateriality
of the soul. Going into the opposite extreme, Protestants,
when asked what it is which constitutes us righteous before
God, not only refuse to answer explicitly, but assume the
offensive ; and when any one does venture to answer, accuse
him of substituting the merit of works for the true Source
of all acceptance and grace. Whenever one speaks of con-
ditions, they explain it of merits; whenever one says, that
the pure in heart shall see God, they answer that, contrari-
wise, none are justified but those who are drawn by God's
366 Appendix.
grace ; and when one says that only the obedient shall be
Saved, they cry out that the doctrine of justification by faith
Only is the “articulus stantis vel cadentis Ecclesiae.”
Such are some of the difficulties of the Protestant doc-
trine on this point ; in suggesting which, if I have ventured
to differ from some of our standard writers, it has been on a
point not of faith, and on which they differ from each other ;
and if I have here or elsewhere spoken freely of Luther and
Calvin, I will observe, that those who spoke as they did of
all who went before them, have no claim on the reverence
of those who come after."
13. To sum up what has been said:—the form into
which we cast the original question was this, are our holiness
and works done in Christ accepted or not without a fresh im-
putation upon them of Christ's merits' does the personal state
of Christians, or do Christ's merits, come next before the act
of God justifying them The Romanist answers, that Chris-
tians are justified in their holiness and works without any
fresh pardon; and explains himself to mean, not that Christ's
merits are not imputed, but that either they have been im-
puted once for all on the original justification, or that their
continual imputation accompanies that inward gift of grace
by which Christians are holy and do good works. The Pro-
testant maintains that we are saved merely by that imputa-
tion, because even granting our holiness and works were in
themselves good, which the strict followers of both Luther
and Calvin deny altogether even of the fruit of the Spirit,”
1 Luther, on the text, “Behold I Paul say unto you,” etc., Gal. v.
2, says, “Is locus terribile fulmen est contra totum regnum Papae.
Nam omnes sacerdotes, monachi, eremitae, etc. (de optimis loquor), non
Christo, quem summa injuria et blasphemia fecerunt iratum judicem
accusatorem, et damnatorem, sed suis operibus, justitiis, votis, et
meritis confisi sunt.” As to Calvin's arrogamce, even against the N icene
Fathers, it needs no proof.-Vid. in Valent. Gentil. p. 780, Col. 2.
* Quanta quaeso blasphemia est, opera facta ex fide et gratiâ
Aſpendix. 367
yet that after all they would be but inchoate and incom-
plete. .
Now in the case of those who say that the fruit of the
Spirit in us is in no degree good, and that we have no in-
herent righteousness at all, this difference is not verbal ; the
One party says that we are justified entirely by what is with-
out us, because there is nothing within us which can justify,
and the other says by what God plants within us, completed
by His merciful imputation. But those who even, though
admitting the infection of sin to remain in the regenerate,
deny that it is a mortal matter, or “deserves God’s wrath
and damnation ;” or even if they hold that it is mortal, yet
that it may be through God's grace subdued, seem to have
no irreconcilable difference on this point with the Romanists.
And this view of sin has ever been virtually and practically
the prevalent doctrine in the English Church; nay, Le Blanc,
in his Theses Theologicæ, maintains that Protestants generally
have no difference with Romanists on this subject. “Quum
mentem Suam distinctius explicant [Scholae Romanæ Doc-
tores] in eundem plane sensum cum Theologis Reformatis
incidunt.”—De Justit. inhaer. 27. But however this may be,
at least English divines teach that our holiness and works
done in the Spirit are something towards Salvation, but not
enough ; or that we are justified by obedience under the
Covenant of mercy, or by obedience sprinkled with or pre-
sented in the Atoming Sacrifice. According to them then
we are saved in Christ's righteousness, yet not without our
own; or considering Christ's righteousness as a formal cause,
we are saved by two contemporaneous formal causes, by a
righteousness, meritorious on Christ's part, inchoate on ours.
Now it happens that this doctrine appears to have been
held by Bucer as distinct from the other Reformers; it is
Christi, stercora nominare (Phil. iii. 8) quae ad Gal. v. fructus Spiritàs
ipse idem vocat Apostolus !—Bellarm. de Justif. i. 19. Even Chemnitz
seems to have been open to this charge.
J
268 Appendix.
also the doctrine of the Canons of Cologne in their Antidi-
dagma of 1544; it was held by Pighius, Seripando, and
others, at the Council of Trent ; and we have already heard
the confession of Vasquez, that it was virtually held by
many schoolmen and divines of his Church, both in ancient
and later times. In this then I conceive to lie the unity of
Catholic doctrine on the subject of justification, that we are
saved by Christ's imputed righteousness, and by our own
inchoate righteousness at Once.
14. First let us hear the Antididagma of Cologne, which
was a considerable document at the time it appeared. It
was drawn up by the Clergy of that See against Herman
their Archbishop, who with Bucer and Melanchthon was
meditating a reform of his Church. (Vid. Sleidan. Hist.
Reform. xv.) It cannot then be accused of a Protestant
leaning. It speaks as follows:—
“Justificamur a Deo justifia duplici tanquam per causas
formales et essentiales. Quarum una et prior est consummata
Christi justiția ; non quidem quomodo extra nos in ipso est,
sed sicut et quando eadem nobis (dum tamen fide apprehen-
ditur) adjustitiam imputatur. Haec ipsa ita nobis imputata
justitia Christi, præcipua est et Summa justificationis nostrae
causa, Cui principaliter inniti et fidere debeamus. Aliter
vero justificamur formaliter per justifiam inhaerentem; quae
remissione peccatorum simul cum renovatione Spiritus sancti
et diffusione charitatis in corda nostra, Secundum mensuram
fidei uniuscujusque nobis donatur, infunditur, et fit propria;
atque ita per fructus Spiritus exercetur, efficiturque in nobis
propria quædam justitia qua afficiamur. Cui tamen inhae-
renti justitae (quod sit imperfecta) non innitimur princi-
paliter; Sed ea tanquam interiori quodam experimento
certificamur, nobis (qui talem renovationem spiritus nostri
in nobis sentimus et experimur) remissionem peccatorum
factam Christi consummatam justitiam nobis imputari atque
ita Christum per fidem in nobis habitare.”—f 13,
Appendìae. 369
The statement of the Bishop of Bitonto, in the delibe-
rations at Trent, is to the same general effect : “ Bituntimus
ita disputavit: Duo intervenire cum impius justitiam accipit,
liberationem, ab ìnjusfifiae sfafu, et justitiæ adeptionem : illam
huic antecedere, intelligens, ut arbitror, eam quam antece$-
sionem, nafuræ Scholæ nominant, perinde ac Solis adventus
suæ lucis effusionem antecedit. Is itaque fortasse censuit;
per hujusmodi quam dicunt naturæ antecessionem prius
condonari peccatum per divinam ea frin$ecus remissionem,
tum vero, sed eorum, [eodem] temporis momento, cessante in
nobis peccati obice, gratiam infundi qua Dei filii constitui-
mur. Hinc ipse aiebat antecedentem huju$modi justificationem,
ex eo haberi, quod nobîs împutetur Christi justitia, qui veniam
nobis impetrat ; at subsequentem obtinet per justitiam
interius nobis infusam, non autem per Christi justitiam
nobis extrinsecus imputatam, quod Lutherani contendebant.”
—Pallavicin. Hist. Conc. Trid. viii. 4, § 14. To this may be
added that of Seripando, the Augustiniam General, which
agrees with the Antididagma more closely still. “ Duplicem,
postea justitiam statuebat. Partem quidem mobìs ìnfìmam,
. . . Secumdam justitiam evfra ^08 sitam volebat, nempe
justitiam ac merita RedemptOris, quæ ex divinâ commisera-
tione mobis imputentur quasi nostra ; non quidem integra, sed
secundum eum gradum et ad ea efficienda quæ Deo placuis-
sent.''—Pallav. Hist. viii. 11, § 4. Such too was the doctrine
of Pighius (vid. Bellarm. de Just. ii. 1), from whose work on
the Ratisbon Conference I make the following extract:—
“ Justificat ergo mos Deus Pater bonitate sua gratuita, qua
nos in Christo complectitur, dum eidem insertOs, innocentia
et justitia, Christi mos induit ; quæ una, ut vera, et perfecta
est, quæ Dei sustinere cOnspectum potest, ita unam pro
mobis sisti oportet tribunali divini judicii, et velut causæ
nostræ intercessorem eidem repræsentari," etc.—Controv.
IRatispon. ii. G. iii. “ Nos dicimus, nec fide, nec charitate
nostra nos justificari coram Deo, si formaliter et proprie
2 B
37O Appendae.
loquamur, sed una, Dei in Christo justitia, una Christi nobis
communicata justitia, uma ignoscente nobis peccata nostra
Dei misericordia . . . Ut vero intelligamus nos justificari
seu fide seu charitate, velut dispositionibus aut mediis
quibusdam in mobis ad justificationis gratiam a Deo obti-
mendam necessariis, mos utramque et fidem et charitatem
necessario requirimus, sed hanc non illam esse dispo-
sitionem, prozimam, et inseparabilem, a justificationis gratia
etiam a nobis demonstratum est.”—ìbid. I. Vide also the
language of Contarini, Hosius, Stapletom, etc. etc., as found
in Field and Gerhard as above, p. 355. The same is the
doctrime of Valentimus, Bishop of Hildesheim, in a Work
Written in 1535, With a view of composing the controversies
of the day, and presented to the Emperor about the time
of the Diet of Worms, 1545. I give an extract of it as it
is preserved by Seckendorf. Comm. iii. 31, § 121. “Addit,"
says that Writer, * quæ Lutheramæ doctrinæ propius accedere
videntur, donatam nobis justitiam Christi, ejusque merita
nostra esse, et nobis imputari ; sed mox subjungit, præter
hanc imputativam meritorum Christi justitiam, justitiam,
aliam, voluntati nostræ nempe inhærentem, justitiam, id est,
propriam a nobis per charitatem recipi; his duabus justitiis
simul hominem justificari easque $eparari n0n posse, et
priorem amitti nisi altera sequatur.” Valentinus assented,
moreover, to the doctrine that fides formata justifies. Cas-
sander's doctrine is the same in his Consultatio: “ De ipsa
autem justitia qua justificamur, magna, hactenus certamina
exstiterunt, aliis in sola Christi justitia nobis imputata,
aliis in justitia novæ vitæ nobis communicata, justificationis
formam ponentibus, cum postea, a doctissimis viris obser-
vatum sit, ex Apostolica doctrina et Patrum traditione
vtramque justitiam in justificationis ratione conjungi debere.
. . . . . . Justificari hominem non sola imputatione sed etiam
veræ justitiæ participatione manifeste declarat analogia illa
peccati et justitiæ ex inobedientia et obedientia, unius
hominis, quæ explicatur a Paulo, Rom. V.”—ap. Grotium,
Appendae. 371
Oper. vol. v. He them proceeds to say that this was Bucer's
Opinion, who, however, shall mow speak for himself.
15. Bucer's opiniom is of sOme importamce to those
who judge of the doctrine of the English Church by the
views of the men who conducted its Reformatiom in the
16th century. I shall therefore give some considerable
extracts from his Writings:—He will be found to speak like
a Lutheram concerning the office of faith under the gospel ;
but that does mot interfere with his doctrine om the point
in questiom, of there being tWO forms in justification :—
The following is the statement presented by the Em-
perOr's directions to the Conference at, Ratisbom, A.D. 1541,
and assented to by Bucer among Others :—“ Firma, itaque
est et sana doctrina, per fidem vivam, et efficacem, justificari
peccatorem. Nam per illam Deo grati et accepti sumus
propter Christum. Vocamus autem fidem vivam, motum
Spiritus sancti, quo vere pœnitentes veteris vitæ eriguntur
ad Deum, et vere apprehendunt misericordiam in Christo
promissam, ut jam vere sentiant, quod remissionem pecca-
tOrum et reconciliationem propter meritum Christi gratuita
Dei bonitate acceperunt ; et clamant ad Deum, Abba Pater.
Id quod tamen mulli obtingit, nisi etiam, simul ínfundafur
caritas, samans voluntatem, ut voluntas samata, quemadmo-
dum Divus Augustinus ait, încîpîat implere legem. Fides
ergo viva est, quæ et apprehendit misericordiam in Christo
ac credit justitiam quæ est in Christo, sibi gratis imputari,
et quæ simul pollicitationem Spiritus et caritatem accipit.
Ita quod fides quidem justificans est illa fides, quæ est
efficax per caritatem, sed interim hoc verum est, quod hac fide
eatenus justificamur, id est, acceptamur et reconciliamur Deo,
quatenus apprehendit misericordiam et justitiam, quæ nobis
imputatur propter Christum et ejus meritum, non propter dig-
nitatem seu perfectionem justitiæ nobis in Christo communi-
catæ. Etsi autem qui justificatur justitiam accipit, et habet
per Christum etiam inhærentem, sicut dicit Apostolus, Abluti
372 Appendae.
estis, sanctificati estis, justificati estis, etc. (quare Sancti
Patres justificari etiam pro eo quod est inhærentem justitiam
accipere, usurparunt) tamem anima fidelis huic non innititur,
sed soli justitiæ Christi, nobis donatæ, sine qua omnimo
nulla esse potest justitia. Et sic fide in Christum justifica-
mur seu reputamur justi, id est, accepti per ipsius merita,
non propter nostram dignitatem aut opera ; et propter
inhærentem justitiam eo justi dicimur, quia quæ justa sunt
operamur, juxta illud Joannis, Qui facit justitiam justus
est."—Liber. Propos. ad Comp. Rel. It is observable that
this statement was as a whole considered so little Protestant,
that a complaint Was made to Ijuther by the Elector of
Saxony against Melanchthon for having signed it. It was
thought to be an undoing of the Confessiom of Augsburgh,
and especial offence was taken at the Word éffica£ applied
to * fides,” as if it implied * fides formata.” The account is
contained in Seckendorf Comm. iii. 23, § 87. It should be
noticed that, while Luther casts off Bucer, expressly declar-
ing his suspicions of him, Cassander, in the work already
referred to, claims him as agreeing with himself.
But Bucer's opinion is more clearly stated in his own
words four Or five years afterwards in the second Conference
at Ratisbom, in which he drew up a paper statimg the points
of agreement, dissent, and ambiguity, between him and the
Romanists. He says, “ Hanc . . . . închoatam justitiam, justi-
tiam non esse eam qua justi sumus apud Deum, ita ut propter
illam vita, æterna nobis debeatur. Cum eœ parte tantum et
imperfecta sit, nec legi Dei satisfaciat dum hic vivimus ; ideo
aliam in nobis mempe Dei justitiam esse qua Christo Domino
confidamus,” etc.—Acta Coll. Rat. Ult. (Lovan. 1547). Again:
“ Tum ille orsus (Bucerus) multis verbis de fide apprehen-
dente dicere, qua apprehendamus Christi justitiam, quæ vera
perfectaque hominis justificatio sit. Hanc vitae justitiam nomi-
mari a Paulo, quam porro sequatur nostra illa, inhœrens atque
inchoata, justitia,” etc.—Ibid.
Appemdiae. 373
In the following passage he speaks ofjustificatiom through
Spiritual obedience, as strongly as St. Austim in the passages
quoted in Lecture II.:—“Non est igitur ex Lege justitia; imo
qui ex operibus Legis $unt, execrationi existunt, obnoxii, Gal.
iii. 10, id est, qui nihil præter Legem, et suas vire8. habuerint,
ut opera eorum tantum a Lege sint extorta, non ultro nec
Spiritu edita, hi execrationi sunt obnoxii ; quia nequeunt
Omnia quæ Lex exigit, præstare. Tales autem ipsa, Lex
testatur execratos esse. Lex vetat ea ad quæ matura pro-
pensissima est, scilicet, amorem mostri et quæ hic quærit.
. . . . Ita a Lege bona et sancta, institutaque ad vitam, nihil
nobis n0ndum, Spiritu, vivíficante donatis, quam ut peccati cog-
nitio, ita et incrementum ac consequenter ira Dei nostrique
condemnatio provenit. . . . . Legem igitur abolemus per
fidem ? Absit, sed Legem stabilimus. . . . . Necessarium
. . . . ut ante pestifer hic animi morbus tollatur. Id quum
Lex præstare nequeat, et ex sola gratia Dei donantis bonum
Legis amantem Spíritum, nobis contingit, con$equenS eSt nOS eß;
gratia et haudquaquam eß, Lege justìficari. Hanc itaque
gratiam, quum Christus nobis meruerit, ipse unus Author
est nostræ justificationis.”—Enar. in Matt. v. 19. Vid. also
Enar. in xv. 10-20.
As might be expected, he holds the doctrine of fides
formata, nay, he COndemns the use of the word sola, as
dangerOus ; he says, “Quia vero danda est opera, ne quem
vel verbulo offendamus, nemo gravari debet (cum videt;
offendi homines quod sancti scribunt, nos sola fide justificari),
adjicere viva, formata, per dilectionem efficaci, aut quid
hujusmodi. . . . Ut igitur memo me veris quidem offendendus
est, ita, satis habebo vocibus uti Scripturæ et dicere, Justum
fide vivere ; fide nos justificari et salvari, omaisso quod tanto-
pere offendit, Sola."—In Psalm. 2. Vid. also a passage quoted
by Bull, Harm. ii. § 8.
16. So much space has been givem to Bucer's doctrime,
because he is in mo Small degree connected with our oWm
374 Appendix.
Reformation; and such as his has been the current doctrine
of the English Church. Our divines, though of very differ-
ent Schools, have, with a few exceptions, agreed in this, that
justification is gained by obedience in the shape of faith,
that is, an obedience which confesses it is not sufficient, and
trusts solely in Christ's merits for acceptance ; which is in
other words the doctrine of two righteousnesses, a perfect and
imperfect; not of the Roman schools, that obedience justifies
without a continual imputation of Christ's merits; nor of the
Protestant, that imputation justifies distinct from obedience;
but a middle way, that obedience justifies in or under Christ's
Covenant, or sprinkled with Christ's meritorious sacrifice.
It would be easy to show this in the case of Bull, Taylor,
Barrow, Tillotson, and Wake, who goes so far as to imply
his agreement with BOSSuet on this point, Expos. Art. 5.
Nay, it is almost the opinion of the Calvinists, which is
worth remarking. Davenant, for instance, grants the doc-
trine of “justitia inchoata.” He grants that it is true right-
eousness in the same sense in which a white wall, though
not perfectly white, has whiteness (vid. Supra, note, p. 84),
and he grants that inherent righteousness is justification
in a passive sense, or what he calls justifaction, c. 22 ; that
is, in fact, we have two righteousnesses, a perfect and
an imperfect, Christ's and our own; the point in which he
differs being merely this, whether this inchoate righteousness
can be said to tend towards justification, or to serve us in
any stead in God's sight. And this would seem to be very
much a question of words; for if he means to deny it is
such as we can trust to, Bucer confesses this distinctly ; but
that there is something good in it, he surely cannot deny
unless he will contend there is no whiteness in a wall that
is partially white. Nay, in one place he confesses as to a
kindred point, “Non igitur cum Patribus nequé cum hisce
Sanioribus Pontificiis lis ulla nobis erit de nudo meriti voca-
bulo (quanquam multo melius et tutius estab hoc vocabulo
A//endix. - 375
abstinere), sed contra nuperos Papistas dimicabimus.”—De
Just. Act. c. 53.
To the same effect Hooker, whose view of justification is
supposed to be adverse to Bucer's and Bull's : “I will not in
this place dispute . . . whether truly it may not be said, that
penitent both weeping and fasting are means to blot out sin,
means whereby, through God's unspeakable and undeserved
mercy, we obtain or procure to ourselves pardon; which
attainment unto any gracious benefit by Him bestowed, the phrase
of Antiquity useth to express by the name of merit.”—Eccl. Pol.
v. 72, § 9. Hooker then holds, or at the very least suffers,
the doctrine, that God has not only made his son righteous-
ness to us by imputation, but that He does for us still more;
He begins actually to make us in this life what Christ is,
righteous. That doctrine Surely is neither derogatory to
God's grace nor an incentive to man's pride, which, while it
adds a gift, does not tend to dispense with the utter necessity
of Christ's merits for our justification. Or again, let the fol-
lowing extract from Our Homily, which has been quoted at
length elsewhere, be considered: “Mercifulness quaileth the
heat of sin so much, that they shall not take hold upon man
to hurt him ; or if ye have by any infirmity or weakness,
been touched and annoyed with them, straightway shall
mercifulness wipe and wash them away, as salves and
remedies to heal their sores and grievous diseases.”—Of
Almsdeeds, 2. In like manner Chalmier makes this curious
confession:-‘‘Nos . . . non negamus justitiam nostram aliquo
modo constare justifia inhabrénié quod Sæpe testati Sumus;
nimirum quia necesse sit nos mori peccatis et Vivere Deo.
Sediidem justitiae proram 6t puppim constituimus in remissione
peccatorum ; nimirum, quia haec nos apud Deum constituit
justos quod perfectio virtutum non potest. Quid ergo dis-
criminis est'ſ nimirum, quia ut duas formales causas ita duas
distinguimus justitias; quia absurdum sit, unius ejusdemgue
reigeminam formam esse, itaque justitiam nostram, quatenus
376 Aſpendia.
constat remissione peccatorum, cum Paulo justificationem,
eam autem quae perfectione virtutum, Sanctificationem appel-
lavimus.”—xxi. 19,9. (Wid, Davenant de Just. Hab. xxv, p.
360.) Just before he has found fault with the Council of
Trent for assigning “unica,” one only, formal cause, in
opposition to St. Austin, who made two, and made not the
inherent but the imputed righteousness the chief. In another
place he hails Bellarmine's explanation of the phrase, “Christ
our righteousness,” (by which that author seems to assign a
double formal cause to justification), as all but the same as his
own. “Certe si pauca vel demas wel commode interpreteris,
nihil estin hac Bellarmini solutione quod non libenter admit-
tamus.”—xxi. 17, § 25. “Nostramin Bellarmini verbis men-
tem laetiagnoscimus, et Optamus, ut were sic sentiant Jesuita,
sic sentiant omnes Papistae.”—ibid. § 38. This is not the first
passage which has already been referred to from Bellarmine,
about trusting to works, in which he comes near to an agree-
ment with the Protestants. In like manner, while Bellarmine
and the Romanists call love the extrinsic, and therefore
accidental form of justifying faith, Calvin calls it its insepa-
Table accident, and says that justification and sanctification are
as inseparable as light and heat in the Sun. His words are as
follows: “Neque tamen interea negandum est quin perpetuo
conjunctæ sint ac cohaereant dua istae res, sanctificatio et
justificatio: Sed perperam inde infertur unam ac eandem
esse; exempli gratia, Solis lumen, etsi nunquam separatur a
calore, non tamen calore existimandus est, nemoque tam
rudis invenitur quinon unum ab altero distinguat.”—Calvin.
Antid. p. 324. The eſcient then of the doctrinal error he
opposes, is the confessing indeed that the Sun of righteous-
mess is both light and heat, but speaking of the Sunshine
warming us. As to the practical corruptions of Roman Catho-
lics, that is another matter; here the question is about a
certain doctrine held by them and others. The statement of
the Bishop of Bitonto at Trent, quoted above, p. 369, seems
Appendia. 377
identical with Calvin's, except that the former attributes
706 to justification, comparing it to the Sun's présence, not
merely his heat. All this being considered, it does not seem
rash to say with Grotius, that, provided we acknowledge
that man does not procure remission of sins by anything he
can do, and nevertheless, is retained in God's favour by obe-
dience “caetera quæ disputantur, sunt Scholastica, et Meta-
physicalia.”—Animadv. in Rivet, 4.
17. To sum up again, that we may not lose ourselves:
—All parties seem to agree that there are two main essential
conditions, or constituting causes, of a soul being in the
state of justification, God's bounty and our sanctification;
and there are two extreme opinions, both dangerous, and
at first sight paradoxical; the one that God's bountiful
acceptance of the regenerate is independent of that Atone-
ment through which of course they become regenerate, the
other that their holiness is not really and intrinsically good,
even considered as the work of the Holy Ghost. Putting
these two extravagances, as they may be called, aside, all
parties will be found to agree together, that is, theologically
speaking, and 80 far as this doctrine is concerned (for I am
not going to the question of moral differences, or differences
in Creeds, in existing parties and individual writers);-with
this one point of controversy, viz, whether God's mercy,
considered as the form of justification, is an external form
or not. To say that the proper form of justification is
external to us, seems, on the face of it, unnatural; yet, on
the other hand, how shall we say that it is within us, without
confusing it with our own inherent righteousness'. The
multitude of controversialists then have taken this side or
that, according as they were on the one hand clear-minded,
or on the other hand sensitively alive to their own moral
deficiency and unprofitableness. Great divines, however,
have approximated to an agreement; thus Lombard and
St. Thomas, and, in modern times, Petavius, declare that
378 Appendix.
grace, or the Holy Spirit Himself indwelling, is the formal
cause of justification, and thus appear to have avoided an
intellectual difficulty without falling into what is a worse
moral one. On the other hand, it is remarkable that Hooker,
in his Treatise on Justification, in spite of his just abhorrence
of the practical corruptions of Romanism on this point,
virtually confesses the same doctrine with the divines last
mentioned. After speaking of three kinds of righteousness,
Imputed, Habitual, and Actual, he proceeds: “If here it
be demanded which of these we do first receive, I answer
that the Spirit, the virtue of the Spirit, the habitual justice
which is ingrafted, the external justice of Jesus Christ which
is imputed, these we receive all at one and the same time:
whensoever we have any of these we have all; they go
together; yet sith no man is justified except he believe,
and no man believeth except he has faith, and no man
except he hath received the Spirit of adoption hath faith,
forasmuch as they do necessarily infer justification, and
justification doth of necessity pre-suppose them, we must
needs hold that imputed righteousness, in dignity being the
chiefest, is, notwithstanding, in Order the last of all these.”—
§ 21. Here it is said that whereas in time these separate
gifts go together, yet in Order imputation comes upon the
gift of the Spirit; what is this, divested of verbal differences,
but to say expressly that the Holy Spirit is the formal cause
of justification? Now, turning from Hooker to the follow-
ing statements of Mr. Knox, let the reader decide whether
there is any great difference between them on the particular
point which is before us. “Our being reckoned righteous
coram Deo always and essentially implies a Substance of . . .
Tighteousness previously implanted in us; and . . . our repu-
tative justification is the strict and inseparable result of
this previous moral justification. I mean that the reckoning
us righteous indispensably pre-Supposes an inward reality
of righteousness, On which this reckoning is founded.”—
Aſpendix. 379
Remains, vol. i. p. 278. Now if Mr. Knox means that we
are in matter of fact and time sanctified before we are justi-
fied, then he differs from Hooker, as also from St. Austin's
famous maxim, Sequuntur opera justificatum, etc.; but if he
means in order of nature (as when we say that wisdom is
“first pure, then peaceable”), then I conceive he agrees with
Hooker. And in p. 265 he expressly declares that he
means in order of nature. Or again, let the coincidence of
doctrine between Calvin and the Council of Trent be
observed in the following passages:—Calvin : “Admonet
[Petrus], ne irrita sit sacri illius Sanguinis effusio, arcana
Spiritus irrigatione animas nostras 60 purgari.”—Instit. iii. 1,
§ 1. The Council: “Quanquam enim nemo possit esse
justus, nisi cui merita passionis Domini nostri Jesu Christi
Communicantur, id tamen in hoc impii justificatione fit, dum,
ejusdem Sanctissimae passionis merito per Spiritum Sanctum
charitas Dei diffunditur in cordibus eorum qui justificantur.”
—Sess. 6, c. 7. With these passages let the words of the
Homily on Almsdeeds be compared: “We, doing [as if dum
facimus] these things, according to God's will and our duty,
have our sins indeed washed away, and our offences blotted
out, not for the worthiness of them, but by the grace of God,
which worketh all in all, and that for the promise, etc. Alms-
deeds do wash away sins, because God doth vouchsafe then
to repute us clean and pure, when we do them for His sake,
and not because they deserve or merit our purging, etc.”
The same dependence of justification upon the gift of the
Spirit is maintained by Baxter. “Though most Protestants
say that justification is a sentence of God, they are not
agreed what that sentence is. . . . Some think, etc. . . .
Others say that by a sentence is meant God's secret mental
estimation. Mr. Lawson noteth that (as all confess that
God hath no voice but a created voice, and therefore useth
not words as we, unless what Christ as man may do in that
we know not ; SO), His Sentence is nothing but His declara-
38o Aſpendia.
tion that He esteemeth us pardoned and just in title, which
às principally, if not only, by his eaecution, and taking off all
penalties of sense and loss, and using us as pardoned in
title; and so that the giving of His Spirit is His very sentence
of justification in this life, as it is His declaration as aforesaid.
. . . . There is much truth in most of the foresaid opinions
inclusively, and much falsehood in their several exclusions
of all the rest, unless their quarrel be only de nomine, which
of all these is fitliest called justification. . . There is no
doubt that God doth esteem them just, that are first made
just, and no other, because he erreth not . . . . and that
God doth begin such execution [of His sentence] in this life,
and that His giving the Spirit is thus His principal pardoning
and justifying act, and yet that this is but part, and not the
whole, of our present executive pardon, and that glorification
in this sense is the highest and noblest justification or
pardon.”—Life of Faith, p. 3, ch. 8. The whole passage is
worth consulting. Waterland speaks of the operation of
the Spirit as the efficient cause, but the general sense is
evidently the same :-" The Holy Ghost is here to be con-
sidered as the immediate efficient cause [of justification]; for
proof of which, we need not go farther than our Lord's own
words, that ‘except a man be born of water and of the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” which is
as much as to say, he cannot have a title to Salvation, cannot
be justified.”—On Justification, p. 434. “The merits of
Christ applied in Baptism by the Spirit, and received by a
lively faith, complete our justification for the time being,” p.
440. Barrow is still more to the point: “To each person
sincerely embracing the gospel, and continuing in stedfast
adherence thereto, God doth afford His Holy Spirit as a
principle productive of all inward Sanctity, and virtuous
dispositions in his heart, enabling and quickening him to
discharge the conditions of faith and obedienge required
from him, and undertaken by him, that which is by Some
Appendix. 381
termed, making a person just, infusion into his soul of right-
eousness, of grace, of virtuous habits. In the Scripture
style it is called, “acting by the Spirit,' ‘bestowing the gift
of the Holy Ghost,’ ‘renovation of the Holy Ghost,’ ‘creation
to good works,’ sanctification by the Spirit,' etc., which
phrases denote partly the collation of a principle enabling
to perform good works, partly the design of religion tending
to that performance. Now all these acts (as by the general
consent of Christians, and according to the sense of the
ancient Catholic Church, so) by all considerable parties
seeming to dissent, and so earnestly disputing about the
point of justification, are acknowledged and ascribed unto
God; but with which of them the act of justification is
solely or chiefly coincident, whether it signifieth barely some
one of them, or extendeth to more of them, or compre-
hendeth them all (according to the constant meaning of the
word in Scripture), are questions coming under debate, and
so eagerly prosecuted: of which questions, whatever the
true resolution be, it cannot methinks be of 80 great consequence
as to cause any great anger or animosity in disputes one
toward another, seeing they all conspire in avowing the acts,
whatever they be, meant by the word justification, although
in other terms, seeing all the dispute is about the precise
and adequate notion of the word justification; whence those
questions might well be waived as unnecessary grounds of
contention, and it might suffice to understand the points of
doctrine which it relateth to in other terms laying that
aside as ambiguous and litigious.”—Barrow, Of Just by Faith.
Such then are the decisions of divines of very various
schools of opinion; and it will be observed, moreover, that,
as far as they decide that justification consists in the pre-
sence of the Holy Spirit, they explain how it is that two
formal causes can be assigned to it; which could not be if
each were complete in itself and independent: whereas,
incipient righteousness, which is the improper form, is but
382 A%endix.
the necessary attendant on the Divine Presence, which is
the proper.
18. In the foregoing Lectures a view has been taken
Substantially the same as this, but approaching more nearly
in language to the Calvinists; viz. that Christ indwelling is
our righteousness; only what is with them a matter of
words I would wish to use in a real sense as expressing a
sacred mystery; and therefore I have spoken of it, in the
language of Scripture, as the indwelling of Christ through the
Spirit. Stronger words indeed cannot be desired than those
which the Calvinists use on the subject ; so much so, that it
may well be believed that many who use it, as the great
Hooker himself at the time he wrote his Treatise, mean
what they say. For instance, the words of a celebrated
passage which occurs in it, taken literally, do most entirely
express the doctrine on the subject which seems to me the
Scriptural and Catholic view.—“Christ hath merited right-
eousness 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 which 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
punishment due thereunto by pardoning it, and accepting
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, etc. Such we are in the
sight of God the Father, as is the very Son of God Himself.”
etc. Or again, Davenant speaks thus:—“Christi Media-
toris in nobis habitantis atque per Spiritum Sese nobis unjeºffs
perfectissima obedientia, est formalis causa justificationis
Aſpendix. 383
J
nostrae.”—De Just. Habit. 22. And Calvin still more
strongly —“Conjunctio igitur illa capitis et membrorum,
habitatio Christi in cordibus nostris, mystica denique unio a
nobis in summo gradu statuitur ; ut Christus, noster factus,
donorum quibus præditus est nos faciat consortes. Non ergo
eum eaſtra nos procul speculamur, ut nobis imputetur ejus
justitia, Sed quia ipsum iudwimus, et insiti Sumus in ejus
corpus, unum denique nos secum efficere dignatus est, ideo
justitiae societatem nobis cum eo esse gloriamur.”—Instit.
iii. 11, § 10. Many striking passages might be extracted
from Luther to the same effect: as, for instance, one about
Baptism, quoted by Dr. Pusey in his Work, ed. 1, p. 28; or
again, vid. Bucer on the text, “All have sinned and come
short of the glory of God.”
But above all, attention must here be drawn to a most
important passage in the Homily on the Resurrection, or
rather to the greater part of that Homily, which precisely
and formally lays down the doctrine which I have advocated.
The writer of the Homily in question incidentally alludes
to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ; but with this
further view of the doctrine we are not here concerned. He
is enlarging on St. Paul's words, that “Christ died for our sins
and T086 again for Our justification,” and he says, “It had
not been enough to be delivered by His death from sin, ex-
cept by His resurrection we had been endowed with right-
eousness. And it should not avail us to be delivered from
death, except. He had risen again to open for us the gates
of heaven, to enter into life everlasting. . . . Thus hath
His resurrection wrought for us life and righteousness. He
passed through death and hell, to the intent to put us in
good hope that by His strength we shall do the same. He
paid the ransom of sin, that it should not be laid to our
charge. He destroyed the devil and all his tyranny, and
openly triumphed over him, and took away from him all his
captives, and hath raised and set them with Himself among
384 Aſpendix.
the heavenly citizens above. He died to destroy the rule
of the devil in us, and He rose again to Sênd down. His Holy
Spirit to rule in our hearts, to endow us with perfect righteous-
ness.”
Thus a justifying righte0ušnéSS, viz. that of which St.
Paul speaks as gained by Christ's resurrection, is ascribed
to the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. The Homily
continues:—
“Thus it is true that David sung [*Truth hath sprung
out of the earth, and righteousness hath looked down from
heaven’]. The truth of God's promise is in earth to man
declared; or, from the earth is the Everlasting Verity, God's
Son, risen to life; and the true Righteousness of the Holy Ghost,
looking out of heaven, and in most liberal largess dealt upon
all the world. Thus is glory and praise rebounded upwards
to God above for His mercy and truth. And thus is peace
come down from heaven to men of good and faithful hearts.
‘Thus is mercy and truth, as David writeth, ‘together met;
thus is peace and righteousness embracing and kissing each
other.” If thou doubtest of so great wealth and felicity that
is wrought for thee, O man, call to thy mind that therefore
hast thou received into thine own possession the Everlasting
Verity, our Saviour Jesus Christ, to confirm to thy con-
science the truth of all this matter. Thou hast received
Him, if in true faith and repentance of heart thou hast
received Him; if in purpose of amendment thou hast
received Him for an everlasting gage, or pledge of thy
salvation. Thou hast received His body which was once
broken, and His blood which was shed for the remission of thy
sin. Thou hast received His Body, to have within thee the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, for to dwell with thee, to
endow thee with grace, to strengthen thee against thine
enemies, and to comfort thee with their presence. Thou
hast received His Body to endow thee with everlasting righteous-
mess, to assure thee of everlasting bliss, and life of thy soul.”
Aſpendia. 385
Thus justification consists in “righteousness,” and righteous-
ness consists in the inward presence of God, in “receiving”
within us Christ's “body which was broken” and “blood
which was shed for the remission of sins;” which moreover
communicates, “to dwell in us,” the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost. To proceed:—
“Doubt not of the truth of this matter, how great and
high soever these things be. It becometh God to do no
small deeds, how impossible soever they seem to thee. Pray
to God that thou mayest have faith to perceive this great
mystery of Christ's resurrection ; that by faith thou mayest
certainly believe nothing to be impossible with God. Only
bring thou faith to Christ's Holy Word and Sacrament. . .
Thus, good Christian people, forasmuch as ye have heard
these so great and excellent benefits of Christ's mighty and
glorious resurrection, as how that He hath ransomed sin,
overcome the devil, death and hell, and hath victoriously
gotten the better hand of them all, to make us free and
safe from them, and knowing that we be by this benefit of
His resurrection risen with Him by our faith unto life ever-
lasting, being in full surety of our hope, we shall have our
bodies likewise raised again from death, to have them
glorified in immortality, and joined to His glorious body,
having in the mean while His Holy Spirit within our hearts,
as a seal and pledge of our everlasting inheritance, by whose
assistance we be replenished with all righteousness, by whose
power we shall be able to subdue all our evil affections rising
against the pleasure of God; these things, I say, well con-
sidered, let us now in the rest of our life declare our faith
that we have in this most fruitful article, by framing
ourselves thereunto, in rising daily from sin to righteousness
and holiness of life.”
This last extended sentence, be it observed, is describing
the “benefits of Christ's resurrection,” that is, according to
St. Paul's words on which the Homily is commenting, “our
2 C
386 Appendix.
justification,” or our “endowment with perfect righteous-
ness,” as the Homily itself calls it, ascribing it to the
operation of the Holy Ghost. This then is the great gift of
the Gospel, manifold, but one, of which justification and
sanctification are the two principal effects, divisible however
only in our idea of them, not in fact ; and that this one gift,
considered in itself, is the sacred presence of the Word
Incarnate within us, as both righteousness and renewal, as
cleansing from guilt and from sin, is stated still more forcibly
than hitherto in the words which follow :- -
“What a shame were it for us, being thus so clearly and
freely washed from our sin, to return to the filthiness thereof
again What a folly were it, thus endowed with righteous-
ness, to lose it again | What madness were it to lose the
inheritance that we be now set in, for the vile and transitory
pleasure of sin! And what unkindness should it be, where
our Saviour Christ of His mercy is come to us, to dwell
within us as Our guest, to drive Him from us and to banish
Him violently out of our souls, and, instead of Him, in
whom is all grace and virtue, to receive the ungracious spirit
of the devil, the founder of all naughtiness and mischief!
How can we find in our hearts to show such extreme unkind-
ness to Christ, which hath now so gently called us to mercy,
and offered Himself unto us, and He now entered within us?
Yea, how dare we be so bold to renounce the presence of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (for where one is, there
is God all whole in majesty, together with all His power,
wisdom, and goodness), and fear not, I say, the danger and
peril of so traitorous a defiance and departure ?”
Now Surely there is something very striking and arrest-
ing in this repeated mention of the Divine Indwelling, over
and above its being mentioned at all. Nor is this the last
reference to it; after a while the Homily continues:—
“Apply yourselves, good friends, to live in Christ, that Christ
ºnay Still live in you, whose favour and assistance if ye have,”—
Aſpendia. 387
favour and assistance, be it observed, denote, in other words,
a state of justification and of renewal:—“whose favour and
assistance if ye have, then have ye everlasting life already
within you, then can nothing hurt you. Whatsoever is
hitherto done and committed, Christ, ye see, hath offered you
pardon, and clearly received you into His favour again ; in
full surety whereof ye have Him now inhabiting and dwelling
within you.”—Sermon, of the Resurrection.
19. It may be proper to observe that the doctrine which
has been adopted after the Homily in this Volume, and
which Petavius ascribes to the Fathers generally, was advo-
cated, or something not unlike it, at the time of the
Reformation, by A. Osiander; and a few words shall here
be added on the subject of his opinions. His Confessio de
Justificatione was published in Latin and German, but neither
it nor any of his other works have fallen in my way. The
following statement is made from his son L. Osiander's
sketch of his history and opinions, in A. Osiander's (the
grandson's) Disputationes xiii. on the Liber Concordiae, A.D.
1611, pp. 147-150; from M. Flaccius Illyricus's Answer
to the Confessio, 1552; Bayle's Dictionary, art. Stancar;
Petavius de Incarn. xii. 3, § 2; Calvin, Institut. iii. 11, § 5 ;
and Bellarmine de Justif. ii. 5. If one accepts the testimony
of Calvin and Illyricus, Osiander held almost a Manichaean
doctrine, but it is unnecessary to advance so grave a charge
against him. Illyricus accuses him also of favouring the
Roman view ; but he does not seem to have done more
than oppose, without owning it, the doctrine of Luther.
The same author also accuses him, fairly or unfairly, of
teaching that the Son, or Word, is the inward counsel of
God concerning the redemption of man, i.e. of Sabellianism.
He gave rise to three distinct controversies among the
Lutherans; the first of which was in consequence of his
maintaining what had been admitted as a question into the
schools, that the Incarnation would have been necessary
388 Aſpendir.
though man had not sinned; but which happily came to
nothing. He next gave offence by teaching that repentance
was confession and detestation of sin with purpose of
amendment and hope of pardon, whereas Melanchthon
considered it to consist in contrition and faith; and by
insisting on the doctrine of the Divine Indwelling as a
motive against sin: but Melanchthon took his part here,
and this disturbance also came to an end. Then followed
his controversy about Justification, in which his two main
positions were, first, that man is justified by the essential
justice of God dwelling in him; and secondly, that Christ
is our righteousness, according to His divine, and not His
human nature. Of these two the latter is untenable, and
actually led to Arianism ; but the former, with which we
are here concerned, is, with some explanation, not very
different from the doctrine of Petavius. Osiander seems to
have argued after the manner of the Calvinists, that Christ's
death did but save us from punishment, and that His
righteousness is still necessary to entitle us to heaven. To
His manhood he ascribed the atonement, and to His God-
head justification. He proceeded to maintain that the
formal cause of our justification was something in us, and
therefore that it was the essential righteousness of Christ as
God dwelling in us; or again (if Illyricus may be credited),
that it was the “love which God is, infused into us.” And
lastly, he maintained that it was a “horrible error” to
assert that the word justify stands for “declare just.” In
order to show the approximation of some of these statements
to Catholic doctrine, amid much that is of a very suspicious
character, one additional passage shall be quoted from
Petavius, in spite of the ample extracts above given. “Illud
imprimis memoria tenendum, . . hanc bene multorum ex
antiquis esse sententiam, justos homines et Sanctos ac Dei
filios adoptivos fieri applicatione ºpSá Spiritſ's Sancti, hoc est
000,00% et substantive, non èvegyeſ, Solà Spiritàs ipsius, ut
Appenedia. 389
ait Gregorius Nazianzenus, neque per creatam rem ullam,
ut Scribit Cyrillus Alexandrinus, nempe sic tanquam pri-
ºnariam formam, atque hanc praerogativam Novi esse Testa-
menti propriam.”—De Incarn. xi. 7, § 11.
20. And so much on the proper formal cause of justifi.
cation, which, with the Roman Divines, I would consider
as an inward gift, yet with the Protestant, as not a mere
quality of the mind. Numerous passages might be cited
from the Fathers in point, but it would be scarcely to the
purpose to do so, for Scripture itself is as clear, as far as
Words go, on the doctrine of a Divine Indwelling, as the
Fathers can be ; and the question is, as to its interpretation,
whether it should be literal or not. And if its forcible
statements can be explained away, so may those of the
Fathers, who, the subject not being one of controversy in
their day, do not speak with more scientific exactness than
Scripture itself. And we have already seen Petavius's
strong testimony to the fact, that the Fathers generally
held that the Holy Spirit Himself, as substantially indwell-
ing, is the formal cause of our being just. However, I will
refer the reader to some passages from their writings; and
that with this purpose, to show that they considered
Christians to have a gift under the Gospel, not moral, yet
inward.—Iren. Haer. v. 6, et seq. Cyprian. ad Donat, init.
Cyril. Hieros. Cat. xvii. 8 (15). Greg. Naz. Orat. xl. passim.
Basil. Hom. de Bapt. 3; in Eunom. v. fin. Ambros. de
Isaac. et An. c. v. Chrysost. Hom. 40, in 1 Cor. xv. 29;
in 2 Cor. iii. 18; in Gal. iii. fin. ; in Col. ii. Hom. 6. Greg.
Nyss. de Beatitud. iii. p. 798-9, in Cant. v. 2, 5, 13, vi. 4,
pp. 633, 644, 676, 697. August. in Psalm xviii. En. i. 8,
in 1 Joann. iii. Tract. 5, § 10; iv. Tract. 8. Cyril. Alex, in
Isa. lib. iv. Orat. 2, p. 591; v. t. 2, pp. 759, 760; v. t. 5,
pp. 867-9, de Trin. vi. p. 595.
But as to the other part of the subject, the question of
the improper formal cause of justification, something may
390 $ Aſpendix.
be advantageously said as to the mode in which the Fathers
view it, because it has been recently made a question. I
consider they held our inherent righteousness as really
righteousness, and really availing as far as it goes; that it
has a value as being wrought by the Spirit ; or, in other
words, that it is like a reflection of the Sun's light, a real
illumination, yet as little Superseding the Sun as the moon
does. Or to take a sacred illustration, which must be used
as an analogy, not as an exact similitude ; as the Word
Incarnate is infinitely holy, and yet His manhood has its
own essential holiness too, though finite, so we are made
absolutely acceptable to God through the propitiatory in-
dwelling of His Son, yet are not without the beginnings of
inherent acceptableness wrought in us by that indwelling,
I feel myself obliged to refer to the Fathers' doctrine on
this point, because a question, as I have observed, has been
lately raised about it by a writer whom every member of
the English Church must mention with respect and grati-
tude, Mr. Faber. He considers, if I understand him rightly,
in his “Primitive Doctrine of Justification,” that our holiness
and works can in no sense be said to justify us in God’s
sight. It would be disrespectful, in writing on this subject,
to pass over a protest such as Mr. Faber's without notice ;
but whatever I shall say, which will be very little, must be
considered as merely defensive, not spoken controversially.
I observe then, that the point is not, whether we can
have any real righteousness before God justifies us, nor
whether we are not justified by Christ's righteousness im-
puted, nor whether our own righteousness is pure enough to
be acceptable without a continual imputation of His (on all
which the Fathers are clear), but whether they do not also
teach that our righteousness after justification, as far as it
goes, is real, tending to fulfil the perfect Law, and such as
to be a beginning, outset, or ground on which, when puri-
fied and completed by Christ's righteousness, God may
Appe/zdae. . 391
justify us. That they do teach this, the passages Which, in
the motes appended to my secomd Lecture, I brought from
St. Augustine, the special Doctor of Grace, are sufficient to
show ; but I will here add the testimonies of three other
Fathers, separated from each Other in place and time, as
specimens of the umamimous teaching of the early Church.
21. First, St. Cypriam, to whose doctrine assent is givem
in the Homily om Almsdeeds, says—“ Cum Dominus adveni-
ens sanasset illa quæ Adam portaverat vulnera, et venena
serpentis antiqua curasset, legem dedit Samo et præcépit ne
ultra jam peccaret, ne quid peccanti gravius eveniret.
Coarctati eramus et in angustum innocentiæ præscriptione
conclusi. Nec haberet, quid fragilitatis humanæ infirmitas
atque imbecillitas faceret, nisi iterum pietas divina subveni-
ens, justitiæ et misericordiæ operibus Ostensis, viam, quamdam
filendæ salutis aperiret, ut S07'des postmodum, qua$cunque con-
trahimus eleemosynis abluamus. Loquitur in Scripturis
divinis Spiritus Sanctus et dicit, * Eleemosymis et fide delicta
purgantur.' Non utique illa, delicta, quæ fuerant, ante
contracta ; nam illa Christi sanguine et sanctificatione pur-
gantur. Item denuo dicit:—“ Sicut aqua extinguit ignem,
sic eleemosyna extinguit peccatum.' Hic quoque ostenditur
et probatur quia sicut lavacro aquæ salutaris gehennæ ignis
extinguitur, ita et eleemosynis atque operationibus justis
delictOrum flamma sopitur. Et quia semel in Baptismo
remissa peccatorum datur, a$$idua, et jugis operatio Baptismi
instar imitata Dei rursus indulgentiam largitur."—De Op.
et Eleemos. init.
St. Hilary, in like mammer, declares in the following
passage, both the value of good Works yet their ínsufficiency.
“ Spes in misericordia Dei, in sæculum et in sæculum sæculi
est.” Non enim ipsa illa justitiæ opera sufficient ad perfecfae
Beatitudinis meritum, nisi misericordia, Dei etiam in hac
justitiæ voluntate humanarum demutationum et motuum
vitia non reputet. Hinc illud Prophetæ dictum est, Melior
392 Aſpendia.
est misericordia tua Super vitam ; quia quamvis probabilis
per justitiae operationem vita justorum sit, tamen per
misericordiam Dei plus meriti consequetur. Ex hac enim
vita in vitam proficit aeternam; et operationem justitiae in
tantum misericordia Dei muneratur, ut miserans justitiae
voluntatem, aetermitatis quoque suæ justum quemdue tribuat
esse participem.—Tract. in Ps. 51, § 23.
The third, St. Chrysostom, is admonishing his hearers
neither outwardly nor inwardly to pride themselves on
their good deeds; but, in doing so, he takes for granted,
and every now and then affirms the worth, or what the
Roman divines call the merit, of such deeds, according to
the covenant of grace. I have abridged the passage:—
“If thou wouldst show thy good deed to be great, be
not great about it, and then thou hast made it greater.
Deem thyself to have done nothing, and thou hast achieved
everything. For if, when we are sinners, on deeming our-
Selves what we are, we become righteous, how much more
will this happen, if, when we are righteous, we still deem
ourselves sinners
“Do not then spoil thy labours, nor stultify thy toils,
nor, after a thousand courses on the race-ground, run in
vain, and make thy efforts nought ; for, better than thou
doth thy Master know those good deeds of thine. Though
thou givest but a cup of cold water, not even this doth He
overlook; if thy alms be but an obolus, if thou dost but
heave a sigh, in His great lovingkindness doth He accept
everything, and remember everything, and assign it a great
wage. He has no wish that thy labours shall be made
less. Made less' nay, He does everything, He is ever
busy, that thou mayest have the crown even of little ser-
vices, and He goes about seeking excuses why thou shouldest
be rescued from hell. And though thou workest but the
eleventh hour, the wage which He giveth is a whole wage.
“So let us not be lifted up ; let us call ourselves
“,
Appendix. 393
worthless that we may come to have worth. It is a
necessity for us to forget our good deeds. You will say,
‘How is this possible to be ignorant of what we know " '
What I thou art ever offending thy Master, and art in
comfort and merriment, and hast no sense of thy having
sinned, for then thou hast utterly forgotten it all; and canst
thou not rid thyself of the memory of thy good deeds'
This is extreme madness, and the greatest of losses to any
One who is heaping such deeds up. The only safe store-
house of good deeds is to forget them. Ask then no wage
from God, that thou mayest gain a wage; confess thou art
Saved by grace, that He Himself may confess that He is
thy debtor, a debtor not only for thy good deeds, but also
for that good disposition.”—Hom. iii. in Matt. t. Vii. p. 39.
This passage well illustrates the compatibility of the
two positions quoted from Bellarmine (Supra, p. 356), that the
good works of the regenerate really deserve the name, and
have a claim on God's justice, but that we personally,
nevertheless, must rely on our Lord's merits only for
Salvation.
22. But on this subject the confessions of Protestants,
perhaps, are worth more than the collection of certain pas-
sages from the Fathers: So let us turn to their testimony:
and first of Luther:-‘‘Philip Melanchthon said to me, the
opinion of St. Austin of Justification (as it seemeth) was
more consistent when he disputed not, than it was when he
used to dispute; for thus he saith, We ought to hold that
we are justified by faith, that is, by Our Regeneration, or by
being made new creatures. Now, if it be so, then we are
not justified only by faith, but by all the gifts and virtues
of God given unto us. That is St. Austin's opinion. From
hence cometh also that gift of grace of the school-divines,
grace which maketh accepted. They allege also that love
is the same grace that maketh us acceptable before God.
Now what is your opinion, sir? do you hold that a man is
394 Appendiae.
justified by this Regeneratiom, as is St. Austin's opimiom ? 1
answered and Said, I hold this, and am certain, that the true
meaming of the Gospel and of the Apostles is, that We are
justified before God gratis, for nothing, omly by God's mere
mercy, wherewith, amd by reason whereof, He imputeth
righteousness unto us in Christ.'—Table Talk, c. xiii. Next
Calvin :—“ Scholæ in deterius semper aberrarunt, donec
tandem præcipiti ruina devolutæ sunt ad quemdam Pelagia-
nismum. Ac ne Augustini quidem sententia, vel saltem
loquendi ratio per omnia, recipienda est. Tametsi enim
egregie hominem omni justitiæ laude spoliat, ac totam Dei
gratiæ transcribit, gratiam, tamen, ad Sanctificationem, refert, qua
in vitæ movitatem per Spiritum regeneramur."—Instit. iii. 11,
§ 15. Bucer says, “ Patres plerique justificare pro justum facere
accipiumt."—In Eph. ii. p. 63. Chemnitz: “ Patribus . . .
licet plerumque verbum justificare accipiant pro renovatione •
qua efficiuntur in nobis per Spiritum opera, justitiæ, non
movemus litem, ubi juxta Scripturam recte et commode
tradunt doctrinam,” etc. p. 129. It must, be observed that
Chemnitz holds with Bucer the doctrine of inchoate right-
eousness, so that in saying that the Fathers differ from him
im the use of the words, he does mot meam to say they demy
that Christians are really righteous. Gerhard: “ Scriptura
verbum justificandi accipit in significatione forensi pro
absolutione a reatu peccatorum, sed Patres quandoque secuti
grammaticam vocis compositionem pro domatione inhærentis
justitiæ usurpant.” — De Justif. § 245. Chamier, after
speaking of St. Bernard's doctrine, says, “Concedam justi-
ficationem intelligi pro infusione ; quod, etsi Crebrum est
apud Patres, non est ex stilo Pauli."—xxi. 19, § 16.
Davenant more cautiously, but to the same effect: “ Si
aliquis Patrum, propter arctam illam cognatam et individuam
comcatemationem gratiæ infusæ sive inhærentis cum gratia
remissionis ac imputatione justitiæ Christi, hæc inter se
commiscere videatur, non debemus nos idcirco illa, confun-
A//endºr. - 395
dere, quae Spiritus Dei in Sacris Scripturis accurate solet
distinguere. . . . . Neque huic sententiae nostrae reclamare
patres illico judicandi Sunt, si justificandi vocabulum ad
justitiae infusionem aliquando referant ; nam idem voca-
bulum diverso sensu, non modo a Patribus, sed etiam ab
ipsis Scripturis quandoque usurpatur. Non itaque jam
quaerimus de diversis hujus vocabuli justificationis apud
Patres significationibus; sed (quod theologicae disquisitionis
proprium est) de ipso dogmate justificationis quid illi sense-
rint indagamus.”—De Just. Hab. c. 25. Barrow speaks as
follows: “It may be objected that St. Austin and some
others of the Fathers do use the word commonly according
to the sense of the Tridentine Council. I answer that, the
point having never been discussed, and they never having
thoroughly considered the sense of St. Paul, might unawares
take the word as it sounded in Latin, especially the sense
they affixed to it, signifying a matter very true and certain
in Christianity. The like hath happened to other Fathers
in other cases; and might happen to them in this, not to
speak accurately in points that never had been sifted by
disputation. More, I think, we need not say in answer to
their authority.”—Barrow, of Justif. by Faith.
Barrow, it will be observed, accounts for the difference
between the Primitive and the Protestant modes of speech,
by saying that the subject of justification was never accu-
rately discussed. Now it is remarkable that Roman Catholics
on their part also both express dissatisfaction with the state-
ments of the Fathers, and account for them in the same
way. Vasquez speaks of “ea quæ pertinent ad formalem
causam nostrae justificationis,” as being “difficillima eorum
quae de justificatione nostra tractari Solent, neque praeteriſis
Sæculis tam 60 actº a patrºbus discussa, quam ea quæ de necessi-
tate auxilii gratiae ad operandum et recte vivendum hactenus
a nobis sunt disputata.”—Quæst. 112, Disp. 202, c. 1, init.
Father Paul goes further, observing that “the opinion of
396 Aſpendix.
Luther concerning justifying faith, that it is a confidence
and certain persuasion of the promises of God, with the con-
sequences that follow, of the distinction between the Law
and the Gospel, and of the quality of works depending on
the one and the other, was never thought of by any School writer,
and never confuted or discussed.”—Hist. ii. 75, transl. Now
supposing, as Bucer and his Roman opponents of Cologne,
and again as Valentinus and Seripando, strenuous opponents
of the Lutherans, maintain, as the Calvinists Chamier and
Davenant, and the Lutherans Melanchthon and Chemnitz,
almost grant, and as the body of English divines imply, the
Fathers held two formal causes of justification, a proper and
an improper, this dissatisfaction of both Roman and Protest-
ant controversialists with their writings is accounted for.
23. Mr. Faber has drawn up a list of passages from
them in favour of the view he maintains against Mr. Knox.
How far they avail against that original and instructive
writer, it falls to others to decide; they do not seem to
militate against what has been maintained in these Lectures,
as an instance will best show. This shall be the Epistle of
St. Clement of Rome, which I select, because it is the
earliest of the Fathers' writings, and the shortest, and in-
sisted on by Mr. Faber, and as favourable a witness for the
Lutheran side as any that can be taken.
Clement speaks as follows:–0% ºf izvröy dizzio'gºda,
où6# 61& rmg hºrégo.g gopio,g 3 ovyāogog, à staggaſo.g, à égyoy dy
zºrgſgyozog,0800, #y 60167:17, zczgöfo.g., &XX& 31& 7%g Tigrgo.g.—c. 32.
Now here the point in controversy is whether, when St.
Clement says, gyay ºy zoºreigyozgóg,800. śy joiárnº, zoºgófog, he
means works done since faith and regeneration, or before.
Mr. Faber considers that works after faith and regeneration
are spoken of ; and he thence concludes, what in that case
irresistibly follows, that, according to St. Clement, works
after justification do not justify, but merely faith. And his
reason for considering that St. Clement means works after
A//endºr. 397
justification, is, that no holy works at all are possible before
justification. “What are the works done in holiness of heart,”
he asks, “which Clement thus carefully shuts out from the
office of justifying, quite as much as wisdom, and understand-
ing, and piety'ſ Indisputably, by the very force and tenor of
their definition, they are works performed after the infusion
of holiness into the heart by the gracious Spirit of God.”—p.
83. Mr. Faber, then, does not deduce his proof from the text
of St. Clement, but from the force of a definition of his own,
that is, from these two doctrines together, first, that no
works are holy but those which are done through the Holy
Spirit; and next, that no works are done through the Holy
Spirit before justification.
Granting, however, for argument, both of these without
entering into explanations, still the words in question need
not refer to the holiness of the justified, and, as I think the
text itself shows, do not.
First, let it be observed, St. Clement changes his tense,
“We are not justified by works which we did (not, ‘have
done,’ as Mr. Faber translates) in holiness of heart.”
Next, he omits the article; he says ºf gyov, and thus
naturally, I do not say necessarily, implies he is speaking of
an hypothetical, not a real case. He says in fact, “We are
not justified by holy works which we did, for we did none ;”
or, in St. Jerome's words, afterwards quoted by Mr. Faber,
p. 122, “Convertentem impium per solam fidem justificat
Deus, non, per opera bona qua, non habilit.” Again, #y 6616tar,
zogºſos is scarcely more than an adverb meaning “piously,”
“holily.” Thus St. Paul speaks, Tit. iii. 5, oëz ść eyoy rôy
#y 31zczlogºwn dy Tolágocſ/gy h987; #owogy hºàg ; not, 31& rôy #gyov.
What makes this stronger is that St. Clement has just before
been speaking of the legal righteousness of the Jews, which
was not hypothetical, and has said it did not justify; and
then he speaks thus:–7&yrag oãy 360&q&ngoy zo.) #08%xöy-
0noozy, où 6' 2ürów, # 7 & y Égyov obrów Täg ô1%0.19782) fog àg
zozºgie).0%0&yro.
398 Aſpendix.
But next, if, leaving the particular passage, we examine
St. Clement's epistle throughout, we shall find that he
nowhere speaks of Christ's righteousness, or of faith as
the instrument of apprehending it ; but he speaks again
and again of faith as a moral virtue, and joined to other
moral virtues, and in One place he speaks of love remitting
sin, and in another of justification by works. If so, this
early Father holds that “fides formata charitate” justifies;
in other words, that “fides formata,” or holy obedience, is a
formal or constituting cause of justification, or that the
righteousness of the regenerate is real. E.g. ríg y&g toºge-
T1670%go.g agög tºg Tây Tavágaroy zo.] 888ozío.V tºy Thorny otz
#60%í00,0sy ; c. i. —Továgarog is but another word for formata.
'Evêv660,800. Thy 606volo.), Tozºrgiyogºgovoy reg, #yzgo. Tavángyou, &T)
Toyrðg puffugiopod zozł zcz7&X&Xićg Tógão, #297.00g Tototyrég,
#g you g 61% a 1000 a you zoºi º A6'yog-c. 30. Mºzógioſ équay,
&yo.Tnrol, gi Tø007&%0.7& Toš Osoč Štolotºv Šv Čºoyofg. &yāºrng,
gig rö &pg}}voz #07, 61' & y & Tºng Tóg &0&grícºg hºw. Táygo.7-
Tczi yºg' (10.2%gtol ºv &p30460.y 2 &woºſal, zoºl Gyárez&xºpúngay
of &ppo.gría.-c. 59. St. Paul applies the passage in the
Psalm here referred to, to justification by faith ; St. Clement
then, his “fellow-labourer,” when interpreting it of remission
through love, explains faith to be “fides formata charitate.”
Other passages in the Epistle, as soon as they mention
faith, go on to mention obedience of one kind or other in
connection with it, or interpret the “righteousness” which
follows upon faith to be inherent holiness; clearly implying
that faith justifies as being of a moral nature, not as appre-
hensive, and is “taken for righteousness,” not as its substi-
tute but as the seed, earnest, and anticipation of it—being
taken for what under God's grace it will be in due time:
E.g. the Apostles are called ázzAngiog Tigrol zo. 61zczlórðrol
Grüxot.—c. 5. St. Paul, rö yeyycºfov -àg Tigraog &öToč zXáog
#A0.8ay, 61zoºlogūyny 616&#61 Woy Töv x6000V.-ibid. X6800s,
'Evê%, 38 y Úºrazoft 6izozog güggðaig Mºrgré0%. . . . Nós Tigróg
stgaſsig ô1& 77 g Åstrougyigg &öToč To.7.1)"ygvedic, zó009 3xhëvčev.–
Aſpendix. 399
c. 9. 'A682&ſ, ô pſ?.0g Tgoooºyoggvögig, Tigróg gūgā0%, ây Tà &öröy
ūTáz00w yeyá69&ſ roîg #006, roß Osoſ.-c. 10. 31& Tiary zoºl
©17.0%avío.V #660% c.57% viðg #y yágg, zo. 3' UTC.20%g Té00%veyzey
&öröy duoſov Tó Osſ.—Ibid. 31& pixoševiczy zczi sùgé881&y A&T
3000m x 2006/009–c. 11. 61& Tigriy zoº pixošavío.V #660% "Pozóð
# Tôgyn.—c. 12. After speaking of humility, Subordination,
mutual kindness, dutifulness, etc., he says, roºro. 6; Tºyro.
888&io; # #y Xggrº Tigrig.—c. 22. Tívog Ž%gly six0%0n 5 roarāg
hºw 'A682&g, oùxī 61%0.100&yny x2] &Añ0210, 31& Tſarsag Totágo.g.
—c. 31. After speaking of brotherly love, he says, TÜAn yºg
ôtzcziogávng &ygºpyvio, gig (ofty Cºrä. Then, after quoting Ps.
cxviii. “Open Me the gates of righteousness,” etc., he pro-
ceeds: Toxxây oty Tvååy &ygºpyviº, # 3v 61%0.1000% cºrn ágriy #
#y Xglorſ ây fi (20.2%gtol Täyräg of gigax06/reg, zozł zoravóðvoyreg
rāy ºrogaíay &örðy #y diffrari Kozi ölzoºloolyn–c. 48. All this is
not in the tone of a Lutheran Protestant.
What has been explained of St. Clement's Epistle, might,
it seems to me, be easily applied to the rest of Mr. Faber's
extracts. Some of them teach what the foregoing Lectures
have aimed at enforcing, that our justification consists
primarily in Christ's righteousness, or (to speak more de-
finitely) in Christ Himself the righteous, present in us; but
none go to show that Christ does not gradually impart to
us that righteousness which He is. For instance, Augustine
says, “per fidem [hominem] posse justificari, etiamsi Legis
opera non præcesserint ; Sequºniur enim justificatum, non
praecedunt justificandum.”—De Fid. et Op. 14. Let it be
granted most fully that works before justification do not at
all in themselves tend to justify, nor does faith; both faith
and works are but preliminary conditions for justifying
Baptism, but neither till then “avail.” After Baptism both
are justifying, i.e. both partake in the righteousness of
Christ imputed, and tend towards a perfect justification;
faith, however, more properly and intimately than works,
not as being apprehensive, which is a human subtilty, but
4OO A//endia.
as being their root, and as having a special unexplained
connection with the invisible world. And so much upon the
doctrine of the Fathers.
24. As I have throughout these remarks implied that
the modern controversy on the subject of justification is not
a vital one, inasmuch as all parties are agreed that Christ
is the sole justifier, and that He makes those holy whom
He justifies, it may be right, in conclusion, to give the
decisions of some of our divines on this subject, that it may
be seen how far such an opinion is safe. With this view, I
will appeal in conclusion to the three who have sometimes
been considered the special lights of our later Church,
Hooker, Taylor, and Barrow ; of whom two will be found
to sanction me, and the third, though apparently pronouncing
the other way, to withdraw his judgment while he gives it.
Barrow, whose judgment on the matter has already
incidentally been given, speaks thus:—“In former times
among the Fathers and the schoolmen, there doth not appear
to have been any difference or debate about it ; because, as
it seems, men commonly having the same apprehensions
about the matters, to which the word is applicable, did not
so much examine or regard the strict propriety of expression
concerning them ; consenting in things, they did not fall to
cavil and contend about the exact meaning of words. They
did indeed consider distinctly no such points of doctrine as
that of Justification, looking upon that word as used
incidentally in some places of Scripture, for expression of
points more clearly expressed in other terms; wherefore
they do not make much of the Word, as some divines now
do.
“But in the beginning of the Reformation, when the
discovery of some great errors, from the corruption and
ignorance of former times crept into vogue, rendered all
things the subjects of contention and multiplied controver-
sies, then did arise hot disputes about this point; and the
Aſpendix. 4OI
right stating thereof seemed a matter of great importance;
nor scarce was any controversy prosecuted with greater Zeal
and earnestness: whereas, yet, so far as I can discern, about
the real points of doctrine, whereto this word, according to
the sense pretended, may relate, there hardly doth appear
any material difference; and all the questions depending
chiefly seem to consist about the manner of expressing
things which all agree in ; or about the extent of the signi-
fication of words capable of larger or stricter acceptation:
whence the debates about this point, among all Sober and
intelligent persons, might, as I conceive, easily be resolved or
appeased, if men had a mind to agree and did not love to
Wrangle; if at least a consent in believing the same things,
although under some difference of expression, would content
them so as to forbear strife.”
In like manner Bishop Taylor, recounting the chief
points on which the controversy about Justification has
turned;—“No man should fool himself by disputing about
the philosophy of justification, and what causality faith hath
in it, and whether it be the act of faith that justifies or the
habit? whether faith as a good work or faith as an instru-
ment $ whether faith as it is obedience, or faith as it is an
access to Christ' whether as a hand or as a heart'ſ whether
by its own innate virtue, or by the efficacy of the object'ſ
whether as a sign or as a thing signified" whether by intro-
duction or by perfection ? whether in the first beginnings,
or in its last and best productions'; whether by inherent
worthiness or adventitious imputations'. . . . . These things
are knotty and too intricate to do any good: they may
amuse us, but never instruct us; and they have already
made men careless and confident, disputative and trouble-
some, proud and uncharitable; but neither wiser nor better.
Let us therefore leave these weak ways of troubling our-
selves or others, and directly look to the theology of it, the
* Sermon W. of Justification by Faith.
2 D
4O2 Appendix.
direct duty, the end of faith, and the work of faith, the
conditions and instruments of our salvation, the just founda-
tion of our hopes, how our faith can destroy our sin, and
how it can unite us unto God, how by it we can be made
partakers of Christ's death, and imitators of His life. For
since it is evident, by the premises, that this article is not
to be determined or relied upon by arguing from words of
many significations, we must walk by a clearer light, by Such
plain sayings and dogmatical propositions of Scripture, which
evidently teach us our duty and place our hopes upon that
which cannot deceive us, that is, which require obedience,
which call upon us to glorify God, and to do good to men,
and to keep all God's commandments with diligence an
sincerity.” " *
Such is the concordant testimony of Taylor and Barrow ;
Hooker, however, the third great divine mentioned, decides
the contrary way, declaring not only for one special view of
justification (for his particular opinion is not the point in
question here), but that the opposite opinion is a virtual
denial of gospel truth. The Romanists, he says, profess
“that they seek salvation by the blood of Christ ; and that
humbly they do use prayers, fastings, alms, faith, charity,
sacrifice, Sacraments, priests, only as the means appointed by
Christ, to apply the benefit of His holy blood unto them ;
touching our good works, that in their own natures they are
not meritorious, nor answerable to the joys of heaven; it
cometh of the grace of Christ, and not of the work itself,
that we have by well-doing a right to heaven and deserve
it worthily. If any man think that I seek to varnish their
opinions, to set the better foot of a lame cause foremost, let
him know, that since I began thoroughly to understand
their meaning, I have found their halting greater than per-
haps it seemeth to them which know not the deepness of
Satan, as the Blessed Divine speaketh.”—Justif. § 33
* Sermon on Fides formata, vol. vi. p. 271.
Aſpendža. 4O3
This passage, it must be candidly confessed, is by impli-
cation contrary to the sentiments maintained in the foregoing
pages; but it does not avail the least as authority against
them, for the following plain reason:—because this great
author, in the very Treatise in which he so speaks, himself
confesses that he is not acquiescing in the theology of the
early Church; and, since we are not allowed to call any man
Our master on earth, Hooker, venerable as is his name, has
no weight with any Christian, except as delivering what is
agreeable to Catholic doctrine, which, as being unanimous
and concordant, is Christ's doctrine. Did he indeed state
his belief on any theological point, and declare that it was
the voice of Catholic consent, we might defer to his judg-
ment; or did he but keep silence whether it was or no, we
might take for granted that it was so : but in the instance
before us, far from transmitting ancient doctrine, he even
declares that, according to the views which he then held, or
rather, which, by the clamour of the Puritans, he was made
to believe he held, the Greek Fathers were involved by
implication in the heresy of Pelagianism; and he excuses
them merely upon the plea of their having anticipated
that error in ignorance. To accuse a number of Greek
Fathers of mistake on this point, will be found virtually to
accuse all of them ; and to accuse the Greek Fathers, virtu-
ally to oppose Catholic consent. His words are as follows:
“The heresy of free-will was a mill-stone about the Pelagians'
neck: shall we therefore give sentence of death inevitable
against all those Fathers in the Greek Church, which, being
mispersuaded, died in the error of free-will?” The doctrines
of grace and justification are too closely connected to make
it possible for an author to judge rightly of the importance of
questions concerning the latter, who is in error in his view
of the former. I conceive, then, that Hooker makes for the
foregoing statements as truly as Taylor and Barrow : for he
shows us, as by a special instance, that a divine cannot make
4O4. Appendix.
the Protestant doctrine of justification a fundamental of faith,
without involving himself in an accusation of those, whose
concordant decisions carry with them a weight greater than
that of even the greatest individual teacher. But there is
enough in Hooker's writings and history to show that this
valuable Treatise, written before his views were fully
matured, and published after his death, is not to be taken
on all points as authority.
THE END.
Arinted by R. & R. CLARK, AEdinburgh.
A
SELECT LIST OF WORKS
PUBLISHED BY
LONG MANS, GREEN, & CO.
LONDON AND NEW YORK.
MESSRS. LONG MANS, GREEN, & CO.
Issue the undermentiomed Lists of their Publications, which may be had post free on
application to them at 39 Patermoster Row, Londom, E.C. :
1. MONTIILY LIST OF NEW WORKS AND 6. CATALOGUE OF SCIIOOL BOOKS AND
NEW EDITIONS. * EDUCATIONAL WORKS.
. QUARTERLY LIST OF ANNOUNCEMENTS
AND NEW WORKS.
2
7. CATALOGUE OF BOOKS FOR ELE-
MENTARY SCHIOOLS AND PUPIL
3. NoTES ON BOOKS : BEING AN ANA- TEACEIFRS.
* S TEIE OR. KS P w {
#sº oº:: * | S. CATALOGUE of THEOLOGICAL WoRKS
- & BY DIVINES AND MEMBERS OF THE
t º
4. CATALOGUE OF SCIENTIFIC WORKS. CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
5. CATALOGUE OF MEDICAL AND SUR- 9. CATALOGUE OF WORKS IN GENERAI.
GICAL WORKS. LITERATURE.
CARDINAL NEWMAN'S WORKS.
Parochial and Plain Sermons. Edited by REv. W. J. CoPELAND,
B.D., late Rector of Farnham, Essex. 8 vols. Sold separately.
Crown 8vo. Cabinet Edition, 5s. each; Popular Edition, 3s.6d. each.
CoNTENTs of VoI. I. :—Holiness necessary for Future Blessedness—The Immortality
of the Soul—Knowledge of God’s Will without Obedience—Secret, Faults—Self-Denial the
Test of Religious Earnestness—The Spiritual Mind—Sins of Ignorance and Weakness—
God's Commandments not Grievous—The Religious Use of Excited Feelings—Profession
without, Practice—Profession without TTypocrisy-Pröfession Twithout Ostentation—
|Promising without Doing—Religious Emotion—Religious Falth Rational—The Christian
Mysteries-—The Self-Wise Inquirer–Obedience the Remedy for Religious Perplexity—Times
of Private Prayer—Forms of Private Prayer—The Resurrection of the Body—Witnesses of
the Resurrection—Christian Reverence—The Religion of the Day—Scripture a Record of
T[uman Sorrow—Christian Manhood.
CoNTENTS OF Vol. II.:—The World’s Benefactors—Faith without Sight—The Incar-
nation——Martyrdom—Love of Relations and Friends—The Mind of Little Children—
Ceremonies of the Church—The Glory of the Christian Church—St. Paul's Conversion
viewed in Reference to his Oſfice—Secrecy and Suddenness of Divine Visitations—Divine
Decrees—The Reverence Due to the Blessed Virgin Mary—Christ, a Quickening Spirit—
Saving Knowledge—Self-Contemplation—Religious Cowardice—The Gospel Witnesses—
Mysteries in Religion—The Indwelling Spirit—The Kingdom of the Saints—The Gospel,
a Trust, Committed to us—Tolerance of Religious Error—Rebuking Sin—The Christian
Ministry—Human Responsibility—Guilelessness—The Danger of Riches—The Powers of
Nature—The Danger of Accomplishments—Christian Zeal—Use of Saints' Days.
2
A SELECT LIST OF WORKS
CARDINAL NEWMAN'S WORKS.
Parochial and Plain Sermons.—Continued.
CONTENTS OF Vol. III.:—Abraham and Lot—Wilfulness of Israel in Rejecting Samuel
—Saul—Early Years of David—Jeroboam—Faith and Obedience—Christian Repentance—
Contracted Views in Religion—A particular Providence as revealed in the Gospel—Tears
of Christ at the Grave of Lazarus–Bodily Suffering—The Humiliation of the Eternal Son
—Jewish Zeala Pattern to Christians—Submission to Church Authority—Contest between
Truth and Falsehood in the Church—The Church Visible and Invisible—The Visible
Church an Encouragement to Faith—The Gift of the Spirit—Regenerating Baptism—Infant
Baptism—The Daily Service—The Good Part of Mary—Religious Worship a Remedy for
Excitements—Intercession—The Intermediate State.
CoNTENTS OF Wol. IV.:—The Strictness of the Law of Christ—Obedience without Love,
as instanced in the Character of Balaam—Moral Consequences of Single Sins—Acceptance
of Religious Privileges Compulsory—Reliance on Religious Observances—The Individuality
of the Soul—Chastisement amid Mercy—Peace and Joy amid Chastisement—The State of
Grace—The Visible Church for the Sake of the Elect—The Communion of Saints—The
Church a Eſome for the Lonely—The Invisible World—The Greatness and Littleness of
Human Life—Meral Effects of Communion with God—Christ EIidden from the World—
Christ Manifested in Remembrance—The Gainsaying of Korah—The Mysteriousness of
Ollr ; Being—The Ventures of Faith—Faith and Love—Watching—Reeping Fast
and Festival.
CoNTENTs of VoI. V.:—Worship, a Preparation for Christ's Coming—Reverence, a
Belief in God’s Presence—Unreal Words—Shrinking from Christ's Coming—Equanimity—
IRemembrance of Past Mercies—The Mystery of Godliness—The State of Innocence—
sistian Sympathy—Righteousness not of us, but in us—The Law of the Spirit—The New
Works of the Gospel—The State of Salvation—Transgressions and Infirmities—Sims of
Infirmity–Sincerity and #..."; Testimony of Conscience—Many called, Few
chosen—Présent, Blessings-Eiſlùrance, the Christian's Portion—Affliction, a School of
Comfort—The Thought of God, the Stay of the Soul—Love, the One Thing Needful—The
Power of the Will.

CoNTENTS OF WOL. VI.:—Fasting, a Source of Trial—Life, the Season of Repentance—
Apostolic Abstinence, a Pattern for Christians—Christ's Privations, a Meditation for Chris-
tians—Christ the Son of God made Man—The Incarnate Son, a Sufferer and Sacrifice—
The Cross of Christ the Measure of the World—Difficulty of realising Sacred Privileges—
The Gospel Sign Addressed to Faith—The Spiritual Presence of Christ in the Church—
The Eucharistic Presence—Faith the Title for Justification—Judaism of the Present Day
—The Fellowship of the Apostles—Rising with Christ—Warfare the Condition of Victory
—Waiting for Christ—Subjection of the Reason and Feelings to the Revealed Word—
The Gospel Palaces—The-VisibleTemple—Offerings for the Sanctuary—The Weapons
of Saints—Faith Without Demonstration—The Mystery of the Holy Trinity—Peace in
Relieving.
CoNTENTs of VoI. VII.:—The Lapse of Time—Religion, a Weariness to the Natural
Man—The World our Enemy—The Praise of Mem—Temporal Advantages—The Season of
Epiphany—The Duty of Self-Denial—The Yoke of Christ—Moses the Type of Christ—The
Crucifixion—Attendance on Holy Communion—The Gospel Feast–Love of Religion, a new
Nature-Religion Pleasant to the Religious—Mental Prayer—Infant Baptism—The Unity
of the Church—Steadfastness in the Old Paths.
CoNTENTs of Vol. VIII.:—Reverence in Worship—Divine Calls—The Trial of Saul—
The Call of David—Curiosity, a Temptation to Sm—Miracles no Remedy for Unbelief—
Josiah, a Pattern for the Ignorant—Inward Witness to the Truth of the Gospel—Jeremiah,
a Lesson for the Disappointed—Endurance of the World's Censure—Doing Glory to God
in Pursuits of the World—Vanity of Human Glory—Truth Hidden when not Sought after
—Obedience to God the Way to Faith in Christ—Sudden Conversions—The Shepherd of
our Souls—Religious Joy—Ignorance of Evil.
Sermons Preached on Various Occasions. Crown 8vo. Cabinet
Edition, 6s.
CoNTENTS:—Intellect the Instrument of Religious Training—The Religion of the
Pharisee and the Religion of Mankind—Waiting for Christ—The Secret Power of Divine
Grace—Dispositions for Faith—Omnipotence in Bonds—St. Paul's Characteristic Gift—
St. Paul's Gift of Sympathy–Christ upon the Waters—The Second Spring—Order, the
Witness and Instrument of Unity—The Mission of St. Philip Neri-The Tree beside the
Waters—In the World, but not of the World—The Pope and the Revolution.

PUBLISHED BY LOWGMAMS, GREEN, & CO.
3
CARDINAL NEWMAN'S WORKS.
Selection, Adapted to the Seasons of the Ecclesiastical Year,
from the ‘Parochial and Plain Sermons.” Edited by the REv. W.
J. CoPELAND, B.D. Crown 8vo. Cabinet Edition, 5s.; Popular
Edition, 3s. 6d.
CONTENTS :—Advent: Self-Denial the Test of Religious Earnestness—Divine Calls—
The Ventures of Faith—Watching. Christmas Day: Religious Joy. New Year's Sunday:
The Lapse of Time. Epiphany: Remembrance of Past Mercies—Equanimity—The
Immortality of the Soul — Christian Manhood—Sincerity and Hypocrisy—Christian
Sympathy. Septuagesima : Present Blessings. Seacagesima : Endurance, the Christian's
Portion. Quinquagesima : Love, the One Thing Needful. Lent: The Individuality of the
Soul—Life the Season of Repentance—Bodily Suffering—Tears of Christ at the Grave of
Lazarus—Christ's Privations, a Meditation for Christians—The Cross of Christ the Measure
of the World. Good Friday: The Crucifixion. Easter Day : Keeping Fast and Festival.
Easter Tide: Witnesses of the Resurrection—A Particular Providence as Revealed in the
Gospel—Christ Manifested in Remembrance—The Invisible World—Waiting for Christ.
Ascension : Warfare the Condition of Victory. Swmday after Ascension : Rising With
Christ. Whitsun Day: The Weapons of Saints. Trinity Swmday: The Mysteriousness
of Our Present, Being. Sundays after Trinity: Holiness Necessary for Future Blessedness
—The Religious Use of Excited Feelings—The Self-Wise Inquirer—Scripture a Record of
Human Sorrow—The Danger of Riches–Obedience without Love, as instanced in the
Character of Balaam—Moral Consequences of Single Sins—The Greatness and Littleness
of Human Life—Moral Effects of Communion with God—The Thought of God the Stay of
the Soul—The Power of the Will—The Gospel Palaces—Religion a Weariness to the
Natural Man—The World our Enemy—The Praise of Men—Religion Pleasant to the
Religious—Mental Prayer—Curiosity a Temptation to Sin—Miracles no Remedy for Un-
belief—Jeremiah, a Lesson for the Disappointed—The Shepherd of our Souls—Doing Glory
to God in Pursuits of the World.
Sermons Bearing upon Subjects of the Day. Edited by the REV.
W. J. COPELAND, B.D., late Rector of Farnham, Essex. Crown
8vo. Cabinet Edition, 5s. ; Popular Edition, 3s. 6d.
CoNTENTS:—The Work of the Christian—Saintliness not, Forfeited by the Penitent—
Our Lord's Last Supper and His First—Dangers to the Pentitent——The Three Offices of
Christ—Falth and Experience—Faith unto the World—The Church and the World—In-
dulgence in Religious Privileges–Connection between Personal and Publig Improvement
—Christian Nobleness—Joshua, a lSU all is Followers—ETShā āType of
Christ and His Followers—The Christian Church a Continuation of the Jewish—The
IPrinciples of Continuity between the Jewish and Christian Churches—The Christian
Church an Imperial Power—Sanctity the Token of the Christian Empire—Condition of the
Members of the Christian Empire—The Apostolic Christian—Wisdom and Innocence—
Invisible Presence of Christ—Outward and Inward Notes of the Church—Grounds for
Steadfastness in our Religious Profession—Elijah the Prophet of the Latter Days—Feast-
ing in Captivity—The Parting of Friends.

Fifteen Sermons Preached before the University of Oxford,
between A.D. 1826 and 1843. Crown 8vo. Cabinet Edition, 5s.
CONTENTS:—The Philosophical Temper, first enjoined by the Gospel—The Influence of
Natural and Revealed Religion respectively—Evangelical Sanctity the Perfection of
Natural Virtue—The Usurpations of Reason—Personal Influence, the Means of Propagating
the Truth—On Justice as a Principle of Divine Governance—Contest between Faith
and Sight—Human Responsibility, as independent of Circumstances—Wilfulness, the Sin
of Saul—Faith and Reason, contrasted as Habits of Mind—The Nature of Falth in Relation
to Reason—Love, the Safeguard of Faith against Superstition—Implicit and Explicit
Reason—Wisdom, as contrasted with Faith and with Bigotry—The Theory of Develop-
ments in Religious Doctrine.
4 A SELECT LIST OF WORKS
GARDINAL NEWMAN'S WORKS.
Discourses Addressed to Mixed Congregations. Crown 8vo.
Cabinet Edition, 5s. ; Popular Edition, 3s. 6d.
CoNTENTs :—The Salvation of the Hearer the Motive of the Preacher—Neglect of Divine
Calls and Warnings—Men not Angels—The Priests of the Gospel—Purity and Love—
Saintliness the Standard of Christian Principle—God's Will the End of Life—Perseverance
in Grace—Nature and Grace—Illuminating Grace—Faith and Private Judgment—Faith
and Doubt—Prospects of the Catholic Missioner—Mysteries of Nature and of Grace—The
Mystery of Divine Condescension—The Infinitude of Divine Attributes—Mental Sufferings
of Our Lord in His Passion—The Glories of Mary for the Sake of Her Son—On the Fitness
of the Glories of Mary.
Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification. Crown 8vo. Cabinet
Edition, 5s.
CONTENTS:—Faith considered as the Instrumental Cause of Justification—Love con-
sidered as the Formal Cause of Justification—Primary Sense of the term “Justification’—
Secondary Senses of the term ‘Justification’—Misuse of the term ‘Just' or ‘Righteous'—
The Gift of Righteousness—The Characteristics of the Gift of Rightcousness—Righteous-
ness viewed as a Gift and as a Quality—Righteousness the Fruit, of our Lord's Resurrection
—The Office of Justifying Faith—The Nature of Justifying Faith—Faith viewed relatively
to Rites and Works—On Preaching the Gospel—Appendix.
On the Development of Christian Doctrine, Crown 8vo. Cabinet
Edition, 6s. ; Popular Edition, 3s. 6d.
On the Idea of a University. Crown 8vo. Cabinet Edition, 7s, ;
Popular Edition, 3s. 6d.
An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent. Crown 8vo. Cabinet
Edition, 7s. 6d.; Popular Edition, 3s. 6d.
Two Essays on Miracles. 1. Of Scripture. 2. Of Ecclesiastical
History. Crown 8vo. Cabinet Edition, 6s. ; Popular Edition,
3s. 6d.
Discussions and Arguments. Crown 8vo. Cabinet Edition, 6s.;
Popular Edition, 3s. 6d.
1. How to accomplish it. 2. The Antichrist of the Fathers. 3. Scrip-
ture and the Creed. 4. Tamworth Reading-room. 5. Who's to Blame?
6. An Argument for Christianity.
Essays, Critical and Historical. 2 vols. Crown 8vo, Cabinet
Edition, 12s.; Popular Edition, 7s.
1. Poetry. 2. Rationalism. 3. Apostolic Tradition. 4, De la Men-
nais. 5. Palmer on Faith and Unity. 6. St. Ignatius. 7. Prospects of
the Anglican Church. 8. The Anglo-American Church. 9. Countess of
Huntingdon. 10. Catholicity of the Anglican Church. 11. The Anti-
christ of Protestants. 12. Milman's Christianity. 13. Reformation of
the XI. Century. 14. Private Judgment. 15. Davison, 16. Keble.
PUBLISHED BY LOWGMA NS, GREEN, & CO. 5
CARDINAL NEWMAN'S WORKS.
Apologia Pro Vita, Sua. Crown 8vo, Cabinet Edition, 6s. ;
Popular Edition, 3s. 6d.
Verses on Various Occasions. Crown 8vo. Cabinet Edition, 6s. ;
Popular Edition, 3s. 6d.
Historical Sketches. 3 vols. Crown 8vo. Cabinet Edition, 6s, each;
Bopular Edition, 3s. 6d. each.
1. The Turks. 2. Cicero. 3. Apollonius. 4. Primitive Christianity.
5. Church of the Fathers. 6. St. Chrysostom. 7. Theodoret. 8. St.
Benedict. 9. Benedictine Schools. To Universities. 11. Northmen and
Normans. 12. Mediaeval Oxford. 13. Convocation of Canterbury.
The Arians of the Fourth Century. Crown 8vo. Cabinet Edition,
6s.; Popular Edition, 3s. 6d.
Select Treatises of St. Athanasius in Controversy with the
Arians. Freely translated. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. Cabinet Edition,
15s.
Theological Tracts. Crown 8vo. Cabinet Edition, 8s.
1. Dissertatiunculae. 2. On the Text of the Seven Epistles of St.
Ignatius, 3. Doctrinal Causes of Arianism. 4. Apollinarianism. 5. St.
Cyril's Formula. 6. Ordo de Tempore. 7. Douay Version of Scriptures.
The Via Media of the Anglican Church. 2 vols. Crown 8vo.
Cabinet Edition, 6s. each ; Popular Edition, 3s. 6d. each.
Vol. - I. Prophetical Office of the Church.
Vol. II. Occasional Letters and Tracts.
Certain Difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching Com-
sidered. 2 vols.
Vol. I. Twelve Lectures. Crown 8vo. Cabinet Edition, 7s. 6d.;
Popular Edition, 3s. 6d.
Vol. II. Letters to Dr. Pusey concerning the Blessed Virgin, and to
the Duke of Norfolk in defence of the Pope and Council.
Crown 8vo. Cabinet Edition, 5s. 6d. ; Popular Edition,
3s. 6d.
Present Position of Catholics in England. Crown 8vo. Cabinet,
Edition, 7s. 6d. ; Popular Edition, 3s. 6d.
TiOSS and Gain. The Story of a Convert. Crown 8vo. Cabinet
Edition, 6s. ; Popular Edition, 3s. 6d.
Callista. A Tale of the Third Century. Crown 8vo. Cabinet,
Edition, 6s. ; Popular Edition, 3s. 6d.
The Dream of Gerontius. 16mo, sewed, 6d.; cloth, 1s.
6 A SAE ZAZCT Z/ST OF WOA'A' S
CARDINAL NEWMAN'S WORKS.
POPULAR, EDITION.
Parochial and Plain Sermons. 8 vols. Each * . 3s. 6d.
Selection, from the Parochial and Plain Sermons . . 3s. 6d.
Sermons bearing on Subjects of the Day . e . 3s. 6d.
Discourses addressed to Mixed Congregations e . 3s. 6d.
On the Development of Christian Doctrine . de . 3s. 6d.
On the Idea of a University . te e e . 3s. 6d.
An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent . e . 3s. 6d.
Biblical and Ecclesiastical Miracles . & e . 3s. 6d.
Discussions and Arguments on Various Subjects . . 3s. 6d.
Essays, Critical and Historical. 2 vols. Each . . 3s. 6d.
Historical Sketches. 3 vols. Each * º . 3s. 6d.
The Arians of the Fourth Century . * º . 3s. 6d.
The Via Media of the Anglican Church. 2 vols. Each . 3s. 6d.
Difficulties felt by Anglicans considered. 2 vols. Each . 3s. 6d.
Present Position of Catholics in England . te . 3s. 6d.
Apologia pro Vita Sua & º 4. . 3s. 6d.
Verses on Various Occasions . e & & . 3s. 6d.
Loss and Gain tº g e & e . 3s. 6d.
Callista * sº g º & ſº . 3s. 6d.
NEWMAN.—The Letters and Correspondence of John Henry
Newman during His Life in the English Church. With a brief
Autobiographical Memoir. Arranged and edited, at Cardinal
Newman's request, by MISS ANNE MOZLEY, Editor of the ‘Letters
of the Rev. J. B. Mozley, D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity in
the University of Oxford.” With Index and two Portraits. 2
vols. 8vo. 30s, met.
FOUARD.—The Christ, The Son of God. A Life of Our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ. By the ABBAE CoNSTANT FouarD,
Honorary Cathedral Canon, Professor of the Faculty of Theology
at Rouen, etc., etc. Translated from the Fifth Edition with the
Author’s sanction. By GEORGE F. X. GRIFFITH. With an
Introduction by CARDINAL MANNING. Third Edition. With
3 Maps. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. 14s.
Saint Peter and the First Years of Christianity. By the
ABBſ. CoNSTANT FouarD. Translated by GEORGE F. X. GRIFFITH.
[In the Press.
The success of Mr. Griffith's translation of the Abbé Fouard’s ‘Life of Jesus,’ in this
Country, has encouraged the translator to undertake another volume of the author's
series on the Origins of the Church. ‘St. Peter and the First Years of Christianity’ is
in the printer's hands, and will be published shortly.
PUBLISHED BY LOWGMAWS, GREEAV, & CO. 7
LYONS.—Christianity or Infallibility—Both or Neither. By the
Rev. DANIEL LYONS. Crown 8vo. 5s.
“His method is thoroughly popular, and while he has admirably succeeded in avoiding
that didactic and argumentative style which is apt to repel the ordinary reader of our
day, he nevertheless leaves the distinct impression that his reasoning is based on sound
logic, and strengthened by such authorities as would command the attention of every
theological student.
‘The work is full of erudition, as is shown by the numerous notes indicating a wide
range of pertinent and careful reading. . . . The book is a solid and timely contribution
to the theological literature of the day.”—American Ecclesiastical Review.
CLARKE.—A Pilgrimage to the Holy Coat of Treves. With
an Account of its History and Authenticity. By RICHARD F.
CLARKE, S.J. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 4s.
CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHIES :
Henri Dominique Lacordaire. A Biographical Sketch. By
H. L. SIDNEY LEAR. With Frontispiece. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
A Christian Painter of the Nineteenth Century; being the
Life of Hippolyte Flandrin. By H. L. SIDNEY LEAR. Crown
8vo. 3s. 6d. "
Bossuet and his Contemporaries. By H. L. SIDNEY LEAR.
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Fénelon, Archbishop of Cambrai. A Biographical Sketch. By
H. L. SIDNEY LEAR. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
A Dominican Artist. A Sketch of the Life of the Rev. Père
Besson, of the Order of St. Dominic. By H. L. SIDNEY LEAR.
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
The Life of Madame Louise de France, Daughter of Louis XV.,
also known as the Mother Thérèse de S. Augustin. By H. L.
SIDNEY LEAR. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
The Revival of Priestly Life in the Seventeenth Century in
Erance. Charles de Condren—S. Philip Neri and Cardinal de
Berulle—S. Vincent de Paul—S. Sulpice and Jean Jacques Olier.
By H. L. SIDNEY LEAR. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Life of S. Francis de Sales, Bishop and Prince of Geneva. By H.
L. SIDNEY LEAR. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Iſenri Perreyve. By A. GRATRY, PRáTRE DE L'ORATOIRE,
Professeur de Morale Evangélique à la Sorbonne, et Membre de
l'Académie Française. Translated, by Special permission, by H.
L. SIDNEY LEAR. With Portrait. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
8 A SEZAZCT Z.ZS 7" OA' WORKS
F#NELON.—Spiritual Letters to Men. By ARCHBISHOP F#NELON,
Translated by H. L. SIDNEY LEAR, author of ‘Life of Fénelon,'
‘Life of S. Francis de Sales,” etc. etc. 16mo. 2s. 6d.
Spiritual Letters to Women.—By ARCHBISHOP FáNELON. Trans-
lated by H. L. SIDNEY LEAR, author of ‘Life of Fénelon,’ ‘Life of
S. Francis de Sales,' etc. etc. 16mo. 2s. 6d.
DRANE,--The History of St. Dominic, Founder of the Friar
Preachers. By AUGUSTA THEODORA DRANE, author of ‘The His-
tory of St. Catherine of Siena and her Companions.” With 32
Illustrations. 8vo. 15s.
JAMESON.—Works by MRS. JAMESON:
Sacred and Legendary Art. With 19 Etchings and 197 Wood-
cuts. 2 vols. Cloth, gilt top. 20s. 776t.
Legends of the Madonna : The Virgin Mary as Represented in
Sacred and Legendary Art. With 27 Etchings and 165 Woodcuts,
1 vol. Cloth, gilt top. 10s, net.
Legends of the Monastic Orders. With 11 Etchings and 88
Woodcuts. 1 vol. Cloth, gilt top. 10s. net.
History of the Saviour, His Types and Precursors. Completed
by LADY EASTLAKE. With 13 Etchings and 281 Woodcuts, 2 vols.
Cloth, gilt top. 20s, met.
MANUALS OF CATHOLIC PHILOSOPHY.
(Stonyhurst Series.)
EDITED BY RICHARD F. CLARKE, S.J.
Logic. By RICHARD F. CLARKE, S.J. Crown 8vo. 5s.
First Principles of Knowledge. By JoſiN RICKABY, S.J. Crown
8vo, 5s.
Moral Philosophy (Ethics and Natural Law). By Josepſi
RICKABY, S.J. Crown 8vo. 5s.
General Metaphysics. By JoELN RICKABY, S.J. Crown 8vo. 5s.
Psychology. By MICHAEL MAIIER, S.J. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d.
Natural Theology. By BERNARD BOEDDER, S.J. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d.
Political Economy. By CHARLEs S. DEVAs. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d.
LONDON AND NEW YORK : LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
5000/4/92 tº
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
DATE DUE
DEC 1 3 2002
º
- tº -- - sº-º-º-º: -
ºf Stººs ºf T
sº º º, * - * . is " º
ITT
15 03875 882O

©®°¶！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！--~~~！！！!！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！æ:****** 2 *; *（.*?r±√≠√∞， √≠√∞&
！ ！！ …， .）^-）-~--~|-~----！> ·§ . . .→·
t.. … Przº º, ， .~· · *| . || ~ ~ | ¡ ¿ † ‡ ↔ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ← → § . . ， ， , , ， ， （*（?:（.*（?：（?:（.*?）（
aeae * * * * ***， ** *****• ***，
, ！·-·
ºſ. *） º.· ----~--~• . ， .|-：| 7|- ：·| ** * *