Question: In  wliat  sense  is  Christ's  righteousness  imputed  to  believers?

Answer: Imputation is an act of God as sovereign judge, at once ju- dicial and sovereign, whereby (1) he makes the guilt and legal responsibilities of our sins really Christ's, and punishes him for them. " He was wounded for our transgression, the punishment of our peace was upon him." — Is. liii. 5 and 11. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." — Gal. iii. 13. "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."— 2 Cor. v. 21; John i. 29. (2.) He makes the righteousness of Christ ours (that is, the legal right to reward, by the gracious covenant conditioned on righteousness), and then treats us as persons legally invested with those rights. " Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works." — Rom. iv. 6. " For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everj' one that believeth." — Rom. x. 4; 1 Cor. i. 30; 2 Cor. v. 21; Phil. iii. 9. " Imputation " is the charging or crediting to one's account as the ground of judicial treatment. " Guilt " is the just obligation to punishment. The reatus pcence, or "guilt of punishment," is imputed to Christ in our stead. The reatus culpce, or guilt of fault, remains ours. "Righteousness imputed" is the vicarious fulfillment of all the covenant demands on which eternal life is conditioned. " Merit " is that which deserves on the ground of covenant promise a reward. The merit of reward is imputed to us from Christ, the merit of praise worthiness remains his forever. As Christ is not made a sinner by the imputation to him of our sins, so we are not made holy by the imputation to us of his righteousness. The transfer is only of guilt from us to him, and of merit from him to us. He justly suffered the punish- ment due to our sins, and we justly receive the rewards due to his righteousness. — 1 John i. 9. For explanation of " Imputa- tion," see above. Chap. XXL, Ques. 12, and Chap. XXV., Ques. 9. 16. Upon what ground does this imputation proceed? && Upon the union federal, spiritual, and vital, which subsists between Christ and his people. Which union, in turn, rests upon the eternal decree of election common to all the persons 502 j^rS T I PICA TION. of the Godhead, and upon the eternal covenant of grace formed between the Father as God absolute and the Son as Mediator. Thus the ultimate ground of imputation is the eternal nature and imperial will of God, the fountain of all law and all right. 17. How may the fact of this imputation he proved from Scripture ? See Rom. v. 12-21. Compare Rom. iv. 6; iii. 21, with Rom. V. 19. The doctrine of imputation is essentially involved in the doctrine of substitution. If Christ obeyed and suffered in our place it can only be because our sins were imputed to him, Avhich is directly asserted in Scripture, Isa. liii. 6; 2 Cor. v. 21; 1 Pet. ii. 24; and, if so, the merit of that obedience and suffer- ing must accrue to us, Matt. xx. 28; 1 Tim. ii. 6; 1 Pet. iii. 18. See above, Chapter XXL, Question 12. This doctrine is also taught by those passages which affirm that Christ fulfilled the law, Rom. iii. 31; x. 4; and by those which assert that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ, 1 Cor. vi. 11; Rom. viii. 1, etc. This doctrine, moreover, stands or falls with the whole view we have presented of the priesthood of Christ, of the justice of God, of the covenants of Avorks and of grace, and of the nature of the atonement; to which subjects, under their respective heads, the reader is referred. 18. What are the two effects ascribed to the imputation of Christ's righteousness 7 Christ's righteousness satisfies, 1st, the penalty of the law; 2d, then the positive conditions of the covenant of works, i. e., obedience to the precepts of the law. The imputation of that righteousness to the believer, therefore, secures, 1st, the remis- sion of the penalty, pardon of sins; 2d, the recognition and treatment of the believer as one with respect to whom the covenant is fulfilled, and to whom all its promises and advan- tages legally accrue. — See below, Question 28. 19. Are the sins of believers, committed siihseqiiently to their justification, included in the pardon ivhich is consequent to the im- putation of Christ's 7'ighteousness ; and, if so, in ivhat icay ? The elect, although embraced in the purpose of God, and in his covenant with his Son from eternity, are not effectively united to Christ until the time of their regeneration, when, in consequence of their union with him, and the imputation of his righteousness to them, their relation to the law is permanently changed. Although the immutable law always continues their RELATION OF FAITH TO JUSTIFICATION. 503 perfect standard of experience and of action, it is no longer to them a condition of the covenant of life, because that covenant has been fully discharged for them by their sponsor. God no longer imputes sin to them to the end of judicial punishment. Every suffering which they henceforth endure is of the nature of chastisement, designed for their correction and improve- ment, and forms, in its relation to them, no part of the penalty of the law. 20. What are the dlff^erent opinions as to the class of si7is which are forgiven when the sinner is justified? Romanists teach that original sin and all actual transgres- sions prior to baptism are forgiven for Christ's sake, through the reception of that sacrament, and that after baptism, sins, as they are committed, are through the merits of Christ for- given in the observance of the sacrament of penance. See above. Chapter XXXII., Question 11. Dr. Pusey has revived an ancient doctrine that in baptism all past sins, original and actual, are forgiven; but his system makes no provision for sins subsequently committed. ]\Iany Protestants have held that only past and present sins are forgiven in the first act of justification, and that sins after regeneration, as they occur, are forgiven upon renewed acts of faith. The true view, however, is, that in consequence of the imputation to him of Christ's righteousness, the believer is emancipated from his former federal relation to the law, and consequently henceforth no sin is charged to him to the end of judicial condemnation. This follows from the nature of justifi- cation, as stated above, and it is illustrated by the recorded experience of Paul, who, while complaining of the law of sin, still warring in his members, yet never doubted of his filial relation to God, nor of the forgiveness of his sins. 21. What are the different opinions as to the relation hetiveen faith and justification ? Socinians hold that faith, including obedience, is the proper meritorious ground of justification. — " Cat. Rac.,"" Quest. 418-421, and 453. Arminians teach that although faith has no merit in itself, since it is the gift of God, yet, as a living principle, including evangelical obedience, it is graciously, for Christ's merits' sake, imputed to us for righteousness, i. e., accepted as righteousness, upon the ground of which we are declared just. — Limborch, "Theol. Christ.," 6, 4, 22, and 6, 4, 46. The orthodox view is that the active and passive obedience 504 JUSTIFICA TIOiV. of Christ satisfying botli the precept and penalty of the law as a covenant of life, and thus constituting' a perfect righteousness, is, upon being appropriated by the believer in the act of faith, actually made his, in a legal sense, by imputation. Faith, there- fore, is the mere instrument whereby we partake in the right- eousness of Christ, which is the true ground of our justification, "V 22. Prove from Scripture that faith is only the instrumental cause of justification. 1st. From the nature of faith itself (1.) It is not of our- selves, it is the gift of God. — Eph. ii. 8; Phil. i. 29. (2.) It is one of the fruits of the Spirit, and, therefore, not the meritorious ground of spiritual blessings. — Gal. v. 22. (3.) It is an act of the sold, and therefore a work, but though, by means of faith, justification is not by works. — Rom. iv. 2-5; xi. 6. (4.) Justi- fying faith terminates on or in Christ, in his blood and sacrifice, and in the promises of God; in its very essence, therefore, it involves trust, and, denying its owr justifying value, affirms the sole merit of that on which it trusts. — Rom. iii. 25, 26; iv. 20, 22; Gal. iii. 26; Eph. i. 12, 13; 1 John v. 10. (5.) The law necessarily demands a perfect righteousness, but faith, even when combined with the evangelical obedience which springs from it, is not a perfect righteousness. 2d. The Scriptures, when referring to the relation of justifi- cation to faith, use the terms £k nidrEooi, hy faith, and 8id Tti6Tf.ooz, by or through faitli, but never 8id Tci6riv, on account of faith, Gal. ii. 16. 3d. Faith is distinguished fi'om the righteousness which it apprehends. — Rom i. 17; Phil. iii. 8-11. Turretin, L. 16, Q. 7.


Question: What  is  the  specific  object  of  justifying  faith  ?

Answer: The Socinians, denying the divinity of Christ, make the act of justifying faith to terminate "in God through Christ." — "Rac. Cat.," Sec. 5., Ch. 9. The Romanists, confounding justification and sanctification, make the whole revelation of God the object of the faith that justifies. — "Cat. Rom." Part 1, Chap. 1. The Scriptural doctrine is, that while the renewed heart believes equally ever}?- ascertained word of God, the specific act of faith, whereby we are justified, terminates upon the person and work of Cln-ist as Mediator. This is proved, 1st, from express declarations of Scripture. Rom. iii. 22, 25; Gal. ii. 16; Phil. iii. 9. 2d. By the declara- tion that we are saved by believing in him. — Acts x. 43; xvi. 31; John iii. 16, 36. 3d. By those figurative expressions which illustrate the act of saving faith as "looking to Christ," OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 505 etc.— Is. xlv. 22 ; John i. 12 ; vi. 35, 37 ; jSIatt. xi. 28. 4th. Unbe. lief is the refusing the righteousness which God provides, i. e., Christ. — Ptom. x. 3, 4 24. What is the nature of that peace lohich fioivs from justifi- cation ? 1st. Peace with God, his justice being completely satisfied through the righteousness of Christ. — Kom. v. 1 ; 2 Cor. v. 19 ; Col. i. 21 ; Eph. ii. 14. In witness whereof his Holy Spirit is given to us. — Rom. viii. 15, 16; Heb. x. 15, 17. His love shed abroad in our hearts, Rom. v. 5, and our habitual fellowship with him established, 1 John i. 3. 2d. Inward peace of con- science, including consciousness of our reconciliation with God through the operation of his Spirit, as above, and the appease- ment of our self-condemning conscience through the apprehen- sion of the righteousness by which we are justified. — Heb. ix. 14; X. 2, 22.


Question: What  other  l^nefitSfioio  from  justification?

Answer: Being justified on the ground of a perfect righteousness, our whole relation to God and the law is changed; the gift of the Holy Gliost, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, the working orall things together for good in this life, deliverance in death, the resurrection of the body, and the final glorification, all result. 0 Objections Answered. 26. State and Refute the principal objections made to the Protestant doctrine of justification. 1st. That it is legal, and therefore excludes grace. We ANSWER — that it is transcendently gracious. 1. The admission of a substitute for guilty sinners was an act of grace. 2. The vicarious obedience and sufferings of the God-man were of infinite grace. 3. The imputation of his righteousness to an individual elected out of the mass of fallen humanity is an act of pure grace. Hence, 4, the entire subsequent regarding and treating the believer as righteous, is a work of grace. 2d. That it is impious because it declares the sinner to be righteous with the very righteousness of Christ. We ANSWER. It is not impious because — 1. This righteous- ness was freely wrought out with the intention it should be ours, and it is freely given to us. 2. It is not Christ's per- sonal subjective I'ighteousness which is incommunicable, but his vicarious fulfillment of the covenant of life under which we were created which is imputed to us. 3. The merit of praise- 506 JUSTIFICATION. worthiness is retained by Christ, only its merit of rewardable- ness is given to us. 4. It is given to us gratuitously, that the praise of glorious grace may redound to Christ alone. 3d. That gratuitous justification by faith leads to licen- tiousness. Paul answers, Rom. vi. 2-7: Prop. 1st. Where sin abounded grace did much more abound. Rom. V. 20. Prop. 2d. Shall we conclude, therefore, that we are to con- tinue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid. — Rom. vi. 1, 2. Prop. 3d. The federal union of the believer with Christ, which secures our justification, is the foundation of, and is insepara- ble from, that vital spiritual union with him, which secures our sanctification. Prop. 4th. This method of justification, so far from leading to licentiousness, secures the only conditions under which we could be holy. (1.) This method of justification, by changing our relation to God, enables us to return to him in a way of a free, loving service. — Rom. vi. 14; vii. 1-6. (2.) It alone de- livers us from the spirit of bondage and fear, and gives us that of adoption and love. — Rom. viii. 1-17; xiii. 10; Gal. v. 6; 1 John iv. 18; 2 John 6. 27. In ivlmt respect did the doctrine of Piscator on this subject differ from that ^^ the Reformed Churches? Piscator, a Protestant divine. Prof at Herborn (1584-1625), taught, 1st, that, as to his human nature, Christ was under the law in the same sense as any other creature, and that, therefore, he could only obey the law for himself; 2d, that if Christ had obeyed the law in our place, the law could not claim a second fulfillment of us, and, consequently. Christians would be under no obligations to obey the law of God; 3d, that if Christ had both obeyed the precept of the law and suffered its penalty, then the law would have been doubly fulfilled, since the claims of the precept and the penalty of the law are alternative, not coincident. This doctrine was expressly condemned in the Reformed Churches of Switzerland and Holland, and by the French synods held in the years 1603, 1612, and 1614. \\\ 1615, how- ever, the Synod tacitly allowed these views to pass without condemnation. — Mosheim's " Hist."


Question: Hoio  may  it  he  shown  that  justification  is  not  mere  pardon?

Answer: Piscator erred, from tailing to distinguish — 1st. That the claims of law terminate not upon natures, but upon persons. Christ Avas a divine person, and, therefore, his obedience was OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 507 free. 2d. That there is an evident difference between a federal relation to the law as a condition of salvation, and a natural relation to law as a rule of life. Christ discharged the former as our federal representative. The latter necessarily attaches to the believer as to all moral agents forever. Justification is more than pardon — 1st. Because the very word "to justify" proves it. To "pardon" is, in the exercise of sovereign prerogative, to waive the execution of the penal sanc- tions of the law. "To justify" is to declare that the demands of the law are satisfied, not wai^^ed. Pardon is a sovereign act — -justification is a judicial act. 2d. As we proved under Chap. XXV., Christ did in strict rigor of justice satisfy vicariously for us the demands of the law, both the obedience demanded and the , ' ' penalty denounced. His satisfaction is the ground of our justi- .' cation. But pardon is remission of penalty in absence of satis- I ,, ' •' faction. 3d. iF Justification were mere pardon it would simply » ''"'^ release us from penal suffering, but would provide no further good for us. But "justification through faith in Christ," se- cures not pardon only, but also peace, grace, reconciliation, adoption of sons, coheirship, etc., etc. — See above, Ques. 13. Kom. V. 1-10; Acts xxvi. 18; Rev. i. 5, 6. In the case of justified believers "justification " includes "par- don." Our justification proceeds on the ground of a "satisfac- tion," and, therefoi-e, is not mere pardon. But it is a " vicari- ous " satisfaction graciously set to the credit of the unworthy, and, therefore, it effects pardon to us sinners who believe in Christ. 29. Did not Calvin often use language to the effect that justifica- tion and pardon are the same ? He did. But his language is to be interpreted — 1st. By the fact that he was arguing with Eomanists who taught that "jus- tification consists in remission of sins and infusion of grace." He argued in opposition that justification consists in the former but does not include the latter. 2d. By the conclusive fact that his full definitions of justification comprehend the full truth more accurately defined in the Symbols of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches. Calvin's '^Institutes," Bk. 3, ch. 11, ^ 2. — "A man is said to be justi- fied in tlie sight of God, when in the judgment of God he is decreed righteous, and is accej)ted on account of his righteousness. ... In the same manner a man will be said to he justified by loorTcs, if in his hfe, or by the perfection of his works, he can answer and satisfy the divine justice. On the contrary a man will be justified by faith, when exchided from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteous- ness of Christ, and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as sinner, 508 JUSTIFICATION. bvit as rigliteoiis. Thus we simply interpret justification, as tlie accept- ance with which God receives us into his favor as if we were righteous, and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins, and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ." Calvin's ^'Cuni.," 1 Cor. i. 30. — " 'Christ is made unto us righteoiis- ness,' by which, he (the apostle) understood that we are accepted by God in his name (Christ's), because he expiated our sins, and his obedience is imputed to us for righteousness. For since the righteousness of faith consists in remission of sins, and in gratuitous accej)tance, we obtain both through Christ." 30. In ivliat respect does the governmental tlieory of the atone- ment modify the doctrine of justification ? See above, Chap. XXV., Question 27. 1st. It follows, from that theory, that justification is a sov- ereign, not a judicial act of God. Christ has not satisfied the law, but merely made it consistent with the government of God to set aside the law in the case of believing men. It is mere pardon, an act of executive clemency. 2d. As Christ did not die as a substitute, it follows that his righteousness is not imputed ; it is the occasion, not the ground of justification. 3d. As Christ did not die as a substitute, there is no strictly federal union between Christ and his people, and faith can not be the instrument of salvation by being the means of uniting us to Christ, but only the arbitrary condition of justification, or the means of recommending us to God. 4th. As justification is mere pardon, it only sets aside con- demnation, and renders, so far forth, future salvation possible. It does nothing to secvire the future standing and relations of the believer, under the covenant of salvation, to God. Dr. Emmons (1745-1840), one of the ablest theologians of the New England School, says ("Sermons," Vol. III., p. 3-67) — (1.) "Justification, in a gospel sense, signifies no more nor less than pardon or remission of sin." (2.) "Forgiveness is the only favor which God bestows upon men on Christ's account." (3.) "The fidl and final justification of believers, or their title to their eternal inheritance, is conditional. They must perform certaiji things, which he has specified as terms or conditions of their taking possession of their several legacies." (4.) "God does promise eternal life to all who obey his commands or exercise those holy and benevolent afi'ections which his com- mands require." 31. How does the Armiman theory as to the nature and design of the scdisf action of Christ modify the doctrine of justification ? They hold — 1st. As to the nature of Christ's satisfaction, THE ARMINIAN, AND THE ROMISH DOCTRINE. 509 that although it was a real propitiation rendered to justice for us, it was not in the rigor of justice perfect, but was gra- ciously accepted and acted on as such by God. — Limborch, "Apol. Theo.," 3, 22, 5. 2d. That it was not strictly the sub- stitution of Christ in place of his elect, but rather that he suf- fered the wrath of God in behalf of all men, in order to make it consistent with justice for God to offer salvation to all men upon condition of faith. Therefore they regard justification as a sovereign, not a judicial act — 1st. In accepting the sufferings of Christ as suf- ficient to enable God consistently to offer to men salvation on the terms of the new covenant of grace, %. e., on the condition of faith. 2d. In imputing to the believer his faith for right- eousness for Christ's sake. This faith they make — 1st. To include evangelical obedi- ence, i. e., the whole principle of religion in heart and life. 2d. They regard it as the graciously admitted ground, rather than the mere instrument of justification ; faith being counted for righteousness, because Christ died. — Limborch, "Theo. Christ," 6, 4, "i.l, and 6, 4, 46. This theory, besides being opposed by all the arguments we have above presented in establishing the orthodox doctrine, labors under the further objections — 1st. It fails to render a clear account as to how the satis- faction of Christ makes it consistent with divine justice to save men upon the condition of faith. If Christ did not obey and suffer strictly as the substitute of his people, it is difficult to see how the justice of God, as it respects them, could have been appeased ; and if he did so fulfil the demands of justice in their place, then the orthodox view, as above stated, is admitted. 2d. It fails to render a clear account of the relation of faith .to justification — (1.) Because faith in Christ, including trust, necessarily implies that the merits of Christ upon which the trust terminates is the ground of justification. (2.) Faith must be either the ground or the mere instrument of justification. If it be the latter then the righteousness of Christ, which is the object of faith, is that ground. If it be the former, then what is made of the merits of Christ upon which faith rests?


Question: Hoiv  do  the  Romanists  define  justification?

Answer: They confound justification with sanctification. It is, 1st, the forgiveness of sins; 2d, the removal of inherent sin for Christ's sake ; 3d, the positive infusion of grace. Of this justification they teach that the final cause is the glory of God and eternal life. The efficient cause is the power 510 yUSTIFICA TION. of the Holy Ghost. The meritorious cause the work of Christ. The instrumental cause baptism. The formal cause the influ- ence of grace, Avhereby we are made not merely forensically but inherently righteous. — "Council of Trent," Sess. vi., Chap- ter vii. They define faith in its relation to justification to be the beginning of luunan salvation, tlie fountain and root of all justification, {. e., of spiritual life. Tliey consequently hold that justification is progressive, and that when a man receives a new nature in baptism, and the work of justification is com- menced in him with the forgiveness and the removal of sin, the work is to be carried on by the exercise of the grace im- planted, i. e., by good works. Since they confound justifica- tion with sanctification, they necessarily deny that men are justified by the imputation of the rigiiteousness of Christ, or by mere faith without works. — Sess. 6, Can. 9th and 11th, "de Justificatione." They admit that justification is entirely gracious, i. e., of the mere mercy of God, and for the sake of the merits of Jesus Christ, as neither the spiritual exercises nor the works of men previous to justification have any merit whatsoever. — "Council of Trent," Sess. vi.. Chapter viii. A careful distinction must be made between (a) that which in the case of an adult prepares for justification, (?>) the reali- zation of justification in the first instance, (c) its subsequent progressive realization in the advance of the gracious soul in justification towards perfection, and {(T) the restoration to a state of grace of the baptized Christian after backsliding into sin. 1st. The preparation of the sinner for justification proceeds from the prevenient grace of God, without any merit on the part of the subject. This grace acting through the hearing of the word leads to conviction of sin, repentance, apprehen- sion of the mercy of God in Christ (the church), and hence to a determination to receive baptism and lead a new life (" Cone. Trent," Sess. vi., chaps, v. and vi). 2d. Tiie actual justification of the sinner is the infusion of gracious habits, the pollution of sin having been washed away by the powder of God, on account of the merits of Christ, through the instrumentality of baptism, which operates its effects by an energy made inherent in it, by the institution of God. After this, inherent sin being removed, remission of guilt necessarily follows as its immediate effect. Guilt is the relation which sin sustains to the justice of God. The thing being removed, the relation ceases ipso facto (Bellarmin, " De Amiss. Grati^e," etc., V. 7. THE ROMISH DOCTRINE. 511 3d. Having thus been justified and made a friend of God, the baptized Christian advances from virtue to virtue, and is renewed from day to day, through the observance of the com- mandments of God and of the church, faith co-operating with good works, now made possible in virtue of the previous justi- fication, and which truly merit, and receive as a just reward, increase of grace, and more and more perfect justification. His iirst justification was for Christ's sake, without any co-opera- tion of his own merit, but by consent of his own will. His sec- ond or continued and increasing justification is for Christ's sake, through and in proportion to his own merit, which deserves increase of grace and acceptance in proportion (a) to his per- sonal holiness, and (/;) to his obedience to ecclesiastical rules (" Cone. Trent," Sess. 6, Chap. x. and Can. 32). 4th. In the case of those who having been justified, have sinned, the lost grace of justification is restored, for the merits of Christ, through the sacrament of Penance, which is provided as a second plank to rescue those who have shipwrecked grace. This penance includes (o) sorrow for sin, (&) confession to a priest having jurisdiction, (c) sacerdotal absolution, {d) satis- faction by alms, prayers, fasts, etc., and this justification if not rendered perfect by these means on earth is completed by pur- gatorial fires. All these satisfactions, earthly and purgatorial, are meritorious satisfactions to divine justice, cancelling the temporal punishments attaching to the sins for which they are undergone, the eternal punishment whereof has been at once and freely remitted, either through the sacrament itself, or the honest desire for it ("Cone. Trent," Sess. 6, Chaps, xiv. and xvi., and Can. 30, and Sess. 14, Chaps, i.-ix). 33. What are the points of difference hetiueen Protestants and Romanists on this tohoJe subject ? 1st. As to the nature of justification. We regard it as a judicial act of God, declaring the believer to be forensically just, on the ground of the righteousness of Christ made his by imputation. They regard it as the infusion of inherent grace. 2d. As to its meritorious ground. Both say the merits of Christ. But they say these merits are made ours by sanctifica- tion. We, by imputation, through the instrumentality of faith. 3d. As to the nature and office of faith. We say that it is the instrument; they the beginning and root of justification. 4th. They say that justification is progressive. 5tli. That it may be lost by mortal sin and regained and increased through the sacrament of Penance, and completed in Purgatory. — See above, Chapter XXXH., on "Ptcpentance and Penance." 512 yUS T I PICA TION. 34. Wltai are the leading arguments against the Bomanist vieio on this subject? 1st. This whole doctrine is confused. (1.) It confounds under one definition two matters entirely distinct, namely, the forensic remission of the condemnation due to sin with the washing away of inlierent sin, and the introduction to a state of covenant favor with God Avith the infusion of inherent grace. (2.) It renders no sensible account as to the manner in which the merit of Christ propitiates divine justice. 2d. Their definition is refuted by all the evidence above exhibited, that the terms "justification" and "righteousness" are used in Scripture in a forensic sense. 3d. Their view, by making our inherent grace wrought in us by the Holy Ghost for Christ's sake the ground of our ac- ceptance with God, subverts the whole gospel. It is of the very essence of the gospel that the ground of our acceptance with the Father is the mediatorial work of the Son, who is for us the end of the law for righteousness, and not our own graces. 4th. Their view of the merit of works performed by divine grace after baptism is inconsistent with Avhat Scripture teaches and the Eomish Church itself teaches as to original sin and guilt, and as to the essential graciousness of the salvation wrought by Christ. Thomas Aquinas himself ("Summa.," Q. 114, Art. 5) says, "If grace be considered in the sense of a gratuitous gift, all merit is excluded by grace." Therefore the entire s^^stem of Papist justification falls. 5th. It is legal in its spirit and method, and consequently induces either spiritual pride or despair, but never can nourish true evangelical assurance at once humble and confident. 6th. The Scriptures declare that on the ground of the pro- pitiation of Christ God justifies the believer as ungodly, not as sanctified. It certainly could not require an atonement to render God both just and the sanctifier of the ungodly. Rom. iv. 5. 7th. The phrases to impute, reckon, count sin or righteous- ness are absolutely consistent only Avith a forensic interpreta- tion. To impute righteousness without works in the forensic sense, in the 4th chapter of Romans, is reasonable. To impute inherent grace without works is nonsense. 8th. Their definition is refuted by all those arguments which establish the true view with respect to the nature and office of justifying faith. — See above. Questions 21-23. ROMISH DOCTRINE. 513 AxJTHOKITATrVE STATEMENTS. Romish Docteine. —For statement of tlie nature, ground, and means of justification, see above, under Ch. XXIX. For statement of Eomisli Doctrine of Good Works and Woi'ks of Supererogation, see below, under Ch. XXXV., and see Doctrine of Penance, above, under Ch. XXXII. '■'■ Counc. Trent,'" Sess. 6, ch. 8. — "We are said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and the root of all justification." Ih., can. 23. — "If any one saith that a man once justified can sin no more nor lose grace, and therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or on the other hand, that he is able during his whole life to avoid all sins, even those that are venial, except by a special privilege from God, as the church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin, let him be accursed." Can. 24. — "If any one say that righteousness received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be acciirsed." Can. 29. — "If any one saith that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the righteousness which he has lost, but by faith alone, without the sacrament of penance .... let him be accursed." Can. 30. — "If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justifi- cation has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before he can enter the kingdom of heaven; let him be accursed." Can. 32. — -"If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or that the justified man, by the good works wliich he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit inci'ease of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of eternal life if he die in grace, and also an increase of glory; let him be accursed." Bellakmin, ^^De Justificatione," 5, 1. — "The common opinion of all Catholics holds that all the good works of justified persons are truly and jsroperly meritorious, and deserving not merely of a reward of some sort, but of eternal life itself. 4, 7. — We say that good works are necessary to a justified man in order to his salvation, not only in the way of being present, but also in the way of efficiency, since they eff'ect salvation, and faith without them does not eff'ect it. lb. 5, 5. — The merits of ju.stified persons do not stand opposed to the merits of Christ, but they spring from these, and whatever praise those merits of the justified have, redounds entii-e to the praise of the merits of Christ." Lutheban Doctrine. — '^Apologia Confenaionis.'" — "To justify in this place (Rom. v. 1), signifies in a forensic sense to absolve an accused pei*- son and jn'onounce him righteous, but on account of another's righteous- ness, i. e., of Christ; which other's righteousness is made over to us through faith." '■'■Formula Goncordice " (Hase Ed.), p. 685. — "The term justification in this transaction means to pronounce righteous, to absolve from sins, and from the eternal punishment of sinners, on account of the righteousness of Christ, which is imputed by God to faith." lb. p. 684. — "Man a sinner may be justified before God . . without any merits or worthi- ness of ours, and apart from any works, preceding, accompanying, or 33 514 yUSTIFICA TION. following, out of mere grace." Ih. p. 584. — "We confess that faith alone is that means and instrument by which we apprehend Christ our Saviour, and in Christ of that righteousness, which can stand the judgment of God." Ih. J). 689. — " Neither repentance, nor love, nor any other virtue, but faith alone, is the single means and instrument by which we are able to ajji^rehend and accejit the grace of God, the merit of Christ, and the remission of sins." Befokmed Doctbine. "Wesfminsier Confession of Faith," Ch. 11. "Heidelberg Cui." Ques. 60. — "Nevertheless I may now embrace all these benefits with a true boldness of mind; without any merit of mine, of the mere mercy of God, the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ is imputed and given to me, as if I had myself com- mitted no sin, nor incurred any stain; yea, as if I had myself perfectly performed that obedience which Christ performed for me." Eemonstkant DocTKiNE. — Limborch, ''Christ. Theol.,'" ^, 4,22. — "Let it be understood that, when we say we are justified by faith, we do not exclude works, wliich faith requires, and as a fruitful mother produces, but we include them . . . nor by faith is a bare faith to be under- stood, as contradistingitished from the works which faith produces, but together with the faith, all that obedience which God in the New Testa- ment apijoints, and which is suiDplied by faith in Jesus Christ. . . 31. — But faith is a condition in us and is required of us in order that we may obtain justification. It is therefore an act which, although viewed in itself it is by no means perfect, but in many respects defective, is yet received as full and j)erfect by God gTaciously and freely, and on account of it God graciously bestows remission of sins and the reward of eternal life. . . 29. — The object of faith (justifying) we declare to be Jesus Christ entire, as prophet, j^riest, and king; not only his propitiation, but his precepts, promises, and threatenings ; by it therefore we embrace the entire Christ, his word, and all his saving benefits." SociNiAN DocTKiNE. — ''Rucovian Catechism," Sec. 5, ch. 9. — "The faith which is by itself followed by salvation, is such an assent to the doctrine of Christ that we apply it to its proper object; that is, that we trust in God through Christ, and give ourselves up wholly to obey his •wUl, whereby we obtain his promises If piety and obedi- ence, when life is continued after the acknowledgment of Christ, be required as indispensable to salvation, it is necessary that the faith to which alone and in reality salvation is ascribed, should comprehend obe- dience. . . lb. ch. 11. — Justification is, when God regards us as just, or so deals with us as if we were altogether just and innocent. This he does in the New Covenant, in forgiving our sins and conferring upon us eternal life."


Question: What  relation  does  sanctification  sustain  to  regeneration  ?

Answer: Kegeneration is the creative act of the Holy Spirit, implant- ing a new principle of spiritual life in the soul. Conversion is the first exercise of that new gracious principle, in the spontane- ous turning of the new-born sinner to God. Sanctification is 522 SANCTIFICATION. the sustaining and developing work of the Holy Ghost, bring- ing all the faculties of the soul more and more perfectly imder the purifying and regulating influence of the implanted principle of spiritual life. 6. What is the I'elation lohicli justification and sandification sustain to each other ? In the order of nature, regeneration precedes justification, although as to time they are always necessarily contemporane- ous. The instant God regenerates a sinner he acts faith in Christ. The instant he acts faith in Christ he is justified, and sanctification, which is the work of carrying on and perfecting that which is begun in regenei'ation, is accomplished under the conditions of those new relations into wliich he is introduced by justification. In justification we are delivered from all the penal consequences of sin, and brought into such a state of reconciliation with God, and communion of the Holy Ghost, that we are emancipated from the bondage of legal fear, and endued with that spirit of filial confidence and love wliich is the essential principle of all acceptable obedience. Our justifi- cation, moreover, proceeds on the ground of our federal union with Christ by faith, which is the basis of that vital and spirit- ual union of the soul with him from whom our sanctification flows. — See above. Chap. XXXI., Question 3. 7. Hoio can it he shown that this work extends to the tvhole man, the understanding, ivill, and affections ? The soul is a unit, the same single agent alike, thinking, feeling, and wilhng. A man can not love that loveliness which he does not perceive, nor can he perceive that beauty, whether moral or natural, wliich is uncongenial to his own heart. His whole nature is morally depraved, 1st, blind or insensible to spiritual beauty; 2d, averse, in the reigning dispositions of the will, to moral right, and therefore disobedient. The order in which the faculties act is as follows: The intellect perceives the qualities of the object concerning which the mind is engaged; the heart loves those qualities which are congenial to it; the will chooses that which is loved. This is proved, 1st, by experience. As the heart becomes more depraved the mind becomes more insensible to spiritual liglit. On the other hand, as the eyes behold more and more clearly the beauty of the truth, the more lively become the affections, and the more obedient the will. 2d. From the tes- timony of Scripture. By nature the whole man is depraved. The understanding darkened, as well as the affections and will perverted. — Eph. iv. 18. THE AGENCY OF THE TRUTH. 523 If this be so, it is evident that sanctification must also be effected throughout the entire nature. 1st. From the necessity of the case. 2d. From the testimony of Scripture. — Rom. vi. 13; 2 Cor. iv. 6; Eph. i. 18; Col. iii. 10; 1 Thess. v. 23; 1 John iv. 7.


Question: In  what  sense  is  the  body  sanctified  ?

Answer: 1st. As consecrated, (1) as being the temple of the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. vi. 19; (2) hence as being a member of Christ. — 1 Cor. vi. 15. 2d. As sanctified, since they are integral parts of our persons, their instincts and appetites act immediately upon the passions of our souls, and consequently these must be brought subject to the control of the saij^ified soul, and all its members, as organs of the soul, made instruments of righteous- ness unto God. — Rom. vi. 13; 1 Thess. iv. 4. 3d. It will be made like Christ's glorified body. — 1 Cor. xv. 44; Phil. iii. 21.


Question: To  ichom,  is  the  luork  of  sancti/ication  referred  in  Scripture  ?

Answer: 1st. To the Father.— 1 Thess. vi. 23; Heb. xiii. 21. 2d. To the Son.— Eph. v. 25, 26 ; Titus ii. 14. 3d. To the Holy Ghost.— 1 Cor. vi. 11; 2 Thess. ii. 13. In all external actions the three Persons of the Trinity are always represented as concurring, the Father working through the Son and Spirit, and the Son through the Spirit. Hence the work of sanctification is with special prominence attributed to the Holy Spirit, since he is the immediate agent therein, and since this is his special office work in the plan of redemption. 10. What do the Scriptures teach as to the agency of the truth in the icork of sanctification ? The whole process of sanctification consists in the develop- ment and confirmation of the new principle of spiritual life im- planted in the soul in regeneration, conducted by the Holy Ghost in perfect conformity to, and through the operation of the laws and habits of action natural to the soul as an intelligent, moral and free agent. Like the natural faculties both of body and mind, and the natural habits which modify the actions of those faculties, so Christian graces, or spiritual habits, are developed by exercise; the truths of the gospel being the objects iipon wdiich these graces act, and by which they are both excited and directed. Thus the divine loveliness of God presented in the truth, which is his image, is the object of our complacent love; his goodness of our gratitude; his promises of our trust; his judgments of our wholesome awe, and his commandments variouslv exercise us in the thousand forms of filial obedience. John xvii. 19; 1 Pet. i. 22; ii. 2; 2 Pet. i. 4; James i. 18. 524 SANCTIFICA TION. 11. What efficiency do the Scriptures ascribe in this ivorJc to the Sacraments ? There are three views entertained on this subject by theo- logians— 1st. The lowest view is, that the sacraments simply, as symbols, present the truth in a lively manner to the eye, and are effective thus only as a form of presenting the gospel objectively. 2d. The opinion occupying the opposite extreme is, that they, of their own proper efficiency, convey sanctifying grace ex opere operato, " because they convey grace by the virtue of the sacramental action itself, instituted by God for this very end, and not through the merit either of the agent (priest) or the receiver." — Bellarmin, "De Sac," 2, 1. 3d. The true view is, "that the sacraments are efficacious means of grace, not merely exhibiting but actually conferring upon those who worthily receive them the benefits which they represent;" yet this efficacy does not reside properly in them, but accompanies their proper use in virtue of the divine insti- tution and promise, through the accompanying agency of the Holy Ghost, and as suspended upon the exercise of faith upon the part of the recipient, which faith is at once the condition and the instrument of the reception of the benefit. — Matt. iii. 11 ; Acts ii. 41; x. 47; Rom. vi. 3; 1 Cor. xii. 13; Titus iii. 5; 1 Pet. iii. 21. 12. What office do the Scriptures OsScrihe to faith in sandifi- cation ? Faith is the first grace in order exercised by the soul conse- quent upon regeneration, and the root of all other graces in principle. — Acts xv. 9 ; xxvi. 18. It is instrumental in securing sanctification therefore — 1st. By securing the change of the believer's relation to God and to the law, as a condition of life and favor. — See above, Question 6. 2d. By securing his union with Christ. — 1 Cor. xiii. ; Gal. ii. 20; Col. iii. 3. 3d. It is sanctifying in its own nature, since, in its wddest sense, faith is that spiritual state of the soul in wdiich it holds living active communion with spiritual truth. "By this faith a Christian believeth to be true, whatsoever is revealed in the word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein; and acteth differently, upon that which every particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to tlie commands, trem- bling to the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN COUNSELS AND PRECEPTS. 525 for this life, and that which is to come." — "Conf. Faith," ch. 14, § 2. 13. What, according to Scripture, is necessary to constitute a good ivork ? 1st. That it should spring from a right motive, {. e., love for God's character, regard for his authority, and zeal for his glory; love as a fruit of the Spirit, if not always consciously present, yet reigning as a permanent and controlling principle in the soul. 2d. That it be in accordance with his revealed law. — Deut. xii. 32; Isa. i. 11, 12; Col. ii. 16-23. 14. What is the Popish doctrine as to ^Hhe counsels" of Christ, which are not indvded in the positive precepts of tJie law ? The positive commands of Christ are represented as binding on all classes of Christians alike, and their observance necessary in order to salvation. His counsels, on the other hand, are binding only upon those who, seeking a higher degree of per- fection and a more excellent reward, voluntarily assume them. These are such as celibacy, voluntary poverty, etc., and obedi- ence to rule (monastic). — Bellarmin, "de Monachis," Cap. vii. The wickedness of this distinction is evident — 1st. Because Christ demands the entire consecration of every Christian : after we have done all we are only unprofitable ser- vants. Works of supererogation, therefore, are impossible. 2d. All such will worship is declared abhorrent to God. — Col. ii. 18-23; 1 Tim. iv. 3. 15. WJiat judgment is to be formed of the good works of unre- newed men? Unrenewed men retain some dispositions and affections in themselves relatively good, and they do many things in them- selves right, and according to the letter of God's law. Yet — 1st. As to his person, every unrenewed man is under God's wrath and curse, and consequently can do nothing pleasing to him. The rebel in arms is in every thing a rebel until he sub- mits and returns to his allegiance. 2d. Love for God and regard to his authority are never his supreme motive in any of his acts. Thus while many of his actions are civilly good as respects his fellow-men, none of them can be spiritually good as it respects God. There is an obvious distinction between an act viewed in itself, and viewed in con- nection with its agent. The sinner, previous to justification and renewal, is a rebel; each one of his acts is the act of a 526 SANCTIFICATION. rebel, though as considered in itself any single act may be either good, bad, or indifferent.


Question: In  what  sense  are  good  ivorTxS  necessary  for  salvation?

Answer: As the necessary and invariable fruits of both the change of relation accomplished in justification, and of the change of nature accomplished in regeneration, though never as the meritorious grounds or conditions of our salvation. This necessity results, 1st, from the holiness of God ; 2d, from his eternal purpose, Eph. i. 4; ii. 10; 3d, from the design and redemptive efficacy of Christ's death, Eph. v. 25-27; 4th, from the union of the believer with Christ, and the energy of his indwelling Spirit, John xv. 5; Gal. v. 22; 5th, from the very nature of faith, which first leads to and then works by love. Gal. V. 6 ; 6th, from the command of God, 1 Thes. iv. 6 ; ' 1 Pet. i. 15 ; 7th, from the nature of heaven, Eev. xxi. 27.


Question: What  is  the  theory  of  the  Antinoynians  upon  this  subject  ?

Answer: Antinomians are, as their name signifies, those who deny that Christians are bound to obey the law. They argue that, as Christ has in our place fulfilled both the preceptive and the penal departments of God's law, his people must be deliA^ered from all obligation to observe it, either as a rule of duty or as a condition of salvation. — See above, Question 3, Chap. XXV. It is evident that all sj'stems of Perfectionism, which teach (as the Pelagian and Oberlin theories) that men's ability to obey is the measure of their responsibility, or (as the Papal and Arminian theories) that God, for Christ's sake, has gra- ciously reduced his demand from absolute moral perfection to faith and evangelical obedience, are essentially Antinomian. Because they all agree in teaching that Christians in this life are no longer under obligations to fulfil the Adamic law of absolute moral perfection. Paul, in the 6th chapter of Romans, declares that this damn- able heresy was charged as a legitimate consequent vipon his doctrine in that day. He not only repudiates the charge, but, on the contrary, affirms that free justification through an im- puted righteousness, without the merits of works, is the only Eossible condition in which the sinner can learn to bring forth oly works as the fruits of filial love. The very purpose of Christ was to redeem to himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works, and this he accomplished by delivering them from the federal bondage of the law, in order to render them capable as the Lord's freed men of moral conformity to it, ever increas- ingly in this life, absolutely in the life to come. "MERIT OF CONDIGNITY AND MERIT OF CONGRUITY:' 527 18. Wliat are the different senses ivJiich have been applied to the term ^^ merit"? It has been technically used in two different senses. 1st. Strictly, to designate the common quality of all services to which a reward is due, ex justicia, on account of their intrinsic value and dignity. 2d. Improperly, it was used by the Fathers as equivalent to that which results in or attains to a reward or consequent, without specifying the ground or virtue on account of which it is secured. — Turretin, L. xvii., Qusestio 5. 19. What distinction does the Bomish Church design to signal- ize hy the terms ^^ merit of comlignity" and tJie ^'' merit of congruity'" ? The " merit of condignity " they teach attaches only to works wrought subsequently to regeneration by the aid of divine grace, and is that degree of merit that intrinsically, and in the way of equal right, not b}^ mere promise or covenant, deserves the reward it attains at God's hands. The "merit of congruity" they teach attaches to those good dispositions or works which a man may, previously to regeneration, realize without the aid of divine grace, and which makes it congruous or specially fitting for God to reward the agent by infusing grace into his heart. It is extremely difficult to determine the exact position of the Romish Church on this subject, since different schools of theologians in her midst differ widely, and the decisions of the Council of Trent are studiously ambiguous. The general be- lief appears to be that ability to perform good works springs from grace infused into the sinner's heart for Christ's sake, through the instrumentality of the sacraments, but that after- wards these good works merit, that is, lay for us the founda- tion of a just claim to salvation and glory. Some say, like Bellarmin, "De Justific," 5, 1, and 4, 7, that this merit attaches to the good works of Christians intrinsically, as well as in con- sequence of God's promise; others that these works deserve the reward only because God has promised the reward on the condition of the work. — "Coun. Trent," Sess. vi., Cap. xvi., and canons 24 and 32. 20. What is necessary that a loorh shoidd he in the proper sense of the term meritorious ? Turretin makes five conditions necessary to that end. 1st. That the work be not of debt, or which the worker was under obligation to render. — Luke xvii. 10. 2d. That it is our own, i. e., effected by our own natural energy. 3d. That it be per- fect. 4th. That it be equal to the reward merited. 5th. That 528 SANCTIFICATION. the reward be of justice due to such an act. — Turretin, L. xvii., Qusestio 5. According to this definition, it is evident, from the absohite dependence and obligation of the creature, that he can never merit any reward for whatever obedience he may render to the commands of his Creator. 1st. Because all the strength he works with is freely given by God. 2d. All the service he can render is owed to God. 3d. Nothing he can do can equal the reward of God's favor and eternal blessedness. Under the covenant of works, God graciously promised to reward the obedience of Adam with eternal life. This was a reward, however, not of merit, but of free grace and promise. Every tiling under that constitution depended upon the stand- ing of the person before God. As long as Adam continued without sin, his services were accepted and rewarded according to promise. But from- the moment he forfeited the promise, and lost his standing before God, no work of his, no matter of what character, could merit any thing at the hand of God. 21. How can it be proved that our good loorks, even after the restoration of our person to Gods favor by justification, do not merit heaven ? 1st. Justification proceeds upon the infinite merits of Christ, and on that foundation rests our title to the favor of God and all the infinite consequences thereof Christ's merit, lying at the foundation and embracing all, excludes the possibility of our meriting any thing. 2d. The law demands perfect obedience. — Rom. iii. 23; Gal. v. 3. 3d. We are saved by grace not by works. — Eph. ii. 8, 9. 4th. All good dispositions are graces or gifts of God.— 1 Cor. xv. 10; Phil. ii. 13; 1 Thess. ii. 13. 5th. Eternal life itself is declared to be the gift of God. — 1 John V. 11. 22. What do the Scriptures teach concerning the good ivories of believers, and the reivards promised to them ? Both the work and its reward are branches from the same gracious root. The covenant of grace provides alike for the infusion of grace in the heart, the exercise of this grace in the life, and the rewards of that grace so exercised. It is all of grace, grace for grace, grace added to grace, presented to us in this form of a reward: 1st. That it may act upon us as a rational motive to diligent obedience. 2d. To mark that the gift of heaven and eternal blessedness is an act of strict legal justice (1) in respect to the perfect merits of Christ, (2) in re- spect to God's faithful adherence to his own free promise. — 1 John i. 9. 3d. To indicate that the heavenly reward stands in PERFECTIONISM: PELAGIAN VIEW. 529 a certain gracious proportion to the grace given in the obedi- ence on earth; (1) because God so wills it, Matt. xvi. 27; 1 Cor. iii. 8 ; (3) because the grace given on earth prepares the soul to receive the grace given in heaven, 2 Cor. iv. 17. Is PERFECT SaNCTIFICATION ATTAINABLE BY BeLIEVERS IN ChRIST IN THIS Life?


Question: What,  in  general  terms,  is  perfectionism  ?

Answer: The various theories of perfectionism all agree in maintain- ing that it is possible for a child of God in this world to become, 1st, perfectly free from sin, 2d, conformed to the law under which they now live. They differ very variously among them- selves, however, 1st, as to what sin is; 2d, as to what law we are now obliged to fulfil; 3d, as to the means whereby this perfection may be attained, whether by nature or by grace. 24. Hoiv does the Pelagian theory of the nature of man and of grace lead to perfectionism ? Pelagians maintain, 1st, as to man's nature, that it was not radically corrupted by the fall, and that every man possesses sufficient power to fulfil all the duties required of him, since God can not in justice demand that which man has not full power to do. 2d. As to God's grace, that it is nothing more than the favorable constitution of our own minds, and the in- fluence exerted on them by the truth he has revealed to us, and the propitious circumstances in which he has placed us. Thus in the Christian church, and with the Christian revelation, men are, in fact, placed in the most propitious circumstances possible to persuade them to perform their duties. It follows from this system directly that every one who wishes may certainly attain perfection by using his natural powers and advantages of posi- tion with sufficient care. — " Wigger's Historical View of Augus- tinianism and Pelagianism." 25. What, according to the Pelagian theory, is tJie nature of the sin from lohich man may be perfectly free; what the laiv luhich he may perfectly fulfil, and ivhat are the means by ivhich this per- fection may be attained? They deny original and inherent corruption of nature, and hold that sin is only voluntary transgression of known law, from which any man may abstain if he will. As to the la.w which man in his present state may perfectly fulfil, they hold that it is the single and original law of God, the requirements of which, however, in the case of every indi- 34 530 -S"--^ NC T I PICA TIOJV. vicinal subject, are measured by the individual's ability, and opportunities of" knowledge. As to the means whereby this perfection may be attained, they maintain the plenary ability of man's nattu'al will to discharge all the obligations resting upon him, and they admit the assistance of God's grace only in the sense of the influence of the truth, and other propitious circumstances in persuading man to use his own power. Thus the means of perfect sanctitication are, 1st, man's own volition, 2d, as helped by the study of the Bible, prudent avoidance of temptation, etc.


Question: In  what  sense  do  Romanists  hold  the  doctrine  of  perfection?

Answer: The decisions of the Council of Trent upon the subject, as upon all critical points, are studiously ambiguous. They lay down the principle that the law must be possible to them iipon whom it is binding, since God does not command impossibili- ties. Men justified (sanctified) may by the grace of God dwell- ing in them satisfy the divine law, pro htijus vitce statu, i. e., as graciously for Christ's sake adjusted to our present capacities. They confess, nevertheless, that the just may fall into venial sins every day, and that while in the flesh no man can live entirely without sin (unless by a special privilege of God); yet that in this life the renewecl can fully keep the divine law; and even by the observance of the evangelical counsels do more than is commanded; and thus, as many saints have actually done, lay up a fund of supererogatory merit. — "Council of Trent," Session vi. Compare Chap. xi. and xvi., and Canons 18, 23, and 32. See above. Question 14. 27. In lohat sense do they hold that the reneived may, in this life live loithout sin ; in ivhat sense fully satisfy the law ; and by the use of ivhat means do they teach that this perfection may he attained ? As to sin, they hold the distinction between mortal and venial sins, and that the concupiscence that remains in the bosom of the renewed, as the result of original and the fuel of actual sin, is not itself sin, since sin consists only in the consent of the will to the impulse of concupiscence. In accordance with these views they hold that a Christian in this life may live Avithout committing mortal sins, but that he never can be free from the inward movements of concupiscence, nor from liability to fall through ignorance, inattention, or passion, into venial sins. As to the lav), which a believer in this life may fully satisfy, they hold that as God is just and can not demand of us what PERFECTIONISM: AKMINIAN VIEW. 531 is impossible, his law is gvacionsly adjusted to our present ca- pacities, as assisted by grace, and that it is this law i^ro liujus vitce statu, which we may fulfil. As to the means whereby this perfection may be attained, they hold that divine grace precedes, accompanies, and follows all of our good works, which divine grace is to be sought through those sacramental and priestly channels which Christ has instituted in his church, and especially in the observance of works of prayer, fasting, and alms deeds, and the acquisition of supererogatory merit by the fulfilment of the counsels of Christ to chastity, obedience, and voluntary poverty. — "Council of Trent," Sess. xiv.. Chapter v., Sess. vi.. Chapters xi. and xii., Sess. v., Canon 5; "Cat. Rom.," Part II., Chapter ii.. Question 32, and Part II., Chapter v., Question 59, and Part III., Chapter X., Questions 5-10. 28. In ivhat form loas the doctrine taught hy the early Ar- minians ? Arminius declared that his mind was in suspense upon this subject ("Writings of Arminius," translated by Nichols, Vol. I., p. 256). His immediate successors in the theological leadership of the remonstrant party, developed a theory of perfectionism apparently identical with that taught by Wesley, and professed by his disciples. "A man can, with the assistance of divine grace, keep all the commandments of God perfectly, according to the gospel or covenant of grace. The highest evangelical perfection (for we are not teaching a legal perfection, which includes sinlessness entire in all respects and in the highest degree, and excludes all imperfection and infirmity, for this we believe to be impossible), embraces two things, 1st, a per- fection proportioned to the powers of each individual; 2d, a desire of making continual progress and increasing one's strength more and more." — Episcopius, quoted by Dr. G. Peck, "Christian Perfection," pp. 135 and 136.


Question: What  is  the  Wesleyan  doctrine  on  this  subject  ?

Answer: 1st. That although every believer as soon as he is justified is regenerated, and commences the incipient stages of sanctifi- cation, yet this does not exclude the remains of much inherent sin, nor the warfare of the flesh against the Spirit, which may continue for a long time, but which must cease at some time before the subject can be fit for heaven. 2d. This state of progressive sanctification is not itself per- fection, which is properly designated by the phrases " entire," or "perfect santification." This, sooner or later, every heir of glory must experience; although the majority do not reach it 532 SANCTIFICA TION. long before death, it is the attainment of some in the midst of life, and consequently it is the dnty and privilege of all to desire, strive for, and expect its attainment now. 3d. This state of evangelical perfection does not consist in an ability to fulfil perfectly the original and absolute law of holiness under which Adam was created, nor does it exclude all liability to mistake, or to the infirmities of the flesh, and of natural temperament, but it does exclude all inward disposition to sin as well as all outward commission of it, since it consists in a state in which perfect faith in Christ and perfect love for God fills the whole soul and governs the entire life, and thus fulfils all the requirements of the " law of Christ," mider which alone the Christian's probation is now held.


Question: In  ivhat  sense  do  they  teach  that  men  may  live  ivithont  sin  ?

Answer: Mr. Wesley did not himself use, though he did not object to, the phrase " sinless perfection." He distinguished between " sin, properly so called, i. e., a voluntary transgression of a known law, and sin, improperly so called, i. e., an involuntary trangression of a divine law, known or unknown," and declared " I believe there is no such perfection in this life as excludes these involuntary transgressions, which I apprehend to be nat- urally consequent on the ignorance and mistakes inseparable from mortality." He also declares that the obedience of the perfect Christian " can not bear the rigor of God's justice, but needs atoning blood," and consequently the most perfect " must continually say, ' forgive us our trespasses,' " and Dr. Peck says that the holier men are here " the more they loathe and abhor themselves." On the other hand they hold that a Christian may in this life attain to a state of perfect and constant love, which fulfils perfectly all the requirements of the gospel cove- nant. Violations of the original and absolute law of God are not counted to the believer for sin, since for him Christ has been made the end of that law for righteousness, and for Christ's sake he has been delivered from that law and been made sub- ject to the " law of Christ," and that only is sin to the Christian which is a violation of this law of love. See Mr. Wesley's " Tract on Christian Perfection," in the volume of " i\Iethodist Doctrinal Tracts," pp. 294, 310, 312, and Dr. Peck's "Christian Doc. of Perfection," p. 204. 31. What law do they say the Christian can in this life per- fectly obey ? Dr. Peck says, p. 244, "To fallen humanity, though renewed by grace, perfect obedience to the moral law is inpracticable during the present probationary state. And consequently Chris- PERFECTIONISM:' OBERLIN VIEW. 533 tian perfection does not imply perfect obedience to the moral law."Peck, p. 244. This moral law they hold to be imiversal and unchangea- ble, all moral agents are under perpetual o1:>ligation8 to fulfil it, and they are in no degree released therefrom by their loss of ability through sin. — Peck, p. 271. This law sustains, how- ever, a twofold i-elation to the creature. 1st. It is a rule of being and acting. 2d. It is a condition of acceptance.  In con- sequence of sin, it became impossible for men to obtain salva- tion by the law, and therefore Christ appeared and rendered to this law perfect satisfaction in our stead, and thus is for us the end of the law for righteousness. This law, therefore, remain- ing forever as a rule of duty, is abrogated by Christ as a condi- tion of our acceptance. "Nor is any man living bound to observe the Adamic more than the Mosaic law (I mean it is not the condition either of present or future salvation.)" — "Doc- trinal Tracts," p. 332. " The gospel, which is the law of love, the ' law of liberty,' offers salvation upon other terms, and yet provides the vindication of the broken law. The condition of justification at first is faith alone, and the condition of continued acceptance is faith icorJdng by hue. There are degrees of faith, and degrees of love. . . . Perfect faith and perfect lov« is Christian perfection." "Christian character is estimated by the conditions of the gospel ; Christian perfection implies the per- fect performance of these conditions and nothing more." 32. By what means do they teach this 'perfection is to he at- tained? Wesley says, " I believe this perfection is always wrought in the soul by a simple act of faith, consequently in an instant. But I believe there is a gradual work, both preceding and fol- lowing that instant." — Quoted by Dr. Peck, pp. 47, 48. They hold that this entire sanctification is not to be effected through either the strength or the merit of man, but entirely of grace, for Christ's sake, by the Holy Ghost, through the in- strumentalit}^ of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, which faith in- volves our believing, 1st, " in the sufficiency of the provisions of the gospel for the complete deliverance of the soul from sin." 2d. "That these provisions are made for «s." 3d. "That this blessing is for us noiu." — Peck, "Ch. Doc. Sane," pp. 405-407.


Question: Whcd  is  the  Oherlin  doctrine  of  perfection?

Answer: " It is a full and perfect discharge of our entire duty, of all existing obligations to God, and all other beings. It is perfect obedience to the moral law." This is God's original and uni- 534 S A NOTIFICATION. versal law, which, however, always, not because of grace, but of sheer justice, adjusts its demands to the measure of the pres- ent ability of the subject. The law of God can not now justly demand that we should love him as we might have done if we had always improved our time, etc. Yet a Christian may now attain to a state of "perfect and disinterested benevolence," may be, "according to his knowledge, as upright as God is," and as "perfectly conformed to the will of God as is the will of the inhabitants of heaven." And this, Mr. Finney appears to teach, is essential for even the lowest stage of genuine Christian ex- perience. The amount of the matter appears to be, God has a right to demand only that which we have the power to render; therefore, it follows that we have full power to render all that God demands, and, therefore, we may be as perfectly conformed to his will as it regards us, as the inhabitants of heaven are to his will as it regards them." Pres. ]\Iahan, " Scripture Doctrines of Christian Perfection," and Prof Finney, " Oberlin Evangelist," Vol. IV., No. 19, and Vol. IV., No. 15, as quoted by Dr. Peck. 34. State the points of agreement and disagreement betiveen these several theories, Pelagian, jRomish, Arminian, and Oherlin? 1st. They all agree in maintaining that it is possible for men in this life to attain a state in Avhich they may habitually and perfectly fulfil all their obligations, i. e., to be and do perfectly all that God requires them to be or do at present. 2d. The Pelagian theory differs from all the rest, in denying the deterioration of our natural and moral powers, and conse- quently, in denying the necessity of the intervention of super- nmin-al grace to the end of making men perfect. 3d. The Pelajndau and Oberlin theories agree in making the original moral law of God the standard of perfection. The Oberlin theologians, however, admitting that our powers are deteriorated by sin, hold that God's law, as a matter of sheer justice, adjusts its demands to the present ability of the subject. The Romish tlieory regards the same law as the standard of perfection, bflt differs from the Pelagian theory in maintaining that the demands of this law are adjusted to man's deteriorated pQwers; and on the other hand, it differs from the Oberlin the- ory, .by holding that* he lowering of the demands of this law in adjustment to the enfeebled powers of man, instead of being of sheer justice, is of grace for the merits of Christ. The Ar- minian theory differs from all the rest in denying that the orig- inal law is the standard of evangelical perfection; in holding that that law having been •fulfilled by Christ, the Christian is now required only to fulfil the requirements of the gospel cove- PERFECTIONISM : ARGUMENTS. 535 nant of grace. This, however, appears to differ more in form than essence from the Romish position in this regard. 4th. Tlie Romish and Arminian theories acjvee — 1st. In admitting that the perfect Christian is still liable to transgress the provisions of the original moral law, and that he is subject to mistakes and infirmities. The Romanist calls them venial sins; the Arminian, mistakes or infirmities. 2d. In referring all the work of making man perfect to the efficiency of the Holy Ghost, who is given for Christ's sake. But they differ, on the other hand, 1st, as to the nature of that faith by which sanctification is effected, and, 2d, as to the merit of good works. 35. Wliat are tlie arguments upon lohich perfectionists sustain their theory, and how may they he ansivered? 1st. They argue that this perfection is attainaUe in this life, (1.) From the commands of God, who never will command impossibilities. — Matt. v. 48. (2.) From the fact that abundant provision has already been made in the gospel for securing the perfect sanctification of God's people ; in fact, all the provision that ever will be made. (3.) From the promises of God to redeem Israel from all his iniquities, etc. — Ps. cxxx. 8; Ezek. xxxvi. 25-29; 1 John i. 7, 9. (4.) From the prayers of saints recorded in Scripture with implied approval. — Ps. li. 2 ; Heb. xiii. 21. 2d. They argue that this perfection has in. fact been attained, (1.) From biblical examples, as David. — Acts xiii. 22. See also Gen. vi. 9; Job i. 1; Luke i. 6. (2.) Modern examples — Peck's " Christian Perfection," pp. 365-396. ^ We ANSWER — ^r 1st. The Scriptures never assert that a Christian may in this life attain to a state in which he may live withoi^t sin. 2d. The meaning of special passages must be interpreted in consistency with the entire testimony»of Scripture. 3d. The language of Scripture never implies that man may here live without sin. The commands of God are adjusted to man's responsibility, and the aspirations and j^ayers 'of the saints to their duties and ultimate privileges, and not ta their present ability. Perfection is the true ^m of the Christian's effort in every period of growth and in Wery act. The^lprms "perfect" and "blameless" are often»relative, or used to sig- nify simple genuineness or ^ncerity. This is evident from the recorded fact — 4th. That all the perfect men of the Scriptures sometimes sinned; witness the histories of Noah, Job, David, Paul, and compare Gen. vi. 9, with Gen. ix. 21, and Job i. 1, with Job iii. 1, 536 SANCTIFICA TION.. and ix. 20; also see Gal. ii. 11, 14; Ps. xix. 12; Eom. vii. ; Gal. V. 17; Phil. iii. 12-14. 36. What S2xcicd objedioivs hear against the Pelagian theory of perfection ? This is a part of a wholly Anti-Christian system. Its con- stituent elements are a denial of the Scripture testimony with regard to original sin, and the work of the Spirit of grace in effectual calling, and an assertion of man's ability to save him- self It involves low views of the guilt and tiirpitude of sin, and of the extent, spirituality, and michangeableness of God's holy law. This is the only perfectly consistent theory of perfec- tion ever ventilated, and in the same proj)ortion it is the most thoroughly unchristian.


Question: What  special  ohjections  hear  against  the  Romish  theory  ?

Answer: This theory is inconsistent — 1st. With the true nature of sin. It denies that concupis- cence is sin, and admits as such only those deliberate acts of the will which assent to the impulse of concupiscence. It distin- guishes between mortal and venial sins. The truth is that every sin is mortal, and concupiscence, "sin dwelling in me," "law in my members," is of the very essence of sin. — Rom. vii. 8-23. 2d. It is inconsistent with the nature of God's holy law, which is essentially immutable, and the demands of which have never been lowered in accommodation to the weakened faculties of men. 3d. It is essentially connected with their theory of the merit of good works, and of the higher merit of works of supererogation which is radically subversive of the essentials of the gospel.


Question: What  special  ohjections  hear  against  the  Oherlin  theory  ?

Answer: This theory appears to assimilate more nearly than the others with the terrible self-consistency and the Anti-Christian spirit of the Pelagian view. It differs from that heresy, how- ever, in holding — 1st. That the law of God is. as a matter of sheer justice, accommodated to the weakened faculties of men. 2d. That the shortcomings of men in the present life, as meas- ured by the original law of God, are not sin, since a man's duty is measured only by his ability. 3d. In making the principle of this perfection to consist in "perfect and disinterested benevolence." In all these respects, also, this theory is incon- sistent with the true nature of God's law, the true nature of sin, and the true nature of virtue. PERFECTIONISM : OBJECTIONS. 537


Question: What  special  ohjections  hear  against  the  Arminian  theory  ?

Answer: This view, as presented by the Wesleyan standard writers, is far less inconsistent with the principles and spirit of Chris- tianity than either of the others, and consequently it is pre- cisely in the same proportion less self-consistent as a theory, and less accurate in its use of technical language. These Chris- tian brethren are to be honored for their exalted views, and earnest advocacy of the duty of pressing forward to the high- est measures of Christian attainment, while it is to be forever lamented that their great founder was so far misled by the prejudices of system as to bind in unnatural alliance so much precious truth with a theory and terminology proper only to radical error. I will make here, once for all, the general ex- planation, that when stating the Arminian doctrine on any point, I have generally preferred to refer to the form in which the doctrine was explicitly defined by the Dutch Remonstrants, rather than to the modified, and, as it seems to me, far less logically definite form in which it is set forth by the author- ities of the Wesleyan churches, who properly style themselves '■''Evangelical Arminians." I attribute the peculiar theoretical indefiniteness which appears to render their definitions obscure, especially on the subjects of justification and of perfection, to the spirit of a warm, loving, working Christianity struggling with the false premises of an Arminian philosophy. 1st. While over and over insisting upon the distinction as to the twofold relation sustained by the original law of God to man (1) as a rule of being and acting, (2) as a condition of divine favor, their whole .theory is based upon a logical con- fusion of these two things so distinct. Dr. Peck teaches ear- nestly, and confirms by many Wesleyan testimonies, excellent Calvinistic d-octrine upon the following points: The original law of God is universal and unchangeable, its demands never can be changed nor compromised. Obedience to this law was the condition of the original covenant of works. This condi- tion was broken by Adam, but, in our behalf, perfectly fulfilled by Christ, and thus the integrity of God's changeless law was preserved. Therefore, he goes on to argue, the believer is no longer under the law, but under the covenant of gi'ace, i. e., to use Weslej'^'s own qualifying parenthesis, "as the condition of either present or future salvation." Certainly, we ansicer, Christ is the end of the law for us for righteousness, in its forensic sense, that is, to secure our jvistification, but sui'ely Christ did not satisfy that changeless law, in our place, in such a sense that it does not remain our rule of action, to which it is our duty to be personally conformed. The question of per- 538 SANCTIFICA TION. fection is one wliich relates to onr personal character, not to our relations; it is moral and inherent, and not forensic. To prove, thereibre, what we also rejoice to believe, that the orig- inal law of God, under the gospel covenant, is no Longer onr condiiion of salvation, does not avail one iota towards proving that God, under the gospel, demands an obedience adjusted to any easier standard than was required before. 2d. This theory is part of the Arminian view of the covenant of grace, which we regard so inconsistent with the gospel, and which Mr. Watson (see "Institutes," Part II., Chap, xxiii.) ap- pears to attempt to avoid while refusing to admit the imputa- tion to the believer of Christ's righteousness. This view is, that by Christ's propitiation, he having fulfilled the original law of God, it is made consistent with divine justice to present salvation upon easier conditions, i. e., faith and evangelical obe- dience; Christian perfection requiring nothing more than the perfect fulfilment of these new gracious conditions. Now this view, besides confounding the ideas of law, and of covenant, of a rule, and of a condition, of a ground of justification, and of a standard of sanctification, is inconsistent with the broad teachings of the gospel concerning the righteousness of Christ, and the office of faith in justification. It makes the merit of Christ only in some uncertain and distant way the occasion of our salvation, and faith, and evangelical obedience, in the place of perfect obedience under the old covenant, the ground instead of the mere instrument and fruit of our justification. Logically developed, this theory must lead to the Romish doc- trine as to the merit of good works. 3d. This theory denies that mistij^es and infirmities result- ing from the effects of original sin, are themselves sin, yet admits that they are to be confessed, forgiveness implored for them, and the atonement of Christ's blood applied to them, and that the more perfect a man becomes the more he abhors his own internal state. Surely this is a confusion of language, and abuse of the word sin. What is sin but (1) that which trans- gresses God's original law, (2) which needs Christ's atonement, (3) which should [)e confessed, and must be forgiven, (4) which lays a proper foundation for self-abhorrence. 40. What exiwess declarations of Scripture are contradicted by every possible modification of the theory of Christian perfection? 1 Kings viii. 46; Pro v. xx. 9; Eccle. vii. 20; James iii. 2; 1 John i. 8. 41. Hoio may it he shown to he in opposition to the experience of saints, as recorded in the Scriptures ? PERFECTIONISM DISPROVED. 539 See Paul's account of himself, Rom. vii. 14-25; Phil. iii. 12-14. See case of David, Ps. xix. 12; Ps. li. ; of Moses, Ps. xc. 8; of Job, Job xlii. 5, 6; of Daniel, ix. 20. See Luke xviii. 13; Gal. ii. 11-13; vi. 1; James v. 16. 42. How does it confiid tvith the ordinary experience of God's people ? The more holy a man is, the more humble, self-renouncing, self-abhorring, and the more sensitive to every sin he becomes, and the more closely he clings to Christ. The moral imperfec- tions which cling to him he feels to be sins, laments and strives to overcome them. Believers find that their life is a constant Avarfare, and tliey need to take the kingdom of heaven by storm, and watch while they pray. They are always subject to the con- stant chastisement of their Father's loving hand, which can only be designed to correct their imperfections, and to confirm their graces. And it has been notoriously the fact that the best Christians have been those who have been tlie least prone to 1 claim the attainment of perfection for themselves. 1


Question: What  are  the  legitimate  practical  effects  of  perfectionism  ?

Answer: The tendency of every such doctrine must be evil, except in so far as it is modified or counteracted by limiting or incon- sistent truths held in connection, which is pre-eminently the case with respect to the Wesleyan view, from the amount of pure gospel which in that instance the figment of perfectionism alloys. But perfectionism, by itself, must tend, 1st, to low views of God's law ; 2d, to inadequate views of the heinousness of sin ; 3d, to a low standard of moral excellence ; 4th, to spir- itual pride and fanaticism. AXTTHOBITATIVE STATEMENTS OF ChUBCH DoCTINE. EoiVnSH DOCTKINE AS TO THE MOEAIj PERFECTION OF THE ReGENEBATE, AS TO Good Wobks, and Wobks of Supebeeogation. As to their view of the MEBiT of good wobks, see above, Chap. XXXECI. '^ Cone. Trident.," Sess. 5, can. 5. — "If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; biit says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema But this holy Synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin). . . . This concu- piscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those horn af/ai/>, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin. If any man is of a contrary sentiment, let him be anathema." 540 SANCTIFICA TION. "Cone. Trident." Sess. 6, can. 18. — "If anyone says that tlie com- mandments of God, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, are impossible to keep, let him be anathema. " Belliinnin, ''De Jusiijjc," iv. 10, sqq. — "If precepts are impossible, they oblige no one, and hence the precejits are not precepts. Neither is it possible to devise wherein any one sins in respect to that which it is imjiossible to avoid." Ibid, "De Monachis," caja. 7. — "A 'council of perfection' we caU a good work, not commanded us by Christ, but declared; not aiapointed but commended. But it differs from a precept in respect to its matter, subject, form, and end. (1.) In respect to their matter (the difference) is twofold. First, because the matter of the precept is easier, that of the counsel more difficult, for the former is derived from the principles of nature, while the latter in some sense exceeds nature, e. g., for nature inclines to the preservation of conjugal fidelity, but not to ab.staining from the conjugal relation. Secondli/, because the matter of the precept is good . . . for the council includes the precept, which relates to the same matter, and adds something beyond the precejit. (2.) In re- spect to the subject, precepts and counsels difi'er, because the jarecept binds all men in common, while the counsel does not. (3.) In respect to their form they differ, because the precept binds of its own inherent obligation, but the counsel through the will of man. (4. ) In respect to their end or effects they differ, because the precept observed has a reward, but when not observed a penalty, but the counsel when not observed has no penalty, but when observed has the greater reward." Cap. 8. — "It is the opinion of all Catholics that there are many true and proper evan- gelical counsels, but especially, viz., celibacy, j)overty, and obedience (monastic), which are neither commanded to all, nor matters of indiffer- ence, but grateful to God and by him commended (Matt. xix. 11, sq., 21; 1 Cor. vii. 1-7)." Lutheran Docteine. '^Apolor/i/for Aufiburg Con/.," p. 91. — "The entire Scriiiture and the whole church declare that the Law can not be satisfied (by any thing within man's power since the fall). This incomplete fulfilling of the law is accepted, not on its own account, but only through faith in Christ. Otherwise the Law always accuses us. . . In this infirmity there is always sin, which may be charged to our account (for condemnation)." ^'Formula Cuncordice," p. 678. — "The papal and monastic doctrine, that a man after he is regenerated is able perfectly to fulfill the law of God in this life, is to be rejected." lb., Y>. 589. — "Our Confession is, that good works most surely and indubitably follow a true faith, as the fruits of a good tree. We also believe that good works are entirely to be left out of account, not only when we are treating of justification, but even when we are debating con- cerning oi;r eternal life." lb., 13. 700. — " Because those are not good works, which any one him- seK devises with good intention, or which are done according to human traditions ; but those which God himself has jjrescribed and ordered in his own word. ' Because works truly good can be performed, not by the proper natiii-al powers, but then only when the person is, by faith, recon- ciled with God, and is renewed by the Spirit, and is created anew to good works, in Jesus Christ. " Keformed Doctrine. '■'Heidellterg Odechism," Q. 62. — "Our best works in the present life are all imperfect and stained with sin." AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS. 541 '"niirty-nine Articles of the Church of England," Art. 12. — "Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after Justification, can not put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment ; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith; insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit. " lb., Art. 14. — " Voluntary works besides, over and above, God's com- mandments, which they call Works of Supererogation, can not be taught without arrogancy and impiety; for by them men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake, than of bounden duty is requu-ed: whereas Christ saith jDlainly, When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants." "■Confess. Helvetica posterior ,'''' p. 498. — "We teach that God gives an ample reward to those doing good works. Yet we refer this reward that the Lord gives, not to the merit of the men receiving it, but to the goodness, liberality, and truth of God, who promises and bestows it ; who, while he owes nothing to any one, yet has promised that he will give a reward to his faithful worshippers." ''West. Conf. of Faith,'' ch. 16, | 4. — " They who in their obedience attain to the greatest height which is possible in this life, are so far from being able to supererogate, and to do more than God requires, that they fall short of much, which in theu' duty they are bound to do " (see the whole chapter). lb., chap. 13, I 2. — "This sanctificatiou is throughout in the whole man, yet imperfect in this life: there abideth still some remnants of cor- rujition in every part, whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spii'it against the flesh." ^ 3. — " In which war, although the remaining corrujstion for a time may much prevail, yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome : and so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. "


Question: Wliat  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Romish  Church  on  this  subject  ?

Answer: "Council of Trent," Sess. vi., Canon 23. "If any one main- tain that a man once justified can not lose grace, and, therefore, that he who falls and sins never was truly justified, let him be accursed." — See below, under Eomish doctrine in this chapter, their view as to "venial sins."