Bryce Taylor

Cyril O'Regan
John Henry Newman
December 14, 2012
Justification, Scripture, and God's Indwelling Presence
in Newman's Lectures on Justification

1
I. Newman & Life: Introductory Remarks
All theological definitions, wrote John Henry Newman, come short of concrete life.
Science is not devotion or literature . . . St. Athanasius or St. Augustine has a life, which a
system of theology has not.1 Newman's remark occurs in a footnote to the second lecture in his
Lectures on Justification, first published in 1838 when he was an Anglican, then again in 1874
when he was a Catholic. In the same footnote, Newman seems to suggest that he thinks of his
Lectures as a work of science, a systematic account of justification, and indeed the precision
and exactitude with which he approaches the subject would support this characterization. At the
same time, however, Newman imbues the Lectures with his own life, such that they go beyond
science and bear directly on the concrete life of Christians. One of his constant concerns in
discussing the doctrine of justification is its practicality: what meaning does it have in life, in
prayer, in behavior? In this sense, we might characterize the Lectures as a work of patristic
theology, not because it deals with the Fathers (though at times it does), but because it proceeds
in the manner of the Fathers. Like St. Athanasius and St. Augustine, Newman has a life that
raises his Lectures above the level of academic speculation and makes them practical even,
perhaps, devotional. It is not surprising, in this connection, that much of the content of the
Lectures overlaps with sermons he delivered around the same time. Newman's theological work
is pastoral and practical even as it is also rigorous and precise.
Like his patristic forebears, moreover, Newman grounds his theology in Scripture not
in cursory readings of a few texts of Scripture, but in careful and attentive consideration of the
whole, Old and New Testament alike. One could even say that the Lectures really amount to an
extended exegesis, as well as a defense of the sort of exegesis in which Newman is engaged.

1 John Henry Newman, Lectures on Justification (Charleston: Acme Bookbinding, 2002), 31.

2
True, part of the motivation for his focus on Scripture is that he hopes to meet his theological
opponents chiefly, English Protestants on their own terms, i.e., through plain statements
on the subject argued out from Scripture.2 But Newman is also concerned to demonstrate that
these are his terms, too, at least in the sense that Catholic doctrine is based on Scripture and is in
fact more faithful to Scripture, more submissive to Scripture, than the doctrine of those who
follow Luther.
In what follows, we will examine Newman's understanding of justification in light of the
Scriptural hermeneutic that guides his theological work. The Lectures on Justification, as we will
see, remain relevant not only for their elucidation of the doctrine of justification itself, but also
for their insights regarding Scripture and its practical relation to Christian life. Additionally,
insofar as Protestantism today continues to distinguish itself from Catholicism on the basis of
Scripture and a particular understanding of justification, Newman's Lectures may prove to be a
promising resource for ecumenical dialogue. We will conclude, therefore, by considering how
the Lectures might shed light both on the divisions that remain between Christians and on
possible steps in the direction of greater unity.

II. One Consistent Doctrine: On the Harmony of Scripture

The fundamental principle underlying Newman's interpretation of Scripture is that the
canonical writings form a unified whole. He does not, of course, deny the great variety of voices
within Scripture differences in genre, style, emphasis, theological concern, etc. but he
hears these different voices as a harmony. Accordingly, one of Newman's complaints against
Luther is that his doctrine of sola fide (justification by faith alone) forces an opposition, a

2 Ibid., v.

3
disharmony, between the letters of St. Paul and that of St. James. If Paul teaches as Luther
thinks he does that good works play no part in one's justification, then he directly contradicts
the teaching of James. Why be so bent, Newman asks, upon forcing two inspired teachers into
a real and formal discordance of doctrine?3
In making this point, Newman quotes James 2:24: By works a man is justified, and not
by faith only.4 The proponent of sola fide must either reject these words altogether, explain them
by some harsh and unnatural interpretation, or leave them aside, as it were, because they are
difficult. Yet they are only difficult, Newman argues, when read through the lens of Luther's
doctrine. In themselves, the words of James are clear: can words be plainer, were it not that they
are forced into connection with a theory of the sixteenth century? Indeed, Newman observes
that the teaching of James at least as regards the dispute over justification is clearer than
that of Paul. If St. James is difficult, writes Newman, is St. Paul plain? Will any one say that
St. Paul is plainer than St. James? Is it St. James in whose Epistles are 'some things hard to be
understood'? Here Newman alludes to 2 Peter 3:16, which says of Paul's writings, There are
some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own
destruction, as they do the other scriptures.5 The implication is that Luther and his followers
have twisted Scripture to make it conform to their theory of sola fide. The teaching of James is
plain, and only a resolute shutting of the eyes can fail to see it.6
It would be a mistake, however, to think that Newman begins from the text of James (as
Luther does with Paul) and from there proceeds to build a theory of justification, conforming the
rest of Scripture to his theory. Rather, the text of James serves as an especially clear expression
3
4
5
6

Ibid., 275.
Unless otherwise noted, Scriptural quotations are rendered as Newman quotes them.
New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition.
Lectures, 291-92.

4
of an aspect of the one doctrine of justification that is taught consistently throughout the whole of
Scripture. To begin with, Paul himself teaches the same doctrine, albeit from a different angle.
While James is concerned to show the necessity of good works performed in faith, Paul stresses
the deficiency of works of the Law performed without faith. Thus, Newman notes that in
Paul's polemic against works, the Apostle never calls these works which he says do not
justify 'good works,' but simply 'works,''works of the Law,''deeds of the Law,''works not
in righteousness,''dead works.' Paul therefore does not negate James's teaching that good
works, works performed in the Spirit, are integral to justification.
On the contrary, Paul often speaks highly of good works,7 and he teaches in Romans
8:1-4 that the righteousness of the Law, i.e., justification, is fulfilled in not merely
imputed to those who walk after the Spirit. Can words more conclusively show, Newman
asks, that Gospel righteousness is obedience to the Law of God, wrought in us by the Holy
Ghost?8 This obedience, we should note, is wrought in us not apart from but through our
choices and actions. Philippians 2:12-13 captures the paradox well: on the one hand, work out
your salvation with fear and trembling; on the other hand, it is God who worketh in you both
to will and to do of His good pleasure. Clearly, justification must involve both inward renewal
and the working out of that renewal in obedience, or good works.
The rest of Scripture maintains and elaborates on the same doctrine, as Newman shows
throughout the 400 pages of his Lectures. Scripture in its various portions, he argues,
7 Paul speaks, for example, of 'abounding in every good work,' of being 'fruitful in every good work,' of being
'adorned with good works,' of being 'well reported of for good works,' 'diligently following every good work,' of
'the good works of some being open beforehand,' of being 'rich in good works,' of being 'prepared unto every
good work,' of being 'throughly furnished unto all good works,' of being 'unto every good work reprobate,' of
being 'a pattern of good works,' of being 'zealous of good works,' of being 'ready to every good work,' of being
'careful to maintain good works,' of 'provoking unto love and to good works,' and of being 'made perfect in every
good work' [2 Cor. ix. 8. Eph. ii. 10. Col. i. 10. 2 Thess. ii. 17. 1 Tim. ii. 10; v. 10, 25; vi. 18. 2 Tim. ii. 21; iii. 17.
Tit. i. 16; ii. 7, 14; iii. 8, 14. Heb. x. 24; xiii. 21.]. Ibid., 290.
8 Ibid., 44.

5
conspires together as a whole to this simple doctrine. From first to last what
Psalmists long after, and Prophets promise, and Apostles announce as given by
Almighty God, is one and the same, the capacity of serving God acceptably, or the
gift of righteousness, not a shadow but a substance, not a name but a power, not
an imputation but an inward work.9
The Lutheran doctrine of sola fide, by excluding good works and inward righteousness from
justification, must also exclude the hopes and promises of the Old Testament, as well as the
proclamation of their fulfillment in the New. What is called sanctification, or inward renewal,
cannot simply be an afterthought something separate from the saving work of justification
but rather is one and the same gift, for Scripture itself blends them [justification and
sanctification] together as intimately as any system of theology can do.10 To take one of
countless examples, the author of Psalm 51 says not, 'Both have mercy and renew,'
contemplating two gifts, but 'show mercy by renewing me.' The Psalm conceives of justification
and renewal as two aspects, or elements, of one gift. It is not only a matter of God's forgiving and
blotting out sins, but also of truth in the inward being, wisdom in my secret heart, a right
spirit within me, a clean heart, a renewal that would make the Psalmist whiter than snow
and therefore capable of serving God acceptably.11
Isaiah, likewise, prophesies the salvation of the New Covenant in terms of an inward gift
that consists in true not merely imputed righteousness. In chapter 51, after announcing that
My Righteousness is near, My salvation is gone forth, God says, Hearken unto me, ye that
know righteousness, the people in whose heart is My Law.12 The gift of salvation, it seems, will
not negate the Law, but instead will enable those who receive it to interiorize the Law and thus
obey it perfectly. Isaiah 26 conveys the same idea: The way of the just is uprightness . . . Lord,
9
10
11
12

Ibid., 37.
Ibid., 39.
Psalm 51, NRSV, Catholic Edition.
Lectures, 42. Italics are Newman's.

6
Thou wilt ordain peace for us, for Thou hast wrought all our works in us. If justification were
simply an external imputation of Christ's merits, a crediting of Christ's obedience, then it
would not answer to these prophecies.
Newman points to Jeremiah 31:33 as especially relevant here, given that the New
Testament cites it more than once as the promise fulfilled in Christ. It reads, This is the
Covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord; I will put My laws into
their hearts, and in their minds will I write them, and their sins and iniquities will I remember no
more.13 Newman might well have added that in introducing this verse, the author of Hebrews
writes, For by a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.14 It
would be impossible to construe these passages in such a way that justification by faith alone,
i.e., separated from sanctification, fulfills the promise of salvation as presented in Old Testament.
This promise, rather, is fulfilled in a renewal that includes both justification (the forgetting of
sins) and sanctification (inward holiness). As Newman says with reference to Jeremiah, It is
plain from this passage, that the direct promise of the Gospel . . . is a renovation of our nature, in
which pardon is involved as an essential part, but only a part, of the free gift.15
By this point it should be clear that justification, for Newman, is not simply a matter of
performing good works; it is a gift received by faith that includes or consists in forgiveness,
inward renewal, and good works. Newman emphasizes the inwardness of justification and the
necessity of obedience because these are the points at issue when it comes to refuting the sola
fide position. There can be no real separation between faith and works, nor between justification
and obedience, even if these words convey distinct ideas.16 In reality, they all make up the one
13
14
15
16

Ibid., 43.
Hebrews 10:14. Emphasis mine.
Lectures 43.
As Newman puts it in a sermon called The New Works of the Gospel, Faith alone can make works living;
works alone can make faith living. Take away either, and you take away both. John Henry Newman, Parochial

7
gift of salvation. Having indicated as much by citing passages from the Old Testament, Newman
proceeds to show that the New Testament agrees. He presents just a small sample of passages
confirming the necessity of obedience, including:
This do, that is, the Commandments, and thou shalt live. . . . Not the hearers
of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law shall be justified. . . . If
we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another,
and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin. Blessed are they
that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life. By
works a man is justified, and not by faith only. And, above all, perhaps, our
Lord's declaration [in Matthew 25] that the righteousness wherein we must stand
at the last day is not His own imputed obedience, but our good works.17
Far from releasing us from the duty of obedience, the grace of the New Covenant enables us to
obey and demands that we obey in order to arrive at eternal life. Christ did not abolish the Law,
but fulfilled it perfectly, and every Christian is called to fulfill the Law in Christ.
The problem with Luther's doctrine of sola fide is not simply that it distorts Scripture, but
that its distortion can be profoundly dangerous. If we believe that the only thing required for
justification is faith apart from good works, apart from love as indeed Luther taught then
we are liable to feel no great urgency in striving toward perfection. 18 Indeed, if we receive
Christ's righteousness only externally, by imputation, then our striving is in vain: perfection
remains unattainable. Thus, Newman argues, The main point in dispute is this; whether or not
and Plain Sermons (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1987), 1057.
17 Lectures, 55-56. St. Augustine combines New Testament passages to make a similar point. In a single tour de
force of a sentence, he strings together teachings from Matthew 24:13, Galatians 5:6, 1 Corinthians 13:4, and
Romans 13:10: to persevere in Christ, he says, means to persevere in faith in him: now this faith, in the
Apostle's definition, 'is active in love', and 'love', as he says in another place, 'is never active in wrong.' St.
Augustine, City of God, trans. Henry Bettenson (New York: Penguin, 2003), 1009.
18 Newman stresses this point frequently in his sermons, as for example in Faith and Obedience, where he writes:
For not a single act of faith can be named but what has in it the nature of obedience . . . we must never forget
that the more usual mode of doctrine both with Christ and His Apostles is to refer our acceptance to obedience to
the commandments, not to faith; and this, as it would appear, from a merciful anxiety in their teaching, lest, in
contemplating God's grace, we should forget our own duties . . . I wish from my heart that the persons in
question could be persuaded to read Scripture with their own eyes, and take it in a plain and natural way, instead
of perplexing themselves with their human systems, and measuring and arranging its inspired declarations by an
artificial rule. Are they quite sure that in the next world they will be able to remember these strained
interpretations in their greatest need? Sermons, 535-36.

8
the Moral Law can in its substance be obeyed and kept by the regenerate. 19 Regarding this point
in what is rhetorically one of the most astonishing passages in the Lectures Newman
contrasts Luther's view with that of St. Augustine:
Augustine says, that whereas we are by nature condemned by the Law, we are
enabled by the grace of God to perform it unto our justification; Luther, that
whereas we are condemned by the Law, Christ has Himself performed it unto our
justification;Augustine, that our righteousness is active; Luther, that it is
passive;Augustine, that it is imparted; Luther, that it is only imputed;
Augustine that it consists in a change of heart; Luther, in a change of state. Luther
maintains that God's commandments are impossible to man; Augustine adds,
impossible without his grace . . . Luther says, that the Law and Christ cannot
dwell together in the heart; Augustine says, that the Law is Christ;Luther
denies, and Augustine maintains that obedience is a matter of conscience;
Luther, that faith is essential, because it is a substitute for holiness; Augustine,
because it is the commencement of holiness;Luther says, that faith, as such,
renews the heart; Augustine says, a loving faith.20
Of course, Newman does not appeal to Augustine in the same way that he appeals to Scripture,
as if Augustine were inspired or infallible. Rather, he takes Augustine to be one of the
preeminent interpreters perhaps the preeminent interpreter of Scripture, and therefore a
trustworthy guide. Augustine is authoritative because he contemplates the whole of Scripture,
and harmonizes it into one consistent doctrine, whereas the Protestants, like the Arians,
entrench themselves in a few favorite texts. If Scripture is a harmony, then Christians must
follow Augustine's lead in listening to every note.

III. This Stupendous Privilege: On Analogy, Sacraments, and Presence

To say that Scripture forms a harmony, we should note, is not to say that it forms a static
harmony; salvation history moves forward from the Old Testament to the New, culminating in
the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. While the doctrines of Scripture are indeed consistent,
19 Lectures, 58.
20 Ibid., 58-59.

9
as Newman has insisted, still there is something decidedly old about the Old Testament and
decidedly new about the New. How do the old and the new relate? Newman, on the one hand,
describes their relation in terms of analogy; what was true for Israel is also true, analogously,
for the Church. Luther, on the other hand, seems to conceive of the relation between the Old and
New Testaments as one of dialectic.21 In other words, the New Testament does not fulfill and
continue so much as it negates and nullifies the Old. This dialectic can be seen especially in
the way Luther draws a stark contrast between Law and Gospel, describing them as
fundamentally opposed rather than related as semblance and reality, promise and fulfillment.
Newman counters this dialectic by pointing out the continuity between Law and
Gospel, which is evident not least from the fact that many New Testament passages speak of a
law under the Gospel: the perfect law (James 1:25), the law of liberty (James 1:25), the
royal law (James 2:8), the law of the Spirit of life (Romans 8:2), the law of Christ
(Galatians 6:2), and so forth. To be sure, this new law differs from the External Law of the Old
Testament, but the two are not radically opposed. On the contrary, the old law has been
transformed through the Spirit into an internal law granting freedom: it is not an outward yoke,
says Newman, but an inward principle, a brighter and better conscience . . . the Law of God is
not a master set over us; it is ourselves, it is our will. 22 The old law typified, promised, and
pointed ahead to the new law that would be on the heart (recall Jeremiah 31:33). Conscience
has been liberated not from the law, but for the law that is, for its perfect fulfillment.
Just as the meaning of law has been transformed in Christ, rendering the new law
21 For this point I am indebted to Joseph Ratzinger, who argues that Luther replaced the model of analogy with
that of dialectic. As Ratzinger points out, however, a New Testament that is separated from the Old is itself
abolished . . . because according to its own claim, it exists only through this unity. Hence, the principle of
discontinuity must be countered by the principle of the analogia scripturae on the basis of the interior claim of
the biblical text itself. Joseph Ratzinger, God's Word: ScriptureTraditionOffice, trans. Henry Taylor (San
Francisco: Ignatius, 2005), 108.
22 Lectures, 52.

10
analogous (not opposed) to the old, so also has the meaning of righteousness been elevated. In
fact, everything in the Old Testament has been transformed, for as Newman observes, such a
transformation of shadows into substances, and human acts into divine endowments . . . is the
very rule of the New Covenant.23 There is continuity, on the one hand, between Israel and the
Church, inasmuch as the Church continues to have prophets, rulers, priests, sacrifices, altars,
saints, etc.; on the other hand, there is newness inasmuch as Christ is the sole self-existing
principle in the Christian Church, transforming all things by his grace. 24 Figures have become
means of grace, shadows are substances, types are Sacraments in Him, for Christ did not come
to abolish the Old Testament, but to fulfill, to elevate, to purify, to enliven, to spiritualize it.25
It should be evident by now that, for Newman, to see the Old Testament as spiritualized
in the New does not mean to see it merely as a collection of vague metaphors or abstract
platitudes; it means, rather, to find everything concretely transformed by the Spirit. This
transformation is a frequent theme in Newman's sermons. In one titled The New Works of the
Gospel, for example, he notes that the Sabbath has 'become new' by becoming the Lord's day;
works become new, by becoming spiritual . . . The 'divers washings' of the Jews were 'carnal
ordinances;' but Baptism, our washing, is a washing of the Spirit. 26 Elsewhere, in The
Gainsaying of Korah, Newman lists other examples: Passover has been transformed into Holy
Communion, the Ten Commandments into the Sermon on the Mount, the priesthood of Aaron
into the priesthood of Christ.27 The Old Testament, therefore, is still our rule of duty, except in
such details as imply a local religion and a material sanctuary. The touch of Christ has granted
power to what formerly had none; the Christian religion, Newman says,
23
24
25
26
27

Ibid., 193.
Ibid., 198.
Ibid., 196.
Sermons, 1060.
Ibid., 904.

11
has still forms, ordinances, precepts, mysteries, duties, assemblies, festivals, and
temples as of old time; but, whereas all these were dead and carnal before, now,
since Christ came, they have a life in them . . . so that ordinances, works, forms,
which before were unprofitable, now, by the inward meritorious influence of His
blood imparted to them, avail for our salvation.28
The point is crucial for Newman's understanding of justification, not only because dead works
have become the good works discussed earlier, but also because the rites of the Old Testament
have become Sacraments conveying grace. Baptism, in particular, initiates Christians into the
grace of adoption, regeneration, and what is saying essentially the same thing justification.
From the outset, one of Newman's primary concerns in the Lectures is to defend the
dignity indeed, the necessity of the Sacraments in general and Baptism in particular.
Luther's doctrine of sola fide, which had become popular in England, led many to question the
need for Baptism, or at least to doubt its bearing on the gift of justification. If faith alone justifies
faith without works, without love, without Sacraments then Baptism comes to be seen
merely as a symbol of the justification that takes place quite apart from it. For Newman, to think
of Baptism in this way is really to return to the shadows of the Old Covenant. Away then, he
urges, with this modern, this private, this arbitrary, this unscriptural system, which promising
liberty conspires against it; which abolishes Christian Sacraments to introduce barren and dead
ordinances.29 Christ has transformed all things; the shadows are past, and realities have been
granted. What sense would it make to baptize people if Baptism were only a symbol, a figure,
like the dead figures of the Old Testament? As Newman observes in The New Works of the
Gospel, it is entirely inconsistent to say that Baptism should be observed, and yet that it does
not convey Divine grace, and is a mere outward ordinance; for if so, it is nothing better than a
Jewish rite, and instead of being observed, it ought to be abolished altogether. 30 Since, however,
28 The New Works of the Gospel, in Sermons, 1060-61.
29 Lectures, 57.
30 Sermons, 1061.

12
the abolition of Baptism is not an option for those who would even pretend to follow the
teaching of Scripture, it follows that Baptism conveys grace.
Newman looks to the New Testament to show just what kind of grace it conveys. Titus
3:5-8, for example, tells us that God saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of
the Holy Ghost . . . that being justified by His grace, we should be heirs according to the hope of
eternal life.31 In this brief passage we find that Baptism confers the one gift mentioned earlier
the gift that includes renewal and justification, as well as adoption, for the baptized have
become heirs. In Baptism we have put on Christ and thus become a new creation, forgiven
and regenerated. Of course, faith too remains essential, and many New Testament passages point
to the connection between faith and Baptism. Galatians 3:26-27 teaches, Ye are all the children
of God by faith in Christ Jesus; for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on
Christ.32 According to Newman's paraphrase, Putting on Christ by Baptism has brought you
into the condition of being God's children by faith. Or, in other words, Faith justifies, because
Baptism has justified. Along the same lines, Hebrews 10:22 says, Let us draw near with a true
heart, in full assurance of faith, having been sprinkled in heart from an evil conscience, and
having been washed in body with pure water. On Newman's reading, Baptism is presented here
as a kind of warrant for faith's drawing near. In some sense, Baptism is prior to faith, or the
basis of faith's power, though it does not in any sense negate the need for faith.
Newman clarifies the relation between faith and Baptism by describing them as
instruments for justification. While Baptism is the outward instrument, faith is the
inward.33 Yet the two cannot be separated, for faith secures to the soul continually those gifts,
which Baptism in the first instance conveys. Faith becomes living, becomes justifying, through
31 Lectures, 51.
32 This and the following passages are quoted in Lectures, 232.
33 Ibid., 226.

13
the initial grace of Baptism, and Baptism, in turn, becomes fruitful and lasting through faith.
Hence we may truly say that we are saved by faith, just as we may also truly say, with 1 Peter
3:21, that we are saved by Baptism. Faith receives and sustains over time what Baptism confers
in an instant. Thus, we cannot say that faith alone (apart from Baptism) justifies, any more
than we can say that Baptism alone (apart from faith) justifies.34
Nor can we say that Baptism and faith justify apart from the indwelling presence of God,
for it is precisely this presence, according to Newman, which generates the grace given in
Baptism and sustained in faith. As Titus 3:5-8 has indicated already, renewal and justification are
of the Holy Ghost, whose very presence dwells in the baptized. This, Newman thinks the
presence of God within us is the distinguishing grace of the Gospel; it is really that which
makes us righteous, and . . . our righteousness is the possession of that presence. 35 The one
gift promised in the Old Testament is ultimately fulfilled in Christ's gift of the Holy Spirit, who
comes in Baptism to renew, to restore, to forgive, to justify, and to sanctify. Repent, says Peter
in Acts 2:38, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.36 The presence of the Holy Spirit,
moreover, in some sense brings or includes the presence of Christ and the Father as well, such
that the entire Trinity may be said to dwell within the Christian. To think of justification simply

34 Newman points out that the logic of sola fide could just as well lead to a doctrine of hope alone, or obedience
alone, or any number of errors. We must not reduce the whole picture of salvation to one aspect or element of it:
if we will demand that the whole of the Gospel should be brought out into form in a single text,then surely
we ought to hold that Baptism is sufficient for salvation, because St. Peter says it 'saves us,'or hope sufficient,
because St. Paul says 'we are saved by hope,'or that only love is the means of forgiveness because our Lord
says, 'Her sins are forgiven, for she loved much,'or that faith does not save, because St. James asks, 'Can faith
save him?'or that keeping the commandments is the whole Gospel, because St. Paul says it has superseded
circumcision. Nothing surely is more suitable than to explain justifying faith to be a principle of action, a
characteristic of obedience, a sanctifying power, if by doing so we reconcile St. Paul with St. James, and
moreover observe the while the very same rule of interpretation which we apply to Scripture generally. Ibid.,
280.
35 Ibid., 147, 137.
36 Ibid., 142.

14
as an external imputation of Christ's merits is therefore infinitely to underestimate what the gift
of justification really is: God himself. This gift, Newman thinks, must of necessity be at once
our justification and our sanctification, for it is nothing short of the indwelling in us of God the
Father and the Word Incarnate through the Holy Ghost . . . This is to be justified.37
Practically speaking, an awareness of God's indwelling presence leads the Christian to be
more grateful to God, more vigilant against sin, and more diligent in obedience. As Newman
puts it, the presence of God is an angelic glory which good spirits honour, which devils tremble
at, and which we are bound reverently to cherish, with a careful abstinence from sin, and with the
offering of good works.38 There is something deeply persuasive about the fact that God is
present, that he dwells within the Christian as in a sacred Temple. The gift of righteousness is
more than a name: it is the personal presence of a loving God, which cannot be taken lightly. To
sin is not simply to violate an abstract and distant principle, but to offend a loved one, a person
even three Persons. I say, says Newman, has not this thought more of persuasiveness in it
to do and suffer for Him than the views of doctrine which have spread among us? 39 Newman
mentions St. Ignatius of Antioch as an instance of someone whose awareness of God's
indwelling presence, of the fact that we bear God within us, led him to embrace the crown of
martyrdom. Christians are to cherish God's presence this stupendous privilege, as Newman
calls it even to the point of death.40
Such a gift, of course, cannot be earned. Newman agrees with Luther that no one can, by
37 Ibid., 144. Thomas Aquinas cites John 14:23 to make the same point: The whole Trinity dwells in the mind by
sanctifying grace, according to John 14:23: 'We will come to him, and will make Our abode with him.' But that a
divine person be sent to anyone by invisible grace signifies both that this person dwells in a new way within him
and that He has His origin from another. Hence, since both to the Son and to the Holy Ghost it belongs to dwell
in the soul by grace, and to be from another, it therefore belongs to both of them to be invisibly sent. As to
the Father, though He dwells in us by grace, still it does not belong to Him to be from another, and consequently
He is not sent. ST I.43.5.
38 Lectures, 161.
39 Ibid., 191.
40 Ibid., 218.

15
his own efforts, merit the justifying presence of God. Still, obedience in faith is necessary for
maintaining this presence; to turn away from God, to sin gravely, would be to forfeit the gift. In
this sense, our co-operation, our working with God, is the condition, not of our acceptance, or
pardon, but of the continuance of that sacred Presence which is our true righteousness, as an
immediate origin of it.41 Neither faith nor good works can earn the infinite gift, but a lack of
faith, a failure to continue in good works, can sever one from it.
To summarize, then, we have seen that by reading Scripture on the model of analogy
rather than dialectic, Newman interprets the Old Testament as a prefigurement and promise of
the New. Israel's forms, rituals, laws, structures, etc., are spiritualized in the Church, i.e.,
enlivened by the Spirit. The Sacraments, therefore, are not merely symbolic, but powerful and
life-giving. Baptism, specifically, initiates the Christian into a life of grace, which is to say, a life
animated by the indwelling presence of God. Faith is the habit that receives and sustains this gift.
Good works give life to faith, allowing the presence of God to sanctify the soul until it reaches
perfection. Without obedience, faith is dead; without faith, God's presence is relinquished;
without God's presence, there can be neither justification nor sanctification. As Newman puts it
in his own brief summary, Justification comes through the Sacraments; is received by faith;
consists in God's inward presence; and lives in obedience.42 A proponent of the doctrine of sola
fide might complain that Newman's view is overly complex, but as Newman has shown, it stems
from a careful survey of the entirety of Scripture. To reduce justification to faith, or to obedience,
or to Baptism, would be an injustice to Scripture and, consequently, to God.

IV. Escape from the City of Shadows: On Words & Things

41 Ibid., 184.
42 Ibid., 278.

16
Newman need not even concede, however, that his view is more complex, more
difficult, than that of Luther. Although the sola fide position may be expressed in a simple
formula, it raises a host of difficulties, particularly when it comes to the interpretation of
Scripture. In order to explain passages indicating, for example, that Christians become inwardly
righteous and truly holy in God's sight (e.g., Hebrews 13:21, Ephesians 1:4-6), those who follow
Luther must invent a distinction. They grant that Christians are made righteous, yet, not
righteous, as He is righteous, but in an entirely different sense.43 Likewise, in order to explain
why Christians cannot fulfill the Law even though love is the fulfilling of the Law, they
distinguish between such love as suffices for the fulfilling of the Law and such love as is
enjoined as a Christian grace.44 In order to explain why Paul says work out your salvation,
they invent two senses of work.45 Reward, too, must have two different senses, for the
reward which Scripture bids us labour for, cannot, it is said, be a reward in the real and ordinary
sense of the word.
The doctrine of sola fide, in short, fills the Bible with equivocations. Newman is not
pleased:
Such is the nature of the arguments on which it is maintained that two perfectly
separate senses must be given to the word righteousness; that justification is
one gift, sanctification another . . . that reward does not mean really reward,
praise not really praise, availableness not really availableness, worth not really
worth, acceptableness not really acceptableness;that none but St. Paul may
allowably speak of working out our salvation; none but St. Peter, of Baptism
saving us; none but St. John, of doers of righteousness being righteous;that
when St. Paul speaks of all faith,46 he means all but true faith; and when St.
James says, not by faith only, he means nothing but true faith.47
43 Ibid., 108. Newman notes that this distinction directly contradicts 1 John 3:7: He that doeth righteousness, is
righteous, even as [Christ] is righteous.
44 Ibid., 113.
45 Ibid., 114.
46 Here Newman refers to 1 Corinthians 13:2: . . . and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not
have love, I am nothing. NRSV, Catholic Edition.
47 Lectures, 117.

17
In effect, the advocates of sola fide have revoked the authority of Scripture and appointed
themselves to pronounce on what it can and cannot mean. Instead of beginning with Scripture,
they begin with their previously-formed system, from which they proceed to impose a
meaning. In doing so, they make Scripture not a volume of instruction to which we must
reverently draw near, but at best a magazine of texts in behalf of our own opinions.48 Scripture
is no longer a revelation from God, but a tool for confirming what we already believe. It is
confined to a hermeneutic circle. No wonder, then, that Newman asks, When are we to escape
from the city of Shadows, in which Luther would bewilder the citizens of the Holy Jerusalem?49
Newman does not, of course, oppose distinctions per se; he opposes false and artificial
ones distinctions of convenience, which have no basis in the text itself. Good interpretation
requires effort, for the words of Scripture, as of every other book, have their own meaning,
which must be sought in order to be found.50 This effort is grounded in a belief that the inspired
authors know better than we do. They meant something by their words, and our business is to
find the real meaning, not to impose what will serve for a meaning. 51 Hence inevitably there is a
historical component to exegesis; one must learn about the context in which the canonical books
were written, the literary forms and figures of speech prominent in their time and place, the
intended audience, the reason for writing. Given the nature of human language, distinctions will
48 Ibid., 118.
49 Ibid., 115. Newman expressed similar frustration in an article for the British Critic: In the present day, mistiness
is the mother of wisdom. A man who can set down half-a-dozen general propositions, which escape from
destroying one another only by being diluted into truisms, who can hold the balance between opposites so
skilfully as to do without fulcrum or beam, who never enunciates a truth without guarding himself against being
supposed to exclude the contradictory,who holds that Scripture is the only authority, yet that the Church is to
be deferred to, that faith only justifies, yet that it does not justify without works, that grace does not depend on
the sacraments, yet is not given without them, that bishops are a divine ordinance, yet those who have them not
are in the same religious condition as those who have,this is your safe man and the hope of the Church; this is
what the Church is said to want, not party men, but sensible, temperate, sober, well-judging persons, to guide it
through the channel of no-meaning, between the Scylla and Charybdis of Aye and No. As quoted in John Henry
Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua (Mineola: Dover, 2005), 66-67.
50 Lectures, 118.
51 Ibid., 119.

18
have to be made, such as Newman's distinction between the external law of Israel and the
inward law of Christ. Yet such distinctions do not yield two perfectly separate senses, as
Luther's do; they remain connected. As Newman explains, Words stand for one idea, not two; if
the same word seems to have several [senses], these are really connected together. 52 The various
senses of a word may be considered different aspects, different glimpses, of the same object.
Historical investigation, then, while important, cannot by itself suffice for good exegesis.
No amount of historical or etymological data can make the leap from letter to spirit, from the
literal meaning of words to the spiritual objects they refer to. Here, Newman argues, is the
especial use of the Fathers as expositors of Scripture; they do what no examination of the
particular context can do satisfactorily, acquaint us with the things Scripture speaks of.53 The
Fathers do not simply define words, but explain them that is to say, they give an account of
the real objects behind the words, the real connections between these objects, the real bearing
they have on Christian life.
One of the problems with Luther's doctrine is that he tries to insert a concept (i.e., faith
in a narrowly defined sense) into concrete existence. Abstractly, faith can be conceived apart
from hope and love, but when it is instantiated in the concrete life of a Christian, hope and love
necessarily come with it. One cannot have justifying faith in God without trusting in God, cannot
trust without hoping, cannot hope without loving. 54 Whereas the Fathers reflect on faith as a
thing a reality that cannot, in practice, be separated from loving obedience Luther's
system starts with maintaining that faith is, what nothing ever was or can be, an abstraction in
actual existence.55 As Newman has shown from Scripture, justifying faith though it can be
52
53
54
55

Ibid., 119.
Ibid., 121.
Ibid., 256-57.
Ibid., 264.

19
conceived and defined in itself cannot exist in reality except as an element in the one gift of
renewal through God's presence. Practically speaking, the abstraction faith alone is misleading,
or useless at best.
The concept of justification, like that of faith, can be contemplated in itself; it can be
defined as God's pardon, or his counting righteous. In reality, however, this counting
righteous, as a thing rather than a word, necessarily includes a making righteous. Newman
observes that all through Scripture, God's word . . . effects what it announces. 56 God spoke and
the world came into existence; he spoke and Lazarus rose from the dead; he spoke and the storm
became still. When, therefore, he counts righteous when he speaks the word of justification
he also makes righteous. The object denoted by the words justification and
sanctification is one and the same. In practice, then, one may use the terms interchangeably, as
St. Augustine and the other Fathers frequently did. Serious men, Newman contends,
dealing with realities, not with abstract conceptions, entering into the field of
practical truth, not into the lists of controversy, not refuting an opponent, but
teaching the poor, have ever found it impossible to confine justification to a mere
declaring of that, which is also by the same grace effected.57
Although Newman himself has entered into the lists of controversy, he never loses sight of the
practical significance of his dispute. Like the Fathers, he endeavors to go beyond the letter and
to penetrate the spirit of justification. He proceeds in the manner of serious men those
who took justification to mean what they saw, felt, handled, as existing in fact in themselves
and others . . . [as] a wonderful grace of God, not in the heavens, but nigh to them, even in their
mouth and in their heart.58 In some sense, evidently, the theology of Newman and the Fathers is
experiential.
56 Ibid., 81.
57 Ibid., 99.
58 Ibid., 99-100.

20
But to call it experiential, to be sure, is not to say that Newman or the Fathers limit
Scripture's meaning to the sphere of their own experience or their own opinions. It is to say,
rather, that they approach Scripture in light of the grace of God's indwelling presence, searching
with reverence and openness for the meaning of the letter as well as the spirit. Free from the
city of shadows and the fog of false distinctions, Newman penetrates the light of revelation to
find God himself. The great irony of the doctrine of sola fide an irony that Newman describes
as perhaps the great moral of the history of Protestantism is that, while Luther intended to
redirect attention from works and observances to Almighty God, his doctrine has led many to
focus their attention on their own feelings so as to assure themselves that they do, indeed, have
saving faith. One of the great boons of the Sacraments and the performance of good works is that
they direct one's attention outward, to God and neighbor. As Newman points out in a sermon
titled Self-Contemplation, He who aims at attaining sound doctrine or right practice, more or
less looks out of himself; whereas, in labouring after a certain frame of mind [i.e., the assurance
of faith], there is an habitual reflex action of the mind upon itself.59 The overcoming of selfcenteredness is to be found not in the doctrine of sola fide, but in the justifying, sanctifying,
renewing, enlivening, intimate and personal presence of God.

V. Break Down the Walls: Concluding Remarks

In light of Newman's forceful polemic against the teaching of Luther, it may come as a
surprise that in the Advertisement to the Third Edition, he summarizes the Lectures as follows:
Their drift is to show that there is little difference but what is verbal in the various views on
justification, found whether among Catholic or Protestant divines.60 Newman's meaning here
59 Sermons, 333.
60 Lectures, ix.

21
becomes a little clearer when we consider the way he distances Luther's extreme view or its
extreme expression from that of other Protestants. As Newman explains early on in a
footnote, Melanchthon and Calvin take the sober tone of our [i.e., the Church of England's]
Homilies in denying that justifying faith can for a moment exist without love, contrary to Luther
and his school.61
In fact, Melanchthon's view very nearly approaches that of the Catholic Church, despite
his insistence to the contrary: what Melanchthon gains in reasonableness, he surely loses in the
controversy with Rome. For what is the real difference between saying with him that faith is not
justifying unless love or holiness be with it; or with Bellarmine, that it is not so, unless love be in
it? Even Luther himself, according to Newman, eventually grew more moderate. Newman
quips, It is but fair to Luther to say that he indirectly renounced the extravagant parts of his
doctrine at the end of his life; (that is, the distinctive parts).62 Why, then, one might ask, has
Newman taken pains to refute a position hardly maintained even by its original proponent? Why
all the fuss?
For starters, a verbal difference is not necessarily a trivial one. As we have seen,
Newman takes seriously the connection between words and things. When that connection begins
to fracture when Protestants, in the name of sola fide, begin to multiply artificial distinctions
Scripture comes to be seen as an impenetrable mist. All interpretations become more or less
valid, and exegesis becomes a form of self-expression rather than instruction. By presenting a
coherent view of justification that accords with the words of Scripture as a whole, Newman
upholds the connection between letter and spirit, thus affirming the Church's traditional
practice of looking to Scripture for true doctrine.
61 Ibid., 10.
62 Ibid., 60.

22
Another motivation behind Newman's Lectures is simply his recognition that sola fide is
in the air, as it were, influencing a large portion of the English people in ways that go beyond
the merely verbal sphere and impinge on the practical. Few, perhaps, would embrace Luther's
doctrine if presented clearly and consistently, with all of its implications, but then again, few
would ever have occasion to consider it so rigorously. For the most part, people who claim to
embrace the doctrine do so inconsistently, accepting some but not all of its implications, adopting
its ethos partially but not entirely. Thus Newman remarks,
I cannot for an instant believe that so many would adhere to it, if they understood
what it really means when brought out as distinct from other views on the subject,
and made consistent with itself. They profess it, because it is what is put into their
hands, and they graft it upon a temper of mind in many cases far higher and holier
than it.63
Luther's doctrine has become, to a large extent, customary, and its mere divergence from the
Roman Catholic position is, for some, one of the primary points in its favor.
To this day, many Evangelicals and other Protestants profess the doctrine of sola fide with
vehemence, as though Luther really were correct in saying that faith justifies before and
without (sine et ante) love as though saying otherwise really were the most dangerous of
heresies. Partly out of habit, perhaps partly from prejudice against anything smacking of
Romanism, many of them cling to Luther's reading of Paul and the resulting separation between
justification and sanctification. To be sure, they have admirable motives as well; they want to
emphasize the gratuity of God's gift, the utterly undeserving state of fallen man, the Christian's
total dependence on grace for salvation. When pressed, moreover, many of them concede that
faith entails good works and growth in holiness, though they tend immediately to add that good
works and holiness do not contribute to salvation, for that is the role of faith alone. The

63 Ibid., 30.

23
disagreement is partly verbal, perhaps, but it seems to be partly real and practical, too, especially
as regards the efficacy of the Sacraments. Given that Evangelicals generally accept the harmony
(even the inerrancy) of Scripture, they may find Newman's Scriptural arguments challenging, or
in any case engaging.
Lutherans themselves have joined with Catholics to explore and attempt to resolve their
differences, and the results have been fruitful. In the Joint Statement on the Doctrine of
Justification (1999), the Lutheran World Federation and the Pontifical Council for Promoting
Christian Unity agreed on a number of points that echo what we have seen in Newman's
Lectures:
We confess together that God forgives sin by grace and at the same time frees
human beings from sin's enslaving power and imparts the gift of new life in Christ.
When persons come by faith to share in Christ, God no longer imputes to them
their sin and through the Holy Spirit effects in them an active love. These two
aspects of God's gracious action are not to be separated, for persons are by faith
united with Christ, who in his person is our righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30): both the
forgiveness of sin and the saving presence of God himself.
And again:
We confess together that sinners are justified by faith in the saving action of God
in Christ. By the action of the Holy Spirit in baptism, they are granted the gift of
salvation, which lays the basis for the whole Christian life. They place their trust
in God's gracious promise by justifying faith, which includes hope in God and
love for him. Such a faith is active in love and thus the Christian cannot and
should not remain without works. But whatever in the justified precedes or
follows the free gift of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it.64
Disagreements remain; Catholics affirm human co-operation in justification, while Lutherans
regard the human role as purely passive. Catholics see a place for human merit (through
grace), while Lutherans avoid the language of merit except in the case of Christ himself. Even
so, the agreements are substantial, and they align with Newman's view that living faith includes
64 "Joint Statement on the Doctrine of Justification," accessed December 14, 2012,
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cathluth-joint-declaration_en.html. Emphasis mine.

24
hope and love, that salvation is granted through Baptism, and that the Christian's union with
Christ involves the saving presence of God himself.
Catholics, for our part, might benefit from a greater emphasis on this saving presence.
Every aspect and element of God's saving work is important justification, sanctification, good
works, the Sacraments, etc. but all of these are encapsulated most powerfully in the fact that
God dwells in us. His presence imbues us, as Newman says, with sanctity and immortality. This,
I repeat, is our justification, our ascent through Christ to God, or God's descent through Christ to
us.65 Not only is this doctrine inspiring and uplifting in itself, but it is also promising for our
continued efforts in ecumenism. It answers to the desire, often expressed most adamantly by
Evangelicals, to encounter God in a personal relationship, to be one with God in the most
intimate way imaginable. It speaks also to the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis, inasmuch as
we undergo an ascent through Christ to God and become one with God, even deified, one
might say, by his grace.
As we continue to strive for unity, let us pray in the words of John Henry Newman and
through his intercession, O Lord Jesus Christ, break down the walls of separation which divide
one party and denomination of Christians from another.66

65 Lectures, 219.
66 John Henry Newman, Meditations and Devotions of the Late Cardinal Newman (New York: Longmans, 1903),
189.