Santification by Grace or through Works

I've been preaching through Galatians, the premier text when it comes to defending the gospel of justification by grace through faith. The practical theologian in me has wrestled with what that means after we've come to salvation...what about sanctification?

Thankfully, the Purtians were full of spiritual wisdom on practical Christianity. In the article below, we learn the distinction between increasing in holiness because we're increasing in grace and increasing in outward righteousness because we're obsessed with the law (instead of the lawgiver). I hope it proves edifying to you as well.

The Difference Between Legal and Gospel Mortification[1]

---

By Ralph Erskine

Mr Ralph Erskine (1685-1752) was the son of a Covenanter, a Scottish Presbyterian minister who was imprisoned for field-preaching and refusing to countenance the official episcopalian church. A younger brother of the famous preacher Ebenezer Erskine, Ralph was an evangelical pastor with a love for the truth of God’s Word and the doctrines of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is still well known for his “gospel sonnets”, a collection of evangelical poems intended to press home particular Gospel truths. The Erskine brothers were “Marrow Men”, supporting Mr Thomas Boston’s reprinting of the “Marrow of Modern Divinity”, a Puritan book which distinguishes the Covenant of Works from the Covenant of Grace.

---

1. Gospel and legal mortification differ in their principles from which they proceed. Gospel mortification is from gospel principles, viz. the Spirit of God [Rom. 8. 13], 'If ye through the Spirit mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live'; Faith in Christ [Acts 15. 9], 'Purifying their hearts by faith'; The love of Christ constraining [2 Cor. 5. 14], 'The love of Christ constraineth us.' But legal mortification is from legal principles such as, from the applause and praise of men, as in the Pharisees; from pride of self-righteousness, as in Paul before his conversion; from the fear of hell; from a natural conscience; from the example of others; from some common motions of the Spirit; and many times from the power of sin itself, while one sin is set up to wrestle with another, as when sensuality and self-righteousness wrestle with one another. The man, perhaps, will not drink and swear. Why? Because he is setting up and establishing a righteousness of his own, whereby to obtain the favour of God here is but one sin wrestling with another.

2. They differ in their weapons with which they fight against sin. The gospel believer fights with grace's weapons, namely, the blood of Christ, the word of God, the promises of the covenant, and the virtue of Christ's death and cross [Gal. 6. 14] 'God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [or, as it may be read, 'whereby,' viz. by the cross of Christ,] the world is crucified to me, and I to the world.' But now the man under the law fights against sin by the promises and threatenings of the law; by its promises, saying, I will obtain life; and win to heaven, I hope, if I do so and so; by its threatenings, saying, I will go to hell and be damned, if I do not so and so. Sometimes he fights with the weapons of his own vows and resolutions, which are his strong tower, to which he runs and thinks himself safe.

3. They differ in the object of their mortification. They both, indeed, seek to mortify sin, but the legalist's quarrel is more especially with the sins of his conversation, whereas the true believer should desire to fight as the Syrians got orders, that is, neither against great nor small, so much as against the King himself, even against original corruption. A body of sin and death troubles him more than any other sin in the world; 'O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from this body of death?' [Rom. 7. 24]. His great exercise is to have the seed of the woman to bruise this head of the serpent.

4. They differ in the reasons of the contest. The believer, whom grace teaches to deny all ungodliness, he fights against sin because it dishonours God, opposes Christ, grieves the Spirit, and separates between his Lord and him; but the legalist fights against sin, because it breaks his peace, and troubles his conscience, and hurts him, by bringing wrath and judgment on him. As children will not play in the dust, not because it sullies their clothes, but flies into their eyes, and hurts them, so the legalist will not meddle with sin, not because it sullies the perfections of God, and defiles their souls, but only because it hurts them. I deny not, but there is too much of this legal temper even amongst the godly.

5. They differ in their motives and ends. The believer will not serve sin, because he is alive to God, and dead to sin [Rom. 6. 6]. The legalist forsakes sin, not because he is alive, but that he may live. The believer mortifies sin, because God loves him; but the legalist, that God may love him. The believer mortifies, because God is pacified towards him; the legalist mortifies, that he may pacify God by his mortification. He may go a great length, but it is still that he may have whereof to glory, making his own doing all the foundation of his hope and comfort.

6. They differ in the nature of their mortification. The legalist does not oppose sin violently, seeking the utter destruction of it. If he can get sin put down, he does not seek it to be thrust out; but the believer, having a nature and principle contrary to sin, he seeks not only to have it weakened, but extirpated. The quarrel is irreconcileable; no terms of accommodation or agreement; no league with sin is allowed, as it is with hypocrites.

7. They differ in the extent of the warfare, not only objectively, the believer hating every false way; but also subjectively, all the faculties of the believer's soul, the whole regenerate part being against sin. It is not so with the hypocrite or legalist; for as he spares some sin or other, so his opposition to sin is only seated in his conscience; his light and conscience oppose such a thing, while his heart approves of it. There is an extent also as to time; the legalist's opposition to sin is of a short duration, but in the believer it is to the end; grace and corruption still opposing one another.

8. They differ in the success. There is no believer, but as he fights against sin, so first or last he prevails, though not always to his discerning; and though he lose many battles, yet he gains the war. But the legalist, for all the work he makes, yet he never truly comes speed; though he cut off some actual sin, yet the corrupt nature is never changed; he never gets a new heart; the iron sinew in his neck, which opposes God, is never broken; and when he gets one sin mortified, sometimes another and more dangerous sin lifts up the head. Hence all the sins and pollutions that ever the Pharisees forsook, and all the good duties that ever they performed, made them but more proud, and strengthened their unbelieving prejudices against Christ, which was the greater and more dangerous sin.

Thus you may see the difference between legal and gospel mortification, and try yourselves thereby.

---

[1] Mortification: putting to death (of sin)

---

From the Homily Against Idolatry

I want to give full vent to the breadth of Anglican experience, so in contrast to my post from the Allentown Tracts, I offer this selection from the Book of Homilies:

...Wee should not worship Images, and that we should not have Images in the Temple, for fear and occasion of worshiping them, though they be of themselves things indifferent: for the Christian is the holy Temple and lively Image of GOD, as the place well declareth, to such as will read and weigh it. And whereas all godly men did ever abhor that any kneeling and worshiping or offering should bee used to themselves when they were alive (for that it was the honour due to GOD only) as appeareth in the Acts of the Apostles by S. Peter forbidding it to Cornelius (Acts 10.25-26), and by S. Paul and Barnabas forbidding the same to the Citizens in Lystra (Acts 14.14-15): Yet wee like mad men fall down before the dead idols or images of Peter and Paul, and give that honour to sticks and stones, which they thought abominable to be given to themselves being alive.

...For they were then Preaching Bishops, and more often seen in Pulpits, than in Princes palaces, more often occupied in his legacy, who said, "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to all men," than in Embassies and affairs of Princes of this world....

Now it remaineth for the conclusion of this Treatise, to declare as well the abuse of Churches and Temples, by too costly and sumptuous decking and adorning of them, as also the lewd painting, gilding, and clothing of Idols and Images, and so to conclude the whole treatise.

...True Religion then and pleasing of GOD, standeth not in making, setting up, painting, gilding, clothing and decking of dumb and dead images (which be but great puppets and babies for old fools in dotage, and wicked idolatry, to dally and play with) nor in kissing of them, capping, kneeling, offering to them, in sensing of them, setting up of candles, hanging up of legs, arms, or whole bodies of wax before them, or praying, and asking of them or of Saints, things belonging only to GOD to give. But all these things bee vain and abominable, and most damnable before GOD. Wherefore all such do not only bestow their money and labor in vain: but with their pains and cost purchase to themselves GODS wrath and utter indignation, and everlasting damnation both of body and soul. For ye have heard it evidently proved in these Homilies against idolatry, by GODS word, the Doctors of the Church, Ecclesiastical histories, reason, and experience, that Images have been and be worshiped, and so idolatry committed to them by infinite multitudes, to the great offense of GODS Majesty, and danger of infinite souls, and that idolatry can not possibly be separated from Images set up in Churches and Temples, gilded and decked gloriously, and that therefore our Images be indeed very Idols, and so all the prohibitions, laws, curses, threatenings of horrible plagues, as well temporal as eternal, contained in the holy Scripture, concerning idols, and the makers, and maintainers, and worshipers of them, appertain also to our Images set vp in Churches and Temples, and to the makers, maintainers, and worshipers of them.

The whole is available here.

I'm struck by several things. First, that the attack seems more on their use in public worship than on their use in private piety. Late medieval practice was replete with solemn processions of statues and images and icons - with flowers and food laid at their feet. You can still see this in some Latin American countries and in the Philippines. If that's what the homileticians had in mind, I agree that it binds mens consciences and corrupts true worship.

However, as St. John of Damascus was to defend, a properly formed conscience and intellect does not stumble at this and instead elevates the mind and spirit to God upon these reminders. (Much as the most iconoclastic Presbyterian would be wont to do upon seeing the rainbow, God's covenant - and material - reminder of his promised goodness.) These excesses are not seen in even the most 'anglo-catholic' parishes. Rarely is incense used with them (as it almost always is in the Eastern tradition); instead, you normally find a candle burning near them, but not in front of them. Similarly, perhaps the homily - removed from the excesses of late medieval piety - does not speak with similar comprehensiveness. For even God's own law against idolatry was couched in the very book that gave command to fashion images of angels and natural objects for use in the divinely-appointed Tabernacle / Temple.

Secondly, there is an undercurrent of populist scorn for opulence and wealth. The Roman Church had long meddled in the affairs of princes (sometimes a good thing, sometimes a bad thing). One of the abuses that caused a rift between England and Rome was the appointment of French or Italian clergy to wealthy benefices in England. Absentee clergy were paid well on the tithes of the land, but were not there to provide any pastoral care or preaching. Several episcopal sees were even thus abused. Thus, there is a concern in the homily for the clergy to be present as the chief preachers & teachers, rather than to let images instruct the unlearned (i.e. the illiterate). Moreover, wealth was not to be used in gilding buildings and images, but rather turned toward the glory of God by upbuilding his people - the true church, and habitation of the Most High.

Is this still a problem today? I'm sure it is in some places - whether it be a little catholic parish that insists on silvered images or a megachurch that cuts outreach budget in order to install the newest sound system and LCD screens. But by and large, I think Anglican churches of all stripes do their best to maintain a balance here between providing for the people a place of dignity to worship, and providing services that restore people to dignity. Sometimes a sound system could be just the thing. (A little lady in our parish can barely hear me because our mic system is messed up.) Sometimes a beautiful ambo to show the honor we give to the unadorned reading of the Word of God can serve that purpose.

Third, I want to point out that the reform of the English Church was at its best when handled synodically by her pastors - whether the presbytery or the episcopacy. Church reforms can be hijacked by small but influential cabals of persons, and thus the gradual transformation and growth in grace is tampered with. In TEC, you see this with a small, but vocal and well-placed minority pushing for a new religion to supplant Christianity. I think we also saw it too, in the English Reformation. While I admire Cranmer a great deal, I can't help but think that his proximity to the King made his (and his associates) voices disproportionately strong. It was a hard time, and maybe that's what it took, but history has to have a say as well regarding the natural (supernatural?) development of the Church.

I think the way that the church was rocked back and forth between positions for nearly 125 years is proof that the reform was not to be the work of one man - or one generation. Just as Reformed Scholasticism refined (and in some ways departed from) the positions of the first Reformers (Calvin, Luther, Zwingli), so also the succession of Elizabeth I (and her compromise), the reforms of Abp. Laud, and the patristic work of the Caroline divines had a necessary and definitive stamp to leave on the character of the Church of England as it grew into her recovered identity as a Reformed, Evangelical, Catholic, Apostolic Church. While I'm not necessarily a Tractarian, they also had a fundamental place in helping the Church recover her spiritual nature - and prepared her to counter the ugliness of modernized secular life with the comprehensive beauty of the catholic faith.

This is still a work in progress for me, as I get over my presbyterian allergy to "all things catholic" and avoid the excess enthusiasm of my pentecostal upbringing that says "just jump in head first and let God sort it all out!" I appreciate your patience with me.