XV. We had intended to have quoted some other authoriti Piscator, for instance, (see Opp. Tom. I. p. 250,) but think needless. We shall therefore close these citations with the t timony of the Synod of Dort. Not having the original La by us, we shall subjoin the English version.*

We believe that our salvation consists, in the remission our sins for Jesus Christ's sake, and that therein our rig eousness before God is implied, as David and Paul teach declaring this to be the happiness of man, that God imp righteousness to him without works. And the same apo saith, that we are justified freely, by his grace, through the demption which is in Christ Jesus. And therefore we alw hold fast this foundation, ascribing all the glory to God, ht bling ourselves before him, and acknowledging ourselves to such as we really are, without presuming to trust in any tł homo impius uno eodemque justificationis actu, et a reatu absolv et justus pronunciatur. Nugas agit Bellarminus, cum pugna theologis nostris sententias adfingit, eo quod alius justificationer imputatione justitiae Christi, alius in remissione peccatorum, esse velit: Perinde ae si contenderet, aliter hominem vestiri, tegitur ejus nuditas: aliter, cum applicatur ei vestis. Quam in adversarius ille fingit, tenebras quodammodo fugari, frigus de posse, ita ut nulla lux, calor nullus in subjecto corpore consequal tam sophistice statuit, remissionem peccatorum hoc tantum effic ut gehennae poenas evadamus, non item ut coelestis vitae prae consequamur. Quasi vero peccatum et justitia non sint contr auɛσa, quorum uno sublato, necessario ponitur alterum: aut q gehenna tantum consideranda sit in perpessione summi mali, etiam in amissione summi boni. Quocirca, si remissio peccator utramque hanc poenae partem tollit, certe nihil amplius deside potest. Nec vero vel cogitatione, imo ne per somnium quidem fi potest subjectum, justitiae et injustitiae Sextixov, puta, angelus, homo, qui non quidem sit injustus: at non propterea recte possit cari justus: perinde ac si quis animal somniet non quidem mortu minime tamen vivens. Neque enim mors et vita, exitium et sal minus immediate opponuntur in mysteriis gratiae, quam in nego naturae. Ac proinde hujus commenti autores et assertores novum pingunt Tragelaphum, transubstantiationis chimerae non absimile accidentia comminiscentes, quorum nullum potest cogitari, nedi reperiri subjectum." Ibid. Loc. XLII. Thes. 9, 10, 11, 12 et 13. p. 7

725.

See "The Confession of Faith of the Reformed Dutch Church, vised in the national Synod, held at Dordrecht in the years 1618, at 1619." Article XXIII.

ourselves, or in any merit of ours, relying and resting upon obedience of Christ crucified alone, which becomes ours en we believe in him; this is sufficient to cover all our iniities, and to give us confidence, in approaching to God; freethe conscience of fear, terror and dread, without following example of our first father, Adam, who, trembling, attemptto cover himself with fig leaves."

We omit to make quotations from any others, for reasons alady intimated. In passing however we remark, that the first ormers, without a solitary exception, (I speak only of the ment ones; I have read none others), entertained on the ject before us, views similar to those advanced in the fifteen going references. Luther, Zuinglius, Wolfgang Musculus, colampadius, Bullinger, Peter Martyr, Hyperius, etc., etc., eived with one consent, as the doctrine of God's word, that are justified by the death of Christ, when on account of it, opter eam, is the uniform expression), we have received the giveness of sins. This position, we believe, may be sused in the fullest and most satisfactory manner.

The question whether pardon and justification are one and same never was agitated until the latter end of the sixteenth tury; at which time it was started by some obscure individin the following form: "Is the forgiveness of sins the le, or only a part of our justification? (Sitne remissio pecrum tota, an dimidia nostra justificatio?) And for some after it was started, (with a host of kindred questions), it acted but little attention.

When however the subject was ultimately brought up fully re the theological world for discussion, the Calvinistic church ost entirely, at the first, took the ground that pardon was whole of justification. Some however, with Molinaeus, livine, who is deservedly held in the very first rank of exence), took the opposite ground, and the controversy was and exciting. Piscator, a man who is still admired and ted by our learned Calvinistic theologians, became the chief gonist of the views of Molinaeus, and maintained the posi, that "the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of rightsness, are not two parts of justification." That Piscator a strict Calvinist, no one will hesitate to acknowledge, who read his works, or who is aware of the estimation in which was held by his contemporaries. If we do not greatly misVOL. XI. No. 30

60

take, the adoption of the opposite principle characterized the followers of Luther long before it did those of Calvin.

By degrees however, the Calvinistic reformers, as well as the Lutheran, were led to make a distinction between forgiveness and justification when they treated upon the subject. They nevertheless still used the terms interchangeably, and asserted that either term might be employed for the other with perfect propriety. That this may be apparent we will present the language of one or two eminent divines who admitted the distinction. Our first is Dr. Amandus Polanus, a great favorite with Dr. Gomar, (whose approbation of an author as sound, is a pretty fair proof that he is orthodox) who styles him "that eminent theologian," (egregius theologus). He wrote A. D. 1609. On pp. 1460, and 1461, of his celebrated System of Christian Theology, he thus remarks: "To justify, is to absolve from death, not to condemn. But it is not the same thing, properly speaking, as to forgive sins. Because beings may be justified concerning whom there exists no necessity for forgiveness; beings who have no sin, and never committed any, having perfectly fulfilled the law of God. Thus man would have been justified without the pardon of sins, if he had not sinned, but had persisted in rendering obedience to the law. Thus in a forensic judgment the judge absolves the accused who is truly innocent although he does not forgive him any sin. The justification of the sinner is nothing less than the forgive ness of sins, figuratively, that is metonymically speaking, because the forgiveness of sins is the formal cause of the justifica tion of the sinner, etc. But properly speaking the justification of the sinner is not forgiveness itself, but absolution from condemnation. Neither are absolution from condemnation, and forgiveness of sins simply the same, because forgiveness embraces far more than such release. A person may be absolved from condemnation who is innocent, and has not sinned, and who needs not the forgiveness of sins. To be declared that any one is absolved from condemnation, and has a right to eternal life, is common alike to legal justification and evangelical. For, as in human judgments debtors are not only justified by an intervening surety, that is, absolved by the judge and not cast into pris on; but even those who have been accused innocently are absolved, and truly they ought to be absolved. So likewise before God: sinners are not only absolved on account of Christ, but even the innocent, as holy angels. Man also, if he had ful

filled the law and had not sinned, would have been justified, that is, absolved from condemnation and freed from eternal death. Rom. 2: 13.” *

And on page 1497, we have the following: "Forgiveness of sins is truly a part of our justification before God. Yet by synecdoche it is often put for the whole of justification: So that it is rightly said that the justification of the sinner before God consists alone in the forgiveness of sins. For the forgiveness of sins does not exclude the imputation of Christ's righteousness, but necessarily presupposes it. Because God forgives sins to no one unless he imputes to him the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ. Truly it excludes our merits and our satisfactions, and whatever modes of justifying before God, have been thought out by men. So also on the contrary it is rightly affirmed that justification before God consists in the alone imputation of the righteousness of Christ; for the imputation of the righteousenss of Christ does not exclude the forgiveness of

Justificare est absolvere a morte, non condemnare. Id autem non est idem proprie loquendo quod remittere peccata: quia justificari possunt, quibus nulla opus est remissione peccatorum, ut qui nullum habent, nullumque commisserunt peccatum, sed perfecte lege Dei inpleverunt. Sic justificatus homo absque remissione peccatorum, si non pecasset, sed in obsequio legis perstitisset: ut dicta de justificatione legali paulo ante citate ostendunt, Ita in judicio forensi judex absolvit accusatum, qui vere innocens est, sic ut peccatum ei non remittat. Justificatio peccatoris nihilominus est remissio peccatorum figurate nimirum metonymice loquendo, quia remissio peccatorum est causa formalis justificationis peccatoris: proprie autem loquendo justificatio peccatoris non est remissio ipsa peccatorum, sed absolutio a condemnatione; Sicut anima rationalis non est proprie loquendo homo, sed causa formalis seu forma hominis. Neque simpliciter idem sunt absolutio a condemnatione et remissio peccatorum quia illa latius patet. Potest enim absolvi a condemnatione qui est innocens et non peccavit, quique remissione peccatorum non eget. Declarari, quod quis absolutus sit a morte aeternae, et jus habeat vitae aeternae, commune est justificationi legali cum justificatione evangelica. Nam ut in judiciis humanis non tantum debitores interveniente sponsore justificantur, id est, absolvuntur a judice ne in carcerem conjiciantur, sed etiam insontes absolvuntur, et vero absolvi debent: ita etiam coram Deo non tantum peccatores absolvuntur, sed etiam insontes, ut Angeli sancti item homo si legem implevisset et non peccasset fuisset justificatus, id est, absolutus a condemnatione atque immunis a morte aeterna, Rom. 2: 13, qui legem praestant, justificabuntur. Vide Syntag. Chris. Theolog. Lib. VI. cap. 36.

sins, but necessarily infers it. For to any one to whom God imputes the righteousness and satisfaction of Christ, to him assuredly he remits sins. Because he forgives those from his mere mercy and free love towards us, for the sake of the intercession and satisfaction of Christ the Mediator applied to us by faith. 1 John 1: 7. Col. 1: 20–22. Rom. 3: 25, etc."

One more instance will be quite sufficient, and that one is itself a host. I mean Dr. Francis Gomar,-a name synony mous with all that is fervently pious, able, learned, and accomplished. Any one who will read his writings must admit that it is no wonder that Arminius shrunk into his appropriate dimensions under his withering glance. In the folio edition of his Works, Vol. I. p. 175, col. 1, he discusses the question "Whether the forgiveness of sins is the entire justification of the faithful before God, for obtaining eternal life," in which dis cussion he affirms not only that the first reformers employed the terms pardon and justification interchangeably, but also that these terms are thus employed in the word of God: though he explains it by synecdoche.

Gomar refined more on the theology of the Reformation than probably any other of his time. He is perpetually distinguishing, and yet you can almost always see some reason for the refinement. His followers were exceedingly numerous, (in fact the whole body of Calvinists were called after him for many years,) and his refinements with respect to the obedience of

Est [remissio peccatorum] quidem pars justificationis nostræ coram Deo: Synecdochice tamen frequenter pro tota justificatione ponitur, ita ut recte dicatur justificationem peccatoris coram Deo in sola remissione peccatorum consistere. Nam remissio peccatorum non excludit imputationem justitiae Christi sed necessario ponit ; quia nemini Deus remittit peccata, nisi cui justitiam et satisfactionem Christi imputavit: Verum excludit tantum merita nostra, satisfactiones nostras et quoscunque modos justificandi coram Deo ab hominibus excogitatos. Sicut vicissim recte affirmatur, justificationem coram Deo consistere in sola imputatione justitiae Christi: nam inputatione justitiae Christi non excludit remissionem peccatorum, sed necessario infert. Nam cuicunque Deus imputat justitiam et satisfac tionem Christi, eidem certe remittit peccata : quia remittit illa esse inera misericordia et gratuito amore erga nos, propter intercessionem et satisfactionem Christi mediatoris nostri nobis applicata per fidem. 1 John 1: 7. Col. 1: 20, 21, 22. Rom. 3: 25. Eph. 1: 7. Heb. 9: 22, et cap. 12, 24. Vide ut supra, p. 1497, D. E.

f "Au remissio peccatorum sic tota fidelium, coram Deo, justificatio, ad vitam aeternam obtinendam.

1