Articles 1-5. Articles 6-8. Articles 9-13 below on this page. Articles 14-19. Articles 20-26. Articles 27-31. Articles 32-39. Home.
Article IX
Of Original, or Birth-Sin.
Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit, and therefore, in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek φρονημα σαρκος, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh, is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.
De Peccate
Peccatum originale non est (ut fabulantur Pelagiani) in imitatione Adami situm, sed est vitium, et depravatio naturea, cujuslibet hominis, ex Adamo naturaliter propagati: qua fit, ut ab originali justitia quam longissime distet, ad malum sua natura propendeat, et caro semper adversus spiritum concupiscat, unde in unoquoque nascentium, iram Dei, atque damnationem meretur. Manet etiam in renatis haec naturae depravatio. Qua fit, ut affectus carnis, Graece φρονημα σαρκος (quod alii sapientiam, alii sensum, alii affectum, alii studium carnis interpretantur) legi Dei non subjiciatur et quanquam renatis et credentibus, nulla propter Christum est condemnatio, peccati tamen in sese rationem habere concupiscentiam, fatetur Apostolus.
Section I – History
The origin of evil in the world has from very early times been a subject of speculation among philosophers and divines. What the Jewish opinions on the question may have been, is not easy to decide. The rite of circumcision as administered to infants may have been understood as showing that infants were born in sin and had need of the circumcision of the Spirit, to make them partakers of the promises of God. The custom among the Jews to baptize (as well as to circumcise) all proselytes, whether men, women, or children, may seem to indicate that they looked on all, even from their birth, as naturally unclean, and needing a laver or cleansing, before admission to the privileges of their Church. [See the account of this custom at length in Wall’s Histcry of Infant Baptuntto Introd.]
That the early fathers of the Christian Church held the universality of human corruption, there can be but little question. A history of infant baptism is also a history of the doctrine of original sin, baptism being for the remission of sin. [Mark 1:4. Acts 22:16.] If there were no original sin, infants could have no need to be baptized. Hence Wall, in his History of Baptism, has brought together with great labour and fidelity passages from the earliest writers, showing their belief in the original infection of our nature from Adam. It is not to be expected that the fathers would speak as clearly on this point before, as after the rise of Pelagianism. But a fair inspection of the passages thus cited will convince us that the doctrine was held almost as clearly as is expressed in our own Article from the very earliest times of the Church. {See especially the quotations from Clem. Rom. I. pp. 47, 48; Justin Martyr, pp. 64, 68; Tertullian, p. 95; Origen, p. 121; Cyprian, p. 182. Compare Bishop Kaye’s Justin Martyr, p. 76; Tertullian, p. 325.}
For examples of the language of the fathers we may take the following passages: “Besides the evil,” says Tertullian,* “which the soul contracts from the intervention of the wicked spirit, there is an antecedent, and, in a certain sense, natural evil arising from its corrupt origin. For, as we have already observed, the corruption of our nature is another nature, having its proper god and father, namely, the author of that corruption.”
{*Malum igitur anima, praeter quod ex obventu spiritus nequam superstruitur, ex originis vitio antecedit, naturale quodammodo. Nam, ut diximus, naturae corruptio alia natura est, habens suum Deum et patrem, ipsum scilicet corruptionis auctorem. – De Anima, C. 41; Bp. Kaye, p. 326. See also cap. 40: Ita omnis anima eousque in Adam censetur, donec in Christo recenseatur; tamdiu immunda, quamdiu recenseatur.}
Cyprian and the council of sixty-six bishops with him (A. D. 253), in their Epistle to Fidus, use the following words: “If then the greatest offenders, and they that have grievously sinned against God before, have, when they afterwards come to believe, forgiveness of sins, and no person is kept off from baptism and this grace, how much less reason is there to refuse an infant, who, being newly born, has no sin save that, being descended from Adam according to the flesh, he has from his very birth contracted the contagion of the death anciently threatened; who comes for this reason more easily to receive forgiveness of sins, because they are not his own but other’s sins that are forgiven him?”*
{*Porro autem si etiam gravissimis delictoribus, et in Deum multum ante peccantibus, cum postea crediderint, remissa peccatorum datur, et a baptismo atque a gratia nemo prohibetur; quanto magis prohiberi non debet infans, qui recens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod, secundum Adam carnaliter natus, contagium mortis antiquae prima nativitate contraxit? qui ad remissam peccatorum accipiendam hoc ipso facilius accedit quod illi remittuntur non propria, sed aliena peccata. – Cyprian. Epist. 64 ad Fidum. Wall, I. p. 128.}
On this, however, as on other articles of faith, there arose heresies from very early times. In the second century about A. D. 180, Florinus, a presbyter of the Church of Rome, taught that God was the author of evil. This man had been a friend of Irenaeus, and a disciple of Polycarp’s. A fragment of a letter from Irenmus addressed to him, in which Irenaeus combats his peculiar error, is preserved by Eusebius. {[Eusebius, H. E. v. 20. See Heylyn, Historia Quinquarticularis, ch. I.; Beaven’s Irenaeus, p. 24; also Augustin. Haeres. 66, Tom. VIII. p. 21.} The Marcionites had before this taught the doctrine of two principles, the one of good and the other of evil; and it has been thought probable that it was in opposition to this that Florinus fell into the opposite heresy, and that in maintaining the sole sovereignty of God, he was led to make Him the author of sin. {Lardner’s Hist. of Heretics, ch. X. § X. Bp. Kaye’s Tertullian, ch. VII.}
The Gnostic heretics in general attributed the origin of sin to matter which they considered as essentially evil. Colorbasus, we are told, {Augustin. De Haeres. 15.} and Priscillian held, that men’s actions were influenced by the stars. {Augustin. De Haeres. 70; Adstruunt etiam fatalibus stellis homines colligatos.} The Manichees, like the Marcionites before them but more systematically, taught the eternal existence of two opposite and antagonistic principles, to the one of which they attributed the origin of evil.*
{*See Mosheim, Cent. III. Pt. II. ch. V. The Manichees are said to have taught that “sin was a substance.” And Saturninus and the Manichees are said to have taught that sin was in man “a natura, non a culpa,” which accounts for the language of the fathers against them, e. q. Theodoret, Dial. I.: η αμαρτία ουκ έστι της φύσεως αλλα της κακης προαιρέσεως.. See Suicer, I. p. 208. The Manichees did not consider sin to lie in a depravation of the whole natural actions and thoughts of man, but in an evil constitution of a portion of his nature which they traced to that principle whom they considered as the creator of all the evil in the universe.}
The great Origen, though using freely those passages of Scripture which speak of man’s natural corruption and of his being born in sin, {See, for example, the passage quoted by Wall, I. p. 121.} yet, from his peculiar theory of the preexistence of human souls, could scarcely hold that man’s sinfulness was derived from the first sin of Adam. His theory was, that all souls of men have existed in a former state and are confined in bodies and placed in circumstances according to their conduct in that former state; and that the bodies which they now have are more or less gross according to the qualities of their former crimes.*
{*See Dupin, Eccles. Hist. Cent. III. Art. Origen. See also a good, though popular, account of Origen’s opinions in the Biography of the Early Church, by the Rev. R. W. Evans.
Origen has very generally been charged with semi-Pelagianism, and with being the forerunner of the Pelagian heretics. It is very difficult to judge clearly and impartially about his opinions. A variety of causes tend to obscure them. It is, however, certain that at times he speaks most clearly of all men being born in sin and needing purification. For example, Augustine could not speak more plainly than the following: –
Quod si placet audire quid etiam alii sancti de ista nativitate senserint, audi David dicentem: In iniquitatibus, inquit, conceptus sum et in peccatis peperit me mater mea: ostendens quod quaecumque anima in carne nascitur, iniquitatis et peccati sorde polluitur: et propterea dictum esse illud quod jam superius memoravimus, quia nemo mundus a sorde, nec si unius diei sit vita ejus. Addi his etiam potest, ut requiratur quid causae sit, cum baptisma Ecclesiae pro remissione peccatorum detur, secundum Ecclesiae observantiam etiam parvulis baptismum dari; cum utique si nihil esset in parvulis quod ad remissionem deberet et indulgentiam pertinere, gratia baptismi superflua videretur. – Origen. Homil. in Levitic. VIII. 3. num. 3.}
In the beginning of the fifth century a very important heresy sprang up which called forth more decidedly the sentiments of the Church on this doctrine. Pelagius was a monk residing at Rome, but of British extraction, his name in his own country being probably Morgan. Coelestius, another monk, a native of Ireland, and Julianus, a bishop, were his chief allies. His heresy was spread abroad about A. D. 410, the year that Rome was taken by the Goths. Coelestius, having endeavored to take priest’s orders at Carthage, was accused by Paulinus, a deacon of that Church, of holding several false opinions. About the same time, St. Augustine wrote his first treatise against the same errors. Pelagius had retired into Palestine, whither Augustine sent Orosius, a Spanish presbyter, to accuse him before a synod of bishops at Jerusalem. Here and at Diospolis he was acquitted without censure. But in the year 416 two Councils, one at Carthage and another at Milevis, condemned the Pelagian opinions. Innocent, bishop of Rome, was written to by the Councils and agreed in their decision. But in the year 417 he was succeeded by Zosimus who, gained over by the ambiguous confession of the Pelagians, and being himself a great admirer of Origen, pronounced in their favour. Augustine, however, with the African bishops, persevered in their opposition; and Zosimus, yielding to their representations, changed his mind and condemned with great severity Pelagius and Coelestius. They were again finally condemned at the third general council at Ephesus which met to consider the tenets of Nestorius. {See the history of Pelagius and Pelagianism given by Wall, Hist. of Infant Baptism, I. ch. XIX; Mosheim, Cent. V. Pt. II. ch. v; Neander, IV. pp. 299–362. Also the History of Pelagianism given in the Preface to the tenth volume of the Benedictine edition of St. Augustine’s works.}
The doctrines charged against Coelestius at the Council of Carthage (A. D. 412) were –
“That Adam was created mortal, and would have died, whether he had sinned or not. That the sin of Adam hurt only himself and not all mankind. That infants new born are in the same state that Adam was before his fall. That a man may be without sin and keep God’s commandments if he will.” {Wall, I. p. 357.}
Pelagius himself sent a creed to Innocent in which he avoids a clear statement concerning original sin but distinctly asserts that, though we all need the help of God, we can all keep God’s laws if we will. The principal apponents of Pelagius were Augustine, Jerome, and Fulgentius. {The Pelagians endeavoured to prove that some of the ancient fathers, especially of the Greek Church, used their language and denied the existence of sin in infants. Augustine, in his treatise contra Julianum, shows in opposition to that heretic that St. Chrysostom (whom Julian had cited in favour of Pelagianism) had in reality plainly expressed the doctrine of original sin. – Aug. Contra Julianum, Lib. I. cap. VI. Vol. X. p. 509. Wall, I. p. 416.}
The controversies thus called forth were not soon allayed. A new sect soon arose from the former one, called Semi-Pelagians, whose opinions concerning original sin were not so objectionable as those of Pelagius, but who ascribed far too much to the unassisted strength of the human will. {See below, under Article X.}
The sentiments of Pelagius found considerable favour in his native island of Britain, and caused many and grievous troubles to the Church there. Germanus, bishop of Auxerre, and Lupus, bishop of Troyes, were sent over to Britain by the Gallican Church to confute the growing heresy and had great success, if we may credit ancient accounts, in opposing both the temporal and spiritual enemies of the Church. {Bede, Hist. Lib. I. cap. XVII–XXII. Stillingfleet’s Orig. Britan. ch. XV. Collier’s Eccl. Hist. Book I.} The famous Dewi, or St. David, was afterwards greatly distinguished for the zeal and ability with which he opposed the prevailing error and aided in its overthrow. Especially at the Council of Llanddewi Brefi in Cardiganshire, his eloquence and arguments are said to have availed to the silencing of his adversaries and the establishing of his own celebrity. He was hereupon unanimously erected primate, the aged Dyvrig (Dubritius) resigning in his favour; and he afterwards called another synod at Caerleon where his exertions were rewarded by the extermination of the heresy. {Gildas Cambrensis. Rees’s Welsh Saints, p. 193. Usher, Brit. Eccl. Antiq. C. V. xiii. Williams’s Antiq. of the Cymry, pp. 134, 287.}
The schoolmen, in the Middle Ages, as might have been expected, debated much concerning the subject of original sin. Original Righteousness they seem to have considered something superadded to the original nature of man, not a part of that nature. According to Luther’s statement of their opinions, it was “an ornament added to man, as a wreath upon a maiden’s hair is an ornament bestowed on her, and not a part of herself.” {Luther, Op. vi. p. 38, ap. Laurence, Bampton Lectures, p. 56.} Original sin, therefore, was the loss or privation of original righteousness, and man was an object of God’s displeasure, not as possessing what was offensive to God, but as wanting in that which was pleasing to Him. The body was infected by the fall, whether from the poison of the forbidden fruit, or from whatever cause; but the soul suffered only as deprived of that which Adam possessed, the presence of God and supernatural righteousness, and as having the imputation of sin derived from Adam.* The infection of the body was indeed fomes peccati, a fuel which might be kindled into sin; but the soul contracted guilt from imputation of Adam’s guilt, not sin from the inheritance of Adam’s sin, though deprived of primitive righteousness, a quality dependent on the presence and indwelling of God. St. Augustine had doubted whether the soul as well as the body was derived from the parents, and so contracted sin from them. But the schoolmen, deciding that the soul came direct from God, of necessity were led to deny a direct derivation of sin to the soul, confining its pollution to the body which then infects the soul; and so they made the defect of the soul to consist in an absence of good, rather than in presence and dominion of evil. {Sarpi, Council of Trent, p. 163. Neander, VIII. pp. 184–198, gives a very interesting account of the scholastic discussions on Original Sin.}
{*See Laurence, Serm. III. pp. 56–59, and note 2, p. 252. The fathers appear, almost with one consent, to have held that original righteousness consisted both of natural innocence and of the grace of God vouchsafed to Adam. The one was lost simultaneously with the other. Indeed, the one could not exist without the other. Original righteousness, therefore, according to the primitive teaching, was not only defect of sin, but also the presence of God’s Spirit. At the fall, God’s Spirit was forfeited, and primeval innocence lost at the same time. See this proved with his usual learning and clearness of reasoning by Bp. Bull, Works, II. Disc. V. Oxf. 1827. Bp. Bull gives strong reasons for believing this to he both the universal belief of the primitive Church and the doctrine of the sacred Scriptures themselves.}
In the Council of Trent there was much discussion of the doctrine of the fathers and schoolmen on this article; after which the following decrees were finally determined on: (1) That Adam by transgressing lost holiness and justice incurred the wrath of God, death, thraldom to the devil, and was infected both in soul and body. (2) That Adam derived to his posterity death of body, and sin of soul. (3) That sin, transmitted by generation, not by imitation, can be abolished by no remedy but the death of Christ, and that the merit of Christ is applied to children in baptism, as well as to adults. (4) That newly-born children ought to be baptized as having contracted sin from Adam. (5) That by the grace of baptism the guilt of original sin is remitted, and that all is removed which hath the true and proper nature of sin. And though the concupiscence remaining is called by the Apostle sin, the Synod declared that it was not true and proper sin, but was so termed because it ariseth from sin and inclineth to it.*
{*Concupiscentiam Ecclesiam nunquam intellexisse peccatum appellari, quod vere et proprie in renatis peccatum sit, sed quia ex peccato est, et ad peccatum inclinat. – Concil. Trident. Sess. V. Sec. 5. See Anathemas in the fifth Session, Sarpi, p. 173.
A great dispute arose between the Dominicans and Franciscans, the latter insisting that the Virgin Mary should be declared free from the taint of original sin, – the Dominicans maintaining the contrary opinion. (Sarpi, p. 168.) The Council in the end declared that it did not mean to comprehend the B. Virgin in the decree (p. 173). Augustine had before professed himself unwilling to discuss the question of the Virgin’s sinfulness, or how far grace might have overcome sin in her, out of reverence to our Lord. ( See Wall, Infant Baptism, X. p. 404.)}
The point on which these decrees differed from the Ninth Article of our Church, is in the entire cancelling of original sin in baptism. According to the Scholastic definition that original sin consisted in the deprivation of original righteousness, the Council of Trent determined that in baptism the soul was restored pure into the state of innocency, though the punishments which follow sin be not removed. This all the fathers expounded by saying that the perfection of Adam consisted in an infused quality which adorned the soul, made it perfect and acceptable to God, and exempted the body from mortality. And God, for the merit of Christ, giveth unto those that are regenerated by baptism another quality called justifying grace, which, wiping out every blemish in the soul, maketh it pure, as was that of Adam; yea, in some it worketh greater effects than original righteousness, but only it worketh no effect on the body, whereby mortality and other natural defects are not removed. {Sarpi, p. 166.}
The Lutherans in this respect differed materially from the fathers of the Council; especially in maintaining that concupiscence had the nature of sin, and that the infection though not the imputation of sin remained in the baptized and regenerate. {Ideo sic respondemus; in baptismo tolli peccatum quod ad reatum seu imputationem attinet, sed manere morbum ipsum, &c. – Melancthon. Loc. Theolog. p. 122, ap. Laurence, p. 258.}
The second article of the Augsburg Confession, which is the principal confession of faith of the Lutheran divines, is evidently the source from which our own ninth Article was derived. Without defining the nature of original righteousness, {The Saxon confession, however, clearly speaks of original righteousness as something beyond mere innocency, calling it – in ipsa natura hominum lux, conversio voluntatis ad deum ... ac fuisset homo templum Dei, &c. – Sylloge Confessionum, p. 246.} or the mode in which Adam lost it, it declares the doctrine, that every man born naturally from Adam is born in sin, without the faith and fear of God, and with concupiscence, which disease is truly sin and deserving of damnation, in all who are not born again by baptism and the Spirit.*
{*II. De Peccato Originis.
Item docent, quod post lapsum Adae mules homines, secundum naturam propagati, nascantur cum peccato, hoc est sine metu Dei, sine fiducia erga Deum, et cum concupiscentia, quodque hic morbus, seu vitium originis vere sit peccatum, damnans et afferens nunc quoque aeternam mortem his qui non renascuntur per baptismum et Spiritum Sanctum.
Damnant Pelagianos, et alios, qui vitium originis negant esse peccatum, et ut extennent gloriam meriti et beneficiorum Christi, disputant hominem propriis viribus rationis coram Deo justificari posse. – Confession of Augsburg. Compare the Saxon Confession, Art. De Peccato Originis.}
Calvin, speaking of original sin, says that “As the spiritual life of Adam consisted in union with his Maker, so alienation from Him was the death of his soul. When the heavenly image was obliterated in him, he did not alone sustain the punishment, but involved all his posterity in it. The impurity of the parents is so transmitted to the children that none are excepted; and that, not by imitation, but by propagation.” ... “Original sin appears to be an hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused through all parts of the soul, which first makes men subject to God’s wrath, and then brings forth works in us which Scripture calls the works of the flesh.”. ... “His destruction is to be ascribed only to man, as he obtained uprightness from God’s mercy, and by his own folly fell into vanity.” ... “His sin did not spring from nature, but was an adventitious quality which happened to man, rather than a substantial propriety which from the first was created in him.” {Calvin, Inst. Lib. II. cap. 1, 5, 6, 8–11.}
Among Calvinistic divines in general there has been a difference concerning the first introduction of sin, chiefly as to whether Adam fell freely or by predestination of God: the sublapsarian Calvinists holding that Adam sinned of his own free will; the supralapsarians holding that God decreed that he should fall.
The chief point of difference between the two great parties which so long divided the Protestant Churches, the Calvinists and Arminians, was on the extent of the vitiation of our nature by the fall. The Calvinists taught that the corruption of man was so great that no spark of moral goodness was left in him; that he was utterly and totally bad and depraved; that, however amiable he might be in regard to his fellowmen, yet as regards God and godliness there was no relic of what he once was, any more than in lost spirits and damned souls. The Arminians rejected this strong view of the subject, and, admitting the great corruption of man’s heart and intellect, still maintained that some remains of his original condition might be traced in him; that his mind and will were indeed depraved and incapable of making any independent effort towards true godliness; but that he still differed materially from evil spirits or the spirits of the damned, having a natural conscience and an appreciation of what is good and of good report.
The Calvinists have generally insisted much on the imputation of Adam’s sin to all his posterity, as the true meaning of original sin; though admitting that such imputation was accompanied with actual depravity in the heart of each individual. {See, for example, Edwards, On Original Sin, Part IV. ch. III. – an able and judicious exposition of the Calvinistic view of this doctrine.} Calvin himself seems rather to have held that all men were liable to condemnation, because of their own sinfulness derived from Adam, not because of the imputation of Adam’s sin. {Atque ideo infantes quoque ipsi, dum suam secum damnationem afferunt, non alieno, sed suo ipsorum vitio sunt obstricti – Calv. Inst. Lib. II. cap. 1, Sect. 8; Laurence, B. L. Serm. III. note 8, p. 261.}
At the time of the Reformation, the Anabaptists appear to have adopted Pelagian opinions. The article on Original Sin in the first draught of it as set forth in 1552 begins thus: “Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, as the Pelagians do vainly talk, which also the Anabaptists do nowadays renew.” Their rejection of infant baptism was of a piece, and naturally connected, with their denial of original sin.
In later times, the Socinians held on this subject thoroughly Pelagian language, and generally denied the corruption of human nature and the need of grace to turn men to godliness.
As regards the Church of England, there have been many attempts on the one hand to show that she used the language of the later Calvinists, on the other to prove that she symbolized with the Arminians. The Articles were drawn up before the great Calvinistic controversy had arisen, and therefore do not use the terms of that controversy. It is pretty certain that in this and some of the following Articles the English reformers symbolized with Melancthon and the Lutheran divines, whose very words in the Confession of Augsburg, or the Wirtemberg Confession, are frequently adopted in the wording of the Articles. {See Laurence, 13. B. L. notes to Serm II., especially notes 8 and 11.}
There is nothing said in the Ninth Article on the imputation of Adam’s guilt, though that was a favourite subject of scholastic discussion, nor of the question whether original righteousness meant merely primitive innocence, or consisted moreover in a preternatural gift, and in the indwelling and presence of God. The statements are quite general; yet sufficiently guarding the truth that every man naturally engendered of Adam brings into the world a nature inclined to evil, and very far removed from the original righteousness of our first parents; that this sinfulness of his nature deserves the wrath of God; and that, although the condemnation due to it is remitted to all who believe and are baptized, still even in the regenerate the infection, showing itself in the way of concupiscence, remains, and has of itself the nature of sin.
The homily “On the Misery of Man,” composed, or at least approved by Cranmer, breathes the same spirit. The homily on the Nativity, in the second book of homilies drawn up some time later in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, may be referred to as expressing the doctrine of original sin in somewhat stronger language; the divines of Elizabeth’s reign having been brought into more intimate connection with the Calvinistic reformers, and sympathizing more with them, than was the case with the divines of the reign of Edward VI.
Section II – Scriptural Proof
In considering the Scriptural proof of the doctrine of original sin here, it will be better to confine ourselves strictly to the statements of the Article, avoiding as much as possible those discussions which the Article itself avoids; neither entering into the distinctions of the schoolmen nor the disputes of the Calvinists, but resting satisfied with the plain practical ground which our own reformers thought broad and deep enough.
The Article then may be said to embrace the five following propositions: –
I. Original sin is the fault and corruption of our nature which infects all men.
II. It is not derived by imitation, but inherited by birth.
III. Its extent is such that by it man is very far (quam longissime) gone from original righteousness.
IV. It deserves God’s wrath and condemnation.
V. Its infection is not entirely removed by baptism, but that infection remains even in the renati; and though there is no condemnation to them that believe and are baptized, yet still lust or concupiscence has the nature of sin.
I. That “original sin is the fault and corruption of our nature, which infects all men,” might be inferred from our general knowledge of mankind, and of the evil tempers even of childhood, if we had no express revelation of it.
In the earliest part of the Scripture history the Almighty declared, that “the imagination of man’s heart was evil from his youth “ (Gen. 8:21). Job attributed man’s weakness and sorrows to the fact that what was clean could not be brought from what was unclean (Job 14:4). David, acknowledging his own sin from his youth, confessed that he was “shapen in iniquity, and that in sin did his mother conceive him” (Ps. 51:5). Solomon declared that “there was not a just man on earth, that did good and sinned not” (Eccles. 7:20). And Isaiah, in foretelling the sacrifice of Christ, gives as the reason for it, that “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way” (53:6. See also Gen. 6:5–12. Job 15:16. Psalm 14:2, 3; 58:3; 106:6, &c. Prov. 22:15. Jer. 17:5, 9.)
These and similar passages, even before the coming of the Gospel, sufficiently showed that there was an evil coextensive with our race and coeval with our birth, from which none were exempt, and which went with us from the cradle to the grave.
There are many passages in the Gospels which show that the same doctrine pervades them; as our Lord’s declaration that “there is none good but One, that is God” (Matt. 19:17); His committing Himself to no man, “for He knew what was in man” (John 2:24, 25); His declaration that no one could enter into the Kingdom of God, “except he were born again of water and of the Spirit” (John 3:3, 5, 6); nay, His institution of baptism, which all who would be saved must receive, showing that there was an uncleanness of nature which needed to be washed away by grace.
But, of course, the writings of the Apostles, as being the more doctrinal portions of Scripture, treat most systematically on the subject. The whole of the earlier part of the Epistle to the Romans more especially treats of the sinfulness of man, which needs the sacrifice of Christ. The Apostle shows in the first chapter that the Gentiles, notwithstanding the light of nature – the natural conscience which God had given them; and in the second chapter, that the Jews, although to them had been committed the oracles of God, had yet all been condemned by their own acts and by their own Law. In the third chapter he concludes that all are under sin (Rom. 3:9), that “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). In the fifth chapter he shows that from the time of Adam “death had passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (ver. 12). In the seventh chapter throughout he describes the natural man moved by the dictates of conscience to approve what is good, and yet constrained by a law in his members – the law of sin and death working in him – to follow what is evil. He then considers the same natural man instructed by the revealed Law of God, consenting to the Law that it was good, and yet unable to fulfill it because of the sin that dwelleth in him and that binds him down to do what is base: so that he even represents the Law as bringing death rather than life, as showing the good and the beautiful, as kindling some feelings of desire for better things, but still as giving no power to reach after them. And all this, which he so strikingly describes to us, he tells us results from this cause, namely, that in man that is in his natural condition, there dwelleth no good. “I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing.”* In the eighth chapter he shows how this defect of our nature is remedied; that whereas man by himself could not please God, whereas the Law was too weak, owing to the infirmity of man’s sinful nature, yet God sent His Son to save, and His Spirit to sanctify; and so those who are in the Spirit and no longer in the flesh, can fulfill the righteousness of the Law. But “the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God,” and “they who are in the flesh” (i. e. in a state of nature, and not under grace) “cannot please God,” Rom. 8:8.** Just similar is St. Paul’s language in his other Epistles; see, for example, Eph. 4:22, where he speaks of “the old man, which is corrupt according to deceitful lusts”; Eph. 2”1, and Col. 2:13, where he speaks of men before their conversion and baptism as having been “dead in trespasses and sin”; Eph. 2:3, where he speaks of both Jews and Gentiles as “by nature children of wrath”; Gal. 3:22, where he says that “the Scripture hath concluded all under sin.”
{*Rom. 7:18: “In my flesh,” of course means in my natural and carnal state, according to the common Pauline antithesis of the flesh and the spirit. No doubt, many persons have thought that the Apostle in this chapter is speaking of his own struggles against sin still dwelling in him, when under the dominion of grace. But it has always appeared to me that the whole thread of the apostle’s argument is broken, and the whole force of his reasoning destroyed by this hypothesis. The fact that he uses the first person singular need not puzzle us for a moment. It is his common habit to speak in the first person when he means to represent himself as the type of others, of the world at large, or of others situated like himself. One sentence in the chapter, if it stood alone, would be enough to prove that the Apostle is not describing the state and conflict of a regenerate Christian. It is in v. 14: “I am carnal, sold under sin.” The redeemed Christian, “bought with a price,” and delivered “from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God” can never truly be represented as still “sold under sin?” Christ has made him free, “and he is free indeed.”}
{**We must take care that by the expression, “the flesh,” in Rom. 7, 8, we do not suppose the Apostle to mean the body, the material part of our being. This would be the Manichean error. It is not the body only but the whole man that the Scriptures speak of as infected with sin. Compare John 3:6. Gal. 5:19, 20. 1 Cor. 3:3, 4.}
We can scarcely need fuller proof that the Scriptures describe all men naturally born into the world as subject to the disease of sin.
II. We have next to prove, that “Original sin is not derived from imitation, but inherited by birth.”
In the third chapter of Genesis we have an account of the fall of Adam, and the consequent curse upon him, and the ground which he was to till.
Now the old Testament speaks of the impossibility of “bringing a clean thing out of an unclean” (Job 14:4), and asks, “What is man, that he should be clean? Or he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?” (Job 15:14). The Psalmist, as we have seen, traces his own corruption to the fact that he was “shapen in iniquity, and conceived in sin” (Ps. 51:5). Such expressions imply that the sinfulness of parents passed to their children; and the universal taint which we have already seen to be existing is traced to an inheritance derived from father to son.
Such, we cannot doubt, is the meaning of our Lord, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh” (John 3:6). He was teaching Nicodemus the need which every one had to be born again before he could see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus marvelled that a man should be born again. Our Lord explains that a spiritual birth was needed. And why? Because “that which was born of the flesh is flesh.” The flesh signifies the natural, carnal, unholy state of man, as contrasted with the holy, spiritual state of the redeemed and regenerate. Now our Lord declared that every man had need of a new birth because “that which was born of the flesh was flesh.” Man inherited by birth the flesh, – a fleshly, an unspiritual, an unholy nature; therefore he needed a new birth, a birth of the Spirit, which should make him spiritual, even as his former birth of the flesh had made him carnal. This surely sufficiently demonstrates that every man by nature was in a state of defect, and that because he inherited defect by birth. He was born of parents who were carnal, and therefore he was carnal himself.
Accordingly, St. Paul treats ‘it as a well-known truth, that “in Adam all die” (1 Cor. 15:22). And in the Epistle to the Romans (5:12) he tells us, that “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned”; that “through the offence of one many are dead” (ver. 15); that “by one man’s offence death reigned” (ver. 17); that “by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation” (ver. 18); that “by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (ver. 19).
It is true that the words thus cited might, if they stood alone, bear the Pelagian interpretation that Adam brought in sin by bringing in the first example of sin, and that his children sinned after him by imitation of him, not because they derived a sinful nature from him; and so judgment passed upon all men, “because all had sinned,” their own personal sins having caused their condemnation. But St. Paul expressly guards against such an interpretation, by saying (ver. 14) that “death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression.” Death was the penalty, which all had paid, even before the Law of Moses came to give more fully the knowledge of sin; and it had reigned not only in those whose presumptuous wickedness resembled the sin of Adam, but even in those who had not sinned after that similitude, in infants and idiots, and such as only inherited the nature, without following the example of Adam. This doctrine corresponds with the doctrine of our Lord, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh.”
Accordingly, the Apostle, when speaking of human nature in general, calls it “sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3). Our Lord took our nature, such as it was derived from Adam, only He was “without sin”; but because He took that nature, which was then universally corrupted, therefore St. Paul says, “He was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh.” And with this doctrine entirely corresponds all that the Apostles write of the corruption of men by nature, and of the change or new birth necessary for every man who is in Christ; e. g. “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2:15). “I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing” (Rom. 7:18). “They that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh” (Rom. 8:5). “The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:7, 8). “The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh” (Gal. 5:17). Again, “If any man be in Christ he is a new creature” (2 Cor. 5:17). And the sinfulness of our natural state is called “the old man”; and Christians are said to have “put off the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and to have put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness” (Eph. 4:22–24).
Now all this language appears to prove that sin is a corruption and disease, affecting not only individuals, but the whole of human nature, so that whosoever inherits human nature inherits it so diseased. It is “ the flesh,” a nature debased and defiled , and whatever is born of the flesh is flesh also. Adam, we find from the second chapter of Genesis, received from God a nature free from sin, and so not subject to shame. But he defiled it with sin, and it became at once subject to shame, and then subject to death. Accordingly, when he handed down that nature to his posterity, he could not hand it down pure as he had received it ; he of necessity gave it to them as he had himself made it, stained with sin, liable to shame, having the seeds of mortality, and subject to condemnation. This view of the subject explains and satisfies the language of Scripture ; and no other view will. There have been popular illustrations of it, such as the comparison of the hereditary taints of disease and insanity, and other ways in which, in God’s providence, the sins of the fathers are visited on the children. There have been philosophical discussions concerning the oneness of human nature, interesting in themselves, but unsuited to our limits here. { ee for example Hooker, Bk. V.; Wilberforce, On the Incarnation, ch. III. This was the view of St. Augustine, more fully expanded by the realists among tilt schoolmen.} We have already seen that there have been discussions as to whether the body only, or soul and body both, are derived from the parent, and so corrupted by his sins. Even this I have not fully entered into; though it is plain that Scripture speaks of man, not man’s body only, as corrupted and condemned. “In Adam all die.” From Adam “all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12). Sin is a fault of the soul, and therefore plainly both body and soul are tainted with corruption.
III. We have next to consider the degree or extent of corruption, thus naturally inherited by all men. Does original sin totally corrupt all men, so that there is no spark of natural goodness left? Or are there still relics of what man once was? still, though in wreck and ruin, some faint outline of his original state of purity?
It has been contended that the words of our Article mean both of these sides of the alternative. Calvinists appeal to the words “quam longissime,” in the Latin Article, as proving that man’s defection from original righteousness was to the greatest extent possible, that is to say, total and entire.* Their opponents argued that the convocation had translated these words by “very far,” showing that it was intended only to express a great and serious defection of our race from godliness, not a total destruction of moral sense and feeling.
{*“The Assembly of Divines,” in the year 1643, revised the first fifteen Articles with the view of making them speak more clearly the language of Calvinism. The Ninth, according to their revision, was to have stood thus:–
“Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, as the Pelagians do vainly talk, but, together with his first sin imputed, it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is propagated from Adam; whereby man is wholly deprived of original righteous ness,” &c. And ending with “the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust is truly and properly sin.” Neale’s Hist. of Puritans, V. Appendix, No. VII. London, Baynes, 1822. See also Laurence, B. L. p. 196.}
The Scriptures evidently represent natural sinfulness as very great. The Almighty, speaking of the race before the flood, said that “every imagination of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). Yet this might apply only to that generation, which had become so wicked as to call for signal judgment and destruction. But then, after the flood, once more God declares that “He will not again curse the ground for man’s sake; though {*“Though, the translation of the margin of the English version, probably expresses the כִּי of this passage better than “for”. The conjunction assigns the reason why God had cursed the earth, not why He would not curse it again.} the imagination of his heart be only evil from his youth” (Gen. 8:21). This seems to be a more general proposition, indicating at least that man’s heart might prove as evil after the flood as it had done before.
In the book of Job, Eliphaz the Temanite says that God “putteth no trust in His saints, and the heavens are not clean in His sight. How much more abominable and filthy is man which drinketh iniquity like water” (Job 15:16). We must not always consider the words of Job’s friends as of authority in matters of faith, since their judgment is afterwards condemned by God; and we must make allowance for the strong antithesis between God and man; yet still the passage shows that to a pious man like Job it was an argument likely to be admitted, that man was so filthy as to “drink iniquity like water”.
In Jer. 17:9, we read, that “the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?” It is truly argued that “desperately wicked” is an epithet stronger than the original warrants. The Hebrew word אָנֻשׁ signifies rather dangerously sick, and therefore feeble, and in a moral sense, corrupted and depraved. Yet still the passage shows that the heart of man, taken in the general, is so corrupted and depraved as to be eminently deceitful and hard to know.
To these passages from the old Testament are added the words of St. Paul, “I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing,” Rom. 7:18; and then again, “The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be,” Rom. 8:7.
Such language undoubtedly proves the very great corruption of the human heart, so that we cannot hesitate to say with our Church, that by nature “man is very far gone from original righteousness.” He is described as “dead in trespasses and sins,” and therefore we ought undoubtedly to maintain that his corruption is such as to prevent him from making any efforts to recover himself and turn by his own strength to calling upon God. This is the practical part of the doctrine, and our Church goes no farther.
Those who would push the matter to its greatest length contend that the passages above quoted show that the image of God in which man was created was utterly taken from him at the fall; that he thenceforth had no trace of resemblance to what he once was; and, though they may not use language so strong, the natural conclusion from that which they do use is that in a moral point of view there is no distinction between fallen humanity and evil spirits.
Those who differ with them argue that God’s image was indeed defaced by sin, and so the effect and blessing of it lost. But that that image was quite gone they consider disproved by the declaration that “whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made He man” (Gen. 9:6), – by St. Paul’s statement that the man “is the image and glory of God” (1 Cor. 11:7), – by St. James’s reasoning that it is inconsistent with the same mouth to bless God and to “curse men, which are made after the similitude of God” (James 3:9). All these passages, they say, refer to men since the fall, and therefore prove that whatever effect the fall may have had, it cannot have wholly obliterated the image of the Almighty.
They say farther that when St. Paul says that “in him, that is in his flesh, dwelleth no good thing,” he yet adds, “that to will is present with him, but how to perform that which is good he finds not” (Rom. 7:18); and that he all along represents man as approving of what is right, but unable to accomplish it, – as honoring the law, but not fulfilling it, – as even “delighting in the law of God after the inward man,” but finding another law ruling in his members “which brings him into captivity to the law of sin” (Rom. 7:22, 23). Hence, though man is captivated and subdued by sin, there must be some relic of his former state to make him see and admire, what is good, though unable to follow it; and so the Apostle speaks of all men as subject to the dictates of natural conscience (Rom. 2:14, 15), and does not hesitate to reason with unregenerate heathens, of “righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come” (Acts 24:25).
These and like expressions in Scripture, it is thought, are inconsistent with the stronger language which some have used concerning human depravity; although there is fully enough to show the universal and fearful corruption of our nature and our utter inability of ourselves to become righteous or to move upwards towards God and goodness.
IV. We come next to consider the statement which is made in the Article, that original sin “in every person born into the world deserveth God’s wrath and damnation.” Dr. Hey thinks that the word “damnation” is not necessarily to be understood of condemnation to eternal death, but may be construed, according to the proper signification of the term, to mean merely condemnation of some kind or other. The language of the Article is undoubtedly guarded and studiously avoids expressing anything which cannot be clearly proved from Scripture. It is possible, therefore, that this may have been its meaning. But in either sense of the word we shall probably find fully sufficient support for the doctrine expressed.
The language of St. Paul already quoted, “in Adam all die” (1 Cor. 15:22), “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men; for that all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12), shows that the woe denounced upon Adam, as the effect of his own sin, passed from him to his posterity, as the effect of that sinfulness which they inherited from him. Accordingly, the same Apostle calls all men “children of wrath” (Ephes. 2:3); and that we may be sure that this is true, not only of adults who have sinned wilfully, but even of infants, who have only inherited a sinful nature, we find our Lord, when speaking of the importance of the souls of little children, and of the guardianship of angels over them, attributing the blessings of their condition to His having delivered them from their original state, which was that of those that are lost. “ For”, said He, “the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost” (Matt. 18:11). With this corresponds the before-cited passage of St. Paul: “Death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression.”
We find therefore all men, even children, represented as “ lost,” as “ children of wrath,” as subject to, and under the reign of “ death.” And this is said to have been brought in by the sin of one man, even Adam, and to have “ passed upon all men ; for that all have sinned.”
We cannot fail to infer that, as Adam by sin became subject to wrath and death, so all men are subject to the same wrath and death because, by having a nature in itself sinful, they are, even without the commission of actual sin, yet sinners before God and esteemed as “having sinned”.
The death which Adam brought in is clearly (in Rom. 5 and 1 Cor. 15) opposed to the life which Christ bestows. That life is spiritual; and we therefore reason that the death which is antithetic to it is spiritual too. The conclusion is that every person born into the world has a sinful nature and a sinful heart, which, though it have not broken out in acts of sin, yet constitutes him a sinner, so that he may be said to “have sinned”; and that on this account he is liable to death, whether by death be meant death of the body, or death of the soul.
It appears to me that our Church takes this view of the subject and so follows closely on the teaching of St. Paul. She has said nothing concerning that hypothesis which was current among the schoolmen and in general has prevailed amongst the followers of St. Augustine that Adam’s sin was imputed to his posterity and that, as Levi was esteemed to have paid tithes in Abraham, being “yet in the loins of his father” (Heb. 7:9, 10), so all men are esteemed to have sinned in Adam and thus have his act of disobedience imputed to them.* The hypothesis is ingenious as explaining the language of the Apostle but seems scarcely to correspond with his assertion that “death passed upon all men for that all have sinned.”** It may be said indeed that they are esteemed to have sinned. But the statement is simply that they “have sinned”. And it is much easier to understand that a being of sinful disposition should be considered as having done that to which his disposition inevitably leads him and which he has only left undone for lack of opportunity than it is to suppose that he should be esteemed to have committed an act which was really committed by another five thousand years before his birth. At all events, where our Church leaves it, let it rest.
{*See Edwards, On Original Sin, Part IV. ch. III. Bp. Burnet, in stating the objections to this doctrine, gives this among the rest: “It is no small prejudice against this opinion that it was so long before it first appeared in the Latin Church; that it was never received in the Greek; and that even the Western Church, though perhaps for some ignorant ages it received it, as it did everything else very implicitly, yet has been very much divided both about this and many other opinions related to it or arising out of it.” – Burnet on Art. IX.}
{**The marginal translation of εφ̉ ω “in whom,” would much favour this hypothesis. But it needs proof that εφ̉ ω will hear such a rendering. Although Augustine, taking the Latin mistranslation in quo, built on it something of the imputation theory, he explains it very moderately, namely, that infants sinned in Adam because the whole human race was then contained in Adam and would inherit his sinful nature. Quoting Rom. 5:12, he continues: –
Unde nec illud liquide dici potest, quod peccatum Adae etiam non peccantibus nocuit, cum Scriptura dicat, in quo omnes peccaverunt. Nec sic dicuntur ista aliena peccata, tamquam omnino ad parvulos non pertineant: si quidem in Adam tunc peccaverunt, quando, in ejus natura illa insita vi qua eos gignere poterat, adhuc omnes ilii unus fuerunt; sed dicuntur aliena, quia nondum ipsi agebant vitas proprias, sed quicquid erat in futura propagine, vita unius hominis continebat. – De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione. Lib. III. C. 7, Tom. X. p. 78.}
V. It remains only to show that the infection of original sin is not (as the Council of Trent ruled it) wholly removed by baptism, but that it remains, even in the renati; and, though there is no condemnation to them that believe and are baptized, yet the lust or concupiscence which remains in all men has the nature of sin.
1. Let us first remark, that “There is no condemnation to them that believe and are baptized.” This is plain from our Lord’s words in His commission to His Apostles: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved “(Mark 16:16). It is not less plain from the language of St. Peter, who, when asked by his hearers what they should do for salvation, replied, “Repent, and be baptized” (Acts 2:38). {The same appears in express terms from Rom. 8:1: “There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.” Compare Gal. 3:27.}
The questions which may arise concerning the baptism of young children may properly be reserved for the Article which treats expressly of baptism. Here it is sufficient to observe that our Church, though not admitting that all taint of original sin is done away in baptism, yet holds that its condemnation is remitted. “It is certain,” she says, “by God’s word, that children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved.” {Rubric at the end of the Baptismal Service.}
2. But, though we thus believe that the condemnation which original sin deserves is for Christ’s sake remitted to all that believe and are baptized and, in the case of infants dying before the commission of actual sin, is remitted on baptism alone; still we hold that the infection of that sin remains even in the renati. The word renati occurs twice in the Latin Article, and in the English Article it is translated first “regenerated” and secondly “baptized”. It will be seen hereafter on what principles the Church identifies “baptized” and “regenerated”; it is sufficient for our purpose now to observe that both ideas are embraced in the word used here.
Now that the baptized and regenerate Christian is not free from the infection of original corruption, but has to fight against it as an enemy still striving to keep him down, and if possible to destroy him, appears from the following considerations.
St. James urges Christians not to be in a hurry to be teachers, and gives as a reason that in many things all Christians offend: “In many things we offend all” (James 3:2). St. Paul, speaking of his own exertions in the service of the Church, says that it will not do for him, when working for others, to neglect himself, but on the contrary, says he, “I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection, lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway” (1 Cor. 9:27). He bids the Galatians, “If a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted” (Gal. 6:1). To those who “are risen with Christ,” and whom, he bids to “seek those things which are above,” he yet adds the warning to mortify their earthly members (that is, the members or characteristics of their old man), which he describes as “fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness”; and further bids them put off “anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication, lying,” as being suitable only to the old man which they had put off, and unfitted for the new man which they had put on (Col. 1:1, 5, 8, 9). St. Peter, addressing the Church as “newborn babes” in Christ (1 Pet. 2:2), yet exhorts them (ver. 11), “as pilgrims and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul.”
Now all these passages, which clearly concern baptized and regenerate Christians, prove this: that there is still left in them a liability to sin; that without much care and anxiety all will fall into sin; and that even under all circumstances, all do “offend in many things.” Accordingly, St. John says of those whose “fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ,” that “if they say that they have no sin, they deceive themselves, and the truth is not in them” (1 John 1:8). Can anything account for this universally applicable language except the fact as stated by our Church that the infection of original sin remains even in the regenerate or baptized?
3. Lastly, the Article asserts that “concupiscence and lust hath the nature of sin.”
The Council of Trent admitted the existence of lust and concupiscence in the regenerate, and admitted that such concupiscence arose from original sin, and tended to actual sin, but denied that it was sin in itself. The English Church is here at issue with the fathers of the Council.
Her opinion on this point is defended by such passages as these: “Let not sin reign in your mortal bodies, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof” (Rom. 6:12), where the lusts of sin seem clearly to be spoken of as sinful. Again, Rom. 7:7: “I had not known sin but by the Law; for I had not known lust, except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” Here lust and sin seem to be identified. Again, in Matt. 5 (especially vv. 28, 29) our Lord speaks of the desire of sin as being itself sin. And in the passage quoted in the Article (Gal. 5:17), St. Paul says that “the flesh lusteth against the Spirit.” Now we can hardly understand how the lusts of the natural man should be opposed to the Spirit of God and yet be sinless. We conclude, therefore, that “lust and concupiscence, hath of itself the nature of sin.” {The connection between lust and sin is very apparent in the Hebrew language, which derives many of its usages from its theology. Thus הַוָּה signifies both desire and wickedness. In Arabic {letters uncertain} is Vasta cupi??itas {?? = letters smudged in original print}, Amor intensissimus, from {Arabic letters uncertain] to desire. So in Hebrew, הַוָּה is (1) desire, as in Prov. 10:3, רְוֺּוָים הַוָּה יֶהְדֺּף “He withholdeth the desire of the wicked.” (2) wickedness, as Ps. 5:10, קִרְבָּם הַוּוֺת, “Their inward part is very wickednes.” Where the plural form gives intensity.}
Of Free Will
The condition of man, after the fall of Adam, is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works to faith, and calling upon God; wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us,* when we have that good will.**
De Libero Arbitrio
Ea est hominis post lapsum Adae conditio, ut sese naturalibus suis viribus et bonis operibus, ad fidem et invoeationem Dei convertere ac praeparare non possit. Quare absque gratia Dei (quae per Christum est) nos praeveniente, ut velimus, et cooperante dum volumus, ad pietatis opera facienda, quae Deo grata sunt et accepta, nihil valemus.
{*This is the reading of the copy of the Articles as set forth in 1571. In 1562 the words run “working in us,” and such was the reading in 1552.}
{**
The Article, as it stood in 1552, began with the words, “We have no power.” The former part was prefixed in 1562 by Abp. Parker, having been taken from the Wirtemburg Confession, the words of which are: – Quod autem nonnullir affirmant homini post lapsum tantem animi integritatem relictam, ut possit sese, naturalibus suis viribus et bonis operibus, ad fidem et invocationem Dei convertere ac praeparare, haud obscure pugnat cum Apostolica doctrina et cum vero Ecclesiae Catholicae consensu.
The latter part, which constituted the whole of the original Article, has adopted the language of St. Augustine: – Sine illo vel operante ut velimus, vel cooperante cum volumus, ad bonae pietatis opera nihil valemus. – De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, cap. 17. See Abr. Laurence, B. L. pp. 101, 235.}
Section I – History
The Article on Free Will naturally follows that concerning Original Sin, and much which was said on the latter subject may be applicable to the explication of the former.
The sentiments of the Apostolical Fathers on Free Will are probably nowhere very distinctly expressed. Their writings are rather practical than controversial; and hence these topics are not very likely to be discussed in them. That they fully and plainly teach the weakness of man and the necessity of Divine grace cannot be questioned.
The opinions of Justin Martyr are more clearly and definitely put forth in his extant works than are those of the Apostolical Fathers. In answer to objections which the Jews urged against the scheme of Christian doctrine, namely, that according to it there was an inevitable necessity that Christ should suffer, and therefore a necessity and constraint laid upon the Jews to crucify Him, Justin denies that God’s foreknowledge of wicked actions made Him the author of those actions. He puts no restraint upon men’s wills, but foretells certain evil actions, not because He causes, but simply because He foresees them. {Dial. cum Tryphone, Opera, p. 290.} In like manner, in the first Apology, which was addressed to heathens, he explains that our belief in the predictions of the Prophets does not oblige us to believe that things take place according to fate; for if men acted under a fatal necessity, one could not be praised nor another blamed. {Apol. I. Opera, p. 80.} And in the second Apology he maintains, in opposition to the Stoics, who believed in an inevitable fate (καθ ειμαρμένην ανάγκην πάντα γίνεσθαι), that it is the nature of all men to have a capacity for virtue and vice; for unless there were a power of turning to either, there could be nothing praiseworthy. {Apol. II. Opera, p. 45.} Yet, with such a belief in the freedom of human choice, Justin fully maintained the necessity of Divine grace and the impossibility of attaining salvation without the light and aid of God’s Spirit. {E. g. Επι Θεον τον πάντα ποιήσαντα ελπίζειν δει πάντας, και παρ εκείνου μόνου σωτηρίαν και βοηθείαν ζητειν· αλλα μη, ως λοιπους των ανθρώπων, δια γένος η πλουτον η ισχυν η σοφίαν νομίζειν δύνασθαι σώζεσθαι. – Dial. c. Tryph. Opp. p. 329 Concerning Justin Martyr’s opinions on free will, consult Bp. Kaye’s Justin Martyr, p. 75, ch. III; Faber’s Primitive Doctrine of Election, Bk. I. ch. XI.}
In the earliest ages the Gnostic and other heretics held to a great extent the doctrines of material fatalism. We have already seen that some of the Gnostics considered actions as influenced by the stars. We have seen also that Florinus taught that God was the Author of evil, and that Irenaeus, who had formerly been his friend, wrote against him. {See History of the Ninth Article.} Against such statements Irenaeus constantly maintained human freedom, and denied that the will was a mere machine acted on by good or evil principles and itself passive under them. But the necessity of the grace of God’s Holy Spirit he as strongly expressed when occasion required. { E. g. Sicut arida terra, si non percipiat humorem, non fructificat: sic et nos, aridum lignum existentes primum, nunquam fructificaremus vitam, sine suprema voluntaria pluvia. – Adv. Haer. III. 19. Concerning the opinions of Irenaeus on free will, see Faber as above, and Beaven’s Account of Irenaus, ch. XI. p, 112.}
The Marcionites maintained that the universe was governed by two independent principles, one of good and the other of evil. This naturally led to the belief in a physical restraint on the will of the creature. Accordingly, Tertullian, in disputing against them, strenuously contends that freedom of the will was given to Adam. {Tertull. Adv. Marcion, Lib. II. 8, 9, &c.} From the same father we learn that Valentinus taught that man was created of three different kinds, – spiritual, animal, and terrestrial; the first sort as Seth, the second as Abel, the third as Cain; and that, as the distinction was from birth, it was consequently immutable. The first kind were destined to certain salvation, the last to certain perdition, the lot of the second was uncertain, depending on their greater inclination on the one hand to the spiritual, on the other to the carnal. {Tertullian, De Anima, C. 21–30. See Bishop Kaye’s Tertullian, pp. 330, 522.}
The fathers, who were contemporary with these heretics, were naturally led, in disputing against them, to use strong language on the freedom of the will; so that it is no wonder if, after the rise of Pelagius, his followers were ready to quote some of the ancients in defence of their errors.
Origen was one of those who opposed the Marcionite and Valentinian heresies; and his peculiar system of theology specially led him to more than ordinarily strong assertions of the freedom of the will. He took up the Platonic notion of the preexistence of souls. The state of all created beings he believed to be regulated by their former actions. All souls were created free. Every rational creature was made capable of good or of evil. Angels and devils were alike created capable of holiness or of wickedness. The devil and his ministers fell by abuse of freedom; the holy angels stood by a right use of it. {De Princip. Lib. I. cap. 5.} Every reasoning being is capable of degenerating or of improvement, according as he follows or resists reason. Men have been placed in different positions in this world; but it is because of their conduct in a former existence. Jacob was beloved of God more than Esau, because in the former life he had lived more holily. {Lib. II. cap. 9, num. 7.} And, as good or evil are substantially in none but the Holy Trinity, but all holiness is in creatures only as an accident, it follows that it is in us and in our own wills to be holy, or through sloth and negligence to decline from holiness to wickedness and perdition.* Holiness is attained or lost, much as music or mathematics. No man becomes a mathematician or a musician but by labour and study; and if he becomes idle and negligent, he will forget what he has learnt and cease to be skilful in his science or his art; and so no man will be good who does not practise goodness, and, if he neglects self-discipline and is idle, he will soon lapse into sin and corruption. {Lib. I. cap. 4.} Such language assigns so much strength to man and keeps out of sight so much the necessity of Divine grace that it has been truly said not to have been “without reason that St. Hierome accuses him of having furnished the Pelagians with principles”; though yet in some places he speaks very favourably of grace and of the assistance of God. {Dupin, Ecclesiastical Hist. Cent. III. Origen. It seems as if Clement of Alexandria pressed the doctrine of free will to a very undue extent, though not so far nor so systematically as his great pupil Origen. See Bp. Kaye’s Clement of Alexandria, ch. X. p. 429.}
{*Et per hoc consequens est in nobis esse, atque in nostris motibus, ut vel beati vel sancti simus, vel per desidiam et negligentiam a beatitudine in malitiam et perditionem vergamus, in tantum ut nimius profectus (ut ita dixerim) malitiae, si quis in tantum sui neglexerit, usque ad eum statum deveniat, ut ea quae dicitur contraria virtus efficiatur. – Lib. I. cap. 5, num. 5.}
In later times, as we have seen already, Manes and his followers held that good or evil actions were produced by the good or the evil principle. They appear to have believed that men are acted on by these powers as an inanimate stock which must passively submit to the impulses which move it. {Beausobre, and apparently Lardner who quotes him, doubt whether the Manichees did believe the will to be so thoroughly enslaved. See Lardner, Hist. of Manichees, Sec. IV. 13. Vol. III. p. 474.}
St. Augustine was himself originally a Manichee. In his earlier treatises he constantly directs his arguments against the Manichean doctrines, as being those errors with which he was best acquainted and which he dreaded most. {For instance, see the treatise De Libero Arbitrio, Opp. Tom. I.}
After the rise of Pelagianism, and when his efforts were chiefly directed to the overthrow of that heresy, he speaks less frequently and clearly in favour of the original freedom of the will, and brings more prominently out those predestinarian opinions which are so well known in connection with his name. It would not, however, be true to say that he materially changed his opinions on that subject ; for in some of his most decidedly Anti-Pelagian writings, and whilst most strongly maintaining the sovereignty of Divine grace, lie unequivocally asserts the freedom of the human will, as a gift of God to be used and accounted for. *
{*For example, De Spiritu et Litera, § 52, Tom. X. p. 114. Liberum ergo arbitrium evacuamus per gratiam? Absit, sed magis liberum arbitrium statuimus. Sicut enim lex per fidem, sic liberum arbitrium per gratiam non evacuatur sed statuitur. Neque enim lex impletur nisi libero arbitrio: sed per legem cognitio peccati, per fidem impetratio gratiae contra peccatum, per gratiam sanatio animae a vitio peccati, per animae sanitatem libertas arbitrii, per liberum arbitrium justitiae dilectio, per justitiae dilectionem legis operatio. Ac per hoc, sicut lex non evacuatur, sed statuitur per fidem, quia fides impetrat gratiam, qua lex impleatur: ita liberum arbitrium non evacuatur per gratiam, sed statuitur, quia gratia sanat voluntatem, qua justitia libere diligatur.}
The tenets of the Pelagians on this subject are expressed in one of the charges urged against Coelestius in the Council of Carthage, “That a man may be without sin, and keep the commandments of God if he will”; {J. Wall, Infant Baptism, I. p 357; Collier, Eccl. Hist. Book I, and the account of Pelagianism given under Article IX.} or in the passage which Augustine cites from his work, “Our victory proceeds not from the help of God, but from the freedom of will.” {Victoriam nostram non ex Dei esse adjutorio, sed ex libero arbitrio.– August. De Gestis Pelagii, Tom. X. p. 215.} The Semi-Pelagians, though they did not deny the necessity of grace, yet taught that preventing grace was not necessary to produce the beginnings of true repentance, that every one could by natural strength turn towards God, but that no one could advance and persevere without the assistance of the Spirit of God. {Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. Cent. V. pt. II. ch. V. § 26. Vitalis held that “God did work in us to will, by the Scriptures either read or heard by us; but that to consent to them or not consent is so in our own power that if we will it may be done.” – August. Epist. CVII. ad Vitalem.}
In the ninth century, Goteschalc, a Saxon divine, broached strong predestinarian doctrines which, of course, more or less embraced the subject of the present Article; for, as he is said to have held that God eternally decreed some men to salvation and others to perdition, he must have held that the will was in a great degree subject to an inevitable necessity. {See Mosheim, Cent. IX. pt. II. ch. III.} The history of this controversy, however, more properly belongs to the seventeenth Article. The disputes on the doctrines of Goteschalc divided the writers of his day. He was defended by Ratramn, monk of Corby, famous on more accounts than one, and condemned by Rabanus Maurus and Johannes Scotus Erigena.
In the twelfth century flourished Peter, surnamed Lombardus or Lombard, Archbishop of Paris, who wrote a book called Libri Sententiarum in which he compiled extracts from the fathers on different points of faith and doctrine from which he was afterwards known as the Magister Sententiarum, or Master of the Sentences. His work became the textbook for future disputants, the storehouse for scholastic polemics, esteemed wellnigh upon a par with Scripture itself.
The schoolmen who followed him and flourished chiefly in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries discussed to a great extent the questions concerning predestination and the freedom of the will. The most famous of these, as being heads of powerful and opposing parties, were Thomas Aquinas and John Duns Scotus. Thomas Aquinas was a Dominican Friar, of a philosophical spirit and great learning, and was known by the name of Doctor Universalis, or Angelicus. He was born in Italy, A. D. 1224, and died in 1274. His most famous work is his Summa Theologiae. In philosophy he was a Realist; in Theology, a disciple of St. Augustine; and therefore opposed to that belief too prevalent among the schoolmen that the gift of grace was dependent on the manner in which men exercised their merely natural endowments (pura naturalia). Duns Scotus, born at Dunston in Northumberland about the period of the death of Aquinas was a Franciscan. He attacked the system of Thomas Aquinas and acquired the name of Doctor Subtilis. He so strongly maintained the doctrine of the freedom of the will as to approximate suspiciously to the error of Pelagius. Duns Scotus was the founder of the School called the Scotists to which the Franciscan friars belonged. The followers of Thomas Aquinas were called Thomists, and to these belonged the Dominicans who with the Franciscans divided between them the learning of the Christian world in the ages preceding the Reformation.
In reasoning on the subject of the human will, and the need of grace to produce holiness, the school-authors invented a mode of speaking, alluded to in our thirteenth article, by which they endeavoured to reconcile some of the apparent difficulties of the question. They observed that Cornelius, before his baptism and a knowledge of the Gospel, had put up prayers and given alms, which are spoken of in Scripture as acceptable to God. {Acts 10:4: “Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.”} They thought, therefore, that some degree of goodness was attributable to unassisted efforts on the part of man towards the attainment of holiness; and, though they did not hold that such efforts did of their own merit deserve grace, yet they taught that in some degree they were such as to call down the grace of God upon them, it being not indeed obligatory on the justice of God to reward such efforts by giving His grace, but it being agreeable to His nature and goodness to bestow grace on those who make such efforts. Endeavors, then, on the part of man to attain to godliness were by the schoolmen said to deserve grace de congruo, of congruity. But, when once grace was given, then it enabled the recipient to deserve at the hands of God not only farther grace, but even in the end everlasting life. All this of course was to be considered as depending on the Atonement of Christ; but whatever was presupposed, it remarkably tended to the exalting the power of the will, and the strength of unassisted man. {Laurence, B. L. Serm. IV and the notes to that Sermon passim. Neander, vol. VIII. pp. 230, 231. Neander points out the marked distinction between the doctrine of grace de congruo as held by Aquinas, and the same doctrine as held by Alexander of Hales and the Franciscans.}
We now come to the period of the Reformation. The doctrine of grace de congruo gave the greatest possible offence to Luther, and called forth much of his strongest language. For example, in his treatise on the Bondage of the Will he asserted, that “in his actings towards God, in things pertaining to salvation or damnation, man has no free will but is the captive, the subject, and the servant, either of the will of God, or of the will of Satan.” {Caeterum erga Deum, vel in rebus quae pertinent ad salutem vel damnationem, non habet liberum arbitrium, sed captivus, subjectus et servus est vel voluntatis Dei, vel voluntatis Satanae. – De Servo Arbibio, Opp. Tom. I. p. 432.} Again, “If we believe that God foreknows and predestinates everything ... it follows that there can be no such thing as free will in man or angel, or any creature.”* These expressions are characteristic of the vehemence of Luther’s temper, when opposing what he considered a dangerous error, and are much stronger than the opinions subsequently expressed by him, and very different from the language of Melancthon and the confessions of the Lutheran Churches.
{*Si enim credimus verum esse, quod Deus praescit et praeordinat omnia, tum neque falli neque impediri potest sua praescientia et praedestinatione, deinde nihil fieri nisi ipso volente, id quod ipsa ratio cogitur concedere, simul ipsa ratione teste, nullum potest esse liberum arbitrium in homine vel angelo, aut ulla creatura. – Id. p. 481.}
In the Council of Trent the Lutheran opinions on this doctrine were set forth to be discussed. Much was said on both sides of the question. The Franciscans, as being followers of Scotus, spoke much for the absolute freedom of the will and in favour of the doctrine of grace de congruo. The Dominicans, after St. Thomas Aquinas, repudiated the idea of congruous merit and maintained the inability of man to turn to good of his own will since the fall of Adam. The decrees were drawn up, so as to displease either party as little as possible, but with a leaning to the Franciscan doctrines. Those were condemned who said “that since the sin of Adam free will is lost,” and that “bad as well as good works are done by the working of God.” Yet, at the same time, those were anathematized who said that “a man could be justified without grace,” “that grace is given to live well with greater facility, and to merit eternal life, as if free will could do it though with more difficulty”; and who said that “a man may believe, love, hope, or repent, without the prevention or assistance of the Holy Spirit.” {Sarpi, pp. 134, 210; Heylyn, Historia Quinquarticularis, pt. I. ch. IV.}
In the earlier days of the Reformation, the Lutherans generally held extreme language on the slavery of the will, and Melancthon himself used expressions which he afterwards withdrew. The more matured convictions of this great writer were sober and wise; and the confession of Augsburg, whilst affirming that the will of man “hath not the power to effect the righteousness of God without the Spirit of God,” {Non habet vim sine Spiritu Sancto efficiendae justitiae Dei, seu justitiae spiritualis, quia animalis homo non percipit ea, quae sunt Spiritus Dei. – Art. XVII; Sylloge, p. 129.} yet declares that “the cause of sin is the will of wicked beings, namely, the devil and ungodly men which, when not aided by God, turns itself from God, as it is written, When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of himself.” {Art. XIX. De causa peecati docent, quad tametsi Deus creat et conservat naturam, tamen causa peccati est voluntas malorum, videlicet diaboli et impiorum, quae non adjuvante Deo avertit se a Deo, sicut Christus ait Joh. viii., Cum loquitur mendacium, ex seipso loquitur. – Syll. p. 130.}
The Calvinistic reformers do not hesitate to use the most extreme expressions on the inability of man to do anything but evil. “The mind of man,” says Calvin, “is so wholly alienated from God that it can conceive, desire, and effect nothing but what is impious, perverted, foul, impure, and flagitious; the heart of sin is so steeped in venom that it can breathe forth nothing but fetid corruption.” {Stet ergo nobis indubia ista veritas, quae nullis machinamentis quatefieri potest, menteni hominis sic alienatam prorsus a Dei justitia, ut nihil non impium, contortum, foedum, impurum, flagitiosum coneipiat, concupiscat, moliatur: cor peecati veneno ita penitus delibutum, ut nihil quam corruptum foetorem effiare queat. – Calv. Institut. Lib. II. cap. V. 19.}
The followers of Calvin have, for the most part, used language similar to their leader. Whether Calvin allowed to Adam free will in Paradise, or believed that even his fall was predestinated, has been matter of dispute. Of the Calvinistic divines, those called Supralapsarians held, as has been mentioned before, that God foreordained that Adam should sin, and therefore denied to him free will even in a state of innocence. The Sublapsarians held that he fell of his own will and not by constraint or through the ordination of God.
Among the bodies of Christians who embraced the Calvinistic doctrines and discipline, some of the most considerable were the Churches of Holland and Belgium. The Belgic Confession, put forth in the year 1567, contains explicit declarations that all things in the world must happen according to the absolute decree and ordination of God, though God was not to be called the author of sin nor to be blamed for its existence. {Confess. Belgica, Sylloge, p. 234.} Several divines of the Belgic Church had demurred at these doctrines; and at the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century, Jacob Van Harmin, or Arminius, a pastor of Amsterdam, broached the sentiments generally known by the name of Arminianism. He dying in 1609, and his followers being persecuted by the dominant party, they addressed in 1610 a Remonstrance to the states of Holland, whence they were called Remonstrants. Their sentiments on the subject of free will may be gathered from the third and fourth of the five articles to which the Arminian doctrines were reduced.
The third article says that “man cannot attain to saving faith of his own free will, in regard that, living in an estate of sin and defection from God, he is not able of himself to think, will, or do anything which is really good.” The fourth article runs thus, “The grace of God is the beginning, promotion, and accomplishment of everything that is good in us; insomuch that the regenerate man can neither think, will, nor do anything that is good, nor resist any sinful temptations without this grace preventing, cooperating, and assisting; and consequently, all good works which any man can attain to are to be attributed to the grace of God in Christ. But, as for the manner of the cooperation of this grace, it is not irresistible; for it is said of many in Scripture that they did resist the Holy Ghost, as in Acts 7 and many other places.” {Heylyn’s Hist. Quing. pt. I. Ch. V; Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. Cent. XVII. Sect. II. pt. II.}
The disputes between the Remonstrants and their opponents led to the calling of a Synod at Dort, or Dordrecht, at which deputies were present from most of the Protestant Churches of Europe. At this the Arminians were excommunicated, and the doctrines of the Swiss and Belgic reformed Churches declared to be decidedly Calvinistic, and intolerant of the opposite opinions. {Heylyn and Mosheim as above.} Both election and reprobation are declared to be of God alone; {Sylloge, p. 406, Art. VI.} a but at the same time it is affirmed that God is not to be considered as the author of sin; {Ibid. p. 409, Art. XV.} nor is it to be said that He works on men as logs or stocks, but rather by giving life and energy to their wills. {Ibid. p. 431, Art. XVI.} The decrees of the Synod are indeed generally esteemed decidedly supralapsarian, and were unsatisfactory to the English divines who were present during some of their discussions; {See Bp. Hall’s Observations on some Specialities in his Life.} but their language seems less exaggerated than some who were opposed to them have been inclined to represent it. {See, for example, Heylyn, H. Q. pt. I. ch. VI.}
The Church of Rome after the Council of Trent, was not exempt from the same controversies which divided the Protestants on grace and free will. Molina, a Jesuit professor at Ebora in Portugal, in 1588 published a book entitled Liberi arbitrii concordia cum Gratiae donis, Divina Praescientia, Praedestinatione, et Reprobatione. His theory was somewhat similar to that of the Arminians who taught that grace was given according as God foresees that man would embrace and make good use of it. The Dominicans were much offended at this work and accused the Jesuits of reviving Pelagianism. This led to a long and violent contention between the two orders which caused Clement VIII to appoint a sort of Council called the Congregation de Auxiliis. {Mosheim, Cent. XVI. Sect. III. pt. X.} The death of Clement VIII before a settlement of these disputes did not prevent their continuance under his successor, Paul V. And though Paul did not publicly declare for either side of the question, it is probable that he urged both parties to moderation, being deterred from pronouncing against the Jesuits by the patronage extended to them by the court of France, and from deciding against the Dominicans by the protection of the court of Spain. {Ibid. Cent. XVII. Sect. II. pt. I. § 35.} The controversy, hushed for a time, broke out again in the year 1640 in consequence of the writings of Jansenius, Bishop of Ypres, who revived the doctrines of Augustine in his book entitled Augustinus. His followers were called Jansenists and were strongly opposed by the Jesuits; the former maintaining the sentiments held by Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and the Dominicans, the latter holding those of Duns Scotus and the Franciscans. The book of Jansenius was first condemned as a breach of the concord which had been enjoined in the Church but was afterwards more distinctly prohibited by a solemn bull of Pope Urban VIII., A. D. 1642. The Jansenists however continued to prosper, numbering many able and pious men in their ranks, and appealing to miracles in support of their opinions. But ultimately they were condemned and persecuted by the Bishops of Rome and the dominant faction of the Church. {Ibid. Cent. XVII. Sect. II. pt. I. § 40.}
Before concluding this sketch of the different controversies in other countries, we must mention the Socinian opinions on free will which, of course, correspond with their views of original sin as they appear to consider that man’s will is so far free and strong as to need only external, and not internal help towards his sanctification. {Ibid. Cent. XVI. Sect. III. pt. II. 17.}
After the Reformation, or during the establishment of it in England, the first thing which particularly claims our attention is the Article of Free Will in the Necessary Doctrine set forth by King Henry VIII and signed by Convocation, A. D. 1543. In this it is said that “man has free will now after the fall of Adam”; and free will is defined, as “a power of reason and will by which good is chosen by the assistance of grace, or evil is chosen without the assistance of the same.” {Formularies of Faith in the Reign of Henry VIII. p. 359, where see the Article of Free Will at length.}
The reformers in the reign of Edward VI appear to have followed closely upon the steps of the Lutherans (Melancthon and the Confession of Augsburg), in the Articles which concern grace and free will.{See Laurence, B. L. passim, especilly Sermon V.} The Article on free will in the forty-two Articles of 1552 was immediatery succeeded by an Article on grace, which was worded as follows: –
“Of Grace.
“The grace of Christ, or the Holy Ghost by Him given, doth take away the stony heart and giveth an heart of flesh. And although those who have no will to good things, He maketh them will, and those that would evil things, He maketh them not to will; yet nevertheless he enforceth not the will. And therefore no man, when he sinneth, can excuse himself as not worthy to be blamed or condemned by alleging that he sinned unwillingly or by compulsion.”
During the Marian persecution, the English Divines who fled to Frankfort and other places on the Continent, by being thrown into contact with foreign reformers, were drawn into the controversies which agitated them. Many came back with strong prejudices in favour of the Calvinists, while others were strongly disposed to maintain Lutheran views. There were therefore three distinct parties in the Church in the early part of the reign of Elizabeth. Some were for the restoration of popery; others inclined to Lutheran views of grace and of the Sacraments; and a third party had imbibed Calvinistic sentiments of predestination and church discipline and Zuinglian sentiments on sacramental grace. The last were the forerunners of the Puritans, who soon became non-conformists and finally dissenters. They acquired the name of Gospellers and called their opponents Freewillers. Archbishop Parker and the leading men of the day wisely strove to heal the divisions and softened down the language of our formularies so as to include as many as possible within the pale of the National Church; and among other measures of conciliation the Article on Grace was omitted to satisfy the Calvinistic section or the Church. {Heylyn’s H. Q. pt. III. ch. XVII. On the state of parties, &c. in Elizabeth’s reign, see Soames’s Elizabethan Religious History.}
The controversies, however, between the high Church and the Puritan divines, both on points of doctrine and of discipline, continued to divide the Church. Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury, in doctrine agreed with Calvin, but in discipline was a high Episcopalian. During his primacy were drawn up the famous Lambeth Articles, which he would gladly have imposed on the Church, but which never received the authority of the queen, the parliament, or the convocation. The first of these Articles says, that “God hath from eternity predestinated some men to life, others He has reprobated to death”; and the ninth asserts, that “it is not in the will or power of every one to be saved.” {Heylyn’s H. Q. pt. III. ch. XX.}
In the conference held at Hampton Court in the reign of King James I, A. D. 1603, an effort was made on the part of the Puritan divines to obtain an alteration in some of the XXXIX Articles, and to have them made more conformable to Calvinistic language; but no alteration was effected, owing to the opposition of the King and of the Bishops to the arguments of the Puritans. {Heylyn, pt. III. ch. XXII. Cardwell’s History of Conferences, p. 178, &c.}
The Articles remain therefore as they were put forth in 1562, and afterwards in 1571. And those on the subject of grace, free will, and other similar subjects, are the same as those drawn up in 1552 by Cranmer and his fellows, with the exception of the omission of the Article on Grace which was then the tenth Article, and the prefixing of the first part of the present tenth (originally the ninth Article) down to the word “wherefore”.
There have been ever since the reign of Elizabeth two parties in the English Church, one holding the doctrines of Calvin, and the other opposing those doctrines; and each party has considered the Articles to speak their own language. It is however an undoubted truth that the Articles were drawn up before Calvin’s works had become extensively known, or had become in any degree popular in this country. It is probable that they speak the language neither of Calvin, nor of Arminius; and between the extreme opinions, which had prevailed among the Schoolmen and others, they held a middle course, carefully avoiding the dogma of congruous merit, maintaining jealously the absolute necessity of preventing grace to enable us to will or to do according to the commandments of God, but not minutely entering into the questions concerning the freedom of man before the fall or the degree of free agency left to him since the fall.
Section II – Scriptural Proof
The ninth Article having asserted that man by the fall is “very far gone from original righteousness,” there arises at once a probability that he is weak and helpless towards good. In reasoning therefore on that Article, it was natural in some degree to anticipate some of the conclusions of this.
Yet still, unless it be clearly conceded that by the fall man became totally corrupt, with no shadow of the image of God in which he was created, and with a mind nearly approaching, if not actually similar, to the mind of devils, it would be possible that such a degree of strength might remain to him that he might make some independent efforts towards holiness, and in some degree prepare himself for the reception of grace. As therefore the ninth Article does not define the exact amount of man’s defection from original righteousness, it was quite necessary to state the doctrine of his utter helplessness in this.
The subject, as it is stated in the Article, seems to divide itself into the two following heads.
I. Since the fall, man has no power by his own natural strength to turn himself to faith and godliness, or to do good works acceptable to God. But the grace of God is absolutely necessary to enable him to do this.
II. The grace of God acts in two ways.
1. First, it is preventing grace, giving a good will.
2. Afterwards, it is cooperating grace, working in and with us when we have that good will.
I. First, then, since the fall, man has no power by his own natural strength to turn himself to faith and holiness or to do good works acceptable to God. But the grace of God is absolutely necessary to enable him to do this.
Here the point to be proved is simply this. Whatever degree of defection is implied in the fall, whatever natural amiability any individuals of the human race may possess, no one by mere natural strength and without internal help from God can believe or do what is, in a religious point of view, pleasing or acceptable to God.
1. In the sixth chapter of St. John our Lord says, “No man can come unto Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him” (ver. 44); and again, “Therefore said I unto you, no man can come unto Me, except it were given him of My Father” (ver. 65).
Now here the proposition is quite general. All mankind are included in the sentence, “No man can come” to Christ, except it be given him of God, except God the Father draw him. This is a plain statement of natural weakness and of the need of preventing grace. It shows that by nature man is apart from Christ, and that only the gift of God and the drawing of God can bring him to Christ.
To this argument the Pelagians answer, that no doubt it is necessary that God should draw us, if we are to come to Him; but the way in which He draws us is not by internal assistance and the motions of His Spirit in our hearts, but externally, by the calls of His word, the warnings of His Providence, the ordinances of His Church. Thus, therefore, say they, He may be said to draw us, and thus it is given us of Him to come to Christ. But we may reply to this objection that such an interpretation is inconsistent with the whole drift of our Lord’s discourse. The Capharnaite Jews who heard Him were staggered at His sayings and disbelieved them. Externally the word of God was drawing them then, but they murmured against it and refused to listen to it. Accordingly our Lord tells them that it was from an absence of inward sanctification that they rejected the outward calls of His word. If they came to Him, it must be by the drawing of the Father, through the grace of His Spirit; for, says He, “No man can come unto Me, except the Father, which hath sent Me, draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day. As it is written in the Prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and that hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me” (vv. 44, 45). If by these words is meant only the outward drawing by external means, it is plain that all who heard Him had such drawing in its most efficient form; yet most of them rejected Him. It is evident that they lacked something more than this. That being taught of God, that learning of the Father, which would bring them to Christ, must therefore have been something within them, not the calls of His word without; and hence we may conclude that our Lord’s words show it to be an invariable rule, a truth coextensive with the nature of fallen man, that no one can come to Christ, or, what is the same thing, turn and prepare himself to faith and calling upon God, without the internal operations of the Spirit of God.
2. To confirm this view of the subject, let us recur to what we saw, in considering the ninth Article, was the doctrine of Scripture concerning our original corruption.
Our Lord states (John 8:34) that “whosoever committeth sin is the servant (δουλος the slave) of sin.” Now all men by nature commit sin, and therefore are slaves of sin. This is what St. Paul calls “the bondage of corruption” (Rom. 8:21). This natural state of man is, both by our Lord and by the Apostle, contrasted with the liberty of the soul under a state of grace. “If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed” (John 8:36), says Christ; and St. Paul calls it “the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Rom. 8:21). In like manner our Lord distinguishes between the state of a servant and the state of a son (John 8:35). Nay, so complete is this servitude of sin by nature, that St. Paul more than once calls it death. He speaks of people as by nature “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephes. 2:1; Col. 2:13). He says of those who had been delivered from this state by grace that “God had quickened them together with Christ” (Ephes. 2:5); that those who were baptized into the death of Christ, having been dead in trespasses and sins, God had “quickened together with Him” (Col. 2:12, 13). Now slavery and death are the strongest terms to express utter helplessness that language admits of. So, freeing from slavery and quickening or raising to life as plainly as possible indicate a free gift independent of the will or power of the recipient, and show that the recipient must previously have been in a condition as unable to free himself as the bondsman, as unable to quicken himself as a dead man.
In accordance with all this, St. Paul (in Rom. 7, 8, a passage considered in the last Article) argues at length, that man, being by nature “carnal, sold under sin,” even if able to admire what is good, was utterly unable to perform it (Rom. 7:14–21), there being a law ruling in his members which makes him captive to the law of sin (v. 23). And then he tells us that the way in which this bondage must be broken is by the Spirit of God taking possession of and ruling in that heart, in which before sin had ruled, and so delivering it from the law of sin. “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death “ (8:2).
Not only is such helplessness of the unregenerate man plainly taught by our Lord and His Apostles, but we farther find that the very mind and understanding are represented as darkened by the natural state of corruption and so incapable of comprehending and appreciating spiritual truth until enlightened by the Spirit of God. Thus “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; ... neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14, comp. Rom. 8:5 ,6, 7; Jude 19). Man by nature has no discernment of those things which belong to the Spirit of God; and if so, it is quite clear that if he ever attains to spiritual discernment, it must be given him preternaturally.
To this belong all the passages concerning the new birth; for if a new birth be necessary, there must before it be an absence of that life which is the product of such a birth. Accordingly, God is represented as begetting us of His own will (James 1:18). To enter into the kingdom, a man must be born again, of water and of the Spirit (John 3:3, 5). In Christ Jesus a new creation availeth (Gal. 6:15). It is not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His own mercy that God saveth us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Tit. 3:5).
In like manner, the Scriptures, when speaking of the good works of Christians, represent them as due, not to any independent effort of the human will, but altogether to the grace of God working in them. Thus our Lord in a parable fully declares the whole source and spring of Christian holiness to be the life and virtue derived from Him. He likens Himself to a Vine, and all His disciples to branches. We know, that branches of a tree derive life and strength from the sap, which is sent into them from the root and stem. In like manner our Lord tells us that, by being branches of Him, we may bring forth good fruit, but that apart from Him we can do nothing. “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself except it abide in the vine, no more can ye, except ye abide in Me. I am the Vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit; for without Me (χωρις εμον, apart from Me) ye can do nothing (John 15:4, 5).
So constantly is this dependence of the Christian upon Divine grace urged by the sacred writers, that they frequently call to our remembrance, not only that we owe our first turning from evil to the quickening of God’s Spirit, but that even the regenerate and the faithful believer is at every step dependent upon the illumination, guidance, strength, and support of the same Divine Comforter and Guide. So St. Paul, writing of himself and other regenerate Christians, says, “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves: but our sufficiency is of God” (2 Cor. 3:5). When urging his faithful converts to “work out their own salvation with fear and trembling,” he adds as an encouragement to them, “For it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13). And when speaking with thankfulness of the labours which he himself had been enabled to undergo for the sake of the Gospel, he adds, “Yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me” (1 Cor. 15:10).
Now all this language of Scripture seems plainly to prove that by nature man has no free will to do good, no power to make independent efforts towards holiness. There is an iron tyranny, a law of sin and death, which keeps him in bondage and deprives him of the power to escape, and even of the discernment of spiritual things which would make him desire deliverance. From this law of sin and death the Spirit of life can set him free; from this bondage the Son can make him free indeed; but none besides. Nay! he is sleeping the sleep of spiritual death, and therefore needs internal as well as external aid to rouse him; aye! a new creation, a new birth, a new life. And even when set free, quickened, regenerate, he continues still able to act and think uprightly only so long as he derives strength from Christ; just as the branch can bear no fruit, except it derive sap and strength from the stem on which it grows.
II. It being thus proved that by nature man, corrupted by the fall, is not in possession of free will, or more properly, that his will, though unrestrained by God, is yet warped and led captive by evil spirits and his own bad propensities, it remains that we consider the effects of God’s grace upon the will when setting it free from this captivity. The Article describes these effects, as follows: –
1. God’s grace prevents us, that we may have a good will.
2. It works in us, or with us, when we have that good will.
The passages of Scripture which have been already brought to bear in the former division of the subject may appear to have sufficiently demonstrated these two propositions.
1. The necessity of preventing grace follows, of course, from the doctrine that man of himself cannot turn to God. For, if he cannot turn of himself, he must either remain forever alienated, or must need some power to turn him. In the language of the prophet, “Turn Thou me, and I shall be turned” (Jer. 31:18). Accordingly, we read continually of the first turning of the heart as coming from God. God is said to be “found of them that sought Him not, and made manifest to them that asked not after Him” (Isai. 65:1; Rom. 10:20). We read of His opening people’s “hearts so that they attend to the things spoken” (Acts 16:14); and we are taught that He “worketh in us both to will and to do” (Phil. 2:13); so that the regenerate and sanctified Christian is declared to be God’s “workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works “(Eph. 2:10). God is said to have “wrought” believers for immortality and glory (2 Cor. 5:5). The “new man” is said to be “created in righteousness and true holiness” (Eph. 4:24).
Such passages, and all others which speak of new birth and new creation, show plainly that God’s grace prevents us, waits not, that is, for us to make advances to Him, but graciously comes forward to help us, whilst yet we are without strength. They show too, that whereas by nature the will was corrupt and not tending to God, bound down and taken captive to the law of sin, so when the grace of God renews it, it is no longer in slavery but free, choosing life and holiness, not by compulsion but by free choice and love. “The Son makes us free indeed” (John 8:36). “The law of the Spirit of life makes us free from the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2). There is a “glorious liberty for the children of God” (Rom. 8:21). It is “to liberty” that we “have been called” (Gal. 5:13); for “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Cor. 3:17).
We see then the contrast which exists between the will in its natural corrupt state, and the will in its regenerate and purified state. In the former it is enslaved; in the latter it is free. Satan keeps it a bond-slave in the first; God sets it free in the last. Then it could only choose evil; now it is free to choose good. Then under the law of sin and death; now under “the perfect law liberty” (James 1:25).
2. But the will, thus set free, needs farther support, guidance, and strength. The new-born Christian has still a conflict to undergo for which he requires the whole armour of God. This is expressed in the Article by the words “working with us when we have that good will.”
The Latin Article has the word cooperante, which in the first English translation was rendered “working in us”; but in 1572 it was expressed somewhat more closely after the Latin, “working with us.”
Such expressions of course imply that when the will is renewed there is need of farther grace to support it but, at the same time, that the renewed man is to exert himself in the strength of that grace and to work under its influence.
The doctrine of cooperation has been opposed by many as assigning too much strength to man. Man, say they, is altogether too weak either to begin the work of grace, or even, after that work is begun, to contribute anything towards its completion. It is patching the pure robe of Christ’s righteousness to add any of the filthy rags of man’s works to it. Accordingly, St. Paul attributes all his own labours, not to himself, but to “the grace of God which was with him” (1 Cor. 15:10); and says, “I no longer live myself (ζω δε ουκέτι εγω), but Christ liveth in me” (Gal. 2:20). And it is written that God “worketh in us,” not with us, “both to will and to do” (Phil. 2:13).
Whether cooperation be a good expression or not, and whether it be altogether reverent to speak as if the Holy Spirit of God and man’s renewed will act in concert together, is of course fairly open to question. In general, no doubt the Scriptures speak of God’s working in us rather than with us. Yet the doctrine of our Article, rightly understood, rests on a sound foundation.
In the first instance indeed man’s will is represented as being under bondage. Spiritually we are described as slaves, blind, dead. But as we have seen, the Son is said to “make us free”; the “law of the Spirit of life frees us from the law of sin and death”; and so we are brought into “the glorious liberty of the children of God.” Thus it appears that Christ’s service is indeed perfect freedom. The will, no longer enslaved and bowed down, is set at liberty and enabled to act; and though, whenever and howsoever it acts in a good direction, it is always acting under the guidance and governance of the Spirit of God, yet it does not follow that that guidance is a yoke of bondage or of irresistible necessity. Accordingly, when the Apostle has explained how the Spirit frees us from the law of sin, and brings us into the glorious liberty of God’s children (Rom. 8:2–21), he tells us a little farther on that, whereas we still continue weak and ignorant, “the Spirit helpeth our infirmities” (ver. 26). In the very same breath in which he tells us that “it is God that worketh in us both to will and to do,” he bids us “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12, 13). And so he speaks of himself as using all kinds of self-discipline (1 Cor. 9:27), and as “pressing forward to the mark for the prize of the high calling” (Phil. 3:14).
To this purpose are all the exhortations of Scripture addressed to those who are under grace, not to miss the blessings which God has prepared for them. For example, we have warnings not to “defile the temple of God,” i. e. not to pollute with sin our bodies in which God’s Spirit dwells (1 Cor. 3:17); not to grieve, not to quench the Spirit (Eph. 4:30; 1 Thess. 5:19); not to neglect the gift which is in us, but to stir it up (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6); not to “receive the grace of God in vain” (2 Cor. 6:1), “to stand fast,” and not “fall from grace” (Gal. 5:1–4); “to take heed lest there be an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God” (Heb. 3:12); to “look diligently, lest any man fail of the grace of God” (Heb. 12:15); when we think we are standing, “to take heed lest we fall” (1 Cor. 10:12).
Now all such passages do indeed plainly presuppose that all the good we can do comes from the Spirit of God working in us. Yet they seem as plainly to prove that that blessed Spirit does not move the will as a mere machine, so that it is impossible for it to resist or neglect His blessed influences. It seems plain from them that under those influences, and guided by them, the renewed heart moves willingly; and that whenever those influences do not produce their full effect, it is because the remains of corruption in that heart resist and counteract them. And this is all that is meant in the Article by the term cooperante, “working with us.”
If, indeed, according to the sentiment of Luther, quoted in the former section, man’s will was first a mere bond-slave of sin, and after grace equally a slave, or machine, moved passively and irresistibly by the Spirit, we can hardly understand how it should be that men are not all equally abandoned before grace, and all equally moving onward to perfection under grace. Since by that theory the will is entirely passive under the motions of the Spirit, opposing no obstacle to them, and therefore, as we should suppose, likely in all persons to be fully and perfectly sanctified.
The doctrine of Scripture, however, is evidently expressed in the words of our Article. God must give the will, must set the will free from its natural slavery, before it can turn to good; but then it moves in the freedom which He has bestowed upon it, and never so truly uses that freedom, as when it follows the motions of the Spirit. Yet clearly there remains some power to resist and to do evil. For, though “those that have no will to good things God maketh them to will; ... Yet, nevertheless, He enforceth not the will.” {Art of 1552.} And so, although He must work in us, yet we, under His influences, must strive and press forward, not resisting Him, not neglecting, but stirring up His gifts in our hearts.
Of the Justification of Man
We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings: Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.
De Hominis Justificatione
Tantum propter meritum Domini et Servatoris nostri Jesu Christi, per fidem, non propter opera et merita nostra, justi coram Deo reputamur. Quare sola fide nos justificari, doctrina est saluberrima, ac consolationis plenissima, ut in homilia de justificatione hominis fusius explicatur.
Section I – History
It is probable that natural religion inclines all men uninstructed by Revelation to seek for pardon and acceptance with God either by attempting to live up to His law or by making some personal sacrifices as an atonement for offences against it. The robe laid before the statue of Athena or the hecatomb offered to Phoebus were to compensate for sins against their divinity.
If we look to Jewish history, we shall find the prophets remonstrating with the Israelites for thinking that ceremonial observances would satisfy for the breach of God’s commandments, and their sincerest penitents acknowledging that sacrifices would not profit them, but that they needed to be purged as with hyssop, and new created in heart (Psalm 51). Hence we may readily see that the temptation of the Jews was to seek God’s favour, when they had fallen from it, by ceremonial rites without sufficient reference to the spirit of the ritual; as with many it was to seek the same favor by a rigid observance of a mere formal obedience, such as our Lord reproves in the Pharisees, and as St. Paul declares to have been the cause of the fall of his countrymen (Rom. 9:31, 32). The Rabbins appear to have taught that a man’s good deeds would be weighed against his bad; and that if the former preponderated, he would be accepted and rewarded. {See Bull, Harmon. Apost. II, xvi. 8.} And forgetting or neglecting the spiritual significance of their prophecies and sacrifices, they expected a Messiah indeed, but a triumphant conqueror, not one who by His death would expiate their sins; and so the Cross of Christ was a stumbling-block and offence to them. They were profoundly ignorant that Christ should be to them “the end of the Law for righteousness,” that by Him alone all who believed in Him should receive justification and life. {See Bull, Harmon. Apost. II. xvii. 3.}
It has been thought also, that some among the Jews held that a man would be saved, even without holiness, who simply embraced the creed of Abraham, acknowledging the unity of the Godhead and the Resurrection of the dead; a view which seems to have been adopted by Mohammed in the Koran. Accordingly, it has been said that as St. Paul in his Epistles condemned the former error of his fellow-countrymen, so St. James directed his Epistle against the latter: the one showing, that neither ceremonial observances nor legal obedience could satisfy the demands of God’s justice, but that an atonement and true faith were necessary; the other, that a mere creed was not calculated to please God, when the life was not consistent with it. {See Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament, IV. ch. XXVI. § 6, who considers this to have been the cause of St. James’s argument on justification, and that his Epistle was written before St. Paul’s, or at least before he had seen St. Paul’s writings.}
The sentiments of the fathers on the subject of justification have afforded matter for much discussion. According to some, they taught nearly the doctrine of the Council of Trent; according to others, they nearly spoke the language of Luther. The truth appears to lie in neither of these statements. Justification had not been in early times the cause of much debate. No fierce contests had arisen upon it. Hence, no need was felt for accurate definitions concerning it. The statements of the fathers are therefore generally rather practical than formal. They dwell much on the Atonement, and the meritorious cause of pardon; so much so that they could see the Blood of Christ in the scarlet thread which Rahab tied in her window, and His Cross in the stretched out hands of Moses, when Israel prevailed over Midian. {Clem. Rom. Epist. 1 ad Corinth. 12. Barnab. Epist. 12.} But they do not appear ever to have entered thoroughly into the question of justification, as it was afterwards debated in the time of the schoolmen, and, still more, of the reformers.
It is remarkable, that probably the most express statement on the subject which occurs in all the writings of the fathers, is to be found in the very earliest of all, Clement of Rome. Speaking of faithful men of old, he writes, “They were all therefore greatly glorified, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness that they themselves wrought; but through His will. And we also, being called by the same will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, neither by our own wisdom, or knowledge, or piety, or any works which we did in holiness of heart, but by that faith by which God Almighty has justified all men from the beginning: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” {Clem. Rom. Epist. I. cap. 32.}
The passage is important, not only because of its antiquity, but because of its distinctness. The word “justify” appears to be used, as our Article uses it, for “to account righteous”; not, as the Council of Trent, for “to make righteous” by infusion of holiness; and the instrument of such justification is declared to be and ever to have been, not “wisdom, knowledge, piety, or works done in holiness of heart, but” “faith.”*
{*Πάντες ουν εδοξάσθησαν, ου δι αυτων, η των έργων αυτων, η δια της δικαιοπραγίας ης κατειργάσαντο, αλλα δια του θελήματος αυτου. Και ημεις ουν δια θελήματος αυτου εν Χριστω Ιησου κληθέντες, ου δι εαυτων δικαιουμεθα, ουδε δια της ημετέρας σοφίας, η συνέσεως, η ευσεβείας, η έργων ων κατειργασάμεθα εν οσιότητι καρδίας· αλλα δια της πίστεως, δι ης πάντας τους απ αιωνος ο παντοκράτωρ Θεος εδικαίωσεν· ω έστω δόξα εις τους αιωνας των αιώνων. Αμήν.
Almost the only question which may be raised on the passage is, Does St. Clement contrast faith with works done before the grace of God, or works after the grace of God, i. e. evangelical works? Dr. Waterland says, “It is of great weight with him, that so early and so considerable a writer as Clement of Rome, an apostolical man, should so interpret the doctrine of justifying faith as to oppose it plainly even to evangelical works, however exalted.” – Works, IX. p. 452. Mr. Faber thinks that, “Indisputably, by the very force and tenor of their definition (i. e. as being works done in holiness of heart), they are works performed after the infusion of holiness into the heart by the gracious spirit of God.” – Primitive Doctrine of Justification, p. 83. Mr. Newman, on the other hand, contends that “in holiness of heart” means no more than “piously”, “holily”; and that “works which we did in holiness of heart” (as the article is omitted before έργων though not the former substantives σοφίας, ευσεβείας, &c., and the verb κατειργασάμεθα is in the aorist) would more naturally, though perhaps not necessarily, signify an hypothetical, not a real case, as in those words of St. Jerome afterwards quoted by Mr. Faber, p. 122, “Convertentem impium per solam fidem justificat Deus, non per opera quae non habuit.” – Newman, On Justification, p 436.}
With regard to the statements of the later fathers, we must carefully bear in mind that without question they attributed the salvation of man solely and perfectly to the Blood of Christ; that they did not look to be saved because they had deserved salvation, but because Christ had satisfied for their sins; but though this is thus far plain, it will not enable us to come to any certain conclusion as to their views concerning the doctrine of justification scholastically considered.
Such passages as the following show the spirit of the fathers, as regards their reliance on the Atonement of Christ. “Let us without ceasing hold steadfastly to Him, who is our hope, and the earnest of our righteousness, even Jesus Christ, who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree; who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth; but suffered all for us that we might live through Him.” {Polycarp, Epist. VIII.}
“For this cause did our Lord vouchsafe to give up His Body to destruction, that through the forgiveness of our sins we might be sanctified; that is, by the sprinkling of His Blood.” {Barnab. Ep. V.}
“By His stripes healing is conferred on all who come to the Father by Him.” {Just. M. Dial. p. 366. See also Bp. Kaye’s Justin Martyr, p. 77.}
“All men fall short of the glory of God, and are justified not by themselves, but by the coming of the Lord.” { Iren. IV. xxxvii. See also Beaven’s Irenaeus, p. 194.}
“I will not glory because I am righteous, but because I am redeemed. I will glory, not because I am free from sins, but because my sins are forgiven me; not because I have profited, nor because any one hath profited me, but because Christ is my Advocate with the Father, and because Christ’s Blood bath been shed for me.” {Ambros. De Jacobo et Vita Beat. I. 6. See Newman, On Justification, p. 401.}
“Our righteousness ... is such in this life that it consists rather in remission of sins than in perfection of virtue.” {August. De Civit. XIX. 27. See Calvin, Institut. III. 12.}
“Not to commit sin, is the righteousness of God; but man’s righteousness consists in the mercy of God.” {Non peccare Dei est justitia; hominis autem justitia, Dei indulgentia. – Bernard, Sermon. 21 et 23 in Cantic. See Calvin, Institut. III. 12. See also Neander, VIII. p. 218.}
Thus far it is plain that the fathers believed what the Scriptures taught and what the Article of our Church maintains, that “we are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and not for our own works or deservings.” And if anywhere they seem to speak a language not strictly in accordance with this doctrine, we ought in fairness to conclude that they do not mean really to contradict themselves, though they speak broadly and as the Scriptures speak concerning the necessity of that “holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.” But when we come to technical terms and express definitions, we shall find considerable difficulty in ascertaining the sense attached to them in the patristic writings. We have already seen something like a distinct statement in Clement of Rome, and something nearly approaching it may be found in those who followed him. A few examples I have thrown into the note.* Yet it seems, on a general examination of the most remarkable passages from the ancient writings on this subject, that it is extremely difficult to say whether the fathers always understood the word “justification” in a forensic sense as signifying acquittal from guilt and imputation of righteousness, or rather, as in addition to that, containing in it the notion of infusion of righteousness. It has already been observed that we must not expect in their words the precision of controversy where no controversy had been raised. In order of time, acquittal from guilt and infusion of righteousness (or what in modern Theology have been called justification and sanctification) go together, and are never separated. Therefore, though at times the fathers seem to use the term “justification” merely in its forensic sense, yet sometimes they speak too as if it included the idea of making just as well as of esteeming just.
{*Ου γαρ δή γε εις βαλανειον υμας έπεμπεν Ησαιας απολουσομένους εκει τον φόνον και τας άλλας αμαρτίας, ους ουδε το της θαλάσσης ικανον παν ύδωρ καθαρίσαι, αλλα ως εικος παλαι τουτο εκεινο το σωτήριον λουτρον ην, ό είπετο τοις μεταγινώσκουσι, και μηκέτι αίματι τράγων και προβάτων η σποδω δαμάλεως, η σεμιδάλεως προσφοραις καθαριζομένους, αλλα πίστει δια του αίματος του Χριστου, και του θανάτου αυτου, ός δια τουτο απέθανεν. κ. τ. λ. – Just. M. Dial. p. 229, d.
Non incognitus igitur erat Dominus Abrahae, cujus diem concupivit videre: sed neque Pater Domini; didicerat enim a Verbo Domini, et credidit ei; quapropter et deputatum est ei ad justitiam a Domino. Fides enim quae est ad Deum altissimum justificat hominem. – Irenae. IV. 13. See also IV. 27.
His igitur consideratis pertractatisque pro viribus quas Dominus donare dignatur, colligimus non justificari hominem praeceptis bonae vitae nisi per fidem Jesu Christi, hoc est non lege operum sed fidei; non litera sed spiritu, non factorum meritis sed gratuita gratia. – August. De Spiritu et Litera, cap. 22.
Convertentem impium per solam fidem justificat Deus, non opera bona quae non habuit: alioquin per impietatis opera fuerat puniendus. Simul attende, quia non peccatorem dicit justificari per fidem sed impium, hoc est, nuper credentem asseruit.
Secundum propositum gratiae Dei.] Qui proposuit gratis per solam fidem peccata dimittere. – Hieron. In Epist. ad Rom. cap. iv. Tom. V. pp. 937, 938. The Benedictine editors consider this commentary as not Jerome’s. See also In Epist. ad Galat. cap. iii.]
For example, in one place St. Chrysostom (on Rom. 8:33: “It is God that justifieth; who is he that condemneth?”) writes: “He does not say, it is God that forgave our sins, but, what is much greater, It is God that justifieth. For when the Judge’s sentence declares us just (δικαίους αποφαίνει), and such a Judge too, what signifieth the accuser?” {Homil. in Ep. ad Rom. XV. See also Hom. VII. on ch. 3:27.} Here he seems to speak as if he considered justification as no more than “declaring or pronouncing just.” Yet, in other parts of the same work he clearly shows that in justification he considered something more to be included than remission and acquittal. Thus, in the Eighth Homily on Rom. 4:7, (“Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven,”) we read: “He seems to be bringing a testimony beside his purpose. For it does not say, Blessed are they whose faith is reckoned for righteousness. But he does so purposely, not inadvertently, to show the greater excellence. For if he be blessed that by grace received forgiveness, much more he that is made just and that manifests faith.” Again, Homil. X. on Rom. 5:16, (“the free gift is of many offences unto justification,”) he argues that “it was not only that sins were done away, but that righteousness was given.” It is true that to be esteemed righteous is more than to be esteemed sinless; as the one would only deliver from punishment, the other give a right to reward; and so St. Chrysostom may only mean that justification is more than pardon, because to be accounted righteous is more than to be acquitted of guilt. But it appears to have been common to many of the fathers to leave in some uncertainty the question, whether justification did or did not contain in it the making that of which it involved the imputation.
This is especially observable in the works of St. Augustine. For example, in the 45th chapter of the De Spiritu et Litera, where he is reasoning on the words of St. Paul, “The doers of the Law shall be justified.” He asks “What is to be justified but to be made just by Him who justifies the ungodly, so that from ungodly, he becomes just?” and so he concludes that by this phrase St. Paul means that “they shall be made just who before were not so, not who before were just; that so the Jews, who were hearers of the Law, might understand that they need the grace of a justifier that they might become doers of the Law.” Or else, he proposes to interpret it in the other way, “shall be justified, as though it were said, shall be held and accounted righteous; just as it is said of a certain one, He willing to justify himself, that is, to be held and esteemed just.” So then Augustine appears to leave it an open question, whether to justify is to make, or to esteem and hold as righteous.
Yet, though there be such ambiguity, we need be but little solicitous on the subject; but rather conclude, that “the point having never been discussed, and those fathers never having thoroughly considered the sense of St. Paul, might unawares take the word (justify) as it sounded in the Latin, especially the sense they affixed to it signifying a matter very true and certain in Christianity.” {Barrow, II. Sermon V. On Justification by Faith.}
Dr. Waterland, in his treatise on Justification, {Waterland’s Works, IX. p. 442.} has collected a great number of passages from the fathers, to show that they considered every person at his baptism to receive the gift of justification. Our limits will not allow us to follow him at length. But if we take justification to mean remission of sin and admission into God’s favour, it needs but very slight acquaintance with the writings of the early Christians to know that, as they confessed their faith “in one baptism for the remission of sins,” so they universally taught that all persons duly receiving baptism, and not hindering the grace of God by unbelief and impenitence, obtained in baptism pardon for sin, admission into the Christian Church and covenant, and the assistance of the Holy Spirit of God; and that so they were thenceforth “children of God, members of Christ, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven.”
To sum up what has been said. In the essence of this Article the fathers’ language is clear. They held, that all hope of salvation must spring from the mercy of God through the merits of Christ. They taught that every person baptized (not forfeiting the grace by sin and impenitence) was looked on as a member of the body of the faithful, and so in favour with God. They spoke too of faith as that state of salvation in which we receive justification and life. But (if at least we make some exceptions) they do not speak in the clear and controversial language of later days; nor is it always certain whether by the word justified they understand that a man’s faith is accounted to him for righteousness, or that, being the great sanctifying principle, it is the instrument whereby God works in him holiness.
It would be beside our purpose and exceed our limits to investigate at length the definitions of the schoolmen. Learned discussions are liable to much misunderstanding. But the impressions popularly conveyed by the teaching of the scholastic divines, and especially the view which was taken of them by Luther and their opponents, are very important to our right apprehension of the controversy at the time of the Reformation.
In the first place it appears that the schoolmen generally understood justification to mean not infusion of righteousness, but forgiveness of sins. It is true, they looked on it as the immediate result of, and as inseparably connected with, grace infused; but their definitions made justification to mean, not the making righteous, but the declaring righteous. {Primo quaeritur, an justificatio impii sit remissio peccatorum? Et videtur quod non ... Sed contra est quod dicitur in Glossa Rom. viii. Super illud “Quos vocavit, hos et justificavit.” Glo. remissione peccatorum: ergo remissio peccatorum est justificatio. – Aquinas, Quaestion. Disput. quaest. 28, Art. I. quoted by Laurence, Bampt. Lect. p. 119. Neander, VIII. p. 222, gives an interesting account of the scholastic discussions on justification. His statements appear different from those in the text, but it is only so at first sight.}
It is not to be supposed that they denied or doubted that such justification sprang primarily from the grace of God, and meritoriously from the death of Christ. The faults charged upon their system are, that they looked for merit de congruo, and de condigno, that they attached efficacy to attrition, that they inculcated the doctrine of satisfaction, and that they assigned grace to the Sacraments ex opere operato.
Luther especially insists that these scholastic opinions were directly subversive of the doctrine of St. Paul, and of the grace of God. “They say,” he writes, “that a good work before grace is able to obtain grace of congruity (which they call meritum de congruo), because it is meet that God should reward such a work. But when grace is obtained, the work following deserveth eternal life of debt and worthiness, which they call meritum de condigno. ... For the first God is no debtor, but because He is just and good, He must approve such good work, though it be done in mortal sin, and so give grace for such service. But when grace is obtained, God is become a debtor and is constrained of right and duty to give eternal life. For now it is not only a work of freewill, done according to the substance, but also done in grace, which makes a man acceptable to God, that is to say, in charity.” “This is the divinity of the kingdom of antichrist; which here I recite that St. Paul’s argument may be the better understood, for two things contrary to one another being put together may be the better understood.” {Luther, on Galatians, 2:16.}
Again, the compunction for sin which might be felt before the grace of God was given was called attrition; compunction arising from the motions of God’s Spirit being called contrition. Now attrition was considered as a means whereby God predisposed to grace. So that it had in it some merit de congruo, and so of its own nature led to contrition and to justification. {See Laurence, B. L. Lect. IV. and VI. Also notes on Lect. VI. The following is one sentence from a long passage quoted by him, p. 321, from Scotus, Lib. IV. dist. IV. quaest. 2: “Potest ergo dici quod Deus disponit per attritionem, in alique instanti dare gratiam: et pro illa attritione, ut pro merito, justificat, sicut est meritum justificationis. Et licet non continuaretur idem actus circa peccatum in genere naturae et moris, qui prius, adhuc in illo instanti infunderetur gratia, qui jam praecepit meritum de congruo.”}
There being some difficulty in knowing whether a man’s repentance was contrition or merely attrition, the Church was supposed to come to his aid with the power of the keys. The sacrament of penance added to attrition, and works of satisfaction being enjoined, the conscience was to be stilled, though it might yet be uncertain whether true repentance and lively faith had really been attained. {Laurence, as above, and p. 320.}
Once more, the doctrine that the Sacraments worked grace and so effected justification independently of the faith of the receiver, and merely ex opere operato, was by the reformers charged upon the schoolmen as overthrowing the doctrine of justification through faith by the merits of Christ. {Laurence, p. 324.} And at last when by attrition perfected by penance, satisfaction, and absolution, and through the grace of God passing into contrition, the sinner was believed to be pardoned, and his soul justified before God, it still remained a question whether there was not a certain amount of temporal punishment to be endured, in this life perhaps, but more probably in purgatory, before the soul be received into full favour with God, and be pronounced “not guilty” in His presence.
The abuses which prevailed at the time of the Reformation connected with the above doctrines are popularly known. Hence, especially, the merit attached to pilgrimages, and other works of satisfaction, which were thought capable of averting the temporal punishments yet due to sin; although of course eternal punishment could be averted only by the merits of Christ. Hence, too, the famous sale of indulgences, which first prompted Luther to take the steps which led rapidly to his breach with the see of Rome.
It is possible that much of the teaching of the schoolmen, and of the more learned and pious of the divines of the Middle Ages, may, when fairly interpreted, admit of a sense far more innocent than we are apt to attribute to it and might, if confined to the schools, have produced comparatively little mischief. But the effect produced upon the popular mind was evidently noxious. Nothing can be more plain than the fact that reformers in all countries felt that the great evil against which they had to fight was the general belief that man could merit God’s favour by good deeds of his own, and that works of mercy, charity, and self-denial, procured (through the intercession of Christ, or perhaps of the Virgin Mary) pardon for sin and acceptance with God.
It was in opposition to all this, that Luther so strongly propounded his doctrine of “justification by faith only.” He saw the extreme importance of teaching men to acknowledge their own weakness and to rely on the Atonement “as a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.” Salvation was to be ascribed to grace, not to be claimed as a right; and with the view of effectually destroying all hope from claims, he adopted the language of St. Paul, and put forth in its strongest possible form, as the articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiae, the statement, that “justification is by faith only,” without works, love, or holiness. That is to say, he asserted that man is justified through, or because of, the merits of Christ, and that the sole instrument of his justification is faith. This faith indeed will produce charity, and so good works; but, when considered as justifying, it must be considered as apart from holiness, and charity, and good works.
The vehemence of his temper and the great importance which he attached to his doctrine led him to state it in language which we may not approve. Such language, if used now when very different errors prevail from those most common in Luther’s time, might in all probability lead to Antinomianism and fanaticism of all kinds. But it is necessary to put ourselves into Luther’s position and to take a fair view of the man whose energy brought about the greatest revolution in history in order to judge fairly of his language and opinions.
For example, Luther stated that faith alone, not faith informed or perfected by charity, was that which justified. This seems opposed to the language of St. James (ch. 2:14, &c.), and even to the language of St. Paul, who tells us that it is “faith, which worketh by love,” which “availeth in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 5:6). Accordingly, the schoolmen had distinguished between fides informis, a faith which was merely speculative and had in it neither love nor holiness, and fides formata, or faith which is perfected by the charity and good works which spring from it; to which faith they attributed the office of justifying. {On this scholastic distinction see Calvin, Instit. Lib. III. ch. ii. § 8. Also Neander, VIII. 220, 221. Calvin himself denies the justice of the distinction on this ground: Fides in Christi notitia sita est. Christus nisi cum Spiritus sui sanetificatione cognosci nequit. Consequitur fidem a pio affectu nullo modo esse distrabendam. A very different argument from Luther’s.} Now this statement, that it is fides formata which justifies, Luther denied. By so doing it will be thought by many that he contradicted Scripture, the fathers, the homilies of our own Church, and the sentiments of many contemporary reformers. But the ground on which he did so he himself clearly explains to us. The schoolmen and Romanist divines, according to him, taught that faith, furnished with charity, justified the sinner, in order that they might assign the office of justification, not to the faith, but to the charity: that so it might be said, Faith justifies indeed; but it is because of the merit of that charity, and of those good works which it contains, and which give it all its efficacy. “Faith,” he says, is, according to them, “the body and the shell; charity the life, the kernel, the form, and furniture.” “But we,” he continues, “in the stead of this charity put faith, and we say that faith apprehends Jesus Christ who is the form which adorns and furnishes faith ... As the schoolmen say that charity adorns and furnishes faith, so do we say that it is Christ which furnishes or adorns faith, or rather, that He is the very form and perfection of faith. Wherefore Christ apprehended by faith and dwelling in the heart is the true Christian righteousness, for which God counteth us righteous and giveth us eternal life.” {Luther on Galat. 2:16. See also on Gal. 2:17; 5:16.}
Faith then, he taught, will justify, not because it is full of love, but because it is full of Christ. Therefore, too, he thought it necessary to state that faith justified before it had charity or good works with it; though of necessity it must produce charity and good works as soon as it has justified. Faith he compares to the bride, Christ to the bridegroom. The bride will be alone with the Bridegroom, but as soon as she cometh forth from the bridechamber, she will be attended by her bridesmaids and followers, good works and holiness.
The earnestness with which he pursued his object, and the infinite importance which he attached to it, led him into vehemence of expressions and perhaps inaccuracy of statements, which only the circumstances of the case can extenuate. At times he seems to speak as if faith itself was the cause, not merely the instrument, of salvation. At other times he writes as if good works were rather to be avoided than desired. But it is fair to consider these expressions as the result of inadvertence and the impetuosity with which he pleaded a favourite cause when we find statements of the evil of Antinomianism and the excellency of those works which spring from faith in other portions of the very same writings. {For example, on. Gal. 3:22: “When we are out of the matter of justification, we cannot enough praise and extol those works which God has commanded. For who can enough commend the profit and fruit of only one work, which a Christian does in and through faith? Indeed, it is more precious than heaven and earth.” See also on Gal. 3:19, 23, 27, &c.}
It should be added, that Luther plainly put forth the statement that the sins of the believer are imputed to Christ, and so that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the believer. {See on Gal. 2:16; 3:13.} He speaks often of the desirableness of attaining to personal assurance of salvation and at times appears to identify this assurance with justifying faith. {See on Gal. 3:13. Opera, 1554. Tom. V. p. 350. Concerning Luther’s view of the connection of justification with baptism, we may refer to his commentary on Gal. 3:27, Tom. V. p. 369. There he says, “We have by nature the leathern coat of Adam, but we put on Christ by baptism.” In Baptismo non datur vestitus legalis justitim aut nostrorum operum, sed Christus fit indumentum nostrum. Evangelice Christum induere, non est legem et opera, sed inaestimabile donum induere, scilicet remissionem peccatorum, justitiam, pacem, consolationem, laetitiam in Spiritu Sancto, salutem, vitam, et Christum ipsum. See also De Sacr. Baptism. Tom. I. p. 72.}
The council of Trent was much occupied in discussing Luther’s doctrine of justification. Indeed, the Tridentine fathers appear to have gone to the consideration of it, with the conviction that all his errors might be resolved into this one. {Sarpi, Hist. Lib. II. p. 178.}
It was universally agreed among these divines that faith justifies. But what justifying faith was, or how it justified, was much debated. “All agreed that justifying faith is an assent to whatsoever is revealed by God or determined by the Church to be believed; which, sometimes being joined with charity, sometimes remaining without it, they distinguished into two sorts: one, which is found in sinners, which the schools call unformed, solitary, idle, or dead; the other, which is only in the good, working by charity, and therefore called formed, efficacious, and lively.” But it was not universally agreed that justifying faith was to be called faith formed by charity; Marinarus, a Carmelite, objecting that St. Paul did not say that faith was formed by charity, but that it worketh by charity. {Ibid. p. 183.}
There was much discussion concerning works before grace, and merit de eongruo; in which the Franciscans maintained, whilst the Dominicans denied, that good works could be done without the Spirit of God, and so merit grace of congruity. {Ibid. p. 185.} But concerning works after grace, all agreed to condemn Luther who denied intrinsic goodness to works done in and after grace and asserted even that they were sins. These, they all asserted, having been wrought by the Spirit of God, were essentially good and perfect. {Ibid. p. 186.} They all agreed too that only faith could not be said to justify, since God and the Sacraments do justify as causes in their several kinds. {Ibid. p. 183.}
But the principal points of the difficulty were: first, Is a man justified, and then acts justly? or, Does he act justly, and then is justified? and, secondly, Is the word “justify” to be used in the forensic sense of imputing righteousness; or does it mean infusion of habitual righteousness into the heart? On the latter point there was much difference of opinion; the Franciscans strongly opposing the forensic sense which was as strongly upheld by Marinarus. None doubted that Christ had merited for us, but some blamed the word to impute because it was not found in the fathers; whilst others said that, agreeing on the thing, it was needless to dispute about the word; a word which it appears the Dominicans especially would have accepted, as showing that all was from Christ, but that they suspected any word which was popular with the Lutherans. {Sarpi, Hist. Bk. II. p. 187.}
After many such discussions as these, the Council finally drew up sixteen heads and thirty canons or anathemas on the subject of justification, yet so guarded and obscure that each party wrote treatises to prove that the decisions were in their favour. {Ibid. p. 202.} The most important of the decrees were the following: (2) That God sent His Son to redeem both Jews and Gentiles. (3) But that, though He died for all, yet those only enjoy the benefit to whom His merit is communicated. (4) That the justification of the wicked is a translation from the state of a son of Adam to that of a son of God which, since the Gospel, is not done without baptism or the vow thereof. (5) That the beginning of justification in adults proceeds from preventing grace. (7) That justification is not only remission of sins, but sanctification also; and has five causes: the final, God’s glory and eternal life; the efficient, God; the meritorious, Christ; the instrumental, the sacraments; and the formal, righteousness, given by God, received according to the good pleasure of the Holy Ghost, and according to the disposition of the receiver, receiving together with remission of sins, faith, hope, and charity. (8) That, when St. Paul saith that man is justified by faith and gratis, it ought to be understood, because faith is the beginning, and the things which precede justification are not meritorious of grace. {Concil. Trident. Can. 1, 11, 12, 14.}
Among the anathemas, some of the most important are: (1) That a man may be justified without grace. (11) That man is justified only by the imputation of the justice of Christ, or only by remission of sins without inherent grace, or charity; or that the grace of justification is only the favour of God. (12) That justifying faith is nothing but confidence in the mercy of God, who remitteth sins for Christ. (14) That man is absolved and justified, because he doth firmly believe that he is justified. {Concil. Trident. Sess. VI. capp. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8.}
These articles and canons show the difference between Luther and the Council of Trent, so far as we can be certain of the design of the latter. Yet the most eminent divines present in the Council, after its decrees, debated on their sense; {Sarpi, Bk. II. p. 215.} so that at last it was necessary to make a decree against all notes, glosses, and commentaries; the Pope reserving to himself the right of solving diffilulties and settling controversies on the subject. {Ibid. Bk. VIII. p. 762.}
Roman Catholic writers since the Reformation have generally gone against the forensic sense of the word “justify”; have held that God by grace implants inherent righteousness in the heart, makes the sinner righteous by union with Christ and the indwelling of His Spirit, and that then He esteems him what in fact He has made him, a holy and righteous man. Their view has been thus stated by one who may be supposed to have carefully studied it. “It appears 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 so recommending the soul to God’s favour so as to anticipate the necessity of any superadded pardon.”*
{*Newman, On Justification, p. 396. See also Bellarmine, De Justific.; and Barrow, II. Sect. V. p. 79. Bellarmine states the causes of justification thus: 1. The final cause, God’s glory and our salvation. 2. The efficient cause, God’s goodness and Christ’s merits. 3. The material cause, the mind or will of man in which righteousness abides and in which are formed the dispositions predisposing to the formal cause. 4. The formal cause, internally, the habit of grace; externally, the righteousness of Christ. De Justific. Lib. I. cap. 2. Justification he denies to consist in remission of sins or imputation of righteousness only, but asserts it to have for its formal cause the infusion of habitual righteousness. Lib. II. cap. 3, 6, 15. Good works he asserts to be meritorious of eternal life, but that, because they are wrought in us by the grace of God. Lib. V. cap. 12, et passim.}
To return to the Lutheran divines: Melancthon, the Confession of Augsburg, and generally the more moderate Lutherans, softened and explained the strong language of Luther. With them Faith was trust (fiducia), or fiduciary apprehension. It was made clear, that faith in itself had no virtue, but that the meritorious cause of justification was the death and satisfaction of Jesus Christ. So that justification by faith was even said to be a correlative term for justification or salvation by the merits and death of Christ. Nay, justification by faith was even called a Paulina figura, by which was meant that we are saved by grace, and not by claims or merits of our own.*
{*Fide sumus justi, id est, per misericordiam propter Christum sumus justi; non quia fides sit virtus, quae mereatur remissionem sua dignitate. – Melancth. Loci Theolog. de Arqum. Advers. p. 286. Laurence, B. L. p. 333. Cum dicitur, Fide justificamur, non aliud dicitur, quam quod propter Filium Dei accipiamus remissionem peccatorum et reputemur justi ... Intelligatur ergo propositio correlative, Fide justi sumus, id est, per misericordiam propter Filium Dei sumus justi seu accepti. – Mel. Loc.Theol. de Voc Fidei, f. 199, 2. Newman, On Justif. p. 278. Cum igitur dicimus Fide justificamur, non hoc intelligimus, quod justi sumus propter ipsius virtutis dignitatem, sed haec est sententia, consequi nos remissionem peccatorum, et imputationem justitiae per misericordiam propter Christum ... Jam bonas mentes nihil offendet novitas hujus Paulinae figurae, Fide justificamur, si intelligant proprie de misericordia dici, eamque veris et necessariis laudibus ornari. Quid potest enim esse gratius conscientiae afflictae et pavidae in veris doloribus quam audire, hoc esse mandatum Dei, hanc esse vocem sponsi Christi, ut statuant certe donari remissionem peccatorum seu reconciliationem, non propter nostram dignitatem, sed gratis, per misericordiam, propter Christum, ut beneficium sit certum. – Confessio August. 1540. De Fide, Sylloge Confesionum, Oxf. 1827, p. 182.}
Thus then it was ruled that the peculiar significance of St. Paul’s language, and of the Lutheran use of it, implied, not an opposition of faith to charity, or of faith to holiness, but an opposition of the merits of Christ to the merits of man, of the mercy of God to the claims which a sinner might suppose himself to have for acceptance in God’s presence.
Still it was clear that in some sense faith was made the instrument or formal cause of justification. And the question still remained, Had such faith love in it, or was it to be considered as apart from love? We have seen that Luther declared that justifying faith had not love in it till it had justified; and to his definitions some of the Lutherans adhered, though he may himself afterwards have in some degree modified them.
Melancthon and the moderate Lutherans appear to have spoken rather differently. Melancthon says, that “no doubt there are love and other graces in faith; but that, when St. Paul says, ‘we are justified by faith,’ he means, not by the virtue of that grace, but by the mercy of God, for the sake of the Mediator.”* The Confession of Augsburg declares that “faith cannot exist except in those who repent”; that “among good works, the chief is faith, which produces many other virtues, which cannot exist till faith has been conceived in the heart.”** Again, it reconciles St. James and St. Paul by explaining that St. James speaks of a mere historical faith, whilst St. Paul speaks of reliance on God’s mercy in Christ. {Sylloge Conf. pp. 181, 182.} It distinctly asserts, that faith brings forth good works, and quotes with approbation the words of St. Ambrose, Fides bonae voluntatis et justae actionis genitrix est. {Ibid. p. 183.} All then, but a few of the more rigid Lutherans, agreed that it was a living, not a dead faith, a faith full of good works, not a bare and historical assent to truth, which justified the soul. Still, the question remained, Was it fides, quae viva est, or, fides qua viva est, (i. e. faith which is living, or faith because it is living) which justifies? Some thought, that if it were considered as justifying because it was living, then there would be some merit attached to that which quickened it, or which showed it to be alive, i. e. to charity. “Modes were invented of explaining the difficulty, which savoured more of metaphysical subtlety than of practical wisdom, such as that mentioned by Bishop Bull: “Faith justifies, pregnant with good works, but not as yet having given birth to them.” {Bull, Harm. Apostol. Diss. Prior. VI. 2.}
{*Concedo in fiducia inesse dilectionem, et hanc virtutem et plerasque alias adesse oportere; sed cum dicimus, Fiducia sumus justi, non intelligatur nos propter virtutis istius dignitatem, sed per misericordiam recipi propter Mediatorem, quem tamen oportet fide apprehendi. Ergo hoc dicimus correlative. – Melancth. Loci Theolog. de Argum. Advers. p. 284. Laurence, B. L. p. 332. Newman, Justific. p. 10.
**Nec existere fides potest nisi in his qui poenitentiam agunt, quia fides consolatur corda in contritione et terroribus peccati ... Inter bona opera, praecipuum est et summus cultus Dei fides ipsa, et parit multas alias virtutes, quae existere non possunt, nisi prius corda fidem conceperint. – Confess. August. Syll. Conf. p. 83.}
Bucer, a divine, who had some concern in our own Reformation, and whose opinions are therefore particularly interesting to us, seems to have been very moderate on this subject. He expresses his regret that language should be used concerning faith alone, to the exclusion of holiness, such as to offend well-meaning men. He considers that no one should object to the additions of viva or formata as applied to justifying faith since it is plain that St. Paul spoke of a living faith as justifying, and only meant to exclude self-righteousness. {See especially on Psalm xi. quoted by Bull, Harm. Apostol. Diss. Post. ii. 8.}
Several controversies concerning justification arose among the Lutherans, even in the lifetime of Luther. Osiander, A. D. 1550, broached some opinions, the exact nature of which it may be difficult to define. They appear to have been chiefly “that faith does not justify by applying and embracing the righteousness of the Man Christ, but by uniting to Christ, who then by His Divine nature dwells in the heart, and that this union both justifies before God and sanctifies the sinner.” There was probably, however, something more than this, or it would hardly have excited the vehement opposition of so mild a man as Melancthon. {Mosh. Ch. Hist. Art. XVI. § III. part II. See also Calv. Instit. III. cap. xi. 5–11, who accuses him of opinions bordering on Manicheism.}
Of a very different kind were the errors of Agricola, (A. D. 1538,) who is accused of having carried the doctrine of faith alone to its most noxious extreme. He is esteemed the founder of the Antinomians; and is said to have held that all licentiousness and sin were allowable, if only Christ was received and embraced by a lively faith. He was vigorously opposed by Luther. {Mosh. as above.}
To proceed from the Lutheran to the Calvinistic reformers: they appear for the most part to have symbolized with Luther in his general statement concerning justification. They declared that to justify was a forensic term signifying to remit sins, and pronounce righteous. {Justificatio significat Apostolo in disputatione de Justificatione, peccata remittere, a culpa et poena absolvere, in gratiam recipere, et justum pronunciare. – Confess. Helvet. Sylloge, p. 51. Nos justificationem simpliciter interpretamur acceptionem, qua nos Deus in gratiam receptos pro justis habet – Calvin, Inst. III. xi. 2.} They said, that we receive this justification not by works, but by faith in God’s mercy; and because faith receives Christ, our righteousness, and ascribes all to God’s grace in Christ, therefore justification is attributed to faith, and that chiefly because of Christ, not because it is any work of ours. {Syllog. p. 52.} They considered it to consist especially in the imputation of our sins to Christ and of Christ’s righteousness to us; and strenuously denied that justification was in consequence of any internal sanctification wrought in us by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost and the faith which He inspires.* They denied that justification was of faith and works conjoined. {Calv. Inst. III. xi. 13, 14.} But when the question arose, Is the faith which justifies to be considered as alone and informis, or lively and full of good works, (formata)? they seem to have decided that it was the latter and not the former. Although Calvin complained that the distinction was nugatory, inasmuch as faith never could exist apart from the holiness which it produces.**
{*Deus nos justificat non imputans nobis peccata, sed imputans Christi nobis justitiam. Sylloge, p. 52. Hinc et illud conficitur, sola intercessione justitiae Christi nos obtinere ut coram Deo justificemur. Quod perinde valet ac si diceretur hominem non in seipso justum esse, sed quia Christi justitia imputatione cum illo communicatur: quod accurata animadversione dignum est. Siquidem evanescit nugamentum illud, ideo justificari hominem fide, quoniam illa Spiritum Dei participat quo justus redditur: quod magis est contrarium superiori doctrinae quam ut conciliari unquam queat. Neque enim dubium, quin sit inops propriae justitiae, qui justitiam extra seipsum quaerere docetur. – Calv. Inst. III. xi. 23.}
{**Quapropter loquimur in hac causa, non de ficta fide, de inani et otiosa et mortua, sed de viva, vivificanteque, quae propter Christum, qui vita est et vivificat, quern comprehendit, viva est et dicitur, ac se vivam esse vivis declarat operibus. Nihil itaque contra hanc nostram doetrinam pugnat Jacobus ille, qui de fide loquitur inani et mortua, quam quidam jactabant, Christum autem intra se viventem per fidem non habebant. – Confess. Helvet. Sylloge, p. 53. See also Calvin, Inst. III. ii. 8, quoted above.}
Our own reformers soon embraced the doctrine of Luther, with such modifications as their own wisdom suggested. In the Articles set forth in 1536, justification is defined to signify remission of sins and acceptance into the favour of God. We are said to attain this justification for the only mercy and grace of the Father, freely for Jesus Christ’s sake, through contrition and faith joined with charity; {Formularies of Faith in the Reign of Henry VIII. Oxford, p. 12.} language which is repeated in the Institution of a Christian Man. {Ibid. p. 209.}
As on other subjects, the English reformers’ views grew more fixed and definite after the death of Henry VIII. The Homily of Salvation, and the 11th Article of 1552, expressed definitively the judgment of Cranmer and his companions on justification. The 11th Article, as drawn by them, ran thus: “Justification by only faith in Jesus Christ, in that sense as it is declared in the Homily of Justification, is a most certain and wholesome doctrine for Christian men.” The Article as it stands now is somewhat differently worded, but probably conveys the same sense. Both send us to the “Homily of Justification” as the interpreter of the sense in which the Church of England understands “Justification by faith”; and therefore the definitions of this homily, if we call discover them, are the definitions of the Anglican Church concerning this debated point. There is no homily entitled the Homily of Justification, but the Homily of Salvation treats expressly of justification; and it has therefore always been understood, either that this homily alone, or this conjoined with that which precedes and that which follows it, is the homily referred to in the Article.
The Article itself, as it now stands, appears to speak very much the language of Melancthon and the Confession of Augsburg; for its statement of the doctrine of justification by faith is that “We are accounted righteous before God only for the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings.” This is language very similar to that of Melancthon, quoted above, who considered justification by faith, and salvation by grace, to be correlative terms; and to that of the Confession of Augsburg, which calls justification by faith a Paulina figura for remission of sins by mercy, for the sake of Christ. For further explanation the Article sends us to the homily, which teaches as follows.
It begins by defining justification to be “the forgiveness of sins and trespasses.” “This justification or righteousness, which we so receive of God’s mercy and Christ’s merits, embraced by faith, is taken, allowed, and accepted for our perfect and full justification. ... God sent His Son into the world to fulfil the Law for us, and by shedding of His most precious Blood, to make a sacrifice and satisfaction, or (as it may be called) amends, to His Father for our sins to assuage His wrath and indignation conceived against us for the same. Insomuch that 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 baptism, when they turn again to God unfeignedly, they are likewise washed by this sacrifice from their sins, in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sin that shall be imputed to their damnation. This is that justification of righteousness which St. Paul speaketh of when he saith, No man is justified by the works of the law, but freely, by faith in Jesus Christ. Gal. 2. The Apostle toucheth specially three things which must go together in our justification. Upon God’s part, His great mercy and grace: upon Christ’s part, justice, that is, the satisfaction of God’s justice ... upon our part, true and lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ, which yet is not ours but God’s working in us ... Therefore St. Paul declareth here nothing upon the behalf of man concerning his justification, but only a true and lively faith which nevertheless is the gift of God and not man’s only work without God. And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread and the fear of God, to be joined with faith, in every man that is justified, but it shutteth them out from the office of justifying. So that, although they be all present together in him that is justified, yet they justify not altogether; nor the faith also doth not shut out the justice of our good works, necessarily to be done afterwards of duty towards God: (for we are most bounden to serve God in doing good deeds, commanded by Him, in His holy Scripture, all the days of our life:) but it excludeth them so that we may not do them to this intent, to be made just by doing of them.”{First Part of the Homily of Salvation.}
Again – “The true understanding of the 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, and deserve our justification unto us (for that were to count ourselves to be justified by some act or virtue which is within ourselves); but the true understanding and meaning thereof is that although we hear God’s word and believe it; although we have faith, hope, charity, repentance, dread and fear of God within us, and do never so many good works thereunto; yet we must renounce the merit of all said virtues, of faith, hope, charity, and all 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 Jesus Christ, the Son of God, once offered for us upon the cross to obtain thereby God’s grace and remission, as well of our original sin in baptism, as of all actual sin committed by us after our baptism, if we truly repent and turn unfeignedly to Him again. So that as St. John the Baptist, although he was never so virtuous and godly a man, yet in this matter of forgiveness of sin, he did put the people from him, and appointed them to Christ, saying thus unto them: Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world, John 1; even so, 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 Him remission of our sins or justification. So that our faith in Christ (as it were) saith unto us thus: It is not I that take away your sins, but it is Christ only; and to Him only I send you for that purpose, forsaking therein all your good virtues, words, thoughts, and works, and only putting your trust in Christ.” {Second Part of Homily of Salvation. Also concerning the difference between a dead and living faith, and the reconciliation of St. Paul and St. James, see Part 3. See also the conclusion of the 3d part of the Homily on Prayer; the 2d part of the Homily on Alinsdreds, near the middle; the conclusion of the second Homily of the Passion, and particularly the whole of the Homilies of Faith and Good Works.}
It is plain that the doctrine contained in these extracts (from a homily which has unusual authority as being virtually assented to by every one who signs the Articles) is briefly as follows. That which the English reformers meant by justification by faith is that we can never deserve anything at God’s hands by our own works – that therefore we must owe our salvation only to the free mercy of God who for the sake of His Son Jesus Christ pardons and accepts all infants who are baptized in His name and all persons who sin after baptism when by His grace they are brought to repentance and conversion – that justification is especially assigned to faith, not because of any peculiar excellence in faith itself, but rather because faith sends us from itself to Christ, and because by it we apprehend Christ and rest upon Him only for acceptance with God, – that though therefore we ascribe justification to faith only, it is not meant that justifying faith either is or can be without its fruits, but that it is ever pregnant and adorned with love, and hope, and holiness.
Language in strict conformity with this was uniformly held by those who had the chief hand in drawing up the Articles and compiling the Liturgy, and is to be found in those semi-authoritative documents which were from time to time set forth by them.*
{*We may refer particularly to the following: Cranmer’s Catechism, Oxf. pp. 98, 114, 115, 143, 205; Cranmer’s Works; ed. Jenkyns, Oxf. II. p. 121, III. 553.
Justification is thus briefly explained in Edw. VI.’s Catechism: “As oft as we use to say that we are made righteous and saved by faith only, it is meant thereby that faith or rather trust alone doth lay hand upon, understand, and perceive our righteous making to be given us of God freely: that is to say, by no deserts of our own, but by the free grace of the Almighty Father. Moreover, faith doth engender in us the love of our neighbour, and such works as God is pleased withal. For if it be a true and lively faith, quickened by the Holy Ghost, she is the mother of all good saying and doing ... And although good works cannot deserve to make us righteous before God, yet do they so cleave unto faith, that neither can faith be found without them, nor good works be anywhere without faith.” – (Enchiridion Theolog. I. p. 25.)
So Noel’s Catechism: Ad Dei misericordiam confugiendum est qua gratis nos in Christo nullo nostro merito nec operum respectu, amore et benevolentia complectitur ; tum peccata nobis nostra condonans, tum justitia Christi per Fidem in ipsum ita nos donans ut ob eam, perinde ac si nostra esset, ipsi accepti simus ... M. Non ergo inter hujus justitiae causas Fidem principem locum tenere dicis, ut ejus merito nos ex nobis justi coram Deo habeamur? A. Nequaquam: id enim esset Fidem in Christi locum substituere. ... M. Verum an a bonis operibus ita separari haec justitia potest, ut qui hanc habet, illis careat? A. Nequaquam ... M. Justitiam ergo, Fidem, ac bona opera, natura coherentia esse dicis, quae proinde non magis distrahi debeant quam Christus illorum in nobis author a seipso divelli possit. – Enchirid. Theolog. I. p. 282.
Jewel’s Apology: Itaque unicum receptum nostrum et perfugium esse ad misericordiam Patris nostri per Jesum Christum, ut certo animis nostris persuadeamus illum esse propitiationem pro peccatis nostris; ejus sanguine omnes labes nostras deletas esse ... Quamvis autem dicamus nihil nobis esse praesidii in operibus et factis nostris, et omnis salutis nostrae rationem constituamus in solo Christo, non tamen ea causa dicimus laxe et solute vivendum esse, quasi tingi tantum et credere, satis sit homini Christianio, et nihil ab eo aliud expectetur. Vera Fides viva est, nec potest esse otiosa. – Enchirid. Theolog. pp. 131, 132.}
Owing to the unhappy divisions of later times in the Church of England, there has been no small difference among her divines on this head of justification; a difference, however, which there is good reason to hope is rather apparent in scholastic and logical definitions, than in its bearing on vital truth or practical godliness.
The great Hooker wrote a treatise on Justification in which he strongly impugns the doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning justification by infusion of righteousness, and maintains the principle of imputation, distinguishing the righteousness of justification as external to us, the righteousness of sanctification as internal. {Discourse on Justification, &c. Works, III. pt. II. p. 601. Oxf. 1836.}
Bishop Bull in his Harmonia Apostolica admits that sense of justification by faith, which, he says, all the sounder Protestants have attached to it, namely, Salvation by grace only. He takes justification in the forensic sense, the meritorious cause of which is Christ, the instrument or formal cause being fides formata, or faith accompanied by good works. {Bull’s Harm. Apost. and Examen Censurae. Works. Oxf. III. IV.}
Dr. Barrow, in the first five of his Sermons on the Creed, discusses the nature of faith and justification with great learning and moderation. Justification he shows to be a forensic term, to be given for the sake of Christ, to be the result of God’s mere mercy, apart from our deserts; yet he considers baptism and faith to be the conditions of justification, and faith to include its effects. Faith is a hearty reception of the Gospel, first exerting itself by open avowal in baptism, to which time therefore the act of justification especially pertains. Yet too every dispensation of pardon granted upon repentance may be also termed justification. Hence every person is justified freely for Christ’s sake at his baptism, continues justified whilst he is in a state of lively faith, and returns to a state of justification, if he have fallen from it, by repentance. {Works, fol. Vol. II. especially Sermons IV. V.}
Dr. Waterland, in a very able tract on the same subject, argues, that the causes of justification are (1) the moving cause, God’s grace and goodness; (2) the meritorious cause, Christ; (3) the efficient cause, the Holy Spirit – that its instruments are (1) baptism; (2) faith – that its conditions are, (1) faith; (2) obedience. {Waterland, On Justification, Works. Van Mildert, IX. p. 427.}
Mr. Alexander Knox, a writer of great originality and piety, expressed himself unable to believe the protestant doctrine of justification. The forensic sense of the word seemed to him too like a legal fiction: and he could not believe that God could pronounce any one just or account any one righteous who had really no such inherent quality as justice or righteousness. Accordingly, he solved the difficulty by asserting that God pronounces those righteous by justification whom He has already made so by sanctification. {Knox’s Remains.}
In still later days, Mr. Faber has written an able work to prove that in the earliest Christian writers, from Clement of Rome downwards, the word justification is used strictly in its forensic sense, and that justification is ascribed to faith alone. {Faber’s Primitive Doctrine of Justification.}
Lastly, not very long before his secession to the Church of Rome, Mr. Newman published a most logical treatise in which he professes to steer a middle course between the Roman and the Lutheran doctrines. He takes the forensic sense of the term justification – and asserts that it is conferred in baptism, is maintained by faith, and consists in the indwelling of the Spirit of God and the being made members of the Body of Christ. {Newman, On Justification; see especially Lect. III. VI. IX.}
Whatever speculative differences may have existed of late or in times gone by, it is no small comfort to know that it has been allowed by all that fallen man cannot of himself become worthy of eternal salvation, that he stands in need both of pardoning mercy and sanctifying grace, that this mercy and this grace have been procured for him by the all-prevailing merits of the Redeemer, and that these blessings, offered to all, may be appropriated to the individual believer by that faith which the Holy Spirit will implant, and which must produce love and holiness and all good fruits. The divines of Trent and their most extreme antagonists have denied none of these propositions.
Section II – Scriptural Proof
I. Sense of the word Justification.
The word which we render just or righteous (namely, δίκαιος, or in the Hebrew צַדִּיק) has two principal significations: the one popular, the other accurate. In its popular signification, it is nearly equivalent to good, holy, pious, (άγαθος, ευσεβης, חָסִיד); and is used commonly of men, who are living a pious and upright life, not according to the perfect standard of the law of God, but subject to such imperfection and impurity as is common to man. Examples of this usage may be found in the following, among many other passages: Gen. 6:9. Ps. 37:12. Prov. 4:18, 24:16. Matt. 1:19, 10:41, 23:29. Mark 6:20. Luke 2:25. Acts 10:22. James 5:16. In its more accurate sense, δίκαιος signifies absolutely, strictly, and perfectly righteous or just, without defect or impurity, like the holy Angels, or like God Himself. As for instance, in Job 9:2. Matt. 27:19. Luke 23:47. Rom. 2:13, 3:10. 1 Tim. 1:9. In which, as in most similar passages, the word particularly seems to express innocent, not guilty, with reference to a tribunal of justice, or question of crime. The same distinction is equally observable in the substantive righteousness (צֶדֶק δικαιοσύνη); which at one time stands for strict and perfect justice, (as in Acts 17:31. Rom. 3:5. Rev. 19:11, &c.); at other times for such goodness, holiness, or good deeds, as men under the grace of God are capable of (as in Ps. 15:2. Isai. 32:17. Matt. 5:10, 20; 6:33. Acts 13:10. Rom. 6:18, 19, 20; 8:10, 14:17. Eph. 5:9, 6:14. Heb. 12:11).
The verb δικαίοω, which strictly corresponds with the Hebrew causative verb הִצְדִיק, and is translated in English “to justify,” in some degree partakes of the ambiguity of the adjective from which it is formed; yet not so as, fairly considered, to introduce much difficulty into the doctrine of which we have to treat.
1. The literal signification of the verb, whether in Hebrew or in Greek, is “to make righteous.” It may therefore, of course, be used for something like an infusion of righteousness into the mind or character of a man; and the passive may signify the possession of that righteousness so infused; and such a sense appears probably to belong to it in Rev. 22:11, “He that is righteous, let him be righteous still” (ο δίκαιος δικαιωθήτω, in some MSS. from a gloss δικαιοσύνην ποιησάτω). {The following passages have also been thought to have the word in this sense, but perhaps without sufficient ground: Job 35:7, 8. Ezek. 16:52. Ecclus 18:22, 31:5.}
2. But a very slight examination of the question can scarcely fail to convince us that the commoner use of this verb in the Scriptures is in the sense of a judicial sentence; and
(1) It signifies to execute a judicial act, in the general, towards a person, and to do him right, whether in acquitting or in condemning him. Thus in 2 Sam. 15:4: “Oh! that I were made a judge in the land, that every man which hath any suit or cause might come unto me, (והצדקתיו και δικαιώσω αυτον) and I would justify him,” that is, do him right.
So Ps. 82:3: “Defend the poor and the fatherless, justify (הצדיקו δικαιώσατε) the poor and needy,” i. e. do them right.
(2) Especially it signifies to pronounce sentence in a man’s favour, acquit him, free him from punishment. Deut. 25:1: “The judges ... shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked.”
1 Kings 8:32. 2 Chron. 6:23: “Then hear Thou in Heaven, and do, and judge Thy servants, condemning the wicked, to bring his way upon his head; and justifying the righteous, to give him according to his righteousness.”
Prov. 17:15: “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination unto the Lord.” So Exod. 23:7. Psalm 51:4.
And so in the new Testament, Matt. 12:37: “By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned” (i. e. in the day of Judgment: see ver. 36).
(3) In consequence of this sense of the word to justify, it is sometimes used in general for to approve or esteem a person just. So Matt. 11:19, “Wisdom is justified of her children.” In Luke 10:29, 16:15, we read of people who “justified themselves.” Luke 18:14, “The publican went home justified,” (i. e. approved either by God or his own conscience) “rather than the Pharisee”. Luke 7:29, “All the people justified God,” (i. e. declared their approbation of God’s dealings in the mission of John,) “being baptized with John’s baptism.”
(4) So again, to justify is used for to free from burdens or obligations, such as the obligations which a particular law imposes on us, as Rom. 6:7, “He that is dead is freed from sin “ (literally is “justified”, δεδικαίωται).
It appears, then, that in passages where the word “to justify” occurs with no particular reference to the doctrine of this Article, it is almost always used in a sense more or less connected with the ideas of acquittal, pardon, acceptance, or approbation: i. e. in a forensic or judicial sense. It remains to see, whether this is the sense in which St. Paul uses it when directly and especially treating on justification by faith. Now this will appear if we consider and compare the following passages. In Rom. 5:9, we read, “Being justified by His Blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.” With this compare Eph. 1:7, “in whom we have redemption through His Blood, the forgiveness of sins.” Again, if we compare Rom. 3:24, 25, 26, we cannot fail to conclude that justification is a synonym for remission of sins. “Being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, His righteousness, that He might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.”
Then the word justify is used as equivalent to count or impute righteousness and to cover sin. This appears plainly from Rom. 4:5, 6, 7.
Again, by comparing Rom. 5:9 with Rom. 5:10, it seems that to justify is synonymous with to reconcile with God; for πολλω μαλλον δικαιωθέντες, “much more being justified,” in the one verse, answers to πολλω μαλλον καταλλαγέντες, “much more being reconciled,” in the other.
Once more, justification is directly opposed to condemnation, as in Rom. 5:18, “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 unto justification of life.”* Again, in Rom. 8:33, 34, “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth?”**
{*It has been argued, (Bellarm. De Justif 1. 2, c. 3,) that as Adam’s sin was infused into his posterity, so this passage must mean that in justification Christ’s righteousness is infused into His disciples. To which it has been replied, (Barrow, II. Sermon V. p. 80.) that justification and condemnation being “both acts of God, and it being plain that God condemning doth not infuse any inherent unrighteousness into man, neither doth He justifying (formally) (if the antithesis must be pat) put any inherent righteousness into him: inherent unrighteousness in the former case may be a consequent of that condemnation, and inherent righteousness may be connected with this justification; but neither that nor this may formally signify those qualities respectively: as the inherent unrighteousness consequent upon Adam’s sin is not included in God’s condemning, so neither is the inherent righteousness proceeding from our Saviour’s obedience contained in God’s justifying men.”}
{**The antithesis is not in the least degree altered, if the punctuation and translation of this passage, which is more probably correct, be adopted. Τις εγκαλέσει κατα εκλεκτων Θεου, Θεος ο δικαιων; τίς ο κατακρίνων; Χριστος ο αποθανων, κ. τ. λ.: “ Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? Shall God who justifieth? Who is he that condemneth? Is it Christ, who died, &c.?”}
But which is more important than the comparison of particular passages, if we consider the whole course of St. Paul’s reasoning in the earlier chapters of the Romans, we must be led to conclude that by justification he means acquittal from guilt and acceptance with God. He begins by proving that all men, Jews and Gentiles, are condemned by the law (whether of Moses or of nature) under which they lived (Rom. 1, 2). He shows from the Law itself that the Jews as well as the Gentiles were guilty before God (Rom. 3:9–19); and that therefore all the world (if the Gospel be not taken into account) are lying under God’s wrath and subject to His condemnation. And this course of reasoning leads him to the conclusion, that if we would have justification at all it must be not by the works of law, but by the faith of Christ (Rom. 3:20). Now in such a connection, what must justification mean? Man subject to the law (whether revealed or natural) had so much sinned as to be subject to condemnation. The thing to be desired was his justification; which justification could be only by the free grace of God through Christ. Surely then that justification must mean pardon for the sins which he had committed, and deliverance from the condemnation into which his sins had thrown him.
This is further shown immediately afterwards by the case and the language of saints of the old Testament. Abraham was justified (or as it is explained, “accounted righteous”) by faith, not by his own good works and deservings. And David looks on a state of blessedness as one in which a man has “his iniquities forgiven, and his sins covered” (Rom. 4:1–8). The thing then which all the world needed, and which could be obtained only through God’s mercy in Christ, was covering of sin, and forgiveness of iniquity. This therefore must be what St. Paul means by the term Justification.
II. Sense of the word Faith.
Having arrived at a conclusion as to the sense of the words justify and justification, it becomes necessary, in order to appreciate the meaning of the words Justification by faith, and the doctrine expressed by those words, to examine the usages of the term faith in Scripture, and especially in the writings of St. Paul.
According to its derivation the word should mean persuasion of the truth of anything. But this does not decide its force as a theological virtue, still less its signification in the peculiar language of St. Paul. There can be little doubt that it is used in very different senses in different parts of Scripture.
For example: –
1. It is used to signify truth or good faith (like אֶמֶת fides) in Matt. 23:23, “the weightier matters of the Law, judgment, mercy, and faith”; and in Rom. 3:3: “Shall their unbelief make the faith (or faithfulness) of God without effect?”
2. It is used of the assurance given by one person to another, Acts 17:31, “whereof He hath given assurance unto all men” (πίστιν παράσχων πασι).
3. It is used as a term to designate the Christian Religion, “the faith” or “the faith of Christ.” So Acts 6:7, “were obedient to the faith.” Acts 13:8, “seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.” Rom. 1:5, “for obedience to the faith among all nations,” εις υπακοην πίστεως εν πασι τοις έθνεσι (i. e. to convert all nations to the Christian Religion). So 16:26. Comp. Eph. 3:17, 4:5. Phil. 1:25. 1 Tim. 4:1. Tit. 1:1, 4. James 2:1. Jude, 3, 20. Rev. 2:13, 14:12. In this sense St. Paul appears especially to use it in his Epistle to the Galatians; where perhaps we may consider that in his constant antithesis of Law and Faith, he is contrasting the Law of Moses, or the Religion of the Jews, with the Faith of Christ, or the Religion of the Gospel. Some of the more obvious usages of the word in this sense in the Epistle to the Galatians are in the following: Gal. 1:23, “now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed,” 3:23, “Before faith came (προ του δε ελθειν την πίστιν), we were kept under the Law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed” (εις την μέλλουσαν αποκαλυφθηναι πίστιν). The same sense is apparent in the whole context (vv. 24, 25, 26) where it is taught us that both Jews and Gentiles become children of God by the faith (i. e. by embracing the religion or Gospel) of Jesus Christ, having put on Christ by being baptized into Him.
Accordingly, Gal. 6:10, we read of Christians as being οικειοι της πίστεως, servants of the Gospel, domestics of the Christian faith. {So אֶמֶת is used for “true religion,” Ps. 86:11.}
4. There are passages in the Epistles in which it seems plain that faith is spoken of as separable from its results, as an assent to Christian truth without the heart being duly moved by it, and so the life corresponding with it. That is to say, faith is used in that sense which the schoolmen called fides informis.
Thus St. Peter (2 Pet. 1:5) bids men “add to their faith virtue” and all other Christian graces, as though faith might be considered as apart from other graces. St. Paul (1 Cor. 13:2) speaks of a faith strong enough to move mountains, and yet capable of being conceived of as without charity, and so of no value; and in the same chapter (ver. 13) speaks of faith, hope, charity, as three distinct graces, two of which shall pass away, and one, namely, charity, shall abide; and declares this charity to be the greatest of the three. Especially St. James (2:14–26) considers the case of faith without works, and declares such a faith unable to justify.
5. Yet on the other hand, since it is the nature of faith to open the eye of the mind to things spiritual and to bring home to it the view of Heaven, and hell, of God’s justice and mercy, of man’s liability to judgment, and Christ’s Atonement and Mediation; therefore it is most commonly spoken of as an operative and active principle, “purifying the heart” (Acts 15:9), and “working by love” (Gal. 5:6). Accordingly, in Heb. 11 St. Paul attributes to the energy of faith all the holiness and heroism of the saints and martyrs in times of old.
6. Especially, as the principal subjects of God’s revelations are His promises, therefore faith came to mean reroNno-Ls, fiducia, reliance on the truth of God’s promises, or trust in His mercy and grace.
Of such a nature was that faith which gave men strength to benefit by the miraculous powers of Christ and His Apostles, Matt. 9:2, 22: “Thy faith hath made thee whole.” Acts 14:9, St. Paul perceived that the cripple at Lystra “had faith to be healed.” See also, Matt. 8:16, 9:29, 17:20, 21:21. Mark 2:5, 4:40, 5:34; 10:52, 11:22. Luke 5:20, 7:9, 8:25, 48; 17:5, 6; 18:42. Acts 3:16. Jam. 5:15.
So St. James speaks of “praying in faith, nothing wavering” (James 1:6), that is, praying in a spirit of trust in God and reliance on His promises. St. Peter (1 Pet. 5:9) tells us to resist the devil “stedfast in the faith,” i. e. steadily relying on the help of God. Of such a nature seems to be “the shield of faith” (Eph. 6:16), which can “quench the fiery darts of the wicked one.” So we read of “faith and patience,” of “the patience and faith of the saints,” (Rev. 2:19, 13:10), evidently signifying their resignation and trust in God under trials and afflictions. So perhaps we may say that in the above-cited eleventh of Hebrews, faith is represented as a full conviction that what God had promised He was able and willing to perform; hence a trust or reliance on God’s truth and promises, by which men overcame earthly temptations and difficulties, despised the world, and fought a good fight. See especially vv. 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, 26, 27.
Thus much of faith generally. The question next arises, In what sense does St. Paul use the word when he speaks of faith as justifying? Is justifying faith a bare historical assent? Is it but a synonym for the religion of Christ? Is it trust and confidence in God? Is it to be considered, as full of its fruits and lively in its operation, or apart from all such, or at least prior to them?
Let us examine those passages of Scripture, whether St. Paul’s or not, in which it is certain or probable that faith and justification are considered together, and see what attributes are assigned to the faith so spoken of.
Justifying faith then is: –
1. The work and gift of God.
Matt. 16:17. John 6:29, 44, 45. Phil. 1:29.
2. The character of the regenerate.
Compare Gal. 5:6, with Gal. 6:15; whence it will appear that regeneration and justifying faith are used convertibly.
3. The sign of regeneration.
1 John 5:1: “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God,” his faith being the proof of his regeneration.
4. It is seated in the heart, not merely in the understanding. Rom. 10:10: “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness.
5. Is not dead.
See James 2:14–26; which proves clearly that if faith is dead and so without works, it does not profit.
6. But on the contrary, is a full conviction of the truth of God’s promises and reliance on them.
See Heb. 11:19, where Abraham’s faith, when he offered up Isaac, is described as an “accounting that God was able to raise him up even from the dead”; which is the very example adduced by St. Paul when he is specially treating on the subject of justifying faith (Rom. 4:18–20), and by St. James when he is rectifying errors on the same important subject (James 2:23, &c.)
7. It worketh by love.
Gal. 5:6 where we read that that which “availeth” (i. e. justifieth) “in Christ Jesus,” is “faith which worketh by love.”
8. Accordingly it sanctifies.
Acts 26:18: “That they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in Me.”
9. It purifies the heart.
Acts 15:9: “Purifying their hearts by faith.”
10. It overcomes the world.
1 John 5:4: “This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.”
Compare Hebrews 11 throughout the whole of which we have a description of faith as that which overcomes the world. And with this again compare (as before) Rom. 4 where the same kind of reasoning is used, and the same example adduced concerning justifying faith as in Heb. 11 concerning faith in the general.
11. It is evidently connected with its results and by a kind of synecdoche considered as containing them, {See Barrow.} or pregnant with them.
This will plainly appear if we examine the three passages in which Abraham’s faith is said to have been imputed to him for righteousness, i. e. to have been justifying.
Those three passages are Gen. 15:6. Rom. 4. James 2:21–23, to which may be added Heb. 11:8–10.
In Gen. 15 we read of God’s promise to Abraham that he should have a son in his old age whose seed should be as the stars of heaven for multitude. And unlikely as this was, and against all natural probability, Abraham “believed in the Lord; and He counted it to him for righteousness,” ver. 6.
In Rom. 4 St. Paul quotes this instance of Abraham’s faith and illustrates it thus (ver. 18–22): “Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations; according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb; he staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully persuaded that what He had promised He was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.”
Now St. James (2:21–23) reasons on the subject thus: “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God.”
And similar effects of his faith St. Paul himself speaks of, Heb. 11:8: “By faith, Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.”
See also verses 9–12.
From all which passages it is sufficiently apparent, that when the Scriptures speak of the faith of Abraham, which justified him, they understand by it a faith of such nature that a man is persuaded by it to disregard all earthly considerations, and to resign himself, contrary to all his worldly interests, to obedient conformity with the will of God.
12. As it was seen of faith in general, that it had special reference to the promises and mercies of God, so it will be found that justifying faith has special reference to the Person, sufferings, and mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ, and to God’s promises in Him. For example, John 3:14, 15: “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” John 6:40: “This is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life.” Ver. 47: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on Me hath everlasting life.” Acts 10:43: “Through His Name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins.” 16:31: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” Rom. 3:26, 26: “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time, His righteousness, that He might be just, and the justifier of Him which believeth in Jesus.” 10:9: “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” See also John 1:12, 3:16, 18, 36; 5:24, 6:29, 35; 11:25, 26; 16:27; 17:25. Acts 13:38, 39; 20:21. Rom. 3:22, 4:5, 24; 10:4. Philem. 5. 1 John 3:23, 5:1.
So much indeed is this the character of faith, (at least of that active faith which, as we have seen, is the faith which justifies,) that by it Christ is said to dwell in the heart. Ephes. 3:17: “That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith.” And so it not only has reference to the work of Christ for us, but it is both the proof of Christ’s dwelling in us and the instrument whereby He dwells in us.
III. General View of Justification in Scripture.
Having premised thus much concerning the meaning attached to the term Justification, and to the grace of justifying faith by the inspired writers in the new Testament, we may now perhaps proceed to state more fully and formally the doctrine of Scripture concerning justification, or pardon and acceptance with God.
In the general, then, we may state concerning the justification of man, that
1. The moving cause is God’s mercy.
2. The meritorious cause is Christ’s Atonement.
But we know that, notwithstanding the infinite mercy of God, and the fullness and all-sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, yet all men do not benefit by this grace. Therefore we learn that there is need of something internal to connect with the external work of our salvation; Christ in the heart connecting with Christ on the cross; the work of the Spirit to be united to the work of the Redeemer. Hence
3. The immediate efficient cause is the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart by His influences, leads to Christ, regenerates and renews.
4. The first instrument by which God conveys pardon, under ordinary circumstances, is Baptism. Hence this is the first instrument of justification. This will appear from the following.
Even John’s baptism (a fortiori Christ’s) was a “baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,” i. e. for justification. Mark 1:4. Luke 3:3. When our Lord instituted His baptism, it was with the promise that all who so far believed the preaching of the Apostles as to embrace the faith of Christ and be baptized into it “should be saved,” Mark 16:16. When the Apostles were asked by their converts what they should do, they replied, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,” Acts 2:37, 38. After St. Paul’s conversion to the faith, Ananias called on him to “arise and be baptized, and wash away his sins,” Acts 22:16.
The Apostle couples being “washed” with “sanctified and justified,” 1 Cor. 6:11; speaks of the Church as “cleansed with the washing of water,” Eph. 5:26; and places the “washing of regeneration” as a synonym or parallel with the “being justified,” Tit. 3:5, 7. See likewise Rom. 6:4, 7. Col. 2:12, 14. 1 Pet. 3:21, &c.
Baptism is that which places us in a state of covenant with God, and hence, in St. Paul’s words, is that in which “we put on Christ,” and are esteemed “the children of God by the faith in Christ,” Gal. 3:26, 27. Hence a person receiving baptism is put in a position to receive from God the gifts which He has covenanted to give to us in His Son; and the first of those gifts is acceptance into His favour and remission of our sins, that is, justification.
5. The state of heart in which a man must be, who is accepted or justified, is a state of faith, Rom. 10:10. Eph. 3:17. Accordingly, when justification is considered subjectively, or as connected with the state of the Christian’s heart, the instrument is said to be faith. Faith, therefore, may be considered either as the instrument or as the state of justification.
6. When a man is said by St. James to be justified by works; it is not because his works procure him acceptance meritoriously, but because they are the sign, and fruit, and necessary results of that sanctification by the Spirit which unites him to the Atonement of Christ, and are the necessary and inseparable concomitants – or, in fact, parts – of his faith, as much as light is part of the sun, or fruit is part of the tree which bears it.
Such may be fairly considered as a general view of the doctrine of justification as commonly taught in Scripture. But in order to a full investigation of this question, it is necessary to understand the peculiar signification attached by St. Paul to what may be considered his favorite formula, namely: –
IV. Justification by faith.
Now it is quite clear that St. Paul’s great object in the Epistle to the Romans was to put down all claims on the part of man to reward for services done by him to God. Accordingly, in the first three chapters he shows all men, whether Jews or Gentiles, to be sinners, and so deserving, not justification or acquittal, but condemnation. His conclusion is that if we are saved, it must be by the merits of Christ or by free grace only without any claims on our part on the score of desert. This truth he expresses under the formula of “Justification by faith.”
Hence we conclude that, in the language of St. Paul, “justification by faith,” and “free salvation by grace,” are (as it has been seen that Melancthon, the Confession of Augsburg, and our own Article and Homilies, teach) correlative or convertible expressions. The former means the latter.
That this is the case will appear more plainly if we read connectedly but a very few of the passages in which St. Paul especially propounds his doctrine of justification, e. g. Rom. 3:23, 24, 28: “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom, &c. ... therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”
Eph. 2:8: “By grace are ye saved through faith,” &c.
Tit. 3:4, 5, 7: “After that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us ... that being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”
So Rom. 4:25, 5:1, 9, 16, 20, 21, compared together, clearly show the same thing. “Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God,” Rom. 4:25, 5:1. “Much more then, being now justified by His Blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him,” v. 9. “The judgment was by one to condemnation; but the free gift is of many offences unto justification,” ver. 16. “Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ,” vv. 20, 21.
But although we may readily come to the conclusion that justification by faith is little more than a synonymous expression for justification or salvation by free grace, yet we can scarcely doubt that there is something in the nature of faith which especially qualifies it to be put in a formula to denote grace in opposition to claims.
Now this would be the case if faith in the argument of the Epistle to the Romans meant nothing more than “the Christian Religion”; which it sometimes appears to mean, especially in the Epistle to the Galatians. For, as the religion of Christ is that by embracing which we embrace God’s offers and promises of pardon, it might naturally be put to represent those promises and that grace by which pardon is given. But we can hardly conclude that this is the signification of justifying faith in the Epistle to the Romans because St. Paul especially adduces the case of Abraham as a subject of justifying faith (Rom. 4:1, &c.). But Abraham could no more have been considered as justified by the Gospel or the religion of Christ, than any other person under the old dispensation; and could not have been spoken of as living under the Gospel in opposition to such as lived under the Law.
It should appear, therefore, that it is not Christ’s religion, considered as a whole, which is meant by the Apostle when he speaks of justifying faith; but that it is that special religious grace which is called faith, and the qualities of which we have lately investigated. Accordingly we must search for something in the nature of faith itself or of its objects which renders it fit to be put in the formula of St. Paul as the representative of grace and as opposed to self-justifying claims.
1. First then, faith is a state of heart in which a man is, and is not an enumeration of so many works or good deeds which a man has done and for which he may be supposed to claim reward. It therefore fitly and naturally represents a state of grace, in contradistinction to a state of claim, or self-justification. It is that state in which a man is who is regenerate and so in union with Christ. Yet at the same time, as in the case of the penitent thief upon the cross, it may exist even before it can have brought forth external good works, and therefore obviously cannot recommend us to God on the score of meritorious services which we have rendered to Him. It is therefore the symbol of acceptance by free mercy apart from human claims.
2. Next, its character is to rely on the power and promises of God, and not on the strength or works of man. For the eye of faith, seeing Him who is invisible, contrasts His power with its own weakness. Hence it becomes nearly identified with trust (fiducia). Such emphatically was the character of Abraham’s faith, so specially referred to by the Apostle, which led him to leave his country and sacrifice his son, because “he counted Him faithful who had promised.” Hence faith becomes a fit symbol for renunciation of claims and deserts, and trust in God’s mercy and pardoning grace.
3. Faith is, perhaps even more than other graces, clearly and obviously the gift of God. We know that we cannot force or control our own belief, and therefore feel that we require the eyes of our understanding to be enlightened by inspiration from above. Therefore again faith is less likely than other graces to be made a ground for boasting.
4. Lastly, although this may not be its exclusive object, yet its peculiar and principal object is Christ, and His Atonement and Mediation. Hence, according to Luther, faith is “full of Christ.” Hence, according to a greater than Luther, “Christ dwells in our hearts by faith.” Hence faith, leading to Christ and looking to Christ, is, by a natural transition, spoken of in Scripture as if it were invested with attributes which are really above it, and as though it effected that of which it is but the instrument, and whose cause and Author is God in Christ.
To the belief indeed, that justifying faith, as spoken of by St. Paul, means merely a reliance on the Atonement, the often-adduced instance of Abraham seems at first sight opposed. For Abraham, whom St. Paul brings forward as the type of justifying faith, is not spoken of as having full confidence in the pardoning grace of Christ; but his faith in the instance alluded to (Gen. 15:5, 6) had reference to God’s promise that his seed should be as numerous as the stars of Heaven. It was this faith that was counted to him for righteousness; and, though it may be argued that there was in this promise of God concerning his offspring virtually contained a promise of the Messiah; yet it can hardly be said that Abraham’s belief that God would multiply his seed, meant a belief that he should himself be saved by the merits of Christ, and that on this account it was justifying faith.
We must then probably infer that some of the general characters of faith above referred to rendered Abraham acceptable to God; and that so his faith was counted for righteousness. And this consideration certainly causes some little difficulty in our appreciation of the doctrine laid down by St. Paul. Still, if we examine the whole of his reasoning in the first five chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, we shall find that the great object on which he speaks of the Christian’s faith as fixed is the work of Christ, and God’s acceptance of us in Him. Even where he adduces the example of Abraham, and insists that Abraham was justified, not by his own merits, but by his faith; he concludes that in like manner faith shall be imputed to us for righteousness, “if we believe in Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification” (Rom. 4:24, 25). And the following chapter is all devoted to considering the reparation which the righteousness of Christ has made for the ruin which Adam’s sin had produced.
It appears, therefore, that the faith of Abraham must have been alleged, rather as illustrative of, than as identical with, the faith of the Christian. It was of the same kind with the Christian’s faith, in so far as all faith has the same general characters, and has therefore a similar acceptableness with God. But the peculiar faith of the Christian is that by which he apprehends Christ. As the High-priest laid his hand upon the head of the scapegoat, and by confessing, conveyed the sins of the congregation to the scapegoat that they might be taken away, so the believer lays his hand on the Head of the Great Sacrifice. He believes in the Redeemer of the world and in God’s love through Him. His soul rests upon his Saviour. His faith therefore is a bond of union with the incarnate Godhead; and so becomes the instrumental cause of justification in us; the meritorious cause of which is all in Christ.
And on this ground most especially it seems that the Apostle, when labouring to show that human merit and human efforts must fail to bring us to God and to render us acceptable to Him, produces and insists so strongly on his peculiar statement of “Justification by faith.”*
{*This is excellently expressed in the following passage from Cardinal Toletus (in cap. iii. ad Roman. annot. 17) quoted by Bp. Forbes, Considerationes Modestae de Justificatione, Lib. I. C. III. § 17: – Quia nempe in fide magis manifestatur, hominem non propria virtute, sed Christi merito justificari: sicut enim in aspectu in serpentem Deus posuit sanitatem in deserto, quia aspectus magis indicabat, sanari virtute serpentis, non operis alicujus proprii aut medicinae alicujus; ita fides ostendit, justificari peccatores virtute et merito Christi, in quam credentes salvi fiunt, non propria ipsorum virtute et merito. Ea causa est cur fidei tribuitur (justificatio) maxime a S. Paulo qui a justificatione legis opera et humanum meritum aut efficaciam excludere, et in sola Christi virtute et merito collocare nitebatur: idcirco meminit fidei in Christum. Hoc nec poenitentia nec dilectio nec spes habent. Fides enim immediatius ac distinctius in Eum fertur, cujus virtute justificamur.}
V. Certain questions on the Doctrine of Justification.
1. Is justification an act or a state?
Some persons have decided that it is an act, taking place at a particular moment, never to be repeated. Others, that it is a state which continues or is lost as the case may be.
If it be the former, it must be limited either (1) to baptism when, as has been shown, there is promise of remission of sins; or (2) to the moment which may be considered as the turning point from a life of sin to a life of repentance, faith, and holiness, – a moment known only to God; or (3) to the day of Judgment, when the wicked shall be condemned, and the pious shall be absolved or justified. Either or all of these may be considered as the moment of transition from condemnation to justification, or pardon and acceptance.
But Scripture seems rather to represent justification as a state of acceptance before God. It is quite certain, that some persons are represented as in favour, grace, or acceptance with God, that is justified; others as under His wrath and liable to condemnation. The prophet Ezekiel (33:12–19) contrasts the condition of the righteous and the wicked, showing the one to be a condition of acceptance, the other of condemnation: the former continuing so long as the character continues the same, and lost as soon as that character is lost; the latter in like manner continuing until the wickedness is forsaken and the life renewed, and then giving place to the former, the condition of favour or pardon. In like manner our Lord (John 15:1–10) speaks of His disciples as clean through His word, and continuing so whilst they abide in Him; but if they abide not in Him, then to be cast forth as a branch, withered, and even burned (see especially vv. 3–6). Language just similar to this is used by St. Paul (see Rom. 6:1, 2, 19; 11:20, 21. Gal. 5:4. Col. 1:22, 23. Heb. 10:38, 39). From all which we can hardly fail to conclude that justification before God is a state in which a person continues so long as he continues united to Christ, abiding in Him, having Christ dwelling in his heart, being the subject of His grace, and of the sanctification of the Spirit.
If therefore the premises are correct, we may define justification to be a state of pardon and acceptance in the presence of God, bestowed upon us freely for Christ’s sake by the mercy of God which is first given in baptism to all who receive that sacrament aright, which continues so long as the subject continues in a state of faith, which fails when he falls from the state of faith, and which is restored again when by grace and repentance he is restored to a state of faith. So that we may say, whilst in a state of faith, so long in a state of justification: whilst a believer, so long a justified person. Hence too, concerning the distinction drawn by Luther, that faith is alone when it justifies, and that after justification is effected, then come in charity, and good works, and holiness, we may infer that such a distinction can be true only when considered in the abstract, but not as a matter of practical experience. For practically and really, where there is acceptance, there is faith and sanctification, and springing from them and reigning with them are all the graces of a Christian’s life.
2. It having been laid clown, that faith (foeta operibus) may be considered, either as the state or the instrument of justification; it may be a question, whether we ought to say that faith, or faith and good works, or faith and holiness, are the condition or conditions of justification.
The answer to this question, as given by many divines of high authority in the Church, has been in the affirmative. But the question is whether or not we can deduce an affirmative answer from the Scripture. No doubt, faith and holiness are, as regards justification, graces sine quibus non. There is no justification nor salvation where there is not faith, love, holiness, obedience. But when we state that faith and good works are conditions, we in effect suppose the Almighty to offer us what have been called the Terms of the Gospel; terms that is of the following kind: “Now that by Christ’s mediation God’s wrath has been appeased, if you will repent, believe, and obey, you shall be saved.” Conditions imply a bargain of this kind. Now there may be no objection to looking on the matter in some such light as this; but it does not appear to be the form in which the Scriptures represent God’s dealings with us. The new Testament seems to speak of us as pensioners on the bounty of God’s grace. Especially when justification by faith is spoken of, “it is of faith, that it might be by grace,” Rom. 4:16. And though it is true that it would be an act of immeasurable grace for God to pardon our past sins, on condition that, by His help, we avoided sin and lived holily for the future, yet this does not appear to be the statement anywhere made by the Apostles; nor does such an act of grace come up to the standard of that infinite mercy of God in Christ Jesus, which is revealed to us in the Gospel. It has already been shown that one peculiar reason why justification by faith represents free salvation by grace is that faith is itself most clearly “the gift of God.” Therefore it is spoken of as the instrument of our justification, not because it is a condition, which we can make with Him, but because it is itself a gift which He bestows on us.
Besides, if we could make conditions with God, even after He had accepted an atonement for the past, it might be hard to say that “boasting” was altogether “excluded” (Rom. 3:27). Excluded indeed it might be in strict justice, because the forgiving of past sins and the accepting of imperfect obedience for the future would be of itself an act of boundless grace when we deserve nothing but condemnation. But still, comparing ourselves with ourselves, we might easily be inclined to feel proud of even imperfect obedience, if it were made the condition of our salvation. Therefore, we may perhaps fairly conclude that salvation is not of works, not merely not as the cause, but not even as the terms or conditions of out justification. Nor is faith itself the condition on which God accepts us, although it is the instrument by which He justifies us and the state in which we are when justified.
3. Whereas it is taught by St. Paul that a man is justified by faith, and yet it is taught both by St. Paul and throughout the new Testament that we shall be judged according to our works,* are we driven to conclude that there is an inconsistency in the statements of Scripture?
{*See, for instance, Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; 1 Cor. 3:8; 2 Cor. 5:10; 1 Peter 1:17; Rev. 2:23, 20:13, 22:12.}
The answer to this is, that as all persons who are justified are regenerate and in a state of faith, their faith and regeneration will necessarily be to them the source of holiness and good works. Now the clearest tokens both to men and angels of their internal condition of faith and sanctification must be their good works; nay, the clearest proof even to themselves. Hence, that they should be judged by their works, and rewarded according to their works, is thoroughly consistent with God’s dispensations. The meritorious cause indeed of their salvation is Christ’s Atonement; the instrument by which they are brought into covenant with God is baptism; the means whereby their state of acceptance is maintained is faith; but the criterion by which their final state will be determined shall be works. And all these are so knit up together in the redeemed, regenerate, believing, sanctified Christian, that it is nowise derogating from the excellence of the one to ascribe its proper office in the economy of salvation to the other.
4. The ordinary instruments of justification being baptism and faith, can a person be justified where either of these is wanting?
That persons can be justified without faith where faith is impossible may appear from the case of infants. Though they are too young for active faith, yet clearly are they not so for salvation, nor therefore for justification. Our Lord bids us bring little children to Him, and says that “of such is the Kingdom of Heaven” (Mark 10:14). And St. Paul says, the children of believing parents are holy (1 Cor. 7:14). And if infant baptism be a custom for which we have sufficient authority, then, as baptism is for the remission of sins, it follows that infants in baptism may receive remission of sins or justification, though not vet capable of faith. Similar reasoning is applicable to the case of idiots, or persons otherwise irresponsible, who like infants are incapable of active faith, but of whom we may reasonably hope that they are not incapable of salvation. As regards baptism, that as a general rule it is the ordinance of God without which we cannot look for the promises of God is quite apparent from passages already referred to, such as Mark 16:16. Acts 22:16. Gal. 3:26, 27, &c. In these and similar passages remission of sins is promised to such as believe the Gospel and submit to baptism. Yet, as we have seen concerning faith, that though generally necessary, yet cases may and do exist where it is impossible, and so not required, in like manner we may reasonably conclude that cases may exist in which baptism may be dispensed with. Though Christ has appointed baptism, and we have no right to look for His blessing if we neglect it, yet we cannot presume to limit His mercy even by His own ordinances. Indeed, we find in the Acts of the Apostles (10:4, 44) a case, the case of Cornelius in which God accepted and poured His Holy Spirit on a person who had not been baptized; and though St. Peter thought it necessary that baptism should be at once administered to him, and thereby taught us the deep value of that Sacrament, still this case sufficiently shows that God does at times work without the intervention of means appointed by Himself, and therefore teaches us that we must not exclude from salvation those who from ignorance or inability have not received the blessing of baptism.
5. Is the language of St. James opposed to the doctrine of St. Paul?
It has been already seen that St. Paul means by Justification by faith, free salvation by God’s grace; and that where he speaks of faith as the instrument of justification, he means a lively faith productive of good works. (See especially Rom. 6.) St. James probably wrote against such as abused the doctrine of St. Paul, and taught that a speculative barren faith, or mere orthodoxy, was sufficient for salvation without the fruits of faith. Accordingly, he asks, “Can this faith save him?” He says, “Faith, if it have not works, is dead, being alone.”* But it must be observed that St. Paul never speaks of a dead faith as profiting. On the contrary, he declares that faith without charity would be nothing (1 Cor. 13:2). It is plain, therefore, that St. Paul considers faith as pregnant with its results, though not as justifying because of its results, and does not design to put in opposition to one another faith and the good works which naturally spring out of a lively faith, but rather faith and legal works, – “the works of the Law,” – works done in a self-justifying spirit, and looked on as meriting reward. Faith, therefore, he declares, justifies without such works, – the works of the Law; but he does not say that a faith which does not bring forth the works of faith, will justify. On the other hand, St. James asserts that faith will not justify, if it do not bring forth good works; but by good works he means evangelical works, the works of faith, not legal works, the works of the Law. Hence, there is no necessary contradiction in the language of the two Apostles. St. James simply considers justifying faith as including the works of faith. St. Paul considers justifying faith as excluding the works of the Law. {Sine operibus fidei, non legis, mortua est fides. – Meson. in Gal. 3. Ille dicit de operibus quae fidem praecedunt, iste de iis quae fidem sequuntur. – Augustin. Liber de Diversis Quaestionibus. Quaest. 76, Tom. VI. p. 68.}
{*James 2:14, 17. Many people have endeavoured to reconcile St. Paul and St. James, by supposing that the former speaks of justification before God, the latter of justification in the sight of men. But it is quite clear that St. James speaks of the same kind of justification as St. Paul, from James 2:14, 23. In the former verse he speaks of faith without works as not capable of saving a man; i.e. of course, of justifying him before God, for justification before man can never save. And in the latter verse he adduces the case of Abraham, as of one who had a faith which brought forth works, and says, it was this kind of faith which was imputed to him for righteousness, i.e, clearly before God. Evidently the two apostles differ in their use of the word “faith,” not in their use of the word “justify.” Both speak of justification before God: but one says that we are justified by faith, i.e. by a living faith; the other denies that we are justified by mere faith, i. e. (according to his own explanation) by a dead faith.}
{[On the dispute with regard to fides informis and fides formata (see p. 291), the following remark deserves attention: “There is probably some truth on each side. We are justified by a faith which is at least potentially a fides formata; although the office of justifying belongs not to the works of faith but to faith itself.” England vs. Rome (H. B. Swete), p. 35, note. – J. W.]}
Of Good Works.
Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith; insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree discerned by the fruit.
De Bonis Operibus.
Bona opera, quae sunt fructus fidei, et justificatos sequuntur, quanquam peccata expiare, et divini judicii severitatem ferre non possunt: Deo tamen grata sunt, et accepta in Christo, atque ex vera et viva fide necessario profluunt, ut plane ex illis, aeque fides viva cognosci possit, atque arbor ex fructu judicari.
Section I – History
The great length at which the last Article was considered renders it less necessary to say much upon this. Our present twelfth Article did not exist in the forty-two Articles of King Edward’s reign, but was added in the year 1562, after the accession of Queen Elizabeth. It is evidently intended as a kind of supplement to the eleventh, lest that should be supposed to teach Solifidianism. Archbishop Laurence traces the wording of it to a passage in the Wirtemburg Confession, to which it certainly bears great resemblance.*
{*The passage is:–
Bonis Operibus.
Non est autem sentiendum, quod in bonis operibus, quae per nos facimus, in judicio Dei, ubi agitur de expiatione peccatorum, et placatione divinae irae, ac merito aeternae salutis, confidendum sit. Omnia enim bona opera, quae nos facimus, sunt imperfecta, nec possunt severitatem divini judicii ferre. – Laurence, B. L. Notes on Serm. II. p. 235.}
The general object of the Article was, no doubt, to oppose the Antinomian errors which had originated with Agricola, and which there was some danger might spring from Lutheranism. {Mosh. Ch. Hist. Cent. XVI. § III. pt. II. as quoted in the last Article.} With such the whole Reformation was charged by the divines of the Roman communion, and therefore it was the more needful that the reformers should protest against them.
There are certain particular expressions also in the Article which require to be explained historically. We have seen that the schoolmen talked of good works, done without the grace of God, meriting grace de congruo. “To this Luther and the reformers opposed the statement that works done without the grace of God might be apparently, but were not really good. And to this purpose is the thirteenth Article of our Church, which we have soon to consider. Luther asserted that good works which are pleasing to God are not wrought but in faith; for “whatever is not of faith is sin”; and where there is faith, there is justification; therefore good works follow, not precede justification. Our Article uses this language without in this place discussing the merits of it. In the thirteenth Article the question is more fully entered on. It may be mentioned that language very similar had before been used by Augustine, and from him very probably was it borrowed by Luther. “Good works,” says that father, “follow a man’s justification, do not precede it in order that he may be justified.” {Sequuntur opera bona justificatum, non praecedunt justificandurn. – De Fide et Operibus, C. 14.}
Another expression in the Articles is, that “good works cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God’s judgment.” In the historical account of the last Article we saw that the Council of Trent condemned Luther for denying intrinsic goodness to works done after grace, and asserted that, as they were wrought by the Spirit of God, they were essentially good and perfect. The Council also taught that to the justified God’s commandments are possible, that justification is preserved and increased by good works, that the good works of the just, which are the gifts of God, are withal the merits of the justified. {Session VI. Canons 18, 24, 32.}
We have seen also that Bellarmine and the Romanist divines assert, that good works which are wrought in us by the grace of God are by virtue of that grace meritorious of eternal life; {Bellarmine, De Justificatione, Lib. V. cap. 12, quoted in the History of Art. XI.} i.e. according to the schoolmen, they merit reward de condigno. The words of our Article are evidently opposed to these opinions. For, though they speak plainly of the necessity and value of works wrought by grace, they declare that “they cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s judgment.”
Section II – Scriptural Proof
We may perceive, from what has been said, that the Article opposes three doctrines.
I. Merit de congruo; – II. Merit de condigno; – III. Antinomianism.
Or otherwise the Article teaches: –
I. That good works follow after justification;
II. That though they spring from the grace of God and a lively faith, still they cannot put away sin and endure the severity of God’s judgment.
III. Yet (1) that in Christ they are pleasing to God: and (2) That they spring out necessarily of a true and lively, i. e. a justifying faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree is discerned by its fruit.
I. The question of merit de congruo and works before justification being the special subject of the next Article, we may defer its consideration till we consider that Article.
II. That the good works of justified men are not perfect enough to put away sin, and endure the severity of God’s judgment, may be proved as follows.
Our Lord tells us, that after we have done all that is commanded us “we are still unprofitable servants, having done only that which was our duty to do” (Luke 17:10). But, if this be the case, how can we ever do anything to put away our former sins? Our best deeds leave us still unprofitable; and if we had never sinned, we should still have only done our duty, and could claim no reward. But when we have sinned, it is clear that no degree of subsequent obedience (which would have been due even if we had not sinned) can cancel the sins which are past. And to this we must add that, even under grace, obedience is never perfect. “In many things we offend all,” says St. James (3:2); and St. John tells us that “if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves” (1 John 1:8). And both the Apostles are evidently speaking to and of regenerate Christians. The Psalmist prays God not to “enter into judgment with him, because in His sight no man living could be justified” (Psalm 143:2). Accordingly, St. Paul argues that the person who is blessed in God’s sight is not the man who lives blameless in the Law, but “he whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins aro covered,” even “the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin” (Rom. 4:7, 8). “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God; “and therefore must be “justified freely by His grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:23, 24). Such passages fully prove that in whatever strength or power good works are wrought, they are not perfect enough to put away sin and to endure the judgment of God.
Still, though the Church denies the merit of good works, and their sufficiency to screen us from the wrath and endure the judgment of God, she yet teaches,
III. 1. That in Christ, they are pleasing and acceptable to God; and 2, that they do necessarily spring out of a true and lively faith.
1. In Christ they are pleasing and acceptable to God.
(1). The words in Christ are introduced to remind us that whatever is good in us must spring from the grace of Christ, and whatever in us is acceptable to God is acceptable for Christ’s sake. In all the servants of Christ, God sees the image of His Son. In all the members of Christ God sees the Spirit of His Son descending from the Head to the Members, like the holy oil on Aaron’s head which flowed down to the skirts of his clothing. In all the branches of the heavenly Vine God sees the fruit thereof as put forth by virtue of the life and nourishment derived from the Vine itself; and that Vine is Christ. In every wedding guest who has on the wedding garment, the King sees the wearer clothed in the robe of His own Son, and acknowledges them all as His children: “for we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus: for as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:26, 27). Accordingly, the Scriptures constantly, when they speak of Christians and the works of Christians as pleasing to God, teach us that it is “in Christ.” So we read, “There is now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1). “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love” (Gal. 5:6). “We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works” (Ephes. 2:10). We are to “do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Col. 3:17). We are to “offer spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 2:5). We are to “give thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. 5:20). “By Him we are to offer the sacrifices of praise to God” (Heb. 13:15).
(2) But then the good deeds which Christians perform in Christ are pleasing and acceptable to God.
Our Lord tells us, that “not every one that saith unto Him, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven; but he that doeth the will of His Father which is in Heaven” (Matt. 7:21). He assures us of the reward of those who have left all for His sake, that they shall receive a hundredfold, and eternal life (Mark 10:29, 30). He tells us, that, “if we forgive, we shall be forgiven; that if we give, it shall be given to us” (Mark 11:26; Luke 6:37, 38). He shows us by parables that those who of two talents make five shall receive five cities; those who make of five talents ten, shall receive ten cities (Matt. 25:14–30. Compare Luke 19:12–26). He tells us that at the judgment day they who have fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and visited the afflicted, shall be placed on the right hand, and go into life eternal (Matt. 25:31–46). He tells us of “a prophet’s reward,” and “a righteous man’s reward” (Matt. 10:41, 42). And, in short, assures us that He will “reward every man according to his works” (Matt. 16:27).
So, from His Apostles we learn, that “in every nation he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness is accepted with Him” (Acts 10:35): that the sacrifice of our bodies is “acceptable to God” (Rom. 12:1): that the labour of Christ’s servants “shall not be in vain in the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58): that “God loveth a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7): that, if we are not “weary in well-doing, in due season we shall reap, if we faint not” (Gal. 6:9): that our new creation in Christ Jesus is “unto good works, which God hath beforehand ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10): that the new man “after God is created in righteousness and true holiness” (Eph. 4:24): that our call is “not to uncleanness, but to holiness” (1 Thess. 4:7): that “every one who narneth the name of Christ must depart from iniquity” (2 Tim. 2:19); must “be careful to maintain good works” (Tit. 3:8): that “without holiness no man shall see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14): that with “such sacrifices” for His service “God is well pleased” (Heb. 13:16): that “pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” (Jas. 1:27): that faith without works will not profit (Jas. 2:14): that “to do well and suffer for it, and take it patiently, is acceptable to God” (1 Pet. 2:20): that whatsoever we ask of God we receive, if “we keep His commandments, and do those things which are pleasing in His sight”: and that “he that keepeth His commandments dwelleth in Him, and He in him” (1 John 3:22, 24. Compare Rom. 6 passim, Rom. 8:1–14, and the concluding chapters of all St. Paul’s Epistles).
Thus we plainly see that good works wrought in Christ are not only useful and desirable, but are absolutely necessary for every Christian, and are pleasing and acceptable to God. “We do not take away the reward, because we deny the merit of good works. We know that in the keeping of God’s commandments there is great reward (Ps. 19:11); and that unto him that soweth righteousness there shall be a sure reward (Prov. 11:18). But the question is whence he that soweth in this manner must expect to reap so great and so sure a harvest; whether from God’s justice, which he must do, if he stand upon merit, or from His mercy, as a recompense freely bestowed out of God’s gracious bounty, and not in justice due for the worth of the work performed. Which question, we think the prophet Hosea hath sufficiently resolved, when he biddeth us sow to ourselves in righteousness, and reap in MERCY (Hos. 10:12). Neither do we hereby any whit detract from the truth of that axiom, that God will give every man according to his works; for still the question remaineth the very same, whether God may not judge a man according to his works, when He sitteth upon the throne of grace, as well as when He sitteth upon the throne of justice? And we think here, that the Prophet David hath fully cleared the case in that one sentence, Psalm 62:12, ‘With thee, O Lord, is MERCY; for thou rewardest every one according to his work.’
“Originally therefore, and in itself, we hold that this reward proceedeth merely from God’s free bounty and mercy; but accidentally, in regard that God hath tied Himself by His word and promise to confer such a reward, we grant that it now proveth in a sort to be an act of justice; even as in forgiving of our sins, which in itself all men know to be an act of mercy, He is said to be faithful and just (1 John 1:9), namely, in regard of the faithful performance of His promise.” {Usher, Answer to a Jesuit, ch. XII.}
To conclude, then, the Scriptures prove, and the Church teaches that, not upon the ground of merit, but yet according to God’s will and appointment, good works, wrought in Christ, are necessary for every Christian, are pleasing and acceptable to God, and will in the end receive “great recompense of reward,” even that “crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give in that day” (2 Tim. 4:8).
2. That good works “do spring out necessarily of a true and living faith,” is a proposition which may be considered to have been incidentally but fully proved in treating on the eleventh Article. It may therefore here be sufficient to refer but briefly to a few of the passages of Scripture in which this is most plainly set forth.
The sixth chapter of Romans throughout is an explanation entered into by the Apostle to show that this doctrine of justification does not supersede the necessity of good works; inasmuch as justified persons walk in newness of life, are made free from sin, and become servants of righteousness. The eleventh chapter of Hebrews is an enumeration of signal works of holiness, which were produced through the energizing power of the faith by which the saints of old lived and acted. St. James, in his famous chapter (2:14–26), explains at length that if faith be living, it will necessarily bring forth works, and that if there be no works, the faith is dead. We read of being “sanctified by faith” in Christ (Acts 26:18). God is said to “purify the heart by faith” (Acts 15:9). Faith is said to be “the victory which overcometh the world” (1 John 5:4). The faith which “availeth in Christ Jesus,” is called “faith which worketh by love” (Gal. 5:6).
Perhaps the strongest proof of this proposition is that in all those writings of St. Paul (especially his Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians) where he peculiarly treats of faith, he passes directly from faith to speak of holiness, counselling Christians, as the consequence of his doctrine concerning faith, to bring forth good works. This we may observe in the latter chapters of both these Epistles, and indeed of all his Epistles. The eleventh chapter of Hebrews indeed, which professes to explain to us what faith is, does so almost entirely by giving a list of the works which have sprung from it; just as one who wished to describe the excellence of a fruit tree would dwell chiefly on the beauty and goodness of its fruit.
We may be assured, therefore, that we cannot assign too high a place to good works, so long as we do not assign to them the power of meriting salvation. They spring from faith, and they feed faith; for the more faith is called into action, the brighter and the stronger it grows. And as in the bodily economy of man, good health gives birth to good spirits, and yet again, good spirits support and invigorate health; so it is in his spiritual life. Faith gives rise to holiness, and holiness gives energy to faith.
Of Works before Justification.
Works done before the Grace of Christ, and the inspiration of His Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ; neither do they make men meet, to receive grace, or (as the school-authors say) deserve grace of congruity; yea, rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.
De Operibus aate Justificationem.
Opera quae fiunt ante gratiam Christi et Spiritus ejus afflaturn, cum ex fide Jesu Christi non prodeant, minime Deo grata sunt; neque gratiam, ut multi vocant, de congruo merentur; immo cum non sint facta, ut Deus illa fieri voluit et praecepit, peccati rationem habere non dubitamus.
Section I – History
This Article is intimately connected with the four preceding Articles and is intended, probably, to prevent any mistakes, and more fully to explain some points in them.
In the former Articles an account has been given of most of the errors against which this Article is directed; and the very wording of it shows that the scholastic doctrine of congruous merit is especially aimed at. Here, however, it may be proper to remark that the question has arisen concerning the nature of heathen virtue, a question of great difficulty, on which the fathers touched, both before and after the Pelagian controversy. Clement of Alexandria particularly speculated much upon the mode in which God’s grace and the teaching of Christ visited men before the coming of the Gospel. “His notion was that philosophy was given to the Gentiles by God for the same purpose for which the Law was given to the Jews: in order to prepare them for justification under the Gospel by faith in Christ.” “It is certain, however, that Clement did not believe that heathen virtue possessed of itself any efficacy towards justification. For he says, that every action of the heathen is sinful, since it is not sufficient that an action is right; its object or aim must also be right.” {Bishop Kaye, on the Writings of Clement of Alexandria, p. 426. See also pp. 122, seq.}
Indeed, these opinions of Clement do not seem to interfere at all with the doctrine of this Article; for Clement evidently considered that God mysteriously worked in the Gentiles by His grace; using, as an external means, the imperfect instrument of their own philosophy. So that whatever good he thought might have existed in heathens he still ascribed to God’s grace and therefore did not consider their goodness “as works done before the grace of Christ.” {See Bishop Kaye, as above, p. 122, &c.}
We have already seen, how the Pelagians and Semi-pelagians {See History of Art. IX and X.} denied the necessity of preventing grace; and held that, in the first instance, God only called men by His word and ordinances, and that by their own strength such as were called might turn to God and seek His assistance.
In controversy, they appear to have referred to the case of virtuous heathens, many of whom might put to shame the lives of Christians. To Julianus, who advances this argument, Augustine replies at great length. Augustine’s position was, that “what was not of faith was sin.” Julianus supposes the case of a heathen, who covers the naked and does works of mercy; and asks, “If a Gentile have clothed the naked, is this act of his therefore sin, because it is not of faith?” {Si gentilis, inquis, nudum operuerit, numquid quia non est ex fide, peccatum est?} Augustine replies that it is; “not because the simple act of covering the naked is sin, but because none but the impious would deny that not to glory in the Lord, on account of such a work, was sin.” {Prorsus in quantum non est ex fide, peccatum est. Non quia per se ipsum factum est, quod est nudum operire, peccatum est; sed de tali opere non in Domino gloriari, solus impius negat esse peccatum. – Cont. Julianum, Lib. IV. C. 30.} He then goes on to argue, that a bad tree cannot bring forth really good fruit, that an unbelieving tree is a bad tree, and that apparently good works are not always really so, as the clemency of Saul in sparing Agag was sin. So he, who does unbelievingly, whatever he does, does ill; and he who does ill, sins. {Cap. 31.} The good works which an unbeliever does are the works of Him who turns evil to good. But without faith we cannot please God. {Cap. 32.} If the eye be evil, the whole body is dark; whence we may learn that he who does not do good works with the good intention of a good faith (that is, of a faith which worketh by love), his whole body is full of darkness. And since the good works, or apparent good works, of unbelievers cannot bring them to Heaven, we ought to hold that true goodness can never be given but by the grace of God through Christ, so as to bring a man to the kingdom of God. {Aut certe quoniam saltem concedis opera infidelium, quae tibi eorum videntur bona, non tamen eos ad salutem sempiternam regnumque perducere: scito nos illud bonum hominum dicere, illam voluntatem bonam, illud opus bonum, sine Dei gratia quae dater per unum Mediatorem Dei et hominum nemini posse conferri; per quod solum homo potest ad aeternum Dei donum regnumque perduci. Cap. 33. See also Augustine, De Fide et Operibus, where, in opposition to the Pelagian opinion that good works must be added to faith, he contends that good works spring from faith.}
This was the kind of reasoning which the fathers of that day used against the Pelagian arguments that truly good deeds might be done without the grace of God. {The reader may see many passages from Jerome, Prosper, and others, to the same effect, in Usher’s Answer to a Jesuit, ch. XI.}
The doctrine of the schoolmen concerning grace of congruity bore a suspicious resemblance to that of Semi-pelagians. In the history of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh Articles enough has been said on this subject; and of the zeal with which Luther maintained the absolute necessity of preventing grace, in order that man should make any efforts or take any steps towards godliness. {See especially Luther on Gal. 2:16.}
The case of Cornelius (Acts 10) was an argument often made use of in favour of grace of congruity. He, it was said, was a Gentile, and therefore not under the influence of God’s grace; and yet it was told him, “Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God” (ver. 4). Hence it was argued that he did what was acceptable to God, though without the grace of God.
Luther treats Cornelius as a man who had faith in a promised Mediator, although he did not yet know that that Mediator was come; and so he argues that his good deeds were of faith and therefore acceptable. {Luther on Gal. 3:2.}
At the Council of Trent the general opinion was strongly against Luther on these points. Catarinus indeed maintained, with great learning, that “man, without the special help of God, can do no work which may be truly good, though morally, but sinneth still.” In confirmation of which, he quoted Augustine, Ambrose, Prosper, Anselm, and others. He was violently opposed by the Franciscans, but supported by the Dominicans. {Sarpi, pp. 183–185.}
In the end, the seventh canon of the sixth session of the council condemned those who said, “ That works done before justification are sins, and that a man sinneth the more, by how much the more he laboureth to dispose himself to grace.” {Session VI. Can. 7, and Sarpi, p. 210.} Which canon does not exactly contradict the words of our Article, except it be in the last sentence of it.
The Lutheran Confessions of faith speak very reasonably on this subject. The twentieth article of the Confession of Augsburg states a principal reason for maintaining justification by faith to be, that we might not think to deserve grace by our own good works antecedent to grace. {Sylloge, pp, 130, 131.}
Our own reformers seem to have been influenced by a very similar view. The Homilies say, that “without faith can no good work be done, accepted and pleasant to God.” “Without faith all that is done of us is but dead before God; although the work seem never so gay and glorious before man.” {First part ofr Homily on Good Works.}
Again, “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 which maketh man good, but he is first made good by the Spirit and grace of God, that effectually worketh in him, and afterwards he bringeth forth good fruits.” {Second part of the Homily on Almsdeeds.}
“They are greatly deceived that preach repentance without Christ, and teach the simple and ignorant that it consisteth only in the works of men. They may indeed speak many things of good works, and of amendment of life and manners: but without Christ they be all vain and unprofitable. They that think that they have done much of themselves towards repentance are so much the farther from God, because they do seek those things in their own works and merits which ought only to be sought in our Saviour Jesus Christ and in the merits of His death and passion and bloodshedding.” {First part of the Homily of Repentance.}
Section II – Scriptural Proof
The subjects embraced by the Article are, –
I. That works before grace and the inspiration of the Spirit are not pleasing to God, forasmuch as they are not of faith.
II. They do not make men meet to receive grace de congruo.
III. Rather, as not being done as God hath willed, it is believed that they have the nature of sin.
Of these three positions, the second must follow from the proof of the first. For if good works without grace are not pleasing to God, they cannot predispose to grace. As regards the title of the Article, “Of Works before Justification,” we may observe that if was probably adopted because the question discussed in the Article itself went, at the time of the Reformation and the Council of Trent, under that name.* All questions concerning merit de congruo and works done before grace were considered as embraced in the general term, “the question concerning works before justification”. The Article itself says nothing about justification. All that it determines is that, in order for works to be acceptable to God, they must be done by the grace of God and must spring from a principle of faith.
{*Luther had used this language, that a man was justified first, and then did good works: and so “works before justification” became a common expression. Our Church in the XIIth Article speaks of good works as “following after justification”. We are not, of course, bound to consider that every act of a man, who is not in a state of full sanctification, is therefore devoid of goodness and of the nature of sin. This article sufficiently explains both its own meaning and the meaning of the phrase, “follow after justification,” in the XIIth Article, namely, that no works are good which do not come of grace.}
Against the whole tenor of the Article, and in favour of all which it condemns, the principal arguments from Scripture are such as these. Certain passages of Scripture seem to speak highly of particular individuals, who were not Christians or true believers, e. g. Naaman the Syrian, and Cornelius the centurion. They had not the faith of Christ, and yet their good deeds are approved. It may, however, be replied that both of them evidently acted from a principle of faith. Naaman went to the prophet and sought relief, because he believed that, as a prophet, he had power to heal him. Again, Cornelius, though not a Jew, was evidently a believer in the One true God, a proselyte of the gate, if not a proselyte of righteousness; and therefore we cannot say that he had no faith, nor that he was without the grace of God.
The same may be said of the Ninevites. Their repentance, it is argued, was accepted by God; and yet they were heathens and therefore not true believers. But it is certain that their repentance sprang from their faith in Jonah’s preaching, and may very probably have been produced by that Holy Spirit who at all times has striven with men: and hence it was not of the nature of simple, naked, unassisted efforts to do good.
A stronger argument against the doctrine of this Article seems derivable from the language of St. Paul, Rom. 2:14, 26, 27. There he speaks of the Gentiles or heathens, “which have not a law,” and yet “do by nature the things contained in the Law,” and so “are a law unto themselves.” And he says, that “if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the Law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the Law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the Law?” Here the apostle seems to speak as if the heathen, who had not the revealed knowledge of God’s will, yet might so do His will as to be acceptable with Him.
In like manner, many learned men, of the Reformed Communions, as well as of the Roman, understand St. Paul’s reasoning in Gal. 4 to be like what was shown in the last Section to have been the opinion of Clement of Alexandria; namely, that before the Gospel both Jews and Gentiles were kept by God in a state of bondage or tutelage, waiting for the liberty of the children of God that to the heathen their condition was one of elementary servitude, preparatory to the Gospel, as was that of the Jews. If the first seven verses of this chapter be compared carefully with the eighth and ninth, there will appear some ground for such an interpretation. From these passages it is argued, that heathens, who could not have faith and were not subjects of grace, were yet capable in their degree of pleasing God.
To this reasoning we may reply, that nothing can be more obscure than the question as to God’s dealings with and purposes concerning the heathen world. Revelation is addressed to those whom it concerns and tells us very little of the state of those to whom it is not addressed. Our business is to follow Christ and not to ask “Lord, and what shall this man do?” There is a marked purpose in Scripture not to satisfy man’s idle curiosity. The question therefore at times so much debated, whether it be possible or impossible that the benefits of Christ’s redemption should reach to those millions of human beings who never have heard and never could hear of Him, is left in deep obscurity; and when people have reasoned on the subject, their arguments have mostly been inferences deduced from other doctrines and not express statements of Scripture.
This much, however, we may fairly conclude, that if the passages just referred to prove that the heathen can do what is pleasing to God and be accepted by Him, it is because His Holy Spirit can plead with them, even through the imperfect means of natural religion. St. Paul says, it was God’s will that men “should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him” (Acts 17:27). And he is there speaking of the world in its times of heathen darkness. It is possible that there may have been an imperfect faith, even “in times of ignorance which God winked at”. We know not, but that they who touched but the hem of Christ’s garment, may have found virtue go out of it.
But with regard to the teaching of our Article, we may fairly conclude that it rather refers to the case of persons within, not without the sound of the Gospel. This is the practical question. It does not concern us practically to know how it may be with the heathen ; although, of course, their case affects the general question. And the case of the heathen is so obscure, that we can hardly be justified in bringing it to throw light on a case which concerns ourselves and our own state before God.
But it may be farther said that God approves of justice, and temperance, and charity, in themselves, and of themselves; and therefore if a man who has neither faith nor grace, acts justly, and does mercy, and lives soberly, God must approve and be pleased with such acts, just as he would disapprove and hate the contrary. But, in reply, it is urged, that God sees the heart, and loves what is good in us, only when it springs from a good source. Indeed, there are some sinners much greater sinners than others, whom He will visit with “greater damnation.” But though in themselves He loves justice and mercy, He does not love and accept the man who does them, unless that man does them from right motives; and as “every good and perfect gift is from above,” we infer that good motives cannot come but from Him, “who worketh in us to will as well as to do according to His good pleasure.” The man “dead in trespasses and sins,” must have life given him from above, before he can walk in newness of life, and do what is well pleasing in God’s sight.
Having thus considered the principal objections, we may now proceed to prove our propositions.
I. And first: “Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of His Spirit, are not pleasing to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith.”
The language concerning the new birth may come in here. John 3:3: “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God”: the language of our Lord to His disciples, John 15:5, “Without Me ye can do nothing”: and the language of St. Paul concerning the state of the unregenerate and carnal mind, “In me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing,” Rom. 7:18. “The carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God,” Rom. 8:7, 8. All these and many similar passages were considered at length under Article IX; and they surely prove that the natural man, without the aid of God, cannot bring forth fruits which are pleasing to God. As our Lord says expressly, “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in Me,” John 15:4. {The reader may refer to what was said under Art. X on Free Will.}
But, moreover, as it is taught us that the source of all true holiness is faith, so if our good works do not spring from faith, they cannot be pleasing to God. Thus, “without faith it is impossible to please God,” Heb. 11:6. “The just shall live by faith,” Rom. 1:17. Nay! we are even told that “whatsoever is not of faith is sin,” Rom. 14:23: and that evidently, because apparently good works, if not springing from a good source, are not really good.
Hence the statement of our Article seems fully borne out, that “works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of His Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith.”
II. The second proposition follows from the first: namely, that works done without grace do not make men meet to receive grace de congruo.
If they are not acceptable to God, it is manifest that they cannot procure grace from Him. It is true, that “the Law of the Lord is an undefiled law, converting the soul”; and that he who strives earnestly to fulfill God’s commandments may always expect to have his exertions assisted by fuller supplies of the grace of God. {On this principle it is that “If any man will (θελη) do the will of God, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God,” John 7:17. “God resisteth the proud but giveth grace to the humble,” 1 Pet. 5:5.} But this is because God loves to reward His grace in us by farther gifts of that grace – because all those earnest strivings are in themselves proofs of the Spirit of God working in us. Good works are in no degree to be underrated; and the more a man does of them, the more he is likely to gain strength to do more.
This is the regular course of growth in grace. Even naturally, good habits are acquired by performing good actions: and spiritually, those that use the grace of God find it increasing in them. But this is quite a distinct view of the case from that taken by the maintainers of congruous merit. Their doctrine is that a man, without any help from God and by a strong effort of his own will, can so fulfill the commandments as, though not of actual right, yet on a certain principle of congruity, to draw down the grace of God upon him. Scripture, on the contrary, seems to teach that every attempt of this kind is displeasing as being the result of arrogance and self-sufficiency. The Pharisees, who thought themselves not blind, are told that that was the very cause of their condemnation; whereas if they were aware of their own weakness, they should receive their sight. “If ye were blind, ye should have no sin; but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth” (John 9:41). The Jews are spoken of as cast off and blinded because they sought to find their way to God, and to attain to righteousness, through the works of the Law and through their own righteousness instead of by the faith of Christ (see Rom. 9:30, 31); for they “were ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit themselves to the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10:3).
III. The Article concludes by saying, that forasmuch as such works “ are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but that they have the nature of sin.”
Works done in self-righteousness, done with a view to justify ourselves by our own merits, are not done as God hath willed, but in a wrong spirit and temper; and therefore, proceeding from a bad principle, must be bad. There may be in such works a mixture, as there often is, of good with the bad motive. This God alone can see and will approve the good whilst He disapproves the bad. Many a person tries to do right, acting in ignorance and on the principle that such a mode of action is what God has appointed and what He will reward. Such a person may have very imperfect knowledge of the truth and may not be sufficiently aware of his own weakness and his own need of Divine strength. But mixed with such errors there may be pure principles of faith and desire to serve God; and God, who sees the heart, may give more blessing to such a person than to many a better instructed Christian. The Article, however, may be quite right, notwithstanding, in saying that works, not springing from grace and not done in faith, have the nature of sin. As a general proposition, it is true that “whatever is not of faith is sin.” And the spirit which leads a man, instead of relying on God’s mercy in Christ, and seeking the aid of His Spirit, to rely on his own unassisted efforts, is also sin. It is a virtual denial of human infirmity, of the Atonement of Christ, and of the need of the Spirit.
Again, the only thing which makes good works to be good is the fact that God has commanded them. Hence, if we find them not done in the way and for the end to which God has ordained them, we are justified in saying that they are not good works, but bad works. The passages quoted from the Homilies in the former section show sufficiently that this was what the reformers meant by the words of the Article.