them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

Notes.-Works before Justification. It will be observed that there is not a word about Justification in the Article itself. The Schoolmen, however, had been accustomed to the phrase "works before justification," and it was adopted therefore as the heading of this Article, although (as will be seen in the sequel) "works before grace," or 66 works without faith,” would have more correctly expressed the subject of the Article.

Grace of congruity. This technical phrase needs explanation. The question often rose among the Schoolmen, How about efforts after goodness made by men who are not Christians? Are they pleasing to God and acceptable? They were unwilling to allow that they constituted a claim to reward, but equally unwilling to say they were unacceptable to God. They solved or rather evaded the difficulty, by saying, that good works done before grace was received, were rewarded of God's liberality, whereas good works done after grace was received, were rewarded of God's justice. They said that the former had a merit of congruity, making men meet to receive grace; the latter had a merit of condignity, giving men a claim upon God.

Luther seemed to see in this doctrine the very root of self-righteousness, the very evil which St. Paul indicated when he said, “Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith" (Rom. ix. 31). He saw that if he allowed this doctrine of merit of congruity before justification, and merit of condignity after justification, his doctrine

He therefore used to

of justification by faith (i.e. by trusting to Christ only for it) would fall to the ground. denounce it almost passionately; maintaining that “whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Rom. ix. 23), and that "without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb. xi. 6). To Luther's influence, no doubt, is due the very strong language with which this Article concludes, saying that "works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of His Spirit have the nature of sin."

Did Luther mean, and does this Article mean, that all the efforts after goodness made by men not in covenant with God-such as Socrates, or the Roman centurion Cornelius-were displeasing to God, and had the nature of sin? Not for one moment; such a doctrine would be shocking and unscriptural. The case of Cornelius was objected to Luther; and he replied at once that he included him-Gentile though he was among those who had faith. The passage in Hebrews quoted above shows that Enoch also must be included among those who had faith. For his translation proved that he pleased God, and "without faith it is impossible to please God;" therefore (it is argued) Enoch had faith. It was faith no doubt of the very simplest kind: a belief "that God is, and that He is the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him." To all the righteous heathen of old days, and to all the righteous heathen of our own day, who have this elementary faith in God's existence, and who make efforts after goodness in order to please Him, we must clearly extend the terms of this Article.

Justin Martyr, and many of the ancient Fathers, attributed the goodness of such righteous heathen to the influence of the Holy Spirit on their hearts.

Fallen though men be, still there is a certain amount of Divine light in all,-" the Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world" (John i. 9), leading even the heathen to "seek the Lord, if haply they might find Him" (Acts xvii. 27);—to this Divine Light we must attribute all that is really good in mankind. "Good works" done from other motives, from pride of heart, self-righteousness, or love of praise, are displeasing to God, and have the nature of sin.

If this be the meaning of the Article, as we have good ground for supposing, when applied to the case of an unbaptized heathen, then clearly for such application the heading of the Article should rather be Of works done without faith in God, and without the grace of God." For the phrase "before justification" would include too much, sweeping all the works of those who are not in covenant with God into the

category of sin. The example of Cornelius clearly shows that God's grace may reach and influence men before they are "justified," in the sense given to the word in the eleventh Article, namely, taken into Covenant with God; and that their good works are really good, and acceptable to God.

The fact that the Editors of the Article chose to give it this heading proves that they had the case of nominal Christians mainly, if not exclusively, in view. If they choose to live outside the Covenant, then their works, however moral in the sight of the world, yet, being done from other than Christian motives, cannot be pleasing to God, and must have the nature of sin, springing from pride and self-righteousness.

ARTICLE XIV.

Of Works of Supererogation.

Voluntary Works besides, over and above, God's Commandments, which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety: for by them men do declare, that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but they do more for His sake, than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ saith plainly, When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We be unprofitable servants.

Notes.-Works of supererogation: supererogare is the word used in the Vulgate version of Luke x. 35, "Whatsoever thou spendest more." Erogare in Latin meant to vote money out of the treasury, hence generally "to spend," and supererogare to 66 spend more than is required." It came to be applied to works of more than ordinary merit in this way: The Fathers noticed that our Lord, speaking to the rich young man, seemed to make a distinction between precepts and counsels. The young man had kept all the precepts of the law, Christ goes on to give him counsels of perfection: "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor" (Matt. xix. 21). So St. Paul (1 Cor. vii. 25), "Concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord; yet I give my advice." Thus the monks came to look upon vows of poverty, celibacy, and the like, as counsels of perfection, and called them "works of supererogation," as though they were spending more on God's

service than was required. The Roman Church regarded such works as a store of merits on which the Pope might draw; as though the Church had a balance to her credit in her account with God, and might out of that balance grant to the faithful indulgences, that is, remission of temporal punishment— including in the phrase "temporal punishments" the pains of purgatory.

That the whole notion rests on a misunderstanding of Scripture is evident. young man was to show him—not what he might do over and above the Commandments—but what he yet lacked (Matt. xix. 20) in his keeping of the Commandments : and as he went away Christ's comment was, "How hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God." It was unfitness to enter Christ's kingdom, not unfitness to do a work of extraordinary piety, of which Christ spoke. Again, the Romanists err in instancing what St. Paul says about his glorying in not being chargeable to the Church (1 Cor. ix. 15). He does not mean that his refusal of remuneration was meritorious in God's sight, but that he valued it as improving his position and influence with his

Our Lord's answer to the

converts.

As to what our Lord says about celibacy, that some men have chosen it for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake (Matt. xix. 12), and what St. Paul says to the same effect in the passage already alluded to (1 Cor. vii. 25), it is plain, from a careful study of the passages, that our Lord and His Apostle only meant to say that to some persons a single life was more favourable to a growth in grace than a married life, but by no means that it was in itself holier or meritorious. From