salvation his own act.

Moreover, it brought back into the Church the conception of earning a reward, against which S. Paul's whole teaching on grace was directed.1 The scholastic opinions and distinctions, however, on this subject have never been formally adopted by the Church of Rome. The idea of congruous merit was rightly condemned as bordering on Pelagianism by some of the Tridentine divines, and the decrees of the Council avoided altogether the phrases meritum de congruo and de condigno; and while, on the one hand, they guarded against Pelagianism by anathematising anyone who should say "that without the preventing inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and His help, man can believe, hope love, or be penitent, as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be conferred upon him," 2 on the other hand they condemned the assertion that "all works done before justification, in what manner soever they be done, are truly sins, or deserve the hatred of God."

III. The Teaching of the Article upon the Subject.

In considering what the teaching of the Article really is, it is important to remember the exact phrase to which attention has been previously drawn, “Works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of His Spirit," and also to bear in mind the fact already

1 The illustration commonly given to explain the scholastic distinction brings this out very clearly. A servant, it is said, deserves his wages de condigno: he may deserve support in sickness or old age de congruo.

2 "Si quis dixerit, sine præveniente Spiritus Sancti inspiratione, atque ejus adjutorio, hominem credere, sperare, diligere, aut pœnitere posse, sicut oportet, ut ei justificationis gratia conferatur: anathema sit.”—Conc Trid. Sess. VI. canon iii.

"Si quis dixerit opera omnia quæ ante justificationem fiunt, quacumque ratione facta sint, vere esse peccata, vel odium Dei mereri, aut quanto vehementius quis nititur se disponere ad gratiam, tanto eum gravius peccare: anathema sit."-Canon vii.

established, that grace may be and sometimes is given before justification. When due weight is given to these two considerations, it will be seen that there is really nothing in the Article which in any way depreciates the good works of those who, born in an inferior system, make such use of the opportunities granted to them as to draw down further blessings upon them. Article X. has asserted that "the condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works to faith and calling upon God." The Article before us supplements this by maintaining that 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 . . . deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but that they have the nature of sin. What it is intended to deny in each case is the semiPelagian notion, revived by some of the schoolmen, that in certain cases the initiative in the work of salvation rests with man. But we are not called upon by sub. scribing these Articles either to deny that God looks with favour upon the good deeds of men who are outside His covenant, or to maintain that the virtues of the heathen are really sins. All we deny is that they "deserve grace of congruity"; for if grace be a supernatural gift freely bestowed by God on men in order that they may attain eternal life, then certainly grace is found working outside the Christian covenant, and influencing men before they are (in theological language) "justified.” 1 Wherever, then, a work that is really good can be found

"They who acknowledge no grace of God, save that one only which is infused in justification, or who contend that at least that one goes before

done by men trained in any system, it is to be ascribed to the action of God's grace, and not to the man's own unaided efforts.1 Thus in the case of Cornelius, to which the upholders of the doctrine of congruous merit made their appeal, we may fearlessly assert that his "prayers and alms" were "pleasant and acceptable to God" (grata Deo), for so much is involved in the statement that they "came up for a memorial before God" (Acts x. 4). But we deny that they were due to his own natural strength." We deny also that they "deserved

all others, greatly err; since they cannot deny that faith at least precedes justification in nature, which faith we certainly have not from ourselves, but from the preventing grace of Christ. More rightly, therefore, do other Protestants, who are more sound and moderate, willingly concede that various disposing and preparing acts, produced in us through the Holy Ghost assisting, and not by the sole powers of our freewill, are required before justification, though most of them deny to these acts any power of justifying.”—Bp. W. Forbes, Considerationes Modestæ, vol. i. p. 25.

1 Hardwick (Articles, p. 402) quotes in illustration of this the following from Bishop Woolton's Christian Manual, p. 43 (Ed. Parker Society): "Albeit the works of heathen men are not to be compared with thou works of faithful men engraffed in the Church of Christ; yet for causes, and principally for that without all controversy, all good gifts and endowments even in the paynims, are God's good gifts, they have the title and name of good works in some respects given unto them." Cf. The Life and Letters of F. J. A. Hort, vol. ii. p. 337: "The principle underlying Article XIII. seems to me to be this, that there are not two totally different modes of access to God for men, faith for Christians, meritorious performance for non-Christians. There is but one mode of access, faith; and but one perfect, and, as it were, normal faith, that which rests on the revelation in the person of Jesus Christ. But faith itself, not being an intellectual assent to propositions, but an attitude of heart and mind, is present in a more or less rudimentary state in every upward effort and aspiration of men. Doubtless the faith of nonChristians (and much of the faith of Christians for that matter) is not in the strict sense "faith in Jesus Christ"; and therefore I wish the Article were otherwise worded. But such faith, when ripened, grows into the faith of Jesus Christ; as also it finds its rational justification in the revelation made through Him. Practically the principle of the Article teaches us to regard all the good there is in the world as what one may call imperfect Christianity, not as something essentially different, requir ing, so to speak, to be dealt with by God in a wholly different manner.'

"

grace of congruity," for we maintain that they were actually done by the aid of Divine grace, and that thus, although they were done "before justification," they cannot truly be described as "works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of His Spirit"; for, as Augustine says, "Whatever of good works Cornelius performed as well before he believed in Christ as when he believed, and after he had believed, are all to be ascribed to God."1

It should be added, however, that a different interpretation of the Article from that here given is possible. On the view that the use of the term "grace" is to be limited to Christian works, there will be no discrepancy between the title and the body of the Article, and the Article in denying the semi-Pelagian theory of congruous merit will be taken as simply expressing the broad contrast between what is within and what is without the covenant. Works which are without it, even if done auxilio Dei, are not technically grata Deo, a phrase which in scholastic language is reserved for "good," i.e. Christian works, viz. those done by the aid of "grace" (cf. the language of Art. XII.). They must then broadly be said not necessarily to be sins, as Luther maintained, but at least to have rationem peccati (cf. Art. IX.), as not springing from faith in Jesus Christ, just as S. John speaks of the whole world (outside the Christian Church) as "lying in the evil one," though not thereby in the least intending to deny the possibility of the action of God's Holy Spirit on man apart from conscious knowledge of his Saviour.

On either interpretation the general result is much the same, it being quite clear that the real object of the Article is simply to guard against the practical revival of Pelagianism by the scholastic theory of congruous merit. De Prædest. Sanctorum, c. vii.

ARTICLE XIV

De Operibus Supererogationis.

Opera quæ supererogationis appellant, non possunt sine arrogantia et impietate prædicari. Nam illis declarant homines non tantum se Deo reddere quæ tenentur, sed plus in ejus gratiam facere quam deberent: cum aperte Christus dicat: Cum feceritis omnia quæcunque præcepta sunt vobis, dicite: Servi inutiles sumus.

Of Works of Supererogation. Voluntary works besides, over and above God's commandments, which they call works of supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety. For by them men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for His sake than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ saith plainly, When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We be unprofitable ser

vants.

THIS Article dates from 1553, the only change made in it in Elizabeth's reign being the substitution of impiety" for "iniquity," as more accurately representing the Latin "impietate." 1

Its object is, of course, to condemn the Romish teaching on "works of supererogation." The same teaching is also condemned in the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, in a passage which admirably illustrates the article: "Tum et illorum arrogantia comprimenda est, et authoritate legum domanda, qui supererogationis opera quædam importaverunt, quibus existimant non solum cumulate Dei legibus, et explete satisfieri, sed aliquid etiam in illis amplius superesse quam Dei mandata

1 In 1553 and 1563 the title was "Opera Supererogationis." The change to its present form was made in 1571.