Chapter X: Section I: Our first parents being seduced by the subtlety and

temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.

"Section II.--By this sin they fell from their original righteousness, and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all faculties and parts of soul and body.

"Section III.--They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation.

"Section IV.--From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

"Section V.--This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.

"Section VI.--Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal.

_"Of God's Covenant with Man:_ Section I.--The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

"Section II.--The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon, condition of perfect and personal obedience.

"Section III.--Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: whereby he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

"Section IV.--This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.

"Section V.--This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation: and is called the Old Testament.

"Section VI.--Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are, the preaching the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fulness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.

_"Of Christ the Mediator:_ Section I."--It pleased God in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only begotten Son, to be mediator between God and man; the Prophet, Priest, and King; the Head and Savior of his Church; the Heir of all things; and Judge of the world: unto whom he did from all eternity give a people to be his seed, and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.

"Section II.--The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the Manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.

"Section III.--The Lord Jesus, in his human nature thus united to the divine, was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure; having in him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; in whom it pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell: to the end that being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, he might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a Mediator and Surety. Which office he took not unto himself, but was thereunto called by his Father; who put all power and judgment into his hands, and gave him commandment to execute the same.

"Section IV.--This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake; which that he might discharge, he was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfil it endured most grievous torments immediately in his soul, and most painful sufferings in his body; was crucified, and died; was buried, and remained under the power of death, yet saw no corruption. On the third day he arose from the dead, with the same body in which he suffered; with which he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of his Father, making intercession; and shall return to judge men and angels at the end of the world.

"Section VII.--Christ, in the work of mediation, acteth according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.

"Section VIII.--To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same: making intercession for them; and revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by his Spirit to believe and obey; and governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit; overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdom, in such manner and ways as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensation" (Westminster Confession of Faith).

IV.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT SOTERIOLOGY.

The difference between the Soteriology of these great divisions of Christendom--Catholic and Protestant--consists chiefly in the conception of the mode in which the Atonement of the Son of God became available to the believers. Shedd, in pointing out these differences, states that the decisions of the Council of Trent, which, as we have seen, formulated the church's doctrine on "Original Sin," and "Justification," "makes inward holiness in conjunction with the merits of Christ the ground of justification. The unintentional confounding of the distinction between justification and sanctification," which Shedd admits appears occasionally in the writings of some of the Christian Fathers--Augustine especially--"becomes a deliberate and emphatic identification in the scheme of the papal church." He then sets forth the Protestant view as follows:

_The Protestant Position:_ "The Anselmic and Protestant soteriologies mean by the term 'justification,' that divine act, instantaneous and complete, by which sin is pardoned. If we distinguish the entire work of redemption into two parts, a negative and a positive, justification in the Pauline and in the Reformed sanctification would include the former and would include nothing more. Justification is the negative acquittal from condemnation, and not in the least the positive infusion of righteousness, or production of holiness. This positive element, the Reformers were careful to teach, invariably accompanies the negative; but they were equally careful to teach that it is not identical with it. The forgiveness of sin is distinct and different from the sanctification of the heart. It is an antecedent which is always followed, indeed, by its consequent; but this does not render the consequent a substitute for the antecedent, or one and the same thing with it."

In a foot note our author quotes the Westminster Confession on the distinction of justification and sanctification:

"The Westminster Confession thus states the distinction between justification and sanctification. 'Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification _imputeth_ the righteousness of Christ; in sanctification, his Spirits _infuseth_ grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof: in the former, sin is _pardoned_; in the other it is _subdued_; the _one_ doth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation; the _other_ is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection" (Larger Catechism, Q. 77).

Shedd, continuing the discussion of the differences between the Catholics and Protestants upon this subject, says:

"The Council of Trent resolved _justification_ into _sanctification_, and in the place of a gratuitous justification and remission of sins through the expiation of the Redeemer, substituted the most subtle form of the doctrine of justification by works that has yet appeared, or that can appear. Man is justified and accepted at the bar of justice by his _external acts_ of obedience to the moral or the ecclesiastical law. This is, indeed, the doctrine that prevails in the common practice of the papal church, but it is not the form in which it appears in the Tridentine canons. According to these, man is justified by an inward and spiritual act which is denominated the act of faith; by a truly divine and holy habit or principle infused by the gracious working of the Holy Spirit. The ground of the sinner's justification is thus a divine and a gracious one. God works in the sinful soul to will and to do, and by making it inherently just justifies it. And all this is accomplished through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ; sot that, in justification there is a combination of the objective work of Christ with the subjective character of the believer. This statement is the more subtle, because it distinctly refers the infused grace or holiness to God as the author, and thereby seems to preclude the notion of self-righteousness. But it is fundamentally erroneous, because this infused righteousness, or holiness of heart, upon which remission of sins rests in part, is not _piacular_.[A] It has in it nothing of the nature of a satisfaction to justice. So far forth, therefore, as infused grace in the heart is made a ground and procuring cause of the pardon of sin, the judicial aspects and relations of sin are overlooked, and man is received into the divine favor without any true and proper expiation of his guilt."

[Footnote A: "Piacular," expiatory, atoning.]

Our author quotes Hooker as in substantial agreement with the above views as follows:

"Then what is the fault of the church of Rome? Not that she requireth works at their hands which will be saved: but that she attributeth unto works a power of satisfying God for sin" (Hooker "On Justification," Works II, 538).

_Another Statement of the Protestant Attitude:_ "It was in their profound sense of the reality of sin, and of its dominion in the human will, that the Protestants laid the foundation of their theology. The body of the Reformers rested on the Anselmic idea of satisfaction [in the Atonement] which likewise formed a part of the opposing [i. e., the Roman Catholic] creed. The point of difference was on the vital question how the soul, burdened with self-condemnation, is to obtain forgiveness of sins and peaceful reunion to God in the character of a reconciled father. In the teachings, injunctions, services, ceremonies of the Church, the Reformers had sought for this infinite good in vain. They found it in the doctrine of gratuitous pardon, from the bare Mercy of God, through the mediation of Christ; a pardon that waits for nothing but acceptance on the part of the soul--the belief, the trust, the faith of the penitent. Everything of the nature of satisfaction or merit on the part of the offender is precluded, by the utterly gratuitous nature of the gift, by the sufficiency of the Redeemer's expiation. Every assertion of the necessity of works or merit on the side of the offender, as the ground of forgiveness, is a disparagement of the Redeemer's Mercy and of his expiatory office. Faith, thus laying hold of a free forgiveness and reconnecting the soul with God, is the fountain of a new life of holiness, which depends not on fear and homage to law, but on gratitude and on filial sentiments. Christ himself nourishes this new life by spiritual influences that flow into the soul through the channel of its fellowship with him. Justification is thus a forensic[A] term; it is equivalent to the remission of sins. To justify, signifies not to make the offender righteous, to deliver him from the accusation of the law by the bestowal of a pardon. Saving faith is not a virtue to be rewarded, but an apprehensive act; the hand that takes the free gift. Such, in a brief statement, was the cardinal principle of the Protestant interpretation of the Gospel. The Christian life has its centre in this experience of forgiveness. Virtues of character and victories over temptation grow out of it. Christian ethics are united to Christian theology by this vital bond.

[Footnote A: A term used in argumentation or discussion.]

[Footnote: This idea of justification is the keynote in Luther's "Commentary on the Epistle to the Gallatians," and Malancthon's "Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans." It is the distinctive feature of the Protestant exegesis of the writings of Paul" (Fisher).]

_The Authority for Protestant Conclusions:_ But to what authority could the Reformers appeal in behalf of their proposition? What assurance had they of its truth? How did they arrive at the knowledge of it? They had found this obscured and half-forgotten truth recorded as they believed with perfect clearness, in the Scriptures. The authority of the Scriptures was fully acknowledged by the church in which they had been trained, however it might superadd to them other authoritative sources of knowledge, and however it might deny the competence of the individual to interpret the Bible for himself. That Christ spoke in the Scriptures all admitted. What his voice was the Reformer could not doubt; for the truth that he uttered was one of which they had immediate, spiritual recognition. Their interpretation verified itself to their hearts by the light and peace which that truth brought with it, as well as to their understandings on a critical examination of the text. The church then denied their interpretation and commanded them to abandon it, was in error; it could not be authorized, infallible interpreter of Holy Writ. Thus the traditional belief in the authority of the Roman church gave way, and the principle of the exclusive authority of the Scriptures, as the rule of faith, took its place. By this process the second of the distinctive principles of Protestantism was reached. That the meaning of the Bible is sufficiently plain and intelligible was implied in this conclusion. Hence, the right of private judgment is another side of the same doctrine" ("The Reformation," by Geo. P. Fisher, D. D.--Scribners--pp. 460-462).

_The Roman Catholic Side of the Controversy:_ On the Roman side of the controversy it is but proper that the statement of the Council of Trent on essential points at issue should be quoted:

"Justification is not the mere remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renovation of the inward man through the voluntary reception of grace and gifts of grace; whereby an unjust man becomes just, the enemy a friend, so that he may be an heir according to the hope of eternal life. * * * The only formal cause of justification is the justice * * * of God, not that by which he himself is just, but that by which he makes us just--that namely by which we are gratuitously renewed by him in the spirit of our minds, and are not only reputed, but really are and are denominated just, receiving justice into ourselves each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Spirit imparts to each as he pleases, and also, according to each one's own disposition and co-operation. * * *

* * * When the Apostle asserts that man is justified by faith and gratuitously, his language is to be understood in that sense which the constant agreement of the Catholic church has affixed to it; in such a manner, namely, as that we are said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God (Heb. xi:6). And we are said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace itself of justification."[A]

[Footnote A: Canones Concilii, Tridentini: De Justificatione vii, viii.]

The contrast between Protestant and Catholic views on justification are even more distinctly seen when the anathematizing clauses of the Trent Council utterances are considered, and which are added to guard the Catholic faith. They follow:

"If any one shall say that the sinner is justified by faith alone, in the sense that nothing else is required which may co-operate towards the attainment of the grace of justification, and that the sinner does not need to be prepared and disposed by the motion of his own will: _let him be accursed_.

"If any one shall say, that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the righteousness of Christ, or by the sole remission of sin, to the exclusion of that grace and charity which is shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Spirit, and which inheres in them, or shall say that the grace whereby we are justified is merely and only the favor of God: _let him be accursed_.

"If any one shall say that justiying faith is nothing but confidence in the divine mercy remitting sin on account of Christ, or that this faith is the sole thing by which we are justified; _let him be accursed_."

_Protestant Rejoinder:_ Upon this statement Shedd makes the following comment, with which, we think, not even Catholics would be displeased, as it but emphasizes their position on justification:

"It will be perceived from these extracts that the Tridentine theologian regarded 'justification' as prospective and not retrospective, in its essential nature. It is not the forgiveness of 'sins that are past,' but the cure and prevention of sins that are present and future. The element of guilt is lost sight of, and the piacular [expiatory] work of Christ is lost sight of with it; and the whole work of redemption is interpreted to be merely a method of purification. Thus the Tridentine theory implies, logically, that sin is not guilt, but only disease and pollution. Furthermore, according to the papal theory, justification is not instantaneous, but successive. It is not a single and complete act upon the part of God, but a gradual process in the soul of man. For it is founded upon that inward holiness or love which has been infused by divine grace."[A]

[Footnote A: History Christian Doctrine--Shedd--Vol. II, p. 326.]

V.

"THE MODERN LIBERAL VIEW" ON THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.

There is still another class of Christians entertaining views upon the Atonement whose ideas ought to be presented and yet are extremely difficult to classify, as they may neither be called Protestant nor Catholic. They are a modern product, accepting the conclusions of what is called "higher criticism," and the doctrine of evolution. They make a wide departure from the old conception of the doctrine of Atonement as of all things else in the old Christian theological schools, and yet retain a respect and I may say a veneration for the Christ, and seek to give him place in the order of things as conceived by them. For want of a better title I have called their conception of the work of Christ, "The Modern Liberal View," which, while it may not be as perfectly descriptive as could be desired, will not, I trust, be offensive, and will serve the mere purpose of classification.

Perhaps the most complete statement, in concise form, of this Liberal View is made by Dr. Lyman Abbott in his "Theology of an Evolutionist," published in 1897. I begin his statement with what he says of sin.

_"Innocence, Temptation, Fall, Sin:_ This is the biography of every man, save only Him who passed from innocence to virtue through temptation, yet without sin. Man cannot grow from innocence to virtue without temptation; he cannot experience temptation without a possibility of sin,--that is, of yielding to temptation; and yielding to temptation is fall. Every man when he yields to temptation and sins falls from a higher to a lower, from a spiritual to an animal condition. He falls back from that state from which he had begun to emerge. It is true that the animal man is worse in his animalism than the animal from which he has emerged or is emerging. The ferocity of the tiger is no match for that of the ferocious man; the intemperance of the brute is far less than that of the brutalized man. How can it be otherwise when the higher powers which God has conferred upon him are subordinated to and made the instruments of his animalism?

"Sin, then, is not a means to good. It is not "good in the making." The fall is not a "fall upward." Every yielding to temptation is a hindrance, not a help, to moral development; but every temptation offers what, rightly employed, is an indispensable means of moral development. For all moral development is through temptation to virtue. There can be no virtue without temptation; for virtue is victory over temptation. An untempted soul may be innocent, but cannot be virtuous, for virtue is the choice of right when wrong presses itself upon us and demands our choosing. How can we have courage, unless there is danger and apprehension of the danger? How can we have patience, unless there are burdens? How can we have fidelity, unless there is some trust to be maintained, and some temptation calling on us to leave the trust and be false to it? The scorn of "goody-goody" is justified, for "goody-goody" is innocence, not virtue; and the boy who never does anything wrong because he never does anything at all is of no use in the world. Temptation is struggle, and virtue emerges from struggle. And we cannot have the choice of right without the possibility of doing wrong; and choosing wrong is sin; and sin is fall; because it is choosing the animal from which we are emerging rather than the spiritual condition into which we have partially emerged.

_The Means of Salvation: Saved by the Blood--i. e., The Life of the Christ:_ "Vicarious sacrifice is not an episode. It is the universal law of life. Life comes only from life. This is the first proposition. Lifegiving costs the life-giver something. That is the second proposition. Pain is travail-pain, birth-pain; and it is a part of the divine order--that is, of the order of nature--that the birth of a higher life should always be through the pain of another.

"This is the law of God,--that is, the nature of God. For the laws of God are not edicts promulgated; they are the expressions of Himself; and the law that life comes only by the pouring out of life through suffering is an expression of the divine nature. This is the meaning of Paul's teaching in the eighth chapter of Romans: first, that it is the universal law that all life is by impartation of life; and, secondly, that this is universal because it is divine; that God Himself is the great Life-giver, and gives by His own suffering His life to the children of men.

"This, too, is what is meant by that statement so dear to some and so shocking to others,--that we are saved by the blood of Christ. Let us try for a moment to disabuse our minds of traditional opinions and see what that phrase means looked at in the light of history. Is 'the blood of Christ' the blood which flowed from Him at the crucifixion? His was almost a bloodless death; a few drops of blood only trickled from the pierced hands and feet; for the blood and water that came from the side when the spear pierced it came after death, when the suffering was all over. Blood, the Bible itself declares, is life; we are saved by the blood of Christ when we are saved by the life of Christ, by Christ's own life imparted to us, by Christ's life transmitted; and by Christ's life transmitted, as life alone can be transmitted, through the gateway of pain and suffering. The suffering of Jesus Christ was not a single episode,--one short hour, one short three years: the suffering of Jesus Christ was the revelation of the eternal fact that God is from eternity the Life-giver, and that giving life costs God something as it costs us something."

_Meaning of Revelation and the Struggle for Righteousness:_ "Knowledge of the truth, clearness of apprehension and tenacity of grasp upon it, are developed by struggle with error. Revelation is not a divine contrivance for saving men from struggle, but a divine incitement to and encouragement in struggle! Virtue is developed by struggle with temptation. Grace is not an easy bestowment of virtue on an unstruggling creature, but such aid as is necessary to inspire the courage of hope and give assurance of victory. But struggle is for others as well as for self: the struggle of love as well as of self-interest; the struggle of parents for their offspring, of reformers for the state, of martyrs for the church. And these struggles all point to and are prophetic for the service and the sacrifice of the Son of God. For this struggle of love is divine. It belongs not to the infirmity of humanity, but is an essential element in that process of evolution which is God's way of doing things.

"It is only by human experiences that we can interpret the Divine. * * * * We shall never enter into the mystery of redemption unless we enter in some measure into these two experiences of wrath and pity, and into the mystery of their reconciliation. We must realize that God has an infinite and eternal loathing of sin. If the impure and the unjust, the drunkard and the licentious, are loathsome to us, what must be the infinite loathing of an infinitely pure Spirit for those who are worldly and selfish, licentious and cruel, ambitious and animal! But with this great loathing is a great pity. And the pity conquers the loathing, appeases it, satisfies it, is reconciled with it, only as it redeems the sinner from his loathsomeness, lifts him up from his degradation, brings him to truth and purity, to love and righteousness; for only thus is he or can he be brought to God. The Old Theology has, it seems to me, grievously erred in personifying these two experiences; in imputing all the hate and wrath to the Father and all the pity and compassion to the Son. But the New Theology will still more grievously err if it leaves either the wrath or the pity out of its estimate of the divine nature, or fails to see and teach that reconciliation is the reconciliation of a great pity with a great wrath, the issue of which is a great mercy and a great redemption. * * * * *

"There are many in the Church of Christ who think of God as a just and punitive God, who must be satisfied either by penalty laid on the guilty, or by an equivalent for the penalty. That is one form of paganism. There are many who, reacting against that conception, think of God, as an indifferent, careless God, who does not care much about iniquity, does not trouble Himself about it, is not disturbed by it! That is another form of paganism. And there are many who try to solve the problem by thinking of two Gods, a just God and a merciful God, and imagining that the merciful God by the sacrifice of Himself appeases the wrath of the just God. That also is a modified form of paganism. The one transcendent truth which distinguishes Christianity from all forms of paganism is that it represents God as appeasing His own wrath or satisfying His own justice by the forth-putting of His own love. But He saves men from their sins by an experience which we can interpret to ourselves only by calling it a struggle between the sentiments of justice and pity."