Изображения страниц

Once more; on page 314, 315, he thus speaks: "To pardon sin is therefore not to hold sins for no sins, nor is it to be angry and offended with sins, but it is to esteem sinners as no sinners, to absolve them from the guilt and blame of sins, and to repute them just on account of another's righteousness ap prehended and applied by faith. In short, God remits sins to the believing, because he wills not to punish in them those sins that he punished in Christ the mediator. To have the forgive ness of sins therefore and to be righteous before God are the same thing. But it is objected that the law requires not only that we should not sin, but that we should likewise perform obedience; it requires not only that we should not do evil, but that we should do good. And that hence it is not sufficient that sins should be pardoned, but the perfect obedience of the law is also necessary in order that we should be righteous. But to this I answer that even the omission of good is itself sin. 'He who can do good, and does it not, to him it is sin.' James 4: 17. But this sin also is remitted to us, because Christ has made abundant satisfaction for all sins, both of omission and commission. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin.' 1 John 1: 7. We have therefore in Christ a perfect for giveness of all sins of omission as well as of commission; and therefore of the sins of omitted obedience; and thus we have a perfect righteousness, so that we are accounted righteous before God, by the merit of Christ alone."* These passages will monibus tuis (Ps. 51: 6. Rom. 3: 4). Utraque tamen significatio in idem recidit. Justificare autem, pro justum facere, seu justitiae babitum infundere, apud Latinos nusquam reperitur: et ut maxime reperiri posset in Scriptura tamen et ecclesia aliter accipi testantur haee manifesta, loca, quae non aliter, quam de absolutione et acceptatione gratuita peccatoris possunt intelligi. Quis accusabit electos Dei ? Deus est qui justificat. Publicanus descendit justificatus, hoc est, absolums a reatu, et acceptus Deo magis, quam pharisaeus: Ab omnibus, a quibus per legem Mosis justificari non potuistis, per hunc, quisquis credit, justificatur (Acts 13: 38, 39). Et: annuntio vobis remissionem peccatorum, etc. Hic justificari manifeste significat absolvi, et accipere remissionem peccatorum: Justificantur gratis. Justificans eum, qui est ex fide. Hominem justificare absque operibus. Ei qui non operatur, sed credit in eum qui justificat impium, imputatur fides sua ad justitian. Justificati ejus sanguine. Reconciliati Deo per mortem." Rom. 3: 24, 26, 28, et cap. 4: 5, et cap. 5: 9.

* "Remittere igitur peccata non est, peccata pro non peccatis habere, vel peccatis non offendi et irasci, sed peccatores habere pro non

suffice to make known the views of Dr. Ursinus. We have others marked for quotation, but shall omit them.

VII. We shall next hear the testimony of Paraeus. He wrote the work from which I quote, Anno 1598, and is a theologian of splendid intellect and attainments, and one who with Calvinists has always occupied the very first rank of standard excellence. In reading the later writers you often meet with his name in the following associations, " Calvin, Beza, Paraeus." Paraeus and Hutterus, of whom, the first is the Alpha of the Calvinists, the second the Beta of the Lutherans. His very name was a terror to the Romish church, as may be seen by reading almost any of her champions who were his contemporaries; and his powerful Anatome Arminianismi spread an alarm through the Arminian camp, scarcely equalled until Edwards on the Will appeared. In relation to the subject under discussion this eminent theologian uses the following unequivocal language. "The plain and simple sentiment of the Scriptures is, that we are justified for the sake of the blood and

peccatoribus, seu peccatores absolvere a peccatorum reatu et culpa, et reputare pro justis, propter satisfactionem alienam, fide apprehensam et applicatam. Breviter: Deus remittit credentibus peccata, quia non vult ea in ipsis punire, eo quod puniit in Christo mediatore. Idem ergo sunt, habere remissionem peccatorum, et, esse justum coram Deo. Contra: Lex non tantum requirit, ut non peccamus: sed etiam ut praestemus obedientiam: non tantum ut omittamus mala, sed etiam ut faciamus bona. Ergo non satis est, ut peccata sint condonata, sed etiam necessaria est perfecta legis praestatio, ad hoc, ut simus justi. Respond: Etiam omissio boni est peccatum. Qui enim potest facere bonum, et non fecit, ei peccatum est. Jacob. 4: 17. Sed etiam hoc peccatum nobis remittitur: quia Christus pro omnibus peccatis tam omissionis, quam commissionis sufficientissime satisfecit. Sanguis Jesu Christi purgat nos ab omni peccato, 1 Johan. 1: 7. Habemus igitur in Christo perfectam remissionem omnium peccatorum, tam omissionis, quam commissionis: proinde etiam peccati omissae obedientae, et sic perfectam justitiam : ut unice Christi merito coram Deo justi reputamur." Vide ad Quaest. LVI. 1.

See, for example, De Pace Germaniae, by Adam Coutzen. The character of Paraeus is admirably drawn in the following inscription under his portrait :

"Augustinus eras calamo, Chrysostomus ore,
Verbi aperire potens mystica sensa Dei.
Fulmen eras Latiae turbae, quae Numen adorat
Romanum, et lapides, lignaque muta colit."


death of Christ, and that our justification is the forgiveness of "The Scripture defines our whole justification by the forgiveness of sins for the sake of the blood of Christ. Therefore the effusion of his blood alone is that of which we are justified by imputation. And the forgiveness of sins is our complete justification—to be absolved, to be justified, to be forgiven, are the same." † “I affirm unhesitatingly that the uniform language of the entire Gospel is that we are justified by the death and blood of the Son of God, and that our justifica tion consists in the forgiveness of sins alone.—But thou repliest that the punishment of sin is not sufficient to constitute righteousness, but also the fulfilment of the law is required. To this I answer, that the punishment is itself the fulfilment of the law; hence therefore it is sufficient. For the law is fulfilled in a twofold manner; either by the performance of perfect obedience; or, if it has been violated, by the suffering of a sufficient punishment. Each mode satisfies the justice of God; and in each mode therefore the law is fulfilled and righteousness obtained." We would gladly extend this quotation, but our limits forbid.

Again; in considering objections he thus remarks: (the reader will please to pay especial attention to this quotation, as it will explain the apparent contradiction in the language of Calvin, as remarked on a former page), "But you will say that some celebrated theologians teach that justification consists in

*"Scripturae phrasis plana sententia simplex est; nos justificari propter sanguinem et mortem Christi, et justificationem nostram esse remissionem peccatorum."

+ "Scriptura totam justificationem nostram definit remissione peccatorum propter sanguinem Christi: Ergo sola sanguinis effusio est id cujus imputatione justificamur: et remissio peccatorum est tota nostra justificatio.-Hic absolvi, justificari, habere remissionem peccatorum, idem valent."

"Veriorem dico, quia constans vox est totius Evangelii, nos justificari morte et sanguine filii Dei, et justificationem nostram in sola remissione peccatorum consistere. Testimonia Evangelii supra sunt recitata. At, inquis, ad justitiam non satis est poena pro peccato, sed et requiritur impletio legis. Resp. Etiam poena est impletio legis, Ergo sufficit. Dupliciter enim lex impletur vel per obedientiae perfectae praestationem, vel cum haec est violata, per sufficientis poenae perpessionem: Utraque satisfit justitiae Dei. Utraque igitur est legis impletio, est justitia et dixaiaua."

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

the forgiveness of sins, and the imputation of righteousness; and that therefore it does not consist in forgiveness alone. I answer, that neither do I deny that it consists in these. But how? as integral parts, neither of which is the whole of justification? By no means; but as acts differing in reason only, not in subject; in respect of the different terminos a quo, and ad quam,' etc. As, for example, the whiting of a wall is by the expulsion of blackness and the coating over with whiteness; yet it is one and the same act by which the wall is whitened and blackness removed, and so on the contrary. Therefore they are one action differing only in reason. The filling up of a vessel is by the removal of vacancy, and the infusion of liquor, yet they are done by one and the same act; as when a person is clothing himself, it is but one and the same act by which the body is clad, and nakedness overcome. Still, both are accomplished by the same single act. Thus therefore in justification (which is not unlike being clothed), the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of righteousness unite; not as separate actions or parts, but as acts differing in term only. For God by forgiving our sins for the sake of the righteousness of Christ, imputes that unto us, and by imputing that to us he remits our sins. Hence therefore these are customarily joined together in justification, not so much copulatively as exegetically, the latter implying the former." We need yet to add only the following passage

*“At, inquies, theologi praedicti docent justificationem constare remissione peccatorum et imputatione justitiae. Ergo non constat remissione sola. Resp. Nec ego nego his constare. Sed quomodo? an ut partibus integralibus, quarum neutra sit tota justificatio? Nequaquam sed ut actibus, ratione tantum, non subjecto differentibus, respectu differentium terminorum a quo et ad quem: qualibus constare solent actiones, quae fiunt contrariorum immediatorum açσɛ xai Fεσ quaeque cum re ipsa et subjecto sint una actio, tamen distinguuntur to loyo et respectu. Verbi causa dealbatio parietis sit pulsione nigredinis, et aspersione albedinis: simul tamen et eadem actione, qua haec aspergitur, illa pellitur, et contra. Ideo sunt una actio ratione tantum differens. Repletio vasis sit pulsione vacui, et infusione liquoris: utraque tamen sit una actione vestitura, ut sic loquar, qua vestitur corpus, sit regendo meditatem et applicando vestern. Eadem tamen actione sit utrumque. Sic igitur in justificatione, (quae vestiturae non est absimilis,) concurrunt remissio peccatorum et imputatio justitiae non ut diversae actiones vel partes, sed ut actus terminis differentes. Nam Deus remittendo nobis peccata propter justitiam VOL. XI. No. 30. 59

from this great divine: "The distinctions between being not unrighteous and being righteous, between not transgressing the law and fulfilling it, between being not dead, and being alive, have more in them of what is subtle, than of what is true! for they are terms which truly signify the same thing. For be who is not unrighteous before God, is necessarily righteous; he who does not transgress the law, fulfils it; and he who is not dead, is alive, etc. If by the imputation of the passive obedience of Christ we are not as yet righteous, but only not unrighteous, how can it be true that we are justified by the blood of Jesus? reconciled by his death, etc? If the forgiveness of sins is not complete justification, how can it be true that blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven? Rom. iv. And how did the apostle take the phrases to impute righteousness, and not to impute sin, to mean the same thing?-If it is not by the passive, but by the active obedience of Christ that we are justified, how is Christ not dead in vain? for why was it necessary for Christ to die, and by dying to merit forgiveness of sins for us, if righteousness had been merited for us by his living holily and righteously? For righteousness necessarily presupposes forgiveness of sins."*

VIII. Melancthon, in his Common Places, remarks: "Jus

Christi, eandem imputat, et eam imputando peccata remittit. Conjungi ergo haec solet in justificatione non tam copulative quam exegetice, ut posterius declarat prius."

* Distinctiones inter non injustum et justum esse, inter legem non transgredi, et legem implere, inter non mortuum et vivum esse: plus habent subtilitatis, quam veritatis, cum revera sint termini aequipollentes, ut postea ostendam. Necessario enim qui coram Deo non est injustus est justus: qui legem non transgreditur implet: qui non est mortuus, vivit: siquidem haec omnia sunt contraria quɛoa: quorum uno posito, vel negato, necesse sit poni vel negari alterum. Si passivae obedientiae imputatione nondum sumus justi, sed tantum non injusti quomodo verum illud: justificati per sanguinem filii ejus: reconciliati per mortem, etc. Si remissio peccatorum non est justificatio tota: quomodo verum illud: Beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates: Rom. iv. et quomodo Apostolus ibidem pro eodem sumit, imputare justitiam, et, non imputare peccatum ?-Si non passiva sed activa obedientia Christi justificamur: quomodo Christus non est frustra mortuus? Quid enim necesse erat Christum mori et moriendo mereri nobis remissionem peccatorum: si juste et sancte vivendo jam meritus nobis erat justitiam? Justitia enim remissionem peccatorum necessario praesupponit."

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »