We Affirm that Justification is by Faith Alone

We Affirm that Justification is by Faith Alone 83. Therefore, considering what has been discussed regarding this article—namely, that men are justified by faith in Christ—and having substantiated it with scriptures, refuted the objections of our adversaries, and cited the testimonies of the Fathers to support our position, let us now turn to the third article. We affirm that justification is by faith alone. This assertion finds support in numerous scriptures that teach we are justified freely, without works, and that contrast grace with works. Although the term "only" may not be explicitly stated in scripture, its meaning is necessarily inferred from these passages. It should also be noted, as we have previously explained, that we do not claim the faith by which we are justified exists in our minds without good works. Rather, we assert that this faith alone is what secures justification and the remission of sins. Just as the eye cannot function without other parts of the body, such as the head, brain, heart, and liver, yet it alone apprehends colour and light, similarly, our faith apprehends justification and remission of sins.

Therefore, those who argue against us in this manner—saying, "Faith justifies, but faith is not alone; therefore, faith alone does not justify"—commit a logical fallacy. It's akin to arguing, "Only the will wills, but the will is not alone in the mind; therefore, the will alone does not will." Even children can see the error in this reasoning, which is known as the fallacy of composition and division. Isn't it shameful that such great Divines fail to recognise it?

Yet, Smith, the supposed beacon of divinity, opposes us. He vehemently insisted recently that we falsely claim those passages of

scripture which testify that we are justified freely equate to being justified by faith alone. He argues that the word "freely" does not mean the same as "alone." Oh, what poor grammarians we are!

Apparently, we couldn't understand this commonly used adverb without his guidance. However, this grammatical expert, to avoid appearing entirely foolish, points to instances in Genesis and the Psalms where "freely" is used, arguing that inserting "alone" there would result in absurdity. But he fails to grasp that "freely" means without cause or recompense. Thus, we rightly affirm that justification is by faith alone because it is said to be given freely. If works were required, there would be a cause or reward, but since

"freely" excludes these, it logically follows that justification is by faith alone.

As for the passages he cites, they are easily refuted. Laban's question to Jacob about serving him freely implies without obligation to receive something in return. The Israelites saying they ate fish freely meant they did so without paying. Similarly, the statement "They have hated me freely" means without cause or merit. Therefore, since

Paul says we are justified freely, it must be understood that it is without our own merit or works. Moreover, Smith takes issue with our interpretation of the word "except" in passages like Genesis and John, arguing that it does not equate to "only." However, in these contexts, "except" does imply exclusivity. For example, Joseph meant that his brothers could only see his face if they brought their youngest brother. Likewise, Christ meant that life could only be attained by believing in him, not just by partaking in sacraments.

84. But Smith argues that hope, charity, and other good works should not be excluded from justification. I acknowledge that these should not be absent from a justified person, but I do not attribute to them the power of justifying. Paul's statement that "A man is not

justified by works" would not be true if any kind of works could justify us. It would be like saying a craftsman does not work with his fingers and then admitting he uses his fingers for his work but excluding only one finger, like the little finger, and not the thumb, forefinger, or middle finger. It is evident that using three fingers implies using fingers altogether. So why does Smith say that hope and charity are not excluded? Because, he says, you yourselves argue for justification by a living faith, which certainly includes these virtues. We agree that these virtues are always present with true faith, but we do not consider them part of our justification before God. This argument commits the fallacy of accident, attributing to associated things what properly belongs only to the main subject. It's like saying, "The sun is round and high; therefore, the roundness and height of the sun make us warm."

What works, then, does Smith exclude from justification when he includes hope and charity? I suppose he surely excludes outward works such as fasting and almsgiving. But how can he say or teach this while also appointing and defending preparatory works?

This sharp-witted man thinks he has cleverly escaped by saying that these things are not necessarily required for justification and that they are only beneficial if present. But this is laughable, for we have already plainly taught that all works done before justification are sins and cannot contribute to justification. If they did contribute, we could boast that we had done these things by our own efforts, leading to the exclusion of boasting. However, they argue that we cannot boast because these works were done through the grace of God before justification.

But it's essential to note that these men attribute a significant part of such works to free will, giving us cause for boasting. Some argue that

we cannot boast of this liberty of will because we did not obtain it ourselves; it is God who endowed us with this faculty when He created us.

However, this argument is insufficient to eliminate boasting. First, it would be akin to appealing to the common grace of creation, as the Pelagians did, leaving us with at least a good use of free will to boast about. Although we have free will from God by creation, its proper use is ours—to assent to God's call and engage in good works He has set before us. Augustine reminds us in his book "On the Spirit and the Letter" that the will and choice to do good are from God, not only because He gave us choice and free will in creation but also because

He persuades us to will and believe, both through the outward preaching of the gospel and inward persuasion. While the will acts independently, it is God who ultimately causes us to will and pursue good things.

85. Further, our adversaries believe that although works contribute to justification, it remains true, as the Holy Scriptures teach, that we are justified freely. They argue that these works are given by God and done by grace. If this argument were valid, then Paul would not have acted wisely when he negated the power of ceremonial works to justify. A Jew might argue that their forefathers, who were circumcised and observed other laws, did not do so by their own strength but by the grace of God, which helped and motivated them.

If other works commanded by the law could contribute to justification or merit it, why couldn't ceremonial works do the same?

It is also not sufficient to argue that Paul only removes the power of ceremonial works after the coming of Christ. He clearly speaks of Abraham, justified by faith and not by circumcision, and cites David, who lived under the law.

As for the assertion that charity and hope cannot be excluded, I would like to know if the works of these virtues are considered just. I assume he will agree that they are. But how will he respond to Paul, who tells Titus, "Not by the works of righteousness, which we have done"? I know their counterargument—they claim such works are excluded if done by the law and by free will without grace. But why exclude what cannot be? Who would love or hope in God without grace? Regardless of how they are done, they cannot contribute to justification, for we are justified by grace, as plainly stated in the Scriptures. The contrast between grace and works is so significant that Paul says, "If of grace, then it is not now of works; and if of works, then it is not of grace."

They shouldn't be so displeased that we use the word "only," for we necessarily infer it from what Paul says: "We are justified by faith" and then adds, "Without works." Let me illustrate this apt inference with a simile. In Deuteronomy chapter six (according to the Hebrew), it is written, "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and him thou shalt serve." Although the word "only" is missing here, the Septuagint translates it as, "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and him only thou shalt serve." From the affirmative proposition that God is to be worshipped and the negative one that strange gods are not to be worshipped, they concluded that only God is to be served.

Christ Himself cited this passage in rebuking the devil: "Depart from me, Satan, for it is written: 'Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.'" We see here that the word "only" is necessary to refute worshipping creatures, and though it may not be in the Hebrew, it is necessarily inferred. So when we reason in a similar manner, why should they be so offended?

86. Let them also consider that the best and most ancient fathers did not dislike that word. It is ridiculous to see how Smith attempts to

prevent and answer them with such cold arguments and poor excuses. First, he says they meant nothing else but to restrain men from becoming insolent. But let Smith, in one word, according to his wisdom, answer me: Did the fathers speak truly or falsely? If they spoke truly, then they are on our side. So why does he oppose it so vehemently? But if falsely, this good end does not help them in restraining the insolence of men. Just as evil must not be committed for good to follow, false doctrine must not be affirmed to supplant other false doctrine. But this man undoubtedly is so far beside himself, as he says that this was lawful for the fathers to do. In his book "De Votis," which he published not many years ago, he says that Augustine, in "De Bono Viduitatis," where he wrote that marriages of those who had vowed to remain celibate or live singly are true marriages and not adulteries, wrote the same only to persuade

Juliana the widow (to whom he wrote the book) that marriages in general are not evil. So, in God's name, he confesses that Augustine presents one false doctrine to overthrow another false doctrine.

And with similar wisdom, in the same book, he fabricates that Clement of Alexandria wrote that Paul had a wife (which he thinks is most false) only to prove that marriage is good and honorable. If it is lawful to mix true things with false and confuse everything, when can we then believe the fathers? What can ever be certain to us if we can be deceived thereby? Furthermore, he fabricates that Paul excluded only the works of the law from justification. But we have already refuted this abundantly and have taught that Paul's reasons are general. Yes, the fathers saw even this: for Augustine, in many places, affirms that Paul deals not only with ceremonial works but also with moral works. But because the authority of Augustine is, somehow, suspected by our adversaries, let us see what Jerome says.

He, against the Pelagians, writes to Ctesiphon on the words "By the works of the law, no flesh shall be justified": "Because you think this

is spoken of the law of Moses only and not of all the commandments contained under this one name of the law, the same apostle says, 'I consent unto the law of God.'" There are other fathers who teach the same, but I will pass over them for now. It is enough to show that this other fabricated invention of Smith is vain and trifling.

87. Thirdly, he says that they meant to exclude works (as he calls them) penal; those works (I suppose) which repentant men do. But to show how ridiculous this is also, shall need no long declaration.

For first, such works were required of men; not that by them they should be justified before God, but only to approve themselves unto the church; that is, lest they by a feigned and dissembled repentance should seek to be reconciled. Further, it is not likely that Paul spoke of any such works: for they were not at that time in use. Indeed,

Ambrose, when he excludes works from justification, has herein once or twice a respect. But we ought not so much to consider what one or two of the fathers do say, but what agrees with the holy scriptures.

Smith adds moreover, that it is certain that God requires much more of us than faith: for in Mark, it is thus written; "Repent, and believe."

Here, saith he, unto faith is adjoined repentance. And in another place; "He that believes, and is baptized, shall be saved." He adds also that in the Epistle to the Ephesians; "The church is said to be sanctified by the washing of water in the word." And that Peter in his third chapter of his first epistle says; that "Baptism has made us safe." And that Jerome also thus writes upon the first chapter of Isaiah; "The washing of regeneration does only remit sins." Behold, saith he, justification, and remission of sins are ascribed not only unto faith but also unto the sacraments.

As touching the first, we grant that Christ requires more of us than faith: for who doubts but that he will have men that are justified to live uprightly and to exercise themselves in all kinds of virtues;

otherwise, they shall not come unto eternal salvation? However, these are fruits of faith and effects of justification, and not causes.

But as touching the sacraments, we have many times taught how justification is to be attributed unto them: for they are in the same respect unto justification as is the preaching of the Gospel and the promise concerning Christ, which is offered unto us to salvation. And very often in the scriptures, that which belongs unto the thing is ascribed to the sacrament or sign. And because baptism promises remission of sins by Christ, and signifies it, and seals it in them which are washed; therefore Jerome, of all other sacraments, attributes this unto it only. Wherefore the words of the Fathers ought nothing to move us, when they write thus; that "Faith alone is not sufficient to salvation": for they understand this of that eternal salvation, unto which we come not, except some fruit follows our faith. But of their sayings we ought not to gather that a man is not justified by faith only. And though at any time, the very same fathers seem to refer their words unto justification; yet are they to be understood, that their meaning was to express the nature of the true and justifying faith: for it in very deed is never alone, but has ever hope and charity, and other good works, as companions. Sometimes also by justification, they understand that righteousness, which sticks in us; which without all doubt does not consist or depend on faith only.

88. They think also that this goes against us: for Paul writes to the Romans; "By hope, we are made safe." Neither do they see that hope is there taken for the last regeneration, which we hope we shall one day obtain in the heavenly country: for the apostle a little before spoke of it. And undoubtedly, we possess that salvation only in hope, not as yet in very deed. If there be any, perhaps, whom this most just and most true answer will not suffice; let him follow the interpretation of Origen: for he upon that place says; that hope is

there put for faith: which is no rare thing in the holy scriptures. But they have found yet another foolish device, whereby (as much as lies in them) they do go about to qualify this word Only, which is so often used of the Fathers; namely, that faith only has the beginning, and as it were, the first degree of justification: which afterward is made perfect and full when other good works come unto it. But how vain this is, Paul himself sufficiently teaches: for he does not only say that we are justified by faith only, but also he adds, without works.

Further, this also goes against these men, which is written in the book of Wisdom; "To know God is full righteousness." In which place, it is a sport to see how Smith wrings himself. First, he dares not deny the sentence, for he counts that book for canonical: but as he is of a sharp wit, at last, this he devises; that God is not known by faith only, but also by love. But whoever would say so, but only this man? Undoubtedly, by love, we do not know, but we do love.

But that which is spoken in the book of Wisdom (which yet with me is not of so great authority) Christ himself has most manifestly testified in the Gospel, saying; "This is eternal life, that they know thee, the only true God." Although of this saying also of our savior;

Gardener the Bishop of Winchester, devised of late, I know not what; namely, that to know God, is not properly eternal life, although it somewhat helps forward thereto. But forasmuch as neither the Fathers, nor Paul, nor Christ himself can satisfy these men; there is no hope that we shall anything prevail with our reasons. They add moreover, that the Fathers say that only faith justifies; that is, it is the principalest thing whereby we are justified. I confess indeed that Only sometimes signifies Principal. But this sense cannot agree with Paul's purpose: for if charity be compared with faith, charity (as Paul says) is more excellent and better. Wherefore, if both of them justify

(as these men will have it) then should charity have the chiefest part, and not faith. And this also is a great let unto these men, which I

have oftentimes spoken of, that Paul so ascribes justification unto faith, that he says; "Without works." But Augustine (say they) unto

Simplicianus writes; that "By faith we begin to be justified." Unto this we may answer two manner of ways; first, that that beginning is such, that in very deed it hath the very full and whole justification. So that Augustine's meaning is, that we are justified so soon as we have faith. Or if this pleases them not, we will say (as the truth is indeed) that Augustine meant of the righteousness which sticks in us.

They cite also Ambrose, upon the fifth chapter unto the Galatians; "In Christ, &c." For (says he) we have need of faith only, in charity to justification. Behold (say they) unto justification we have no less need of charity than of faith. But they are far deceived: for by those words Ambrose meant nothing else, but to make a distinction between true faith and vain opinion: therefore he says; that we have need of faith only, namely, that which is joined with charity. But Jerome upon the fifth chapter unto the Galatians, says; that "It is charity only, which makes clean the heart." What other thing else shall we here answer, but that this his saying (if it be sharply and sincerely urged) is false? For it is faith also which purifies the hearts, as it is written in the Acts of the apostles. And Paul unto Timothy says; "Charity out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, &c." By which words it is plain, that the heart must of necessity first be pure, before charity can come. Wherefore we will interpret that sentence by the effect, and as touching our knowledge: for then it is most certain that we are regenerate and have a clean heart when we be endued with charity. After this manner also have we before expounded this; "Many sins are forgiven her, because she loved much."

89. And by the self-same means also, may that saying of Augustine, in his book De natura & gratia, the 38th chapter, be answered unto;

"It is the charity of God," says he, "by which only, he is just, whosoever is just." But this seems also best unto me, to understand such sayings of the fathers to concern that righteousness, which abides and sticks in us: for that consists not only of faith, but also of all virtues and good works. Now, because amongst all virtues, charity is the principal; therefore the fathers sometimes attribute righteousness unto it only. And that which our adversaries have most unjustly usurped, to expound this word Only, for Principal or chief, may in this place most justly serve us: for here we treat not of that justification, which is had by imputation; but of that which we attain to after regeneration. Wherefore, in this our proposition, we exclude not from a man that is justified, hope, charity, and other good works: but this only we say, that they have not the power, or cause, or merit of justifying. And when we say, that a man is justified by faith only; we say nothing else undoubtedly, but that a man is justified only by the mercy of God, and by the merit of Christ only: which cannot be apprehended by any other instrument, than by faith only.

Neither must we give place unto our adversaries, not to use this word Only, though they cry out never so much, that of it springs great offense; and men's minds are by this persuasion somewhat weakened in the exercise of virtues. For by sound doctrine we do easily remedy these inconveniences: for we always teach, that it is not justification, or true faith, which lacks the fruits of good life. But we see the subtle and crafty device of these men: for if we should say, that a man is simply justified by faith, leaving out this word Only; straightway they would add of their own, that a man indeed is justified by faith: but yet he is no less justified by hope, and charity, and other good works.

For this very cause the Catholics, in times past, would not permit unto the Arians this word ὁμοούσιος, that is, Consubstantial, or Of like substance: because they would straightway have said, that The son indeed, by appellation or name, is God, like unto the father, and

in a manner equal unto him; but yet not of one and the self-same nature and substance. Wherefore they did with tooth and nail defend and keep still this word ὁμοούσιος, that is, Consubstantial, or Of one and the self-same substance, as a word most apt to express the truth of that controversy. Which they might also by good right do; and chiefly, for that they saw, that that word was of necessity concluded out of the holy scriptures: out of which also is most evidently concluded this our word Only; and is thought of us a word most meet to confute the errors of those, which would have justification to come of works.

Moreover, Gardener, bishop of Winchester, counted this our proposition to be absurd; and against it, amongst other arguments, he used this, the which to me doubtless is very strange, that it is so greatly esteemed of some of his parasites; "The righteousness," says he, "that is given us of God, whereby we are justified, pertains to all the faculties and powers of the mind, or rather to the whole man;

Therefore we are not justified by faith only: for that pertains only unto the higher part of the soul." Here (gentle reader) that thou be not deceived, lies hidden a double fallacy or deceit. For first, grant, that that righteousness, which is given unto us, pertains unto the whole man, and unto all the powers and faculties of the mind: shall it therefore follow, that that righteousness, which is offered of God, is not apprehended by faith only? Undoubtedly, the meat which we eat, is distributed into all the members, and into the whole body; and yet it is received with the mouth only, and not with the whole body.

Further, the disputation is not about any righteousness, which is fastened and sticks in us; which in very deed is dispersed in the whole man: but about justification, which is the forgiveness of sins.

But this righteousness hath no place nor seat in our minds, but in GOD alone, by whose will only our sins are forgiven us.

90. But now, since this article has been sufficiently defended against the cavillations of importunate men, we will omit this, and briefly declare that the ancient fathers did not dislike this word Only, which our adversaries so greatly shun. Origen, upon the epistle to the Romans, upon these words; "Thy glory is excluded. By what law? By the law of deeds? No, but by the law of faith. For we suppose that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law." The justification (says he) of faith only is sufficient, that a man only believing should be justified, although he have done no good work at all. And for example, he brings forth that thief, which was crucified together with Christ; and that woman, unto whom Christ answered;

"Thy faith hath made thee say." Afterward, he objects unto himself that a man hearing these same things might be made secure, and contemn good works. But he answers that he who, after justification, lives not uprightly, casts away the grace of justification: for no man

(says he) receives forgiveness of sins to use license to sin; for pardon is given, not of faults to come, but of sins past. Than which sentence nothing can be said more conformable to our doctrine. Cyprian to Quirinus, in his 42nd chapter; "Faith (says he) only profiteth, and look how much we believe, so much are we able to do."

Basil, in his sermon De humilitate, writes; that "A man is justified by faith only." Hilary also upon Matthew, the 8th chapter; "Faith (says he) only justifieth." Ambrose, upon the 5th chapter unto the Romans, upon these words; "Being justified freely: Because (says he) they working nothing, nor rendering turn for turn, are by faith only justified by the gift of GOD." The same author upon these words;

"According to the purpose of the grace of God; So Paul (says he) saith; It was decreed of God, that the law ceasing, only faith should be required unto salvation." And straightway after; "God hath ordained, that men should by faith only, without labor, and any observation, be justified before God." The same father, upon the first

chapter of the second epistle unto the Corinthians; "It is appointed (says he) by God, that he which believeth in Christ, shall be saved without works, by faith only." And he hath the like sentences, in his book De vocatione gentium.

Out of Chrysostom I could bring a great many places to confirm this sentence: but of them I will pick out only a few. Upon the third chapter unto the Romans, upon these words; "Thy glory is excluded:

In this (says he) is set forth the might and power of God, in that he hath saved, justified, and wrought our rejoicing by faith only, without works." And at the beginning of the fourth chapter; "That a man being destitute of works should be justified by faith, peradventure it may appear to be well: but that a man, being adorned with virtues and good works, is not for all that justified by them, but by faith only; this assuredly is wonderful." Hereby our adversaries may understand that although faith have (as companions) hope, charity, and other good works, (which cannot be doubted of, but that they were in Abraham;) yet they do serve nothing to the comprehending of righteousness. And on the 10th chapter, upon these words; "They being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and going about to establish their own righteousness, were not subject to the righteousness of God: He calleth (says he) the righteousness of God, that righteousness, which is of faith; because we without labor, are by faith only justified through the gift of GOD." Of Augustine, I will speak nothing: for he is full of this matter against the Pelagians: and every man may easily by his writings confirm it.

Hesychius upon Leviticus, in his first book and second chapter; "Grace (says he) is apprehended by faith only, not by works." The very thing he in a manner has in his 4th book, and 14th chapter.

Theophilactus, upon the third chapter unto the Galatians, expounding these words; "Because by the law, no man is justified

before God: Now (says he) Paul plainly declareth, that faith even alone hath in it the power to justify." Phocius upon the fifth chapter unto the Romans; "Justification (says he) consisteth of faith only."

Acacius in Oecumenius, upon the first chapter unto the Romans; "He hath only (says he) by faith raised up, and quickened us, being mortified by sins." Bernard, in his 22nd sermon upon the Canticles;

"By faith only (says he) he that is justified, shall have peace." And in the self-same sermon; "That wanteth (says he) of grace, whatsoever thou ascribest unto merits. Grace maketh me justified freely."

Whome these things suffice not, let them read Gennadius, upon the fifth chapter unto the Romans; Cyril, in his ninth book, and third chapter upon John; Theodoretus, upon the fifth chapter to the Romans; Didymus, upon the second chapter of James; Eusebius, in his ecclesiastical history, the third book, and 27th chapter; Cyprian, or whatsoever he were in his exposition of the articles of our faith;

Lyranus, upon the third to the Galatians; The ordinary Gloss, upon the epistle unto James; Haimo, upon the Gospel of circumcision;

Sedulius, upon the first and second chapters unto the Romans; Thomas, upon the third to the Galatians; Bruno, upon the fourth unto the Romans; Arnobius, upon the 106th Psalm. Now I think I have spoken enough, as touching this question.

Osiander's feigned devise, as touching essential righteousness, is confuted in the epistle to the Lords of Polonia.

-----

MONERGISM BOOKS

Conventions. By downloading this eBook, you have been granted the non-exclusive, non-transferable right to access and read the text of this e-book on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, downloaded, decompiled, reverse engineered, or stored in or introduced into any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafter invented, without the express written permission of Monergism Books. ePub, .mobi & .pdf Editions April 2024. Requests for information should be addressed to: Monergism Books, PO Box 491, West Linn

Or 97068.

↑ Back to top