as a permanent and controlling state of mind. And therefore it is often said that we are justified by a " fides obsequiosa," an obedient faith ; a faith which includes obedience. At other times, it is said that we are justified by evangelical obedience, i.e., that kind and measure of obedience which the Gospel requires, and which men since the fall, in the proper use of " sufficient grace " granted to all men, are able to render. Limborch says, " Scien- dum, quando dicimus, nos fide justificari, nos non excludere opera, quaB fides exigit et tanquam foecunda mater producit ; sed ea inclu- dere." And again, " Est itaque [fides] talis actus, qui, licet in se spectatus perf ectus nequaquam sit, sed in multis deficiens, tamen a Deo, gratiosa et uberrima voluntate, pro pleno et perfecto accep- tatur, et propter quern Deus homini gratiose remissionem pecca- torum et vitaB aeternae premium conferre vult." Again,1 God, he says, demands, " obedientiam fidei, hoc est, non rigidam et ab omnibus aequalem, prout exigebat lex ; sed tantam, quantam fides, id est, certa de divinis promissionibus persuasio, in unoquoque effi- cere potest." Therefore justification, he says,2 " Est gratiosa aes- timatio, seu potius acceptatio justitiae nostras imperfectaa pro per- fecta, propter Jesum Christum."
Protestant Doctrine.
Fourthly. According to the doctrine of the Lutherans and Re- formed, the works excluded from the ground of our justification are not only ritual or ceremonial works, nor merely works done before regeneration, nor the perfect obedience required by the law given to Adam, but works of all kinds, everything done by us or wrought in us. That this is the doctrine of the Bible is plain, —
1. Because the language of Scripture is unlimited. The dec- laration is, that we are not justified " by works." No specific kind of works is designated to the exclusion of all others. But it is " works ; " what we do ; anything and everything we do. It is, therefore, without authority that any man limits these general declarations to any particular class of works.
2. The word law is used in a comprehensive sense. It includes all revelations of the will of God as the rule of man's obedience ; and, therefore, by " works of the law " must be intended all kinds of works. As v6fi.o<i means that which binds, it is used for the law of nature, or the law written on the heart (Rom. ii. 14),
1 Theologia Christiana, vi. iv. 32, 31, 37 ; edit Amsterdam, 1725, pp. 705, b, a, 706, a. a Limborch, vi. iv. 18 ; ut supra, p. 703, a.
138 PART III. Ch. XVII. - JUSTIFICATION.
for the Decalogue, for the law of Moses, for the whole of the Old Testament Scriptures. (Rom. iii. 19.) Sometimes one, and sometimes another of these aspects of the law is specially referred to. Paul assures the Jews that they could not be jus- tified by the works of the law, which was especially binding on them. He assures the Gentiles that they could not be justified by the law written on their hearts. He assures believers under the Gospel that they cannot be justified by works of the law binding on them. The reason given includes all possible works. That reason is, that all human obedience is imperfect ; all men are sinners : and the law demands perfect obedience. (Gal. iii. 10.) Therefore, it is that " by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified." (Rom. iii. 20.)
3. The law of which Paul speaks is the law which says, " Thou shalt not covet " (Rom. vii. 7) ; the law which is spiritual (ver. 14) ; which is " holy, and just, and good " (ver. 12) ; the law of which the great command is, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbour as thyself. Besides, what are called works of the law are in Titus iii. 5 called " works of righteousness." Higher works than these there cannot be. The Apostle repudiates any ground of confidence in his " own right- eousness " (Phil. iii. 9), i. e., own excellence, whether habitual or actual. He censures the Jews because they went about to establish their own righteousness, and would not submit to the righteousness of God. (Rom. x. 3.) From these and many similar passages it is clear that it is not any one or more specific kinds of work which are excluded from the ground of justifica- tion, but all works, all personal excellence of every kind.
4. This is still further evident from the contrast constantly presented between faith and works. We are not justified by works, but by faith in Jesus Christ. (Gal. ii. 16, and often elsewhere.) It is not one kind of works as opposed to another ; legal as opposed to evangelical ; natural as opposed to gracious ; moral as opposed to ritual ; but works of every kind as opposed to faith.
5. The same is evident from what is taught of the gratuitous nature of our justification. Grace and works are antithetical. 41 To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt." (Rom. iv. 4.) " If by grace, then is it no more of works : otherwise grace is no more grace." (Rom. xi. 6.) Grace of necessity excludes works of every kind, and more especially those of the highest kind, which might have some show of merit.
§3.] WORKS NOT ITb GROUND. 139
But merit of any degree is of necessity excluded, if our salvation be by grace.
6. When the positive ground of justification is stated, it is always declared to be not anything done by us or wrought in us, but what was done for us. It is ever represented as something external to ourselves. We are justified by the blood of Christ (Rom. v. 9) ; by his obedience (Rom. v. 19) ; by his righteous- ness (ver. 18). This is involved in the whole method of salva- tion. Christ saves us as a priest; but a priest does not save by making those who come to him good. He does not work in them, but for them. Christ saves us by a sacrifice ; but a sacri- fice is effectual, not because of its subjective effect upon the offerer, but as an expiation, or satisfaction to justice. Christ is our Redeemer ; he gave himself as a ransom for many. But a ransom does not infuse righteousness. It is the payment of a price. It is the satisfaction of the claims of the captor upon the captive. The whole plan of salvation, therefore, as presented in the Bible and as it is the life of the Church, is changed, if the ground of our acceptance with God be transferred from what Christ has done for us, to what is wrought in us or done by us. The Romish theologians do not agree exactly as to whether habitual or actual righteousness is the ground of justification. Bellarmin says it is the former.1 He says, " Solam esse habit- ualem justitiam, per quam formaliter justi nominamur, et su- mus : justitiam vero actualem, id est, opera vere justa justificare quidem, ut sanctus Jacobus loquitur, cum ait cap. 2 ex operibus hominem justificari, sed meritorie, non formaliter." This he says is clearly the doctrine of the Council of Trent, which teaches,2 " Causam formalem justificationis esse justitiam, sive caritatem, quam Deus unicuique propriam infundit, secundum mensuram dispositionum, et quae in cordibus justificatorum in- haeret." This follows also, he argues, from the fact that the sacraments justify,3 " per modum instrumenti ad infusionem justitiae habitualis.', This, howeyer, only amounts to the dis- tinction, already referred to, between the first and second justi- fication. The infusion of righteousness renders the soul inher- ently righteous ; then good works merit salvation. The one is the formal, the other the meritorious cause of the sinner's justi- fication. But according to the Scriptures, both habitual and actual righteousness, both inherent grace and its 'fruits are ex- cluded from any share in the ground of our justification.
1 De Justification*, n. 15 ; Dtsputationes, edit. Paris, 1608, vol. iv. p. 820, a.
2 See Session vi. cap. 7. * Bellarmin, ut supra, p. 820, b.
140 PART ID. Ch. XVII. — JUSTIFICATION.