This brings us to one of the great questions inseparably connected with the Atonement. Can there be such a thing as vicarious suffering? And can the vicarious suffering of an innocent victim pay the debt to justice due from one who is guilty of the transgression of law?
(Scripture Reading Exercise.)
THE EFFICACY OF VICARIOUS ATONEMENT.
ANALYSIS.
REFERENCES.
I. The Law of Righteousness.
The texts and contexts of the scriptures quoted and cited in the body of this lesson.
II. Possibility of the Spirit Suffering.
III. The Suffering of Men.
1. Because of Their Own Sins.
2. Because of the Sins of Others.
3. With Each Other on Account of Sin.
4. Willingness of Men to Suffer for Others and what it Suggests.
IV. Vicarious Suffering the Doctrine of Christ.
V. The Reign of Law and Love.
SPECIAL TEXT: "He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love. * * * Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the Propitiation for our sins.
"Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another." (I John iv:8-11.)
1. The Law of Righteousness:All sin against moral law is followed by suffering. At first glance that statement may not be accepted without qualification; but it is true. "Sin is transgression of the law," is scripture definition of sin.[A]No difficulty will arise from that definition, but there might arise difference of opinion as to what constitutes "moral law," which to violate would be sin. Of course moral law, varies among different races, and nations; and indeed varies in the same race and nation in different periods of time; but no matter how variant the law may be, between different races or nations; or how variant it may be between individuals, the principle announced that suffering follows sin will hold good. Of course between the Christian whose conscience is trained in the moral law of the doctrine of Christ, and the heathen, "who know not God," there is a wide difference. Many things which are sin to the Christian conscience are not sin to the heathen races, unenlightened by the ethics of the Christian religion; but, nevertheless, what I say is true; and if heathen peoples do not have the same moral standards that prevail in Christian lands, they havesomemoral standards; and whenever they violate what to them is the "rule of righteousness," it is followed by chagrin, by sorrow, by mental suffering for them; and so with the Christian people who are instructed in the high, moral principles of the Christian religion. When they fall below their ideals, when they consciously violate their rule of righteousness, it is followed by suffering, by sense of shame, by sorrow; and, indeed, the great bulk of the sorrows of this world spring from sin, the transgression of the moral law, and there is no escaping its penalty—suffering.
[Footnote A: I John iii:4; and Rom. iv:15.]
2. Possibility of the Spirit Suffering:It is just as real, this suffering of the spirit for the violation of the moral law, as the suffering of physical pain that comes from the violation of some physical law. The mind no less than the body may be hurt, wounded as deeply as the body, and carry its scars as the evidence of its wounds as long. Mental suffering is as real and poignant as physical pain; and he who sins suffers. "And it often happens," says Guizot, "that the best men, that is, those who have best conformed their will to reason, have often been the most struck with their insufficiency, the most convinced of the inequality between the conduct of man and his task between liberty and law;" and therefore have they suffered most. It is possible, then, for men to suffer because of their own sins.
3. Men Suffer Because of the Sins of Others:This we know, also, it is possible for men to sufferbecauseof the sins of others, and they often do it. You can scarcely conceive of a man being so far isolated, so far outside the sympathies of the world, that it can be said of him that he lives unto himself alone; that his sinning and his suffering concerns only himself. We are so knit together in a net work of sympathies—not seen, but real nevertheless—that we sufferbecauseof each other. It is easily proven. Take the case of an honorable father and mother who have led we will say—and there are such fathers and mothers—ideal lives. They have lived in honor; they have met their obligations to the world with reasonable fidelity; they have lived lives of righteousness; they have set good examples to their children; they have taught the Christian truths at the fireside; they have surrounded their family with every advantage that would prepare them for honorable stations among men. They have taken pride as they have seen their children grow from infancy to manhood, and their souls have hoped that a sort of immortality would subsist in the perpetuation of their race through their children. Then out of this family group, over which the parents have watched with such anxious solicitude, there comes forth a reprobate youth, in whom there seems to be scarcely any moral sense. He violates all the conventions of society, and of moral living; he destroys his intellect by his excesses, and he becomes a vagabond and outcast among men, a degenerate, perhaps finds his way through the sewers of sin, into the prison house, and at last, perchance, may go to the very gallows itself.
And what is the condition of that righteous father and mother the while, when they look upon this sad mischance in their household? Sorrow! The one who has led the shameful life, though he may suffer somewhat for his sins, has not suffered the one-thousandth part of the shame and humiliation and disgrace that has been experienced by this father and mother. They sufferbecauseof the sins of this wayward son. They illustrate in their experience the fact that men can suffer because of each other;the innocent are involved in the sins and crimes of the guilty.
From this confessedly extreme case all down the line of human experiences and relationships in constantly varying degrees men sufferbecauseof each other.
4. Men Suffer With Each Other on Account of Sin:Then men sufferwitheach other? An outsider, looking at this scene I have presented —I mean one not a member of the grief-stricken family—witnessing the sorrow of the father, and the inconsolable grief of the mother; the mental distress and shame experienced by brother and sisters; the stranger witnessing all this, weeps with the sorrowing father and mother; he sufferswiththem.
5. Willingness of Men to Suffer for Each Other:There is still another phase of this suffering on account of sin, and one that draws very near to the point I am trying to reach. There is among men, and especially among men of highly sensitive natures, a willingness to sufferforothers. Take the case, for instance, of David and Absolom. Absolom was the most worthless of all David's many worthless sons; he had planned rebellion against the grand old king; he would have clutched the crown from the hoary head of David and put it upon his own. In every way he had warred against the honor and the interests o. his noble father. Yet when news was brought to the king that the worthless young man had been caught in the battle and slain, the old king was stricken with sorrow, and gave vent to the parent-cry that rings through all the ages—"Oh Absolom, my son! my son! would to God I had died for thee!" In this experience of David's we see the willingness of one to sufferforanother. Nor is this willingness confined to parents alone who would so often and so willingly take upon themselves the consequences of their children's sins, though those consequences involved death. The same willingness exists on the part of the children, but perhaps is less frequently manifested, to suffer for their parents. The same is true also as to brothers and sisters, and among friends, where no tie of consanguinity exists; and even among strangers, on the occasion of great, imminent danger, this impulse in man, this willingness to risk his own life for others is frequently manifested. Such experiences make up the history of heroism, which is the chief glory of our human race.
6. The Great Principle Suggested by the Foregoing Facts:Does this fact of willingness to suffer for others, so abundantly attested in human experiences, bear witness to the existence of no great and eternal principle, that may be of incalculable benefit in the moral economy of the world? Is it meaningless? I think not. On the contrary it suggests the existence of a great and effective truth, namely, that the Intelligences of the universe are so bound together in sympathetic relations that at need they can suffer for each other, as well as with each other, and because of each other. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."[A]This is true because when a man lays down his life for a cause or for a friend he has then given all he has to give; for with life goes all things else; he can give no more. Shall those Intelligences we must needs think of as Divine, as making up David's "congregation of the Mighty," the Gods among whom God the greatest of all the Intelligences, standeth and judges,[B]shall these be denied the privilege of love-manifestation which goes with this giving of all? And shall this suffering for others have no benefiting effect upon those others for whom the suffering is endured? Shall this love-force of men and of divine Intelligences be mere waste of the highest and most refined of all forces—spiritual force? Not so, if reason answers the question. Certainly not so if scripture answers it. "Here by perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us."[C]"God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life."[D]"For Christ hath also once suffered for sin, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God."[E]"When we were yet without strength in due time Christ died for us. * * * Being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. * * * When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his son * * *."[F]The scriptures then abundantly confirm the declaration made that divine Intelligences are not denied the power of giving the highest love manifestation for others by suffering for them; and in that love-manifestation giving all they can give even to taking upon themselves the consequences of the sins of others and making Atonement for them; suffering that others might have placed within their reach the means of escape from suffering, if only they would accept such means and apply them. Otherwise, of course, the sinners themselves must suffer all the consequences due to their sins; for nothing is clearer in the revealed word of God, developed in this treatise, than that satisfaction must be made to Justice whenever the domain of Justice is trespassed upon, else all is confusion in the moral government of the world; so that if men will not avail themselves of means which Mercy provides for their redemption, then they themselves must meet the inexorable demands of Justice.
[Footnote A: St. John iii:15.]
[Footnote B: Psalms lxxxii.]
[Footnote C: I John iii:16.]
[Footnote D: St. John iii:16.]
[Footnote E: I Peter iii:16.]
[Footnote F: Rom. v:6-10.]
7. Vicarious Suffering. Its Reality and Its Effectiveness is the Doctrine of the Christ:This, then, is the especial doctrine of the Christ on which his earth-life's mission is based. One Intelligence at need can suffer for others. It is possible for one to stand responsible for another; a man can be his brother's keeper, and vicariously endure even suffering for another's sins; make a satisfaction to justice, and bring the quality of Mercy into the moral economy of things, and give it legitimate standing under a reign of law, softening somewhat the otherwise harsh aspect of things.
8. The Reign of Law and Love:To this then our inquiry and discussions lead us; to recognize in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the central truth of which is the Atonement, a reign of Law and Love; and that to preserve this Law, and to manifest this Love was the purpose of the earth-life's mission of the Christ. To teach and to demonstrate, first of all, God-love for man, by a sacrifice that tasks God that man might be saved;[A]and second, to inspire man-love for God, by the demonstration that God first loved man, and how deeply God loved man;[B]and third, to teach man-love for man. "For beloved," said the apostle whom Jesus loved pre-eminently—"If God so loved us, we also ought to love one another."[C]In this love for one another the children of God are manifest, he contends. "Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. * * We know that we have passed from death into life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. * * Here by perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren."[D]It is not to be marveled at that this same apostle declared that "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love,"[E]or that Paul, accepting the same principles, should say, "he that loveth another, hath fulfilled the law. * * * Love worketh no ill to his neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."[F]
[Footnote A: St. John iii:16, 17.]
[Footnote B: "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his son to be the propitiation for our sins" (I John iv:9, 10.)]
[Footnote C: I John iv:11.]
[Footnote D: I John iii:10-16.]
[Footnote E: I John iv:8.]
[Footnote F: Rom. xiii:8, 10.]
Jesus, however, teacheth the matter most perfectly. Accepting the love of God for man as assured, then the great commandment for man is—
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."[A]"Love is the fulfilling of the law"[B]—"All's Love, yet all's Law."[C]
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."[A]"Love is the fulfilling of the law"[B]—
"All's Love, yet all's Law."[C]
[Footnote A: Matt. xxii.]
[Footnote B: Rom. xiii:10.]
[Footnote C: Browning.]
Love exists in the earth-scheme of things, in the moral government of the world, as we have seen, in harmony with the universal reign of law. It is not born of some caprice, or mere impulse, howsoever beneficent; but interwoven it is into the very web of things, and is immanent in them, an indestructiblePresence. It is because love reigns in harmony with law that we mortals can be so sure of it; and rest so secure in it. For as it was not born of caprice, so, too, it will not depart from the world, nor from individuals on caprice; but will endure as space itself endures—from the very nature of it; as truth abides; as law itself subsists; as God lives; for it is of theEternal Things—the Things that do not pass away.
Other Views of the Atonement.
[Footnote A: Soteriology is that branch of theological science which treats of the work of the Redeemer, or of the divine agency in the salvation of the soul (Die. Funk & Wagnall). This brief historical statement of soteriology is either condensed or quoted from Shedd's work on the "History of Christian Doctrine," and is not mine.]
Not even an epitome of the history of the doctrine of the Atonement may be attempted here. The title is written out, not to attempt a summary of the history of this branch of theological science; but merely to make a few remarks about that history.
It is quite generally conceded that the doctrine of the Atonement developed slowly. "Taking the term Atonement in its technical signification to denote the satisfaction of divine justice for the sin of man, by the substituted penal sufferings of the son of God, we shall find a slower scientific unfolding of this great cardinal doctrine than of any other of the principal truths of Christianity."[A]
[Footnote A: "History of Christian Doctrine" V. "History of Soteriology," Vol. II, p. 204.]
Heretical Views During the First Two Christian Centuries:There were two views of the atonement held to be heretical during the two first Christian centuries, the Gnostic[A]and the Ebionite,[B]respectively.
[Footnote A: The Gnostics were a sect which arose in the Christian Church in the first century, flourished in the second, and had almost entirely disappeared by the sixth. The Gnostics held that knowledge rather than faith was the road to heaven, and professed to have a peculiar knowledge of religious mysteries. They rejected the literal interpretation of the scriptures, and attempted to combine their teachings with those of the Greek and Oriental philosophies and religions. They held that God was the unknowable and the unapproachable; that from him proceeded, by emanation, subordinate deities termed "eons," from whom again proceeded other still inferior spirits (Cent. Dict.—Gnostics).]
[Footnote B: The Ebionites were a party of Judaizing Christians which appeared in the church as early as the second century and disappeared about the fourth century. They agreed in (1) the recognition of Jesus as the messiah; (2) the denial of the divinity; (3) belief in the universal obligation of the Mosaic law, and (4) rejection of Paul and his writings The two great divisions of Ebionites were the Pharisaic Ebionites, who emphasized the obligation of the Mosaic law, and the Essentic Ebionites, who were more speculative and leaned toward Gnosticism (Cent. Diet.—Ebionites).]
The Gnostic heresy as affecting the Atonement brought against the scripture doctrine on that subject two contradictions; the first by one Basilides (A. D. 125), who affirmed only a human suffering in the Redeemer, which was not expiatory for the reason, first, because as merely human it was finite, and inadequate to atone for the sins of the whole world; and, second, because the idea of substituted penal suffering is inadmissible. "Suffering for the purposes of justice," their teacher said, of necessity implied personal criminality in the sufferer," and therefore can never be endured by an innocent person like Christ." "The principle of vicarious substitution, in reference to justice, he held to be untenable.
The other contradiction of Gnosticism was made by Marcion (A. D. 150). He affirmed a divine suffering in the Redeemer, which was but apparent, however, because the "Logos," or "Word"—Christ—having assumed a phantom, not a real body, only a seeming suffering could occur, and could not, of course, be expiatory. "It was merely emblematical—designed to symbolize the religious truth, that man, in order to attain his true and highest life must die to his earthly life."
"If now we examine these Gnostic and Judaizing theories," says Shedd, from whom I am condensing this account, "we find that they agree in one capital respect, viz., in the rejection of the scripture doctrine of a real and true expiation of human guilt."
2. Soteriology of the Apostolic Fathers:In the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, we obtain the views of the Church upon the doctrine of the Atonement during the first half century after the death of the last inspired apostle (A. D. 100-150). Examining them, we find chiefly the repetition of Scripture phraseology, without further attempt at an explanatory doctrinal statement. There is no scientific construction of the doctrine of Atonement in the writings of these devout and pious disciples of Paul and John; yet the idea of vicarious satisfaction is distinctly enunciated by them."
Our author then quotes from the Apostolic Fathers in proof of the above statement.[A]
[Footnote A: See "History of Christian Doctrine," Vol. II, pp. 208-212.]
3. Early Patristic Soteriology:[A]One characteristic of the early Patristic Soteriology which strikes the attention is the important part which the doctrine of Satan plays in it. The death of Christ is often represented as ransoming man from the power and slavery of the devil. Such passages as Colossians ii:15, and Hebrews ii:14: "Having spoiled principalities and powers (Satanic dominion), he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. * * * That through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil,"—were made the foundation of this view. The writer who exhibits it more plainly and fully than any other is Iranaeus (+200?) As an illustration of his sentiments, we quote a passage from the first chapter of the fifth book of his important work, "Adversus Haereses:" "The Word of God (the Logos), omnipotent and not wanting in essential justice, proceeded with strict justice even against the apostasy or kingdom of evil itself, redeeming from it that which was his own originally, not by using violence, as did the devil in the beginning, but my persuasion, as it became God, as that neither justice should be infringed upon, nor the original creation of God perish."
[Footnote A: This period extends into the last quarter of the 2nd century.]
All true scientific development of the doctrine of the Atonement it is very evident, must take its departure from the idea of divine justice. This conception is the primary one in the Biblical representation of this doctrine. The terms, "propitiation" and "sacrifice," and the phraseology, "made a curse for us," "made sin for us," "justified by blood," "saved from wrath," which so frequently occur in the revealed statement of the truth, immediately direct the attention of the theologian to that side of the divine character, and that class of divine attributes, which are summed up in the idea of justice. And as we follow the history of the doctrine down, we shall find that just in proportion as the mind of the Church obtained a distinct and philosophic conception of this great attribute, as an absolute and necessary principle in the divine nature, and in human nature, was it enabled to specify with distinctness the real meaning and purport of the Redeemer's passion, and to exhibit the rational and necessary grounds for it.
Now, turning to the writings of the Patristic period, we shall see that sufferings and death of the Redeemer are, in the main, represented as sustaining their most immediate and important relation to the justice of God. It is not to be disguised that the distinctness with which this is done varies with different writers. We shall find in this period, as in every other one, some minds for whom the pollution of sin is more impressive than its criminality, and in whose experience the doctrine of justification[A]is less formative than the doctrine of sanctification.[B]
[Footnote A: Justification, as here used, is the act of God by which the sinner is declared righteous, or justly free from obligation to penalty, and fully restored to divine favor.]
[Footnote B: Sanctification, the act of sanctifying or making holy. In Theology the act of God's grace, coupled with the efforts of man, by which the affection are purified and the soul is cleansed from sin and consecrated to God.]
4. Soteriology of Athanasius and the Greek Fathers:"Athanasius (373) is distinct and firm in maintaining the expiatory nature of the work of Christ. He recognizes its relations to the attribute of divine justice, and has less to say than his predecessors respecting its relations to the kingdom and claims of Satan. The more important bearings of the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction, it is evident, were now beginning to receive a closer attention, while less stress was laid upon its secondary aspects. We can find in the representations of Athanasius the substance of that doctrine of plenary satisfaction of eternal justice by the theanthropic sufferings of Christ which acquired its full scientific form in the mind of Anselm, and which lies under the whole Protestant church and theology."
"Athanasius composed no tract or treatise upon the Atonement and we must consequently deduce his opinions upon this subject from his incidental statements while discussing other topics. In his discourses against Arians, there are frequent statements respecting the work of Christ, in connection with those respecting his person and dignity, and from these we select a few of the most distinct and conclusive: 'Christ as man endured death for us, inasmuch as he offered himself for that purpose to the Father.' Here, the substitutionary nature of his work is indicated. 'Christ takes our sufferings upon himself, and presents them to the Father, entreating for us that they be satisfied in him.' Here, the piacular[A]nature of his work is taught, together with his intercessory office. 'The death of the incarnate Logos is a ransom for the sins of men, and a death of death.' 'Desiring to annual our death, he took on himself a body from the Virgin Mary, that by offering this unto the Father a sacrifice for all, he might deliver us all, who by fear of death were all our life through subject to bondage.' 'Laden with guilt, the world was condemned of law, but Logos assumed the condemnation and suffering in the flesh gave salvation to all.' Here, the obligation of the guilty world is represented not as relating to Satan but to law; and the Redeemer assumes a condemnation, or in modern Protestant phraseology becomes a voluntary substitute for the guilty, for purposes of legal satisfaction."
[Footnote A: "Piacular"—expiatory.]
"If we examine the soteriology of the Greek church during the last half of the fourth and the first half of the fifth centuries, we meet with very clear conceptions of the atonement of Christ. The distinctiveness of the views of Athanasius upon this subject undoubtedly contributed to this; for this great mind exerted as powerful an influence upon the Eastern doctrinal system, generally, as Augustine exercised over the Western."
5. Soteriology of Augustine and Gregory the Great:"Augustine (430): Augustine's view of the work of the Christ is essentially that of the fathers who had preceded him, neither falling short nor making any marked advance in scientific respects. * * * 'All men,' he says, 'are separated from God by sin. Hence they can be reconciled with him, only through the remission of sin, and this only through the grace of a most merciful Savior, and this grace through the one only victim of the most true and only priest.' In another place, alluding to our Lord's comparison of his own crucifixion with the lifting up of the serpent by Moses, Augustine thus expresses himself: 'Our Lord did not, indeed, transfer sin itself into his flesh as if it were the poison of the serpent, but he did transfer death; so that there might be, in the likeness of human flesh, the punishment of sin without its personal guilt, whereby both the personal guilt and punishment of sin might be abolished from human flesh.'
"These passages, and many others like them, scattered all through his writings, prove indisputably that Augustine held the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction."
Gregory, the Great, Bishop of Rome (604):Gregory, in his writings, lays great stress upon the idea of a sacrifice offered in the death of Christ. He starts from the conception of guilt, and from this derives immediately the necessity of a theanthropic[A]sacrifice. "Guilt," he says, "can be extinguished only by a penal offering to justice. But it would contradict the idea of justice, if for the sin of a rational being like man, the death of an irrational animal should be accepted as a sufficient atonement. Hence, a man must be offered as the sacrifice for man; so that a rational victim may be slain for a rational criminal. But how could a man, himself stained with sin, be an offering for sin? Hence a sinless man must be offered. But what man descending in the ordinary course would be free from sin? Hence, the Son of God must be born of a virgin, and become man for us. He assumed our nature without corruption. He made himself a sacrifice for us, and set forth for sinners his own body, a victim without sin, and able both to die by virtue of its humanity, and to cleanse the guilty, upon grounds of justice."
[Footnote A: Theantropic—both divine and human; being or pertaining to the God-man.]
6. Anselm's Theory of Satisfaction:A. Anselm's views of the Atonement (1109 A. D.) are fundamentally those of Protestant Christendom, it is important that they be stated in sufficient detail to make the leading principle clear.
The fundamental position of Anselm is that "the Atonement of the Son of God is absolutely or metaphysically necessary in order to the remission of sin. Anselm concedes by implication, throughout his work, that if it cannot be made out that the vicarious satisfaction of divine justice by the theanthropic suffering of Jesus Christ is required by a necessary and immanent attribute of the Divine Nature, then a scientific character cannot be vindicated for the doctrine; for nothing that is not metaphysically necessary is scientific. Hence, in the very beginning of the tract, he affirms that a mere reference to the divine benevolence, without any regard to the divine justice, cannot satisfy the mind that is seeking a necessary basis in the doctrine of atonement. For benevolence is inclined to dispense with penal suffering, and of itself does not demand it.
"It is not the attribute of mercy, but the attribute of justice, which insists upon legal satisfaction, and opposes an obstacle to the salvation of a sinner. Setting aside, therefore, the divine justice, and taking into view merely the divine compassion, there does not appear to be any reason why God should not by an act of bare omnipotence deliver the sinner from suffering and make him happy. This conducts Anselm to that higher position from which the full-orbed nature and character of the Deity is beheld, and he proceeds to show that compassion cannot operate in an isolated and independent manner in the work of redemption, and that if anything is done for the recovery and weal of the transgressor, it cannot be at the expense of any necessary quality in the divine nature, through the mere exercise of an arbitrary volition, and unbridled omnipotence.
"The leading positions, and the connection of ideals, in this exceedingly profound, clear, and logical tract of the eleventh century are as follows:
"Beginning with the idea of sin, Anselm defines this as the withholding from God what is due to him from man. Sin is debt. But man owes to God the absolute and entire subjection of his will, at all times to the divine law and will. This is not given, and hence the guilt, or debt, of a man to Deity. The extinction of this guilt does not consist in simply beginning again to subject the will entirely to its rightful sovereign, but in giving satisfaction for the previous cessation in so doing. God has been robbed of his honor in the past, and it must be restored to him in some way, while at the same time the present and future honor due to him is being given. But how is man, who is still a sinner, and constantly sinning, to render this double satisfaction, viz.: satisfy the law in the future by perfectly obeying it, and in the past by enduring its whole penalty? It is impossible for him to render it; and yet this impossibility, argues Anselm, does not release him from his indebtedness or guilt, because this impossibility is the effect of a free act, and a free act must be held responsible for all its consequences, in conformity with the ethical maxim, that the cause is answerable for the effect. But now the question arises: Cannot the love and compassion of God abstracted from his justice come in at this point, and remit the sin of man without any satisfaction? This is impossible because it would be irregularity and injustice. If unrighteousness is punished neither in the person of transgressor, nor in that of a proper substitute, then unrighteousness is not subject to any law or regulations of any sort; it enjoys more liberty than righteousness itself, which would be a contradiction and a wrong. Furthermore, it would contradict the divine justice itself, if the creature would defraud the creator of that which is his due, without giving any satisfaction for the robbery. Since there is no attribute more just and necessary than that primitive righteousness innate to deity which maintains the honor of God. This justice, indeed, is God himself, so that to satisfy it, is to satisfy God himself.
"Having in this manner carried the discussion into the very heart of the divine nature, and shown that a necessary and immanent attribute of the Deity stands in the way of non-infliction of punishment and the happiness of the transgressor, Anselm proceeds to consider the possibility of satisfying the claims of justice—the claims of Satan being expressly denied. There are two ways, he says, in which this attribute can be satisfied. First, the punishment may be actually inflicted upon the transgressor. But this, of course, would be incompatible with his salvation from sin, and his eternal happiness, because the punishment required is eternal, in order to offset the infinite demerit of robbing God of his honor. It is plain, therefore, that man cannot be his own atoner, and render satisfaction for his own sin. A sinner cannot justify a sinner, any more than a criminal can pardon his own crime. The second, and only other way in which the attribute of justice can be satisfied is by substituted or vicarious suffering. This requires the agency of another being than the transgressor. But here everything depends upon the nature and character of the being who renders the substituted satisfaction. For it would be an illegitimate procedure to defraud justice by substituting a less for a more valuable satisfaction. It belongs, therefore, to the conception of a true vicarious satisfaction, that something be offered to justice for the sin of man that is greater than the finite and created, or, in Anselm's phrase, is 'greater than all that is not God.' In other words, an infinite value must pertain to that satisfaction which is substituted for the sufferings of mankind. But he who can give and has the right to give, out of his own resources, something that is greater than the infinite universe, must himself be greater than all that is not God, or than all that is infinite and created. But God alone is greater than all that is not in God, or the created universe. Only God, therefore, can make this satisfaction. Only Deity can satisfy the claims of Deity.
But, on the other hand, man must render it, otherwise it would not be a satisfaction for man's sin. Consequently, the required and adequate satisfaction must be theanthropic, i. e., rendered by a God-Man. As God, the God-Man can give to Deity more than the whole finite creation combined could render. Furthermore, this theanthropic obedience and suffering was not due from the mere humanity of Christ. This was sinless and innocent, and justice had no claims, in the way of suffering, upon it. And, moreover, only a man's obedience, and not that of a God-Man, could be required of a man. Consequently this Divine Human obedience and suffering was a surplusage, in respect to the man Christ Jesus, and might overflow and inure to the benefit of a third party—in other words, to the benefit of the transgressor for whom it was voluntarily rendered and endured.
"This satisfaction made by incarnate Deity to meet the claims of one of his own attributes, Anselm represents as even more than an equivalent for the sin of mankind."
This brings us to the point where now the view of the Atonement by Catholics and Protestants respectively may be stated.
Original Sin:[A]"Original sin is distinguished from actual, or personal sin, because actual or personal sin is the sin which we personally with our own free will commit, whilst original sin is that sin which our human nature has committed with the will of Adam, in whom all our human nature was included, and with whom our human nature is united as a branch to a root, as a child to a parent, as men who partake with Adam the same nature which we have derived from him, and as members of the same human family of which Adam was the head. The difference that exists between original and personal sin is, that the latter is committed with the will physically our own, whilst original sin is committed with a will physically of another, and only morally our own, because it forms with that other (Adam), who is our head, one moral body.
[Footnote A: I take the Catholic doctrine of the Atonement from "Catholic Belief," by Very Rev. Joseph Faa Di Bruno, D. D., which is based, of course, upon the decisions of the Council of Trent, held from 1545 to 1563, and which among other things declared what the Catholic doctrine was upon "Original Sin" and "Justification."]
"If our hand strike a fellow-creature unjustly, though the hand has itself no will, yet it is considered guilty, not indeed as viewed separately by itself, but inasmuch as it is united to the rest of the body, and to the soul, forming one human being therewith, and thus sharing in the will of the soul with which it is connected.
"Also the sin committed inwardly by the human will, by a bad desire, belongs to the whole human being.
"Of the original sin in which we are born we are not personally guilty with our own personal will, but our nature is guilty of it by the will of Adam, our head, with whom we form one moral body through the human nature which we derive from him. * * * The Catholic Church teaches that Adam, by his sin, has not only caused harm to himself, but to the whole human race; that by it he lost the supernatural justice and holiness which he received gratuitously from God, and lost it, not only for himself, but also for all of us; and that he, having stained himself with the sin of disobedience, has transmitted not only death and other bodily pains and infirmities to the whole human race, but also sin, which is the death of the soul.
"The teaching of the Council of Trent (Session V) is confirmed by these words of St. Paul: 'Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned' (Rom. v:12).
"Surely the early Christians believed in original sin, as it can be gathered from what St. Augustine said to Pelagius, opposing him on the matter: 'I did not invent original sin, which Catholic faith holds from ancient time; but thou, who deniest it, thou, without doubt, art a new heretic" (De nuptiis, lib. xi, c. 12).
"It may be said that this belief is as old as the human race, for traces of this ancient tradition are spread in all nations, insomuch that Voltaire had to confess that 'The fall of man is the base of the theology of nearly all ancient people' (Philosophic de l'histoire, chapter xvii).
"Beside the guilt of original sin, which is that habitual state of sinfulness in which we are born (because our human nature is justly considered to have consented in Adam to the rejection of original justice), there is also in man the stain of original sin, entailing the privation in the human soul of that supernatural lustre which, had we born in the state of original justice, we all should have had.
"As neither Adam nor any of his offspring could repair the evil done by his sin, we should ever have remained in the state of original sin and degradation in which we were born, and we should have been forever shut out from the Beatific Vision of God in Heaven, had not God, in his infinite mercy, provided for us a Redeemer."
The Incarnation of God the Son:Respecting this great mystery, Catholics believe that the Holy Trinity, out of infinite mercy, decreed to provide for us a Redeemer, who could suffer, and suffer as an individual of the human race, and at the same time be in himself so exalted as to be able to give infinite value to his sufferings; because sin, being an offense against the infinite majesty of God could only be atoned for by an expiation of infinite value.
"To accomplish this end, God the Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity, the Eternal Word, chose the Blessed Virgin Mary of Nazareth, to become his Mother, and on receiving her consent, he, by the supernatural agency of the Holy Spirit, took human flesh from her, and thus became man, and his holy name is Jesus Christ.
"By becoming man the Eternal Word did not lay aside his divine nature, but, remaining what he had ever been from all eternity, took upon himself human nature without a human personality, so that from the first moment of his incarnation there was in him, and there ever will be, not one only but two natures, the divine and the human, united in his divine personality, the person of God the Son.
"The divine nature of Jesus is one and the same as that of the Eternal Father and of the Holy Spirit, and his human nature is in all things like ours, sin and tendency to sin excepted. He is equal to the Father as to his Godhead, and less than the Father as to his manhood.
"Our Lord Jesus Christ suffered and died in his human nature on Mount Calvary, and thereby effectually interposed his atonement between his eternal Father and man, and thus made a plentiful expiation and paid a full ransom to the Eternal Justice for the sins of the whole world. * *
"Jesus Our Only Mediator of Redemption:"Catholics believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is alone the great Centre of the Christian religion, the Fountain of all grace, virtue, and merit as in the natural world (if the comparison may be allowed), the sun is the centre and enlivening created source of light, heat, and growth.
"This grand truth they believe to be the vital, essential part of Christianity, 'for other foundation no man can lay but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus' (I Corinthians iii:11).
"They hold that to be united to Jesus Christ is the highest and noblest aim of man, and that only the holy Catholic church supplies the means for the closest union with Jesus Christ; and they are convinced that the yearning to possess this closer communion with Christ has, by divine attraction, drawn thousands of earnest minds to seek in the Catholic church this, the highest happiness to be enjoyed on earth.
"They believe that Jesus Christ is our Redeemer, because he has redeemed us from the bondage of Satan, with the ransom of his most precious blood; that he alone is our Savior because he saves us from stain, the guilt, and the curse of sin; that he is our only mediator of redemption and salvation, because he alone, by his own merits, has efficiently interposed between God and man, to obtain the full pardon of our sins through the sacrifice of himself: 'There is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ, who gave himself a redemption for all' (I St. Timothy ii:5, 6). Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to man, whereby we must be saved' (Acts iv:12).
"They believe that Jesus died on the cross to purchase mercy, grace, and salvation for all men—'Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth' (I St. Timothy ii:4). And that since Adam's fall, mercy, grace, and salvation can be obtained by man only through the passion and death of Jesus Christ.
"Believing that Jesus Christ is truly God, they hold that the homage of supreme adoration is due to Him, the God-man, as well as to God the Father, and to God the Holy Spirit."
Catholic View of Justification:"Justification is a divine act which conveys sanctifying grace, and by that grace communicates a supernatural life to the soul which by sin, whether original or actual, had incurred spiritual death: that is to say, justification is a change in the human soul or translation from the state of sin into the state of grace.
"It is a gift of Almighty God, a ray, as it were, coming direct from the divine goodness and filling the soul, which makes those who receive it pleasing to God and justified in his sight.
"The grace of justification produces a change affecting the soul of the regenerate by its presence, elevating and perfecting it. By this grace the likeness of God is brought out in them, and they are raised to a state of friendship with him, and of divine sonship.
"The Catholic church teaches that the grace of justification not merely covers sin, but blots it out; that is, blots out the guilt and stain arising from sin, and remits the everlasting punishment due to it.
"Justifying is not dressing splendidly a dead man's body, it is vivifying it. It is not covering a leprosy with a beautiful shining dress, it is curing it thoroughly. It is not gilding a piece of coal, leaving it inwardly black, but it is transforming it into a brilliant diamond.
"What unspeakable regrets it would leave in the justified man if he had ever to see his soul, indeed magnificently arrayed, still in itself stained with sin, deformed, corrupt, black, and horrible as before.
"Merely covering sin is a human way of forgiving, which consists in passing over the crime of a sinner, and in treating him outwardly as if he had not committed it, and as if no stain were in the soul in consequence of it, though the guilt and the stain are still there.
"God's way of pardoning a sinner is very different, and wholly divine. It is a way worthy of his infinite goodness, sanctity, omnipotence and worthy too of the immense efficacy of Christ's blood, and of his superabundant redemption, and of his infinite merits.
"God's way of pardoning is to cleanse away entirely the guilt and stain of sin, so that instead of it, God sees in the pardoned sinner the "charity of God poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost" (Rom. v:5), which, like a fire, has destroyed all the dross of sin, and rendered man pure, upright, and holy.
"Hence the justification of a sinner is represented in Scripture as the putting on of the new man who is "created in justice, and holiness of truth" (Ephesians iv:24): the "renovation of the Holy Ghost" (Titus iii:5).
"In the case of the grown-up persons, some dispositions are required on the part of the sinner in order to be fit to obtain this habitual and abiding grace of justification. A man can only dispose himself by the help of divine grace, and the dispositions which he shows do not by any means effect or merit justification, but only serve to prepare him for it; and for that reason are simply called dispositions or preparations. This is the teaching of the Council of Trent, which declares: "We are said to be justified gratuitously, because none of the things which precede justification, whether it be faith or good works, can merit this blessing for us." (Session VI, chapter viii.) The same holy council declares that sins are remitted gratuitously by the mercy of God through the merits of Jesus Christ (Session VI, chapter vii).
"The principal dispositions required for justification are the following acts, which can only be made by the assistance of God's actual grace, namely, an act of faith or belief in revealed truths, of fear of God, of hope, and of charity; an act of repentance for past sins, with a purpose to avoid sin in future, and to keep the commandments: a desire of receiving baptism for those who have not yet been baptized, and for those who have fallen into sin after baptism, a resolution to approach the sacrament of penance (Council of Trent, Session VI, chapter vi).
"Justification may be lost by wilfully violating a commandment of God, either by doing what is forbidden, or by not doing what is commanded. Justification is a talent or gift which should be made to bear fruit, or we shall be punished for the neglect.
"By justification we are raised to the dignity of Sons of God, heirs of his kingdom; and this entails upon us the duty of acting in a way becoming to so high a dignity. If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments,' said the Lord (St. Matt. xix:17). By justification we are incorporated with Christ, like a branch growing on a vine; but if the branch produces no fruit it will be cut off and cast into the fire (St. John xv:6). Hence the grace of justification is compared by our Savior, not to a pond, but to a fountain, whose waters reach unto heaven: 'But the water that I will give him shall become in him a fountain of water springing up into life everlasting" (St. John iv:14).
"How Christ's Redemption is Applied to Men that They May Be Justified and Sanctified:"Jesus Christ died for all mankind; he truly died that 'he might taste death for all' (Hebrews ii:9). Yet we know that all men will not be saved but only those who do his will, for we read in St. Paul: 'And being consummated, he became to all that obey him the cause of eternal salvation' (Hebrews v:9). And so, notwithstanding Christ's redemption, it is stated in the gospel that some 'shall go into everlasting punishment' (St. Matt. xxv:46). St. Paul did not say that God will save all men, but, 'who will have all men to be saved' (I Timothy ii:4), implying thereby that for salvation, man's will and co-operation is required to fulfill the conditions, and use the means appointed by God himself for the purpose.
"Only those who "have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (Apocalypse [Rev.] vii:14), that is, who have the merits of Christ applied to them, and who persevere to the end in doing what is commanded, will be saved.
"The direct means instituted by Christ himself for applying his infinite merits to the souls of men are the holy sacraments, which are so many channels instituted by Jesus Christ to convey to men his grace purchased for us at the price of his most precious blood.
"The Holy Sacraments:"The Catholic church teaches that there are truly and properly seven, and only seven sacraments of the new law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, though not all of them necessary for every person, as, for instance, holy order and matrimony.
"These seven sacraments are:
"1st, Baptism, by which we are made Christians, children of God, and members of his holy church..
"2nd, Confirmation, by which we receive the Holy Ghost, to make us strong and perfect Christians and soldiers of Jesus Christ.
"3rd, Holy Eucharist, which is the true body and blood, with the soul and divinity, of Jesus Christ, under the appearances of bread and wine.
"4th, Penance, by which the sins that we commit after baptism are forgiven.
"5th, Extreme Unction, which in serious or dangerous illness, comforts the soul, remits sin, and restores health of body, if God sees it to be expedient.
"6th, Holy Order, by which bishops, priests, and other ministers of the Church are ordained.
"7th, Matrimony, the sacrament which sanctifies the union by marriage of man and woman.
"Each of these has the three conditions necessary for a sacrament understood in the strict sense of the word, namely, the outward sign, the inward grace, and the institution by Jesus Christ, who alone has the power to institute sacraments, that is, outward signs as means of grace."
There are some slight variations in the views of the leading subdivisions of Protestant Christendom in relation to the Atonement; but these do not so much concern the nature of the Atonement itself as the manner of appropriating or receiving its benefits. At any rate their views of the Atonement are so nearly alike that they may be stated with sufficient clearness from any one of the standard works of these subdivisions.[A]The statement here used to represent the views of the leading subdivisions of Protestant Christendom is from the "Westminster Confession of Faith" of the Presbyterian church.
[Footnote A: "At the time of the Reformation, we have seen that both Lutheran and Calvanistic theologians adopted the Anselmic theory of a strict satisfaction. This soteriology enters into all the Lutheran and Calvanistic symbols of the continent, and into the Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and Congregational symbols of England and America. So far, therefore, as the principal Protestant creeds are concerned, the theory of an absolute necessity of atonement, and a strict satisfaction of justice by the suffering of Christ, is the prevalent one" ("History of Christian Doctrine," Shedd, Vol. II, p. 349).]
Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof: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).
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 justificationimputeththe righteousness of Christ; in sanctification, his Spiritsinfusethgrace, and enableth to the exercise thereof: in the former, sin ispardoned; in the other it issubdued; theonedoth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation; theotheris 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 resolvedjustificationintosanctification, 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 hisexternal actsof 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 notpiacular.[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: