OXFORD University lectures read in 1837, published in 1838, republished in 1874: Newman argues for a doctrine of justification rooted in the indwelling Holy Spirit, rather than a solely forensic or imputed righteousness.

L_07_CHARACTERISTICS_of_GIFT_of_RIGHTEOOUSNESS_THEOSIS

^[p.155] IT is not uncommon in Scripture, as all readers know, to represent the especial gift of the Gospel as a robe or garment, bestowed on those who are brought into the Church of Christ. Thus the prophet Isaiah speaks of our being “clothed with the garments of salvation, covered with the robe of righteousness,” as with a rich bridal dress. A passage was quoted in a former place from the prophet Zechariah to the same purport; in which Almighty God takes from Joshua the high priest his filthy garments, and gives him change of raiment, and a mitre for his head. In like manner, when the prodigal son came home, his father put on him “the best robe,” “and a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet;” agreeable to which is St. Paul’s declaration that “as many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.”

Now such expressions as these in Scripture are too forcible and varied to be a mere figure denoting the profession of Christianity; as if our putting on Christ were a taking on us the name and responsibilities of a Christian:—this I shall take for granted. It is much the same kind of evasion or explaining away, to say that by God’s clothing us in righteousness is only meant His ^[p.156] counting us as if righteous; all the difference being that in the former interpretation the clothing is made to stand for our calling ourselves, and in the latter for God’s calling us, what really we are not.

Nor, again, can these expressions be very well taken to mean newness of life, holiness, and obedience; for this reason, if for no other, that no one is all at once holy, and renewed, in that full sense which must be implied if the terms be interpreted of holiness. Baptized persons do not so put on Christ as to be forthwith altogether different men from what they were before; at least this is not the rule, as far as we have means of deciding. Thus there is a call on the face of the matter for some more adequate interpretation of such passages of Scripture, than is supplied either by the Roman or the Protestant schools; and this surely is found in the doctrine of the last Lecture. If that doctrine be true, the robe vouchsafed to us is the inward presence of Christ, ministered to us through the Holy Ghost; which, it is plain, admits on the one hand of being immediately vouchsafed in its fulness, as a sort of invisible Shekinah, or seal of God’s election, yet without involving on the other the necessity of a greater moral change than is promised and effected in Baptism.

With this, too, agrees what is told of our own duties towards this sacred possession, which are represented as negative rather than active; I mean, we are enjoined not to injure or profane it, but so to honour it in our outward conduct, that it may be continued and increased in us. For instance, our Lord says, “Thou hast a few names even in Sardis, which have not defiled their garments; ^[p.157] and they shall walk with Me in white, for they are worthy.” (Rev. iii. 4) Such words are more naturally interpreted of an inward gift than of a mere imputation; and scarcely admit of being explained of a moral condition of heart, attained (under grace) through our own exertions. They are parallel to St. Paul’s warning against “grieving the Spirit of God;” which may just as reasonably be interpreted of mere moral excellence, as in some heretical schools has been done. Of the same character are exhortations such as St. Paul’s, not “to defile the temple of God;” to recollect that we are the temple of God, and that the Holy Ghost is in us.

2.

Moreover, it may throw light on these metaphors to inquire whether (considering we have gained under the Gospel what we lost in Adam, and justification is a reversing of our forfeiture, and a robe of righteousness is what Christ gives) it was not such a robe that Adam lost. If so, what is told us of what he lost, will explain to us what it is we gain. Now the peculiar gift which Adam lost is told us in the book of Genesis; and it certainly does seem to have been a supernatural clothing. He was stripped of it by sinning as of a covering, and shrank from the sight of himself. This was the sign of his inward loathsomeness; and accordingly all through Scripture we find stress is laid on one especial punishment, which is hereafter to result from sin, of a most piercing and agonizing character, the manifestation of our shame. When we consider what our feelings ^[p.158] are now as connected with this subject, we may fancy what an inexpressibly keen anguish is thus in store for sinners, when their eyes shall be opened, who at present “glory in their shame, and mind earthly things.” Such then was Adam’s loss in God’s sight, as visibly typified; and, therefore, such as what he lost is the nature of the Gospel gift, so far as it is a return to what he lost. And as such our Lord speaks of it in the Apocalypse, warning us, as of our natural destitution, so of His power and willingness to remedy it. “I counsel thee,” He says, “to buy of Me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayst be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayst be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear.” (Rev. iii. 18) And again, “Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.” (Rev. xvi. 15) Christ then clothes us in God’s sight with something over and above nature, which Adam forfeited.

Now that Adam’s supernatural clothing was not a mere imputed righteousness, need not formally be proved; it was a something, of the loss of which he was himself at once conscious, which he could not be of acts passing in the Divine Mind. Nor was it real inherent holiness; at least we may so conjecture from this circumstance, that such a habit is the result of practice and habituation, and, as it would be attainable but gradually, so when attained it would scarcely yield at once to external temptation. But whether or not we may trust ourselves to such arguments, the early Church supersedes the need of them by explaining, that what ^[p.159] Adam lost on sinning, was in fact a supernatural endowment, and agreeably with the view of justification already taken, was nothing less than the inward presence either of the Divine Word, or of the Holy Ghost.

The Catholic fathers, as Bishop Bull has collected their testimony (State of Man before the Fall, p. 115), teach that the principle of sanctity in Adam, to which was attached the gift of immortal life, was something distinct from and above his human nature. That nature, indeed, did look towards such a perfection, but could not in itself reach it. Without this heavenly possession, man was not able to keep the Law according to the Covenant of Life, but with it he could serve God acceptably, and gain the reward set before him.

This interpretation of the Scripture account of man’s original nature and fall is confirmed by various passages of St. Paul. For instance, he speaks of man as being by mere creation what he calls a sou1; “The first Adam was made a living soul;” now just before, he has used a derived form of the same word, though in our version it does not appear. He says, “there is a natural body,” that is, “a body with a soul.” Elsewhere he says, “the natural man,” that is, the man with a soul, “receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God.” (1 Cor. xv. 44, 45; ii. 14, 15. 1 Thess. v. 32) Human nature then, viewed in itself, is not spiritual, and that neither in soul nor body. Accordingly St. Paul contrasts with this mere natural state that which is spiritual, which alone is pleasing to God, and which alone can see Him. “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit ^[p.160] of God; for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned; but he that is spiritual discerneth all things.” In like manner, after saying there is a natural, he adds, “there is a spiritual body;” and after saying that Adam in himself was but a living soul, he adds, that Christ, the beginning of the new creation, is “a quickening Spirit.” In accordance with this distinction, in another Epistle he prays for his disciples, that their whole spirit, and soul, and body, may be preserved blameless.

Whatever else, then, Adam had by creation, this seems to have been one main supernatural gift, or rather that in which all others were included, the presence of God the Holy Ghost in him, exalting him into the family and service of His Almighty Creator. This was his clothing; this he lost by disobedience; this Christ has regained for us.

Well then may Prophets and Apostles exult in it as the great gift of Divine Mercy, as the rich garment of salvation, and the enjewelled robe of righteousness; as linen clean and white, or, as it is elsewhere expressed, as “Christ in us,” and “upon us,” and around us; as if it were a light streaming from our hearts, pervading the whole man, enwrapping and hiding the lineaments and members of our fallen nature, circling round us, and returning inward to the centre from which it issues. The Almighty Father, looking on us, sees not us, but this Sacred Presence, even His dearly beloved Son spiritually manifested in us; with His blood upon our door-posts, in earnest of that final abolition of sin which is at length to be accomplished in us.

Such is the great gift of the Gospel conveyed to us by the ministration of the Spirit, partly now, fully hereafter, and to it a number of passages in the New Testament seem to refer. I shall now proceed to consider it, under two chief designations which are there given to it; by attending to which we shall conceive more worthily of our privilege, and gain a deeper insight into the sacred text; I mean glory and power. Both these titles are applied to the gift in the following passages:—

“It,” the human corpse, “is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in ^[p.162] power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.”

St. Paul prays to God for his brethren, “that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power by His Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all Saints what is the breadth and length, and depth and height.”

Made powerful with all power, according to the might of His glory, unto all patience and long-suffering with joy, giving thanks unto the Father, who hath made us equal to sharing the inheritance of the saints in light.”

“It is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the Heavenly Gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance.” (1 Cor. xv. 43, 44; Eph. iii. 16; Col. i. 11,12; Heb. vi. 4-6)

3.

Let us then consider this great gift, first as it is glory, then as it is power.

1. Besides the usual sense which the word glory bears in Scripture in relation to our duties to Almighty God, as when we are told to “do all to the glory of God,” it has also, I need hardly say, in a number of places a mysterious sense, denoting some attribute, property, virtue, or presence of the Divine Nature manifested ^[p.163] visibly. Thus we read of the glory of the Lord appearing over the Tabernacle, and entering into the Temple; and in like manner of the glory of the Lord shining round about the shepherds. Cases of this kind must occur to every attentive reader of the Scriptures. In the places just referred to it seems to mean a presence of God; but sometimes it stands for His moral attributes. Moses gained leave to see the skirts of His glory, and the permission was conveyed in these words, “I will make all My goodness pass before thee.” Accordingly, Almighty God was proclaimed, as He passed by, as “the Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.”

Now as long as Scripture uses the word glory to denote the general awfulness attendant on the presence of Almighty God, there is nothing to surprise us, for every thing that attaches to Him is mysterious; but it becomes remarkable, when we find, as in other passages, the same mysterious attribute, which belongs to Him, ascribed to us.

In considering this point, it is obvious first to mention our Saviour’s words to His Almighty Father in His prayer before His passion:—”The glory which Thou gavest Me, I have given them.” (Exod. xxxiii. 18, 19; xxxiv. 6. John xvii. 22; xi. 40. Rom. vi. 4)

What is this glory which has passed from Christ to us? It is some high gift which admits of being transferred, as is evident. What it was in Christ, we see in some degree by the following words of St. Paul:—”Like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” ^[p.164] Whatever else it was, it appears hence that it was a presence or power which operated for the resurrection of His body. In this connection it may be well to direct attention to a passage which, otherwise, with our present notions, we should explain (as we should think) more naturally. Before our Lord raises Lazarus, He says to Martha, “Said I not unto thee, that if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?” What He had said before to her was simply, that He was the Resurrection and the Life.

And when granted to us, it is characterized by the same operative power; St. Paul speaks in a text already cited of “the might of God’s glory in us;” of our being “strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man, according to the riches of His glory.” And elsewhere of “the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the Saints;” and St. Peter of our being called “to glory and virtue;” of the “Spirit of glory and of God resting on us;” and St. Paul again of our being “changed from glory to glory.” The gift then is habitual; both permanent and increasing. Again: “Ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord; walk as children of light.” “Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.” “The God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” To these may be added a text, which we now understand differently, “All have sinned, and come short of,” or are in need of, “the glory of God.” (Eph. v. 8, 14. 2 Cor. iv. 4. Rom. iii. 23. (Note 2)) ^[p.165]

Lastly, these mentions of glory are distinctly connected with the gift of “righteousness.” St. Paul speaks indifferently of the “ministration of the Spirit,” and “of the ministration of righteousness, exceeding in glory.” (2 Cor. iii. 8, 9)

Now, without knowing at all what “glory” means, all these passages seem to show that it is a gift directly proceeding from God’s nature, and intimately united to the Christian. Here then is additional evidence that an endowment is bestowed upon us distinct from any moral gift, or any mere external title or imputation; and that this endowment thus distinguished is nothing else than our righteousness.

4.

2. The same general conclusion will follow from considering the gift as power.

Properly speaking, the word “power,” denotes a divine attribute or prerogative. As glory seems to designate the inherent perfection of Almighty God from eternity (as, for instance, when the Son is called “the brightness of God’s glory”), so “power” is a characteristic of that perfection as manifested in time. Creation is the offspring of His power; again, He “upholds all things by the word of His power.”

Next, it is used to denote the particular attribute manifested in the Economy of Redemption and in the ^[p.166] Person of the Redeemer; for instance,—”The power of the Highest” overshadowed the Blessed Virgin in order to the Incarnation. “Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee.” Christ was “declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of Holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” St. Paul speaks of “knowing Him and the power of His resurrection,” “Jesus immediately perceived that virtue” or power (for the word is the same in the original), “had gone out of Him.” “There went power out of Him, and healed them all.” “Mighty works do show forth themselves in Him,” that is, “these virtues or powers do energize, act, live, or work, in Him.” (Luke i. 35; iv. 14. Rom. i. 4. Phil. iii. 10. Mark v. 30. Luke vi. 19. Mark vi. 14)

Next, let it be observed that this virtue or power was given by Him to His disciples, and then in our Version the word is commonly translated miracle. It is true, it does sometimes mean precisely the miraculous act or work itself; but it often means, not the work, but as the word virtue implies, the faculty or gift of power within the agent which effects the work. For instance: “He gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.” “Ye shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you.” “My speech, and my preaching, was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power.” In like manner Simon Magus, when he bewitched the Samaritans, was called by them “the great power” or virtue “of God.” (Luke ix. 1. Acts i. 8. 1 Cor. ii. 4. Acts viii. 10) ^[p.167]

Further, the effects of this indwelling gift in the Apostles are described as similar to those which our Lord allowed to appear in Himself; I mean, it showed itself as a virtue going out of them, so as to take away all pretence of its being considered a mere act of the power of God, external to themselves, accompanying their word or deed, and not an effect through them and from them. Thus of St. Paul it is said, that “God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul, so that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.” Again: “By the hands of the Apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.” (Acts xix. 11, 12; v. 12-15) The instance of the virtue of Elisha’s bones in raising the dead is another remarkable instance of the inward gift of the Spirit, and anticipates Gospel times.

And, lastly, such in kind, though not miraculous (in the common sense of the word), is the gift bestowed upon the Christian Church and its members. The same word being used, we may well believe that it is an inward yet not a moral gift, but a supernatural power or divine virtue. Thus, for instance, our Lord speaks of it as being in the body or Church; and says, on one occasion, that there were some about Him, “who should not taste of death, till they had seen the kingdom of God come with power.” The Gospel is said to be “the power ^[p.168] of God unto salvation;” Christ, “unto the called, both Jews and Greeks,” is “the power of God and wisdom of God.” And so as regards the Apostles and Christians generally. Thus we read of St. Paul’s ministerial power as a similar inward gift;—”whereof,” he says, that is, of the Gospel, “I was made a minister, by the gift of the grace of God, which was given to me by the inward working of His power.” Again, he speaks of his “striving according to His working, which worketh in me mightily.” (1 Cor. i. 18-24. Eph. iii. 7. Col. i. 29) Again: “Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.” Now this expression, “rest upon me,” is in the original “rest upon me as in a tabernacle;” and is used elsewhere. For instance, in an earlier part of this same Epistle, the word “tabernacle” has been used for the mortal body. What, then, St. Paul rejoices in, is that the power of Christ is upon his tabernacle or body; and the weight of this privilege is intimated by the adoption of the word in the Apocalypse, to describe the characteristic of future glory, “He that sitteth on the throne shall tabernacle over them.” (2 Cor. xii. 9. Rev. vii. 15; xxi. 3)

To the same purport are the following passages: “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me,” that is, more literally, “I am every way strong in the power-imparting Christ,” or “in Christ who worketh power in me.” And it is observable, that this power is said to be the same as wrought the Resurrection, or what is elsewhere called glory; St. Paul, as I have said, prays for the Ephesians, that “the eyes of their understanding ^[p.169] may be enlightened, that they may know what is the hope of His calling, and what the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power to us-ward who believe, according to the inward working of the might of His strength, which He wrought in Christ when He raised Him from the dead.” He returns thanks and praises “unto Him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us.” He desires for himself that he “may know Him, and the power of His resurrection.” He speaks of “the work of faith with power.” He bids Timothy “be partaker of the afflictions of the Gospel according to the power of God.” (Eph. i. 18-20; iii. 20. Phil. iii. 10. 2 Thes. i. 11. 2 Tim. i. 8. Heb. vii. 16. 1 Pet. i. 5. 2 Pet. i. 3) He declares that Christ is made a priest “not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life;” His eternal and spiritual existence becoming, through His sacerdotal intercession, an inward power to His followers, such as could not be imparted by any mere earthly system. Again, St. Peter speaks of Christians being “kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation;” and of God having given us, “according to His divine power,” “all things that pertain unto life and godliness.”

Here then, as before, I conclude that an endowment is vouchsafed to us, not simply moral, yet internal, so as fitly to answer and corroborate the description I have already given of “the gift of righteousness.” ^[p.170]

5.

Again: our Saviour asked the brother Apostles, whether they were able to drink of His cup, and to be baptized in His baptism? Can a draught be separated from the drinking it, or a bath from being bathed in it? In like manner the gift of righteousness, which is our justification as given, is our renewal as received.

Or again: the seal, mould, or stamp, with which our souls are marked as God’s coin impresses His image upon them. He claims them as His own redeemed property, that is, by the signature of holiness: He justifies us by renewing. How natural this continuance is of the one idea into the other, is shown in the literal sense of the words which I am using figuratively. The word mark stands both for the instrument marking, and the figure which it makes. So again, the word copy sometimes stands for the pattern, sometimes for the imitation. In like manner, image sometimes means the original, sometimes the duplicate or representation. Thus, in one text, man is said to be formed “after the image of God;” in ^[p.171] another he is said to be ”the image of Christ.” (Note 3) And in like manner, though the inward law commonly stands for the new creature, yet it may be said to justify, as standing also for that Archetype of which the new creature is the copy. And again, we may be said to be “saved” by the “ingrafted Word,” that is, the Word which is ingrafted, but which for all that does not cease to be what it was when first imparted, the presence of Christ.

The following passage in the Book of Wisdom well illustrates, in the case of the attribute from which it takes its name, what I would enforce,—the indivisible union between the justifying gift of the Divine Presence and the inherent sanctity which is its token.

“All men,” says the writer, “have one entrance into life, and the like going out. Wherefore I prayed, and understanding was given me; I called upon God, and the spirit of wisdom came to me. I loved her above health and beauty, and chose to have her instead of light; for the light that cometh from her never goeth out. All good things together came to me with her, and innumerable riches in her hands. I learned diligently and do communicate her liberally; I do not hide her riches; for she is a treasure unto men that never faileth, which they that use become the friends of God, being commended for the gifts that come from learning.” (Wisdom vii. 6-14)

Now, if this were all that were said on the subject, unbecoming complaints would be uttered in some schools of religion, that in this passage an internal gift, called wisdom by the writer, was considered to make us “friends ^[p.172] of God,” or to justify; and a tendency to Pelagianism would be freely imputed, and an ignorance that justification was God’s act, in spite of the strong expression which occurs of the spirit of wisdom coming to the writer, which surely implies a Divine Agent, not an implanted excellence, and in spite of our Lord’s plain declaration, that we are His friends if we do what He commands us. However, as the description proceeds, it will be found that the Wisdom spoken of is no created gift, no inward renewal, but none other than the Eternal Word Himself, who afterwards took flesh, in order thus supernaturally to be imparted; and who was announced beforehand by holy men in terms which inspired Apostles in due time adopted. The sacred writer, then (for so surely he may well be called, considering what he says), proceeds as follows:—”In Her” (Wisdom) “is an understanding spirit, holy, only-begotten, manifold, subtle, lively, clear, undefiled, plain, incorruptible, a lover of good, keen, free to act, beneficent, kind to man, stedfast, sure, free from care, all-powerful, all-surveying, and pervading all intellectual, pure, and subtle spirits. For Wisdom is more moving than any motion; She passeth and goeth through all things because of her pureness. For she is the Breath of the power of God, and a pure Effluence from the glory of the Almighty; therefore can no defiled thing fall into her. For she is the Brightness of the Everlasting Light, the unspotted Mirror of the power of God, and the Image of His goodness. And being but One, She can do all things; and remaining in herself, She maketh all things new; and in all ages entering into ^[p.173] holy souls She maketh them friends of God and prophets.” (Wisdom vii. 22-27) Here then, while wisdom is said to be our justification, no clear distinction is made between the created wisdom and the Increate.

6.

One more illustration shall be adduced; justification is the setting up of the Cross within us. That Cross, planted by Almighty Hands, is our safeguard from all evil; dropping grace and diffusing heavenly virtue all around, and hallowing the spot where before there was but strife and death. It is our charm against numberless dangers ghostly and bodily; it is our refuge against our accusing and seducing foe, our protection from the terror by night and the arrow by day, and our passport into the Church invisible. But how does this Cross become ours? I repeat, by being given; and what is this giving, in other words, but our being marked with it? Let us see what this implies. We know that in Baptism a cross is literally marked on the forehead. Now suppose (to explain what I mean) we were ordered to mark the cross, not with the finger, but with a sharp instrument. Then it would be a rite of blood. In such a case justification and pain would undeniably go together; they would be inseparable. You might separate them in idea, but in fact they would ever be one. One act would convey both the one and the other. If the invisible presence of the justifying Cross were conveyed to you in marking it visibly, you could not receive the justification without the pain. Justification would involve pain. Now it is in this way that justification ^[p.174] actually does involve a spiritual circumcision, a crucifixion of the flesh, or sanctification. The entrance of Christ’s sacred presence into the soul, which becomes our righteousness in God’s sight, at the same time becomes righteousness in it. It make(s) us travail and be in pangs with righteousness, and work with fear and trembling. Such is the account given of it by the son of Sirach; who uses the same image of Wisdom already referred to:—”If a man,” he says, “commit himself to Her, he shall inherit Her, and his generation shall hold Her in possession. For at the first She will walk with him by crooked ways and bring fear and dread upon him, and torment him with her discipline, till She may trust his soul and try him by her laws.” (Ecclus. iv. 16, 17)

It is very necessary to insist upon this, for a reason which has come before us in other shapes already. It is the fashion of the day to sever these two from one another, which God has joined, the seal and the impression, justification and renewal. You hear men speak of glorying in the Cross of Christ, who are utter strangers to the notion of the Cross as actually applied to them in water and blood, in holiness and mortification. They think the Cross can be theirs without being applied,—without its coming near them,—while they keep at a distance from it, and only gaze at it. They think individuals are justified immediately by the great Atonement,—justified by Christ’s death, and not, as St. Paul says, by means of His Resurrection,—justified by what they consider looking at His death. Because the Brazen Serpent in the wilderness healed by being looked at, ^[p.175] they consider that Christ’s Sacrifice saves by the mind’s contemplating it. This is what they call casting themselves upon Christ,—coming before Him simply and without self-trust, and being saved by faith. Surely we ought so to come to Christ; surely we must believe; surely we must look; but the question is, in what form and manner He gives Himself to us; and it will be found that, when He enters into us, glorious as He is Himself, pain and self-denial are His attendants. Gazing on the Brazen Serpent did not heal; but God’s invisible communication of the gift of health to those who gazed. So also justification is wholly the work of God; it comes from God to us; it is a power exerted on our souls by Him, as the healing of the Israelites was a power exerted on their bodies. The gift must be brought near to us; it is not like the Brazen Serpent, a mere external, material, local sign; it is a spiritual gift, and, as being such, admits of being applied to us individually. Christ’s Cross does not justify by being looked at, but by being applied; not by as merely beheld by faith, but by being actually set up within us, and that not by our act, but by God’s invisible grace. Men sit, and gaze, and speak of the great Atonement, and think this is appropriating it; not more truly than kneeling to the material cross itself is appropriating it. Men say that faith is an apprehending and applying; faith cannot really apply the Atonement; man cannot make the Saviour of the world his own; the Cross must be brought home to us, not in word, but in power, and this is the work of the Spirit. This is justification; but when imparted to the soul, it draws blood, it heals, it purifies, it glorifies. ^[p.176]

7.

With one or two passages from St. Paul in behalf of what I have been saying, I will bring this Lecture to an end. We shall find from the Apostle that the gift of the Justifying Cross as certainly involves an inward crucifixion as a brand or stamp causes sharp pain, or the cure of a bodily ailment consists in a severe operation.

For instance, writing to the Galatians, he says, “God forbid that I should glory save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ;” (Gal. vi. 14)—what Cross? He goes on to tell us;—”by whom,” or, rather, by which “the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world,”—that is, the Cross on Calvary, issuing and completed in its reflection on his own soul. An inward crucifixion was the attendant process of justification. This passage is the more remarkable, because St. Paul is alluding to certain bodily wounds and sufferings, as being actually the mode, in his case, in which the Cross had been applied. He says to his converts,—”The Jews compel you to be circumcised, but we Christians glory in another kind of circumcision, painful indeed, but more profitable. Our circumcision consists in the marks, the brands, of the Lord Jesus; which effect for us what circumcision can but typify, which interest us in His life while interesting us in His passion.” The saving Cross crucifies us in saving.

Again: in a previous passage, “A man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Christ.” (Gal. ii. 16, 20) Do we conceive this to be a light and pleasant doctrine, and justification to be given without pain and discomfort on our part? so freely given as to be given ^[p.177] easily,—so fully as to be lavishly? fully and freely doubtless, yet conferring fully what man does not take freely. He proceeds;—”I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.” O easy and indulgent doctrine, to have the bloody Cross reared within us, and our heart transfixed, and our arms stretched out upon it, and the sin of our nature slaughtered and cast out!

Again; in the same Epistle, “They that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.” (Gal. v. 24) It is remarkable that these three passages are from that Epistle in which the Apostle peculiarly insists on justification being through faith, not through the Law. It is plain he never thought of mere faith as the direct and absolute instrument of it. It should be observed how coincident this doctrine is with our Saviour’s command to His disciples to “take up their Cross and follow Him.” Our crosses are the lengthened shadow of the Cross on Calvary.

To the same purport are the following texts:—”We are buried with Him by baptism into death ... our old man is crucified with Him.”—”Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.”—”Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body; for we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.” (Rom. vi. 4, 6; xiii. 14. 2 Cor. iv. 10, 11)

As then the Cross, in which St. Paul gloried, was not ^[p.178] the material cross on which Christ suffered,—so neither is it simply the Sacrifice on the cross, but it is that Sacrifice coming in power to him who has faith in it, and converting body and soul into a sacrifice. It is the Cross, realized, present, living in him, sealing him, separating him from the world, sanctifying him, afflicting him. Thus the great Apostle clasped it to his heart, though it pierced it through like a sword; held it fast in his hands, though it cut them; reared it aloft, preached it, exulted in it. And thus we in our turn are allowed to hold it, commemorating and renewing individually, by the ministry of the Holy Ghost, the death and resurrection of our Lord.

But enough has been said on the matter in hand. On the whole, then, I conclude as follows: that though the Gift which justifies us is, as we have seen, a something distinct from us and lodged in us, yet it involves in its idea its own work in us, and (as it were) takes up into itself that renovation of the soul, those holy deeds and sufferings, which are as if a radiance streaming from it.

1. State of Man before the Fall, p. 115.
 

2. [husterountai tes doxes] Egent gloriâ Dei. Vulg.—St. Cyprian makes the sense of the word clearer by reading claritas for gloria, ad Quir. ii. 27. Also [tes doxes aposterei; ton gar proskekpoukoton ei; ho de proskekpoukos ou ton doxazomenon, alla ton kateschummenon], Chrys. in loc. “That is, the fruition of God in Glory:” Whitby in loc. Vid. also Bucer in loc.
 

L_09_RIGHTEOUSNESS_FRUIT_of_LORDS_RESURRECTION

^[p.202] THAT our justification, or our being accounted righteous by Almighty God, consists in our being grafted into the Body of Christ or made His members, in God dwelling in us and our dwelling in God, and that the Holy Ghost is the gracious Agent in this wonderful work,—all this has been argued from Scripture in various ways; first from righteousness being there spoken of as a gift internal to the soul; or, again, from the great gift of the Gospel (which righteousness confessedly is) being spoken of as inward; secondly, on the ground that, if so high a privilege as God’s indwelling be vouchsafed, it must necessarily involve justification as one of its benefits; thirdly, from righteousness being represented as an ornament of the soul beyond nature, and such an endowment having actually been lost in Adam,—from which it seemed to follow, that what is gained in Christ is a like ornament, which Scripture confirms by speaking of it as a glory and a power; and fourthly, from the analogy of such a view of justification to the special character of Christian privileges. In the present Lecture, following up a consideration already touched upon, I shall treat the matter thus:—whatever is now given to ^[p.203] us by the Spirit is done within us; whatever is given us through the Church since Christ’s ascension, is given by the Spirit; from which it follows that our justification, being a present work, is an inward work, and a work of the Spirit. This, I conceive, is supported, together with other passages of Scripture, by the emphatic words of St. Paul, that He “who was delivered for our offences was raised again for our justification,” for, in saying that Christ rose again for our justification, it is implied that justification is through that second Comforter who after that Resurrection came down from heaven. In considering this view of the subject, I shall, as in the foregoing Lecture, appeal rather to the harmony of sacred doctrine and the light which the view in question throws upon particular texts, than to the passages of Scripture which prove it, that having been already incidentally done in the 2d, 6th, and 7th Lectures.

Christ’s work of mercy has two chief parts; what He did for all men, what He does for each; what He did once for all, what He does for one by one continually; what He did externally to us, what He does within us; what He did on earth, what He does in heaven; what He did in His own Person, what He does by His Spirit; His death, and the water and the blood after it; His meritorious sufferings, and the various gifts thereby purchased, of pardon, grace, reconciliation, renewal, holiness, spiritual communion; that is, His Atonement, and the application of His Atonement, or His Atonement and our justification; He atones by the offering of Himself on the Cross; and as certainly (which is the point before us) He justifies by the mission of His Spirit. ^[p.204]

His Atonement is His putting away the wrath of God for our sins. In order to this, He took flesh; He accomplished it in His own Person, by His crucifixion and death. Justification is the application of this precious Atonement to this person or that person, and this He accomplishes by His Spirit. For He ceased, I say, to act towards us by His own hand from the day of His ascension; He sent His Spirit to take His place,—”I will not leave you orphans,” He says, “I will come unto you.”—”I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever.” [John xiv. 16-18.] Whatever then is done in the Christian Church is done by the Spirit; Christ’s mission ended when He left the world; He was to come again, but by His Spirit. The Holy Spirit realizes and completes the redemption which Christ has wrought in essence and virtue. If the justification, then, of a sinner be a continual work, a work under the New Covenant, it must be the Spirit’s work and not simply Christ’s. The Atonement for sin took place during His own mission, and He was the chief Agent; the application of that Atonement takes place during the mission of His Spirit, who accordingly is the chief Agent in it.

2.

We know nothing of the reasons of God’s wonderful providences; why an Atonement was necessary, why the Son of God was the sacrifice, why that sacrifice must be applied in order to “wash away the sins” of individuals; let us accept what is given, adore God’s wisdom, and be ^[p.205] thankful and silent;—but, whatever be the deep reasons, this seems to be the rule of His counsels as to our justification; that, as the Atonement was a work of flesh and blood, a tangible, sensible work, wrought out in this material world,—not, as the heretics said of old, an imaginary act, the suffering (God forgive the blasphemy!) of a phantom, a mere appearance (for such was the heresy which St. John and St. Paul especially opposed)—as Christ really “came in the flesh,” which none but deceivers and antichrists can deny, and suffered in the real body and blood of man;—so on the contrary the communication of this great and adorable Sacrifice to the individual Christian, is not the communication of that Body and Blood such as it was when offered upon the Cross, but, in a higher, glorified, and spiritual state. The Son of God suffered as the man Christ Jesus, “with strong crying and tears,”—”in weakness” and a body of “flesh;” the crucified Man, the Divine Son, comes again to us in His Spirit. He came once, then He ascended, He has come again. He came first in the flesh; He has come the second time in the Spirit. He did not come the second time carnally, nor the first time invisibly, but He came first in the flesh, and secondly in the Spirit. As in God’s counsels it was necessary for the Atonement that there should be a material, local, Sacrifice of the Son once for all: so for our individual justification, there must be a spiritual, ubiquitous communication of that Sacrifice continually. There was but One Atonement; there are ten thousand justifications. What was offered “under Pontius Pilate” in flesh and blood, is partaken again and again in every time and place, in the power ^[p.206] and virtue of the Spirit. God the Son atoned; God the Holy Ghost justifies.

Further; it would appear as if His going to the Father was, in fact, the same thing as His coming to us spiritually. I mean there is some mysterious unknown connection between His departing in His own Person, and His returning in the Person of His Spirit. He said that unless He went, His Spirit would not come to us; as though His ascending and the Spirit’s descending, if not the same act, yet were very closely connected, and admitted of being spoken of as the same. And thus His rising again was the necessary antecedent of His applying to His elect the virtue of that Atonement which His dying wrought for all men. While He was on the Cross, while in the tomb, while in hell, the treasure existed, the precious gift was perfected, but it lay hid; it was not yet available for its gracious ends; it was not diffused, communicated, shared in, enjoyed. Thus He died to purchase what He rose again to apply. “He died for our sins; He rose again for our justification;” He died in the flesh; He rose again “according to the Spirit of holiness,” which, when risen, He also sent forth from Him, dispensing to others that life whereby He rose Himself. He atoned, I repeat, in His own Person; He justifies through His Spirit.

3.

And here I have touched upon another part of the harmony of the Divine Dispensation, which may be profitably dwelt upon. For He Himself was raised again and “justified” by the Spirit; and what was ^[p.207] wrought in Him is repeated in us who are His brethren, and the complement and ratification of His work. What took place in Him as an Origin, is continued on in the succession of those who inherit His fulness, and is the cause of its continuance. He is said to be “justified by the Spirit,” because it was by the Spirit that He was raised again, proved innocent, made to triumph over His enemies, declared the Son of God, and exalted on the holy Hill of Sion. It had been declared, “Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee,” and in these words He was justified or recognized, and owned before the world as the Dearly-beloved of the Father. This, I say, was His justification; and ours consists in our new birth also, and His was the beginning of ours. The Divine Life which raised Him, flowed over, and availed unto our rising again from sin and condemnation. It wrought a change in His Sacred Manhood, which became spiritual, without His ceasing to be man, and was in a wonderful way imparted to us as a new-creating, transforming Power in our hearts. This was the gift bestowed on the Church upon His ascension; for while He remained on earth, though risen, it was still withheld. During that interval, too, if we may speak without presumption, He seems to have been in an intermediate state, passing by an orderly course from what He had been during His humiliation to what He is in His glory. Then He was neither in His body of flesh simply, nor in His glorified body. He ate in the presence of His disciples; He suffered them to examine His hands and feet, and wounded side. Yet, on the other hand, He now appeared, and now vanished, came into the room, the doors being shut, and ^[p.208] on one occasion said, “Touch Me not.” When, however, on His ascension, He became a lifegiving Spirit, in the power of His Spirit He came to us, to justify us as He had been justified. Hence the force of St. Paul’s expressions, which I elsewhere cited, concerning “the exceeding greatness of God’s power to us-ward that believe according to the working of his mighty power, which He wrought in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead;” and the blessedness of “knowing Him and the power of His resurrection;” and again, our being “made alive together with Christ, and raised up together, and made to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.”

Here I would observe of this part of the wonderful Economy of Redemption, that God the Son and God the Holy Ghost have so acted together in their separate Persons, as to make it difficult for us creatures always to discriminate what belongs to each respectively. Christ rises by his own power, yet the Holy Ghost is said to raise him; hence, the expression in St. Paul, “according to the Spirit of Holiness,” as applied to His resurrection, may be taken to stand either for His Divine nature or for the Third Person in the Blessed Trinity. The case is the same as regards the mystery of the Incarnation itself. It was the Word of God who descended into the Virgin’s womb, and framed for Himself a human tabernacle, yet the man so born was “conceived of the Holy Ghost.” And hence some early writers seem to have doubted whether by “the power of the Highest,” and “the Holy Spirit,” the Angel Gabriel meant the Second or Third Divine Person; whether He ^[p.209] who took flesh may not be also spoken of as the Maker of that flesh which He took; whether That which anointed the Manhood of the Saviour with the fulness of grace, was not rather the Divine Fulness of the Saviour Himself than the Holy Ghost [Note 1]. I notice this merely by way of explaining myself, if in speaking upon this most sacred subject I have said, or may say, anything which would seem to “confound the Persons” of the Son and Spirit, which are eternally distinct and complete in Themselves, though in nature and operation One. Let me then proceed to comment on several important texts of Scripture, which are adapted to throw light on the main doctrine which is now under review, that our ascended Lord, in ascending, has returned to us invisibly in the attributes of a Spirit.

4.

1. In His discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum, recorded in the sixth chapter of St. John, after saying, “If any man eat of this Bread, he shall live for ever, and the Bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world,” thereby intimating both the sacrifice of His Sacred Body upon the cross, and the real and individual communication of it to all who shall be saved, He was misunderstood to mean that He intended thereby that what they saw before them, an extended and material form, was to be eaten carnally with the teeth. On this He said, “Doth this offend ^[p.210] you? what, and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up, where He was before? It is the Spirit that is the life-giver; the flesh profiteth nothing;”—that is, if without presumption we may attempt an explanation of such words, “You, being flesh, understand Me to speak of mere flesh, mortal flesh; whereas when I speak of My flesh, though I do speak of My body and blood, yet it is not of anything carnal and earthly, it is not of what you see with your eyes, but of this My body and blood, My Humanity, when, having passed through its state of humiliation, and having been perfected upon the cross, It shall ascend to heaven in a new way, the same and not the same, by the power of the Spirit. Then It shall no longer be a substance that can be seen and handled; It shall be a spiritual body; It shall be spiritual, and this is that which giveth life. It is the Spirit that quickeneth. This is what I spoke of, when I said that whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, shall have eternal life; I spoke of my spiritual and glorified body. It is the Spirit that is the Life-giver; when I come to you again in the power of the Spirit, when He imparts My spiritual body, then It shall be eternal life to all who eat of It.”

Observe especially, our Lord connects this spiritual coming with his resurrection and ascension. “What and if ye see the Son of man ascend up, where He was before?” He had been, He was ever, in Heaven; but His flesh, which He had assumed for our sakes, had not yet been there. When It had overcome death, when It touched the throne of God, It was no longer what It had been. Death had no more dominion over Him. “He liveth unto God.” ^[p.211]

5.

2. Again: consider St. Paul’s words, “There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body ... The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening Spirit ... The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.” [1 Cor. xv. 44-48.] And recollect, this is said in answer to the question, “With what body do the dead come?” An objection might be made, then as now, that since the component particles of our body are ever changing during life, since on death they are dissipated to the four winds, the same body cannot be raised; what is meant then by its being called the same body? St. Paul answers that it will be the same body in the sense that a blade of wheat is the same with the seed; being contained within it, and at length developed out of it. So also there is a natural body, and a spiritual body; and the natural body comes first, as the seed does. The spiritual body, how or what we know not, is formed within it, the same as it, yet different in its accidents. Corruption, dissolution, mortality, are but the accidents of the Christian’s body, and are separated from it for ever on its rising again. What we see is not the real body, it is but the outward shell; the real body of the regenerate soul is not only material, but spiritual, of which the seed is now deposited within us.

The Apostle then goes on to say how this takes place, viz. by a new birth from Christ. The first man Adam ^[p.212] had at first life given him, but he lost it and became earthy; all who are born from him are earthy like him. Such is the generation of those who are born after the flesh. But the second Man is not merely living, but life-giving; He is a “quickening or life-giving Spirit;” the very words (be it observed) which our Saviour had used in His discourse at Capernaum. He is life-giving; and what He is, such are His followers; “as is the Heavenly, such are they that are heavenly.” As Adam diffused death, so the life-giving Spirit is the seed and principle of spiritual bodies to all who are His. “Flesh and blood,” says the Apostle, “cannot inherit the kingdom of God;” here, too, is a parallel to our Lord’s words, “The flesh profiteth nothing.” And further, as our Lord referred to His ascension and exaltation, so here again the life-giving Spirit is said to be “the Lord from heaven.” Thus this passage, equally with the foregoing, speaks of our ascended Lord as a Spirit present in His people, and that, apparently, because He has ascended.

6.

3. Another passage of the same description, though the Ascension is not mentioned in it, is St. Paul’s declaration to the Corinthians, that “he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit.” [1 Cor. vi. 17, 19.] Taking these words in their context, they have a remarkable force in showing the extent of our Lord’s condescension towards us under the Gospel. But I quote them here in order to point out that the gift of the Spirit is none other than the entrance into us of the ascended and invisible Saviour. To be joined as ^[p.213] one spirit to Christ and to be a Temple of the Holy Ghost are spoken of as the same gift. It is to be observed, moreover, that St. Paul, who here speaks of Christ as a Spirit, elsewhere speaks of Him as still possessed of a bodily substance, and as communicating Himself to us as such. “We are members of His Body, from His flesh and from His bones.” [Eph. v. 30.]

Another remarkable text of the same kind occurs where St. Paul, after describing the “glorious ministration of the Spirit,” which is “righteousness” or justification, proceeds: “Now the Lord is that Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty; but we all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.” [2 Cor. iii. 17, 18.] I am not here concerned to explain the course of the Apostle’s teaching in this chapter; but it would appear on the face of it, that the righteousness of the Gospel, which is also “liberty” and “glory,” is “ministered” to us by One who is first called “the Spirit,” and then “the Lord” Christ. The manner too in which are interchanged the words, “the Spirit,” “the Lord,” and “the Spirit of the Lord,” is very observable.

7.

4. That our justification is connected in some unknown way with Christ’s ascension and going out of sight, is also implied in His own words concerning the Holy Ghost in His last discourse with His disciples. “When He is come, He will reprove,” or convince, “the ^[p.214] world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they believe not on Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father, and ye see Me no more.” [John xvi. 8-10.] Surely it is impossible to doubt that the “righteousness” so solemnly and emphatically announced in this discourse concerning His coming kingdom, is that “righteousness of God,” concerning which St. Paul speaks, and in which he glories. Now I do not say the passage quoted shows in what it consists; but thus much it seems to show, that our Lord’s ascension out of sight is connected with the gift. Men had refused to believe, therefore there was a charge of sin against them; Christ had disappeared from the world and gone to God, therefore there was the news of righteousness. The words “because I go to My Father, and ye see Me no more,” seem, I say, in accordance with the other texts quoted, to connect our justification with some hidden necessity on the part of the Justifier, of removing from us His corporal presence and coming to us invisibly.

And here perhaps we may see somewhat of the meaning and depth of the doctrine of justification by faith when rightly understood. If justification, or the imparting of righteousness, be a work of the Holy Ghost, a spiritual gift or presence in the heart, it is plain that faith, and faith alone, can discern it and prepare the mind for it, as the Spirit alone can give it. Faith is the correlative, the natural instrument of the things of the Spirit [Note 2]. While Christ was present in the flesh, He might be seen by the eye; but His more perfect and powerful presence, which we now enjoy, being invisible, can be discerned and ^[p.215] used by faith only. Thus faith is a mysterious means of gaining gifts from God, which cannot otherwise be gained; according to the text, “If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that beheveth.” [Mark ix. 23.] If it was necessary for our justification that Christ should become a quickening Spirit and so be invisible; therefore it was as necessary for the same, in God’s providence, that we should believe [Note 3]; as necessary a condition, in St. Paul’s language, for “the heart to believe unto righteousness,” as any one thing is a necessary condition of another, as (in this world) eating and drinking are necessary for animal life, or the sun for ripening the fruits of the earth, or the air for transmitting sounds. We have no reason for supposing that the supernatural providences of God are not ordered upon a system of antecedents or second causes as precise and minute as is the natural system. Faith may be as a key unlocking for us the treasures of divine mercy, and the only key. I say there is no à priori improbability in the idea; and we see, from the nature of the case, that Christ could not enter into the hearts of the ten thousand of the true Israel, till He came ^[p.216] differently from His coming in the flesh,—till He came in the Spirit. And as the Spirit is the only justifier, so faith is the only recipient of justification. The eye sees what is material; the mind alone can embrace what is spiritual.

8.

5. And these considerations will serve to throw some light on a difficult passage in the end of St. John’s Gospel, where our Lord says to St. Mary Magdalen—”Touch Me not, for I am not yet ascended to My Father.” [John xx. 17.] The question arises here, Why might not our Lord be touched before His ascension, and how could He be touched after it? But Christ speaks, it would seem, thus (if, as before, we might venture to paraphrase His sacred words)—”Hitherto you have only known Me after the flesh. I have lived among you as a man. You have been permitted to approach Me sensibly, to kiss and embrace My feet, to pour ointment upon My head. But all this is at an end, now that I have died and risen again in the power of the Spirit. A glorified state of existence is begun in Me, and will soon be perfected. At present, though I bid you at one moment handle Me as possessed of flesh and bones, I vanish like a spirit at another; though I let one follower embrace My feet, and say, ‘Fear not,’ I repel another with the words, ‘Touch Me not.’ Touch Me not, for I am fast passing for your great benefit from earth to heaven, from flesh and blood into glory, from a natural body to a spiritual body. When I am ascended, then the change will be completed. To pass hence to the Father ^[p.217] in My bodily presence, is to descend from the Father to you in spirit. When I am thus changed, when I am thus present to you, more really present than now though invisibly, then you may touch Me [Note 4],—may touch Me, more really though invisibly, by faith, in reverence, through such outward approaches as I shall assign. Now you but see Me from time to time; when you see most of Me I am at best but ‘going in and out among you.’ Thou hast seen Me, Mary, but couldst not hold Me; thou hast approached Me, but only to embrace My feet, or to be touched by My hand; and thou sayest, ‘O that I knew where I might find Him, that I might come even to His seat! O that I might hold Him and not let Him go!’ Henceforth this shall be; when I am ascended, thou shalt see nothing, thou shalt have everything. Thou shalt ‘sit down under My shadow with great delight, and My fruit shall be sweet to thy taste.’ Thou shalt have Me whole and entire. I will be near thee, I will be in thee; I will come into thy heart a whole Saviour, a whole Christ,—in all My fulness as God and man,—in the awful virtue of that Body and Blood, which has been taken into the Divine Person of the Word, and is indivisible from it, and has atoned for the sins of the world,—not by external contact, not by partial possession, not by momentary approaches, not by a barren manifestation, but inward in presence, and intimate in fruition, a principle of life and a seed of immortality, that thou mayest ‘bring forth fruit unto God.’“^[p.218]

9.

6. This leads me to offer a suggestion as to the sense of another text, which has no great obscurity on the face of it, yet seems to mean more than cursory readers are apt to consider. I mean St. Paul’s words to the Colossians,—”your life is hid with Christ in God.” [Col. iii. 3.]

Now, when we come to consider these words, are they not harsh and strange, if they mean nothing more than what is contained in the popular view of them taken in our day? If life means, what men at present are content that it should mean, the life of religion and devotion, spiritual-mindedness (as it is sometimes called), is it not a very violent phrase to say, “it is hid in God?” Is it not irreverent, taken literally? Can it be made reverent without explaining away its wording? If, however, the foregoing remarks be admitted as true, we are able to take this and similar statements of Scripture literally. For it would seem that, in truth, the principle of our spiritual existence is divine, is an ineffable presence of God. Christ, who promised to make all his disciples one in God with Him, who promised that we should be in God and God in us, has made us so,—has in some mysterious way accomplished for us this great work, this stupendous privilege. It would seem, moreover, as I have said, that He has done so by ascending to the Father; that His ascent bodily is His descent spiritually; that His taking our nature up to God, is the descent of God into us; that He has truly, though in an unknown sense, taken us to God, or ^[p.219] brought down God to us, according as we view it [Note 5].

10.

7. I will conclude with directing attention to the vision of our Lord to St. John in the book of Revelation, which also seems to me to be an intimation of the doctrine which I have been explaining. We know how our Lord appeared “in the days of His flesh;” in hunger and thirst, in weariness, in sorrow, in pain, in mortality. Such He is described in the Gospels, while His disciples saw Him; what His Presence is now, when they see Him not, we learn from St. John’s vision. First He is said to be “in the midst of the Seven Candlesticks,” or Churches; an expression which marks both that He is here and that His presence is spiritual. Then He is described, as follows:—”His head and His hair were white as wool, as white as snow, and His eyes were as a flame of fire, and His feet were like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters. And He had in His right hand seven stars, and out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.” What words could be devised to express more forcibly the power and spirituality of His presence! It is the same description which is given of Him at His transfiguration, only this is far more fearful. Then He anticipated that spiritual state which was to be after “His decease, which He should accomplish at Jerusalem.” And on that occasion the Apostles “fell on their face and were sore afraid;” but now, St. John himself, ^[p.221] the beloved disciple, who had undergone the former vision, and since seen Him risen from the grave, nevertheless at the sight “fell at His feet as dead.” Then Moses and Elias talked of the death “which He should accomplish;” but now He said, “I am He which liveth and was dead, and behold I am alive for evermore, and have the keys of hell and of death.”

Here then is certainly a representation of our Lord, the risen and glorified Saviour, living and ruling in His Church. Now it is very remarkable that, though He thus appears as Christ in the vision, yet in what follows He is spoken of as the Spirit, not as Christ, though He still speaks of Himself as Christ; as if to intimate that all the gifts His blood has purchased are ministered by the Spirit, and that what Christ was to His Apostles when on earth, such, and far more than such, is the Holy Ghost to us now. Here we seem to see something of the meaning of the words,—”The Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified;” for the gift brought by the Spirit was really this and nothing else, Jesus Himself glorified, ascended and invisibly returned.

11.

To conclude:—What has been said will serve to throw light upon a peculiarity of the Apostles’ preaching, which has sometimes caused remark. They insist on our Lord’s Resurrection, as if it were the main doctrine of the Gospel; but why so, and not on His Divinity or the Atonement? Many good reasons may be given for this; as, for instance, that the Resurrection was the great miracle and evidence of the divinity of the religion; ^[p.222] or that it is the pledge of our resurrection; on the other hand, that His Divinity and Atonement were doctrines too sacred to preach to the world. But if, as we have seen, the Resurrection be the means by which the Atonement is applied to each of us, if it be our justification, if in it are conveyed all the gifts of grace and glory which Christ has purchased for us, if it be the commencement of His giving Himself to us for our spiritual sustenance, of His feeding us with that Bread which has already been perfected on the Cross, and is now a medicine of immortality, it is that very doctrine which is most immediate to us, in which Christ most closely approaches us, from which we gain life, and out of which issue our hopes and our duties. Christ is God from everlasting; He became man under Cæsar Augustus; He was an Atonement for the world on the Cross; but He became a Saviour on his resurrection. He was then “exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour;” to come to us in the power of the Spirit, as God, as Man, and as Atoning Sacrifice.

Notes

1. e.g. Tertullian pasim, Cyprian de Van. Idol. fin. (p. 538, ed. Ven.) Iren. Hær. v. 1. Just. Apol. 2. Vid. Grotius on Mark ii. 8, and Præf. Bened. in Hilar. § 57-67.
 

2. Vid. August. Serm. 143.
 

3. Luther speaks well on this point: “Fit ut anima, quæ firma fide illis adhæret, sic eis uniatur, imo penitus absorbeatur, ut non modo participet, sed saturetur et inebrietur omni virtute eorum. Si enim tactus Christi sanabat, quanto magis hic tenerrimus in Spiritu, imo absorptio Verbi, omnia quæ Verbi sunt, animæ communicat?” And then he diverges to his private conclusion, which is either a truism or a paradox, “Hoc igitur modo anima per fidem solam, sine operibus, e Verbo Dei justificatur, sanctificatur, verificatur, pacificatur, liberatur, et omni bono repletur, vereque filia Dei efficitur, sicut Joannes dicit, Dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri, iis qui credunt in nomine ejus.”—Luther de Lib. Christ. f. 5.
 

4. Vid. Leon. Serm. 74, c. 4, ed. Ballerin. Vigil. Taps. contr. Eutych. iv. sub fin.
 

L_12_FAITH_VIEWED_RELATIVELY_to_RITES_and_WORKS

^[p.274] I NOW proceed to show that though we are justified, as St. Paul says, by faith, and, as our Articles and Homilies say, by faith only, nevertheless we are justified, as St. James says, by works; and to show in what sense this latter doctrine is true, and that, not only in the case of works of righteousness, but also of ritual services, such as Baptism, as St. Paul and St. Peter teach. Of course I do not forget St. Paul’s declaration that “a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law,” but he does not thereby assert that justification is independent of the deeds of the Gospel, as a few remarks will suffice to show.

Now, I say at first sight it is no contradiction of St. Paul to assert that we are justified by faith with evangelical works, unless St. James contradicts him also. Those who object to the doctrine of justification through good works, must first object to St James’s Epistle, which they sometimes have done; on the other hand, the temper of Christian reverence which will lead the disciple of St. Paul to submit to St. James, is also a spirit of charity towards those who speak with St. James, from a fear lest in condemning them it should resist an Apostle. With those then who judge severely of the maintainers ^[p.275] of justification by works, I would expostulate thus:—Why be so bent upon forcing two inspired teachers into a real and formal discordance of doctrine? If you could prove ever so cogently that when St. Paul said, “deeds of the Law,” he meant to include Christian works, you would not have advanced one step towards interpreting St. James, or impairing his authority; you would have only plunged into a more serious perplexity. Difficult if it be to account for St. Paul insisting on faith, and St. James at a later date insisting on works, surely it is a greater difficulty when it is insisted on that St. Paul excludes the very works which St. James includes. Is our Gospel like the pretended revelation of the Arabian impostor, a variable rule, the latter portion contradicting the former? Let men speak out then: what is their latent theory, which is sufficient to reconcile their minds to this primâ facie difficulty, and inspirits them, under cover of a presumed contrariety in Scripture, to move forward against Catholic and Apostolic truth?

I believe the latent view to be this: that the Scripture question was settled once for all three centuries since, when the words of both the Holy Apostles were harmonized and merged in the formula of “justification by faith only;” which henceforth, in spite of the supposed liberty of private judgment, is practically a dogma to Protestants, as the canons of the Tridentine Council are binding on the faith of Roman Catholics; and further, that because our Articles and Homilies contain the phrase “by faith only,” therefore they must mean by that phrase all that the Protestant schools have meant by it. But surely, while we accept fully this form of speech, as ^[p.276] has been done in the foregoing Lectures, we may reasonably maintain that an assent to the doctrine that faith alone justifies, does not at all preclude the doctrine of works justifying also. If indeed I said that works justify in the same sense as faith only justifies, this would be a contradiction in terms; but faith only may justify in one sense, good works in another,—and this is all that I here maintain. After all, does not Christ only justify? How is it that the doctrine of faith justifying does not interfere with our Lord’s being the sole justifier? It will of course be replied that our Lord is the meritorious cause, and faith the means; that faith justifies in a different and subordinate sense. As then Christ alone justifies, in the sense in which He justifies, yet faith also justifies us in its own sense, so works, whether moral or ritual, may justify us in their own respective senses, though in the sense in which faith justifies, it only justifies. The only question is what is that sense in which works justify, so as not to interfere with faith only justifying? It may indeed turn out on inquiry, that the sense alleged will not hold, either as being unscriptural or for any other reason; but, whether so or not, at any rate the apparent inconsistency of language should not startle men; nor should they so promptly condemn those who, though they do not use their language, use St. James’s. Indeed, is not this argument, as has been suggested already, the very weapon of the Arians in their warfare against the Son of God? They said, Christ is not God, because the Father is called the “Only God.” ^[p.277]

2.

I might seem just now to grant that St. Paul’s words, at first sight, countenanced the extreme Protestant view of them; but this was not at all my meaning. The truth is, we put a particular sense upon those words, from having heard it again and again assigned to them, and thus every other interpretation comes to seem unnatural. The state of the case is as follows:—The Jews sought to be justified by works done in their own unaided strength, by the Law of Nature, as it was set before them in the Mosaic Covenant; and the Apostle shows them a more excellent way. He proposes to them the Law of Faith, and says that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law; moreover, that in thus teaching, so far from making the Law void through faith, He establishes it. He means then to speak to the Jews as follows:—”Throw yourselves on God’s mercy, surrender yourselves to Him; the Law in which you pride yourselves, holy as it is in itself, has been to you but an occasion of sin. You are in bondage; you have no real sanctity, no high aims, no inward growth, no power of pleasing God. Instead of having done anything good, you have everything to be forgiven. You must begin over again; you must begin in a new way, by faith; faith only, nothing short of faith, can help you on to a justifying obedience. But faith is fully equal to enabling you to fulfil the Law. Far then from invalidating the Law by the doctrine of faith, I establish it.” Now I do not ask whether there is no other possible interpretation of his words besides this (though I do think this the only natural one), but whether, at least, it is not natural, ^[p.278] whatever becomes of others; and then, whether it is not perfectly consistent with St. James’s doctrine. It concerns those who are dissatisfied with it to assign one equally unexceptionable in itself, equally consistent with the rest of Scripture.

Let us take some parallel cases.

Supposing one saw a Pagan or Mahometan at his devotions, or doing works of charity, and were to say, “Alas! your prayers and works will profit you nothing; you must believe on Christ; which will stand you in stead of all that you now do;” would any one suppose it to be meant that Christians said no prayers, or gave no alms? or only that prayers and alms, when separate from Christ, were but dead and vain?

Again: Scripture says that “the prayer of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord;” does this prove that the prayer of the righteous is an abomination also?

Again: when Almighty God says by the prophet, “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice,” does this mean that the Jews were thenceforth to leave off their sacrifices, or that sacrifices were useless unless they also showed mercy?

Again: when our Lord censures the “long robes” of the Pharisees, does He censure such garments as are worn at present by His ministers in Church?

Again: when St. Paul declares that the Jewish Sabbath is abolished, does this prove there is no Christian Sabbath, or Lord’s day?

This then is a mode of arguing, which would carry us ^[p.279] much further than we dare to go. It does not follow that works done in faith do not justify, because works done without faith do not justify; that works done in the Holy Ghost, and ordinances which are His instruments, do not justify, because carnal works and dead rites do not justify. There is nothing in the text I have quoted to exclude the Works and Sacraments of faith; all that can be said is that they are not mentioned. St. Paul is urging upon his brethren the one way to salvation, which, as it is Christ Himself in God’s sight, so it is faith on our part. He tells them they must be justified on a new principle; new, that is, as being used under the Gospel for higher purposes than heretofore, and because publicly recognized as the one saving principle. He guides them to heaven along a path by which alone they can ascend the mountain of the Lord, and which is called the way of faith, not that it does not lie through hope and charity too, but faith is the name designating the track. The principle of faith directed and sanctified their services: did it follow from this that it was (what is called) substantive, and could stand by itself, instead of being a quality or mode of obedience? or that obedience itself, or what St. James calls works, could not be that substance? If we refuse, not to modify, but even to complete one text of Scripture by another,—if we will not admit the second, merely because we prefer an interpretation of the first which contradicts it,—if we will not hold two doctrines at once, merely because the text that declares the one does not also declare the other,—if we will not say with St. James that works of faith justify, merely because St. Paul says that faith justifies and ^[p.280] works without faith do not justify,—if we will demand that the whole of the Gospel should be brought out into form in a single text,—then surely we ought to hold that Baptism is sufficient for salvation, because St. Peter says it “saves us,”—or hope sufficient, because St. Paul says “we are saved by hope,”—or that only love is the means of forgiveness because our Lord says, “Her sins are forgiven, for she loved much,”—or that faith does not save, because St. James asks, “Can faith save him?”—or that keeping the commandments is the whole Gospel, because St. Paul says it has superseded circumcision. Nothing surely is more suitable than to explain justifying faith to be a principle of action, a characteristic of obedience, a sanctifying power, if by doing so we reconcile St. Paul with St. James, and moreover observe the while the very same rule of interpretation which we apply to Scripture generally.

3.

Thus much at first view of the subject; now let us take separately the two parts into which it divides, gospel ordinances and gospel works; and show in each case more distinctly their relation to faith.

1. It is objected, then, that under the Gospel, Ordinances are of little account, and that to insist on them is to bring the Church into bondage; that if Baptism convey regeneration, or the Apostolical Succession be the warrant for the Ministry, or Imposition of hands be a spiritual benefit, or Consecration be required for giving and receiving the Eucharist, or its Celebration involve a sacrifice, in a word, if outward signs are necessary means ^[p.281] of gospel grace, then St. Paul’s statement does not hold that we are “justified by faith without the deeds of the Law.”

Now, I observe, that this argument, on the face of it, proves too much; it proves that Christian rites should altogether be superseded as well as Jewish. Faith superseded circumcision; it did not supersede Baptism; there is then, on the face of the matter, some difference between Jewish and Christian Ordinances; and if the latter be necessary under the Gospel and the former not, perhaps they are necessary for some certain purpose, and perhaps that purpose is justification. Whether they are or not is another matter; but certainly the text in question is not inconsistent with such a doctrine, or else is inconsistent with much more. If faith is compatible with their use, it may be compatible with their virtue.

But here it may be urged that, specious as this mode of arguing may be, it does not touch the real reluctance of religious persons to believe in the power of Sacraments under the Gospel, or the grounds of their considering such belief unscriptural; that, as every one knows, there are explanations of the sacred text, which, however specious, are felt to be evasions; and that the interpretation proposed is utterly subversive of St. Paul’s doctrine, and uncongenial with his spirit. No one can doubt, it may be said, that by the doctrine of Faith he meant to magnify God’s grace, to preach Christ’s Cross, to inculcate its all-sufficiency for pardon and renewal, and our dependence on the aid of the Holy Spirit for the will and the power to accept these blessings; that, on the other hand, to say that Sacraments are the means of ^[p.282] justification, obscures the free grace of the Gospel, and is “putting a yoke on the necks of the disciples.” Now certainly, this argument, in its place, demands attention; I say in its place, lest I should seem to allow of its being used, after the fashion of these later centuries, as a “leading idea” of the Christian Dispensation, and a short and easy way into a comprehensive view of it. No; we must abandon all such methods, if we would enter in at the strait and lowly gate of the Holy Jerusalem; bowing our heads and bending our eyes to the earth, not thinking to command the city, or letting the eye range over its parts, or flattering ourselves we can “mount up with eagles’ wings,” before we have first “waited on the Lord.” Philosophizing upon the inspired text is a very poor method of interpreting it, though it be allowable under due limitations, after gaining its meaning in a legitimate way. With this caution, I proceed to consider the objection which has been stated.

4.

I say then, that fully allowing, or rather maintaining that the scope of St. Paul’s words is to show the nothingness of man and the all-sufficiency of Christ, and that this is the proper meaning of the doctrine of justification by faith, yet so far is the Catholic doctrine concerning Sacraments from interfering with this undeniable truth, that I might apply the Apostle’s words, and say, “Do we make void faith through the Sacraments? yea, we establish faith.” The proof of this is simple.

I allow then that faith exalts the grace of God; this is its office and charge; accordingly, whatever furthers ^[p.283] this object, co-operates with the Gospel doctrine of faith; whatever interferes with this object, contradicts the doctrine. Salvation by faith only is but another way of saying salvation by grace only. Again, it is intended to humble man, and to remind him that nothing he can do of himself can please God; so that “by faith” means, “not by works of ours.” If then the Sacraments obscure the doctrine of free grace, and tempt men to rest upon their own doings, then they make void the doctrine of faith; if not, then they do not; if they magnify God and humble man, then they even subserve it. This was the evil tendency of the Jewish rites when Christ came, that they interfered between Christ and the soul. They were dark bodies, eclipsing the glorious Vision which faith was charged to receive. Now I would say, that the Sacraments have a directly reverse tendency, and subserve the object aimed at by the doctrine of faith, as fully as the Jewish ordinances counteracted it. If this be so, the doctrine of justification by Sacraments is altogether consistent, or rather coincident with St. Paul’s doctrine, when he says, that we are justified by faith without the deeds of the Law.

Upon Adam’s fall, the light of God’s countenance was withdrawn from the earth, and His presence from the souls of men; nor was the forfeited blessing restored but by the death of Christ. The veil which hung before the Holy of Holies, was a type of the awful “covering” which was “cast over all people;” and, when the Atoning Sacrifice was made, it rent in twain. Henceforth, heaven was opened again upon man, not on rare occasions, or in the instance of high Saints only, but upon all who believe. ^[p.284] Such being the state of things before Christ came and such the state after, the Law which was before could not be the means of life, because life as yet was not; it was not wrought out, it was not created; it began to be in Christ, the Word Incarnate. The Law could not justify, because, whatever special favour might be shown here and there by anticipation, Gospel justification was not yet purchased in behalf of all who sought it. God justified Abraham, and He glorified Elijah; but He had not yet promised heaven to the obedient, nor acceptance to the believing. He wrought first in the few what He offered afterwards to all; and even in those extraordinary instances, He acted immediately from Himself, not through the Jewish Law as His instrument. Abraham was not justified through circumcision, nor Elijah raised by virtue of the Temple. Judaism had no life, no spirit in its ordinances, to connect earth and heaven.

Accordingly, the ceremonies of the Law, though given by God, were wrought out by man; I mean, as has been explained before, they were men’s acts, not God’s acts. They were done towards God, in order (if so be) to approach that which was not yet accorded; and thus were tokens, not of the presence of grace, but of its absence. Sacrifices and purifications, circumcision and the sabbath, could not take away sins, could not justify. Visible things are but means of grace at best; and they were not so much, before grace was purchased. They were attempts in a bad case towards what was needed; they were the humble and anxious representation of nature, making dumb signs for the things it needed, as we provide pictures and statues when we have not the originals. ^[p.285] Such was human nature in its best estate before Christ came; its worst was when it mistook the tatters of its poverty for the garments of righteousness, and, as in our Lord’s age, prided itself on what it was and what it did, because its own,—its sacrifices, ceremonies, birth-place, and ancestry,—as if these could stand instead of that justification which it needed. This was that reliance on the works of the Law, which St. Paul denounces, a reliance utterly incompatible of course with the doctrine of free grace, and, in consequence, of faith.

5.

This then was the condition of the Jews; they had been told to approach God with works, which could not justify, as if they could; and the carnal-minded among them mistook the semblance for the reality. But when Christ came, suffered, and ascended on high, then at length the promised grace was poured out abundantly, nay, for all higher purposes, far more so than on Adam upon his creation. What, therefore, to the Jews was impossible even to the last, is to us imparted from the first. They might not even end where we begin. They wrought towards justification, and we from it. They wrought without the presence of Christ, and we with it. They came to God with rites, He comes to us in Sacraments.

Now supposing, when any one desired and prayed for the gospel gifts, they were conveyed to him through the visible intervention of an Angel, would that Angel’s presence be a memento of free grace, or a temptation to self-righteousness? Or did Naaman’s bathing in Jordan naturally lead to self-trust and a practical forgetfulness ^[p.286] of God’s power? Did the necessity of coming to the Apostles for a cure inculcate the law of works or of faith? But it may be answered that such appointments are capable of being used in a superstitious dependence. Angels may be worshipped; Apostles venerated, as if they were not “also men.” Let me then put the question in another shape,—does the possibility of the abuse destroy the natural and direct meaning of the appointment? Was not the Brazen Serpent worshipped in a corrupt age? yet our Lord still appeals to its legitimate meaning as a token of God’s free grace. If the ordinance of the Brazen Serpent, which had been abused, still conveyed the doctrine coupled with it by Christ Himself, of “everlasting life” to those that “believe,” surely Baptism, which had not been abused, might in St. Paul’s mind be deemed consistent with the doctrine of justification “by faith without deeds of the Law;” surely he might discard those deeds without meaning to include Baptism among them. St. Peter teaches us the same lesson after curing the lame man; he and St. John had been the visible means of the cure; “all the people ran together unto them greatly wondering.” If there be a tendency anywhere superstitiously to rest in the outward part of Baptism or of the Lord’s Supper, or in their circumstances, or in other Christian rites, with that “amazement” which the Jews felt towards the Apostles, why must we deny their instrumentality in order to our giving glory to God? why is it not enough with St. Peter, to lead the mind, not from, but through the earthly organ to the true Author of the miracle, not denying a subordinate truth in order to enforce a higher? ^[p.287] “Ye men of Israel,” he says, “why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?” And surely, what St. Peter proclaimed by word of mouth, that the Sacraments proclaim from the first by their symbolical meaning and their simplicity. Nay, and independent of this, surely what is professedly a channel of mercy, is an emblem of that mercy; what conveys a gift, speaks of a gift. Under the Law, God was in “clouds and darkness;” in heaven, “the Lord God will lighten” the Temple face to face; but under the Gospel, He is as upon the Mount of Transfiguration, in “a bright cloud over-shadowing” us; and as well may such a cloud be said to obscure the sun which gilds it, as Sacraments to obscure that grace which makes them what they are. Hence Baptism was even called of old the Sacrament of faith, as being, on the part of the recipient, only an expression by act of what in words would be “I believe and I come.” And what is meeting together for prayer but an act of faith and nothing more? What the Jews by journeying up to Jerusalem were wont, not to receive, but to ask, is brought home to us, almost to our very doors, not in promise merely, but in substance; according to our Saviour’s condescending words, “If any man hear My voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me.” And all this is “without money and without price;” expensive sacrifices were required of the Jews, and intricate rules prescribed; but the Gospel rites are so simple, that the world despises them for their very simplicity.

In a Jewish ordinance, then, man worked and God ^[p.288] accepted; in a Christian, God speaks the word, and man kneels down and is saved. Such is the relation between Faith and Sacraments;—in considering which I have taken “faith” in the sense in which the objection uses it, not in its proper sense of submission to what is unseen, but as trust founded upon that submission; and it appears, that while the Sacraments are an exercise of submission, they are also a lesson of trust. Faith is inculcated in their outward sign, and required for their inward grace; and is as little disparaged by the Catholic doctrine concerning them, as Christ Himself by the doctrine of faith.

6.

2. Now let us proceed to the second part of the subject, the relation between Faith and Works, which, though quite distinct from the former, may be conveniently considered in connection with it.

St. Paul says that we are “justified by faith without the deeds of the Law;” and St. James, “not by faith only but by works;” are these statements inconsistent? Now, as I said before, to condemn works without faith is surely quite consistent with condemning faith without works. St. James says, we are justified by works, not by faith only; St. Paul implies, by faith, not by works only. St. Paul says, that works are not available before faith; St. James, that they are available after faith. And now I will make this clearer.

(1.) St. Paul says, we are justified without works; what works? “works of,” or done under, “the Law,” the Law of Moses, through which the Law of Nature spoke ^[p.289] in the ears of the Jews. But St. James speaks of works done under what he calls “the royal Law,” “the Law of liberty,” which we learn from St. Paul is “the Law of the Spirit of Life,” for “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;” in other words, the Law of God, as written on the heart by the Holy Ghost. St. Paul speaks of works done under the letter, St. James of works done under the Spirit. This is surely an important difference in the works respectively mentioned.

Or, to state the same thing differently: St. James speaks, not of mere works, but of works of faith, of good and acceptable works. I do not suppose that any one will dispute this, and therefore shall take it for granted. St. James then says, we are justified, not by faith only, but by good works. Now St. Paul is not speaking at all of good works, but of works done in the flesh and of themselves “deserving God’s wrath and damnation.” He says, “without works;” he does not say without good works; whereas St. James is speaking of good works solely. St. Paul speaks of “works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of His Spirit;” St. James of “good works which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification.” Faith surely may justify without such works as, according to our Article, “have the nature of sin,” and yet not justify without such as “are pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ.”

Now in proof of this distinction it is enough to observe, that St. Paul never calls those works which he says do not justify “good works,” but simply “works,”—”works of the Law,”—”deeds of the Law,”—”works not in righteousness,”—”dead works;” what have these to ^[p.290] do with works or fruits of the Spirit? Of these latter also St. Paul elsewhere speaks, and by a remarkable contrast he calls them again and again “good works.” For instance, “By grace are ye saved through faith, … not of works, lest any man should boast; for we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.” This surely is a most pointed intimation that the works which do not justify are not good, or, in other words, are works before justification. As to works after, which are good, whether they justify or not, he does not decide so expressly as St. James, the error which he had to resist leading him another way. He only says, against the Judaizing teachers, that our works must begin, continue, and end in faith. But to proceed; he speaks elsewhere of “abounding in every good work,” of being “fruitful in every good work,” of being “adorned with good works,” of being “well reported of for good works,” “diligently following every good work,” of “the good works of some being open beforehand,” of being “rich in good works,” of being “prepared unto every good work,” of being “throughly furnished unto all good works,” of being “unto every good work reprobate,” of being “a pattern of good works,” of being “zealous of good works,” of being “ready to every good work,” of being “careful to maintain good works,” of “provoking unto love and to good works,” and of being “made perfect in every good work.” [2 Cor. ix. 8. Eph. ii. 10. Col. i. 10. 2 Thess. ii. 17. 1 Tim. ii. 10; v. 10, 25; vi. 18. 2 Tim. ii. 21; iii. 17. Tit. i. 16; ii. 7, 14; iii. 8, 14. Heb. x. 24; xiii. 21.] Now surely this is very remarkable. St. James, though he means good works, drops the epithet, and only says ^[p.291] works. Why does not St. Paul the same? why is he always careful to add the word good, except that he had also to do with a sort of works with which St. James had not to do,—that the word works was already appropriated by him to those of the Law, and therefore that the epithet good was necessary, lest deeds done in the Spirit should be confused with them ? [¹ Bull, Harm. ii. 12, § 3.]

St. Paul, then, by speaking of faith as justifying without works, means without corrupt and counterfeit works, not without good works. And he does not deny what St. James affirms, that we are justified in good works.

7.

Such has ever been the Catholic mode of reconciling the two Apostles together, and certainly without doing violence to the text of St Paul. But now, before proceeding, let us for a moment inquire, on the other hand, what attempts have been made on the side of Protestant writers to reduce the language used by St. James to a Lutheran sense.

“By works,” says St. James, “a man is justified, and not by faith only.” Now, let me ask, what texts do their opponents shrink from as they from this? do they even attempt to explain it? or if so, is it not by some harsh and unnatural interpretation? Next, do they not proceed, as if distrusting their own interpretation, to pronounce the text difficult, and so to dispose of it? yet who can honestly say that it is in itself difficult? rather, can words be plainer, were it not that they are forced into connection with a theory of the sixteenth century; and ^[p.292] then certainly they become as thick darkness, “as a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee; and he saith, I cannot, for it is sealed.” [Isaiah xxix. 11.] If St. James is difficult, is St. Paul plain? will any one say that St. Paul is plainer than St. James? Is it St. James in whose Epistles are “some things hard to be understood?” What then is this resolute shutting of the eyes to an inspired Apostle, but the very spirit which leads the Socinian to blot out from certain texts, as far as his faith is concerned, the divinity of Christ? If we may pass over “By works a man is justified, and not by faith only,” why may we not also, “I and My Father are One”? Can we fairly call it self-will to refuse the witness of the latter text, while we arbitrarily take on ourselves to assign or deny a sense to the former? What is meant by maintaining the duty of a man’s drawing his Creed from Scripture for himself, and yet telling him it is a deadly heresy to say, just what St. James says, and what St. Paul (to say the least) does not deny? But in truth, after all, men do not make up their mind from Scripture, though they profess to do so; they go by what they consider their inward experience. They fancy they have reasons in their own spiritual history for concluding that God has taught them the doctrine of justification without good works; and by these they go. They cannot get themselves to throw their minds upon Scripture; they argue from Scripture only to convince others, but you may defeat them again and again, without moving or distressing them; they are above you, for they do not depend on ^[p.293] Scripture for their faith at all, but on what has taken place within them.² But to return:—

² A candid writer has confessed this:—“It is difficult,” says Milton, “to conjecture the purpose of Providence in committing the writings of the New Testament to such uncertain and variable guardianship, unless it were to teach us, by this very circumstance, that the Spirit which is given to us is a more certain guide than Scripture, whom therefore it is our duty to follow.”—Christian Doctrine, i. 30.

8.

(2.) A clearer view of faith and works will be gained by considering that faith is a habit of the soul: now a habit is a something permanent, which affects the character; it is a something in the mind which develops itself through acts of the mind, and disposes the mind to move in this way, not in that. We do not know what it is in itself, we only know it in its results; relatively to us, it exists only in its results. We witness certain deeds, a certain conduct, we hear certain principles professed, all consistent with each other, and we refer them to something in the mind as the one cause of what is outwardly so uniform. When we speak of a bountiful man, we mean a man who thinks and does bountifully; and if we were to say that God will reward bountifulness, we should mean bountiful acts. In like manner then, when we speak of a believer, we mean a man who thinks and does,—that is, of a mind that acts,—believingly; and when we say that God justifies by faith on our part, we mean by acts of whatever kind, deeds, works, done in faith.

It will be replied that this is true indeed, but that the acts in which faith shows itself are not actions, deeds, ^[p.294] works, but good feelings, thoughts, aspirations, and the like. Let it be so; let us so take it for argument’s sake. The acts then in which faith shows itself are to be considered, not as deeds or services, but what are popularly called spiritual desires, and a willingness to renounce self and adhere to Christ. Let us suppose this; even then, it seems, some manifestations are required. So much is this felt by the persons against whom I am arguing, that they consider baptized infants cannot be regenerate, because they show no signs of regeneration; a poor reason truly, for habits may exist without showing themselves to us, and, for what we know, God may bestow on infants in Baptism the element of justifying faith, though by reason of their tender age it be latent and undeveloped, as the Lutherans themselves have before now maintained (though now, such is the course of error, they rather deny them regeneration than attribute to them faith); however, this insisting upon signs and tokens at least proves how strongly the persons in question hold that faith cannot exist without its manifestations. They do certainly think both that faith only justifies, and yet that faith does not justify, does not exist, except in certain manifestations. Now supposing St. James had spoken thus: “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and has no experience of the love of Christ, no spiritual-mindedness, no renewed taste, and holy affections? can faith save him? If he has no knowledge of his sin and deadness, if he has not brought himself to renounce his own merit and fly for safety to the appointed refuge for sinners, what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it be not truly warm and experimental, ^[p.295] is dead ... Ye see then, my brethren, that a man is justified by having a renewed and converted heart, and not by faith only.” I say, supposing St. James had thus spoken, would they have found any repugnance between his doctrine and St. Paul’s? would they have denied the Epistle to be genuine, or maintained it was difficult, or gone into this or that rival extravagance of interpretation in order to cripple an Apostle into Lutheranism? No, surely, they would have taken its words as they stand, and thought them a powerful argument in behalf of what they miscall “spiritual religion.” As then they would not have declined the inspired message, had it said that faith without a change of heart was dead, not justifying, why should there be any insuperable difficulty, any contradiction to St. Paul, in its saying that good works are necessary concomitants of the faith that justifies, as they themselves make spiritual emotions to be?—that its life is like the life of other graces, of benevolence, or zeal, or courage, not good feelings only, but services or works? What contradiction indeed is there between St. Paul and St. James but one of their own making, arising from their assumption that faith, unlike benevolence or courage, manifests itself or lives, not in deeds, but in passive impressions?

9.

(3.) And that this assumption, contrary as it is to philosophy, is contrary also to revealed truth, is plain, from this one circumstance, which should be carefully noticed:—that whereas St. Paul says we are justified by faith, and St. James by works, yet St. Paul’s illustrations ^[p.296] of justification by faith are taken from occasions, not on which men felt anything unusual, but when they did something unusual. St. Paul, instancing justifying faith, does not say, Abraham said he was “dust and ashes,” (which he did say), and so was justified; Moses desired to see God’s glory, and so was justified; David, as his Psalms show, was full of holy aspirations, and so was justified;—no, but Abraham and the Patriarchs, Moses and the Prophets, David and the Confessors, did strong deeds of righteousness: they not only “confessed they were strangers and pilgrims upon earth,” but they “obeyed;” they “went out,” they “chose affliction with the people of God:” they “stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, waxed valiant in fight; they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, in deserts and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth; they had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, of bonds and imprisonment; they were tortured, they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were slain with the sword;”—these are the acts of justifying faith, these are its life, and no one can deny that they are deliberate and completed works; so that, if faith be justifying, it justifies in and by acts, and not when divested of them.

(4.) But this is not all; St. Paul uses the same instances as St. James. He says, “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac;” and St. James, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?” St. Paul, “By faith, the harlot Rahab perished not with them that were disobedient, when she had received the spies with peace;” St. James, “Likewise also was not Rahab the ^[p.297] harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?” Do not these parallels show that faith is practically identical with the works of faith, and that when it justifies, it is as existing in works? And farther, the Apostles are so coincident in expression, as to lead forcibly to the notion, which obtained in the early Church, that St. James was alluding to St. Paul’s words, and fixing their sense by an inspired comment. Nor yet is this all; as if with a wish to show us how to harmonize his teaching with St. Paul’s, he uses words, which exactly express and sanction the very mode of reconciliation which I have been enforcing. “Seest thou,” he says, “how faith wrought with his (Abraham’s) works, and by works was faith made perfect?” Thus works are the limit and completion of faith, which gives them a direction and gains from them a substance. He adds to the same purport: “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also;” action is the very life of a habit.

10.

(5.) The same doctrine is contained all through Scripture; in which God’s mercies are again and again promised to works, sometimes of one kind, sometimes of another, though in all cases as acts and representatives of faith. For instance, Solomon speaks of alms-giving as justifying: “By mercy and truth iniquity is purged.” So does Daniel, saying to Nebuchadnezzar, “Break off thy sins by righteousness, and thy iniquities by showing mercy to the poor.” Our Lord also, “Rather give alms of such things as ye have, and behold all things are ^[p.298] clean unto you.” And St. James, “mercy rejoiceth against judgment.” [Prov. xvi. 6. Dan. iv. 27. Luke xi. 41. James ii. 13.]

In the Prophet Isaiah justification is ascribed to good works generally. He proclaims the gracious message that, “though our sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow,” and “though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” Here is an evangelical promise; why then is there nothing about justifying faith? why, but that faith is signified and is secured by other requisites, by good works? Accordingly the Prophet thus introduces the message of pardon:—”Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before Mine eyes, cease to do evil, learn to do well, seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.” In like manner, Ezekiel: “If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity, he shall surely live, he shall not die; none of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him.” [Isa. i. 16-18. Ezek. xxxiii. 15, 16.] Here again the promise must be evangelical; for under the Jewish Law there were no “statutes of life.”

Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, was justified by an act of zeal: “Then stood up Phinehas and executed judgment, and so the plague was stayed. And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore.” [Ps. cvi. 30, 31.]

Zacharias and Elizabeth were “both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances ^[p.299] of the Lord blameless.” [Luke i. 6.] Words cannot be stronger to express the justification of these holy persons, than that they were “blameless and righteous before God;” yet this gift is not coupled with faith, but with acts of obedience paid to the special and particular commandments of God.

In like manner St. John teaches, that “walking in the light” justifies us: “If we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.” [1 John i. 7; iii. 7.]

To these may be added particular texts in the Gospels, such as Christ’s warning to the two brethren of the consequences of becoming His disciples; His bidding us count the cost of following Him, and to take up our cross, deny ourselves, and come after Him; moreover in His going into the wilderness, whither the multitudes had to seek Him at the price of privation and suffering.

(6.) And as works are acts of faith, so the mental act of faith is a difficult work. Thus our Saviour says to the father of the demoniac, “If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth;” and he answers, “Lord, I believe; help Thou mine unbelief.” In like manner St. Paul speaks of Abraham “staggering not at the promise of God through unbelief, but being strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully persuaded what He had promised He was able also to perform.” “And therefore,” he adds, “it was imputed to him for righteousness.” ^[p.300]

11.

(7.) Lastly, leaving Scripture, I will quote a passage from Luther, in which he will be found to corroborate by his testimony what has been said; not willingly as the extract itself shows, but in consequence of the stress of texts urged against him. I take him, then, for what he says, not for what he does not say:—

“It is usual with us,” he says, “to view faith, sometimes apart from its work, sometimes with it. For as an artist speaks variously of his materials, and a gardener of a tree, as in bearing or not, so also the Holy Ghost speaks variously in Scripture concerning faith; at one time of what may be called abstract faith, faith as such: at another of concrete faith, faith in composition, or embodied. Faith, as such, or abstract, is meant, when Scripture speaks of justification, as such, or of the justified. (Vid. Rom. and Gal.) But when it speaks of rewards and works, then it speaks of faith in composition, concrete or embodied.^3.

^3. Deinde hoc modo etiam distinguere solemus fidem, quod fides aliquando accipiatur extra opus, aliquando cum opere. Ut enim artifex varie de sua materia, et hortulanus de arbore vel nuda vel gestante fructum loquitur, ita et Spiritus Sanctus in Scriptura varie de fide loquitur, jam de fide (ut sic dicam) abstracta vel absoluta, jam de fide concreta, composita, seu incarnata, etc. etc.—In Gal. iii. 10. Vid. also f. 347 (1 and 2) Gerh. de Justif. p. 570.

For instance: ‘Faith which worketh by love;’ ‘This do and thou shalt live;’ ‘If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments;’ ‘Whoso doeth these things, shall live in them;’ ‘Cease to do evil, learn to do well.’ In these and similar texts, which occur without number, in which mention is made ^[p.301] of doing, believing doings are always meant; as, when it says, ‘This do and thou shalt live,’ it means, ‘First see that thou art believing, that thy reason is right and thy will good, that thou hast faith in Christ; that being secured, work.’“ Then he proceeds:—”How is it wonderful, that to that embodied faith, that is, faith working, as was Abel’s, in other words, to believing works, are annexed merits and rewards? Why should not Scripture speak thus variously of faith, considering it so speaks even of Christ, God and man; sometimes of His entire Person, sometimes of one or other of His two natures, the Divine or human? When it speaks of one or other of these, it speaks of Christ in the abstract; when of the Divine made one with the human in one Person, of Christ as if in composition and incarnate. There is a well-known rule in the Schools concerning the ‘communicatio idiomatum,’ when the attributes of His divinity are ascribed to his humanity, as is frequent in Scripture; for instance, in Luke ii. the Angel calls the infant born of the Virgin Mary, ‘the Saviour’ of men, and ‘the Lord’ both of Angels and men, and in the preceding chapter, ‘the Son of God.’ Hence I may say with literal truth, That Infant who is lying in a manger and in the Virgin’s bosom, created heaven and earth, and is the Lord of Angels … As it is truly said, Jesus the Son of Mary created all things, so is justification ascribed to faith incarnate or to believing deeds.”

12.

Such, then, is justifying faith; why the gift of justifying has been bestowed upon it, and what its connection ^[p.302] is with hope, love, and universal holiness, has been discussed in former Lectures; here I am speaking of its relation to works, and I say that, viewed as justifying, it lives in them. It is not (as it were) a shadow or phantom, which flits about without voice or power, but it is faith developed into height and depth and breadth, as if in a bodily form, not as a picture but as an image, with a right side and a left, a without and a within; not a mere impression or sudden gleam of light upon the soul, not knowledge, or emotion, or conviction, which ends with itself, but the beginning of that which is eternal, the operation of the Indwelling Power which acts from within us outwards and round about us, works in us mightily, so intimately with our will as to be in a true sense one with it; pours itself out into our whole mind, runs over into our thoughts, desires, feelings, purposes, attempts, and works, combines them all together into one, makes the whole man its one instrument, and justifies him into one holy and gracious ministry, one embodied lifelong act of faith, one “sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is his reasonable service.” Such is faith, springing up out of the immortal seed of love, and ever budding forth in new blossoms and maturing new fruit, existing indeed in feelings but passing on into acts, into victories of whatever kind over self, being the power of the will over the whole soul for Christ’s sake, constraining the reason to accept mysteries, the heart to acquiesce in suffering, the hand to work, the feet to run, the voice to bear witness, as the case may be. These acts we sometimes call labours, sometimes endurances, sometimes confessions, sometimes devotions, sometimes ^[p.303] services; but they are all instances of self-command, arising from Faith seeing the invisible world, and Love choosing it.

It seems, then, that whereas Faith on our part fitly corresponds, or is the correlative, as it is called, to grace on God’s part, Sacraments are but the manifestation of grace, and good works are but the manifestation of faith; so that, whether we say we are justified by faith, or by works or by Sacraments, all these but mean this one doctrine, that we are justified by grace, which is given through Sacraments, impetrated by faith, manifested in works.

NOTE on LECTURE 12

^[p.304] FROM what has been said, it would seem that, while works before justification are but conditions and preparations for that gift, works after justification are much more, and that, not only as being intrinsically good and holy, but as being fruits of faith. And viewed as one with faith, which is the appointed instrument of justification after Baptism, they are,—(as being connatural with faith and indivisible from it, organs through which it acts and which it hallows),—instruments with faith of the continuance of justification, or, in other words, of the remission of sin after Baptism. Since this doctrine sounds strange to the ears of many in this day, and the more so because they have been taught that the Homilies, which our Church has authoritatively sanctioned, are decidedly opposed to it, I make the following extracts from that important work, for the accommodation of the general reader who may not have it at hand. Deeply is it to be regretted that a book, which contains “doctrine” so “godly and wholesome and necessary for these Times,” as well as for the sixteenth century, should popularly be known only by one or two extracts, to the omission of such valuable matter as shall now be quoted:—

“Our Saviour Christ in the Gospel teacheth us, that it profiteth a man nothing to have in possession all the riches of the whole world, and the wealth and glory thereof, if in the mean season he lose his soul, or do that thing whereby it should become captive unto death, sin, and hell-fire. By the which saying, he not only instructeth us how much the soul’s health is to be preferred before worldly commodities, but it also serveth to stir up our minds and to prick us forwards to seek diligently and learn by what means we may preserve and keep our souls ^[p.305] ever in safety, that is, how we may recover our health if it be lost or impaired, and how it may be defended and maintained if once we have it. Yea, He teacheth us also thereby to esteem that as a precious medicine and an inestimable jewel, that hath such strength and virtue in it, that can either procure or preserve so incomparable a treasure. For if we greatly regard that medicine or salve that is able to heal sundry and grievous diseases of the body, much more will we esteem that which hath like power over the soul. And because we might be better assured both to know and to have in readiness that so profitable remedy, He, as a most faithful and loving teacher, showeth Himself both what it is, and where we may find it, and how we may use and apply it. For, when both He and His disciples were grievously accused of the Pharisees, to have defiled their soul in breaking the constitutions of the Elders, because they went to meat and washed not their hands before, according to the custom of the Jews, Christ, answering their superstitious complaints, teacheth them an especial remedy how to keep clean their souls, notwithstanding the breach of such superstitious orders; ‘Give alms,’ saith He, ‘and behold all things are clean unto you.’

“He teacheth, then, that to be merciful and charitable in helping the poor, is the means to keep the soul pure and clean in the sight of God. We are taught therefore by this, that merciful almsgiving is profitable to purge the soul from the infection and filthy spots of sin. The same lesson doth the Holy Ghost also teach in sundry other places of the Scripture, saying, ‘Mercifulness and almsgiving purgeth from all sins, and delivereth from death, and suffereth not the soul to come into darkness.’ [Tobit iv.] A great confidence may they have before the high God, that show mercy and compassion to them that are afflicted. The wise Preacher, the Son of Sirach, confirmeth the same, when he saith, that ‘as water quencheth burning fire, even so mercy and alms resisteth and reconcileth sins.’ And sure it is, that mercifulness quaileth the heat of sin so much, that they shall not take hold upon man to hurt him; or if ye have by any infirmity or weakness ^[p.306] been touched and annoyed with them, straightways shall mercifulness wipe and wash them away, as salves and remedies to heal their sores and grievous diseases. And therefore that holy father Cyprian taketh good occasion to exhort earnestly to the merciful work, to giving alms and helping the poor, and then he admonisheth to consider how wholesome and profitable is it to relieve the needy and help the afflicted, by the which we may purge our sins and heal our wounded souls.”

Such is the virtue of works, not before justification, but after, as the means of keeping and restoring, not of procuring it, as fruits of faith done in the grace of Christ and by the inspiration of His Spirit, not as dead works done in the flesh, and displeasing to God. Attention should be especially called to a parallelism between one sentence in this extract and what was quoted in Lecture X. (pp. 223, 224) from the Sermon on the Passion, as showing how our Reformers identified faith and works, not in idea, but in fact. The one Homily says “It remaineth that I show unto you how to apply Christ’s death and passion to our comfort as a medicine to our wounds ... Here is the mean, whereby we must apply the fruits of Christ’s death unto our deadly wound, ... namely, faith.” The other speaks of alms as “a precious medicine, a profitable remedy,” which we are to “use and apply,” “salves and remedies to heal” our “sores and grievous diseases.”

It must be observed, moreover, that though faith is the appointed means of pleading Christ’s merits, and so of cleansing (as it were) works done in faith from their adhering imperfection, yet that after all those works, though mixed with evil, are good in themselves, as being the fruit of the Spirit. Hence, in the passage which follows what has been quoted, very slight mention is made of faith, and the grace of God is made all in all, as “working in us both to will and to do,” and “giving us power to get wealth;” [Deut. viii. 18.] the contrast lying not between faith and works, but between God’s doings and man’s doings. Nay, even when the image of the tree and fruit is introduced, it is interpreted of the grace of God the Holy Ghost in us, and of the effects in us of His gracious Indwelling. ^[p.307]

“But here some one will say unto me, If alms-giving and our charitable works towards the poor be able to wash away sins, to reconcile us to God, to deliver us from the peril of damnation, and make us sons and heirs of God’s kingdom, then are Christ’s merits defaced, and His blood shed in vain, then are we justified by works, and by our deeds may we merit heaven; then do we in vain believe that Christ died for to put away our sins and that He rose for our justification, as St. Paul teacheth.” Now, here let us observe, this is the very objection urged against our Divines, such as Bishop Wilson, for words far short of those admitted by the Homily as true. Let us see how the writer answers it. “But ye shall understand, dearly beloved, that neither those places of Scripture before alleged, neither the doctrine of the Blessed Martyr Cyprian, neither any other godly and learned man,”—for instance, those excellent writers now so unworthily censured,—”when they, in extolling the dignity, profit, fruit, and effect of virtuous and liberal alms, do say that it washeth away sins and bringeth us to the favour of God, do mean, that our work and charitable deed is the original cause of our acceptation before God, or that for the dignity or worthiness thereof our sins be washed away, and we purged and cleansed from all the spots of our iniquity; for that were indeed to deface Christ, and to defraud Him of His glory. But they mean this, and this is the understanding of these and such like sayings, that God, of His mercy and especial favour towards them whom He hath appointed to everlasting salvation, hath so offered His grace especially, and they have so received it fruitfully, that although, by reason of their sinful living outwardly, they seemed before to have been the children of wrath and perdition, yet now the Spirit of God mightily working in them, unto obedience to God’s will and commandments, they declare by their outward deeds and life, in the showing of mercy and charity (which cannot come but of the Spirit of God and His special grace), that they are the undoubted children of God appointed to everlasting life ... For as the good fruit is not the cause that the tree is good, but the tree must first be good before it can bring forth good fruit, so the good deeds of man are not the cause that maketh ^[p.308] man good, but he is first made good by the Spirit and grace of God that effectually worketh in him, and afterward he bringeth forth good fruits … As the true Christian man, in the thankfulness of his heart for the redemption of his soul, purchased by Christ’s death, showeth kindly by the fruit of his faith his obedience to God, so the other, as a merchant with God, doth all for his own gain, thinketh to win heaven by the merit of his works, and so defaceth and obscureth the price of Christ’s blood, who only wrought our purgation. The meaning then of these sayings in Scripture, ‘alms-deeds do wash away our sins,’ and ‘mercy to the poor doth blot out our offences,’ is, that we doing these things according to God’s will and our duty, have our sins indeed washed away and our offences blotted out, not for the worthiness of them, but by the grace of God which worketh all in all, and that for the promise that God hath made to them that are obedient unto His commandments, that He which is the Truth might be justified in performing the truth due to His true promise.” (This seems an allusion to a statement of St. Austin’s):—”Alms-deeds do wash away our sins, because God doth vouchsafe then to repute us as clean and pure” (that is, justify), ”when we do them for His sake, and not because they deserve or merit our purging, or for that they have any such strength and virtue in themselves … The godly do learn that when the Scriptures say that by good and merciful works we are reconciled to God’s favour, we are taught then to know what Christ by His intercession and mediation obtaineth for us of His Father when we be obedient to His will; yea, they learn, in such manner of speaking, a comfortable argument of God’s singular favour and love, that attributeth that unto us, and to our doings, that He by His Spirit worketh in us, and through His grace procureth for us ... Thus they humble themselves and are exalted of God; they count themselves vile, and of God are counted pure and clean; they condemn themselves, and are justified of God; they think themselves unworthy of the earth, and of God are thought worthy of heaven.”—Sermon of Alms-deeds, Part II.

To add passages to this most striking testimony would be ^[p.309] unnecessary, were it not important to show that our Formularies consistently put forth the doctrine contained in it. For instance, in the first Sermon on the Passion, justification is said to be gained through forgiveness of injuries and mutual forbearance: “Let us then be favourable one to another, and pray we one for another that we may be healed from all frailties of our life, the less to offend one the other; and that we may be of one mind and one spirit, agreeing together in brotherly love and concord, even like the dear children of God. By these means shall we move God to be merciful to our sins; yea, and we shall be hereby the more ready to receive our Saviour and Maker in His blessed Sacrament, to our everlasting comfort and health of soul.” Again, soon afterwards: “Unless we forgive other, we shall never be forgiven of God. No, not all the prayers and good works of other can pacify God unto us, unless we be at peace and at one with our neighbour. Not all our deeds and good works can move God to forgive us our debts to Him except we forgive to other.’ Now it is presumed the word “move,” used in these passages, implies that forgiveness of injuries is an immediate means or instrument of our forgiveness at God’s hand; not indeed mere forgiveness accorded from any motive, but forgiveness which is of faith.

Again, at the end of the Sermon of Charity:—”If we thus direct our life by Christian love and charity, then Christ doth promise and assure us, that He loveth us, that we be the children of our heavenly Father, reconciled to His favour, very members of Christ.”

To the same purpose surely are such exhortations as the following from the Sermon on the Resurrection:—”Apply yourselves, good friends, to live in Christ, that Christ may still live in you, whose favour and assistance if ye have, then have ye everlasting life already within you, then can nothing hurt you.” Godly and holy living was the immediate tenure of Christ’s inward presence, or of justification in God’s sight.

On turning to the Prayer Book, what first calls for remark is the collection of introductory Sentences prefixed to the Exhortation. ^[p.310] It is quite evident that these Sentences are intended to proclaim God’s forgiveness of sin, as a fit introduction to the Confession. They are a sort of gospel herald, inviting all who hear to come to Christ. Now is faith mentioned as the mean by which pardon and acceptance after sinning may be obtained? by a singular chance (so to speak) it is not mentioned in any one of them; most singular and observable indeed, considering the Sentences are the selection of the Reformers, who, if any men, were alive to the necessity of faith in order to justification. Nothing can show more clearly that, while they considered it the only instrument of justification, they considered also that good works (of whatever kind) were in fact the coming to God, and the concrete presence of faith. Certainly, the view of religion popular in this day would have confined itself to such texts as are most impressively cited in the Communion Service [Note], instead of putting forth the profitableness of “turning away from the wickedness we have committed,” of “acknowledging our transgressions,” and of “a broken spirit.” Contrition, confession, humiliation, deprecation, repentance, and amendment, are separately urged upon us; faith is omitted,—not as unnecessary, but as being implied in all of these.

In like manner in the Exhortation we are enjoined to confess our sins ”with a humble, lowly, penitent, and obedient heart, to the end that we may obtain forgiveness of the same.” Why are we not told to “come in faith, and to apprehend and appropriate the free gift?”

Again, in the Collect for Ash Wednesday, we pray God to “create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we worthily lamenting our sins and acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain perfect remission and forgiveness.” Are not renewal, contrition, and confession, here represented as the immediate causes or instruments, on our part, of justification?

So again, in the Visitation of the Sick, the directions given to the sick person in order to the forgiveness of his sins, are “accusing and condemning himself of his own faults,” “believing the Articles of our Faith,” “repenting of his sins,” “being in charity ^[p.311] with all the world,” “forgiving all persons that have offended him,” “asking forgiveness, if he have offended any other,” “making amends for injuries and wrongs,” and, if of ability, “being liberal to the poor.” Faith as an act apprehending and appropriating Christ is not once mentioned, or the notice of it even approached.

Lastly, in the Commination Service, recovery of the state of justification is promised to us who “return to our Lord God with all contrition and meekness of heart, bewailing and lamenting our sinful life, acknowledging and confessing our offences, and seeking to bring forth worthy fruits of penance;” “if with a perfect and true heart we return to Him;” “if we come unto Him with faithful repentance, if we submit ourselves unto Him, and from henceforth walk in His ways; if we will take His easy yoke and light burden upon us, to follow Him in lowliness, patience, and charity, and be ordered by the governances of His Holy Spirit, seeking always His glory and serving Him duly in our vocation with thanksgiving; this if we do, Christ will deliver us from the curse of the Law.” How different from the popular Protestant doctrine, which says, “If you have sinned, go to Christ in faith, look upon Him who has borne the sins of the world, cast your burden upon Him, apprehend Him, apply His merits to your soul, believe you are justified, and you are justified, without anything else on your part.”

John iii. 16, etc.

L_13_on_PREACHING_THE_GOSPEL

IT may be asked, What was the fault of the Jews in their use of their Law, which led them to reject Christ when He came? That Law was from God; they honoured

 it as such; they were told to adhere to it, and they did adhere; they thanked God for it; they thanked God for the power of obeying it; they thanked God for the electing grace which had given them in it a pledge of His favour above the rest of mankind. All this surely, it may be said, was right and praiseworthy; it was proceeding in the way of God’s commandments, and seemed to promise, that when His perfect truth was revealed, it would be obeyed as dutifully as that portion of it which had already been given. This might have been expected; yet when Christ came, He was rejected.

We all know how to answer this question, viz. by explaining that the Jews considered their Law, not imperfect, as it was, but perfect; not as a means, but as the end. They rested in it, and though they nominally expected a Messiah, they did not in their thoughts place Him above the Law, or consider Him the Lord of the Law, but made their Law everything, and “the Desire of all nations” nothing. He was the true mode of approaching God, the sole Justifier of the soul; they considered their Law to be such. And so, in the words of the Apostle, “they, being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, did not submit themselves unto the righteousness of God.” They imagined that they could be both justified and sanctified by the Law, whereas Christ was the end of the Law both for holiness and acceptance. Now it is a very common charge against the Ancient and Catholic view of the Gospel, that it throws us back into a Jewish state, and subjects us to the dominion of the Law. On the other hand, from various remarks made in the course of these Lectures, it may be seen that that modern system, whose very life and breath (as I may say) consist in the maintenance of this charge, is itself not altogether free from the error which it denounces. Rather, as I would maintain, it is deeply imbued with it, having fallen, after the usual manner of self-appointed champions and reformers, into the evil which it professed to remedy. This, then, shall be our subject in this concluding Lecture, in which I shall suggest some remarks on the imputation of legalism, as it is called, wrongly urged against Catholic Truth, rightly urged against Protestant error;—not that I propose to enter upon a formal discussion of it, which would carry us far away from our main subject.

2.

1. It may be objected, then, that as Judaism interposed the Mosaic Law between the soul and Christ, turning a means into an end, a resting-place into an abode, so the Christian Church, Ancient and Catholic, also obscures the sight and true worship of Him, and that, by insisting on Creeds, on Rites, and on Works;—that by its Creeds it leads to Bigotry, by its Rites to Formality, and by its doctrine concerning Works to Self-righteousness. Such is the charge.

Now here I most fully grant that those who in their thoughts substitute a Creed, or a Ritual, or external obedience, for Christ, do resemble the Jews. Nay, I do not care to deny (what, however, I leave it for others to prove), that there are, and have been, Catholic Christians open to the charge of forgetting the “One Thing needful,” in their over-anxiety about correct faith, ceremonial observances, or acts of charity and piety. But I will say this:—that, on the face of the case, such an error is a great inconsistency; and no system can be made answerable for consequences which flow from a neglect of its own provisions. When, for instance, the Church bids us be accurate in what we hold concerning the Person of Christ, she is thereby declaring that Christ is the Object of our worship; when she bids us frequent His House, she implies that He is in it; when she says, good works are acceptable, she means acceptable to Him. The Church has never laid it down that we are justified by Orthodoxy only, or by Baptism only, or by Works only; much less by some certain spiritual feelings or experiences; and less still has she decided that to believe this was the one fundamental truth of religion. And if this be turned into a charge against her, that whereas there is One only Saviour Invisible, she has made the visible instruments and means of approaching Him many, and so by their very multiplicity has hidden Him, I reply, that if this were a fair argument, it ought to tell against the Mosaic Law also, as if its divinely appointed ceremonies themselves were to blame for the blindness of the Jews; but if the Jews themselves were in fault, and not their Law, so there is no antecedent objection against Catholic Christianity, (and such objections only have I here to consider), for its insisting on Baptism and Orthodoxy and Works, and many things more, even though in individual cases it has occasioned forgetfulness of Him, by whom these conditions and channels of grace have been appointed.

So much at first sight: now let us descend into particulars.

3.

(1.) As to the doctrine of works leading to self-righteousness, I pass it over here, though much might be said about it, both because I have incidentally answered the charge in the foregoing Lectures, and in various Sermons, and because it is a mere theory set up to frighten the mind from strict obedience, which a man will best refute for himself, by obeying, and trying whether he becomes self-righteous, except so far as all we are and all we do will be used as weapons against our souls by our spiritual enemy, unless we are on our guard. So I pass on.

(2.) Next, as to the Creeds of the Church; I grant that the Athanasian Creed certainly may be taken by careless readers to imply that orthodoxy is the ultimate end of religion; but surely it will seem otherwise on due consideration. For no one can deny, looking at it as a whole, that it is occupied in glorifying Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in declaring Their infinite perfections; so much so, that it has sometimes been considered what it really is in form, a Psalm or Hymn of Praise to the Blessed Trinity, as the Te Deum is, rather than a Creed. Nay, this is its characteristic, not only in its general structure, but in its direct enunciation of the Sacred Mystery; which is put forth not as an end in itself, but evidently in order to glorify God in His incomprehensible majesty, and to warn us of the danger of thinking of Him in a chance way, and of speculating concerning Him without reverence. For instance, it begins by stating that the purpose of the Catholic Faith is, not intellectual accuracy, but “that we worship One God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;” and ends its confession with a similar intimation, that “in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped.” And this agrees with what we know historically, that doctrinal statements on these high subjects are negative rather than positive; intended to forbid speculations, which are sure to spring up in the human mind, and to anticipate its attempts at systematic views by showing the ultimate abyss at which all rightly conducted inquiries arrive, not to tell us anything definite and real, which we did not know before, or which is beyond the faith of the most unlearned. Or, again, they are safeguards, summing up in brief what the whole Scripture doctrine on the subject implies, and thus directing us as landmarks in speaking and teaching on the subject. Thus, for instance, the statement “Not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God,” has somewhat the same drift as the formula of “justification by faith only,” as explained by Melanchthon and adopted by our Church; except that the latter expresses a principle, and the former a fact. However, they both are framed by the mind’s reflecting, in the latter case on Christ’s work, in the former on His Person. By resting on our mere knowledge of the one or the other, and making the statement itself our end, we become bigots; and not less in the latter case than in the former. As, then, the doctrine of justification, as held by our Church, is not answerable for such abuse of itself, neither, on the other hand, is the statement in the Athanasian Creed. Each may be used as a touchstone or measure of doctrine; neither has a direct and immediate reference to practice. I shall say no more on this part of the subject either; but pass on to the consideration of the Ordinances.

(3.) The Ordinances of the Church then are specially accused of detaining the worshipper from Him towards whom they profess to lead, and of causing formality and superstition. Now it must be borne in mind, that whether our doctrine concerning them is superstitious or not, depends simply on the circumstance whether it is true or not. If it be not true, I grant it becomes ipso facto superstitious. To ascribe regeneration to the Word and Water in Baptism, is either a Scripture duty, or a virtual breach of the second commandment.

Superstition is the substitution of human for divine means of approaching God. Before He has spoken, it is religious to approach Him in what seems the most acceptable way; but the same principle which leads a pious mind to devise ordinances, when none are given, will lead it, under a Revelation, to adhere to those which are given. He who made the creature, gives it its uses; He can make bread of stones, or bid the fig-tree wither. Things are what He makes them, and we must not “make to ourselves,” lest we make idols. Thus it was a superstition in the Jews to use other than the appointed rites under the Law, and a superstition to observe those rites under the Gospel; a superstition to sacrifice to Baal then, and to keep the Sabbath now. It was a superstition to worship graven images, no superstition to “rise up and worship” towards “the cloudy pillar” when it “descended.” [Exod. xxxiii. 10.] It is a superstition in the Christian Church to assign such a virtue to penance or to an indulgence as Christ has not given; it is a superstition to pay an honour to images, which Christ has forbidden. Superstition, then, keeps the mind from Christ, because it originates in a plain act of self-will: a rite is not properly superstitious, unless it is such will-worship. And hence it is but one form of presumptuousness or profaneness, as the history of the Jews shows us. It is superstitious to ascribe power to the creature where God has not given it; and profane to deny it where He has. If then, to look for regeneration through Baptism be superstitious, as it would be, supposing God has not made Baptism the channel of it, so, if He has, it is profane not to look for it through that rite. The question lies in this alternative of profaneness or superstition. If the Catholic doctrine be true, it is not superstitious; if the Anti-catholic be not true, it is profane. This is the real state of the case, and can be settled only by an appeal to the matter of fact, whether the doctrine is or is not revealed. Hence it is plainly nugatory to urge against us that our ordinances are superstitious, for this is (what is called) “to beg the question.” The only real definition of a superstitious ordinance is, that it is one which God has actually or virtually forbidden; so the objection when drawn out will really stand thus:—”The Catholic ordinances are mere inventions of man because they are superstitious; and they are superstitious, because they are not divine appointments.” When they are proved to be not divine, we will grant, without the intermediate step, that they are human.

However, it may be objected that we are open to the charge of formality at least, whatever difficulties may beset the question of superstition; that any system of religion which so multiplies and diversifies its visible means of grace, as thereby to deny the direct communion of God with the soul, effectually shuts out the thought of Him; that it makes the worshipper practically dependent on things sensible, and introduces a Pantheistic spirit into the Gospel. Whatever be the force of this antecedent objection in a question of fact, such as that concerning the contents of a Revelation, let those answer to whom it applies. If there be a Church system anywhere, which makes itself co-extensive with the Gospel Dispensation, which professes to be the mirror of all that passes before the Divine Mind, and the organ of His diversified dealings with the conscience of man, which keeps pace with what is infinite and eternal, and exhausts the Abyss of grace, such a system is certainly open to the objection. And as far as any theology, such as that of the Roman Schools, has approximated to such an assumption in practice, so far it is concerned to answer it. But how does it apply to our own, which on the face of it has never so represented the Church’s office, or claimed for her so vast a delegation of power? It is often said of us, by way of reproach, that we leave Dissenters to the “uncovenanted mercies of God;” nay, in a sense, we leave ourselves; there is not one of us but has exceeded by transgressions the revealed Ritual, and finds himself in consequence thrown upon those infinite resources of Divine Love which are stored in Christ, but have not been drawn out into form in the appointments of the Gospel. How can we be said to place the Church instead of Christ, who say that there is no other ordained method on earth for the absolute pardon of sin but Baptism; and that Baptism cannot be repeated? Surely, while English divines deny the existence of any Sacrament like Baptism after Baptism, whatever objections are brought against them, they cannot be accused of substituting the Church for Christ.

4.

But it may be said that the real objection to Forms lies, not in their number, be they many or few, nor in their being unauthorized, though this of course is all aggravation, but in this, that they are forms; that by a form is meant a standing rule, a permanent ordinance; and that it is this which keeps the soul from God, whatever degree of spiritual benefit, greater or less, be ascribed to the observance of it. Whatever Baptism be supposed to effect, if it effects anything, if it is necessary for any blessing, if it be of continual obligation in the Church, so far it throws a shadow, not light, upon her.

All we mean by one thing being the cause of another, it may be said, is its being its invariable antecedent. As we all call the Sun the cause of summer, because its presence is the one necessary condition of summer, with as good a reason may Baptism be called the cause of regeneration, if it must always precede regeneration. And if even educated persons are found to consider the Sun the cause of light, and forget God, much more will the imagination of the multitude practically substitute Baptism for regeneration. Accordingly this, it may be argued, is the great advantage of considering preaching as the ordinary means of regeneration and conversion, that it obviates the possibility of an invariable condition, and the formality consequent thereupon. Preaching cannot be called a form, because it is not of a permanent and uniform character. Preachers rise and fall, come and go; no two are alike; no two speak in the same way; they allow us the liberty of judging for ourselves concerning them, and of depending on our own convictions. They do but stimulate and feed our mind,—they do not oppress it with a yoke of bondage. They are amenable to their flocks; and are honoured, not for their office-sake, but for their usefulness; whereas the ministers and rites of the Church are idols, worse than pagan, because the worshipper cannot break them at his will.

Now it is plain that such a line of reasoning would prove, did not our senses convince us otherwise, that the Sun could not be constituted as the fountain of light and heat. Were the arguments for considering Baptism an ordained means of grace ever so insufficient, the danger of its superstitious use would be no proof against its being so ordained, while the miserable idolatries are on record which have been directed towards the Sun. Moreover, this argument from the abuse of a thing against the use, comes with a bad grace from an age, in which, more than in any other, the powers of nature are extolled to the neglect of Divine Providence and Governance. If the doctrines of the Church are chargeable with having led to reliance on the creature, are not the useful arts much more? Does not Baptism, even when most mistaken and abused, remind us more of heaven, than do those physical sciences, and mechanical and other inventions, which are now regarded as almost the long sought summum bonum of the species? If Catholic teaching has led to superstition, has not the new philosophy led to profaneness?

This objection is still more unreasonable when applied to the visible instruments of religion, because neither under the Law nor under the Gospel have they been, strictly speaking, of an abiding nature, not permanent in actual and material form; but only in the abstract ordinance. The means, through which the gifts are conveyed, are transitory; as our Lord’s appearances after His resurrection. His glory in the cloud, at which the people “rose up and worshipped,” was but now and then and according to his will; the manna might not be kept till the morning; again, of the Paschal Lamb nothing was to remain till the morning; and the Brazen Serpent, which for a moment they were bid “look upon,” that they might live, became an idol on being kept, and was broken by Hezekiah because honoured “unto those days,” and therefore, as was thereby necessarily implied, not as a mere symbol, but for its own sake, and with idolatrous worship. In like manner our ordinances are transitory; and it is remarkable, that the imputation of idolatry cast by Protestants upon the Church of Rome mainly arises from her giving a permanence to objects or instruments of devotion, as an examination of her religious observances obviously suggests.

Moreover, it may fairly be questioned whether religion does not necessarily imply the belief in such sensible tokens of God’s favour, as the Sacraments are accounted by the Church. Religion is of a personal nature, and implies the acknowledgment of a particular Providence, of a God speaking, not mercy to the world at large, but to this person or that, to me and not to another. The Sacred Volume is a common possession, and speaks to one man as much and as little as to his neighbour. Our nature requires something special; and if we refuse what has been actually given, we shall be sure to adopt what has not been given. We shall set up calves at Dan and Bethel, if we give up the true Temple and the Apostolic Ministry. This we see fulfilled before our eyes in many ways; those who will not receive Baptism as the token of God’s election, have recourse to certain supposed experiences of it in their hearts. This is the idolatry of a refined age, in which the superstitions of barbarous times displease, in consequence of their grossness. Men congratulate themselves on their emancipation from forms and their enlightened worship, when they are but in the straight course to a worse captivity, and are exchanging dependence on the creature for dependence on self.

5.

2. And thus we are led to the consideration of the opposite side of the question before us, that is, whether at this day it is not rather the accusing party itself than the Church that is accused, to which the charge of Judaism properly attaches. At first sight a suggestion of this kind will look like a refinement, or as only a sharp retort urged in controversy, and not to be seriously dwelt on. But I wish it dwelt on most seriously, and if rejected, rejected after being dwelt on. I observe, then, that what the Jews felt concerning their Law, is exactly what many upholders of the tenet of “faith only,” feel concerning what they consider faith; that they substitute faith for Christ; that they so regard it, that instead of being the way to Him, it is in the way; that they make it a something to rest in; nay, that they alter the meaning of the word, as the Jews altered the meaning of the word Law; in short, that, under the pretence of light and liberty, they have brought into the Gospel the narrow, minute, technical, nay, I will say carnal and hollow system of the Pharisees. Let me explain what I mean.

I would say this then:—that a system of doctrine has risen up during the last three centuries, in which faith or spiritual-mindedness is contemplated and rested on as the end of religion instead of Christ. I do not mean to say that Christ is not mentioned as the Author of all good, but that stress is laid rather on the believing than on the Object of belief, on the comfort and persuasiveness of the doctrine rather than on the doctrine itself. And in this way religion is made to consist in contemplating ourselves instead of Christ; not simply in looking to Christ, but in ascertaining that we look to Christ, not in His Divinity and Atonement, but in our conversion and our faith in those truths.

Of course nothing is more natural or suitable than for a Christian to describe and dwell on the difference between one who believes and one who does not believe. The fault here spoken of is the giving to our ‘‘experiences” a more prominent place in our thoughts than to the nature, attributes, and work of Him from whom they profess to come,—the insisting on them as a special point for the consideration of all who desire to be recognized as converted and elect. When men are to be exhorted to newness of life, the true Object to be put before them, as I conceive, is “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and for ever;” the true Gospel preaching is to enlarge, as they can bear it, on the Person, natures, attributes, offices, and work of Him who once regenerated them, and is now ready to pardon; to dwell upon His recorded words and deeds on earth; to declare reverently and adoringly His mysterious greatness as the Only-begotten Son, One with the Father, yet distinct from Him; of Him, yet not apart from Him; eternal, yet begotten; a Son, yet as if a servant; and to combine and to contrast His attributes and relations to us as God and man, as our Mediator, Saviour, Sanctifier, and Judge. The true preaching of the Gospel is to preach Christ. But the fashion of the day has been, instead of this, to preach conversion; to attempt to convert by insisting on conversion; to exhort men to undergo a change; to tell them to be sure they look at Christ, instead of simply holding up Christ to them; to tell them to have faith, rather than to supply its Object; to lead them to stir up and work up their minds, instead of impressing on them the thought of Him who can savingly work in them; to bid them take care that their faith is justifying, not dead, formal, self-righteous, and merely moral, whereas the image of Christ fully delineated of itself destroys deadness, formality, and self-righteousness; to rely on words, vehemence, eloquence, and the like, rather than to aim at conveying the one great evangelical idea whether in words or not. And thus faith and (what is called) spiritual-mindedness are dwelt on as ends, and obstruct the view of Christ, just as the Law was perverted by the Jews.

6.

I will take two passages from writers of the last century, out of a hundred which might be selected, in illustration of this over-earnest dwelling upon the state of our minds, with a view to effect in us real and spiritual conversion.

The following is an extract from a letter addressed to a person ignorant of the truth, and whom the writer was endeavouring to enlighten. After having mentioned the doctrine of the Trinity, he says, “I believe, that, whatever notions a person may take up from education or system, no one ever did, or ever will, feel himself and own himself to be such a lost, miserable, hateful sinner, unless he be powerfully and supernaturally convinced by the Spirit of God.” Doubtless; but the question is whether we should simply preach the doctrine of the Trinity, trusting to God to rescue it from being a mere notion, and to bring it home with power to the mind, or whether we are more likely to prevent its being a notion by cautioning men against its being a notion. To proceed: “There is, when God pleases, a certain light thrown into the soul, which differs not merely in degree, but in kind, toto genere, from anything that can be effected or produced by moral suasion or argument. But, (to take in another of your queries), the Holy Spirit teaches or reveals no new truths, either of doctrine or precept, but only enables us to understand what is already revealed in Scripture.” Most true; but to tell a person so is not the way to convert him. We do not affect people by telling them to weep or laugh; let us preach Christ, and leave the effect to God, to prosper it or not. He continues: “Here a change takes place; the person that was spiritually blind begins to see. The sinner’s character, as described in the word of God, he finds to be a description of himself; that he is afar off, a stranger, a rebel; that he has hitherto lived in vain. Now he begins to see the necessity of an Atonement, an Advocate, a Shepherd, a Comforter; he can no more trust to his own wisdom, strength, and goodness; but accounting all his former gain but loss, for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ, he renounces every other refuge, and ventures his all upon the person, work, and promises of the Redeemer … Without this awakened state of mind a divine, reputed orthodox, will blunder wretchedly even in defending his own opinions.” [Note 1] Now that no effect follows upon such representations I am very far from saying; experience shows the contrary. But for the most part it will be produced by sympathy, and will consist in imitation. Men will feel this and that, because they are told to feel it, because they think they ought to feel it, because others say they feel it themselves; not spontaneously, as the consequence of the objects presented to them. And hence the absence of nature, composure, unobtrusiveness, healthy and unstudied feeling, variety and ease of language, among those who are thus converted, even when that conversion is sincere. Convulsions are in their view the only real manifestation of spiritual life and strength.

The other passage which I proposed to quote runs as follows:—”Beware of mistaking mere external works for true holiness. Holiness is seated in the heart; every act receives its goodness from the principles from which it flows, and the end to which it is directed. The external works of the generally esteemed, devout, decent, and charitable, are usually as far from being acts of real holiness, as any of the enormities of those who proclaim their shame as avowed children of disobedience: they proceed from as unrenewed hearts, from as unchristian tempers, and are directed to as unsanctified ends.” Still, supposing it, the question is whether one tends ever so little to escape the danger of having counterfeit holiness instead of true in consequence of this sort of warning. Just the reverse; the more you fasten men’s thoughts on themselves, the more you lead them to unconscious show, pretence, and duplicity. To proceed: “You may attend your Church twice on Sunday; you may go on weekdays too. You may frequent the Sacrament. You may say prayer in your house and alone. You may read the Psalms and Lessons for the day. You may be ‘no extortioner or unjust.’ You may be in many things unlike other men; neither given to swear, nor drink, nor lewdness, nor extravagance. You may be a tender parent, a careful master, and what the world calls an honest man; yea, you may withal be very liberal to the poor; be regarded in the world as a pattern of piety and charity, and respected as one of the best sort of people in it; and yet, with all this, be the very character, which, ‘though highly esteemed amongst men, is an abomination in the sight of God.’

“For if you have never seen” (not your Saviour, but) “your ‘desperately wicked heart,’—been united to Christ” (by His love and grace? no, but) “by faith,—renounced your own righteousness to be found in Him, and receive from Him newness,” (receive, as if the great thing was not His giving but our taking), “if you know not experimentally what is meant by ‘fellowship with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ;’“ (observe, not “if you have not fellowship,” but “if you know not you have;” and this self-seeking, as it may be truly called, is named experimental religion;) “if your devotion hath not been inspired ‘by faith which worketh by love;’ if your worship hath not been in ‘spirit and truth,’ from a real sense of your wants, and an earnest desire and expectation of receiving from Him ‘in whom all fulness dwells;’ if this hath not been your case, your devotions have been unmeaning ceremony, your book, not your heart, hath spoken: and instead of the fervent effectual prayer of the righteous man, your babblings have been no better than the sounding brass and tinkling cymbal.” [Note 2] Poor miserable captives, to whom such doctrine is preached as the Gospel! What! is this the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and wherein we stand, the home of our own thoughts, the prison of our own sensations, the province of self, a monotonous confession of what we are by nature, not what Christ is in us, and a resting at best not on His love towards us, but in our faith towards Him! This is nothing but a specious idolatry; a man thus minded does not simply think of God when he prays to Him, but is observing whether he feels properly or not; does not believe and obey, but considers it enough to be conscious that he is what he calls warm and spiritual; does not contemplate the grace of the Blessed Eucharist, the Body and Blood of His Saviour Christ, except—O shameful and fearful error!—except as a quality of his own mind [Note 3].

Even Luther, in his zeal against the undue estimation of works in his own day, teaches his followers a lesson here. Commenting on the text, “Yet not I, but Christ liveth in me,” He uses the following energetic words:—”[Note 4] Here,” says he, “the Apostle clearly shows how he lives; and he teaches what Christian righteousness is, viz. that with which Christ lives in us, not that which is in our own person. And so when we treat of Christian righteousness, we must altogether put away our person … If I look at myself only, Christ being excluded, it is over with me. For then immediately the thought comes across me, ‘Christ is in heaven, thou upon earth, how wilt thou now come to Him?’ I will live spiritually, and do as the Law demands, and so as to enter into life. Here reflecting on myself, and considering what is the quality of my mind, or what it ought to be, also what I ought to do, I let go Christ from my eyes, who is my sole righteousness and life …We should accustom ourselves, turning from ourselves, in such distress of conscience, from the Law and works, which only force us to reflect on ourselves, simply to turn our eyes to the Brazen Serpent, Christ fixed to the Cross, on whom fixing our earnest gaze we may be sure that He is our righteousness and life.” What Luther wrote against the conscience-stricken Catholic of his day, applies still more forcibly to the unduly triumphant Protestant; for surely it is better not to have Christ and to mourn, than to let Him go and to think it gain.

To the same purpose is a passage from the Homily on Salvation:—”Our faith in Christ, as it were, saith unto us thus: It is not I that take away your sins, but it is Christ only, and to Him only I send you for that purpose, forsaking therein all your good virtues, words, thoughts, and works, and only putting your trust in Christ.”

7.

And now if we proceed to inquire where the real difference lies between this view, which our Church does hold, and that which pretends to be hers, it will be found to be this, which it is worth while insisting on;—that the Church considers the doctrine of justification by faith only to be a principle, and the religion of the day takes it as a rule of conduct. Principles are great truths or laws which embody in them the character of a system, enable us to estimate it, and indirectly guide us in practice. For instance, “all is of grace,” is a great principle of the Gospel. So are the following:—”we conquer by suffering,”—”the saints of God are hidden,”—”obedience is of the spirit not of the letter,”—”the blood of the Martyrs is the seed of the Church,”—”to gain happiness we must not seek it.” It is a characteristic of such statements of principles to be short, pointed, strong, and often somewhat paradoxical in appearance. Such, for example, is the political maxim, which has a clear and true meaning, but in form is startling, “The King can do no wrong;” or in physics, that “nature abhors a vacuum.” They are laws or exhibitions of general truths; and not directly practical. I mean, a man will be sure to get into difficulty or error if he attempts to use them as guides in matters of conduct and duty. They mean nothing, or something wide of the truth, taken as literal directions. They are like the Sun in the heavens, too high, too distant, to light your lamp by, though indirectly and secondarily useful even for that.

Proverbs, again, are of the same nature; we recognize their truth in the course of life, but we do not walk by them. They come after us, not go before. They confirm, they do not explore for us. They are reflections upon human conduct, not guides for it. Thus “honesty is the best policy,” suggests the natural reward of honesty, not the way to be honest.

Such are principles:—rules, on the other hand, are adapted for immediate practice; they aim at utility, and are directed and moulded according to the end proposed, not by correctness of reasoning or analysis. We follow blindly; content, so that we arrive where we propose, whether we know how or not. We take them literally and without reasoning, and act upon them. Thus, if I ask my way, I shall be told, perhaps, to go first right forward, then to take a bend, then to watch for a hill or a river. There is no room for philosophy here; it were out of place; all is practical.

Now justification by faith only is a principle, not a rule of conduct; and the popular mistake is to view it as a rule. This is where men go wrong. They think that the long and the short of religion is to have faith; that is the whole, faith independent of every other duty; a something which can exist in the mind by itself, and from which all other holy exercises follow;—faith, and then forthwith they will be justified; which will as surely mislead them as the great principle that “the Saints are hidden” would mislead such as took it for a rule, and thought by hiding themselves from the eyes of the world to become Saints. They who are justified, certainly are justified by faith; but having faith is not more truly the way to be justified, than being hidden is the way to be a Saint.

FAITH in CHRIST VERSUS FAITH AS A FEELINHG

The doctrine of justifying faith is a summary of the whole process of salvation from first to last; a sort of philosophical analysis of the Gospel, a contemplation of it as a whole, rather than a practical direction. If it must be taken as a practical direction, and in a certain sense it may, then we must word it, not, “justification through faith,” but, “justification by Christ.” Thus, interpreted, the rule it gives is, “go to Christ;” but taken in the letter, it seems to say merely, “Get faith; become spiritual; see that you are not mere moralists, mere formalists, see that you feel. If you do not feel, Christ will profit you nothing: you must have a spiritual taste; you must see yourself to be a sinner; you must accept, apprehend, appropriate the gift; you must understand and acknowledge that Christ is the ‘pearl of great price;’ you must be conscious of a change wrought in you, for the most part going through the successive stages of darkness, trouble, error, light, and comfort.” Thus the poor and sorrowful soul, instead of being led at once to the source of all good, is taught to make much of the conflict of truth and falsehood within itself as the pledge of God’s love, and to picture to itself faith, as a sort of passive quality which sits amid the ruins of human nature, and keeps up what may be called a silent protest, or indulges a pensive meditation over its misery. And, indeed, faith thus regarded cannot do more; for while it acts, not to lead the soul to Christ, but to detain it from him, how can the soul but remain a prisoner, in that legal or natural state described by the Apostle in the seventh of Romans?—a passage of Scripture which the upholders of this doctrine confess, nay boast that they feel to be peculiarly their own. Such is their first error, and a second obviously follows.

When, then, men are bent on holding it (as it were) in their hands, curiously inspecting, analyzing, and so aiming at it, they are obliged to colour and thicken it, that it may be seen and touched. That is, they substitute for it something or other, a feeling notion, sentiment, conviction, or act of reason, which they may hang over, and dote upon. They rather aim at experiences (as they are called) within them, than at Him that is without them. They are led to enlarge upon the signs of conversion, the variations of their feelings, their aspirations and longings, and to tell all this to others;—to tell others how they fear, and hope, and sin, and rejoice, and renounce themselves, and rest in Christ only; how conscious they are that their best deeds are but “filthy rags,” and all is of grace, till in fact they have little time left them to guard against what they are condemning, and to exercise what they think they are so full of. Now men in a battle are brief-spoken; they realize their situation and are intent upon it. And men who are acted upon by news good or bad, or sights beautiful or fearful, admire, rejoice, weep, or are pained, but are moved spontaneously, not with a direct consciousness of their emotion. Men of elevated minds are not their own historians and panegyrists. So it is with faith and other Christian graces. Bystanders see our minds; but our minds, if healthy, see but the objects which possess them. As God’s grace elicits our faith, so His holiness stirs our fear, and His glory kindles our love. Others may say of us “here is faith,” and “there is conscientiousness,” and “there is love;” but we can only say, “this is God’s grace,” and “that is His holiness,” and “that is His glory.”

8.

And this being the difference between true faith and self-contemplation, no wonder that where the thought of self obscures the thought of God, prayer and praise languish, and only preaching flourishes. Divine worship is simply contemplating our Maker, Redeemer, Sanctifier, and Judge; but discoursing, conversing, making speeches, arguing, reading, and writing about religion, tend to make us forget Him in ourselves. The Ancients worshipped; they went out of their own minds into the Infinite Temple which was around them. They saw Christ in the Gospels, in the Creed, in the Sacraments and other Rites; in the visible structure and ornaments of His House, in the Altar, and in the Cross; and, not content with giving the service of their eyes, they gave Him their voices, their bodies, and their time, gave up their rest by night and their leisure by day, all that could evidence the offering of their hearts to Him. Theirs was not a service once a week, or some one day, now and then, painfully, as if ambitiously and lavishly given to thanksgiving or humiliation; not some extraordinary address to the throne of grace, offered by one for many, when friends met, with much point and impressiveness, and as much like an exhortation, and as little like a prayer, as might be; but every day and every portion of the day was begun and sanctified with devotion. Consider those Seven Services of the Holy Church Catholic in her best ages, which, without encroaching upon her children’s duties towards this world, secured them in their duties to the world unseen. Unwavering, unflagging, not urged by fits and starts, not heralding forth their feelings, but resolutely, simply, perseveringly, day after day, Sunday and week-day, fast-day and festival, week by week, season by season, year by year, in youth and in age, through a life, thirty years, forty years, fifty years, in prelude of the everlasting chant before the Throne,—so they went on, “continuing instant in prayer,” after the pattern of Psalmists and Apostles, in the day with David, in the night with Paul and Silas, winter and summer, in heat and in cold, in peace and in danger, in a prison or in a cathedral, in the dark, in the day-break, at sun-rising, in the forenoon, at noon, in the afternoon, at eventide, and on going to rest, still they had Christ before them; His thought in their mind, his emblems in their eye, His name in their mouth, his service in their posture, magnifying Him, and calling on all that lives to magnify Him, joining with Angels in heaven and Saints in Paradise to bless and praise Him for ever and ever. O great and noble system, not of the Jews who rested in their rights and privileges, not of those Christians who are taken up with their own feelings, and who describe what they should exhibit, but of the true Saints of God, the undefiled and virgin souls who follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth! Such is the difference between those whom Christ praises and those whom He condemns or warns. The Pharisee recounted the signs of God’s mercy upon and in Him; the Publican simply looked to God. The young Ruler boasted of his correct life, but the penitent woman anointed Jesus’ feet and kissed them. Nay, holy Martha herself spoke of her “much service;” while Mary waited on Him for the “one thing needful.” The one thought of themselves; the others thought of Christ. To look to Christ is to be justified by faith; to think of being justified by faith is to look from Christ and to fall from grace. He who worships Christ and works for Him, is acting out that doctrine which another does but enunciate; his worship and his works are acts of faith, and avail to his salvation, because he does not do them as availing.

9.

But I must end a train of thought, which, left to itself would run on into a whole work. And in doing so I make one remark, which is perhaps the great moral of the history of Protestantism. Luther found in the Church great moral corruptions countenanced by its highest authorities; he felt them; but instead of meeting them with divine weapons, he used one of his own. He adopted a doctrine original, specious, fascinating, persuasive, powerful against Rome, and wonderfully adapted, as if prophetically, to the genius of the times which were to follow. He found Christians in bondage to their works and observances; he released them by his doctrine of faith; and he left them in bondage to their feelings. He weaned them from seeking assurance of salvation in standing ordinances, at the cost of teaching them that a personal consciousness of it was promised to every one who believed. For outward signs of grace he substituted inward; for reverence towards the Church contemplation of self. And thus, whereas he himself held the proper efficacy of the Sacraments, he has led others to disbelieve it; whereas he preached against reliance on self, he introduced it in a more subtle shape; whereas he professed to make the written word all in all, he sacrificed it in its length and breadth to the doctrine which he had wrested from a few texts.

This is what comes of fighting God’s battles in our own way, of extending truths beyond their measure, of anxiety after a teaching more compact, clear, and spiritual, than the Creed of the Apostles. Thus the Pharisees were more careful of their Law than God who gave it; thus Saul saved the cattle he was bid destroy, “to sacrifice to the Lord;” thus Judas was concerned at the waste of the ointment, which might have been given to the poor. In these cases bad men professed to be more zealous for God’s honour, more devotional, or more charitable, than the servants of God; and in a parallel way Protestants would be more spiritual. Let us be sure things are going wrong with us, when we see doctrines more clearly, and carry them out more boldly, than they are taught us in Revelation.

Notes

1. Newton’s Cardiphonia, Letter II. to Mr. S. Again: “As you tell me you never remember a time when you were not conscious before God of great unworthiness, and intervals of earnest endeavours to serve Him, though not with the same success, yet something in the same way as at present; this is but saying in other words, you never remember a time when old things passed away, and all things became new.”

 

2. Haweis’ Sermons, p. 221-3.

 

3. A remarkable contrast between our church’s and this false view of religion is afforded in the respective modes of treating a death-bed in the Visitation of the Sick, and a popular modern work, the Dairyman’s Daughter. The latter runs thus:—”My dear Friend, do you not FEEL that you are supported? The Lord deals very gently with me, she replied.—Are not His promises very precious to you? They are all yea and amen in Christ Jesus.—Are you in much bodily pain? So little, that I almost forget it.—How good the Lord is! And how unworthy am I ... Do you experience any doubts or temptations on the subject of your eternal safety? No, sir; the Lord deals very gently with me, and gives me peace.—What are your views of the dark valley of death, now that you are passing through it? It is not dark,” etc. etc. Now, if it be said that such questions and answers are not only in their place innocent, but natural and beautiful, I answer, that this is not the point here, but this: viz. they are evidently intended, whatever their merits, as a pattern of what death-bed examinations should be. Such is the Visitation of the Sick in the 19th century. Now let us listen to the nervous and stern tone of the 16th. In the Prayer Book the Minister is instructed to say to the person visited,—”Forasmuch as after this life there is an account to be given unto the Righteous Judge, etc. … I require you to examine yourself and your estate, both towards God and man; so that, etc. Therefore I shall rehearse to you the Articles of our Faith, that you may know whether you do believe as a Christian man should, or no. Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty?” etc. ... After mentioning the Objects of faith, the Service proceeds to speak of the Works: “Then shall the Minister examine whether he repent him truly of his sins, and be in charity with all the world; exhorting him to forgive from the bottom of his heart all persons who have offended him; and if he hath offended any other to ask them forgiveness; and where he hath done injury or wrong to any man, that he make amends to the utmost of his power … The minister should not omit earnestly to move such sick persons as are of ability, to be liberal to the poor.” Then the sick man is to be “moved to make a special confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter.” Creeds and Works! let but Rites be added, and then we shall have all three offences, as men now speak, Bigotry, Superstition, and Self-righteousness; and in truth the third stumbling-block does follow. “After which Confession, the Priest shall absolve him, if he humbly and heartily desire it, after this sort; ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to His Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in Him,’“ etc. Such is the contrast between the “dreamy talk” of modern Protestantism, and “holy fear’s stern glow” in the Church Catholic.

 

4. Ibi ostendit clare, quomodo vivat. Et docet, quæ sit justitia Christiana, ea scilicet, qua Christus in nobis vivit, non quæ est in persona nostra. Itaque cum disputandum est de justitia Christiana, prorsus abjicienda est persona. Nam si in persona hæreo, val de ea dico, fit ex persona, velim, nolim, operarius Legi subjectus. Sed hic oportet Christum et conscientiam meam fieri unum corpus, ita ut in conspectu meo nihil maneat nisi Christus crucifixus et resuscitatus. Si vero in me tantum intueor, excluso Christo, actum est de me, etc. etc.—In Gal. ii. 20.

EXCELLENT THEOSIS TEXT to ADD!!!

Lectures on Justification Lecture 9. Righteousness the Fruit of our Lord’s Resurrection

9. [6]

Thus, when St. Paul says that our life is hid with Him in God, we may suppose him to intimate that our principle of existence is no longer a mortal, earthly principle, such as Adam’s after his fall, but that we are baptized and hidden anew in God’s glory, in that Shekinah of light and purity which we lost when Adam fell,—that we are new-created, transformed, spiritualized, glorified in the Divine Nature,—that through the participation of Christ, we receive, as through a channel, the true Presence of God within and without us, imbuing us with sanctity and immortality. This, I repeat, is our justification, our ascent through Christ to God, or God’s descent through Christ to us; we may call it either of the two; we ascend into Him, He descends into us; we are in Him, He in us; Christ being the One Mediator, the way, the truth, and the life, joining earth with heaven. And this is our true Righteousness,—not the mere name of righteousness, not only forgiveness or favour as an act of the Divine Mind, not only sanctification within (great indeed as these blessings would be, yet it is somewhat more),—it implies the one, it involves the other, it is the indwelling of our glorified Lord. This is the one great gift of God purchased by the Atonement, which is light instead of darkness and the shadow of death, power instead of weakness, bondage and suffering, spirit instead of the flesh, which is the token of our acceptance with {220} God, the propitiation of our sins in His sight, and the seed and element of renovation.

LECTURE 12: FAITH VIEWED RELATIVELY to RITES and WORKS    (Theosis as )

[ perhaps add Lecture 12.2 - note phrase: "Justification comes through the Sacraments; is received by faith; consists in God's inward presence; and lives in obedience. Let us take some parallel cases."

This Webpage was created for a workshop held at Saint Andrew's Abbey, Valyermo, California in 1990....x....  ’ “”.