'The Gospel covenant is not a covenant of faith only': an 1826 visitation charge on the necessity of faith and works

He told them that the house of theirs to which he alluded was this their church, in which he now addressed them for the first time; that their most welcome and proper manner of bidding him God-speed would be their patient obedience to his teaching of the gospel; but that he could put forward no claim to such conduct on their part unless he taught them the great Christian doctrine of works and faith combined.

Thus did Mr. Arabin preach himself into the living of St. Ewold's in Barchester Towers. Trollope here echoes what was a significant critique of Solafidianism. That critique was the mainstream view of the 18th century Church of England and maintained by the 'Orthodox' into the 19th century. A fine representation of this critique is seen in the primary visitation charge of Thomas Burgess, Bishop of Salisbury (received holy orders in 1784, consecrated to the episcopate 1803), delivered to his clergy in August 1826. In the preface to the published version of the charge, Burgess set out how "the Gospel covenant is not a covenant of faith only":

If, therefore, when it is asserted that we are justified by faith only, to the entire exclusion of works, (except such as are immediate acts and expressions of faith,) it be meant that our sins are forgiven not on account of any good works of our own, but for Christ's sake only, it is the doctrine of the Gospel, and of the Church of England. But if the assertion means that we are finally justified and saved by faith without works, and that works are of no avail for our salvation, it is contrary to the Gospel, and to the doctrine of our Church. The Gospel covenant is not a covenant of faith only, but of faith and works. It is the baptismal covenant, as expressed in our Church service; and is the doctrine of our Liturgy ...

In the charge, he identifies the danger at the heart of Solafidianism - Antinomianism - and what can lead to this error:

that which tends directly, though not avowedly, to Antinomianism, and is the more to be guarded against because it appears to arise from a doctrine of St. Paul, and to be warranted by one of the Articles of our Church misunderstood. The 11th Article says, that "We are accounted righteous before God only for the merits of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings" ...

The misinterpretation of Article 11, regarding it as referring to whole process of salvation rather than justification only, leads to an obscuring of explicit Dominical teaching:

When therefore we find in the Articles of our Church, that we are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the term righteous must be understood in the sense of pardon; we are acquitted of our sins, and of the punishment due to them, only through the merits of Christ's death. But in the Gospel it is used also to express active virtue; and they are therefore accounted righteous who are beneficent to their fellow creatures (Matth. xxv. 46). St. John uses this emphatical caution on the subject, "Let no man deceive you; he that doeth righteousness is righteous" (1 John iii.7).

In relation then to the pardon of our sins, we are justified and accounted righteous, only through the merits of Christ; in respect of our duties, they only are justified and accounted righteous, who are doers of righteousness. Our Saviour's Parables, his Sermon on the Mount, and other discourses, afford the surest correctives of antinomian principles; and constitute an ample and solid basis for a course of Christian ethics.

This passage powerfully illustrates why the tired caricatures of 18th century Anglicanism as 'moralism' profoundly misunderstand the Church of England and its divines during that era. The insistence that 'the Gospel covenant is not a covenant of faith only' but also requires good works in the life of the Christian, was not 'moralism': it was a determination to reflect how the New Testament explicitly proclaims the need for good works in the scheme of our salvation. That Anglicans divines and preachers across the 'long 18th century' declared, as did Burgess, that the Scriptures of the New Testament are "the surest correctives of antinomian principles" because they call us to be "doers of righteousness" was not 'moralism'. It was, rather, a desire to be authentically evangelical, for such is the teaching of the Gospel.

Those who accuse 18th century Anglicanism of 'moralism' are attacking a coherent, resonant, and pastorally effective account of the relationship between salvation, faith and works. As the preface to the charge states:

if the assertion means that we are finally justified and saved by faith without works, and that works are of no avail for our salvation, it is contrary to the Gospel, and to the doctrine of our Church. 

Or, as Burgess pithily declares in the charge, summarising what was was understood as the wise and profoundly Scriptural mainstream understanding of Church of England divines during that century:

Good works therefore, as well as faith, are not only available but necessary to salvation.