The chani
Paulin
doctrine is marked
the
ness, into that of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, is not merely one of language. The conception of Christ's death as a satisfaction to the penal sanctions of the Divine law, on the ground of which God forgives sinners, may, indeed, be accepted as a natural interpretation of the Pauline conception of Christ's death as an expiatory sacrifice for sin, if this concep- tion is to be translated into terms of law. Whether, however, such translation is desirable, is questionable ; as we saw that the forensic point of view is only formally and not materially regu- lative for the Pauline conception of justification. Thus, instead of seeking to translate related conceptions into legal temiino-
xplanation (or, if need
uaterLal element
in St. Paul's idea of justification, viz. that it is entirely the work of grace, * apart from law.' The Protestant theology, in fact, misinterprets Paul by taking his legal phnaseology as essential, and seeking to systematize his whole view of justification and its presuppositions under legal ideas. The attempt of the Pro- testant doctors to conceive the whole process of salvation m legal forms, made them introduce into theology a number of axioms which are in no way part of the Christian view of the world. Such an axiom is that all sin must be punished ; whereas the Christian religion t«aches that it can be forgiven, and forgiveness and punishment are mutualh- exclusive (cf. larke. C/irisHau Theology, p. 330). Another axiom is that the piuiishiuent of sin may be transferred from one person
another ; whereas the very essence of the idea of punishment its connexion with guilt. 'The vicarious suffering of the
:iocent for the guilty is not punishment. A third axiom is
at merit may similarly be transferred from one person to another ; whereas the moral result of a life, which is what is personal, and while it maj- result in the good of others, cannot possibly be separated from the person of its author, and treated as a conmiercial asset. That the Protestant doctors had to base their theology on axioms like these, plainly shows that they were on the wrong line in attempting to trans- late the doctrine of salvation into legal terms. We may no doubt recognize behind the forms of the Protestant theology the intention to show that the Divine grace itself is the grace of a Holy and a Righteous God. But the immediate identification of the Divine Righteousness with its expression in law is fatal to a full and complete view of grace. St. Paul might have taught a better conception of law as a temporary and prepara- tory manifestation of the Divine righteousness, whose end is fuUilled in a higher way by grace (Gal 32-').
This defect in the view of the revelation of the Divine grace in Christ does not, however, prevent the Protestant theology from being true in the main to the Pauline conception of justi- fication. Over against Catholicism, Protestant theology teaches justification by God's grace appropriated by faith alone, and apart from all question of human merit. Moreover, in the total view the emphasis, at any rate with the earlier Reformers, does the E
faction.
the fact that in Melanchthon's Loci Theoio- is no locus devoted to the doctrine of Christ's satis- ;ven so late as Gerhard in the early part of the 17th
cent., the doctrine is treated by him simply as a part of the
locus de justijicatione.
After this critical excursus we return to the Protestant theology itself, in order next to de- scribe the positions by which it further defined its conception of justification as over against Catho- licism. As regards what the Catholics call 'justi- fication,' but the Protestants 'regeneration,' it is taught that the latter is the necessary accompani- ment and logical (the later Lutheran theology says, temporal) consequence of justification. Its objec- tive principle is the gift of the Holy Spirit, its subjective manifestation the activity of faith in good works.
On some further points the two Evangelical Churches diverge not only from Catholicism, but from one another. The first of these has to do with the question of assurance. The Lutherans teach that the believer's consciousness of justifica- tion is in itself an immediate certainty of the reality of justification, operated by the Holy Ghost ifdes divina). Where, however, doubt enters, recourse must be had to the Word and the Sacra- ments, that the Holy Ghost, who works through the Word, may rekindle faith. The Reformed theologians teach that the guarantee of the reality of justification is God's eternal predestination to salvation, which manifests itself subjectively in perseverance in the state of grace. Hence the assur- ance of justification cannot be gathered directly from faith itself, but by a reference to its evidence in its fruits (sylloffismus i)racticus). [See Lipsius, Dogmatik ", p. CV.') f . ].
The second difference between the Protestant Cliurches is that the Lutherans make the moment of justification, alike in earth and heaven, the moment when saving faith conies into being. The Reformed, on the other hand, regard justification as accomplished in tlie resurrection of Christ for the whole Church as His mystical 1>ody (justificatio activa), but as regards iii(ji\ i.lual believers based
on the decree of jusliliiati which accompanies
their eternal electidii, :uul icilizcil when saving faith arises {juMifiaitio //iissini). It is to be noted