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 impu- tation. 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 sancti- fication. 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.
5th. That it may be lost by mortal sin, and regained through the sacrament of penance.
APPLICATION OF KEDEMPTION. 397
34. What are the leading arguments against the Romanist view on this subject t
1st. This whole doctrine is confused and unintelligible. (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 inherent sin, and the introduction to a state of covenant favor with God with 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 ex- hibited, 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 accept- ance 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. 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, Kom. iv., 5.
5th. The phrases to impute, reckon, count sin or righteous- ness are absolutely consistent only with a forensic interpretation. To impute righteousness without works in the forensic sense, in the 4th chapter of Komans, is reasonable. To impute inherent grace without works is nonsense.
6th. 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.
CHAPTER XXXI.
ADOPTION.
1. To what classes of creatures is the term "sons" or "chil- dren of God" applied in the Scriptures, and on what grounds is that application made ?
1st. In the singular it is applied, in a supreme and incom- municable sense, to the Second Person of the Trinity alone.
2d. To angels (1.) because they are God's favored creatures, (2.) because as holy intelligences they are like him, Job i., 6 ; xxxviii., 7.
3d. To human magistrates, because they possess authority delegated from God, and in that respect resemble him, Ps. lxxxii., 6.
4th. To good men as the subjects of a divine adoption.
This adoption, and the consequent sonship it confers is two- fold, (1.) general and external, Ex. iv., 22 ; Rom. ix., 4 ; (2.) special, spiritual and immortal, Gal. iv., 4, 5 ; Eph. i., 4-6.
2. What is the Adoption of which believers are the subjects in Christ ; and what relation does the conception which this word represents in Scripture sustain to those represented by the terms justification, regeneration, and sanctification ?
Turrettin makes adoption a constituent part of justification. He says that in execution of the covenant of grace God sove- reignly imputes to the elect, upon their exercise of faith, the righteousness of Christ, which was the fulfilling of the whole law, precept as well as penalty, and therefore the legal ground, under the covenant of works, for securing to his people both remission of the penalty and a legal right to all the promises conditioned upon obedience. Upon the ground of this sovereign imputation
APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 399
God judicially pronounces the law, in its federal relations, to be perfectly satisfied with regard to them, i. e., he justifies them, which involves two things, 1st, the remission of the penalty due to their sins, 2d, the endowing them with all the rights and rela- tions which accrue from the positive fulfillment of the covenant of works hy Christ in their "behalf. This second constituent of justification he calls adoption, which essentially agrees with the definition of adoption given in our Con. Faith, Chapter XII., L. Cat., Q. 74 ; S. Cat., Q. 34.— Turrettin, L. 16, Q. 4 and 6.