A church dictionary

by Walter Farquhar Hook

“Thus, neither our own proper righteousness is so determined to be our own, as if it were from ourselves; nor is the righteousness of God either unknown or rejected. For that which is called our righteousness, because, through it being inherent in us, we are justified; that same is the righteousness of God, because it is infused into us by God through the merit of Christ.

“Far, however, be it from a Christian man, that he should either trust or glory in himself and not in the Lord; whose goodness to all men is so great, that, what are truly his gifts, he willeth to be estimated as their merits.”

This article or summary removes all possibility of misapprehension. Through it, the Church of Rome determines that we are justified, not by any imputation to us of righteousness, or by any imputation to us of faith in the place of righteousness, (though each of these imputations is insisted upon by St. Paul,) but by our own inherent righteousness.

On this, the Romish system, the judicious Hooker remarks: “When they are required to show, what the righteousness is whereby a Christian man is justified, they answer, that it is a Divine spiritual quality: which quality, received into the soul, doth first make it to be one of them who are born of God; and, secondly, endue it with power to bring forth such works as they do that are born of him: even as the soul of man, being joined to his body, doth first make him to be of the number of reasonable creatures; and, secondly, enable him to perform the natural functions which are proper to his kind: that it maketh the soul amiable and gracious in the sight of God, in regard whereof it is termed Grace; that it purgeth, purifieth, and washeth out, all the stains and pollutions of sins; that, by it, through the merit of Christ, we are delivered, as from sin, so from eternal death and condemnation, the reward of sin. This grace they will have to be applied by infusion; to the end that, as the body is warm by the heat which is in the body, so the soul might be made righteous by inherent grace: which grace they make capable of increase; as the body may be more and more warm, so the soul more and more justified according as grace should be augmented; the augmentation whereof is merited by good works, as good works are made meritorious by it. Wherefore, the first receipt of grace, in their divinity, is the first justification: the increase thereof, the second justification. As grace may be increased by the merit of good works, so it may be diminished by the demerit of sins venial; it may be lost by mortal sin. Inasmuch, therefore, as it is needful, in the one case to repair, in the other to recover, the loss which is made, the infusion of grace hath her sundry after-meals; for the which cause they make many ways to apply the infusion of grace. It is applied to infants through baptism, without either faith or works; and, in them, really it taketh away original sin, and the punishment due unto it: it is applied to infidels and wicked men in the first justification, through baptism, without works, yet not without faith: and it taketh away sins both actual and original together, with all whatsoever punishment, eternal or temporal, thereby deserved. Unto such as have attained the first justification, that is to say, the first receipt of grace, it is applied further by good works to the increase of former grace: which is the second justification. If they work more and more, grace doth more increase: and they are more and more justified. To such as diminish it by venial sins, it is applied by holy water, Ave Marias, crossings, papal salutations, and such like: which serve for reparations of grace decayed. To such as have lost it through mortal sin, it is applied by the sacrament (as they term it) of penance: which sacrament hath force to confer grace anew; yet in such sort, that, being so conferred, it hath not altogether so much power as at the first. For it only cleanseth out the stain or guilt of sin committed; and changeth the punishment eternal into a temporal satisfactory punishment—here, if time do serve, if not, hereafter, to be endured; except it be lightened by masses, works of charity, pilgrimages, fasts, and such like; or else shortened by pardon for term, or by plenary pardon quite removed and taken away. This is the mystery of the man of sin. This maze the Church of Rome doth cause her followers to tread, when they ask her the way to justification. Whether they speak of the first or second justification, they make ‘the essence of a Divine quality inherent,’ they make it ‘righteousness which is in us.’ If it be in us, then it is ours: as our souls are ours, though we have them from God, and can hold them no longer than pleaseth him; for, if he withdraw the breath of our nostrils, we fall to dust. But the righteousness, wherein we must be found, if we will be justified, is ‘not our own.’ Therefore we cannot be justified by any inherent quality. The Church of Rome, in teaching justification by inherent grace, doth pervert the truth of Christ: and, by the hands of the apostles, we have received otherwise than she teacheth. Now, concerning the righteousness of sanctification, we deny it not to be inherent: we grant, that, unless we work, we have it not: only we distinguish it, as a thing different in nature from the righteousness of justification. By the one, we are interested in the right of inheriting: by the other, we are brought to the actual possession of eternal bliss. And so the end of both is ‘everlasting life.’”

The difference between the two systems may be pointed out in a few words. The Romish Church teaches that a man is justified by an inherent righteousness, which, though originally a gift of God, as are his soul and his bodily members, is nevertheless, like his soul, his own.

The Anglican Church, on the contrary, in common with all the other Churches of the Reformation, teaches: “that man is justified by an extrinsic righteousness, which is not his own, but the righteousness of Christ; the faith which instrumentally lays hold of it and appropriates it, and which itself is the gift of God, being forensically imputed to him of God, instead of a righteousness which he himself possesses not; so that he is justified through faith, though not on account of faith; the sole particular, on account of which he is justified, being the merit and perfect righteousness of our Lord and only Saviour Jesus Christ.”

Whichever scheme of doctrine may be preferred as most agreeable to Scripture and to antiquity, it is clear, that the two statements here given are at least incapable of misapprehension. Right or wrong, the two schemes stand flatly and diametrically opposed to each other. The Roman Church asserts: the Anglican Church denies. Conversely, the Roman Church denies: the Anglican Church asserts. The Roman Church asserts the doctrine of justification by an infused and personal inherent righteousness: the Anglican Church strenuously denies that doctrine; admitting, indeed, that the inherent righteousness of sanctification is always consequentially present with the really justified; but refusing to it any, even the least, share in “the procurement of justification.” The Roman Church denies, that the ungodly is justified through faith alone, nothing else being required to obtain the grace of justification: the Anglican Church asserts, that the ungodly is justified through faith alone without works, nothing save faith being required to obtain the grace of justification, inasmuch as the office of works is not the procurement of our justification, and inasmuch as it is a contradictory hysteron-proteron to say that works which “follow after” justification, and are its “effect,” can yet “procure” it and be its “cause.”

It has been customary to speak of the doctrine of forensic justification as if it were a Calvinistic doctrine. That Calvin held it is not to be denied, but all history bears witness that it is not a peculiarity of the Calvinistic system.

Calvin was born in 1509, and he was yet a schoolboy, or a pluralist in the Romish Church, (as he became in his twelfth year,) when Luther was using this doctrine, as the doctrine by which to lay low the whole fabric of Romish superstition.

Again, it was the doctrine of our English reformers, as most clearly stated in our Articles and Homilies; and Archbishop Laurence has triumphantly established the historical fact, that our reformers were not Calvinists.