صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

would have accepted, as showing that all was from Christ, but that they suspected any word which was popular with the Lutherans.'

After many such discussions as these, the Council finally drew up sixteen heads and thirty canons or anathemas on the subject of justification, yet so guarded and obscure, that each party wrote treatises to prove that the decisions were in their favour. The most important of the decrees were the following: (2) That God sent His Son to redeem both Jews and Gentiles. (3) But that, though He died for all, yet those only enjoy the benefit, to whom His merit is communicated. (4) That the justification of the wicked is a translation from the state of a son of Adam to that of a son of God, which, since the Gospel, is not done without baptism or the vow thereof. (5) That the beginning of justification in adults proceeds from preventing grace. (7) That justification is not only remission of sins, but sanctification also; and has five causes; the final, God's glory and eternal life; the efficient, God; the meritorious, Christ; the instrumental, the sacraments; and the formal, righteousness, given by God, received according to the good pleasure of the Holy Ghost, and according to the disposition of the receiver, receiving together with remission of sins, faith, hope, and charity. (8) That when St. Paul saith that man is justified by faith and gratis, it ought to be understood, because faith is the beginning, and the things which precede justification are not meritorious of grace.3

Among the anathemas, some of the most important are: (1) That a man may be justified without grace. (11) That man is justified only by the imputation of the justice of Christ, or only by remission of sins without inherent grace, or charity; or that the grace of justification is only the favour of God. (12) That justifying faith is nothing but confidence in the mercy of God, who remitteth sins for Christ. (14) That man is absolved and justified, because he doth firmly believe that he is justified.*

These articles and canons show the difference between Luther and the Council of Trent, so far as we can be certain of the design. of the latter. Yet the most eminent divines present in the Council, after its decrees, debated on their sense; so that at last it was necessary to make a decree against all notes, glosses and commentaries; the Pope reserving to himself the right of solving difficulties, and settling controversies on the subject."

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Roman Catholic writers since the Reformation have generally gone against the forensic sense of the word 'justify': have held that God by grace implants inherent righteousness in the heart, makes the sinner righteous by union with Christ and the indwelling of His Spirit, and that then He esteems him, what in fact He has made him, a holy and righteous man. Their view has been thus stated by one, who may be supposed to have carefully studied it. 'It appears that they hold two things:-that the presence of grace implies the absence of mortal sin; next, that it is a divine gift bringing with it the property of a continual acceptableness, and so recommending the soul to God's favour, so as to anticipate the necessity of any superadded pardon."

So

To return to the Lutheran divines: Melancthon, the Confession of Augsburg, and generally the more moderate Lutherans, softened and explained the strong language of Luther. With them Faith was trust (fiducia), or fiduciary apprehension. It was made clear, that faith in itself had no virtue, but that the meritorious cause of justification was the death and satisfaction of Jesus Christ. that justification by faith was even said to be a correlative term for justification or salvation by the merits and death of Christ. Nay, justification by faith was even called a Paulina figura, by which was meant, that we are saved by grace, and not by claims or merits of our own.2

1 Newman, On Justification, p. 396. See also Bellarmine, De Justific.; and Barrow, Vol. II. Sect. v. p. 79.

Bellarmine states the causes of justification thus: I. The final cause, God's glory and our salvation. 2. The efficient cause, God's goodness and Christ's merits. 3. The material cause, the mind or will of man, in which righteousness abides, and in which are formed the dispositions predisposing to the formal cause. 4. The formal cause, internally, the habit of grace; externally, the righteousness of Christ. De Justific. Lib. 1. cap. 2. Justification he denies to consist in remission of sins or imputation of righteousness only, but asserts it to have for its formal cause the infusion of habitual righteousness. Lib. 11. cap. 3, 6, 15. Good works he asserts to be meritorious of eternal life, but that, because they are wrought in us by the grace of God. Lib. v. cap. 12, et passim.

2 Fide sumus justi, id est, per misericordiam propter Christum sumus justi; non quia fides sit virtus, quæ mereatur remissionem sua dignitate.- Melancth. Loci Theolog. de Argum. Advers. p. 286. Laurence, B. L. p. 333.

Cum dicitur, Fide justificamur, non

aliud dicitur, quam quod propter Filium Dei accipiamus remissionem peccatorum et reputemur justi. . . . Intelligatur ergo propositio correlative, Fide justi sumus, id est, per misericordiam propter Filium Dei sumus justi seu accepti.-Mel, Loc. Theol. de Voc. Fidei. f. 199. 2. Newman, On Justif. p. 278.

Cum igitur dicimus Fide justificamur, non hoc intelligimus, quod justi sunius propter ipsius virtutis dignitatem, sed hæc est sententia, consequi nos remissionem peccatorum, et imputationem justitiæ per misericordiam propter Christum. Jam bonas mentes nihil offendet novitas hujus Paulinæ figuræ, Fide justificamur, si intelligant proprie de misericordia dici, eamque veris et necessariis laudibus ornari. Quid potest enim esse gratius conscientiæ afflictæ et pavidæ in veris doloribus quam audire, hoc esse mandatum Dei hanc esse vocem sponsi Christi, ut statuant certe donari remissionem peccatorum seu reconciliatiouem, non propter nostram dignitatem, sed gratis, per misericordiam, propter Christum, ut beneficium sit certum.-Confessio August. 1540 De Fide, Sylloge Confessionum, Oxf. 1827, p. 182.

Thus then it was ruled, that the peculiar significance of St. Paul's language, and of the Lutheran use of it, implied, not an opposition of faith to charity, or of faith to holiness, but an opposition of the merits of Christ to the merits of man, of the mercy of God to the claims, which a sinner might suppose himself to have for acceptance in God's presence.

Still it was clear that, in some sense, faith was made the instrument or formal cause of justification. And the question still remained, Had such faith love in it, or was it to be considered as apart from love? We have seen that Luther declared, that justifying faith had not love in it, till it had justified; and to his definitions some of the Lutherans adhered, though he may himself afterwards have in some degree modified them.

Melancthon and the moderate Lutherans appear to have spoken rather differently. Melancthon says, that no doubt there are love and other graces in faith; but that, when St. Paul says, 'we are justified by faith,' he means, not by the virtue of that grace, but by the mercy of God, for the sake of the Mediator." The Confession of Augsburg declares, that 'faith cannot exist except in those who repent;' that, among good works, the chief is faith, which produces many other virtues, which cannot exist till faith has been conceived in the heart." Again, it reconciles St. James and St. Paul, by explaining, that St. James speaks of a mere historical faith, while St. Paul speaks of reliance on God's mercy in Christ.3 It distinctly asserts, that faith brings forth good works, and quotes with approbation the words of St. Ambrose, Fides bonæ voluntatis et justæ actionis genitrix est. All then, but a few of the more rigid Lutherans, agreed, that it was a living, not a dead faith, a faith full of good works, not a bare and historical assent to truth, which justified the soul. Still the question remained, Was it fides, que viva est, or, fides qua viva est, (i.e. faith, which is living, or faith, because it is living.) which justifies? Some thought, that, if it were considered as justifying because it was living, then there would be some merit attached to that which quickened it, or which showed

1 Concedo in fiducia inesse dilectionem, et hanc virtutem et plerasque alias adesse oportere; sed cum dicimus, Fiducia sumus justi, non intelligatur nos propter virtutis istius dignitatem, sed per misericordiam recipi propter Mediatorem, quem tamen oportet fide apprehendi. Ergo hoc dicimus correlative.-Melancth. Loci Theolog. de Argum. Advers. p. 284. Laurence, B. L. p. 332. Newman, Justific. p. 10.

2 Nec existere fides potest nisi in his qui pœnitentiam agunt, quia fides consolatur corda in contritione et terroribus peccati. . . . Inter bona opera, præcipuum est et summus cultus Dei fides ipsa, et parit multas alias virtutes, quæ existere non possunt, nisi prius corda fidem conceperint.-Confess. August. Syll. Conf. p. 83.

3 Sylloge Conf. pp. 181, 182.
4 Ibid. p. 183.

it to be alive, i.e. to charity. Modes were invented of explaining the difficulty, which savoured more of metaphysical subtlety than of practical wisdom, such as that mentioned by Bishop Bull : 'Faith justifies, pregnant with good works, but not as yet having given birth to them."

Bucer, a divine, who had some concern in our own Reformation, and whose opinions are therefore particularly interesting to us, seems to have been very moderate on this subject. He expresses his regret, that language should be used concerning faith alone, to the exclusion of holiness, such as to offend well-meaning men. He considers, that no one should object to the additions of viva or formata as applied to justifying faith; since it is plain, that St. Paul spoke of a living faith, as justifying, and only meant to exclude self-righteousness.

Several controversies concerning justification arose among the Lutherans, even in the lifetime of Luther. Osiander, A.D. 1550, broached some opinions, the exact nature of which it may be difficult to divine. They appear to have been chiefly,' that faith does not justify by applying and embracing the righteousness of the Man Christ, but by uniting to Christ, who then by His Divine nature dwells in the heart, and that this union both justifies before God, and sanctifies the sinner.' There was probably, however, something more than this, or it would hardly have excited the vehement opposition of so mild a man as Melancthon."

Of a very different kind were the errors of Agricola, (A.D. 1538,) who is accused of having carried the doctrine of faith alone to its most noxious extreme. He is esteemed the founder of the Antinomians; and is said to have held, that all licentiousness and sin were allowable, if only Christ was received and embraced by a lively faith. He was vigorously opposed by Luther."

To proceed from the Lutheran to the Calvinistic reformers ; they appear for the most part to have symbolized with Luther in his general statement concerning justification. They declared, that to justify was a forensic term signifying to remit sins, and pronounce righteous. They said, that we receive this justification not by

[blocks in formation]

works, but by faith in God's mercy; and because faith receives Christ, our righteousness, and ascribes all to God's grace in Christ, therefore justification is attributed to faith, and that, chiefly because of Christ, not because it is any work of ours.' They considered it to consist especially in the imputation of our sins to Christ, and of Christ's righteousness to us; and strenuously denied, that justification was in consequence of any internal sanctification wrought in us by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, and the faith which He inspires. They denied, that justification was of faith and works conjoined. But when the question arose, Is the faith which justifies to be considered as alone, and informis, or lively, and full of good works, (formata)? they seem to have decided, that it was the latter, and not the former; although Calvin complained, that the distinction was nugatory, inasmuch as faith never could exist apart from the holiness which it produces.*

Our own reformers soon embraced the doctrine of Luther, with such modifications as their own wisdom suggested. In the Articles set forth in 1536, justification is defined to signify remission of sins and acceptance into the favour of God. We are said to attain this justification for the only mercy and grace of the Father, freely for Jesus Christ's sake, through contrition and faith joined with charity; language which is repeated in the Institution of a Christian Man.

As on other subjects, the English reformers' views grew more fixed and definite after the death of Henry VIII. The Homily of Salvation and the 11th Article of 1552 expressed definitively the judgment of Cranmer and his companions on justification. The 11th Article, as drawn by them, ran thus: 'Justification by only

[blocks in formation]

seipsum quærere docetur.-Calv. Inst. III. xi. 23.

3 Calv. Inst. III. xi. 13, 14.

4

Quapropter loquimur in hac causa, non de ficta fide, de inani et otiosa et mortua, sed de viva, vivificanteque, quæ propter Christum, qui vita est et vivificat, quem comprehendit, viva est et dicitur, ac se vivam esse vivis declarat operibus. Nihil itaque contra hanc nostram doctrinam pugnat Jacobus ille, qui de fide loquitur inani et mortua, quam quidam jactabant, Christum autem intra se viventem per fidem non habebant.-Confess. Helvet. Sylloge, p. 53. See also Calvin, Inst. III. i. 8, quoted above.

5 Formularies of Faith in the Reign of Henry VIII. Oxford, p. 12. 6 Ibid. p. 209.

« السابقةمتابعة »