ighteous. Justification is thus identified with sanctification. Not only so, but the sanctification itself is regarded as perfect to such a degree as to ensure acceptance with God. The Romanist is accustomed to sneer at the doctrine of imputed righteousness as an unreal mockery. But rightly viewed it unites these two great facts: God's willingness to save the penitent believer, and the believer's imperfect sanctification. Whereas, when we consider that the Roman doctrine holds that all persons are justified (in the sense above defined) in and by baptism, and that God accepts them accordingly on account of the real, and not imputed, holiness that is in them, it becomes very difficult to reconcile this with the obvious facts of the unholiness of the majority of the baptized. The charge of unreality applies more strongly to such a daring assumption than it can to the doctrine of an imputed right

eousness.

III. Luther on Justification.

First in order of time in the reformed theology we must place Luther's doctrine. The student may be reminded how the doctrine of justification by faith was to him the means of deliverance from his own spiritual difficulties, and the key to his teaching. His revulsion from the bondage of the Roman theology led him at times to use incautious language as to good works of which his enemies took full advantage, but no one has in other passages more carefully guarded against Antinomian excesses than he has done. It was Luther who propounded the celebrated maxim that justification by faith. was the articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiæ. The following extracts from Luther's commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians will illustrate his views on the subject. 'This is the true mean of becoming a Christian, even to be justified by faith in Jesus Christ and not by the works of the Law. Here we must stand and not upon the wicked gloss of the schoolmen, who say that, faith then justifieth, when charity and good works are joined withal. . . When a man heareth that he ought to believe in Christ and yet notwithstanding faith justifieth not, except it be formed and furnished with

charity, by-and-by he falleth from faith, and then he thinketh If faith without charity justifieth not, then is faith in vain and unprofitable, and charity alone justifieth; for except faith be formed with charity it is nothing.' Then follows a passage on the absolute necessity of good works and their right time and place. He then proceeds thus: 'Christ is not the law he is not my work, or the work of the law, he is not my charity, my obedience, my poverty: but he is the Lord of life and death, a mediator, a Saviour, a redeemer of those that are under the law and sin. In him we are by faith, and he in us. The bridegroom must be alone with the bride in his secret chamber, all the servants and the household being put apart. But afterwards when the door is open, and he cometh forth, then let the servants and handmaidens return to minister unto them: then let charity do her office and let good works be done. . . . . Christ is the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world. This doth faith alone lay hold of, and not charity, which notwithstanding, as a certain thankfulness, must follow faith.'1

These three things, faith, Christ, acceptation or imputation, must be joined together. Faith taketh hold of Christ, and hath him inclosed, as the ring doth the precious stone. And whosoever shall be found having this confidence in Christ apprehended in the heart him will God account for righteous. . . And this acceptation or imputation is very necessary; first, because we are not yet perfectly righteous. . . When we have thus taught faith in Christ, then do we teach also good works.' 1

This was a theme of which Luther was never weary, Christ dwelling in the heart by faith, the true righteousness of the Christian, as opposed to the scholastic idea of the infused righteousness of charity, as a habit of the spiritual nature of

man.

IV. Calvin on Justification.

Calvin has for three hundred years so deeply moulded the theology of a large part of Christendom that his views may be

1 Luther on Gal. ii. 16.

considered as representative, beyond those of any writer of his age. We shall first give several extracts from his 'Institutes. 'I must refute the nugatory distinction of the Schoolmen between formed and unformed faith. For they imagine that persons who have no fear of God, and no sense of piety, may believe all that is necessary for salvation, as if the Holy Spirit were not the witness of our adoption by enlightening our hearts unto faith. . . . They insist that faith is an assent with which any despiser of God may receive what is delivered by Scripture. But we must first see whether any one can by his own strength acquire faith, or whether the Holy Spirit, by means of it, becomes the witness of adoption. . . . . We in one word conclude that they talk absurdly when they maintain that faith is formed by the addition of pious affection as an accessory to assent, since assent itself, such, at least, as the Scriptures describe, consists in pious affection. ... To express the matter more plainly, faith consists in the knowledge of Christ; Christ cannot be known without the sanctification of the Spirit; therefore faith cannot possibly be disjoined from pious affection.' 1

Again, Calvin defines Justification ' as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favour as if we were righteous, and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins, and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.' He proceeds to argue that this is the proper and most usual signification of the term in Scripture.

In his Antidote to the Council of Trent' (sixth session), when discussing the Roman doctrine as laid down by that Council, Calvin thus writes: It is not to be denied that the two things, Justification and Sanctification, are constantly conjoined and cohere; but from this it is erroneously inferred that they are one and the same. There is no dispute as to whether or not Christ sanctifies all whom He justifies. It were to rend the Gospel, and divide Christ Himself, to attempt to separate the righteousness which we obtain by faith from repentance. The whole dispute is as to the cause

.

Institutes, III. ii. 8.

2 Ibid. III. xi. 3.

...

of Justification. The Fathers of Trent pretend that it is twofold, as if we were justified partly by forgiveness of sins and partly by spiritual regeneration. . . . . I maintain that it is one and simple, and is wholly included in the gratuitous acceptance of God. I, besides, hold that it is without us, because we are righteous in Christ only. . . . . I neither can nor ought to let pass the very great absurdity of calling baptism alone the instrumental cause. What then will become of the Gospel? Will it not even be allowed the smallest corner? . . . . Let them cease to sport with trifles such as―man receives faith, and along with it hope and love; therefore it is not faith alone which justifies. Because if eyes are given us, and along with them ears and feet and hands, we cannot, therefore, say that we either hear with our feet, or walk with our hands, or handle with our eyes. Next follows their worse than worthless distinction between an informal and a formed faith. . . . . They are dreaming of that faith devoid of charity which is commonly called by the Sophists informal. For if the doctrine of Paul is true that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith, they can no more separate faith from charity, than Christ from His Spirit. . . . . It is, therefore, faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone; just as it is the heat alone of the sun which warms the earth, and yet in the sun it is not alone, because it is constantly conjoined with light. Wherefore we do not separate the whole grace of regeneration from faith, but we claim the power and faculty of justifying entirely for faith.'

V. The Homily of the Salvation of Mankind.

Passing from foreign to English theology, this document first requires our attention.

The Article so distinctly refers us to this Homily for a further explanation of the doctrine in question, that it becomes of almost equal authority with the Article itself.

That this Homily is meant appears positively, because— 1. The reference being found in King Edward's Article

fixes it to the first book of Homilies only, excluding the second book published in the reign of Elizabeth.

2. There are only twelve homilies in that book, and a glance at the titles will show that this is the only one bearing definitely on the subject.

3. In point of fact, Justification is by name the subject of this Homily from beginning to end, as may be seen in every

page.

We subjoin an analysis of this treatise. All being sinners, every man needs a 'righteousness of justification, to be received at God's own hands, that is to say, the forgiveness of his sins and trespasses in such things as he hath offended. And this justification or righteousness which we so receive of God's mercy and Christ's merits embraced by faith is taken, accepted, and allowed of God for our perfect and full justification.'

Infants dying after baptism are by Christ's sacrifice accepted. They who sin after baptism, on repentance are entirely

cleansed.

This justification is free to us. Yet by union of mercy with justice a ransom was paid by Christ, who 'besides this ransom, fulfilled the law for us perfectly.'

'So the grace of God doth not shut out the justice of God in our justification, but only shutteth out the justice of man, that is to say, the justice of our works, as to the merits of deserving our justification. And, therefore, St. Paul declareth here (Rom. iii. xii. x.) nothing on the behalf of man concerning his justification, but only a true and lively faith, which nevertheless is the gift of God, and not man's only work without God. And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified; but it shutteth them out from the office of justifying. So that although they be all present together in him that is justified, yet they justify not altogether; neither doth faith shut out the justice of our good works, necessarily to be done afterwards of duty towards God . . . but it excludeth them, so that we may not do them to this intent, to be made just by doing of them.'