Lecture 4 History of the Doctrine at the Era of the Reformation

The revival of the Gospel doctrine of Justification was the chief means of effecting the Reformation of religion in Europe in the sixteenth century. That we may form some adequate estimate of the urgent necessity, the real nature, and the practical results of that great revival, it is necessary to consider—the corrupt practices in the Church of Rome which were the immediate occasion of exciting inquiry and discussion on the subject of a sinner’s pardon and acceptance with God,—and the doctrine of the Reformers, as contrasted with that on which these practices depended for their support.

The immediate occasion which led to inquiry and discussion at this time on the subject of a sinner’s pardon and acceptance with God, was the prevalence of gross practical abuses in the Church of Rome. The Scholastic theory of Merit had reached its culminating point in the proclamation of Indulgences. The public sale of Papal pardons gave rise to a thorough discussion of the whole subject of a sinner’s justification before God; it was the spark which ignited all the combustible matter that had been accumulating for ages, and produced an explosion which rent the Church to her foundation. It might seem, at first sight, as if it were rather one of the many practical abuses, or corrupt usages, which had sprung up in a dark and superstitious age, than a heretical doctrine, which threatened to subvert the divine method of Justification; and it has sometimes been said that, at the first, there was no serious difference between the two parties in point of doctrine, but that the Reformers lifted their voice only against a practice, which must have been peculiarly offensive to enlightened and generous minds, by reason of its sordid and mercenary character, and might almost prompt them to say indignantly to the Priesthood, as the Apostle said of old to Simon Magus, ‘Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.’ But it was more than a practical abuse; it was the visible embodiment of a whole system of false doctrine, which subverted or undermined all the scriptural grounds of faith and hope towards God. Luther, like every other noble and unselfish spirit, must have recoiled from the unholy traffic, as alike dishonouring to God, and disgraceful to the Church; but, not content with denouncing corrupt practices, as some of his precursors had been, he had the sagacity to see that they had their root in false doctrine, and that he must strike at the root, if the Church was to be really reformed. Deeply exercised in his own mind on the subject of sin and salvation, he had felt the burden of guilt on his conscience, and had been all but overwhelmed by despair of mercy. He had the charge, too, of many penitents who came to him as their pastor, and poured into his ear in the confessional the expression of their sorrows and fears; and when the Pope’s pardons were promulgated and offered for sale among the members of his own flock,—when they were actually presented to him, and pled as a reason for neglecting the penance which he prescribed,—and when he observed their effect in deadening the sense of sin, and acting as an opiate on the conscience of the sinner,—his soul was stirred within him; for he felt that it was God’s pardon, and not man’s, that he needed for himself,—that it was God’s pardon, and not man’s, that was equally needed by every one of his penitents. He was thus led to compare the Bull of Indulgences with the Gospel of Christ,—and he saw, with the vividness of intuition, that they rested respectively on two doctrines of Justification, which were not only different, but diametrically opposed;—the one revealed by God, the other invented by the Church,—the one a doctrine of Grace, the other a doctrine of Merit,—the one founded on the finished work of Christ, the other depending on the imperfect works of sinful men. Seeing this striking contrast between the two, and knowing that both could not be true, unless light could have fellowship with darkness, he rejected the doctrine of man, and adhered to the doctrine of God; and from that day forth, in the whole exercise of his ministry, whether by word or writing, he set himself to disprove the one, in the only effectual way, by explaining and establishing the other. Convinced that truth alone can expel error, just as light alone can expel darkness, he sought to bring home to the hearts and consciences of his people the simple but sublime truth, that ‘there is forgiveness with God’ through faith in the blood of Christ; and to make them feel that they had no need of any of those human inventions by which that truth had been obscured and corrupted in the Church of Rome. He did not protest merely against Popish errors, he proclaimed the Gospel method of Justification, as that which, if it were once clearly understood and cordially believed, was sufficient to exclude them all; and his teaching, if it was necessarily to a large extent controversial, was far from being on that account either negative or destructive; it was mainly directed to the establishment of positive truth, and the building up of the Church on the only sure foundation, ‘the faith which was once delivered to the saints.’

That we may see what doctrinal importance belonged at that time to the selling and buying of Indulgences, and how naturally Luther was led, by his horror for that monstrous corruption, to discuss the whole subject of a sinner’s justification with God, it is necessary to trace them to their origin in those false views, which had long prevailed in the Church, and to exhibit a brief outline of the Romish doctrine on the subject.

The invention of Indulgences was the result of several distinct doctrines, which followed each other in consecutive order, and ultimately formed a compact and self-consistent system, opposed at every point to the doctrine of the Gospel. In delineating that system, we shall begin with the first error in the series, and then show how, by Successive additions to it, all resting on that false principle, although not logically deducible from it, it was gradually matured till it reached its state of full development. In attempting to trace the idea of Indulgences to its origin, we connect it, in the first instance, with the Romish doctrine concerning the pardon of sin. This alone, and without the additions which were subsequently made to it, will not afford an adequate explanation of its origin,—for several distinct causes contributed to the result. But the Romish doctrine of pardon was the fundamental error, on which all subsequent additions were built. That doctrine divides itself into two parts—the pardon of sin contracted before, and the pardon of sin contracted after, baptism. All sin contracted before baptism, such as original sin in the case of infants, and both original and actual sin in the case of adults possessing certain previous dispositions, were said to be pardoned in Baptism,—but pardoned, not in the sense of being blotted out as criminal offences, which implied a charge of guilt and a sentence of condemnation for what was past, but in the sense of being ‘deleted’ in the heart of the baptized person,—deleted by an infused principle of grace which ‘renewed him in the spirit of his mind.’ All sins, again, contracted after baptism, were held to be pardoned, not by an act of God’s grace, freely forgiving them through faith in Christ, and for His sake,—nor even in the way of the whole of that penalty, which these sins had deserved, being remitted at once and for ever,—but only in the sense of eternal punishment being taken away, while temporal punishment remained to be endured: and hence the pardon of these sins was left to be secured by the confession of the penitent, and the absolution of the priest,—by the sacrament of Penance in this life, and, if that was not sufficient, by the sufferings of Purgatory in the life to come. These personal sufferings, both temporal and purgatorial, were regarded as penal inflictions on account of sin, and as an indispensable part of the satisfaction which was due to divine justice. Here apparently there is pardon for all sin, whether contracted before or after baptism; but, in point of fact, it may be justly said, that, in the Protestant sense of the term, there is, in the Popish doctrine, no pardon for sin at all;—it is the deletion of sin rather than its forgiveness; and it does not restore the sinner immediately to the favour and friendship of God,—it leaves him still exposed to penal infliction, in the shape of temporal, and even of purgatorial, suffering, and bound to submit to self-mortification and penance, in the vain hope of meeting the claims of that awful justice, which the blood of Christ had not fully satisfied, and of deserving that divine mercy which the merits of Christ had not fully secured!

The Romish doctrine of Pardon proceeded on two distinctions, which, in the sense then attached to them, had no foundation in Scripture. The Scholastic theologians distinguished between the guilt of sin and the guilt of punishment (Reatus culpœ, Reatus pœnœ),—meaning by the one, the personal ill-desert of the sinner, and by the other, the legal obligation to punishment,—and contending that the former is removed by pardon bestowed in baptism, while the latter remains, and can only be removed by penance or purgatory; whereas, according to Scripture, the sinner’s guilt is entirely taken away, and along with it his obligation to punishment, while the fact of his ill-desert as a sinner can never be undone, but must continue to be confessed and acknowledged as an everlasting reason for repentance and humiliation before God. They distinguished also between Mortal and Venial Sins—the former deserving eternal death, the latter deserving only temporal punishments,—whereas, according to the Scriptures, ‘every sin deserves God’s wrath and curse, both in this life and that which is to come;’ and whatever difference there may be between one sin and another, as being more or less heinous, and between the sins of believers and those of unbelievers, that difference does not arise from any sin being in its own nature venial, or undeserving of punishment, and still less from one class of sins being pardonable, and another not; for the Law declares that all sins are mortal, while the Gospel proclaims that all sins, short of the sin against the Holy Ghost, are pardonable, by the free grace of God, through the infinite merits of Christ. The Romish doctrine of Pardon, therefore, considered in its essential nature, and in connection with the two Scholastic distinctions to which we have referred, lay at the foundation of that system of satisfaction by Penance, and Purgatory, which obscured the whole doctrine of Justification, and paved the way for other corruptions, which gradually grew into the sale of Indulgences.

But the Romish doctrine of Pardon was only the first step in the process. That doctrine related merely to the penalty of the divine Law, and another was necessary to dispose of its precept. If the penalty denounced death as ‘the wages of sin,’ the precept required obedience as a title to life. As the former had been met by the doctrine of personal satisfaction and penance, so the latter was met, in the first instance, by that of personal righteousness and merit. By the infusion of a principle of grace into his heart at baptism, the sinner was supposed to be made inherently righteous, so as to be entitled to claim eternal life on that ground, and enabled also to do good works which were properly meritorious. The works done before this infusion of grace, and in the mere strength of nature, might constitute a claim only in equity (meritum ex congruo),—but the works done after this infusion, constituted a claim in strict justice (meritum ex condigno), on the favour and acceptance of God. They might go about, therefore, ‘to establish their own righteousness,’ by the diligent observance of all religious and relative duties, and still more by aspiring to a higher degree of sanctity than was supposed to be required by God’s Law itself, through the voluntary assumption of monastic vows, and submission to ascetic rules. It was held, theoretically, that such obedience might be, although few, if any, could venture to say that it actually is, perfect, in the present life (1); but still, being meritorious, it might be sufficient to meet the demands of a law, which was itself so imperfect as to leave room for ‘Counsels of Perfection.’ The doctrine of personal merit, or of meritorious obedience on the part of every individual for himself, was, next to the doctrine of pardon by personal satisfaction and penance, another step in the process which led on to the invention of Indulgences.

But the hope of divine acceptance, on the ground of personal merit, must have been sadly troubled by the irrepressible consciousness of much remaining imperfection and sin; and while some might look to the merits of Christ as sufficient to supplement the defects of their own righteousness, others were led to lay hold of a new and most surprising invention—the doctrine of Supererogation, and to look for relief to the surplus merits of the saints. They had been taught to believe that holy men and women had been enabled, by assuming the vows of poverty, celibacy, and humility, or observing the ‘Counsels of Perfection,’ not only to acquire a sufficiency of merit for their own salvation, but to lay up a large fund of redundant merit, which was available for the benefit of others,—that this merit was transferable to all who, sensible of their own imperfection, might wish to participate in it,—and that it had power with God to procure for them the remission of their sins, and their final admission into heaven. The doctrine of the transference of human merits, or of the imputation of what saints and martyrs had merited, for the benefit of those to whom they might be applied, was a third step in the process which led on to the invention of Indulgences.

But another step was still indispensable. This fund of human merit, which had been accumulating in the Church for ages, must be placed under the guardianship and control of some competent authority, if it was to be administered and applied for the benefit of the faithful,—and what authority could be more unquestionable than that of the Supreme Pontiff, the reigning head of the Church, the vicegerent and representative of Christ Himself? To him had been committed the power of ‘the keys;’ it belonged to him ‘to bind and to loose;’ and what more natural than that he should assume the entire administration of this fund of merits, and delegate subordinate agents to distribute them in his name? Hence the Bulls of Indulgence which were issued from the Roman See, and hence the certificates of Papal pardons which were showered, like snowflakes, at intervals over the whole face of Europe, and which gave the assurance of pardon, in the sense of exemption from temporal and purgatorial punishment, for a longer or shorter term of years, in proportion to the liberality of the Pope in dispensing them, or rather, perhaps, to the price which the faithful might be induced to pay for them. (2)

It was the publication of the Pope’s Bull, and the open sale of Indulgences by Tetzel in the immediate neighbourhood of Wittemberg, which first roused the spirit of Luther, and led him on, step by step, to the discussion of the whole question of a sinner’s Justification with God. Burdened himself with a sense of sin, and meeting many in the confessional whose consciences were ill at ease, could he accept the Pope’s pardon for the relief of his own soul, or suffer them to rest upon it without being unfaithful to his solemn trust? This was the practical shape in which the question was first presented to his mind; but the more he considered it, the more he was convinced that the invention of Indulgences had grown out of certain false doctrines which had long prevailed in the Church, on the subject of a sinner’s Justification. It was a solemn and critical moment when this conviction first flashed on his spirit; and he resolved, in the strength of God and His Word, to lay the axe to the root of the tree, and to strike home at those corruptions in doctrine which alone could account for such an enormous abuse. In doing so, he was led on gradually to assail all the fundamental errors of the Church of Rome, and above all, the doctrine of the Mass, from which, with his profound and almost superstitious reverence for the Sacraments, he was disposed at first to shrink, and to let it alone. He soon found, however, that it was the very stronghold of Popery. For while the doctrine of human merits was gradually advancing, there grew up alongside of it another doctrine which may seem, at first sight, to maintain and do homage to the merits of Christ, but which in reality implied a denial of their sufficiency, and a disparagement of their value, as the only ground of a sinner’s acceptance with God,—the doctrine, namely, of a human priesthood, properly so called,—and of a priestly sacrifice and oblation offered on God’s altar. Whatever might be said of a man’s own merits, or of the merits of the saints, it would evidently be a great object to get the merits of Christ’s passion and death added to them, and thrown into the same common fund for Indulgences, which would thus appeal more strongly to the hearts of the faithful, and become at the same time altogether inexhaustible. This object was to be accomplished by means of a sacrificing priesthood in the Church. The priesthood which now came into prominence was not that of the only High Priest, ‘the one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,’—nor was it the universal priesthood of all true believers, ‘offering up spiritual sacrifices, holy and acceptable unto God;’ it was a priestly caste, like the Levitical priesthood under the Law,—a distinct order of men, ‘ordained for men in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people:’ and the sacrifice which they offered, was not a mere sacramental commemoration of the one all-sufficient sacrifice for sin, nor even a eucharistic feast upon that sacrifice; but a repetition of it, in which Christ, in His divine and human natures, was laid once more upon the altar, and offered by human hands as ‘a sacrifice and oblation of a sweet-smelling savour unto God.’ A human priesthood assumed the functions of the great High Priest, and the sacrifice of the Altar was added to the sacrifice of the Cross. It may seem that Christ, and the merits of His death and passion, were thus solemnly recognised, and perpetually presented to the faith of the Church; but the perfection of Christ’s priesthood, and the all-sufficiency of His one sacrifice, were virtually denied, when human priests were acknowledged as acting officially ‘for men towards God,’ and when it was supposed that His sacrifice could be, or needed to be, repeated, for the forgiveness of their sins. The imperfection which belonged to the sacrifices that were offered under the Law was thus transferred to the sacrifice of Christ; for the Apostle contrasts the two by insisting on the repetition of the one, and the non-repetition of the other. ‘In those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year, for it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin;’ but ‘we are sanctified through the offering of the blood of Jesus Christ once for all’ (ἐφάπαξ): ‘Now once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself;’—‘Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many;’ and ‘after He had offered one sacrifice for sin, He sat down for ever on the right hand of God;’—‘He is exalted as a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance and remission of sins;’—now, ‘where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin;’—He came ’to finish transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness.’3

The sacrifice of the Altar, as representing the passion, and recognising, to some extent, the merits, of Christ, took a far stronger hold on the hearts of the devout adherents of Rome, than the mere doctrine of Indulgences could ever acquire; and it, too, was converted into a source of priestly gain, by the invention of private masses, repeated for the souls of the living and the dead,—but especially of departed friends,—while their efficacy was supposed to depend on the intention of the priest; and hence Luther said, ‘This article (of the Mass) will be made a main point with the Council (at Trent): though they should allow us all the rest, they will not yield a hair’s-breadth here. Campeggio said at Augsburg, that he would be torn limb from limb, rather than consent to abolish the Mass. And I would rather be burned to ashes, than put an administrator of the Mass, with the service which he performs, on a footing with Christ, by making his offering “a sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead.” ’ (3)

It is evident from what has been said, that the doctrine of Indulgences, as it was generally understood at the era of the Reformation, rested for its support on several flagrant corruptions of divine truth. It is not wonderful, therefore, that the controversy which arose from the ‘Theses’ of Luther on that subject, should have embraced the whole subject of Justification, and touched, at every point, the great question as to the ground and means of a sinner’s forgiveness and acceptance with God. Considering the protracted course of the discussion,—the wide and public arena on which it took place,—the number and variety of the points of mutual attack and defence,—the important interests which it involved,—the great ability and learning which were brought to bear upon it on either side,—and the momentous consequences which flowed from it;—no controversy which has ever agitated society, or the Church, could possibly possess a deeper historical interest; and such is its value, in a theological point of view, that, even at the present day, a thorough course of reading on the discussions which then took place, between the respective advocates of Romish error and Protestant truth, may justly be said to be the best method of studying the whole doctrine of Justification. For the details of these discussions, recourse must be had to the standard authorities on the subject (4); while we can only attempt to sketch a general outline of the two antagonistic systems, as they came into direct collision with each other, at the era of the Reformation.

In framing that outline we are not necessarily confined to the materials which are supplied by the Canons, Decrees, and Catechism of the Council at Trent, for this simple reason, that they were not published till nearly half a century after the commencement of the Reformation. There is reason to believe, that the Fathers who assembled there had already come, to some extent, under the influence of the spirit of the age,—and were afraid, or ashamed, to avow all the doctrines which had been previously maintained and allowed. There were men in the Council itself who held views at variance with these doctrines,—some from their strong attachment to the theology of Augustine and Anselm,—others from their having imbibed the lessons of such precursors of the Reformers, as Wesel and Contarenus, Wickliffe and Huss; and others still, who, like Cajetan himself, had acquired clearer views of the Gospel scheme even from the writings of their opponents. (5) Their decisions, therefore, were not pronounced till after protracted discussion, and are often couched in vague and general terms, as if they wished to avoid an articulate deliverance on some controverted points. Besides, the doctrines of the Romish Church are not to be gathered only from the Trentine Decrees; for they were followed by a long series of decisions on the doctrine of Baius, of Quesnel, and of the Jansenists, which, although not pronounced by a Council, are equally sanctioned by her supreme head, with the most recent addition to her creed—the immaculate conception of the Virgin. (6) It thus appears that the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent on the subject of Justification, although important documents with reference to the views which then prevailed, do not afford a full account of the faith of the Church either before, or after, their promulgation; and more particularly, that in treating of the controversy at the time when Luther appeared, we are entitled to take into account whatever other evidence exists to show,—what was the doctrine on the subject of Justification, which was then publicly taught by the priesthood,—generally received by the people,—and maintained in the writings of Catholic divines. Did we confine ourselves to the Canons of Trent alone, we might bring out the substance of that doctrine,—for it is there, expressed, however, in less explicit, and less offensive, terms, than those which are known to have been in use in every part of Christendom before the Reformation,—but we should not be able to prove such an express recognition of the scholastic doctrine of Merit in each of its two forms, or such a manifest rejection of the righteousness of Christ in the matter of a sinner’s justification, as is so frequently obtruded on our notice in the controversial writings of the times in which Luther began his work.

Looking, then, at the doctrine as it was generally taught in the Church, and discussed in controversy by eminent Romish writers, at the era of the Reformation, it exhibits a striking contrast to the teaching of the Reformers on four points, which may be justly held to include whatever is essential and fundamental in the question of Justification. These four points are,—The nature of Justification, or what that is which is denoted by the term in Scripture; the ground of Justification, or what that is to which God has regard as the reason on account of which He ‘justifies the ungodly,’—in other words, what that is to which the believer should look as the foundation of his acceptance; the means of Justification, or what that is through which God bestows, and man receives, forgiveness of sin, and a title to eternal life; and the effect of Justification, or what consequences must ensue from this change in a man’s relation to God, as regards alike his condition now, and his future prospects, in time and eternity. Under one or other of these topics every question of any real importance on the subject of Justification may be conveniently ranked; and they were all involved in the great controversy between the first Reformers and the Church of Rome.

In regard to the Nature of Justification, or what that is which is denoted by the term in Scripture, the fundamental error of the Church of Rome consisted in confounding it with Sanctification. It is not enough to say, that they employ the term Justification to denote the whole of that great change which is wrought on the soul of a sinner at the time of his conversion, and which includes both the remission of his sins, and the renovation of his nature,—for in this comprehensive sense it was sometimes used by Augustine, and occasionally even by some Protestant writers; but it is further affirmed that, while Augustine distinguished these two effects of divine grace, as bearing respectively on a sinner’s relation to God, and on his spiritual character, Popish writers confounded, and virtually identified, them; and thereby introduced confusion and obscurity into the whole scheme of divine truth. For if Justification were either altogether the same with Sanctification; or if,—not being entirely the same, but in some respects distinguishable from it,—it was founded and dependent on Sanctification, so as that a sinner is only justified, when, and because, and in so far as, he is sanctified; then it would follow,—that Justification, considered as an act of God, is the mere infusion, in the first instance, and the mere recognition, in the second, of a righteousness inherent in the sinner himself; and not an act of God’s grace, acquitting him of guilt, delivering him from condemnation, and receiving him into His favour and friendship. It would not be a forensic or judicial proceeding terminating on man as its object, and rectifying his relation to God; but the exertion of a spiritual energy, of which man is the subject, and by which he is renewed in the spirit of his mind. Considered, again, as the privilege of believers, it would not consist in the free forgiveness of sins, and a sure title to eternal life; but in the possession of an inward personal righteousness, which is always imperfect, and often stained with sin,—which can never, therefore, amount to a full justification in the present life, as the actual privilege of any believer.

In opposition to these and similar errors on this point, the Reformers held and taught that Justification is ‘an act of God’s free grace, whereby He pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in His sight;’—that it is an act of God external to the sinner, of which he is the object,—not an inward work, of which he is the subject;—that it is a forensic and judicial change in his relation to God, such as takes place in the condition of a person accused, when he is acquitted,—or of a person condemned, when he is pardoned,—or of a person in a state of enmity, when he is reconciled and received as a friend,—not a change in his moral and spiritual character, although this must always accompany or flow from it; and that it is the present privilege of every believer, however weak his faith, and however imperfect his holiness,—for ‘being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;’ and ‘in Him we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins, according to the riches of His grace.’ Thus widely did the two parties differ in regard to the nature of Justification.

In regard, again, to the Ground of Justification, or what that is to which God has regard as the reason on account of which He ‘justifies the ungodly,’ and to which the believer also should look as the foundation of his hope,—the fundamental error of the Church of Rome consisted in substituting the inherent righteousness of the regenerate, for the imputed righteousness of the Redeemer. There might seem to be no room, in their system, for any question in regard to the ground of Justification, as something distinct from Justification itself; for if Justification be the same with Sanctification, and if Sanctification consists in righteousness, infused and inherent, then this righteousness is the matter and substance of both, rather than the ground of either. But when, instead of confounding, they made a distinction between, the two, they were in the habit of representing the infused righteousness which makes us acceptable to God, as the ground or reason of His acceptance of our persons, which is consequent upon it,—while they utterly rejected the imputed righteousness of Christ. It is true, they spoke of the merits of Christ, and ascribed some influence to His sufferings and death in connection with our justification; but they denied that His righteousness is imputed to us, so as to become the immediate ground of our acceptance with God, or the sole reason on account of which He pardons our sins, and accepts us as righteous in His sight. The merits of Christ were rather, according to their doctrine, the procuring cause of that regenerating grace by which we are made righteous; while the inherent personal righteousness, which is thus produced, is the real proximate ground of our justification. At the best, they only admitted Christ’s righteousness to a partnership with our own, in the hope that whatever was defective in ours might be made up, and supplemented, by the perfection of His. But that His righteousness imputed is the sole and all-sufficient ground of our justification, which neither requires nor admits of any addition being made to it in the shape either of suffering or obedience, and which is effectual, for that end, without the aid of any other righteousness, infused and inherent,—they strenuously denied. This fundamental error in regard to the ground of a sinner’s justification, explains and accounts for many collateral or subordinate errors,—such as, their doctrine of a first and second Justification: a first Justification, by the original infusion of righteousness; and a second Justification, by that same righteousness remaining inherent and become actual;—their doctrine that works done before faith are excluded by the Apostles, but not works done after faith;—and their doctrine that Paul and James can only be harmonized on the supposition that Paul speaks of the one, and James of the other. All these doctrines rested on the same fundamental principle, namely, that the ground of our justification is a righteousness personal and inherent,—procured, it may be, by the merits of Christ, and infused into us by the regenerating grace of His Spirit, but becoming really and properly our own, just as any other attribute of character is our own, and securing our forgiveness and acceptance with God by its intrinsic worth.

In opposition to these and similar errors on this point, the Reformers held and taught, that we were justified ‘only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us,’ or put down to our account; and they based their doctrine on such considerations as these,—that a righteousness of some kind is indispensable, if God is to accept us as righteous,—that it must be such a righteousness as is adequate to meet and satisfy all the requirements of that perfect Law, which is God’s rule in judgment,—that its requirements, both penal and preceptive, were fulfilled by the obedience, passive and active, of the Lord Jesus Christ,—that He thus became ‘the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth in His name,’—that our inherent personal righteousness, even were it perfect, could not cancel the guilt of our past sins, or offer any satisfaction to divine justice on account of them,—that so far from being perfect, even in the regenerate, it is defiled by indwelling sin, and impaired by actual transgression,—and that the work of the Spirit in us, indispensable and precious as it is for other ends, was not designed to secure our justification in any other way than by applying to us the righteousness of Christ, and enabling us to receive and rest upon it by faith. Thus widely did the two parties differ in regard to the ground of Justification.

In regard, again, to the Means of Justification,—or what that is through which God bestows, and man receives, forgiveness of sin, and a title to eternal life,—the fundamental error of the Church of Rome consisted in denying that we are justified by that faith which ‘receives and rests on Christ alone for salvation, as He is freely offered to us in the Gospel.’ They affirmed that we are justified, not simply by faith in Christ, for faith might exist where there is no justification, but by faith informed with charity, or love, which is the germ of new obedience;—that this faith is first infused by baptism, so as to delete all past sin,—original sin, in the case of infants, and both original and actual sin in the case of adults, duly prepared to receive it,—while it is restored or renewed, in the event of post-baptismal sin, by confession and absolution, which effectually deliver the sinner from all punishment, except such as is endured in penance, or in purgatory. This general statement embraces their whole doctrine on this part of the subject, and comprehends under it several distinct positions, each of which became the occasion of intricate and protracted discussion. The main questions related to—the nature of saving faith,—the reason of its efficacy as a means of Justification,—and the respective uses or functions of faith and the sacraments. The real bearing of these questions, as to the nature and effects of Faith, on the general doctrine of Justification, will not be discerned or appreciated aright, unless we bear in mind, that they were all connected with, and directed to the establishment of, the fundamental principle of the Romish system respecting the ground of our forgiveness and acceptance with God, as being a righteousness inherent in man, and not the righteousness of Christ imputed. This being the grand leading doctrine, every other must be brought into accordance with it, and so explained as to contribute to its support. Accordingly faith, to which so much efficacy and importance are everywhere ascribed in Scripture, was, first of all, defined as a mere intellectual belief, or assent to revealed truth, such as an unrenewed mind might acquire in the exercise of its natural faculties, without the aid of divine grace, and described as having, in itself, no necessary connection with salvation, but as being only one of seven antecedent dispositions or qualifications, which always precede, in the case of adults, but are not invariably followed by, Justification. This faith, in order to be effectual and saving, must be ‘informed with charity or love;’ and forthwith that which was barren before becomes fruitful, and, being fruitful, it justifies, not because it rests on the righteousness of Christ, but because it is itself our inherent personal righteousness, the product of a new birth, and the germ of a new creation. It was regarded as the seminal principle of holiness in heart and life, and, as such, the ground of our justification. Some admitted that it was procured for us by the merits of Christ, and is infused into us by the grace of His Spirit; but they held that it exists as a subjective principle in our own hearts, and secures by its own intrinsic worth, without any righteousness imputed, the forgiveness of our sins, and the acceptance of our persons and services. The ‘faith informed by charity,’ which constitutes our righteousness, cannot, of course, be a means of receiving Justification, since it is itself the substance of that Gospel blessing; and accordingly Justification was said to be conveyed on God’s part, and received on man’s, through the medium, not of faith, but of the sacraments. The sinner, being regenerated by baptism, and purified, from time to time, by confession and penance, was held to be justified,—not by faith in Christ, as the means, or by the righteousness of Christ, as the ground, of his forgiveness and acceptance,—but by inherent righteousness, sacramentally infused and nourished, with or without the exercise of an explicit faith in Christ and His finished work.

In opposition to these and similar errors on this point, the Reformers held and taught, that we are ‘justified by faith alone,’ simply because faith receives and rests upon Christ alone for salvation, and apprehends and appropriates His righteousness as the ground of acceptance. They admitted the existence of a mere historical faith, such as men might acquire in the exercise of their natural faculties; for this is recognised in Scripture; but they affirmed that there is a faith,—clearly distinguishable from it by sure scriptural tests,—which is immediately and invariably effectual in securing the pardon of a sinner and his acceptance with God,—a faith, which does not consist in the bare assent of the understanding, but involves the cordial consent of the whole mind,—which not only apprehends, but appropriates, Christ and all His benefits,—receiving and resting upon Him alone for salvation,—and looking to His righteousness as its only prevailing plea; which, wherever it exists, and in whatever degree, though it were small even as a grain of mustard-seed, has an immediate and certain efficacy, simply because it unites the believer to Christ, and makes him a partaker of His righteousness; and which, when it has once been implanted in the soul, will never be suffered to die out, but will spring up unto life eternal. They held this faith to be necessary to salvation; but they held it also to be immediately, invariably, and infallibly effectual for salvation, insomuch that he in whom it exists may be fully assured that ‘he has passed from death unto life, and that he will never come into condemnation.’ They did not deny, on the contrary they affirmed, that this faith ‘worketh by love,’ and through love, as the main spring of new obedience, produces all ‘the peaceable fruits of righteousness;’ but its justifying efficacy they ascribed, not, as the Church of Rome did, to its ‘enclosing charity, as a ring encloses a diamond,’ which enhances its intrinsic worth, but to its ‘enclosing Christ, the pearl of great price,’ whose righteousness alone makes it of any avail. (7) They joyfully acknowledged it to be a spiritual grace, a gift of God, and one of the fruits of His Spirit, which is in its own nature acceptable and pleasing to Him; but they regarded the infusion of this living faith as the means by which God applies to men individually the redemption which was purchased by Christ; and as a means admirably adapted to this end, just because it directs the sinner to look out of himself to Christ alone as his Saviour,—to relinquish all self-righteous confidence in anything that he has done, or can do,—and to cast himself entirely on the free grace of God and the finished work of the Redeemer. They rejected the whole doctrine of sacramental Justification, because they learned from Scripture that, as Abraham was justified, under the Old Dispensation, before he was circumcised, and received circumcision only as ‘a sign and seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised,’ so, under the New Dispensation, Justification is inseparably connected with faith, and not with baptism, insomuch that every believer is justified before, and even without, being baptized, while many are baptized who are neither regenerated, nor justified, nor saved. Thus widely did the two parties differ in regard to the means of Justification.

In regard, finally, to the Effect of Justification,—or the consequences which must ensue from it in respect alike to the present condition of the justified man and his future prospects, in time and eternity,—the fundamental error of the Church of Rome consisted in holding, that it was neither so complete in its own nature, nor so infallibly secured, as to exempt him from the necessity of making some further satisfaction for sin, or to warrant the certain hope of eternal life. In some of its aspects, the Romish doctrine may seem to have ascribed a greater effect to that infusion of inherent righteousness, which they confound with Justification, than the Protestant doctrine did; for its immediate and invariable effect was said to be the deletion of all sin,—whether original or actual,—which restores the sinner to a condition of pristine innocence, similar to that of Adam before the fall; and if natural concupiscence, such as may become an occasion of temptation, still remained, it was not sinful in itself, nor peculiar to the fallen state of man, since it equally existed in our first parent when he was created in the image of God, and was only bridled and kept in check, then as it is now, by the gift of supernatural grace. In addition to this, they held that the effect of Justification, in their sense of the term, was such as to render it possible for the Christian to rise to a state of perfection in the present life, and even to merit rewards both for himself and for others. In these respects, they ascribed a greater effect to Justification than the Reformers did; for the latter spoke, not of natural concupiscence merely, but of indwelling sin, as still cleaving to the believer, and of his best services being imperfect and defiled. But in some of its other aspects, the Romish doctrine ascribed far less effect to Justification than the Protestant; for, according to their favourite principle, that Justification is the same with Sanctification, or, at the least, necessarily dependent upon it, it is manifest that there is no one point at which a sinner can believe himself to be actually justified, unless he has already attained to a state of Christian perfection,—that with him Justification cannot be a present privilege, but can only be an object of desire and hope,—that it is left to depend on his final perseverance, but does not ensure it,—and that it still leaves him liable at least to temporal punishment, as a satisfaction which is due for post-baptismal sins. No wonder, therefore, that the Reformers spoke of ‘the uncertain and doubtsome faith’ of the Romish Church, and contrasted it with the comfortable assurance which might be derived from the direct act of faith in Christ, as He is exhibited in the offers and promises of the Gospel, and which might be confirmed by its reflex exercise on their own spiritual experience, as compared with the marks and evidences of a justified state which are revealed in the infallible Word.

In opposition to these and similar errors on this point, the Reformers held and taught, that, as Justification properly consists in the free pardon of sin and a sure title to eternal life, so it is the present privilege of every believer from the instant when he receives and rests on Christ alone for salvation,—that it is a complete, final, and irreversible act of divine grace, by which he is translated, at once and for ever, from a state of wrath and condemnation, into a state of favour and acceptance; and that it is either accompanied or followed in the present life by ‘the assurance of God’s love, peace of conscience, joy in the Holy Ghost, increase of grace, and perseverance therein to the end,’—while it is indissolubly connected with ‘glory, honour, and immortality’ in the world to come. ‘For whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified.’ So wide was the difference between the two parties in regard to the effect of Justification.

On a review of the whole controversy at the era of the Reformation, the two antagonist systems, considered generally,—as each unfolding a method of Justification for sinners,—may be briefly characterized. The Romish doctrine was one which engrafted a method invented by man, on a method revealed by God,—retaining some part of divine truth, but mixing it with much human error, and thereby obscuring and corrupting it. In so far as it was of human invention, its whole tendency was to exalt man, and everything of human attainment, instead of glorifying God, and the riches, freeness, and efficacy of His grace. In so far as it recognised the grace of God, it made the exercise of it dependent on man’s free-will, by speaking of predisposing qualifications in the sinner which fitted, and in equity entitled him, to receive it, and of his subsequent co-operation with grace, by which he might even merit eternal life. In so far as it recognised the merits of Christ, they were exhibited, not as the immediate and all-sufficient ground of a sinner’s justification, but only as the remote procuring cause of that infused personal righteousness which was the real reason of his being accepted as righteous in the sight of God. It thus fluctuated between the free grace of God and the free-will of man,—between the merits of Christ and the merits of His people; and attempted to combine these heterogeneous elements in one system, as if Justification depended partly on grace, and partly on works—partly on the perfect righteousness of Christ, and partly on the imperfect righteousness of man. But it went beyond this, and had characteristics which were distinctive and peculiar to itself. It did not recognise One only Mediator, and One only sacrifice for sin: it taught the merits and mediation of saints,—the repetition of the one sacrifice on the Cross by the sacrifice on the Altar,—and additional satisfactions for sin in the austerities of penance, and the pains of purgatory. It made the pardon of sin dependent on the confession of the penitent and the absolution of the priest,—thereby placing the Church in the room of Christ, and interposing the priest between the sinner and God: and when absolution was granted on condition of penance, or some other work of mere external obedience, it led men to look to something which they could themselves do or suffer, instead of relying by faith simply and solely on Christ and His finished work.

Such were the general characteristics of the Romish doctrine at the era of the Reformation; and that of the Reformers offered a striking contrast to them all. It proclaimed at once the glorious truth, that every sinner to whom the Gospel comes has direct and free access to God, through the sole mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ; that he is independent of all priestly absolution, since ‘none can forgive sins but God only;’ that he is independent of all other merits and mediation than those of Christ, the ‘one Mediator between God and man;’ that a full pardon of all sin, and a sure title to eternal life, are freely offered to him, in Christ’s name, and may be immediately appropriated and enjoyed by faith; that he is warranted, and even bound, guilty and condemned as he is, to receive and rest upon Christ at once as his Saviour; that nothing which he ever did, or may yet do, is necessary to constitute any part of the ground of his present acceptance or of his eternal hope; and that, being united to Christ by faith, he will be made partaker in due time of all the blessings of a complete and everlasting salvation. Such, in substance, was the doctrine of the Reformers; and it imparted immediate relief and comfort to many anxious and distressed consciences, which all the masses and indulgences of Rome had failed to pacify; it passed through Europe, like an electric current, and proved, at many a homely hearth, and in many a monastic cell,—in some, even, of the palaces of princes,—that it was still, as of old, ‘the power of God unto salvation.’ It reformed a large part of the Church, and constituted it anew after the model of primitive times; and it is yet destined to overthrow the whole fabric of Popery, and to be hailed as God’s Gospel in every part of a regenerated world. (8)