as his suffering the penalty of the law." He then goes on to argue that there is the same necessity for the one as for the other.
Dr. Shedd says, " A second difference between the Anselmic and the Protestant soteriology is seen in the formal distinction of Christ's work into his active and his passive righteousness. By his passive righteousness is meant his expiatory sufferings, by which He satisfied the claims of justice, and by his active righteousness is meant his obedience to the law as a rule of life and conduct. It was contended by those who made this dis- tinction, that the purpose of Christ as the vicarious substitute was to meet the entire demands of the law for the sinner. But the law requires present and perfect obedience, as well as satis- faction for past disobedience. The law is not completely fulfilled by the endurance of penalty only. It must also be obeyed. Christ both endured the penalty due to man for disobedience, and perfectly obeyed the law for him ; so that He was a vicarious substitute in reference to both the precept and the penalty of the law. By his active obedience He obeyed the law, and by his passive obedience He endured the penalty. In this way his vica- rious work is complete." 1
The earlier Symbols of the Reformation do not make this dis- tinction. So far as the Lutheran Church is concerned, it first appears in the "Form of Concord" (A. D. 1576). Its statement is as follows : " That righteousness which is imputed to faith, or to believers, of mere grace, is the obedience, suffering, and resurrec- tion of Christ, by which He satisfied the law for us, and expiated our sins. For since Christ was not only man, but truly God and man in one undivided person, He was no more subject to the law than He was to suffering and death (if his person, merely, be taken into account), because He was the Lord of the law. Hence, not only that obedience to God his Father which He ex- hibited in his passion and death, but also that obedience which He exhibited in voluntarily subjecting Himself to the law and fulfil- ling it for our sakes, is imputed to us for righteousness, so that God on account of the total obedience which Christ accomplished (prsestitit) for our sake before his heavenly Father, both in acting and in suffering, in life and in death, may remit our sins to us, regard us as good and righteous, and give us eternal salvation." 2 In this point the Reformed or Calvinistic standards agree.
It has already been remarked that the distinction between the
1 History of Christian Doctrine, New York, 1863, vol. ii. p. 341.
2 Hase, Libri Symbolici, 3d. edit., Leipz ?, 1846, pp. 684, 685.
150 PART IIL Ch. XVII. - JUSTIFICATION.
active and passive obedience of Christ is, in one view, unimpor- tant. As Christ obeyed in suffering, his sufferings were as much a part of his obedience as his observance of the precepts of the law. The Scriptures do not expressly make this distinction, as they include everything that Christ did for our redemption under the term righteousness or obedience. The distinction becomes important only when it is denied that his moral obedience is any part of the righteousness for which the believer is justified, or that his whole work in making satisfaction consisted in expiation or bearing the penalty of the law. This is contrary to Scripture, and vitiates the doctrine of justification as presented in the
Bible.
§ 6. Proof of the Doctrine.
That the Protestant doctrine as above stated is the doctrine of the word of God appears from the following considerations : —
1. The word SiKaio'co, as has been shown, means to declare St/caws. No one can be truthfully pronounced SiWos to whom hiKaioavvr) cannot rightfully be ascribed. The sinner (ex vi verbi) has no righteousness of his own. God, therefore, imputes to him a righteousness which is not his own. The righteousness thus im- puted is declared to be the righteousness of God, of Christ, the righteousness which is by faith. This is almost in so many words the declaration of the Bible on the subject. As the question, What is the method of justification ? is a Biblical question, it must be decided exegetically, and not by arguments drawn from assumed principles of reason. We are not at liberty to say that the righteousness of one man cannot be imputed to another ; that this would involve a mistake or absurdity ; that God's justice does not demand a righteousness such as the law prescribes, as the con- dition of justification ; that He may pardon and save as a father without any consideration, unless it be that of repentance ; that it is inconsistent with his grace that the demands of justice should be met before justification is granted ; that this view of justifica- tion makes it a sham, a calling a man just, when he is not just, etc. All this amounts to nothing. It all pertains to that wisdom which is foolishness with God. All we have to do is to deter- mine, (1.) What is the meaning of the word to justify as used in Scripture ? (2.) On what ground does the Bible aflirm that God pronounces the ungodly to be just ? If the answer to these ques- tions be what the Church in all ages, and especially the Church of the Reformation has given, then we should rest satisfied. The Apostle in express terms says that God imputes righteousness to
6.]