1st. It follows, from that theory, that justification is a sove- reign, 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.
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.
31. How does the Arminian theory as to the nature and de- sign of the satisfaction of Christ modify the doctrine of justifi- cation ?
They hold, 1st, as to the nature of Christ's satisfaction, that although it was a real propitiation rendered to justice for sins, it was not in the rigor of justice perfect, but was graciously accepted and acted on as such by God. — Limborch, Apol. Theo., 3, 22, 5. 2d. That it was not strictly the substitution of Christ in place
APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 395
of his elect, but rather that he suffered the wrath of God in be- half 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 judi- cial act, 1st. In accepting the sufferings of Christ as sufficient to enable God consistently to offer to men salvation on the terms of the new covenant of grace, i. e., on the condition of faith. 2d. In imputing to the believer his faith for righteousness for Christ's
This faith they make, 1st. To include evangelical obedience, 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 right- eousness, because Christ died. — Limborch, Theo. Christ., 6, 4, 22, 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 satisfac- tion 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, neces- sarily implies that the merits of Christ upon which the trust ter- minates 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 ?
32. How do the Romanists define justification ?
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
396 JUSTIFICATION.
of God and eternal life. The efficient cause is the power of the Holy Ghost. The meritorious cause the work of Christ. The instrumental cause baptism. The formal cause the influence of grace, whereby we are made not merely forensically but inherently righteous. — Council of Trent, Sess. VI., Chapter VII.
They define faith in its relation to justification to be the beginning of human salvation, the fountain and root of all justi- fication, i. e., of spiritual life. They consequently hold that jus- tification is progressive, and that when a man receives a new na- ture in baptism, and the work of justification is commenced in him with the forgiveness and the removal of sin, the work is to be carried on by the exercise of the grace implanted, i. e., by good works. Since they confound justification with sanctification, they necessarily deny that men are justified by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, or by mere faith without works. — Canon 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.
33. What are the points of difference between Protestants and Romanists on this whole subject ?