Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2009 with funding from
University of Toronto
http://www.archive.org/details/workscunn03cunn
THE WORKS
OF
WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM, D.D.
PKINCIPAL, AND PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH.
EDITED BY HIS LITERARY EXECUTORS.
VOL. III.
HISTORICAL THEOLOGY.
VOL. II.
THIRD EDITION.
EDINBUKGH: T. & T. CLAEK, 38, GEOEGE STEEET.
MDCCCLXX.
PRINTED BY MURRAY AND GIBB,
FOB
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.
LONDON, .... HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. DUBLIN, .... JOHN ROBERTSON AND CO. NEW YORK, . . . C. SCRIBNER AND CO.
KTheol
lu
ft
HISTORICAL THEOLOGY:
A REVIEW OF THE PRINCIPAL DOCTRINAL DISCUSSIONS
IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH SINCE
THE APOSTOLIC AGE.
BY THE LATE
WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM, D.D.,
PRINCIPAL, AND PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH.
EDITED BY HIS LITERARY EXECUTORS.
VOL. IL
THIRD EDITION.
EDINBUEGH: T. & T. CLAEK, 38, GEOEGE STEEET.
MDCCCLXX.
u
7f
/r/^
-iv
CONTENTS.
CHAPTEE XXI.— Justification, .... Sec. 1. Popish and Protestant Views, ,, 2. Nature of Justification, ,, 3. Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, . „ 4. Justification by Faith alone, . ,, 5. Office of Faith in Justifying, „ G. Objections to the Scriptural Doctrine, . ,, 7. The Forgiveness of Post-baptismal Sins, „ 8. The Merit of Good Works, . ,, 9. Practical Tendency of the Popish Doctrine of
CHAPTER XXII.— The Sacramental Principle, . Sec. 1. Sacramental Grace, .... ,, 2. Baptismal Regeneration, ,, 3. Popish View of the Lord's Supper, ,, 4. Infant Baptism, .....
PAGE 1
CHAPTER XXIII.— The Socinian Controversy, Sec. 1. Origin of Socinianism, . „ 2. 'Socinian Views as to Scripture, ,, 3. Socinian System of Theology, ,, 4. Original and Recent Socinianism, . ,, 5. Distinction of Persons in the Godhead, ,, 6. Trinity and Unity, „ 7. Evidence for the Divinity of Christ,
10 31 45 56 68 79 90 101 Justification, 111
121 121 133 142 144
155 156 160 168 188 192 203 213
VI
CONTENTS.
|
CHAPTER |
|
|
Sec |
. 1. |
|
)j |
2. |
|
» |
3. |
|
)? |
4. |
|
n |
5. |
|
1) |
6. |
|
»» |
7. |
|
5) |
8. |
|
») |
9. |
|
n |
10. |
|
»5 |
11. |
|
i> |
12. |
|
CHAPTER |
|
|
Sec. 1. |
|
|
11 |
2. |
|
)' |
3. |
|
11 |
4. |
|
11 |
5. |
|
11 |
6. |
|
11 |
7. |
|
11 |
8. |
|
11 |
9. |
|
11 |
10. |
|
11 |
11. |
|
11 |
12. |
|
11 |
13. |
|
11 |
14. |
|
11 |
15. |
|
CHAPTER |
|
|
Sec |
. 1. |
2.
XXIV. — Doctrine of the Atonement,
Connection between the Person and "Work of Christ,
Necessity of the Atonement, ....
The Necessity and Nature of the Atonement,
Objections to the Doctrine of Atonement,
Scriptural Evidence for the Atonement,
Socinian View of the Atonement,
Arminian View of the Atonement,
Extent of the Atonement, ....
Evidence as to the Extent of the Atonement,
Extent of Atonement and Gospel Offer,
Extent of Atonement, and its Object, .
Extent of the Atonement, and Calvinistic Principles,
XXV. — The Arminian Controversy, Arminius and the Arminians, Synod of Dort, The Five Points, . Original Sin,
Universal and Effectual Calling, Efficacious and Irresistible Grace, The Decrees of God,
Predestination — State of the Question, . Predestination, and the Doctrine of the Fall, Predestination, and the Omniscience of God, Predestination, and the Sovereignty of God, Scripture Evidence for Predestination, , Objections against Predestination, Perseverance of Saints, . Socinianism — Arminianism — Calvinism,
XXVI.— Church Government, . Presbyterianism, .... Testimony of the Reformers as to Presbyterianism,
FAOB
237
¥
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XXVL— Continued.
Sec. 3. Popular Election of Office-bearers, ,, 4. Congregationalism, or Independency,
CHAPTER XXVII.— The Erastian Controversy, Sec. 1. The Civil Magistrate and Religion, ,, 2. Erastus and the Erastians, , . . . ,, 3. Erastianism during the Seventeenth Century, „ 4. The Free Church of Scotland,
VII
534 545
557 557 569 576 583
INDEX,
589
THE CHURCH.
CHAPTER XXI.
JUSTIFICATION.
We now proceed to the consideration of the important subject of Justification ; and it will be proper to enter somewhat more fully into the investigation of this topic than those which we have hitherto examined. This was the great fundamental distinguish- ing doctrine of the Reformation, and was regarded by all the Reformers as of primary and paramount importance. The lead- ing charge which they adduced against the Church of Rome was, that she had corrupted and perverted the doctrine of Scripture upon this subject, in a way that was dangerous to the souls of men ; and it was mainly by the exposition, enforcement, and application of the true doctrine of God's word in regard to it, that they assailed and overturned the leading doctrines and practices of the Papal system. There is ho subject which possesses more of intrinsic importance than attaches to this one, and there is none with respect to which the Reformers were more thoroughly harmonious in their sentiments. All who believe that the truth on this subject had been greatly corrupted in the Church of Rome, and that the doctrine taught by the Reformers respect- ing it was scriptural and true, must necessarily regard the restora- tion of sound doctrine upon this point as the most important service which the Reformers were made instrumental by God in rendering to the church.
It is above all things important, that men, if they have broken the law of God, and become liable to the punishment which the law denounces against transgression, — and that this is indeed the
3 — VOL. II. A
2 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXT.
state of men by nature is of course now assumed, — should know whether there be any way in which they may obtain the pardon and deliverance they need ; and if so, what that way is. And it is the doctrine of justification as taught in Scripture which alone affords a satisfactory answer to the question. The subject thus bears most directly and immediately upon men's relation to God and their everlasting destiny, and is fraught with unspeakable practical importance to every human being. It is assumed now that the condition of men by nature is such in point of fact, that some change or changes must be effected regarding them in order to their escaping fearful evil and enjoying permanent happiness ; and it is in this way that the doctrine of justification is connected with that of original sin, as the nature and constituent elements of the disease must determine the nature and qualities of the remedy that may be fitted to cure or remove it.
There is, indeed, as must be evident even upon the most cur- sory survey of what Scripture teaches concerning the recovery and salvation of lost men, a great subject or class of subjects, that is intermediate between the general state of mankind as fallen and lost, and the deliverance and restoration of men individually. And this is the work of Christ as mediator, and the general place or function assigned to the Holy Spirit in the salvation of sinners. The Scripture represents the whole human race as involved by the fall in a state of sin and misery. It represents God as looking with compassion and love upon the lost race of man, and as devising a method of effecting and securing their salvation. It describes this divine method of saving sinners as founded on, or rather as consisting substantially in, this, — that God sent His Son into the world to assume human nature, and to suffer and die, in order to procure or purchase for them salvation, and everything which salvation might involve or require. And hence, in turning our attention from men's actual condition of sin and misery to the remedy which has been provided, the first great subject which naturally presents itself to our contemplation and study is the person and the work of the Mediator, or the investigation of these three questions, — viz., first, Who and what was this Saviour of sinners whom the Scriptures set before us % secondly. What is it that He has done in order to save men from ruin, and to restore them to happiness ? and, thirdly. In what way is it that His work, or what He did and suffered, bears upon the accomplishment of
Chap. XXL] JUSTIFICATION. 3
the great object which it was designed to effect ? Now the first two of these subjects — i.e., the person and the work of Christ, or His divinity and atonement — did not form subjects of contro- versial discussion between the Reformers and the Romanists. The Church of Rome has always held the proper divinity and the vicarious atonement of Christ ; and though these great doctrines have been so corrupted and perverted by her as to be in a great measure practically neutralized, and though it is very important to point out this, yet these subjects cannot be said to constitute a point of the proper controversy between the Church of Rome and the Protestants, and they were not in point of fact discussed between the Romanists and the Reformers. In all the contro- versies between them, the divinity and the vicarious atonement of Christ were assumed as topics in which there was no material difference of opinion in formal profession, — doctrines which each party was entitled to take for granted in arguing with the other. The subject, indeed, of the divinity and atonement of our Saviour did not occupy much of the attention of any portion of the church, as subjects of controversial discussion, during the sixteenth cen- tury ; for the works of Socinus, who first gave to anti-Trinitarian views, and to the denial of a vicarious atonement, a plausible and imposing aspect, did not excite much attention till about the end of this century, and the controversies which they occasioned took place chiefly in the succeeding one. I propose, therefore, fol- lowing the chronological order, to postpone for the present any account of the discussions which have taken place concerning the divinity and atonement of Christ.
The sum and substance of the great charge which the Re- formers adduced against the Church of Rome was, that while she proclaimed to men with a considerable measure of accuracy who Christ was, and what it was that He had done for the salvation of sinners, she yet perverted the gospel of the grace of God, and endangered the salvation of men's souls, by setting before them erroneous and unscriptural views of the grounds on which, and the process through which, the blessings that Christ had procured for mankind at large were actually bestowed upon men indivi- dually, and of the way and manner in which men individually became possessed of them, and attained ultimately to the full and permanent enjoyment of them. This was the subject that may be said to have been discussed between the Reformers and the
JUSTIFICATION.
[Chap. XXI.
Komanists under the head of justification, and I need say nothing more to show its paramount practical importance. There can be no difference of opinion as to the importance of the general sub- ject which has been indicated ; but there have been occasionally discussions in more modern times upon the question whether the errors of the Church of Rome upon this subject are so important and dangerous as they are often represented to be, and whether they were of sufficient magnitude to warrant the views entertained by the Reformers upon this subject, and the course of practical procedure which they based upon these views. When more lax and unsound views of doctrine began to prevail in the Protestant churches, some of their divines lost their sense of the magnitude of the Romish errors upon the subject of justification, and began to make admissions, that the differences between them and the Romanists upon this point were not so vital as the Reformers had supposed them to be ; and the Romanists, ever on the watch to take advantage of anything that seems fitted to promote the interests of their church, were not slow to avail themselves of these concessions.*
There are two different and opposite lines of policy which Romish controversialists have pursued upon this subject, accord- ing as seemed to be most expedient for their interests at the time. Sometimes they have represented the doctrine of the Re- formers upon the subject of justification as something hideous and monstrous, — as overturning the foundations of all morality, and fitted only to produce^ universal wickedness and profligacy ; and at other times they have affected a willingness to listen to the grounds on which Protestants defend themselves from this charge, to admit that these grounds are not altogether destitute of weight, and that, consequently, there is not so great a difference between their doctrine in substance and that of the Church of Rome. They then enlarge upon the important influence which the alleged errors of the Church of Rome on the subject of justifica-
* Archbishop Wake, in his Exposi- tion of the Doctrine of the Church of England, in reply to Bossuet's Expo- sition of the Catholic Church, gives up our whole controversy with the Church of Rome on this subject ; and to give a specimen of modem High
Churchmen, Perceval, in his Roman Schism Illustrated (p. 365), says that " ground for condemnation of the Church of Rome, as touching the main positions of this doctrine, is not to be found in the decrees of the Council of Trent."
Chap. XXL] JUSTIFICATION. 5
tion had in producing the Reformation, — quote some of the passages which show the paramount importance which tlie first Reformers attached to this subject, — and proceed to draw the in- ference that the Reformation was founded upon misrepresentation and cahimny, since it appears, and has been admitted even by learned Protestants, that the errors of the Church of Rome, even if they were to admit for the sake of argument that she had erred, are not nearly so important as the Reformers had represented them to be.*
It is only to this second line of policy, which represents the difference on the subject of justification as comparatively insigni- ficant, and makes use, for this purpose, of some concessions of Protestant writers, that we mean at present to advert. In follow- ing out this line of policy, Popish controversialists usually employ an artifice which I had formerly occasion to expose, — viz., taking the statements of the Reformers made in the earlier period of their labours, and directed against the general strain of the public teaching, oral and written, that then generally obtained in the Church of Rome, and comparing them with the cunning and cautious decrees of the Council of Trent upon the subject of justification. We are willing to confine our charge against the Church of Rome, as such, at least so far as the sixteenth cen- tury is concerned, to what we can prove to be sanctioned by the Council of Trent ; and indeed there was not in existence, at the commencement of the Reformation, anything that could be said to be a formal deliverance upon the subject of justification to which the Church of Rome could be proved to be officially com- mitted. But we must expose the injustice done to the Reformers, when their statements, expressly and avowedly directed against the teaching then generally prevalent in the Church of Rome, are represented, as they often are, by modern Popish contro- versialists— and Moehler, in his Symbolism, with all his preten- . sions to candour and fairness, lays himself open to this charge — as directed against the decrees of the Council of Trent, which were prepared with much care and caution after the subject had been fully discussed, and in the preparation of which no small
* Jurieu, in his Prejurjez Legitimes between the course taken by Nicole
contre le Papisme, Part ii. c. xxv. pp 307-10, points out the inconsistency
and that taken by Arnauld upon this subject.
6 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
skill and ingenuity were employed to evade the force of the argu- ments of the Eeformers, and to conceal or gloss over what they had most successfully exposed. I had occasion formerly to quote or refer to an extract from Melancthon, written in 1536, when he was invited by Francis i. into France, in which he states the great improvement which had taken place, and the much nearer approach which had been exhibited to Protestant principles, in tlie statements then commonly made by Romanists upon justifica- tion and other subjects, as compared with those which prevailed when Luther began his work ; and though the application which Melancthon made of this consideration was far from being credi- table to his firmness or his sagacity, yet it was undoubtedly true, to a large extent, as a statement of a fact.
I may mention one striking and important instance in which the Council of Trent may be said to have modified and softened the erroneous doctrine which was previously prevalent in the Church of Rome upon this subject. It was the general doctrine of the schoolmen, — it was universally taught in the Church of Rome at the commencement of the Reformation, — it was explicitly maintained by most of the Popish controversialists who, previously to the Council of Trent, came forward to oppose the Reformers, that men in their natural state, before they were justified and re- generated, could, and must, do certain good things by which they merited or deserved the grace of forgiveness and regeneration, — not indeed with the merit of condignity, — for that true and proper merit, in the strictest sense, was reserved for the good deeds of men already justified, — but with what was called the merit of congruity, — a distinction too subtle to be generally and popularly apprehended. Now, of this merit of congruity — so prominent and important a feature of the Romish theology before and at the commencement of the Reformation, and so strenuously assailed by Luther— the Council of Trent has taken no direct notice whatever. The substance, indeed, of the error may be said to be virtually retained in the decisions of the council upon the sub- ject of what it calls dispositives or preparatives for justification ; but the error cannot be said to be very clearly or directly sanc- tioned ; and the council has made a general declaration, that * " none of those things which precede justification, whether faith
* Sess. vi. c. viii.
Chap. XXT.] JUSTIFICATION. 7
or works, merit the grace of justification itself," — a declaration, however, it should be observed, which has not prevented most subsequent Romish writers from reviving the old doctrine of meritum de congruo before justification. If it be fair, on the one hand, that the Church of Rome, as such, should be judged by the decisions of the Council of Trent, — at least until it be shown that some other decision has been given by which the church, as such, was bound, as by the bull Unigenitus, — it is equally fair that the Reformers, who wrote before the council, should be judged, as to the correctness of their representations, by the doctrine which generally obtained in the Church of Rome at the time when these representations were made. But while this consideration should be remembered, in order that we may do justice to the Refonners, and guard against the influence of an artifice which Popish con- troversialists in modern times often employ in order to excite a prejudice against them, yet it is admitted that the question as to what is the doctrine of the Church of Rome upon the subject of justification must be determined chiefly by an examination of the decisions of the Council of Trent ; and we hope to be able to show that, notwithstanding all the caution and skill employed in framing its decrees, they contain a large amount of anti-scriptural error, and that they misrepresent and pervert the method of sal- vation in a way which, when viewed in connection luith the national tendencies of men, is fitted to exert a most injurious influence upon the salvation of men's souls. Turretine,* in asserting the importance of the differences between Protestants and the Church of Rome on the subject of justification, and adverting also to the attempts which have been made by some Protestant writers to represent these differences as unimportant, has the following statement : " Licet vero nonnulli ex Pontificiis cordatioribus vi veritatis victi sanius casteris de hoc articulo senserint et locuti sint. Nee desint etiam ex Nostris, qui studio minuendarum Controversiarum ducti, censeant circa ilium non tantam esse dissidii materiam, et non paucas hie esse logomachias. Certum tamen est non verbales, sed reales multas, et magni momenti controversias nobis cum Pontificiis adhuc intercedere in hoc argumento, ut ex sequentibus fiet manifestum."
Perhaps the fullest and most elaborate attempt made by any
* Loc. xvi. Qusest. i. sec. ii.
8 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
Protestant writer of eminence to show that the difference between Protestants and Romanists on the subject of justification is not of very great importance, is to be found in the Theses Theologiccv of Le Blanc, often called the Theses Sedanenses, because their author was Professor of Theology in the French Protestant University of Sedan, at a period, however, shortly before the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, when the French Protestant Church in general had very considerably declined from the doc- trinal orthodoxy of the Reformation, though it still contained some very able opponents of Popery, men qualified to contend with Bossuet, Arnauld, and Nicole. Le Blanc's Theses is a work of much ingenuity and erudition ; and it contains much matter that is fitted to be useful in the history of theology, though it should be read with much caution, as it exhibits a strong ten- dency on the part of its author to explain away, and to make light of, differences in doctrinal matters, which are of no small importance in the scheme of divine truth. The course of argu- ment adopted by Le Blanc, in order to prove that there is no very material difference between Protestants and Romanists on this point, is not of a very fair or satisfactory kind, and gives us much more the impression of a man who had laid it down as a sort of task to himself just to exert all his ingenuity, and to em- ploy all his erudition, in explaining away the apparent differences among contending parties, than of one who was candidly and impartially seeking after the truth. It consists not so much in comparing the declarations of the Reformed confessions with those of the Council of Trent, as in collecting together all the best or most Protestant passages he could find in any Popish authors, and all the worst or most Popish passages he could find in any Protestant authors ; and then in showing that there was really no very great difference between them. The unfairness of this mode of argument is too obvious to need to be dwelt upon. It is easy to show that there have been Popish writers whose views upon religious subjects were sounder than those of their church, and Protestant writers whose views were less sound than those of the Reformers and their genuine followers. But the only im- portant questions are : What is the doctrine of the Church of Rome upon this subject? in what respects does it differ from that taught by the Reformers, and embodied in the confessions of Protestant churches ? in what way does the word of God
Chap. XXI.]
JUSTIFICATION.
9
decide upon these differences? what is their real value or im- portance ? and how does it bear upon the general scheme of Christian truth, and upon the spiritual welfare of men ? *
The more general considerations on which Le Blanc and Grotius, and other men who have laboured to show that there is no very material difference between Protestants and the Church of Eome on the subject of justification, have mainly proceeded, are these, — that the Church of Rome ascribes the justification of sinners to the grace of God and to the merits of Christ, and denies merit to men themselves in the matter. Now it is true that the Council of Trent has made general statements to this effect ; but, notwithstanding all this, it is quite possible to show that their general declarations upon these points are virtually con- tradicted or neutralized — practically at least, and sometimes even theoretically — by their more specific statements upon some of the topics involved in the detailed exposition of the subject ; and that thus it can be proved that they do not really ascribe the justifi- cation of sinners wholly to the grace of God and to the work of Christ, — that they do not wholly exclude human merit, but ascribe to men themselves, and to their own powers, a real share in the work of their own salvation ; and that while this can be proved to be true of their doctrine as it stands theoretically, their scheme, as a whole, is also, moreover, so constructed as to be fitted, when viewed in connection with the natural tendencies of the human heart, to foster presumption and self-confidence, to throw obstacles in the way of men's submitting themselves to the divine method of justification, and to frustrate the great . end which the gospel scheme of salvation was, in all its parts, ex- pressly designed and intended to accomplish, — viz., that, as our Confession of Faith says,t " both the exact justice and the rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners."
* It is amusiug and instructiye to observe the use to which Nicole turns the labours of Le Blanc in this matter, in his Prejucjes Leyiiimes contre les Calvinistes, tome i. pp. 269, 274-6. Animadversions on Le Blanc in this matter are to be found in AYitsius, De (Econ. Feed. lib. iii. c. viii. sees, xhx.-lv., and De Moor, Comment, in Marck. Compend. tom. iv. pp. 732-3, 753 ; Owen, vol. xi. pp. 84-5, 161
(or, in original edition, pp. 87, 179), For an exposure of other attempts to represent the differences between Protestants and Romanists on the sub- ject of justification as unimportant, see the controversy between Grotius and Andrew Rivet. — Rivet's Vin- dicise Evangelicse, and Heidegger's Dissertationes, tom. i. Dissertatio xi. p. 290.
t West. Conf. c. xi. sec. 3.
10 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
Sec, 1. — Popish and Protestant Vieios.
In dealing with the subject of justification, we must first of all attempt to form a clear and correct apprehension of what is the doctrine of the Church of Rome upon this topic, as opposed to that which the Reformers deduce from the word of God. Justification, it is admitted on both sides, is descriptive generally of the change or changes, in whole or in part, that must take place in respect of men individually, in order to their escaping from the evils of their natural condition, and attaining to happi- ness and heaven. The nature of the change or changes necessary must depend upon the actual features of men's natural condition, the evils from which they must be delivered. And the way and manner in which they are brought about must be somewhat re- gulated by the natural powers or capacities of men themselves to procure or effect them, or to assist in procuring or effecting them. It is admitted also, that the two leading features of men's natural condition, which render salvation necessary, and must in some measure determine its character, are guilt and depravity, — or liability to punishment because of transgression of God's law, and a tendency or inclination, more or less powerful and pervad- ing, to violate its requirements and prohibitions. The corre- sponding changes, called graces, because admitted to be in some sense God's gifts, and called the blessings or benefits of redemp- tion, because admitted to be in some sense procured for men by what Christ has done for them, are an alteration upon men's state or condition in relation to God and His law, whereby their guilt is cancelled, their sins are pardoned, and they are brought into a state of acceptance and favour ; and a change upon their actual moral character, whereby the tendency to sin is mortified and subdued, and a state of heart and motive more accordant with what God's law requires is produced. Thus far, and when these general terms are employed, there is no material difference of opinion ; though the second change — 'that upon men's moral character — is usually called by Protestants the regeneration or renovation of man's moral nature, and by Papists the infusion of righteousness or justice, — righteousness or justice denoting, in their sense of it, actual conformity to what God requires, either in point of internal character (justitia habitualis) or of outward actions (justitia actualis).
Sec. I.] POPISH AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. H
It is admitted, further, that these changes upon men's state and character, necessary to their salvation and ultimate happiness, are to be traced, in general, to the grace or kindness of God, who confers or produces them, and to the work of Christ, who in some way has procured or purchased them for men. And the sum and substance of all that the Reformers demanded, ds necessary to the pure preaching of the gospel, — the scriptural exposition of the leading principles of the method of salvation, — was, that the conceded ascription of these changes to the grace of God and the work of Christ should be literally and honestly maintained, according to the proper import of the words, and should be fully carried out, in the more detailed exposition of the subject, without any other principles or elements being introduced into it which might virtually and practically, if not formally and theoretically, involve a denial or modification of them ; while the great charge which they adduced against the Church of Rome was, that in their fuller and more minute exposition of the way and manner in which these changes were effected upon men individually, they did introduce principles or elements which, more or less directly, deprived the grace of God and the work of Christ of the place and influence which the sacred Scriptures assigned to them.
As the change upon men's state and condition from guilt and condemnation to pardon and acceptance is, substantially, a change in the aspect in which God regards them, or rather in the way in which He resolves thenceforth to deal with them, and to treat them, it must, from the nature of the case, be an act of God, and it must be wholly God's act, — an act in producing or effecting which men themselves cannot be directly parties ; and the only way in which they can in any measure contribute to bring it about, is by their meriting it, or doing something to deserve it, at God's hand, and thereby inducing Him to effect the change or to perform the act. It was as precluding the possibility of this, that the Reformers attached so much importance to the doctrine which we formerly had occasion to explain and illustrate, — viz., that all the actions of men previous to regeneration are only and wholly sinful; and it was, of course, in order to leave room for men in some sense meriting gifts from God, or deserving for themselves the blessings which Christ procured for mankind, that the Coun- cil of Trent anathematized it.
The other great change is an actual effect wrought upon men
12 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
themselves, of which they are directly the subjects, and in produc- ing or effecting which there is nothing in the nature of the case, though there may be in the actual character and capacities of men, to prevent them from taking a part. The Protestant doctrine of men's natural inability to will anything spiritually good, which has been illusti'Uted in connection with the doctrine of original sin, of course precludes them from doing anything that can really im- prove their moral character in God's sight, until this inability be taken away by an external and superior power ; while the doctrine of the Council of Trent about man's freedom or power to will and do good remaining to some extent notwithstanding the fall, which forms part of their decree on the subject of justification, paves the • way, and was no doubt so intended, for ascribing to men them- selves some real efficiency in the renovation of their moral natures. From the view taken by the Church of Rome of the nature and import of justification, the whole subject of the way and man- ner in which both these changes are effected, in or upon men in- dividually, was often discussed in the sixteenth century under this one head ; though one of the first objects to which the Eeformers usually addressed themselves in discussing it, was to ascertain and to bring out what, according to Scripture usage, justification really is, and what it comprehends. The decree of the fathers of Trent upon this important subject (session vi.), comprehended in sixteen chapters and thirty-three canons, is characterized by vagueness and verbiage, confusion, obscurity, and unfairness. It is not very easy on several points to make out clearly and distinctly what were the precise doctrines which they wished to maintain and condemn. Some months were spent by the Coun- cil in consultations and intrigues about the formation of their decree upon this subject. And yet, notwithstanding all their pains, — perhaps we should rather say, because of them, — they have not brought out a very distinct and intelligible view of what they meant to teach upon some of its departments.
The vagueness, obscurity, and confusion of the decree of the Council of Ti'ent upon this subject, contrast strikingly with the clearness and simplicity that obtain in the writings of the Refor- mers and the confessions of the Reformed churches regarding it. There w^ere not wanting two or three rash and incautious expressions of Luther's upon this as upon other subjects, of which, by a policy I formerly had occasion to expose, the Couu-
Sec. I.] POPISH AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. 13
cil did not scruple to take an unfair advantage, by introducing some of them into their canons, in a way fitted to excite an unwarrantable prejudice against the doctrine of the Reformers. And it is true that Luther and Melancthon, in some of their earlier works, did seem to confine their statements, when treat- ing of this subject, somewhat too exclusively to the act of faith by which men are justified, without giving sufficient prominence to the object of faith, or that which faith apprehends or lays hold of, and which is the ground or basis of God's act in jus- tifying,— viz., the righteousness of Christ. But though their views upon this subject became moi-e clear and enlarged, yet they held in substance from the beginning, and brought out at length, and long before the Council of Trent, most fully and clearly the great doctrine of the Reformation, — viz., that justifi- cation in Scripture is properly descriptive only of a change upon men's legal state and condition, and not on their moral character, though a radical change of character invariably accompanies it ; that it is a change from a state of guilt and condemnation to a state of forgiveness and acceptance ; and that sinners are justified, or become the objects of this change, solely by a gratuitous act of God, but founded only upon the righteousness of Christ (not on any righteousness of their own), — a righteousness imputed to them, and thus made theirs, not on account of anything they do or can do to merit or procure it, but through the instrumentality of faith alone, by which they apprehend or lay hold of what has been provided for them, and is freely offered to them.
Let us now attempt to bring out plainly and distinctly the doctrine which the Council of Trent laid down in opposition to these scriptural doctrines of the Reformers. The first important question is what justification is, or what the word justification means ; and upon this point it must be admitted that the doctrine of the Council of Trent is sufficiently explicit. It defines* justi- fication to be " translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adse, in statum gratise et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secun- dum Adam Jesum Christum, salvatorem nostrum," — words which, in their fair and natural import, may be held to include under justification the whole of the change that is needful to be effected in men in order to their salvation, as comprehending their de-
* Sess. vi. G. iv.
14 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
liverance both from guilt and depravity. But that this is the meaning which they attached to the word justification — that they regarded all this as comprehended under it — is put beyond all doubt, by what they say in the seventh chapter, where they ex- pressly define justification to be, " non sola peccatorum remissio, sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratijB et donorum." Justification, then, according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome, includes or comprehends not only the remission of sin, or deliverance from guilt, but also the sanctification or renovation of man's moral nature, or deliver- ance from depravity. In short, they comprehend under the one name or head of justification, what Protestants — following, as they believe, the guidance of Scripture — have always divided into the two heads of justification and regeneration, or justification and sanctification, when the word sanctification is used in its widest sense, as descriptive of the whole process, originating in regenera- tion, by which depraved men are restored to a conformity to God's moral image. Now the discussion upon this point turns wholly upon this question, What is the sense in which the word justifica- tion and its cognates are used in Scripture ? And this is mani- festly a question of fundamental importance, in the investigation of this whole subject, inasmuch as, from the nature of the case, its decision must exert a most important influence upon the whole of men's views regarding it. At present, however, I confine myself to a mere statement of opinions, without entering into any examination of their truth, as I think it better, in the first instance, to bring out fully at once what the whole doctrine of the Church of Rome upon this subject, as contrasted with that of the Reformers, really is.
It may be proper, however, before leaving this topic, to ad- vert to a misrepresentation that has been often given of the views of the Reformers, and especially of Calvin, upon this particular point. When Protestant divines began, in the seventeenth century, to corrupt the scriptural doctrine of justification, and to deviate from the doctrinal orthodoxy of the Reformation, they thought it of importance to show that justification meant merely the remis- sion or forgiveness of sin, or guilt, to the exclusion of, or without comprehending, what is usually called the acceptance of men's persons, or their positive admission into God's favour, — or their receiving from God, not only the pardon of their sins, or immu-
Sec. I.] POPISH AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. 15
nity from punishment, but also a right or title to heaven and eternal life. And in support of this view, these men appealed to the authority of the Reformers, and especially of Calvin. Now it is quite true that Calvin has asserted again and again that jus- tification comprehends only, or consists in, the remission or for- giveness of sin or guilt. But I have no doubt that a careful and deliberate examination of all that Calvin has written upon this point * will fully establish these two positions, — first, that when Calvin asserted that justification consisted only in the remission of sin, he meant this simply as a denial of the Popish doctrine, that it is not only the remission of sin, but also the sanctification or renovation of the inner man, — this being the main, and indeed the only, error upon the point which he was called upon formally to oppose ; and, secondly, that Calvin has at least as frequently and as explicitly described justification as comprehend- ing not only remission of sin in the strict and literal sense, but also positive acceptance or admission into the enjoyment of God's favour, — " gratuita Dei acceptio," as he often calls it, — including the whole of the change effected upon men's state or legal condi- tion in God's sight, as distinguished from the change effected upon their character. This is one of the numerous instances, constantly occurring, that illustrate how unfair it is to adduce the authority of eminent writers on disputed questions which had never really been presented to them, — which they had never entertained or decided ; and how necessary it often is, in order to forming a correct estimate of some particular statements of an author, to examine with care and deliberation all that he has •written upon the subject to which they refer, and also to be intel- ligently acquainted with the w^y and manner in which the whole subject was discussed at the time on both sides.
When the Council of Trent defined regeneration to be a component part or a constituent element of Justification, along with pardon or forgiveness, they were probably induced to do so, partly because they could appeal to some of the fathers, and even to Augustine, in support of this use of the word, but also because their real object or intention was to make this sanctification, or
* Bishop O'Brien's Attempt to Ex- I 346-7 (Note M, 2d ed. 1862 (Eds.). plai7i and Estahlish the Doctrine of \ Bellarmine, De Jtistljicatione, lib. ii. Justification by Faith only, in Ten c. i., admits this in regard to Calvin. Sermons, London 1833 5 Note 12, pp. |
16 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
infused or inherent righteousness, as Romanists commonly call it, the cause or ground of the forgiveness of sin. A change of legal state, and a change of moral character, are things so mani- festly different in their own nature, that they could scarcely avoid attempting some separate explanation of them, and of the way in which they were conferred or effected, even though they might regard them as both comprehended under the name justification. The question, Upon what ground or consideration does God for- give men's sins ? or, in other words, To what is it that He has regard, when, with respect to any individual, He passes an act of forgiveness ? — this question, viewed by itself as a distinct in- dependent topic, is obviously one which requires and demands an answer, whether the answer to it may exhaust the exposition of the subject of justification with reference to its cause or not. The Reformers, after proving from the word of God that justi- fication, according to Scripture usage, described only a change of state, and not a change of character, strenuously demanded that this question, as to the cause or ground of forgiveness, or as to what it was to which God had respect, when, in the case of any individual, He cancelled his guilt, and admitted him into the enjoyment of His favour and friendship, should be distinctly and explicitly answered ; and, accordingly, Protestant divines in general, when they are discussing the subject of justification, understood in the limited scriptural sense of the word, and ex- plaining the doctrine of the Church of Rome upon the subject, make it their object to extract from the decree of the Council of Trent any materials that bear directly upon this point.
The Council, indeed, have not presented this subject nakedly and distinctly, as in fairness they ought to have done, but have made use of their general definition of justification, as compre- hending also regeneration, for involving the whole subject in a considerable measure of obscurity. What may be fairly deduced from their statements as to the cause or ground of forgiveness or pardon, viewed as a distinct topic by itself, is this : After de- fining justification to be not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renovation of the inner man, they proceed to explain the causes of this justification ; and in doing so, they make a very liberal use of scholastic phrases and distinctions. The final cause, they say, is the glory of God and Christ, and eternal life ; the eflBcient cause is God (Deus misericors) exercis-
Sec. T.] popish AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. 17
ing compassion ; the meritorious cause is Jesus Christ, who by His sufferings and death merited justification for us, and satisfied the Father in our room ; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism ; and " the only formal cause is the righteousness (justitia) of God, not that by which He Himself is righteous, but that l)y which He makes us righteous, by which we, receiving it from Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and are not only reckoned or reputed, but are called and are truly righteous." In this last statement of the Council about the formal cause of justi- fication being only an actual righteousness which God gives us or infuses into us, and which thereby comes to be inherent in us, it would seem as if they had tacitly intended to describe, as they ought to have done openly and plainly, rather the formal cause or ground of forgiveness, or of the change of state, than of justi- fication in their own wide sense of it ; for it is evident that the righteousness, or actual personal conformity of character to God's law, which He bestows upon men by His Spirit, cannot be, as they assert it is, the formal cause of that sanctificatlon or renova- tion of the inner man which they make a part of justification, and to which, therefore, everything that is set forth as a cause of jus- tification must be causally applicable. This inherent righteous- ness, which God bestows upon men or infuses into them, might be said to be Identical with the sanctlfication of the inner man, or, with more strict exactness, might be said to be an effect, or result, or con- sequence of it, but it cannot in any proper sense be a cause of it. This personal righteousness bestowed by God might indeed be said to be the formal cause of forgiveness^ if It were intended to convey the idea that it is the ground or basis on which God's act in forgiving rests, or that to which He has a regard or respect when He cancels a man's guilt, and admits him to the enjoyment of His favour. And this is indeed the meaning which accords best with the general strain of the council's statements. It is not necessarily inconsistent, in every sense, with their making Christ and His work the meritorious cause of justification. In making- Christ and His work the meritorious cause of justification, they, of course, in accordance with their definition of justification, make this the meritorious cause, equally and alike of forgiveness and of renovation, the two parts of which justification consists, or as Bellarmlne expresses it, " mortem Christi, quse pretium fult re- demptlonis, non soliim causam fulsse remlssionis peccatorum, sed 3 — VOL. II. B
18 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
etiam internge renovationis."* And this Protestants regard as in itself a great general scriptural truth, though they believe that it errs both by excess and defect, lohen it is put forth as a part of the teaching of Scripture on the subject of justification. It errs by excess, in comprehending renovation as well as forgiveness under the head of justification ; and it errs by defect, in representing the work or righteousness of Christ as standing in no other or closer relation to forgiveness or acceptance than as being merely its meritorious cause. It is only with this second error that we have at present to do. The council not only makes the work or righteousness of Christ equally and alike the meritorious cause of forgiveness and renovation, but it expressly denies (can. x.) that men are formally justified by Christ's righteousness, or, in other words, that Christ's righteousness is the formal cause of our justi- fication ; and it expressly asserts, as we have seen, that the only formal cause of our justification is the personal righteousness which God bestows or infuses into men. Bellarmine carefully guards against the inference, that because the eleventh canon condemns the doctrine that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ alone, it admitted by implication that we are justified formally by it at all.f
Now it is plainly impossible to make one consistent and har- monious doctrine out of these various positions, affirmative and negative, which the council has laid down, except upon the assump- tion that the council really meant to teach that there is no direct and immediate connection between the work or righteousness of Christ and the forgiveness of the sins of men individually ; and to represent Christ as merely meriting the communication to men of personal righteousness, and thereby, or through the medium of this personal righteousness which He merited for them, indirectly or remotely meriting the forgiveness of sin, of which this personal righteousness, infused and inherent, as they describe it, is the direct and immediate cause. That the Council of Trent really intended to teach this doctrine, though it is brought out somewhat obscurely, and though we are obliged to infer it from a careful comparison of its different statements upon the subject, is clearly shown by Chemnitius in his valuable work, Examen Concilii Tri- dentinij not only from an examination of the decrees themselves,
* De Justijicationc, lib. ii. cap. vi. f Hid. lib. ii. cap. ii.
Sec. I.]
POPISH AND PROTESTANT VIEWS.
19
but from the statements of Andradius, an eminent Popish divine, who was present at the council, and afterwards pubUshed a work in defence of its decisions.* That this is the doctrine which the council intended to teach, and that it is in consequence the ordinary recognised doctrine of the Church of Rome upon the subject, is confirmed, or rather established, by the consideration that the generality of Romish writers are accustomed, without any doubt or hesitation, to give this as the state of the question be- tween them and Protestants upon this topic, — viz.. Whether the cause of our justification be a righteousness inherent in us or not ? or this. Whether the cause of our justification be a righteousness infused into and inherent in us ; or an external righteousness — that is, the righteousness of Christ — imputed to us ? And that in discussing this question, so stated^ they just labour to produce evidence from Scripture that that to which God has an immediate respect or regard in forgiving any man's sins, and admitting him to the enjoyment of His favour, is, not the righteousness of Christ, but an infused and inherent personal righteousness. As this is a point of some importance in order to a right apprehension of the doctrine of the Church of Rome upon the subject, it may be proper to produce some evidence of this position.
Bellarmine says,t " Status totius controversiae revocari potest ad banc simplicem quoestionem, sitne formalis causa absolutae justificationis, justitia in nobis inhaerens, an non?" and then he proceeds to show that the determination of this question in the affirmative at once overturns all the leading errors of the Refor- mers upon the whole subject of the causes and grounds of justifi- cation : " Omnes refutantur, si probetur justitia inhajrens, qua3 absolute et simpliciter justificet ;" and more particularly, " Si justitia inhgerens est formalis causa absolutge justificationis, non igitur requiritur imputatio justitiaa Christi."
In like manner, Dens, in his Theologia Moralis, says, J " Probo contra hgereticos : quod justificatio formaliter fiat per in- fusionem gratise habitualis inhaBrentis animse, non vero per justi- tiam Christi nobis extrinsec^ imputatam." Perrone also, in his Proilectiones Theological, § lays down this proposition, as taught
* Chemnitii Exam. Con. Trid. p. 144, ed. 1609 ; see also Bp. Dave- nant, l^nelectiones de Justitia Ilahi- tuali et Actuali, c. xxvii.
t De Justijicatione, lib. ii. cap. ii. X Dens' Theol. Mor. torn. ii. p. 448. § Perrone, Pndec. Theol. torn. i. col. l;398.
20 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
by tlie Council of Trent, and as being therefore de Jide^ or an essential binding article of faith : " Impii formaliter non justifi- cantur vel sola iraputatione justitise Christi vel sola peccatorum remissione ; sed justificantur per gratiam et caritatem, quae in cordibus eorum per Spiritum Sanctum diffunditur, atque illis inhseret." And, in answer to the Scripture statements adduced to prove that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ, he admits that we are justified by it as the meritorious cause ; but denies that we are justified by it as the formal cause.
The most eminent Protestant divines have been quite willing to admit that these statements of Popish writers give a fair ac- count of the state of the question, and have had no hesitation in undertaking the defence of the positions which this view of the state of the question assigned to them. They have not, indeed, usually attached much weight in this matter to the scholastic distinctions about the different kinds of causes ; because, as Turretine says,* " in the matter of justification before God, the formal cause cannot be distinguished from the meritorious cause, since the formal cause, in this respect, is nothing else than that, at the sight of which, or from a regard to which, God frees us from condemnation, and accepts us to eternal life." On these grounds, Protestant writers have held themselves fully warranted in imputing to the Church of Rome the maintenance of this position, — viz., that that to which God has directly and imme- diately a respect or regard, in pardoning a man's sins, and ad- mitting him into the enjoyment of His favour, is a personal righteousness infused into that man, and inherent in him ; while they have undertaken for themselves to establish from Scripture the negative of this position, and to show that that which is the proper ground or basis of God's act in forgiving or accepting any man — that to which alone He has a respect or regard when He justifies him — is the righteousness of Christ imputed to him.
It may be proper to mention that, among orthodox Protestant divines who have agreed harmoniously in the whole substance of the doctrine of justification, there may be noticed some differ- ences in point of phraseology on some of the topics to which we have referred, and especially with respect to the causes of justi- fication. These differences of phraseology are not of much im-
* Loc. xvi. Qutest. ii. sec. v.
Sec. I.] POPISH AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. . 21
portance, and do not give much trouble in an investigation of this subject. Calvin sometimes spoke of justification as consist- ing in the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ's right- eousness.* But, by the imputation of Christ's righteousness in this connection, he seems to have meant nothing more than ac- ceptance or positive admission into the enjoyment of God's favour, — the bestowal of a right or title to eternal life, as distinguished from, and going beyond, mere pardon. In any other sense — and indeed in the strict and proper sense, of the expression — the statement is inaccurate ; for the imputation of Christ's right- eousness does not stand on the same level or platform as the remission of sins, and of course cannot go to constitute, along with it, one thing designated by the one term, — justification, — as is the case with acceptance or admission into God's favour. The imputation of Christ's righteousness, correctly understood, is to be regarded as in the order of nature preceding both remission and acceptance, and as being the ground or basis, or the meritorious impulsive or formal cause, of them ; or that to which God has respect when in any instance He pardons and accepts.!
Again, some orthodox divines have thought that the most accurate mode of speaking upon the subject, is to say that the formal cause of our justification is Christ's righteousness imputed ; others, that it is the imputation of Christ's righteousness ; and a third party, among whom is Dr. Owen, in his great work on Jus- tification,! think that there is no formal cause of justification, according to the strict scholastic meaning of the expression ; while all orthodox divines concur in maintaining against the Church of Rome, that, to adopt Dr. Owen's words, the righteousness of Christ "is that whereby, and wherewith, a believing siimer is justified before God ; or whereon he is accepted with God, hath his sins pardoned, is received into grace and favour, and hath a title given him unto the heavenly inheritance." §
Having thus brought out the doctrine of the Church of Rome on the subject of the meaning, nature, and ground of justification,
* A similar mode of speaking was adopted by some Lutheran divines. Vide Buddseus, Instit. Theol. Dogm. lib. iv. c. iv. sec. vi.
t Turret., Loc. xvi. Quaest. iv.
t Orme's edition of Owen, vol. xi.
§ For a full exposition of the dif- ferences of opinion and statement on the causes of justification, vide de Moor, tom. iv. pp. 682-90, and John Goodwin's Imputatio Fidei, P. ii. c. iv. ; Davenant, De Just. ; Appendix
pp. 257-292. : to Newman on Justification.
22 . JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
we proceed now to explain her doctrine as to its means and re- sults. And first, with respect to the means of justification. The Reformers were unanimous and decided in maintaining the doc- trine that faith alone justified, — that men were justified by faith only ; and this gave rise to a great deal of discussion between them and the Romanists,' — discussions bearing not only upon the import and evidence of this general position, but likewise upon the meaning and nature of justifying faith, and upon the way and manner in which faith justifies, or in which it acts or operates in the matter of justification. By the position that faith alone justifies, the Reformers meant in general that faith was the only tiling in a man himself, to the exclusion of all personal righteous- ness, habitual or actual, of all other Christian graces, and of all good works, to which his forgiveness and acceptance with God are attributed or ascribed in Scripture, — the only thing in himself which is represented in God's word as exerting anything like causality or efficiency in his obtaining justification. They did not hold that faith was the only thing which invariably accompanies justification, or even that it was the only thing required of men in order to their being justified ; for they admitted that repentance was necessary to forgiveness, in accordance with the doctrine of our standards, that, " to escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requireth of us repentance unto life," as well as " faith in Jesus Christ." * But as repentance is never said in Scripture to justify, as men are never said to be justified by or through repentance, or by or through anything existing in them- selves, except faith, the Reformers maintained that faith stood in a certain relation to justification, such as was held by no other Quality or feature in men's character or conduct, — that it justified them, — nothing else about them did ; that men were justified by faith, and could not be said to be justified by anything else exist- ing in themselves, whatever might be its nature or its source.
They did not teach that this faith which alone justified was ever alone, or unaccompanied with other graces ; but, on the con- trary, they maintain that, to adopt -the words of our Confession,! " it is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love." Calvin, in explaining this
* In the Larger Catechism, Ques. I f tl. xi. sec. ii.
153, repentance is placed before faith. |
Sec. I.] POPISH AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. 23
matter, says,* " Hoc semper lectoribus testatum esse volo, quoties in hac quaestione nominamus solam fidem, noii mortuam a nobis fingi, et quae per caritatem non operatur : sed ipsam statui unicam justificationis causam. Fides ergo sola est quae justificet : fides tamen quse justificat, non est sola." It is a curious fact, that while many Romish writers, and others who have corrupted the doctrine of Scripture upon this subject, have misrepresented the great doctrine of the Reformation, that faith alone justifies, as meaning or implying that nothing but faith is in any sense required of men in order to their being forgiven, or does in fact invariably exist in justified men, Bellarmine accurately and fairly lays it down as one of the leading differences between the Reformers and the Church of Rome on the subject of justifying faith, that the Reformers held, " fidem solam justificare, nunquam tamen posse esse solam ;" whereas the Romanists taught, in full and exact contrast with this, "fidem non justificare solam, sed tamen posse esse solam."f Again, the Reformers did not ascribe to faith, in the matter of justification, any meritorious or inherent efficacy in producing the result, but regarded it simply as the instrument or hand by which a man apprehended or laid hold of, and appropriated to himself, the righteousness of Ciirist ; and it was only in that very general and, strictly speaking, loose and improper sense, which was consistent with this view of its function and operation in the matter, that they called it, as Calvin does in the extract above quoted from him, the cause of justification. Such were the clear and explicit doctrines of the Reformers on the subject of the means of justification, its relation to faith, and the place and function of faith in the matter.
. On all these topics the Council of Trent has spoken with some degree of obscurity and unfairness, insinuating misrepre- sentations of the real doctrines of the Reformers, and brin^inij out somewhat vaguely and imperfectly what they meant to teach in opposition to them. In accordance with their principles, they could not admit that there was any sense in which faith alone justified, or in which men were justified by faith only ; for, as we have seen, they held that inherent personal righteousness was the only formal cause, and that baptism was the instrumental
* Calvini Antid. in Sextam Ses- I f Bellarm. Be Justificat. lib. i. sionem : in Canon, xi. iii.
24 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXF.
cause, of justification. Accordingly, they denied* that a sinner is justified by faith alone, in such wise as to mean that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of justification. Now this is quite equivalent to denying that {71 any sense faith alone justifies ; for anything which acts or operates in order to obtaining justification, may be said to justify; and as the canon clearly implies that there is always something else conjoined with faith in the matter of justification, different from faith itself, and equally with it operating in order to obtain justification, it follows that in no sense does faith alone justify. And, in accordance with this view, they explain the sense in which they understand the apostle's ascription of justification to faith, f — in which alone they admit that faith justifies at all, —
. in this way : " We are therefore, or for this reason, said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salva- tion, the foundation and the root of all justification." By this
' they mean that faith justifies, or is said to justify, because, or inasmuch as, it is the chief means of producing that personal righteousness which is the true cause or ground of justification ; or, as it is thus rather oddly and awkwardly explained by Bellar- mine : " Fidem non tam justificare, quam justificare, ut initium, et radicem primam justificationis ; hinc enim sequetur non ipsam solam justificare, sed sic eam agere in hoc negotio, quod suum est, ut etiam ceteris virtutibus locum relinquat." The title of the chapter from which this curious extract is taken | is, "Fidem justificare, sed non solam, idem enim facere timorem, spem, et dilectionem," etc. And he had previously laid down this as one of the leading differences between Protestants and Romanists on the subject of justifying faith : " Quod ipsi (the Protestants) solam fidem justificare contendunt, nos ei comites adjungimus in hoc ipso officio justificandi, sive ad justitiam disponendi." §
Indeed, the function or place which the Council of Trent assigns to faith in this matter, is rather that of preparing or dis- posing men to receive justification, than of justifying; and even in this subordinate work of preparing or disposing men to receive justification, they give to faith only a co-ordinate place along with half a dozen of other virtues. For the sake of clearness, I
* Dc Justijicat. can. ix. t Sess. vi. c. viii.
t Bellann. De Justificat. lib. i. cap. xiii. § Ihid. cap. iii.
Sec. I.] POPISH AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. 25
shall explain this important point in the words of Bellarmine, rather than in the vague and obscure verbiage which the Council of Trent has thought proper to employ upon this subject. He says : " Adversarii .... sola fide justificationem acquiri, sive apprehendi decent : Catholici contra, ac pra^sertim Synodus ipsa Tridentina (quara omnes Catholici, ut magistram sequuntur) sess. vi. cap. vi. Septem actus enumerat, quibus impii ad justitiam disponuntur, videlicet fidei, timoris, spei, dilectionis, poenitentioB, propositi suscipiendi sacramenti, et propositi novae vitse, atque observatlonis mandatorum Dei."* So that men, before they can obtain the forgiveness of their sins and the renovation of their v natures, — the two things in which, according to the Church of Eome, justification consists, — must exercise faith, fear, hope, love, penitence, and have a purpose of receiving the sacrament, and of leading a new and obedient life ; and even after they have done all this, they are not justified, for none of these things justifies, but only prepares or disposes to justification.
This subject, of men disposing or preparing themselves to re- ceive justification, is an important feature in the theology of the Church of Rome, and may require a few words of explanation. First of all, it is needed only in adults : all baptized infants re- ceive in baptism, according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome, forgiveness and regeneration, without any previous disposition or preparation, — God in baptism first renewing, and then forgiving them, and thus completely removing from them all the effects of original sin, — a doctrine the falsehood and injurious influence of which has been already exposed; but all adults must be disposed or prepared, by exercising the seven virtues, as Romanists commonly call them, above enumerated, before they receive either forgive- ness or renovation. We are not called upon at present to advert to the absurdity of the alleged antecedency of all these virtues or graces to the sanctifi cation of the inner man, in which partly justification consists; but when we find faith placed in the very same relation to justification as the other virtues with which it is here classed, and even then not allowed to justify, or to be that by which men are justified, but merely to prepare or dispose men for receiving justification, we are irresistibly constrained to ask if this is anything like the place assigned to it, in the matter of jus-
* Bellarm. De Justijicat. lib. i. cap. xii.
26 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
tification, by the Apostle Paul when he was expounding the way of a sinner's salvation to the Christians at Rome"?
But we must at present consider what the modern Church of Rome teaches about this matter of disposing or preparing men for justification, — a subject on which the apostle certainly left the Roman Christians of liis day in profound ignorance, though he seems to have intended to open up to them the whole doctrine of justification, so far as he knew it. The Council of Trent gives us scarcely any direct or explicit information as to what they mean by these seven virtues disposing or preparing men for justifica- tion, except that it is necessary that they should all exist, and be exercised, before men are forgiven and renewed, and that they exert some influence in bringing about the result. It tells us, how- ever, that none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit or deserve the grace of justification itself; and this had so far an appearance of deference to plain scriptural principles. It is not, however, by any means certain — nay, it is very improbable — that the council, by this declaration, meant to take away from these preliminary and preparatory virtues any- thing but the strict and proper merit of condignity, which they reserved for the good works of justified men. The council does not, indeed, formally sanction, as I have already mentioned, the distinction which prevailed universally in the Church of Rome at the time when the Reformation commenced, between merit of congruity and merit of condignity. But neither has it formally nor by implication condemned it ; and it is certain that most Romish writers since the council have continued to retain and to apply this distinction, — have regarded the decision which we are considering, merely as denying to these dispositive or preparatory works merit of condignity, and have not scrupled, notwithstand- ing this decision, to ascribe to them merit of congruity ; or, in other words, to represent them as exerting some meritorious effi- cacy, though in a subordinate sense, and of an imperfect. kind, in procuring for men justification. Bellarmine fully and explicitly asserts all this. He maintains that the decision of the council, that these dispositive and preparatory works do not merit justifi- cation, means merely that they do not merit it ex condigyio, — con- tends that they do merit it ex congruo, — and asserts that this is the view taken by most, though not by all, Romish writers, both as to the truth of the case and the real import of the decision of
Sec. I.] POPISH AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. 27
the council; from all wliicli we are warranted in concluding that the decision of the council, denying merit to those things which precede justification, is equivocal, and was intended to be equivo- cal and deceptive. Bellarmine for one — and this is true also of the generality of Romish writers — goes so far as to assert explicitly that these virtues are meritorious causes of justification; and he was fully warranted in doing so, if it be true that the Council of Trent did not deny, or intend to deny, to them merit of con- gruity ; and if it be also the general doctrine of the Church of Rome, as he asserts it is, " Potius f undari meritum de congruo in aliqua dignitate operis, quam in promissione." *
There was also a great deal of controversy between the Re- formers and the Romanists on the definition and nature of justi- fying faith, and the way and manner in which it acted or operated in the matter of justification. The Reformers generally con- tended that justifying faith was Jiducia, and had its seat in the will ; and the Romanists that it was merely assensuSj and had its seat in the understanding. This is a subject, however, on which it must be admitted that there has been a considerable difference of opinion, or at least of statement, among orthodox Protestant divines in more modern times ; and which, at least in the only sense in which it has been controverted among Protestants who were in the main orthodox, does not seem to me to be determined in the standards of our church. While the Reformers unanimously and explicitly taught that faith which alone justified did not justify by any meritorious or inherent efficacy of its own, but only as the instrument of receiving or laying hold of what God had provided, — had freely offered and regarded as the alone ground or basis on which He passed an act of forgiveness with respect to any indivi- dual, viz., the righteousness of Christ, — the Council of Trent can scarcely be said to have determined anything positive or explicit as to the office or function of faith in justification, or as to the way and manner in which it can be said to justify, beyond what is contained in the statement formerly quoted, viz., that we are said to be justified by faith for this reason, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and the root of all justification. There is little information given us here except
C. XXI,
* Bellarm. De Jiistificat. lib. i. c. xxi. See also lib. i. c. xvii. ; lib. v.
28 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
this, that the reason why Scripture assigns so much prominence to faith, in the matter of justification, is, because faith is the cliief means of originating and producing Christian graces and good works ; while, at the same time, it should be remembered that Romanists teach, as we have seen, that it does not necessarily and invariably produce them, as Protestants hold, but that it may exist alone, or unaccompanied by them.
But while the Council of Trent does not formally and expli- citly teach more than this upon this point, there is nothing in the decree to preclude, and much in the general scope and spirit of its statements to countenance, the doctrine which has unquestionably been held by the great body of the most eminent Romish writers, viz., that faith has in itself some real and even meritorious efficacy — i.e., meritum de congruo, as already explained — in disposing to, and in procuring or obtaining, justification. This doctrine is thus expressed by Bellarmine, who lays it down as the doctrine of the Church of Rome : "Fidem etiam a caritate disjunctam, alicujus esse pretii, et vim habere justificandi per modum dispositionis, et impe- trationis;"* and again, "Fidem impetrare justificationem, . . . ac per hoc justificare per modum dispositionis ac meriti ; " and again, after stating fairly enough the doctrine of the Reformers in this way, " Fidem non justificare per modum causge, aut digni- tatis, aut meriti, sed solum relative, quia videlicet credendo accipit, quod Deus promittendo offert," he thus states in contrast the doctrine of the Church of Rome, " Fidem justificare impetrando, ac promerendo . . . justificationem ; " and again, " Fidem . . . impetrare, atque aliquo modo mereri justificationem ;" f while he applies similar statements to the other virtues, which, equally with faith, precede and dispose to justification, describing them expressly as meritorious causes of justification.
We have now only to advert briefly to the differences between the Romanists and the Reformers on some points which may be comprehended under the general Iiead of the results or consequences of justification ; and, first, we may explain the views respectively entertained by them as to the way in which sins committed sub- sequently to justification are pardoned. The Reformers taught I that these sins were pardoned upon the same ground and through 'the same means as those committed before justification, — viz.,
* Bellarm. De Justificat. lib. i. cap. iii. t I-iib. i. cap. xvLi.
Sec. L] popish AND PROTESTANT VIEWS. 29
upon the ground of Christ's righteousness, and through the exer- cise of faith apprehending, or laying hold of, and appropriating it. As the Church of Rome teaches that baptism is the instrumental cause of justification, so she has invented anotlier sacrament, and established it as the only channel through which post-baptismal sins, as she commonly calls them, can be forgiven ; for the Coun- cil of Trent anathematizes all who say* that "a man who has » fallen after baptism is able to receive the justice which he has lost, by faith alone, without the sacrament of penance." They do not, however, regard the forgiveness, which the sacrament of penance conveys in regard to post-baptismal sins, as so perfect and complete as that which baptism conveys in regard to the sins which preceded it ; for they teach that the sacrament of penance, while it takes away all the guilt of mortal sins, in so far as this would otherwise have exposed men to eternal punishment, leaves men still exposed to temporal punishment, properly so called, for their mortal sins, and to tlie guilt, such as it is, of their venial sins ; and thus needs to be supplemented by satisfactions, rendered either by sinners themselves, or by others in their room, and either in this life or in purgatory. These doctrines are plainly tauglit in the twenty-ninth and thirtieth canons ; and as there is no room for doubt as to what the doctrine of the Church of Rome upon this point is, we need not at present further dwell upon it.
The same observation applies to the second topic, which might be comprehended under the general head of the results or co7i~ sequences of justification, — viz. tJiis, that the Church of Rome teaches that it is possible for men, when once justified, to keep in this life wholly and perfectly the law of God; nay, even to go beyond this, and to supererogate, and that they can truly and properly merit or deserve, with proper merit of condignity, in- crease of grace and eternal life. These doctrines, with the ex- ception of that of works of supererogation — which can be shown to be the doctrine of the church otherwise, though not so directly — are taught clearly and unequivocally in the eighteenth, twenty- fourth, and thirty-second canons.
The last topic which it is needful to advert to, in order to complete the view of the doctrine of the Church of Rome upon this important subject, is the certainty or assurance which believers
* Canon xxix.
30 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
have, or may have, or should have, of their being in a justified state, and of their persevering in it. Tliis topic is explained in canons thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth. The Council of Trent taught that no man can have any certainty or assurance that he will persevere and attain to eternal life, without a special revelation ; but this topic was not much discussed at the time of the Reformation, and it belongs more properly to the controversy between the Calvinists and the Arminians. The dispute between the Reformers and the Romanists in connection with this matter turned mainly upon this question, whether men could or should have any certainty or assurance that they were at present in a justified state, and would of course be saved if they persevered in it. And iipon this point many of the most eminent orthodox Protestant divines have been of opinion that both the Reformers and the Council of Trent carried their respective views to an extreme, and that the truth lay somewhere between them. The Romanists, in their anxiety to deprive men of all means of attaining to anything like certainty or assurance that they were in a justified and safe condition, and thus to keep them entirely dependent upon the church, and wholly subject to her control, denied the possibility of certainty or assur- ance ; while the Reformers in general maintained its necessity, and in order, as it were, to secure it in the speediest and most effectual way, usually represented it as necessarily involved in the very nature of the first completed act of saving faith. The gene- rality of orthodox Protestant divines in more modern times have maintained, in opposition to the Church of Rome, the possibility of attaining to a certainty or assurance of being in a justified and regenerated condition, and the duty of seeking and of having this certainty and assurance, as a privilege which God has provided for His people, and a privilege the possession of which is fitted to contribute greatly not only to their happiness, but to their holiness; while they have commonly so far deviated from the views enter- tained by many of the Reformers, as to deny its necessity, except in the sense of obligation, and more especially to represent it as not necessarily involved in the exercise of saving faith : and this is the view given of the matter in the standards of our church. But this is a topic of comparatively subordinate importance, as it does not essentially affect men's actual condition in God's sight, their relation to Him, or their everlasting destiny, but rather their present peace and comfort, and the advancement of the divine life in their souls.
Sec. II.] NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION. 31
There have thus been brought out many most important differences between the doctrines of the Church of Rome and those generally held by orthodox Protestants, on the meaning and nature, the ground and cause, the means and instrument, the results and consequences, of justification ; and we must now proceed to give some explanation of the way in which the Refor- mers established their doctrines upon these subjects, and proved that those of the Cliurch of Rome were inconsistent with the word of God, and dangerous to the souls of men.
Sec. 2. — Nature of Justification.
We shall advert briefly to the grounds on which we main- tain that justification is properly descriptive only of a change of state in men's judicial relation to God, and to His law, as including forgiveness and acceptance or admission to God's favour, in opposition to the Romish doctrine that it comprehends a change of character, the renovation of men's moral nature, or, as Papists commonly call it, the infusion of an inherent right- eousness. Justification is God's act, — it is He who justifies ; and we must be guided wholly by the statements of His word, in de- termining what the real nature of this act of His is. We must regard justification as just being what the word of God repre- sents it to be ; we must understand the word in the sense in which it is employed in the sacred Scriptures. The question then is, In what sense are the words justification and its cognates used in Scripture ; and more especially, should any variety in its mean- ing and application be discovered there, in what sense is it em- ployed in those passages in which it is manifest that the subject ordinarily expressed by it is most fully and formally explained ? Now the truth upon this point is so clear and certain in itself, and has been so generally admitted by all but Romanists, that it is unnecessary to occupy much time with the illustration of it.
It has been proved innumerable times, by evidence against which it is impossible to produce anything that has even plausi- bility, that the word justification is generally used in Scripture in what is called a forensic or judicial sense, as opposed to condem- nation; that it means to reckon, or declare, or pronounce just or righteous, as if by passing a sentence to that effect ; and that it does not include in its signification, as the Council of Trent
32 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
asserts, the making just or righteous, by effecting an actual chantre on the moral character and principles of men. The Council of Trent says that justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renovation of the inner man. But the I inspu'ed writers plainly do not ordinarily employ it to describe an actual change effected upon men's character, but only a change effected upon their legal state or condition by a forensic or judi- cial act of the Justifier. It implies the pronouncing, more or less formally, of a sentence, — a sentence not of condemnation, but of acquittal or acceptance. It has been alleged that the original and radical idea of the word BiKatoco is to punish ; and there are some considerations which favour this notion, though it cannot be said to be established by satisfactory evidence. But even if this were admitted to be the primary or radical idea expressed by the word, there would be no great difficulty in tracing the process by which it came to acquire what seems to be the nearly opposite meaning it bears in the New Testament. When a man has had a sentence of condemnation passed upon him for an offence, and has, in consequence, endured the punishment imposed, he is free from all further charge or liability, and might be said to be now justified in the derived sense of the word, or to have now virtually a sentence of acquittal pronounced upon him. A punished person in this way virtually becomes a justified one, and the two notions are thus not so alien or contradictory as they might at first sight appear to be. And it should not be forgotten that, in the matter of the justification of a sinner before God, there has been a punishment inflicted and endured, which is in every instance the ground or basis of the sinner's justification. When the apostle says, as he is represented in our translation,* " He that is dead is free from sin," the literal, real meaning of his statement is, " He that has died has been justified from sin," BeBLKamrai; and the import of this declaration (which furnishes, I think, the key to the interpretation of the chapter) is, that a man, by dying, and thereby enduring the punishment due to his sin (which sinners, of course, do in their Surety, whose death is imputed to them), has escaped from all further liability, and has a sentence virtually pronounced upon him, whereby he is justified from sin.
But whatever might be the primary meaning of the word
* Rom. vi. 7.
Sec. II.] NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION. 33
justify, and whatever the process of thought by which its meaning may have been afterward modified, it can be very easily and con- clusively proved, that both in the Old and in the New Testament it is ordinarily employed in a forensic or judicial sense, and means not to make or render righteous by changing the character, but to reckon, declare, or pronounce righteous by a sentence formal or virtual, changing the state or condition in relation to a judge and a law. The Socinian system of justification is, in its general scope and tendency, very much akin to the Popish one ; for both tend to assign to men themselves an infl.uential and meritorious share in securing their own ultimate happiness ; and yet even the Socinians admit that the word justify is used in the New Testa- ment in a forensic sense, to denote the declaring or pronouncing men righteous. It is true that something else than a love of truth might lead them to concur with Protestants in the interpretation of this word ; for the idea of God's making men righteous by effecting some change upon their character, or what the Romanists call the infusion of righteousness, — which they allege to be in- cluded in justification, — does not harmonize with the Socinian system, according to which men do not need to be made righteous, since they have always been so, — do not need to have righteous- ness infused into them, since they have never existed without it.
Almost the only man of eminence in modern times beyond the pale of the Church of Rome, who has contended that the proper meaning of the word justify in Scripture is to make righteous — i.e.y to sanctify — is Grotius, whose inadequate sense of the im- portance of sound doctrine, and unscriptural and spurious love of peace, made him ever ready to sacrifice or compromise truth, whether it was to please Papists or Socinians.* The course adopted upon this subject in Newman's Lectures on Justijication is rather curious and instructive. Newman's general scheme of doctrine upon this subject, though it was published some years before he left the Church of England, and though Dr. Pusey issued a pamphlet for the purpose of showing that there was nothing Popish about it, is beyond all reasonable doubt identical, in its fundamental principles and general tendencies, with that of the Council of Trent and the Church of Rome, to which its author has since formally submit- ted himself. The fact, however, that the articles of the church
* Grotius, Prsef. ad Rom. 3 — VOL. II. 0
34 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXf.
to which he then belonged (and which, at the time, he does not seem to have had any intention of leaving) had fixed the mean- ing of the word justify to be, to " account righteous before God," as well as perhaps some sense of the scriptural evidence in support of this view of its meaning, prevented him from openly adopting the definition which the Council of Trent gave of justification ; and obliged him to admit that the proper meaning of the word in Scripture is to declare or pronounce, and not to make or render, righteous. He feels, however, that this admission exposes him to some disadvantage and difficulty in the exposition and defence- of liis Popish system ; and he is, besides, greatly distressed at finding himself in the awkward position, to use his own words,* of ventur- ing "to prefer Luther in any matter even of detail to St. Austin," the former of whom, he says, was merely the founder of a school, or sect, while the latter was a father in the Holy Apostolic Church ; f and on these accounts he is obliged to devise some ex- pedient for practically and in substance withdrawing the conces- sion he had been compelled to make; and it is this : J "To justify, means in itself 'counting righteous,' but includes under its mean- ing ' making righteous : ' in other words, the sense of the term is ' counting righteous ; ' and the sense of the thing denoted by it is, making righteous. In the abstract, it is a counting righteous ; in the concrete, a making righteous." These words may probably be regarded as not very intelligible, but the general object or ten- dency of them is plain enough ; and it is met and exposed simply by recollecting that Scripture, being given by inspiration, and therefore a higher authority than even the unanimous consent of the fathers, just means what it says, and that by the terms which it employs it conveys to us accurate conceptions of the things denoted by them. The course pursued by Newman in this matter is fitted to impress upon us at once the difficulty and the importance, for Popish purposes, of evading the clear scriptural evidence of the forensic sense of the word — justify.
But it is unnecessary to adduce in detail the scriptural evi- dence in support of the Protestant meaning of the word — justify. I may briefly advert, however, to the way in which Popish writers have attempted to meet it. They do not deny that the word is
* Newman's Lectures on Justijica- I t ^f'^f^- P- 67.
tion, p. 70. 2d Edition. | j Ibid. p. 71.
Sec. II.] NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION. 35
sometimes, nay often, taken in Scripture in a forensic sense. Its meaning is too clearly and conclusively fixed by the context in some passages, especially in those in which it is formally opposed to the word condemn^ to admit this position. But they usually contend that this is not the only meaning which the word bears in the Scriptures, — that there are cases in which it means to make righteous, — and that, consequently, they are entitled to regard this idea as contained in its full scriptural import. Now it is to be observed that the position which Protestants maintain upon this subject is not, that in every passage where the word occurs there exists evidence by which it can be proved from that passage alone, taken by itself, that the word there is used in a forensic sense, and cannot admit of any other. They concede that there are passages where the word occurs in which there is nothing in the passage itself, or in the context, to fix down its meaning to the sense of counting righteous, in preference to making righteous. Their position is this, — that there are many passages where it is plain that it must be taken in a forensic sense, and cannot admit of any other ; and that there are none, or at least none in which the justification of a sinner before God is formally and explicitly spoken of, in which it can be proved that the forensic sense is inadmissible or necessarily excluded, and that it must be taken in the sense of making righteous. If these positions are true, then the Protestant view of the Scripture meaning and import of jus- tification is established ; for we are of course entitled to apply to those passages in which the sense of the word is not fixed by that particular passage, the meaning which it must bear in many passages, and which cannot be shown to be certainly inadmissible in any one. This being the true state of the argument, Romanists, in order to make out their case, are bound to produce passages in which it can be shown that the word cannot be taken in a forensic sense, and must be regarded as meaning to make righteous. And this, accordingly, they undertake; usually, however, endeavour- ing in the first place to involve the subject in obscurity, by trying to show that there are various senses — four at least — in which the word justify is used in Scripture. The Romanists, of course, in this discussion, are fully entitled to choose their own ground and to select their own texts, in which they think they can prove that the forensic sense is inadmissible or necessarily excluded, and that of making righteous is required ; while all that Protestants have
36 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
to do, is merely to prove that the Romanists have not succeeded in conclusively establishing these positions.
The texts usually selected by Romanists for this purpose are the following : * — " Moreover, whom He did predestinate, them He also called ; and whom He called, them He also justified ; and whom He justified, them He also glorified," — where, as there is no explicit mention of regeneration or sanctification in this description of the leading steps of the process of the salvation of sinners, it is contended that this must be comprehended in the word justify, which seems to fill up the whole intermediate space between calling and glorifying. Again : f " And such were some of you : but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justi- fied in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God," — where the general scope of the passage, and the position of the word justified, it is alleged, show that at least it is not taken in a forensic sense. Again,;}: the apostle speaks of the " renewing of the Holy Ghost ; which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour ; that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Again : § " He that is righteous, let him be righteous still," — the original of which in the " textus receptus," as it is called, is koX 6 BiKato<i BiKaicod7]T(o en. Now, some Protestant writers have ad- mitted that in these passages, or in some of them, the forensic use of the word BtKaioco can be disproved; and Le Blanc, in the work which I formerly referred to,|| and described, has produced all the concessions of this kind which he could discover, and has laboured himself to prove that these concessions could not have been fairly withheld, and cannot be refused without a very forced and unwar- rantable construction of the passages. Those Protestant divines who have been disposed to admit that in these passages, or in some of them, it can be shown that the word justify is not used in a forensic sense, usually contend that it is quite sufficient, in order to establish the Protestant doctrine, and to overthrow the Popish one, about the meaning of justification, to show that the forensic sense is that in which it is generally and ordinarily taken in Scripture, and that it is taken in that sense, and in no other, in those passages
* Rom. viii. 30. t 1 Cor. vi. 11. i Tit, iii. 5, 6, 7. § Rev. xxii. 11.
II Theses Theological Sedanenses. De usu et acceptione vocis Justificandi in Scripturis et Scholis, pp. 265-G3.
Sec. II.] NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION. 37
where the subject of the justification of a sinner before God is most fully and formally set forth. There is force in this view of the matter ; and if these positions can be established, as they cer- tainly can, this is sufficient to show that it is unwarrantable to in- troduce into the scriptural description of what the justification of a sinner is, any other idea than that of a change of state in relation to God and to His law, even though one or two instances may occur in the Scriptures in which the word is used in a somewhat wider and larger sense. This consideration is sufficient to save Protestant commentators from any very strong temptation to per- vert these passages from what may seem to be their true meaning, in order to wrest a weapon out of the hands of an opponent ; and I use the word temptation here, because it should never be for- gotten that the highest and most imperative duty of all honest investigators of Christian truth, is just to ascertain the true and real meaning of every portion of the inspired word of God. I cannot enter into a minute and detailed examination of those pas- sages, and will make only one or two observations regarding them. It will scarcely be disputed that, had these been the only pas- sages in the New Testament where the word justify occurred, the presumption would have been against it being taken in a forensic sense, — to describe a change of legal relation, the passing of a sentence of acquittal. But, from the explanation we have given of the conditions of the argument, it will be seen that much more than this must be proved in regard to them, in order to their being of any service to the Papists, — even that the forensic sense is clearly and conclusively shut out. Now I think it has been satisfactorily proved that this cannot be effected, and that, on the contrary, in regard to all the passages quoted — except, perhaps, the one which occurs in the twenty-second chapter of the Revelation, — it can be shown, and without any violent and unwarrantable straining of the statements, that the ordinary and usual sense of the word in the New Testament is not clearly and necessarily excluded. In regard to the first of them — that occurring in the eighth of the Romans — it is contended that we have no right to assume, as the Popish argument does, that the apostle must necessarily have comprehended, in the description he gave, every step in the process of a sinner's salvation, every one of the lead- ing blessings which God bestows ; that the train of thought which the apostle was pursuing at the time — or, what is in sub-
38 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
stance the same thing, the context and scope of the passage — did not require this, as Calvin has shown in his commentary upon it ; and that even if we were to assume — what, however, is not necessary, and is therefore, from the conditions of the argument, unwarrantable — that all the leading blessings of salvation must have been directly or by implication adverted to, we are under no more necessity of supposing that regeneration, by which men are made righteous, must be included under justification, than under vocation or glorification.
There is no serious difficulty in the passage quoted from the sixth of First Corinthians. Justify cannot here mean to make righteous,^ — i.e., it cannot be identical with, or comprehensive of, regeneration and sanctification ; for it is distinguished from them, while they are expressly mentioned. And as to the allegation that it cannot be here understood in a forensic sense because it is introduced after " washed and sanctified," and is ascribed to the operation of the Holy Spirit, it is answered, that the inspired writers do not always, in other cases, restrict themselves to what may be called the natural order of time, — that the apostle's train of thought in the preceding context naturally led him to give prominence and precedency to washing and sanctification ; while he was also naturally led on, in magnifying their deliverance and in enforcing their obligations, to introduce, as completing the description of what had been done for them, their justification, or deliverance from guilt and condemnation ; and that justification as well as sanctification may be, and is, ascribed to the Holy Spirit as well as to Christ, since it is He who works faith in them and thereby unites them to Christ, which union is the origin and the ground of all the blessings they enjoy.
The argument which the Romanists found on the third chapter of Titus amounts in substance to this, — that the state- ment seems to imply that men are renewed by the Holy Ghost, in order that they may be justified by grace ; but it has been proved, first, that neither the connection of the particular clauses of the sentence, nor the general scope of the passage, requires us to admit that the apostle intended to convey this idea ; and, secondly, that, independently of all questions as to the exact philological meaning of the word justify, this doctrine is incon- sistent with the plain teaching of the word of God in regard to the whole subject. I think it has been established, by such con-
Sec. II.] NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION. 39
siderations as these, that in none of these three passages is there any necessity for regarding the word — justify — as meaning or including to make righteous, or for departing, in the interpreta- tion of them, from its ordinary forensic sense.
The only one remaining, is that in the twenty-second chapter of Revelation, " He that is righteous, let him be righteous still." Now there does seem to be greater difficulty about this one ; for the only senses which, in accordance with the context, and without considerable straining, the word BtKaicoOijTco seems here to admit, are either, " Let him be made righteous," i.e., more righteous, — or, " Let him do righteousness," i.e., more righteousness. But, by a remarkable coincidence, it so happens that there is good and con- clusive ground, on the soundest and most universally recognised principles of criticism, for believing that the reading in the " textus receptus" is erroneous ; that the word hiKalow was not here used by the apostle ; that SiKaLcoOTjTco ought to be removed from the text, and the words hiKaioavvr^v iroirjaarw^ literally expressing the second of the two meanings above mentioned, as apparently required by the context, substituted in its room. Griesbach, Scholz, Lach- mann, and Tischendorf — i.e., all the most recent and most eminent investigators into the sacred text — have done this without any hesitation ; and the purely critical grounds on which this change is based, have commended themselves to the minds of all competent judges. I cannot prosecute this subject further; but what appear to me to be satisfactory discussions of these texts, as adduced by Le Blanc and the Romanists, may be found in Dr. Owen's great work on Justification,* in Witsius' (Economy of the Covenants, f and De Moor's Commentary on Marckius.X Witsius, in reference to the concessions which some Protestant divines had made to Romanists about the meaning of the word justify in some of these passages, says : " Et sane non exagitanda hsec maximorum virorum ingenuitas est, qui licet tantum adversariis dederint, feli- citer tamen de iis in summa rei triumpharunt. Verum enimvero nos rationes sufficientes non videmus, quae ipsos tam liberales esse coegerint. Nulla vis allegatis inferretur locis, si ibi quoque justificandi verbum, sensu, qui Paulo ordinarius est, acciperetur ; neque minus commode omnia tunc fluere videntur." §
t Lib. iii. c. viii, X C. xxiv. torn. iv.
§ Wits. CEconom. Feed. lib. iii. cap viii. sec. vii.
40 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
The word justify^ then, in its scriptural use, means to reckon, or pronounce, or declare righteous, or to resolve on treating as righteous ; and the justification of a sinner, therefore, is descrip- tive of a change effected by an act of God, not upon his moral character, but upon his state or condition in relation to the law under which he was placed, and to God, the author and the guardian of that law, — a change wliereby he who is the object of it ceases to be held or reckoned and treated as guilty, and liable to punishment, — has a sentence of acquittal and approbation pro- nounced upon him, is forgiven all his past offences, and is ad- mitted into the enjoyment of God's favour and friendship. God has, indeed — as is clearly set forth in His word, and as the Re- formers fully admitted — made complete and effectual provision that every sinner whom He pardons and accepts shall also be born again, and renewed in the whole man after His own image ; but He does not describe to us this change upon men's moral character by the name of justification. He assigns to this other equally indispensable change a different name or designation ; and although — according to the fundamental principles of the scheme which He has devised for the salvation of sinners, which He has fully revealed to us in His word, and which He is execut- ing by His Spirit and in His providence — there has been estab- lished and secured an invariable connection in fact between these two great blessings which He bestows, — these two great changes which He effects, — yet, by the representations which He has given us of them in His word, He has imposed upon us an obligation to distinguish between them, to beware of confounding them, and to investigate distinctly and separately all that we find revealed regarding them in the sacred Scriptures. If this be so, the first and most obvious inference to be deduced from it is, that the Council of Trent and the Church of Eome have erred, have corrupted and perverted the truth of God, in defining justification to be not only the remission of sin, but also the renovation of the inner man ; and thus confounding it with, or unwarrantably ex- tending it so as to include, regeneration and sanctification, or the infusion of an inherent personal righteousness. Every error in the things of God is sinful and dangerous, and tends to extend and propagate itself ; and while thus darkening men's under- standings, it tends also to endanger, or to affect injuriously, their spiritual welfare. An error as to the scriptural meaning and
Sec. II.] NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION. 41
import of justification — and especially an error which thus con- founds, or mixes up together, the two great blessings of the gospel — must tend to introduce obscurity and confusion into men's whole conceptions of the method of salvation.
It is true that even Augustine, notwithstanding all his pro- found knowledge of divine truth, and the invaluable services which he was made the instrument of rendering to the cause of sound doctrine and of pure Christian theology, does not seem to have ever attained to distinct apprehensions of the forensic mean- ing of justification, and usually speaks of it as including or com- prehending regeneration ; and this was probably owing, in some measure, to his want of familiarity with the Greek language, to his reading the New Testament in Latin, and being thus somewhat led astray by the etymological meaning of the word justification. The subject of justification, in the scriptural and Protestant sense of it, had not been discussed in the church, or occupied much of its attention, since the time of the Apostle Paul. The whole tendency of the course of sentiment which had prevailed in the church from the apostolic age to that of Augustine, was to lead men to throw the doctrine of justification into the background, and to regard it as of inferior importance. When Pelagius, and his immediate followers, assailed -the doctrines of grace, it was exclusively in the way of ascribing to men themselves the power or capacity to do God's will and to obey His law, and to effect whatever changes might be necessary in order to enable them to accomplish this. And to this point, accordingly, the attention of Augustine was chiefly directed ; while the subject of justification remained in a great measure neglected. But from the general soundness of his views and feelings in regard to divine things, and his profound sense of the necessity of referring everything bearing upon the salvation of sinners to the grace of God and the work of Christ, his defective and erroneous views about the meaning and import of the word justification did not exert so injurious an in- fluence as might have been expected, either upon his theological system or upon his character ; and assumed practically very much the aspect of a mere philological blunder, or of an error in phrase- ology, rather than in real sentiment or conviction. And Calvin accordingly refers to it in the following terms : " Ac ne Augustini quidem sententia vel saltern loquendi ratio per omnia recipienda est. Tametsi enim egregie hominem omni justiiice laude spoliat, ac
42
JUSTIFICATION.
[Chap. XXT.
totam Dei gratice transcrihit : gratiam tamen ad sanctificationem refert, qua in vitge novitatem per Spiritum regeneramur."* The whole tendency on the part of the great body of the church for about a thousand years after Augustine, notwithstanding all the respect that was professedly entertained for him, was to throw all that was sacred and scriptural in his system of doctrine into the background, and to bring all that was defective and erroneous in his opinions into prominence and influence ; and hence there is this singular aspect presented by the decrees of the Council of Trent, that while it might probably be difficult to prove that they con- tain much, if anything, which formally and in terminis contradicts any of the leading doctrines of Augustine, they yet exhibit to us a system of theology which, in its whole bearing, spirit, and tendency, is opposed to that which pervaded the mind and the writings of that great man, and which much more nearly approximates in these respects to that of his opponents in the Pelagian controversy.
But while this much may be justly said in defence of by far the greatest and most useful man whom God gave to the church from the apostolic age till the Reformation, it should not be for- gotten that his defective and erroneous views upon the subject of justification were at once the effect and the cause of the attention of the church being withdrawn, through the artifices of Satan, from a careful study of what Scripture teaches as to the nature and necessity of forgiveness and acceptance, and the way and manner in which men individually receive and become possessed of them ; and of men being thus led to form most inadequate impressions of what is implied in their being all guilty and under the curse of the law as transgressors, and of the indispensable necessity of their being washed from their sins in the blood of Christ. The natural tendency of men is to consider the guilt incurred by the violation of God's law as a trivial matter, which may be adjusted without any great difficulty ; and this tendency is strengthened by vague and erroneous impressions about the character of God, and the principles that regulate His government of the world. And where something about Christianity is known,
* Calv. Inst. lib. iii. c. xi. sec. 15. Bellarmine, in quoting this passage, as a concession of Calvin, that all the fathers, even Augustine, were op- posed to him on this point, omits all
the words that are in italics, and gives the first and the last clauses as the whole passage. De Justijicat. lib. ii. cap. viii.
Sec. II.] NATURE OF JUSTIFICATION. 43
this universal and most dangerous tendency appears in the form of leading men to cherish, and to act upon, a vague impression that, because Christ came into the world to save us from our sins, men need have no great anxiety about any guilt that may attach to them, even while they have not a single distinct and definite conception about the way in which Christ's mediatorial work bears upon the deliverance and salvation of the human race, or of the way in which men individually become possessed of forgiveness and acceptance. I have no doubt that it is to be regarded as an indication and result of this state of mind and feeling, that there has been so strong and general a tendency to extend, beyond what Scripture warrants, the meaning of justification, and to mix it up with regeneration and sanctification. Romish writers, in defending the doctrine of their church upon this subject, sometimes talk as if they thought that deliverance from guilt and condemnation — mere forgiveness and acceptance — were scarcely important enough to exhaust the mean- ing of the scriptural statements about justification, or to be held up as constituting a great and distinct blessing, which ought to be by itself a subject of diligent investigation to the understanding, and of deep anxiety to the heart. All false conceptions of the system of Christian doctrine assume, or are based upon, inadequate and erroneous views and impressions of the nature and effects of the fall, — of the sinfulness of the state into which man fell ; produc- ing, of course, equally inadequate and erroneous views and im- pressions of the difficulty of effecting their deliverance, and of the magnitude, value, and efficacy of the provision made for accom- plishing it. Forgiveness and regeneration, even when admitted to be in some sense necessary, are represented as comparatively trivial matters, which may be easily procured or effected, — the pre- cise grounds of which need not be very carefully or anxiously investigated, since there is no difficulty in regarding them as, in a manner, the natural results of the mercy of God, or, as is often added, though without any definite meaning being attached to it, of the work of Christ. This appears most fully and palpably in the Socinian system, which is just a plain denial of all that is most peculiar and important in the Christian revelation, and in the scheme there unfolded for the salvation of sinners. But it appears to a considerable extent also in the Popish system, where, though the bearing of the vicarious work of Christ upon the for- giveness and renovation of men is not denied, it is thrown very
44 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
much into the background, and left in a state of great indefinite- ness and obscurity ; and in which the importance of forgiveness and admission into God's favour, as a great and indispensable blessing, is overlooked and underrated, by being mixed up with renovation and sanctification, — men's thoughts being thus with- drawn from the due contemplation of the great truth that they need forgiveness and acceptance, and from the investigation, under a due sense of responsibility, of the way and manner in which they are to receive or obtain it.
There are few things more important, either with reference to the production of a right state of mind and feeling in regard to our religious interests, or to the formation of a right system of theology, than that men should be duly impressed with the conviction that they are by nature guilty, subject to the curse of a broken law, con- demned by a sentence of God, and standing as already condemned criminals at this tribunal. If this be indeed the real condition of men by nature, it is of the last importance, both as to the formation of their opinions and the regulation of their feelings and conduct, that they should be aware of it ; and that they should realize dis- tinctly and definitely all that is involved in it. When this is under- stood and realized, men can scarcely fail to be impressed with the conviction, that the first and most essential thing in order to their deliverance and welfare is, that this sentence which hangs over them be cancelled, and that a sentence of an opposite import be either formally or virtually pronounced upon them, — a sentence whereby God forgives their sins and admits them into the enjoy- ment of His favour, or in which He intimates His purpose and intention no longer to hold them liable for their transgressions, or to treat them as transgressors, but to regard and treat them as if they had not transgressed ; and not only to abstain from punish- ing them, but to admit them into the enjoyment of His favour. The passing of such an act, or the pronouncing of such a sentence, on God's part, is evidently the first and most indispensable thing for men's deliverance and welfare. Men can be expected to form a right estimate of the grounds on which such an act can be passed, — such a change can be effected upon their condition and pro- spects,— only when they begin with realizing their actual state by nature, as guilty and condemned criminals, standing at God's tribunal, and utterly unable to render any satisfaction for their offences, or to merit anything whatever at God's hand.
Sec. III.] IMPUTATION OF CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS. 45
Sec. 3. — Imputation of Chris£s Righteousness.
Whatever meaning might be attached to the word justification in Scripture, and even though it could be proved that, as used there, it comprehended or described both a change in men's state and in men's character, it would still be an important question, deserving of a separate and very careful investigation. What are the grounds or reasons on account of which God forgives any man's sins, and admits him into the enjoyment of His favour ? And it would still be an imperative duty, incumbent upon all men, to examine with the utmost care into everything which Scripture contains, fitted to throw any light upon this infinitely important subject. Now I have already shown that, while the Council of Trent ascribes, in general, the forgiveness and acceptance of sin- ners to the vicarious work of Christ as its meritorious cause, in the first place it gives no explanation of the way and manner in which the work of Christ bears upon the accomplishment of this result in the case of individuals ; and then, in the second place, it repre- sents the only formal cause of our forgiveness to be an inherent personal righteousness, infused into men by God's Spirit, — thus teaching that that to which God has a respect or regard in pass- ing an act of forgiveness in the case of any individual, is a per- sonal righteousness, previously bestowed upon him, and wrought in him ; while the only place or share assigned, or rather left, to the work of Christ in the matter, is to merit, procure, or purchase the grace, or gracious exercise of power, by which this inherent personal righteousness is infused.
The Reformers and the Reformed confessions, on the other hand, asserted that that to which God has directly and imme- diately a respect in forgiving any man's sins, or that which is the proper cause or ground of the act of forgiveness and acceptance, is not an inherent personal righteousness infused into him, but the righteousness of Christ imputed to him. By the righteousness of Christ, the Reformers understood the whole vicarious work of Christ, including both His sufferings as satisfactory to the divine justice and law, which required that men's sins should be punished, and His whole obedience to the law, as meritorious of the life that was promised to obedience ; the former being usually called by later divines, when these subjects came to be discussed with greater minuteness and detail, HispasseW, and the latter His active,
46 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
righteousness. By this righteousness being imputed to any man, they meant that it was reckoned to him, or put down to his ac- count, so that God, from a regard to it thus imputed, virtually agreed or resolved to deal with him, or to treat him, as if he himself had suffered what Christ suffered, and had done what Christ did ; and had thus fully satisfied for his offences, and fully earned the rewards promised to perfect obedience. The Reformers taught that, when God pardoned and accepted any sinner, the ground or basis of the divine act — that to which God had directly and immediately a respect or regard in performing it, or in pass- ing a virtual sentence cancelling that man's sins, and admitting him into the enjoyment of His favour — was this, that the right- eousness of Christ was his, through his union to Christ ; that being his in this way, it was in consequence imputed to him, or put down to his account, just as if it were truly and properly his own; and that this righteousness, being in itself fully satisfactory and meritorious, formed an adequate ground on which his sins might be forgiven and his person accepted. Now the Papists deny that, in this sense, the righteousness of Christ, as satisfactory and meritorious, is imputed to men as the ground or basis of God's act in forgiving and accepting them ; and set up in opposition to it, as occupying this place, and serving this purpose, an inherent personal righteousness infused into them. And in this way the state of the question, as usually discussed between Protestant and Romish writers, is, as we formerly explained and proved, clearly defined and marked out, although the decisions of the Council of Trent upon this subject are involved in some obscurity.
The main grounds on which the Reformers contended that the righteousness of Christ, imputed to a man, or given to him in virtue of his union to Christ, and then held and reckoned as his, was that to which God had respect in forgiving him, and admit- ting him to the enjoyment of His favour, were these : First, that, according to the general principles indicated in tlie sacred Scrip- tures as regulating God's dealings with fallen man, a full satisfac- tion and a perfect righteousness were necessary as the ground or basis of an act of forgiveness and acceptance; and that there is no adequate satisfaction and no perfect righteousness which can avail for this result, except the sacrifice and righteousness of Christ ; and, secondly, that the statements contained in Scripture as to the place which Christ and His vicarious work, including His obedi-
Sec. III.] IMPUTATION OF CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS. 47
ence as well as His sufferings, hold in their bearing upon the for- giveness and acceptance of sinners, necessarily imply this doctrine; and that indeed the substance of these statements cannot be cor- rectly, fully, and definitely brought out, or embodied in distinct and explicit propositions, except just hy asserting that Christ's righteous- ness is given and imputed to men, and is thus the ground or basis on which God's act in forgiving and accepting them rests.
It is manifest that the doctrine of Christ being the surety and substitute of sinners, and performing in that capacity a vicarious work, implies that it was necessary that something should be suf- fered and done by Him which might stand in the room and stead of what should have been suffered and done by them ; and that in this loay they, for whose salvation it was designed, have the benefit of what He suffered and did in their room imparted to them. This, accordingly, is admitted to be in substance what the Scripture states as to the ground or basis oi forgiveness by all, even Arminians, who admit a proper vicarious atonement or satis- faction ; and they thus admit, though some of them make great difficulties about the language or phraseology, the whole substance of what is contended for under the name of the imputation of our sins to Christ as the ground of His sufferings, and of the imputa- tion of Christ's sufferings to us as the ground or basis of our pardon. Now the Reformers, and Calvinistic divines in general, have extended the same general principle to merit and acceptance, which is admitted by all but Socinians to apply to the two other correlatives, viz., satisfaction and forgiveness. The proper grounds on which a criminal, who had violated a law, and had had a sen- tence of condemnation pronounced upon him, is exempted from liability to punishment, are either his having already endured in his own person the full punishment appointed, or his having im- puted to him, and so getting the benefit of, a full satisfaction made by another in his room ; for I assume, at present, the necessity of a satisfaction or atonement, — a principle which of course pre- cludes any other supposition than the two now stated. But a man might, on one or other of these two grounds, be pardoned or forgiven, so as to be no longer liable to any further punishment, while yet there was no ground or reason whatever why he should be admitted into the favour or friendship of the judge or law- giver,— receive from him any token of kindness, or be placed by him in a position of honour and comfort. We find, however, in
48 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
Scripture, that, in the case of all justified men, these two things are, in point of fact, invariably and inseparably combined ; and that when God justifies a man. He not only pardons all his sins, but admits him into the enjoyment of His favour, and virtually pronounces upon him a sentence whereby He gives him a right or title to happiness and heaven, and to everything necessary for the full and permanent enjoyment of them.
The two things, however, though invariably combined, in fact, in the gospel method of salvation, and in all on whom it takes practical effect, are quite distinct in themselves, and easily sepa- rable in idea; nay, they are so entirely distinct in their own nature, that we cannot but conceive that each must have its own suitable and appropriate ground to rest upon. As the proper ground of au act of forgiveness or of immunity from further punishment extended to a condemned criminal, in a case where there are principles that preclude a mere discretionary pardon by a sove- reign act of clemency, must be the endurance of the penalty prescribed, either personal or by a vicarious satisfaction, so the proper ground of a sentence of approbation and reward must, from the nature of the case, be obedience to the law, personal or vicarious, i.e., imputed. If a regard to the honour of the law demanded, in the case of sinners, that there should be satisfac- tion as the ground of forgiveness, because it had threatened transgression with death, so it equally demanded that there should be perfect obedience as the ground or basis of admission to life. Perfect obedience to the law — or, what is virtually the same thing, merit the result of perfect obedience — seems just as necessary as the ground or basis of a virtual sentence of appro- bation and reward, as satisfaction is as the ground or basis of a sentence of forgiveness and immunity from further punishment. And as there is no perfect righteousness in men themselves to be the ground or basis of their being accepted or admitted to favour and happiness, — as they can no more render perfect obedience than they can satisfy for their sins, — Christ's perfect obedience must become theirs, and be made available for their benefit, as well as His suffering, — His merit as well as His satisfaction.
Papists unite with Arminians in denying the necessity of a perfect righteousness, as the ground or basis of God's act in accepting men's persons, and giving them a right and title to heaven ; and in maintaining that all that is implied in the justi-
Sec. III.] IMPUTATION OF CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS. 49
fication of a sinner, so far as it is descriptive of a mere change of state, consists only in forgiveness, based upon Christ's vicarious sufferings or penal satisfaction. The Arminians hold the doc- trine of the imputation of faith for, or instead of, righteousness or perfect obedience ; and the chief scriptural ground on which they defend this doctrine is the statement of the apostle,* that " faith is counted or reckoned for righteousness," — TrtcrTt? \o<y{- ^erai el<; StKaioavvrjv. Their interpretation of this statement cer- tainly could not be easily rejected, if the preposition et? could be shown to convey anything like the idea of substitution, as the word ybr, by which it is rendered in our version, often does. But no such idea can be legitimately extracted from it. The prepositions used in Scripture in reference to Christ's vicarious atonement or satisfaction in our room and stead, for us — for our sins — are, avn and virep, and never et?, which means towards, in order to, with a view to, — ideas which, in some connections, may be correctly enough expressed by the English word for, but which cannot convey the idea of substitution. Faith being counted et<? BLKaioavv7}v, means merely — and cannot, according to the estab- lished usus loquendi, mean anything else than — faith being counted in order to righteousness, or with a view to justification ; so that this statement of the apostle does not directly inform us how, or in what way, it is that the imputation of faith bears upon the result of justification, — this we must learn from other scrip- tural statements, — and most certainly does not indicate that it bears upon this result by being, or by being regarded and ac- cepted as, a substitute for righteousness or perfect obedience.
The Arminians commonly teach that faith — and the sincere though imperfect obedience, or personal righteousness, as they call it, which faith produces — is counted or accepted by God as if it were perfect obedience, and in this way avails to our justifica- tion, and more especially, of course, from the nature of the case, to our acceptance and title to heaven. Now, with respect to this doctrine, I think it is no very difficult matter to show — though I cannot at present enter upon the proof — first, that it is not supported by any scriptural evidence ; secondly, that it has been devised as an interpretation of certain scriptural statements which have some appearance of countenancing it, — an interpretation
* Rom. iv. 5, 9. 3— VOL. II. D
50 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
tliat might supersede the common Calvinistic explanation of them, and might not contradict the general Arminian doctrine upon the subject of justification ; and, thirdly, that it implies a virtual admission, or indicates a sort of lurking consciousness, of the scriptural truth of some general principles which really establish the Calvinistic, and overturn the Arminian, doctrine on the subject of justification, — viz., a distinction, in nature and ground, between forgiveness and acceptance ; and the necessity, after all, of a perfect righteousness, actual or by imputation, as the ground or cause of acceptance and admission into the enjoyment of God's favour. These two important principles the Arminians formally and explicitly deny, and the denial of them constitutes the main ground of controversy between them and the Calvinists in this whole question. And yet their doctrine of the imputation of faith for, or instead of, righteousness, implies something tanta- mount to a virtual admission of both. They do not allege that this imputation of faith for righteousness is the ground of the pardon of our sins, for that they admit to be the vicarious suffer- ings of Christ. If it bears, therefore, upon our justification at all, it can be only, from the nature of the case, upon our acceptance and admission into God's favour ; and if faith, and the imperfect obedience which follows from it, is regarded and accepted in the way of imputation instead of righteousness, this can be only be- cause a higher and more perfect righteousness than is, in fact, found in men, is in some way or other necessary — needful to be brought in — in the adjustment of this matter, with a view to men's eternal welfare. But though all this can be shown to be fairly im- plied in their doctrine of the imputation of faith instead of right- eousness, they continue explicitly to deny the necessity of a real or actual perfect righteousness as the ground orbasis of acceptance and a title to heaven, lest the admission of this should constrain them to adopt the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Papists have another way of making this argument about the necessity of a perfect righteousness, in the use of which the Arminians have not ventured to follow them, and which even the Socinians hesitate to adopt. It is by asserting that, even if it be conceded that a perfect righteousness is necessary, there is no occasion to have recourse to Christ's righteousness ; for that men's own inherent personal righteousness is, or may be, perfect. Bellarmine distinctly lays down and maintains this doctrine, in
Sec. hi.] IMPUTATION OF CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS.
51
opposition to the common Protestant argument for the necessity of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, from there being no other that is perfect. He says that our inherent righteousness consists chiefly in faith, hope, and love, which Papists commonly call the theological virtues ; he then proceeds to prove from Scrip- ture that all these virtues may be perfect in men in this life, and thus constitute them perfectly righteous. His argument, indeed, plainly requires him to prove that these virtues are actually, and in point of fact, perfect in man in this life. This, however, he scarcely ventures to attempt, and merely labours to prove from Scripture that they may he perfect, or that perfection in them may possibly be attained ; and after having established this to his own satisfaction,* he triumphantly concludes : " Quod si fidem, spem, et caritatem, ac per hoc justitiam inherentem, perfectam habere possumus, frustra laborant hseretici in asserenda imputa- tione justitise, quasi alioqui nuUo modo simpliclter, et absolute justi esse possimus." f The employment of such an argument as this brings out very clearly — more so than their cautious and guarded general statements — the real doctrine of the Church of Rome in regard to the ground of a sinner's justification ; while, at the same time, from its manifest contrariety to the plainest scriptural declarations, it is not necessary to enlarge in refuting it. It must, however, be acknowledged that the great direct and proper proof of the Protestant doctrine of the righteousness of Christ, given and imputed, being that to which God has a respect or regard in justifying a sinner, is the second position which we laid down, — viz., that the scriptural statements about Christ as the only Saviour of sinners, and about the bearing of His suffer- ings and obedience upon their deliverance and salvation, imply this, and indeed can be embodied in distinct and definite proposi- tions only by asserting this doctrine. As the Scriptures indicate that a perfect righteousness is necessary, as the ground or basis of our acceptance and admission to a right to life, as well as a full satisfaction as the ground or basis of our forgiveness or exemption from punishment, so they set before us such a perfect righteous- ness as available for us, and actually benefiting us, in the obedience which Christ, as our surety, rendered to all the requirements of
* Davenant, Prselectiones de Justitia Habituali et Actuali, c. 24, pp. 325-329 ; Allport's trauslatiou, vol. i. p. 181,
t Bellarm. De Justijicat. lib. ii.
52
JUSTIFICATION.
[Chap. XXI.
the law. The apostle assures us* that " God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons ;" where our translation unwarrantably, by changing the construction, — giving in the one case " to redeem," and in the other " that we might receive," while both are expressed in the original by the same word iW, — conceals the fact that the apostle plainly declared that Christ was made under the law, and of course complied with all its requirements, both as demanding punishment, and as imposing perfect obedience, in order thereby to effect two distinct objects, — viz., that He might deliver us from its curse, and that He might invest us with the privileges of sons.f It makes no material dif- ference whether we suppose that both the clauses introduced with iW hold directly of, or are immediately connected in grammati- cal regimen with, Christ's being made under the law, — or that the latter clause, " might receive," holds directly of the preceding one, viz., that "He might redeem us;" for there is nothing incon- sistent with the teaching of the Scripture, in regarding the blessing of forgiveness as being in some sense, in the order of nature, though not of time, antecedent and preparatory to that of acceptance, or the bestowal of a right to life and all the privileges of sonship.
The Scriptures represent the deliverance and salvation of men, and all the blessings which these require or imply, as traceable not only to Christ's sufferings and death, — i.e., to His penal satisfaction, — but generally to Christ, and to His whole work as our surety ; while they also represent all that He did in our nature upon earth as vicarious, — as performed in the capacity of a surety or substi- tute, acting in the room and stead of others. They also more directly represent Him as our righteousness, — as made of God unto us righteousness, — and as making many righteous by His obedience ; statements which, in their fair and natural import, imply that His obedience, as well as His sufferings, bear directly and immediately upon our reception into the enjoyment of the divine favour, and our participation in the blessings of redemption. And if His whole obedience to the law thus bears directly and immediately upon our enjoyment of the blessings of salvation, it
* Gal. iv. 4, 5.
t The original is, " l^a.'XiaTit'Kiv 6 BrOj rou Ttou uvToi, yivo/nsvov sx yv-
VOt-IKOi, yiUOfiiUOV VTTO uof^ov " Ivx TOVr
UTTO v6/^ou i^xyopdat}, 'iux tv^u uio6i(rixv «xoX«/3a)j««6i'." Walsei Loci Com- munes, De Satis factionc^ Opera, torn, i. p. 398. Lugd. Bat. 1647.
Sec. III.] IMPUTATION OF CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS. 53
can be only by its being held or reckoned as performed in our room, — by its being imputed to us, or put down to our account, so as thereby actually to avail for our benefit.
We can form no distinct or definite conception either of the satisfaction or the meritorious obedience of Christ, acting or ope- rating directly upon our forgiveness and acceptance with God, ex- cept in this icay. We must bring to bear upon them the Scripture ideas both of substitution and imputation ; and when we do so, we can form an intelligible and distinct conception of that which the scriptural statements upon the subject seem so plainly to indi- cate; while, without the introduction and application of these scriptural ideas of substitution and imputation, the whole subject is dark, obscure, and impalpable. We can give no distinct or intelligible statement or explanation of how either the satisfaction or the meritorious obedience of Christ bear upon, and affect, the forgiveness and the acceptance of sinners, except by saying that they were rendered in the room and stead of men, and that they are applied to, and made available for, those in whose room they were rendered, by being made over to them, and put down to their account, so that they in consequence are regarded and treated as if they had endured and done them themselves. This is what is ob- viously suggested by the general tenor of Scripture language upon the subject ; and it is only in this way that we can clearly and de- finitely express the substance of what an examination of Scripture statements forces upon our minds as the actual reality of the case.
Romanists, accordingly, while professedly arguing against the imputation of Christ's righteousness for the justification of sin- ners, have felt themselves constrained to make concessions which involve the whole substance of what Protestants contend for in this matter. Bellarmine, speaking of the views of the Refor- mers upon this subject, says, in an often quoted passage,* " Si solum vellent, nobis imputari Christi merita, quia nobis donata sunt, et possumus ea Deo Patri offerre pro peccatis nostris, quo- niam Christus suscepit super se onus satisfaciendi pro nobis, nosque Deo Patri reconciliandi, recta esset eorum sententia." And Protestant divines have usually answered by saying they just mean this, and nothing more than this, when they contend that Christ's satisfactory sufferings and meritorious obedience are
* Bellarm. De Justijicat. lib. ii. c. vii.
54
JUSTIFICATION.
[Chap. XXI.
imputed to men for their justification, — viz., that the merits of Christ are given to them, and that they, as it were, present them to the Father as the ground of their forgiveness and acceptance. And all that they ask of the Komanists is, that in place of evading this concession, as Bellarmine does, by attempting to involve the subject in obscurity by the help of the scholastic distinction of a formal cause, they would just form a clear and definite conception of what the statement means, and honestly apply it to the matter in hand. If it be admitted that the meritorious obedience of Christ is given to us, and may be presented or offered by us, to the Father, and if men would attempt to realize what this means, they could not fail to see that they are bound, in consistency, to hold that it was rendered in our room and stead, — that it is, in consequence, freely bestowed upon us, — and, being on this ground held or reckoned as ours, becomes thus the basis on which God communicates to us all the blessings which Christ, by His meritorious obedience, purchased for us, and which are necessary for our eternal happiness. It is proper to mention that there have been some, though few, Calvinistic divines, who have rejected the distinction between forgiveness and acceptance, and between the passive and the active righteousness of Christ, as not being in their judgment sufficiently established by Scripture, and have appealed to the authority of Calvin, without any sufficient warrant, as sanction- ing this opinion.* The Calvinistic divines who have most dis- tinguished themselves by deviating from the orthodox doctrine upon this subject, ai'e Piscator and Wendelinus, who both be- longed to the German Keformed Church, the former of whom flourished about the beginning, and the latter about the middle, of the seventeenth century ; while, on the other hand, it is in- teresting to notice that, until all sound doctrine was destroyed in the Lutheran Church by the prevalence of Rationalism, these distinctions were strenuously maintained by the most eminent Lutheran divines. The general considerations on which Piscator and Wendelinus based f their opinion are of no force, except upon
* The Reformers, and Theology of the Reformation, p. 402, etc. (Edks.).
t Piscator's Letter to the French clergy, in defence of his views on this subject, is given in the Prsestantium uc eruditorum virorum Epistohe Ec-
clesiastics et Theologicie, p. 121, 3d edition. "Wendelinus, Christ. Theol. System, lib. i. c. xxv. Thes. vii. Vide also Whitby's Commentary on the New Testament, at the end of 1 Corinthians.
Sec. III.] IMPUTATION OF CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS.
55
the assumption of principles which would overturn altogether the scriptural doctrines of substitution and imputation. The whole question upon the subject resolves into this, Whether we have sufficiently clear indications of the distinction in Scripture, — a question in the discussion of which it has been shown that the Scripture evidence is sufficient, and that the opponents of the distinction demand a measure of evidence in point of amount, and of directness or explicitness, that is quite unreasonable. At the same time, many eminent divines have been of opinion that the controversies which have been carried on on this subject have led some of the defenders of the truth to give a prominence and an importance to this distinction beyond what Scripture warrants, and scarcely in keeping with the general scope and spirit of its statements. There is no trace of this tendency to excess in the admirably cautious and accurate declarations of our Confession of Faith ; and the danger of yielding to it, and, at the same time, the importance of maintaining the whole truth upon the point as sanctioned by Scripture, are very clearly and ably enforced by Turretine.*
Papists and other opponents of the truth upon this subject usually represent an imputed righteousness as if it were a putative, fictitious, or imaginary righteousness. But this representation has no foundation in anything that was held by the Reformers, or that can be shown to be involved in or deducible from their doctrine. The righteousness of Christ, including the whole of His perfect and meritorious obedience to the law, as well as His suffering, was a great and infinitely important reality. It was intended to effect and secure the salvation of all those whom God had chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. It is in due time, and in accordance with the arrangements which God in His infinite wisdom has laid down, bestowed upon each of them, through his union to Christ by faith, not in any mere fiction of law, but in actual deed ; and being thus really, and not merely putatively or by a fiction, bestowed upon them, it is of course held or reckoned as theirs, and thus becomes the ground — the full
* Turret. De Officio Chrlsti Media- torio, Loc. xiv. Q. xiii. sees. xi. xii. For a full discussion of this topic, see De Moor, Comment, in Marck. Com- pend. cap. xx. sec. xvii. torn. iii. pp.
959-77. Gerhard. Loci Communes. Loc. xvii. c. ii. sees. Ivii.-lxiv., in Cotta's edition, torn. vii. pp. 61-72 ; folio, torn. iii. pp. 485-95.
56 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
and adequate ground — on which God further bestows upon them the forgiveness of all their sins, and a right to the heavenly in- heritance, and to all the privileges of sonship ; so that they feel it ever thereafter to be at once their duty and their privilege, on the ground of clear and definite conceptions of what Christ has purchased and merited for them, to ascribe all that they are, and have, and hope for, to Plim who not only washed them from their sins in His own blood, but has also made them kings and priests unto God and His Father.
Sec. 4. — Justification hy Faith alone.
The justification of sinners — i.e., the actual forgiveness of their sins, and the acceptance of their persons, or the bestowal upon them of a right and title to life — is ascribed in Scripture to God, or to Ilis grace ; it is ascribed to Christ, and to what He has done and suffered in our room and stead; and it is ascribed to faith. The propositions, then, that men are justified by God's grace, that they are justified by Christ's sufferings and merits, and that they are justified by faith, are all true, and should all be understood and believed. A full exposition of the Scripture doctrine of justification requires that all these proposi- tions be interpreted in their true scriptural sense, and that they be combined together in their just relation, so as to form a har- monious whole. It is to the third and last of these fundamental propositions, constituting the scriptural doctrine of justification, that we have now briefly to advert, — viz., that men are justified by faith.
This proposition is so frequently asserted in Scripture in ex- press terms, that it is not denied by any who acknowledge the divine authority of the Bible. But the discussion of the sense in which the proposition is to be understood, and the way and manner in which this truth is to be connected and combined with the other departments of scriptural doctrine upon the subject of justification, occupied, as we have already explained, a most important place in the controversies which were carried on be- tween the Reformers and the Eomanists. The disputes upon this subject involved the discussion of three different questions, — viz.. First, What is the nature of justifying faith, or what is the definition or description of that faith to which justification
Sec. IV.] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE. 57
is ascribed in Scripture ? Secondly, Whether there be any- thing else in men themselves that concurs or co-operates with their faith in the matter of their justification, — anything else in tliem that is represented as standing in the same relation to their justification as faith does'? Thirdly, In what way, by what process, or by what sort of agency or instrumentality, is it that faith justifies ; and how is the agency or instrumen- tality, that is assigned to faith in the matter of justification, to be connected and combined with the causality assigned in the matter to the grace of God, and the righteousness of Christ imputed ?
The first question, then, respected the nature of justifying faith, or the proper definition or description of that faith to which in Scripture justification is ascribed. I have already explained that, upon this point, the differences between the Reformers and the Romanists lay in this, that the Romanists, defined faith to be assensus, and placed its seat in the intellect ;, and that the Reformers defined it to be Jiducia, and placed its seat in the will ; while, at the same time, I mentioned that a very considerable diversity of sentiment had prevailed among orthodox Protestant divines in subsequent times as to the way in which justifying faith should be defined and described, and expressed my opinion that some diversity of sentiment upon this point was not precluded by anything laid down in the standards of our church. I shall merely make a few observations regard- ing it, premising that this is one of the topics where, I think, it must be admitted that greater precision and accuracy, and a more careful and exact analysis, than were usually manifested by the Reformers in treating of it, were introduced into the exposition and discussion of the subject by the great systematic divines of the seventeenth century.*
Romanists define justifying faith to be the mere assent of the understanding to the whole truth of God revealed ; and in this view of its nature and import they have been followed by a class of divines who are generally known in modern times, and in this country, under the name of Saudemanians, and wdio have com- monly been disposed to claim to themselves the credit of pro- pounding much clearer and simpler views of this subject, and of
* See The Reformers, and Theology of the Reformation, p. 3, etc. — Edks.
58
JUSTIFICATION.
[Chap. XXI.
scriptural doctrine generally, than those who give a somewhat different definition or description of faith. Those who define faith to be the mere assent of the understanding to truth re- vealed, of course regard everything else that may be in any way necessary to justification, or that can be proved to exist invariably in justified men, as the fruit, or consequence, or result of faith ; while they maintain that nothing but the mere belief of truth revealed enters into its proper nature, or should form any part of the definition that ought to be given of what faith is. And the Protestant defenders of this view of the nature of justifying faith differ from its Popish advocates chiefly in this — which, however, is a difference of great importance — that the Protestants regard everything else that may be connected with justification, or that must exist in justified men, as the invariable and necessary fruit or consequence of the belief of the truth ; while the Romanists, as we have seen, maintain that true faith — that faith "which justifies whenever justification takes place — may exist, without producing any practical result, and of course without justifying. We have already proved this, in regard to the Romanists, by quotations from Bellarmine ; and we may add, that so confidently does he maintain this position, that he founds upon it as an argu- ment, to prove that faith alone does not justify.
The great majority of the most eminent and most orthodox Protestant divines* have held this view of the nature of justifying faith to be defective ; i.e., they have regarded it as not including all that ouo"ht to be included in the definition of faith. While the Reformers thought justifying faith to be most properly de- fined hj Jiducia, trust or confidence, they do not, of course, deny that it contained or comprehended notitia and assensus, knowledge and assent. They all admitted that it is the duty of men, — and, in a sense, their first and most fundamental duty, — in order to their salvation, to understand and believe what God had revealed; and that the knowledge and belief of the truth revealed — of what God has actually said in His word — must be the basis and foundation of all the other steps they take in the matter of their salvation, and the source or cause, in some sense, of all the necessary changes that
* Le Blanc's Theses Theohgicx Se- danenses, pp. 204-248. O'Brien on Justification, notes 1, 2, 3, 1st edi-
tion; notes A and B, 2d edition.
Euiis.
Sec. IV.] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE. 59
are effected upon them. It is by the truth which He reveals, that God brings Plimself into contact with His rational creatures ; and we learn from His word, that the instrumentality of the truth re- vealed is employed by Him in all His dealings with them, and in all the changes which He effects upon them, with a view to their salvation. Now the direct and proper correlative acts to truth revealed by God to His rational creatures, are, understanding its meaning, and assenting to it, or believing it, as real and certain ; and these, of course, are acts of the intellect. The knowledge and belief of the truth revealed are therefore the primary and fundamental duties incumbent upon men, and are essential parts or elements of justifying and saving faith. Were we in a con- dition in which we were at liberty to determine this question purely upon philosophical grounds, and had no other materials for deciding it, it might be contended — and I do not well see how, in these circumstances, the position could be disproved — that the knowledge and belief of the doctrines revealed in Scripture must certainly and necessarily lead men to trust in Christ, and to submit to His authority, and thus produce or effect everything necessary for justification and salvation; and that, on this ground, justifying faith might be properly defined to be the belief of the truth revealed ; while everything else, which some might be dis- posed to comprehend under it, might be rather regarded as its invariable and necessary result or consequence. The question, however, cannot be legitimately/ settled in this way ; for indeed the question itself properly is, In what sense is the faith to which justification is ascribed, used in Scripture? or what is it which the Scripture includes in, or comprehends under, the word faith? And this question can be settled only by an examination of the passages in which the word faith and its cognates occur, — an examination on which we do not propose at present to enter.
It can scarcely be disputed that the word faith is used in Scrip- ture in a variety of senses, and more especially that it is employed there in a wider and in a more limited signification, as if it were used sometimes to designate a whole, and at other times some one or more of the parts or elements of which this whole is composed. It is on this account that it has always been found so difficult to give anything like a fornjal definition of faith in its scriptural acceptation, — a definition that should include all that the Scrip- ture comprehends under faith itself, as proper to it, and nothing
GO JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXT.
more. At the same time, while it is admitted that faith is some- times used in Scripture in the sense of mere behef or assent to truth, in such a sense as would require us, loere it received as the onlif and complete dejinition of faith, to regard trust or con- fidence in Christ, receiving and embracing Him, rather as conse- quences of faith than as parts or acts of faith, I think it has been proved by Protestant divines, in opposition to the Romanists, that trust or confidence, which is an act of the will, does enter into the ordinary and full idea of scriptural faith ; and that the faith by which men are said to be justified, includes in it (and not merely produces) something more than the belief of truths or doctrines — even trust or confidence in a person — in Him who has purchased for us all the blessings of redemption, who has all these blessings in Himself, and who, in His word, is offering Himself and all these blessings to us, and inviting us to accept them. It may be said to be more correct, metaphysically, to represent this trust or confidence in Christ, this receiving and resting upon Hiiu for salvation, as the fruit, or result, or consequence of faith, in its strict and proper sense : and no doubt it is a result or conse- quence of knowing and assenting to the truths revealed in Scrip- ture concerning Him, and concerning this salvation which He has purchased and is offering ; but it is also true — i.e., I think this has been proved — that Scripture represents the faith by which men are justified as including or containing that state of mind which can be described only by such words as trust and confidence, and as involving or comprehending that act, or those acts, which are described as accepting, embracing, receiving, and resting upon Christ and His work for salvation. There is nothing in this scriptural view of the matter — nothing in this scriptural use of language — which in the least contradicts any sound metaphysical ])rinciples about the connection between the operations of the un- derstanding and the will : for the substance of the whole matter is just this, that the Scripture does not ordinarily and generally call that faith which is descriptive of a state of mind that is merely intellectual, and which does not comprehend acts that in- volve an exercise of the powers of the will ; and, more especially, it does not represent men as justified by faith, or as possessed of the faith which justifies, until they have been enabled — no doubt under the influence, or as the result, of scriptural views of Christ and His work — to exercise trust and confidence in Him as their
Sec. IV.] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE. 61
Saviour ; to accept, to lay hold of, and to apply to themselves, the blessings of forgiveness and acceptance, which He has purchased for them, and is otfering to them in the word of the truth of the gospel.
But I need not dwell longer upon this point, and must proceed to advert to the second question, viz., Whether faith alone justi- fies ; or whether there be anything else in men themselves that is represented in Scripture as the cause, in any sense, why men individually receive forgiveness and acceptance at the hand of God ? It was the unanimous doctrine of the Reformers, and one to which they attached very great importance, that men are justified by faith alone ; not meaning that the faith which jus- tified them existed alone, or solitarily ; but, on the contrary, maintaining that this faith " is ever accompanied with all other saving graces :" not meaning that nothing else was required of men in order to their being forgiven ; for they believed that, in order that we may escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requireth of us repentance unto life as well as faith in Jesus Christ ; but meaning this, that there is nothing else in men themselves to which their justification is in Scripture ascribed, — nothing else required of them and existing in them, which stands in the same relation to justification as their faith does, or exerts any causality, or efficiency, or instrumentality in producing the result of their being justified.
The Council of Trent openly denied this fundamental doc- trine of the Reformers, and maintained that there were six other virtues, as they call them, which all concurred with faith in ob- taining for men the grace of justification. They did not indeed assign to these virtues, or even to faith itself, any power of justi- fying, properly so called, but only that of preparing or disposing men to justification. They did, however — and that is the only point with which we have at present to do — deny the Protestant doctrine, that faith is the only thing in men themselves by which they are justified ; and they denied this, in the way of ascribing to these six other virtues the very same relation to justification, and the very same kind of influence in producing or procuring it, which they ascribe to faith : and this was very distinctly and explicitly brought out in the quotations I have already made from Bellarmine. These six virtues are, — fear, hope, love, penitence,) a purpose of receiving the sacrament, and a purpose of leading
62 ' JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXT.
a life of obedience ; and Bellarmine, and other defenders of the doctrine of the Church of Rome, labour to prove from Scripture that these qualities, or states of mind and feeling, are represented there as procuring or obtaining for men the forgiveness of their sins, and the enjoyment of God's favour. It is certain that there is not one of them which is ever, in express terms, said in Scrip- ture to justify men, or by which men are said to be justified, while men are frequently and most explicitly said to be justified by faith ; and this single consideration may be fairly regarded as by itself a proof that at least they do not stand in the same relation to justification as faith does, — that it holds a place, and exerts an influence, in the justification of sinners, which do not belong to any of them. All that can be proved from Scripture about these things, speaking of them generally, is, first, that they all exist in, and are wrought by God upon, those men whom He justifies ; and, secondly, that they are all duties which He requires of men ; and that, of course, upon both these grounds they are in some sense pleasing and acceptable to Him. These positions can be proved ; but the proof of them affords no ground whatever for the conclusion that men are justified by these graces, or that they exert any influence in procuring or obtaining for men the forgive- ness of their sins and the enjoyment of God's favour ; for it is manifest that God may require, as a matter of duty, or bestow as a matter of grace, what may exert no influence, and have no real eflncient bearing upon other gifts which He also bestows.
Indeed, it may be justly contended that no gift or favour which God bestows, can, simply as such, exert any real influence in pro- curing for men other favours at His hand. God may, indeed, in the exercise of His wisdom, resolve, with a view to general and ulterior objects, to bestow His gifts or favours in a certain order, and with something like mutual dependence between them ; and we may be able to see something of the suitableness and wisdom of this arrangement ; but this affords no ground for our asserting that the one first conferred exerted any influence in procuring or obtaining for us the one that was subsequently bestowed. As the discharge of duties which God requires of men, these virtues are, in so far as they may be really in conformity with what He enjoins, agreeable to His will, pleasing and acceptable in His sight ; but this does not prove that they can procure for men the forgiveness of their sins, or a right or title to eternal life.
Sec. IV.] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE. 63
The fact, then, that these things are represented in Scripture as required by God of men, and as conferred by Him as graces or favours upon all those whom He justifies, — and this is all that the Scripture proofs adduced by Romanists, in discussing this subject, establish, — affords no evidence that men are justified by them, or that they have any place or influence in procuring or obtaining for men forgiveness and acceptance.
But perhaps it may be said that the same considerations apply equally to faith, which is also a duty required by God, and a grace bestowed by Him. We admit that they do ; but then we answer, first, that we assert, and undertake to prove, as will be afterwards explained, that though faith is both a duty com- manded and a grace bestowed, it is not in either of these capaci- ties, or simply as such, that it justifies, but solely as the instrument or hand by which men receive and lay hold of the righteousness of Christ ; and, secondly, that the object and the practical result of these considerations are not directly to disprove or exclude the justifying efficacy of these virtues, but merely to show that the inference in support of their alleged justifying efficacy — which is based solely upon the fact that they are represented as existing in all justified men, being conferred by God and required by Him — is unfounded. Men are never said, in Scripture, to be justified by them ; and the only process by which it is attempted to show that any justifying efficacy attaches to them, is by this inference from other things said about them in Scripture ; and if this inference can be shown to be unfounded, — and this, we think, the conside- |rations above adduced accomplish, — then the argument which we are opposing falls to the ground. The state of tlie case is very different with respect to faith. We do not need to prove, by an inferential process of reasoning from Scripture, that faith jus- tifies ; for this is frequently asserted in express terms, and thus stands proved without any argument or inference. We have merely to ansicer the inferential process by which it is attempted to prove, in the absence of all direct scriptural authority, that men are justified by these virtues as well as by faith ; and having done this, we then fall back again upon the position, that men are expressly said in Scripture to be justified by faith, while it cannot be shown, either directly or by inference, that they are repre- sented as being justified by any of tliose virtues to which Romanists assign a co-ordinate place with faith in the matter.
64 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
Not only, however, are men said to be justified by faitli, while they are not said, directly or by implication, to be justified by anything else existing in themselves, — they are also said to be justified by faith without works or deeds of law. This, indeed, is the great doctrine which the Apostle Paul lays down, and formally and elaborately proves, in the Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians ; and no effort has been spared by Romanists, and other opponents of evangelical truth, to pervert the apostle's statements into an accordance with their views. This of course opens up a wide field of critical discussion, upon which we do not enter. The great subject of controversy is, What is it that the apostle intended to exclude from any co-operation or joint efficacy with faith in the matter of the justification of sinners, under the name of works or deeds of law ? Now it was contended by all the Reformers, that, according to the natural and proper import of the apostle's words, and the general scope and object of his argument, especially in his Epistle to the Romans, he must have intended to exclude from all joint or co-ordinate efficacy with faith' in the matter of justification, all obedience which men did or could render to the requirements of the law under which they were placed, whatever that might be ; while it has been alleged by Romanists, and other enemies of the doctrine of gratuitous justification, that he meant merely to exclude, as some say, the works of the ceremonial law ; others, obedience to the Mosaic law in general ; and others, all works performed, or obedience rendered to the divine law, by men, in the exercise of their natural and unaided powers, previously to the reception of divine grace, and the production of justifying faith.
The opinion which would limit the apostle's exclusion of works from co-operating with faith in the justification of sinners, to the observance of the requirements of the ceremonial law, is too obviously inconsistent with the whole tenor and scope of his statements, to be entitled to much consideration. It is not denied that there are statements in the apostle's writings upon the sub- ject of justification, especially in the Epistle to the Galatians, in which he has chiefly in view those who enforced the observance of the Mosaic law as necessary to forgiveness and acceptance ; and is showing, in opposition to them, that the obedience which might be rendered to it had no influence in the matter, and was wholly excluded from any joint efficacy with faith in obtaining
Sec. IV.] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE. 65
justification ; while it is contended that, even in the Epistle to the Galatians, he argues for the exclusion of the observance of the Mosaic law, from the matter of justification, upon principles and grounds which have a wider and more general bearing, and which equally exclude all mere obedience to law, as such. And in the Epistle to the Romans — where, after having proved the guilt and sinfulness of all men, both Jews and Gentiles, he addressed himself equally to both classes — his object evidently required, and his statements plainly imply, that it was law, as such, under whatever form, and obedience to law, by whomsoever rendered, and from whatsoever principle proceeding, that are excluded from any influence in procuring the justification of sinners.
The Romanists generally allege that the apostle meant to exclude only works done, or obedience to law rendered, by men's natural and unaided powers, before they receive the grace of God, and are enabled to exercise faith ; and thus they leave room for bringing in their six other virtues, which they ascribe to the operation of God's grace, and regard as springing from faith. This is perhaps, upon the whole, the most plausible expedient for perverting the apostle's meaning, at least so far as the Epistle to the Romans is concerned ; but it is liable to insuperable objections. It is wholly unwarranted and gratuitous. There is nothing in the apostle's statements to suggest it, — nothing in his argument, or in the principles on which it is based, to require it ; nothing in any part of Scripture to oblige or entitle us to force upon him an idea which seems not to have been present to his own mind. The dis- tinction between these two kinds or classes of works has evidently been devised — i.e., so far as its application to this matter is con- cerned, for in itself it is a real and important distinction — in order to serve a purpose ; and its only real foundation is, that some men have chosen to believe and assert that these virtues or graces, since they exist in justified men, must have some share in procuring their justification. And while the distinction is thus, in this appli- cation of it, wholly unwarranted and gratuitous, it can be shown to be positively inconsistent with the scope of the apostle's argu- ment, which implies that any mere obedience rendered to any law, — any mere compliance with any of God's requirements, in what- ever source originating, on whatever principles based, — viewed simply as such, would, if introduced into the matter of a sinner's justification, as having any efficacy in procuring or obtaining it,
3— VOL. II. E
66 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
be inconsistent at once with the purely gratuitous character of God's act in pardoning and accepting, and with the place or in- fluence assigned to faith in the matter. Grace or gratuitousness, and faith, are described as not only consistent, but as fully and admirably harmonizing with each other ; while obedience to law, so far as concerns the matter of justification, is represented as a principle of an opposite character or tendency, not only having no influence in procuring justification, but tending — so far as it may be introduced into this matter, and relied upon in connection with it — to exclude the operation of the principles on which God has been pleased to regulate this subject, and to frustrate His gracious design. This is the doctrine taught by Paul, clearly implied in many of his particular statements, and in the general scope and substance of his argument ; and there is nothing what- ever in any part of his writings that requires or entitles us to modify this view of his meaning.
One main objection that has been adduced against receiving this interpretation of Paul's statements as the true doctrine of Scripture on the subject of justification, is, that the Apostle James seems to teach an opposite doctrine, when, in the second chapter of his epistle, he asserts that men are justified by works, and not by faith only ; and that Abraham and Rahab were justi- fied by works. This question of the reconciliation of Paul and James upon the subject of justification has also given rise to much interesting critical discussion. I shall only state, in general, that I am persuaded that the two following positions have been estab- lished regarding it: — First, that the Apostle James did not intend to discuss, and does not discuss, the subject of justification in the sense in which it is so fully expounded in Paul's Epistles to the Romans and Galatians ; that he does not state anything about the grounds or principles on which — the way and manner in which — sinners are admitted to forgiveness and the favour of God ; and that his great general object is simply to set forth the real ten- dency and result of that true living faith which holds so important a place in everything connected with the salvation of sinners. The truth of this position is very clearly indicated by the terms in which James introduces the subject in the fourteenth verse : " What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?" or rather the faith, for the original has the article, rj 7ria-TL<; ; i.e., the faith which
Sec. IV.] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE. 67
he says he has, or professes to have, but really has not, — can that faith save him ? This is the subject which alone the apostle pro- posed to discuss, and there is nothing in the following statements sufficient to show that any other subject than this was introduced in the course of the discussion, or that the apostle gave, or in- tended to give, any deliverance whatever upon the grounds or reasons of the justification of a sinner before God, or upon the way and manner in which he obtains forgiveness and acceptance. Secondly, that the justification of which James speaks, and which he ascribes to works, refers to something in men's history poste- rior to that great era when their sins are forgiven, and they are admitted to the enjoyment of God's favour, — i.e., to the proof or manifestation of the reality and efficacy of their faith to them- selves and their fellow-men. This position may be shown to be virtually involved in, or clearly deducible from, the former one, and has, besides, its own proper and peculiar evidence, — espe- cially in the application which the apostle makes of the case of Abraham, in saying that he was justified by works, when he had offered up Isaac his son upon the altar ; for it is quite certain, from the history of Abraham's life, that, many years before he was thus justified by works, he had, as the Apostle Paul tells us, been justified by faith, — i.e., had had his sins forgiven, and had been admitted fully and unchangeably into the favour and friendship of God, and had thus passed that great crisis on which the eternal happiness of every sinner depends, and the nature, grounds, and means of which it was Paul's sole object to expound in all that he has written upon the subject of justification. So evident is the posteriority of the justification by works, of which James speaks, to the proper forgiveness and acceptance of sinners, that many Popish writers — in this, manifesting greater candour than that large body of Episcopalian writers who have followed the system of interpretation set forth in Bishop Bull's Harmonia Apostolica — regard James's justification as applying, not to the Jirst, but to what they call the second, justification, or that process by which a justified person is made more righteous.
This notion of theirs about a first and second justification — comprehending, as they do, under that word both forgiveness and sanctification — is utterly unfounded, and tends to pervert the whole doctrine of Scripture upon the subject. For the Scripture teaches that, while God, by His grace, makes justified men pro-
68 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
gressively more holy, He " continues to forgive" the sins which they commit, on the very same grounds, and through the very same process, by which the forgiveness of all their past sins was originally bestowed upon them. But still the application of this notion to the interpretation of James's statements upon the sub- ject, shows a somewhat juster appreciation than many of the Protestant corrupters of the doctrine of justification have ex- hibited of the difficulty of extracting anything from James that could contradict and overturn Paul's great doctrine of justification by faith alone, without deeds of law.
If these two positions can be established, the apparent dis- crepancy between the apostles is removed : each asserts his own doctrine without contradicting the other ; and we remain not only warranted, but bound, to hold as absolute and unqualified, Paul's exclusion of works, or of mere obedience to law, from the matter of a sinner's justification before God ; and to regard his doctrine that men are justified by faith, without deeds of law, as meaning, what it naturally and obviously imports, that men are justified by faith alone, or that there is nothing else in them which concurs or co-operates with faith in procuring or obtaining their forgiveness and acceptance. But here again it may be alleged that faith itself is a work or act of obedience ; and that therefore, upon this inter- pretation of the apostles' statements, it too must be excluded from any influence or efficacy in justification. This leads us to the con- sideration of the third question, as to the way and manner in which faith justifies, or the place it holds in the matter of justification ; and a brief exposition of this topic will not only solve the objec- tion that has now been stated, but afford additional confirmation to the great Protestant doctrine, that men are justified by faith only ; and at the same time lead to an explanation of the relation that subsists among the great doctrines, that men are justified by God's grace, that they are justified by Christ's righteousness, and that they are justified by faith alone.
Sec. 5. — Office of Faith in Justifying.
We have good and sufficient grounds in Scripture for main- taining— first, that the justification of a sinner is a purely gratui- tous act of God, to the exclusion of all merit or desert on the part of the sinner himself; secondly, that the imputed righteousness
Sec. v.] office OF FAITH IN JUSTIFYING. 69
of Christ is the sole ground, basis, or reason of the divine pro- cedure in justifying a sinner, — the only thing to which God has respect or regard, as that on account of which He acts, in be- stowing upon any one pardon and acceptance ; and, thirdly, that faith in Jesus Christ is the only thing in men themselves, to the exclusion of all works, or mere obedience to law, to which their justification is ascribed, or which is represented as exerting, in any sense, anything like a causality or efficiency in obtaining for them pardon and acceptance at God's hand. And if Scripture fully sanctions each of these three positions separately, then the whole doctrine of Scripture upon the subject can be brought out and set forth, only by combining them all into one general state- ment, and by unfolding the harmony and relations of the different truths of which this general statement is made up.
The objection adduced against the entire exclusion of works from the matter of justification — one of the elements involved in the third of these positions — that faith itself is a work, and that, therefore, if the exclusion is to be strict and absolute, faith, being a work, must be excluded, it is easy enough to answer. Faith, of course, cannot be excluded ; for justification is frequently and most expressly ascribed to it ; and therefore, had we nothing else to say upon the subject, we would be fully entitled to make faith an ex- ception to the apostle's unqualified exclusion of works : because, to suppose that it was not to be excepted, would involve the apostle in a self-contradiction, too gross and palpable to be ascribed to any man without absolute necessity ; while, at the same time, by admitting, upon this ground, that faith must necessarily be ex- cepted from his exclusion of works, we would be under no obliga- tion, in sound argument, to admit of any other exception to the exclusion, unless as conclusive a reason could be brought forward for excepting it as exists for excepting faith. The apostle says, with reference to another subject,* "But when He saith, All things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under Him." So we say, upon a similar principle, that when deeds of law are excluded, faith must be excepted; for the very same statement which excludes them, expressly includes it, — that statement being, that men are justified by faith without deeds of law.
* 1 Cor. XV. 27.
70 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
As to the allegation which may be said to constitute the objec- tion, viz., that if we are to except from the exclusion of works, faith, which is a work, we may except other works also, the answer is obvious and conclusive, — viz., that any proposed exception to the apostle's general and unlimited exclusion of works must be indi- vidually warranted and established by scriptural evidence, — that we might possibly admit other exceptions, if good scriptural evi- dence could be adduced in support of them, — but that, in point of fact, no good reason has been, or can be, adduced in support of any other exception to the exclusion but faith. This is quite a sufficient answer to the objection ; and as a mere question of dialectics, nothing more need be said about it. But then, as we have already intimated, it suggests some further considerations of importance as to the way and manner in which faith justifies, and the relation which subsists among the great truths which go to make up the scriptural doctrine of justification.
It is manifest, not only from Paul's particular statements in discussing this subject, but from the general scope of his argument, and the principles on which it is all based, that his exclusion of works or deeds of law was intended to be very full and complete ; and that, therefore, the more nearly we can make it absolute, as he in terminis represents it, the more nearly we approach to the views which filled his mind. Now the general doctrine, upon this subject, of those Protestant divines who have maintained the theology of the Reformation, has been this, that though faith cannot be excluded from the justification of a sinner, and though faith is a work, — i.e., an act of obedience rendered by men, and, at the same time, a grace conferred on them, and wrought in them by God, — ^yet it is not as a work that it justifies, or is concerned in the matter of a sinner's justification, but in a different capacity or relation, — viz., simply as the instrument of apprehending or receiving the righteousness of Christ. And it is manifest that, if good evidence can be adduced in support of this view of the place which faith holds, or the influence which it exerts in the justification of sinners, this must be an additional confirmation of the great Protestant doctrine, that men are justified by faith alone, without deeds of law, in its obvious and literal import, while it will also contribute to elucidate the whole subject of justification.
Now it is admitted that there are no statements contained in
Sec. v.] office OF FAITH IN JUSTIFYING. 71
Scripture which professedly and directly explain, in any very formal or categorical manner, how it is that faith acts or operates in the justification of a sinner ; but it is contended that there are sufficient materials in Scripture to establish satisfactorily the com- mon Protestant doctrine upon this subject. There is not much that is very definite to be learned upon this precise point, — viz., as to the way in which faith justifies, — from the general and fundamental declaration, that men are justified by faith. The forms in which this is expressed in Scripture are these, Trto-ret, e/c 7rto-Te&)9, and hia Trtcrrea)? ; in Latin, fide, ex fide, and per fidem. These expressions all indicate, in general, that some sort of cau- sality, or efficiency, or instrumentality, is ascribed to faith in the matter of justification, without specifying what, — though the fact that men are never said in Scripture to be justified, hia Tna-Tiv, propter fidenij on account of faith, may, when taken in connection with the assertion that they are justified freely or gratuitously, and that works or deeds of law, mere obedience to requirements, are excluded, be fairly regarded as amply sufficient to disprove the common Popish doctrine that faith justifies on account of its worth, dignity, or excellence, — meriting God's favour ex congruo, though not ex condigno. This may accordingly be received as our negative position as to the way and manner in which faith justi- fies ; and some direct and positive light is thrown upon the subject by those scriptural statements which represent faith as a looking to Christ, receiving Him, apprehending Him, laying hold of Him. These scriptural repi'esentations naturally and obviously suggest the idea that the essence of that which men do when they believe in Christ, in so far as the matter of their justification is concerned, is, that they receive or accept of Christ, held out to them, or offered to them ; and that the proper, direct, and immediate effect of their faith in Christ, is, that they in this way become possessed of Him, and of the blessings which are in Him, — i.e., the blessings which He purchased, and which are necessary to their salvation. If this, then, be the process — as the scriptural representations referred to plainly indicate — by which men individually become possessed of the blessings which Christ purchased and merited for them, including pardon and acceptance, then it plainly follows that faith justifies, as it is put by Turretine,* " non proprie et per
* Turret., Locus xvl Q. vii.
72 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
se," sed " tantum relative et organice ; " or, as the mean or instru- ment of receiving, or laying hold of, Christ's righteousness.
We are thus led to consider more particularly what we have more than once adverted to, — viz., the relation between the way and manner in which faith justifies, and the other truths taught in Scripture concerning the causes, grounds, or reasons of a sin- ner's justification. If men are justified freely or gratuitously by God's grace, this implies that neither faith nor anything else can have any meritorious efficacy in procuring justification; as the Council of Trent admits in words, but in words so chosen of purpose, as to leave a liberty to Romanists — of which, as we have seen, they generally take advantage — to maintain that faith and half a dozen of other virtues, as they call them, do merit justifica- tion, of congruity, though not of condignity. If Christ's righteous- ness imputed be that to which God has direct or immediate re- spect or regard in each case in which He justifies a sinner, then it follows that faith can justify only as being the cause, or means, or instrument by or through which God bestows Christ's righteous- ness upon men, and by or through which they receive or become possessed of it. In short, the whole doctrine of Scripture upon the subject must be taken into account ; its different parts must be all embraced in a general declaration ; their relations must be brought out ; and the necessity of combining and harmonizing the different truths taught regarding it may legitimately modify, if necessary^ the precise way and manner in which each is to be stated, explained, and applied. Accordingly we find, in point of fact, that men's views of the place which faith holds, and the influence which it exerts, in the justification of sinners, are usually determined by the views they take of the other departments of this subject, and especially of the grounds or reasons on which God's act in justification is based.
This important observation is thus expressed by Dr. Owen in the third chapter of his great work on Justification : " When men have fixed their apprehensions about the principal matters in controversy, they express what concerneth the use of faith in an accommodation thereunto." * " Thus it is with all who affirm faith to be either the instrument, or the condition, or the causa sine qua non, or the preparation and disposition of the subject, or a
* Owen on Justification, vol. v. p. 107, Goold's ed. ; xi. 134, Orme's ed.
Sec. v.] office OF FAITH IN JUSTIFYING. 73
meritorious cause by way of condecency or congruity, in and of our justification. For all these notions of the use of faith are suited and accommodated unto the opinions of men, concerning the nature and principal causes of justification." There are five views mentioned here by Dr. Owen of the use of faith in justification, or of the way and manner in which it justifies, — ^viz., first, as an instrument ; secondly, as a condition ; thirdly, as a causa sine qua non; fourthly, as preparing and disposing men to receive justifi- cation ; and, fifthly, as meriting it of congruity. The first view, which represents faith as the instrument or instrumental cause of justification — z.e., as justifying simply as it is the appointed means by or through which men individually receive or lay hold of the righteousness of Christ — was that which was taken by all the Reformers, and which has been ever since held by almost all Protestants who have honestly and cordially embraced the theology of the Reformation. The fourth, which represents faith as justi- fying, inasmuch as it prepares and disposes men to justification, is that which is explicitly taught by the Council of Trent ; while, along loith this, the fifth — viz., that it justifies because it merits justification ex congruo — is also held, as we have seen, by most Romish writers, not indeed with the express sanction, but with the connivance — the intended connivance — of the council, and without contradicting any of its decisions.
As, however, Romanists ascribe this preparatory, dispositive, and meritorious efficacy with reference to justification, equally to other virtues besides faith, and yet cannot dispute that, in Scrip- ture, faith has a special and peculiar prominence assigned to it in the matter, I may, following out and applying Dr. Owen's idea, state that, in accordance with their fundamental principles, — viz., that an inherent personal righteousness, infused into us by God's grace, and not the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, is the formal cause, the proper ground, or reason of our justification, — they explain the special prominence, the peculiar influence, ascribed to faith in the matter, by saying that faith justifies, inasmuch as it " is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and the root of all justification," — i.e., the chief source from which all holi- ness and obedience spring.* The second and third views of the uses of faith, mentioned by Dr. Owen, — viz., that it justifies, as,
* Con. Trident., sess. vi. c. viii.
74
JUSTIFICATION.
[Chap. XXI.
\
being the condition, or the causa sine qua non of justification, — are capable of a variety of explanations, and have been main- tained, or at least admitted, by persons who hold different opinions, more or less scriptural, or the reverse, concerning the grounds or reasons of justification, which are explained- at some length in the chapter of Dr. Owen to which I have referred. Some writers distinguish between a condition and a causa sine qua non in this matter ; and others identify them, or explain the one by the other. Different meanings have also been attached to each of these expressions ; and according as they are explained more strictly or more loosely, different classes of divines have been disposed, according to the opinions they held upon other depart- ments of the general subject, to admit or reject the use of them, as descriptive of the place or function of faith in this matter.
The substance of the truth upon the point — speaking histori- cally— may be embodied in the two following propositions. First, orthodox divines, who have held the imputed righteousness of Christ to be the proper ground or reason of a sinner's justifica- tion, have generally — while greatly preferring the use of the word instrument or instrumental cause, as most correctly and appropriately expressing the substance of what Scripture suggests upon this point — admitted that there is a sense in which faith may be said to be the condition, or causa sine qua non, of justification. An explanation of the sense in which the employment of these ex- pressions is, and is not, consistent with scriptural views in regard to the ground of justification, will be found in Dr. Owen's Treatise,* and in Turretine.f In our Confession of Faith J it is said that " faith, thus receiving and resting upon Christ and His righteous- ness, is the alone instrument of justification ; " and in the Larger Catechism § it is said that " faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, . . . only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and His righteousness." And yet it is also said|| that " the grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that He freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by Him ; and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in Him, promiseth and giveth His Holy Spirit to
* Dr. Owen on Justification, c. iii. t Turret., Loc. xvi. Quaes, vii. i West. Conf. c. xi. s. ii.
§ Larger Catechism, Ques. 73. II lUd. Ques. 32.
Sec. v.]
OFFICE OF FAITH IN JUSTIFYING.
75
all His elect, to work in them that faith with all other saving graces." Now this statement, though it does not directly repre- sent faith as the condition of justification, plainly implies that there is a sense in which faith, though it justifies only as an instrument, may yet be said to be the condition of an interest in the blessings of the covenant, and, of course, of pardon and acceptance.
Secondly, that those statements in which faith is represented as the condition, or sine qua non^ of justification, have been most generally and most freely used by men of unsound views upon the general subject ; and that the use of them has been commonly avoided and discountenanced by orthodox divines, as, in their natural and obvious sense, they most readily harmonize with, and therefore tend to encourage, erroneous views of the grounds of justification. If the expressions, condition and causa sine qua non, are understood to mean merely something required by God of men, in order to their being pardoned, invariably existing in all men who are justified, there can be no positive objection to applying them to faith. In this sense, indeed, they err by defect : they ascribe no sort of causality or efficiency to faith in the matter, give no indication or explanation of the special prominence ascribed to it in Scripture, and do not discriminate it from repentance, which is admitted to be required of God in order to our being forgiven, and to exist in all who are pardoned. And, accordingly, those orthodox divines who have approved of calling faith a condition of justification, and of the other blessings of the covenant of grace, — as, for instance, Marckius,* — admit that repentance is equally, and in the same sense, a condition as faith is, and de- scribe them both as, at once and alike, conditions of the covenant of grace, and duties of those who are in the covenant — conditiones foederis et o^cia foederatorum. In the only other sense which these words naturally and obviously bear, orthodox divines usually regard them as erring by excess, — as involving positive error, — inasmuch as the application of them to faith, in that sense, would imply that faith justified as a work, — which, with the Apostle
* Marckii Compend. Theol. c. xxii. Vide De Moor, Comment, torn. iv. c. xxii. In opposition to the use of the word condition, see Witsius, -De Q2con. Feed. lib. iii. c. i. sees. viii. -xvi. :
but compare with this his Irenicum, c. xii. Hoornbeck's Summa Controver- siarum, hb. x. ; De Brownistis, pp. 812-831.
76 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
Paul's unqualified exclusion of works, is not to be admitted if it can be helped, — and that faith justifies, inasmuch as, by its own proper and inherent efficacy, it has a strict and proper, if not meritorious, causality in procuring or obtaining justification, or enters into the grounds or reasons on account of which God pardons and accepts. Accordingly, most of those who have con- tended most zealously for faith being the condition or causa sine qua non of justification, have supported one or other of the two following views : First, that faith justifies, because it has in itself so much that is valuable and excellent, that for Christ's sake — as they commonly say, though apparently without attaching any very definite idea to the expression — God is led to reckon or im- pute it to men, as if it were perfect righteousness ; or, secondly, that faith justifies, because, in addition to the worth or excellence it has of its own, it is the great cause which produces all other graces, and new obedience to God's law. Now both of these views of the subject exclude, and are intended to exclude, the Scripture doctrine of the righteousness of Christ, as the only ground of a sinner's justification. They ascribe to faith a kind and degree of real efficiency in procuring or obtaining justifica- tion which the word of God does not ascribe to it, and they are both explicitly condemned in the standards of our church.
On all these accounts, the expressions instrument, or instru- mental cause, are those which have most generally commended themselves to orthodox divines, as indicating most correctly the place and influence assigned in Scripture to faith in the matter of a sinner's justification ; Maestricht being, so far as I remember, almost the only orthodox divine of eminence who positively prefers the word condition to the word instrument.* Since men are said to be justified by faith, faith must be, in some sense or other, more or less full and proper, the cause or means of their justification ; and while a conjoint view of the whole doctrine of Scripture upon the subject leaves to faith no other place or influence than that of an instrument or instrumental cause, there is nothing whatever in Scripture that requires us to ascribe to it a higher kind or degree of causality — a larger amount of real efficiency — in the production of the result. But the Scripture not only marks out the general place or influence which alone faith can have in the matter ; it
* Mastricht, Theol lib. vi. c. vi. sees. xiv. and xxviii.
Sec. v.] office OF FAITH IN JUSTIFYING. 77
very precisely and exactly indicates what its actual place is. It re- presents the righteousness of Christ as the sole ground or reason of the justification of a sinner. This righteousness God bestows upon men, and they accept or receive it as a thing held out or offered to them. On their accepting or receiving it, it becomes theirs in full possession, and is imputed to them, or put down to their account, and thus becomes the ground or reason from a regard to which God pardons and accepts them. Now this accepting or receiving of Christ, and the blessings which are in Him, is identi- fied in Scripture with the exercise of faith. And from all these scriptural truths, viewed conjointly, the conclusion unavoidably follows, that faith justifies, only because, or inasmuch as, it is the instrument or medium by which men are connected with, or united to, Christ, and by which they receive or lay hold of Him and His righteousness. This is really nothing more than express- ing and embodying, in a distinct and definite statement, what the Scriptures, when we take a deliberate and combined view of all that they contain bearing upon this subject, plainly indicate as the true state of the case, the real history of the process ; and the beautiful consistency and harmony pervading the whole scheme of doctrine which is thus developed, affords a confirmation of the truth and accuracy of each of its component parts. Each has its own appropriate scriptural evidence, embodying a truth obviously suggested by statements contained in Scripture, and necessary, in each instance, as the only way of bringing out distinctly and definitely the substance of what Scripture plainly appears to have been intended to teach ; while all, without force or pres- sure, fit into, and harmonize with, each other, and, when com- bined together, unfold a great and consistent scheme in entire harmony with all the leading views opened up to us in Scripture with respect to the natural state and condition of men, the character of God, and the principles of His moral government, and the satisfaction and meritorious obedience of Him on whom God has laid our help, and who is able to save unto the utter- most all that come unto God by Him.
Men are justified freely or gratuitously by God's grace, because, from their actual state and condition by nature, they could not possibly be justified in any other way, being utterly unable to do anything either to effect or to merit their own justification. This grace of God in the justification of sinners is developed and
78 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap.XXT.
exercised in His giving His only-begotten Son to be their surety and their substitute, to endure the penalty, and to perform the requirements of .the law, in their room and stead, and thus to work out for them an everlasting righteousness. Socinus, indeed, laboured to show that the gracious or gratuitous character of God's act in justifying was inconsistent with its being founded on, and having respect to, a vicarious satisfaction. But this mis- representation is sufficiently exposed in the following statement : " Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to His Father's justice in their behalf. Yet, inasmuch as He was given by the Father for them, and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for anything in them, their justification is only of free grace ; that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glori- fied in the justification of sinners." *
The same character of free grace pervades also the application of the scheme or the provision made for imparting to men indi- vidually the pardon and acceptance which the grace of God and the vicarious work of Christ have secured for them. Christ and His righteousness — and in Him, and on the ground of His right- eousness, pardon, acceptance, and eternal life — are freely offered to them in the word of the truth of the Gospel, held out to them, and pressed upon their acceptance. Faith alone, and nothing else in them, — no working or mere obedience to law, — nothing which either in itself could be meritorious, or could be easily supposed to have merit, — is the appointed mean by which men individually become united to Christ, interested in His vicarious work, par- takers of the blessings which that work secured ; and this faith, besides that it is God's gift, wrought in men by His gracious power, is just, in its nature or substance, trust or confidence in Christ, — an act by which men go out of themselves, renounce all confidence in anything they have done or can do, and receive or lay hold, as if with a hand, of that which has been gratuitously provided for them, and is freely offered to them. Plere, then, is a great and glorious scheme, complete and harmonious in all its parts, of grace reigning through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, says the apostle, " it is of
* West Conf. c. xi. sec. iii. See Larger Catechism, Qu. 71.
Sec. VI.] OBJECTIONS TO THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE. 79
faith, that it might be of grace ; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed." *
The doctrine of gratuitous justification, based solely upon the vicarious righteousness of Christ, imputed to men and received by faith alone, was the great truth which the Reformers were honoured by God to bring out from the obscurity and error in which it had been involved in the Church of Rome, — which they established from the word of God, and proclaimed openly to the world, — and by which mainly God gave them victory over the Church of Rome and the prince of darkness. This was what Luther called the article of a standing or a falling church ; and the history of the church, both before and since his time, has fully justified the propriety of the description. There has, perhaps, been no department of divine truth against which the assaults of Satan have been more assiduously directed ever since the origin of the Christian church, than the Scripture doctrine of justifica- tion ; and there has probably been no doctrine the profession and preaching of which have more generally indicated with correctness the state of vital religion in the church in all ages. Scriptural views upon this subject, and the general prevalence of true prac- tical godliness, have acted and reacted upon each other with pal- pable and invariable efficacy ; — God, whenever. He was pleased to pour out His Spirit abundantly, promoting both, each by means of the other ; and Satan constantly labouring, more openly or more insidiously, to corrupt the scriptural doctrine of free justification, on the ground of Christ's righteousness imputed to men and received by faith alone, as the surest means of effecting his great object of ruining men's souls, by leading them to reject the counsel of God against themselves, and to put away from them eternal life.
Sec. 6. — Objections to the Scriptural Doctrine.
The scriptural doctrine of justification is substantially ex- hausted, so far as concerns its leading principles, by those truths which we have already explained ; at least when we add to them this, that as men receive entire immunity from all their past sins, when they first lay hold of Christ's righteousness through faith,
* Rom. iv. 16.
80 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXI.
so God doth continue to forgive the subsequent sins of those who are justified, on the same grounds, and through the same process. As we have now explained the whole of the Protestant doctrine upon this subject, this may be a suitable opportunity to advert to the objections which have been adduced against it, on the ground of its alleged immoral tendency.
This great doctrine of the Reformation was assailed by Ro- manists at the time, and has been always assailed by them and other opponents of the truth, as unfavourable to the interests of morality, as relaxing or overturning the obligations incumbent upon men to obey the law of God, and to discharge the duties which His word imposes upon them. This is just the objection which, as the Apostle Paul intimates to us, naturally and ob- viously enough suggested itself against the doctrine which he taught upon the subject of justification. The objection then was, that he made void the law through faith ; and of course the fact that the same objection, in substance, is so often urged, and with sofhe plausibility, against the Protestant doctrine, is a presumption that it is the same which Paul taught.
It is certainly true that those who have been most zealous in urging this objection, have not, in general, exhibited in their own character and history a very high standard of holiness, or any very deep sense of the obligations to practise it ; but still the objection ought to be examined and answered upon the ground of its own merits. The common allegation of Romish writers, that the Re- formers, and those who have adopted their principles, deny the necessity of an inherent righteousness, or a renovation of man's moral nature, and contend only for the necessity of an extrinsic, imputed righteousness, is an entire misrepresentation of their doctrine. Protestants, indeed, deny the necessity of an inherent righteousness or a moral renovation, as that which is the ground or basis of God's act in pardoning and accepting ; but they do not deny — nay, they strenuously contend for — the necessity of its presence in all justified persons. They maintain that faith alone justifies, but not a faith which is alone — only a faith which is ever accompanied with, and produces, all other saving graces; and Bellarmine, as we have seen, admits explicitly that it is one of the characteristic differences between Protestants and Papists, that Protestants hold, "Fidem quam dicunt solum justificare nunquam esse posse solam," while the Church of Rome maintains, " Fideui
Sec. VI.] OBJECTIONS TO THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE. 81
non justificare solam sed tamen posse esse solam," — an admission which at once overturns the ordinary Popish misrepresentations of Protestant doctrine upon this subject ; misrepresentations, how- ever, which Bellarmine himself, notwithstanding this admission, has not abstained from countenancing. Protestants have always contended that, in order that we may escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requireth of us repentance unto life, as well as faith ; and that repentance unto life implies a reno- vation of the moral nature, and consists in an actual turning from all sin unto God, with a purpose of new obedience ; although they do not regard repentance as standing in the same relation to jus- tification as faith does, — unless as it is inclusive of faith, — or as exerting any sort of causality or efficiency, even the lowest, in the matter of a sinner's justification, just because we are never said in Scripture, directly or by implication, to be justified by repentance while we are frequently and expressly said to be justified by faith. When these considerations are kept in view, and when they are brought to bear, in their true and legitimate import, upon the state of the question, it becomes quite plain that we are fully en- titled to put the objection adduced by Papists and others against the moral tendency of the doctrine of free justification by faith alone on the ground of Christ's imputed righteousness, in this form, and to discuss this as the only real point in dispute, — viz., that there can be no adequate and effectual reason to persuade and induce men to turn from sin unto God, and to submit them- selves practically to Christ's authority, unless we can assure them that, by doing so, they will exert some causality or efficiency in procuring or obtaining for themselves the pardon of their sins, the enjoyment of God's favour, and a right to eternal life. The doctrine of the Reformers precluded them from urging this pre- cise consideration upon men in order to persuade them to turn from sin unto God, and to submit themselves to Christ as their Lord and Master ; but it left them at full liberty to employ every other motive or consideration that could be adduced by those who taught a different doctrine of justification.
Now it is manifestly absurd to say that no sufficient reason can be adduced to persuade men to turn from sin, and to submit themselves to Christ's authority, unless we can assure them that, by doing so, they will exert some influence or efficiency in procur- ing orlohtaining for themselves pardon and acceptance, so long as 3 — VOL. II. r
82 JUSTIFICATION. [Chap. XXT.
we can urge upon them that God requires them to do all this, — that by refusing to do it they are provoking His righteous dis- pleasure, and hardening themselves in a condition of guilt and misery, — and that, unless they do all this, they will not be, in point of fact, pardoned and saved, but must perish for ever. All this can be said and urged upon men in entire consistency with the Protestant doctrine of free justification through Christ's imputed righteousness ; and if so, the Popish objection falls to the ground.
But this topic is important chiefly from its connection with the great general subject of the provision made in the gospel scheme for changing men's moral natures, for making them holy, and re- storing them to a conformity to God's moral image ; or, what is virtually the same thing, the connection between justification and sanctification, in the Protestant acceptation of these words. The Church of Rome, as we have seen, confounds justification and sanctification, using this latter word in its widest sense as includ- ing regeneration, and thus comprehending the whole process by which men are made holy. They regard justification as includ- ing both the forgiveness of sin and the renovation of man's moral nature, or, as they commonly call it, the infusing of righteous- ness ; but then they represent the latter as, in the order of nature at least, if not of time, antecedent to the former, and as indeed the ground or reason on account of which the pardon of sin is bestowed. Protestants, in accordance with Scripture usage, re- gard justification and regeneration, or renovation, as distinct in themselves, and as not standing to each other in any sense in the relation of cause and effect, but only as invariably connected in point of fact, and as both traceable,