put in execution, touching matters ecclesi-
astical, without the royal assent ; nor would
the king submit himself in point of fealty
to the pope, as appears by his epistle to
Gregory VH. Yet in his next successor's
time, namely, in the time of King William
Ilufus, the pope, by Anselm, archbishop
of Canterbury, attempted to draw appeals
to Home, but did not prevail. Upon this
occasion it was, that the king said to An-
selm, that none of his bishops ought to be
subject to the pope, but the pope himself
ought to be su])ject to the emperor; and
that the king of England had the same
absolute liberty in his dominions, as the
emperor had in the empire. Yet in the
time of the next king, King Henry I., the
pope usurped the patronage and donation
of bishoprics, and of all other benefices ec-
clesiastical. At this time, Anselm told the
king, that the patronage and investiture of
bishops was not his right, because Pope
Urban had lately made a decree, that no
lay person should give any ecclesiastical
414
JUSTIFICATION.
benefice. And after this, at a synod held
at London, in the year 1107, a decree Avas
made to wliich the kin*^ assented, that
from thenceforth no person should be in-
vested in a bishopric by the G:iving of a
ring and ])astoral staff (as had been be-
fore) ; nor by any lay hand. Upon which
the pope granted that the archbishop of
Canterbury for the time being should be
for ever ler/atus tiatus : and Anselm for the
honour of his see obtained, that the arch-
bishop of Canterbury should in all general
councils sit at the pope's foot, as alterius
orhis impa, or pope of this part of the
world. Yet after Anselm's death, this
same king gave the archbishopric of Can-
terbury to Kodolph, bishop of London, and
invested him with the ring and pastoral
staff; and this because the succeeding
popes had broken Pope Urban's promise,
touching the not sending of legates into
England unless the king should require it.
And in the time of the next king. King
Stephen, the pope gained appeals to the
court of Rome ; lor in a synod at London,
convened by Henry, bishop of Winchester,
the pope's legate, it was decreed, that ap-
peals should be made from provincial
councils to the pope: before which time
appeals to Rome were not in use. Thus
did the pope usurp three main points of
jurisdiction, upon three several kings after
the Conquest, (for of King William Rufus
he could gain nothing,) viz. upon the
Conqueror, the sending of the legates or
commissioners to hear and determine ec-
clesiastical causes ; upon Henry I., the
donation and investiture of bishoprics and
other benefices ; and upon King Stephen,
the appeals to the court of Rome. And
in the time of King Henry H., the pope
claimed exemption for clerks from the
secular power. And finally, in the time of
King John, he took the crown from off
the king's head, and compelled him to ac-
cept his kingdom from the pope's donation.
Nevertheless all this was not obtained
without violent struggle and opposition :
and this caused the statutes of provisors
to be made, in the reigns of King Edward
IIL and King Richard H. The limits
of ecclesiastical jurisdiction were finally
settled by the statute of 24 Henry YHL
c. 12. Jurisdiction is also applied to
the power vested in certain dignitaries,
as dean, chancellor, &c., in some cathe-
drals ; and in many, w'hen each indivi-
dual prebendary had a peculiar jurisdic-
tion.
JUSTIFICATION. (See Faith and
Sanctijication.) Justification, in the lan-
guage of Scripture, signifies our being
accounted just or righteous in the sight of
God. — To7nUne.
A clear understanding of the difference
between the Church of England and the
Church of Rome upon this subject is most
important, since the difference between the
tM'o Churches on this point causes an essen-
tial and vital difference through the whole
system of their theology. The definition
of the Church of England is set forth in
her Articles and Homilies : and it is there
propounded in a manner so perspicuous, as
to preclude, it might well be thought, all
possibility of misapprehension.
As contained in the eleventh and twelfth
and thirteenth Articles, the definition runs
in terms following :
" We are accounted righteous before GoD,
only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ, by faith ; and not for our
own works or deservings. Wherefore,
that we are justified by faith only, is a
most wholesome doctrine and very full of
comfort : as more largely is expressed in
the homily of justification.
" Albeit that good works, which are the
fruits of faith and follow after justification,
cannot put away our sins and endure the
severity of God's judgment ; yet are they
pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ,
and do spring out necessarily of a true and
lively faith; insomuch that, by them, a
lively faith may be as evidently knoA\Ti, as
a tree is discerned by the fruit.
"Works done before the grace of Christ
and the inspiration of his Spirit, are not
pleasant to GoD, forasmuch as they spring-
not of faith in Jesus Christ ; neither do
they make men meet to receive grace, or
(as the school-authors say) deserve grace
of congruity ; yea, rather, for that they are
not done as GoD hath willed and com-
manded them to be done, we doubt not
but they have the nature of sin."
The homily refeiTed to in the eleventh
Article, under the title of The Humily of
Justifjcation, is styled, in the first Book of
Homilies itself, "A sermon of the salva-
tion of mankind, by only Christ our
Saviour, from sin and death everlasting:"
and this homily is described as more
largely expressing the doctrine of justifi-
cation than the necessary brevity of an
article admitted. Therefore, obviously,
the 'statement contained in it challenges
our especial attention.
" Because all men be sinners and offend-
ers against God, and breakers of his law
and commandments ; therefore can no man,
by his own acts, words, and deeds, (seem
they never so good,) be justified and made
righteous before God : but every man of
JUSTIFICATION.
415
necessity is constrained to seek for another
righteousness of justification, to be re-
ceived at God's own hands ; that is to say,
the forgiveness of his sins and trespasses
in such things as he hath offended. And
this justification or righteousness, wliich
we so receive of God's mercy and Christ's
merits, embraced by faith, is taken, ac-
cepted, and allowed, of GoD, for our per-
fect and full justification.
" The apostle toucheth specially three
things, which must go together in our jus-
tification : upon God's part, his great
mercy and grace ; upon Christ's part,
justice, that is, the satisfaction of God's
justice, or the price of our redemption by
the offering of his body and shedding of
his blood, with fulfilling of the law per-
fectly and thoroughly ; and, upon our part,
true and lively faith in the merits of Jesus
Christ, which yet is not ours but by God's
working in us. So that, in our justifica-
tion, there is not only God's mercy and
grace, but also his justice, which the apostle
calleth the justice of God : and it consist-
eth, in paying our ransom, and fulfilling
of the law. And so the grace of God doth
not shut out the justice of God in our
justification, but only shutteth out the
justice of man, that is to say, the justice
of our works, as to be merits of deserving
our justification. And therefore St. Paul
dcclareth nothing upon the behalf of man
concerning his justification, but only a
true and lively faith : which, nevertheless,
is the gift of God, and not man's only
work without God. And yet that faith
doth not shut out repentance, hope, love,
dread, and the fear of GoD, to be joined
with faith in every man that is justified ;
but it shutteth them out from the oflSce
of justifying. So that, although they be
all present together in him that is justified,
yet they justify not altogether. Neither
doth faith shut out the justice of our good
works, necessarily to be done afterwards
of duty toward God ; for we are most
bounden to serve God, in doing good
deeds, commanded by him in his Holy
Scripture, all the days of our life : but it
excludcth them, so that we may not do
them to this intent, to be made just by
doing of them. For all the good works
that we can do, be imperfect ; and, there-
fore, not able to deserve our justification.
But our justification doth come freely, by
the mere mercy of God, and of so great
and free mercy, that, whereas all the
world was not able of themselves to pay
any part toward their ransom, it pleased
our heavenly Father of his infinite mercy,
without any our desert or deserving, to
prepare for us the most precious jewels of
Christ's body and blood ; whereby our
ransom might be fully ])uid, the law ful-
filled, and his justice fully satisfied. So
that Christ is now the righteousness of
all tlicm that truly do believe in him. He,
for them, paid tlieir ransom by his death.
He, for them, fulfilled the law in his life.
So that now, in him and by him, every
true Christian man may be called a ful-
filler of the law ; forasmuch as that, which
their infirmity lacked, Christ's justice
hath supplied.
" That Me be justified by faith only,
freely, and without works, we do read oft-
times in the best and most ancient writers :
as, beside Hilary, Basil, and St. Ambrose,
we read the same in Origen, St. Chrysos-
tom, St, Cyprian, St. Augustine, Prosper,
Q^cumenius, Photius, Bernardus, Anselm,
and many other writers, Greek and Latin.
Nevertheless, this sentence, that ' we be
justified by faith only,' is not so meant of
them that the said justifying faith is
alone in man, without true repentance,
hope, charity, dread, and the fear of God,
at any time and season. Nor, when they
say, that we should be justified freely, do
they mean that we should or might after-
ward be idle, and that nothing should be
required on our parts afterward. Neither
do they mean so to be justified without
good works, that Ave should do no good
v.'orks at all. But this saying, that ' we
be justified by faith only, freely, and with-
out works,' is spoken for to take away
clearly all merit of our works, as being
unable to deserve our justification at
God's hands, and thereby most plainly to
express the weakness of man and the good-
ness of God, the great infirmity of our-
selves and the might and ])0wer of GoD,
the imperfection of our ov/n works and
the most abundant grace of our Saviour
Christ ; and therefore wholly to ascribe
the merit and deserving of our justifica-
tion unto Christ only, and his most pre-
cious blood-shedding. This faith the Holy
8cri])ture teacheth us: this is the strong
rock and foundation of the Christian reli-
gion : this doctrine all old ancient authors
of Christ's Church do a])prove : this doc-
trine advanceth and setteth forth the true
glory of Christ, and beateth down the
vain glory of man : this whosoever denieth,
is not to be accounted for a Christian man,
nor for a setter-forth of Christ's glory,
but for an adversary to Christ and his
gospel, and for a setter-forth of men's vain
glory."
The doctrine of the Church of Rome
must be taken from the Council of Trent.
416
JUSTIFICATION.
The exposition of the Tridentine fathers,
assembled in their sixth session, runs
through sixteen chapters ; and so extreme
is its verboseness, and so perplexing is its
incessant alternation, that we might be
somewhat puzzled to form a distinct idea
of their views in respect to justification, if
the last of those chapters had not given us,
in the shape of an article or summary, the
result of their prolix theologising.
Omitting, then, the discussion upon
which their definition is built, we will
proceed immediately to the definition
itself.
" Since Jesus Christ, as the head into
the members and as the vine into the
branches, perpetually causes his virtue to
flow into the justified ; which virtue al-
ways precedes and accompanies and fol-
lows their good works, and without which
they would in nowise be grateful to God
and meritorious ; we must believe, that
nothing more is wanting to the justified
themselves, which need prevent us from
thinking, both that they can satisfy the
Divine law according to the state of this
life, by those works which are performed
in God ; and that, in their own time, pro-
vided they depart in grace, they may truly
merit the attainment of eternal life.
" Thus, neither our own proper right-
eousness is so determined to be our own, as
if it were from ourselves ; nor is the right-
eousness of God either unknown or re-
jected. 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 esti-
mated 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 in-
sisted 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. Where-
fore, the first receipt of grace, in their di-
vinity, is the first justification : the in-
crease 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, with-
out 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 justi-
fication, 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 ap-
plied by holy water, Ave Marias, cross-
ings, papal salutations, and such like :
which serve for reparations of grace de-
cayed. To such as have lost it through
mortal sin, it is applied by the sacrament
(as they term it) of penance: which sa-
JUSTIFICATION.
417
crament hath force to confer grace anew ;
yet in such sort, that, being so conferred,
It hath not altogether so much ])o\vcr as at
the first. For it only cleanscth out the
stain or guilt of sin committed ; and
changeth the punishment eternal into a
temporal satisfactory i)unishment — here, if
time do serve, if not, hereafter, to be en-
dured ; except it be lightened by masses,
works of charity, pilgrimages, fasts, and
such like ; or else shortened by ])ardon
for term, or by plenary pardon quite re-
moved and taken away. This is the mys-
tery of the man of sin. This maze the
Church of Home doth cause her followers
to tread, when they ask her the way to
justification. AVhether 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 Ave 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, "svherein we must
be found, if we will be justified, is ' not
our own.' Therefore Ave cannot be justi-
fied by any inherent quality. The Church
of Rome, in teaching justification by in-
herent grace, doth pervert the truth of
Christ : and, by the hands of the apos-
tles, Ave have received otherAvise than she
teacheth. Xoav, concerning the righteous-
ness of sanctification, aac deny it not to be
inherent : Ave grant, that, unless Ave work,
Vfe have it not : only Ave distinguish it, as
a thing diff'erent in nature from the right-
eousness of justification. By the one, AA^e
are interested in the j'u/Iit of i/iherithiff :
by the other, Ave are brought to the actual
possession of eternal bliss. And so the
end of both is ' everlasting life.' "
The diff"erence betAveen the tAvo systems
may be pointed out in a fcAV Avords. The
Romish Church teaches that a man is jus-
tified by an inherent righteousness, Avhich,
though originally a gift of God, as are his
soul and his bodily members, is neverthe-
less, like his soul, his OAvn.
The Anglican Church, on the contrary,
in common Avith all the other Churches of
the Reformation, teaches : " that man is
justified by an extrinsic righteousness,
Avhich is not his OAvn, but the righteous-
ness of Christ ; the faith Avhich instru-
mentally lays hold of it and appropriates
it, and Avhich itself is the gift of God, be-
ing forensically imputed to him of God,
instead of a righteousness Avhich he him-
self possesses not ; so that he is justified
throu'jh faith, though not on account of
2 E
faith ; the sole particular, on account of
Avhich he is justified, being the merit and
perfect righteousness of our Lord and
only Saviour Jksus Christ."
AMiichever scheme of doctrine may be
preferred as most agreeable to Scripture
and to antiquity, it is clear, that the tAvo
statements here given are at least incapa-
ble of misapprehension. Right or Avrong,
the tAvo schemes stand flatly and diametri-
cally opposed to each other. The Roman
Church asserts : the Anglican Church de-
nies. Conversely, the Roman Church de-
nies : the Anglican Church asserts. The
Roman Church asserts the doctrine of jus-
tification by an infused and personal inhe-
rent righteousness : the Anglican Church
strenuously denies that doctrine ; admit-
ting, indeed, that the inherent righteous-
ness of sanctification is ahvays consequen-
tially present Avith 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 jus-
tification : the Anglican Church asserts,
that the ungodly is justified through faith
alone Avithout Avorks, nothing save faith
being required to obtain the grace of jus-
tification, inasmuch as the ofltice of Avorks
is not the procurement of our justification,
and inasmuch as it is a contradictory hys-
teron-proteron to say that Avorks Avhich
"folloAV after" justification, and are its
"efi"ect," can yet "procure" it and belts
" cause."
It has been customary to speak of the
doctrine of forensic justification as if it
Avere a Calvinistic doctrine. That Calvin
held it is not to be denied, but all history
bears Avitness that it is not a 2)ect(liarifi/ of
the Cahdnistic system.
Calvin Avas born in 1509, and he Avas yet
a schoolboy, or a pluralist in the Romish
Church, (as he became in his tAvelfth year,)
Avhen Luther Avas using this doctrine, as
the doctrine by AA'hich to lay Ioav the Avhole
fabric of Romish superstition.
Again, it Avas the doctrine of our Eng-
lish 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.
If Ave Avish for a clear statement of the
doctrine of forensic justification, Ave may
indeed refer to Bishop AndreAves ; and the
theology of AndrcAves had certainly no
affinity to that of Calvin. Let the reader
peruse Avith attention the folloAving pas-
sage from his sermon on justification.
418
JUSTIFICATION.
KEYS, POWER OF THE.
" In the Scripture, then, there is a double
righteousness set down, both in the Old
and in the New Testament.
" In the Old, and in the very first place
that righteousness is named in the Bible :
' Abraham believed, and it was accounted
unto him for righteousness.' A righteous-
ness accounted. And again, in the very
next line, it is mentioned, * Abraham will
teach his house to do righteousness.' A
righteousness done. In the New likewise.
The former, in one chapter, even the
fourth to the Romans, no fewer than
eleven times, Reputatum est illi ad justi-
tiam. A reputed righteousness. The
latter in St. John : ' My beloved, let no
man deceive you, he that doeth righteous-
ness is righteous.' A righteousness done.
AVhich is nothing else but our just dealing,
upright carriage, honest conversation. Of
these, the latter the philosophers them-
selves conceived and acknowledged ; the
other is proper to Christians only, and al-
together unknoAvn in philosophy. The one
is a quality of the party ; the other, an act
of the judge declaring or pronouncing
righteous. The one ours by influence or
infusion, the other by account or imputa-
tion. That both these there are, there is
no question. The question is, whether of
these the prophet here principally meaneth
in this Name ? This shall we best inform
ourselves of by looking back to the verse
before, and without so looking back we
shall never do it to purpose. There the
prophet setteth one before us, in his royal
judicial power, in the person of a king, and
of a king set down to execute judgment;
and this he telleth us, before he thinks
meet to tell us his name. Before this
king, thus set down in his throne, there
to do judgment, the righteousness that
will stand against the law, our conscience,
Satan, sin, the gates of hell, and the power
of darkness ; and so stand that we may be
delivered by it from death, despair, and
damnation; and entitled by it to life, sal-
vation, and happiness eternal ; that is
righteousness indeed, that is it we seek for,
if we may find it. And that is not this
latter, but the former only ; and therefore
that is the true interpretation of Jehovah
jusiitia nostra. Look but how St. Augus-
tine and the rest of the Fathers, when they
have occasion to mention that place in the
Proverbs, Cian Bex Justus sedtrit in solio,
quis potest dicere, Mundum est cor meum ? —
look how they interpret it then, and it will
give us light to understand this name;
and we shall see, that no name will serve
then, but this name. Nor this name
neither, but with this interpretation of it.
And that the Holy Ghost would have it
ever thus understood, and us ever to re-
present before our eyes this King thus
sitting in his judgment-seat, when we
speak of this righteousness, it is plain two
ways. 1. By way of position. For the
tenor of the Scripture touching our justi-
fication all along runneth in judicial terms,
to admonish us still what to set before us.
The usual joining of justice and judgment