If therefore, pardon and justification are distinct things, the one the executive act of a ruler, the other a judicial act ; the one setting aside the demands of justice, the other a declaration that justice is satisfied ; then those who reduce justification to mere pardon, deny the doctrine of justification as understood and pro- fessed by the Lutheran and Reformed churches. It of course is not intended that these Remonstrant or Arminian theologians do not hold what they call justification ; nor is it denied that they at times, at least, express their doctrine in the very language of the Symbols of the Protestant churches. Thus the Remonstrants l say, " Justificatio est actio Dei, quam Deus pure pute in sua ip- sius mente efficit, quia nihil aliud est, quam volitio aut decretum, quo peccata remittere, et justitiam imputare aliquando vult iis, qui credunt, id est, quo vult poenas, peccatis eorum promeritas, iis non infligere, eosque tanquam justos tractare et premio affi- cere." Nevertheless they tell us that they mean by this only pardon. Protestants, when they say justification includes pardon " and " the imputation of righteousness, mean two distinct things by pardon and imputation of righteousness. The Remonstrants regard them as identical, and, therefore, can use the very language of Protestants, while rejecting their doctrine. As every one feels and knows that when a criminal is pardoned by the executive, and allowed to resume his rights of property and right of voting, he is not thereby justified ; so every candid mind must admit that there is an immense difference between the Remonstrant or Arminian doctrine of justification and that held as the cardinal principle of the Reformation by both Lutherans and Reformed.
3. This difference becomes still more apparent when we con- sider what the Remonstrants make the ground of justification. As they deny that Christ made any real satisfaction to divine justice (as distinguished from benevolence), so they deny that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer as the ground of his justification. On this point, Limborch 2 says, " Hsec autem, quae nobis imputatur, non est Christi justitia.; nus- quam enim Scriptura docet, Christi justitiam nobis imputari ; sed tantum fidem nobis imputari in justitiam, et quidem propter Christum." And Curcellaeus8 says, " Nullibi docet Scriptura justitiam Christi nobis imputari. Et id absurdum est. Nemo enim in se injustus aliena justitia potest esse formaliter Justus, non magis, quam aliena albedine ^Ethiops esse albus."
1 Apologia pro Confessione Remonstrantium, cap. 11, 12 ; Episcopii Opera, edit. Rotter- dam, 1665, vol. ii. p. 166, a, of second aet. * Theologia Christiana, vi. iv. 18, ut supra, p. 703, a. 8 JRelig. Christ. Inst. 7, 9, 6
192 PART III. Ch. XVII. — JUSTIFICATION.
As the righteousness of Christ is not imputed to the believer, the ground of his justification, that which is accepted as right- eousness, is faith and its fruits, or faith and evangelical obedience. On this subject Limborch says,1 that under the new covenant God demands " obedientiam fidei, hoc est, non rigidam et omnibus aaqualem, prout exigebat lex ; sed tantam, quantam fides, id est, certa de divinis promissionibus persuasio, in unoquoque efficere potest ; in qua etiam Deus multas imperfectiones et lapsus con- donat, modo animo sincero prseceptorum ipsius observationi in- cumbamus, et continuo in eadem proficere studeamus."
And again,2 " Deus non judicat hominum justitiam esse per- fectam, imo earn judicat esse imperfectam ; sed justitiam, quam imperfectam judicat, gratiose accipit ac si perfecta esset." He, therefore,8 thus defines justification, u Est gratiosa aestimatio, seu potius acceptatio justitiae nostrae imperfectae (quaa, si Deus rigide nobiscum agere vellet, in judicio Dei nequaquam consistere posset) Dro perfecta, propter Jesum Christum."
The same view is presented when he speaks of faith in its rela- tion to justification. Faith is said to be imputed for righteous- ness ; but Limborch says,4 " Sciendum, quando dicimus, nos fide justificari, nos non excludere opera, quas fides exigit et tanquam foecunda mater producit ; sed ea includere." Again,6 " Fides est conditio in nobis et a nobis requisita, ut justificationem conse- quamur. Est itaque talis actus, qui, licet in se spectatus per- fectus nequaquam sit, sed in multis deficiens, tamen a Deo gratiosa et Uberrima voluntate pro pleno et perfecto acceptatur et prop- ter quern Deus homini gratiose remissionem peccatorum et vitae aeternae praemium conferre vult."
Fletcher 6 says, " With respect to the Christless law of paradi- saical obedience, we entirely disclaim sinless perfection." " We shall not be judged by that law ; but by a law adapted to our present state and circumstances, a milder law, called the law of Christ." " Our Heavenly Father never expects of us, in our debilitated state, the obedience of immortal Adam in paradise."
Dr. Peck7 says, " The standard of character set up in the Gospel must be such as is practicable by man, fallen as he is. Coming up to this standard is what we call Christian perfection."
1 Theologia Christiana, vi. iv. 37, ut supra, p. 706, a.
2 Ibid, vi. iv. 41; p. 706, b, 707, a.
8 Ibid, vi. iv. 18; p. 703, a. * Ibid. vi. iv. 32; p. 705, b
« Ibid. vi. iv. 31; p. 705, a.
6 Last Check to Antinomianism, sect, i ; WorTcs, N. Y. 1833, vol. ii. pp. 493, 494. \ Christian Perfection, New York, 1843, p. 294.