entertained by all the first Reformers without one solitary exception. They all, with unanimous consent, affirmed the plain, simple, scriptural doctrine to be, that we are justified by the death of Christ, when on account of it (cum propter eam is the ever-recurring expression) we have obtained the forgiveness of sins. If then the charge were substantiated, that certain brethren do really reject the imputation of Christ's active obedience for justification, it would still furnish not one particle of proof that they have abandoned the articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae.

The question in relation to this topic, was actually unknown to the church until after the death of Calvin. It was, by some obscure individuals, started about A. D. 1564; and drew after it the query, whether justification consisted in pardon only; together with a host of similar questions. For a long time after it was started it received but little attention. Dr. Pareus declared it to be a question which called forth "more of dangerous speculation, than of solid truth, and more of learning than of faith."* About the year 1570, it was introduced at Wittemberg, but it seems to have died away because no one appeared to regard it as a subject worthy of serious consideration. Prior to this time, however, no eminent writer among the reformers notices the distinction. They content themselves with saying, as above remarked, that we are justified by the death of Christ, when on account of it we have forgiveness of sin.†

passages which he has quoted, I have affirmed the contrary." See Defence, pp. 255–257.

In the Minutes of the General Assembly of 1837, in relation to the same charge, those who were considered as entertaining views similar to those of Mr. Barnes, made the following disclaimer: “All believers are justified, not on the ground of personal merit, but solely on the ground of the obedience and death, or, in other words, the righteousness of Christ. And while that righteousness does not become theirs, in the sense of a literal transfer of personal qualities and merit; yet, from respect to it, God can, and does treat them as if they were righteous." See Protest, pp. 481–486.

* "Plus periculosae subtilitatis, quam solidae veritatis: plusque ingenii quam fidei."

Protestants should be careful on this subject lest when they object against the pope's making new articles of faith (statuere articulos fidei) the argument be retorted. For in the instance before us, and in the others above noticed, we have seen, in the lapse of two centu

Subsequently, however, when the French Synod manifested a good deal of zeal on the subject; and after it had by a vote decided what was orthodox in relation to it; the distinction was more generally considered by theologians, in their writings, as we shall remark hereafter. This Synod distinguished itself, by the great anxiety it evinced to have the distinction regarded. It wrote to all the eminent schools and academies; and even to many learned individuals, pressing the subject upon their attention. But the writings of Gomar have done more to enstamp it with the features of Calvinism, than those of all his contemporaries. He was likewise perpetually inculcating the distinction upon the minds of his pupils; and as one of his friends very sagely remarks," correcting the opposite errors found scattered about even in the writings of great men," (in magnorum etiam virorum scriptis sparsos ;) that is, he became the Index Expurgatorius of the Reformation. For the pains which he took on this subject, however, he was by the primitive school of Calvinists styled by the ungracious appellation of an innovator. Whether this charge was without foundation, the reader will determine for himself presently.

As the principle embraced in the topic now before us, is so interwoven with the two preceding, that it is extremely difficult to separate them, the reader will excuse us, if the quotations which we now make should sometimes express views similar to those presented in the preceding sections of this article.

For reasons before expressed we deem it unnecessary to go into a detailed examination of the views of the original reformers. We shall confine our attention principally to those who lived and wrote after the distinction referred to began to be made.

The language of the first reformers on this subject was in entire unison with that of the primitive church; of Austin, for instance, who says, "Our sanctuary is the pardon of sins, which is to be justified by his blood. When the Father is displeased with us, he considers the death of his Son and is reconciled. My entire hope is in the death of my Lord. His DEATH is my MERIT, MY REFUGE, my SALVATION, my LIFE, and my RESURRECTION. This is the uniform language of the first reformers

ries, that non-essential points of doctrine have expanded into articles of faith in every sense of the word.

without exception. In proof of this it will be necessary only to quote the language of Calvin, and a few confessions. Our other references shall be to divines of a later date.

I. We begin with Calvin. After quoting with approbation the following passages from Hilary," the cross, the death, and the descent of Christ into hades, are our life;" and "The Son of God is in hades, but man is brought back again to Heaven," he goes on again to speak as follows: "Therefore, although we possess in the death of Christ the entire accomplishment of our salvation, because by it we are reconciled to God, the law satisfied, the curse taken away, and the punishment endured; yet we affirm that it is not by his death, but by his resurrection that we are born again unto a lively hope, (1 Pet. 1:3.) as he appeared the conqueror of death by rising again; so the victory of our faith is stayed upon his resurrection: or, as it is better expressed in the words of Paul, when he says, He died for our sins, he was raised again for our justification, Rom. 4: 25. As if he had said, sin was taken away by his death, righteousness was renewed and restored by his resurrection. For how could he have liberated us from death, by dying, if he himself had yielded to death? How could he have purchased victory for us, if he had fallen in the conflict? Wherefore we thus procure the material of our own salvation between the death and the resurrection of Christ: because, by the former his sin was abolished and death destroyed; and by the latter, righteousness was repaired and life restored. So that, however, by the ben efit of the latter, the former brings to us its force and efficiency. Therefore we remember, that as often as there is mention made of his death alone, there is at the same time included therein, that which pertains to the resurrection. The same may be af firined when his resurrection alone is spoken of; that it likewise includes what is peculiar to his death." Here then is the sentiment of Calvin. When the death of Christ is spoken of, his resurrection is included. And it is to these alone, and not to his active obedience before death, that he attributes our complete salvation. But let us hear him again.

* "Crux, mors, inferi, nostra vita sunt.-Filius Dei in infernis est: sed homo refertur ad coelum.”—Calvini Instit. Lib. II. cap. 16.

+ "Proinde tametsi in ejus morte habemus solidum salutis complementum, quia per eam et Deo reconciliati sumus, et justo ejus judicio satisfactum, et maledictio sublata, et persoluta est poena: dicimur

In the following passage the reader will perceive how entirely Calvin avoids making any mention of Christ's active obedience, though he is summing up in the minutest manner every part of his merit from which salvation and happiness are derived to us. His words are: "But when we behold that the entire sum of our salvation, and all its parts, are comprehended in Christ, let. us be warned not to seek the least particle of it from another. If life be sought, we, in the name of Jesus teach, that it is at his disposal. If any other gifts of the Spirit are sought, whatever they might be they are found in his unction. If patience, it is found in the assurance that he reigns. If purity, in his conception. If indulgence, think of his nativity, by which he was made like to us in all things, that he might be able to suffer. If redemption is sought, seek it in his suffering; if absolution, in his condemnation; if remission of the curse, in his cross; if satisfaction, in his sacrifice; if purgation, in his blood; if reconciliation, in his descent into hades; if mortification of the flesh, in his burial. If newness of life, in his resurrection; if immortality, in the same; if an inheritance in the heavenly kingdom, in his entrance into heaven; if protection, defence, if abundance of all good, look for it in his kingdom. If you desire security, in the expectation of judgment, look to the power of judging which has been committed to him. To conclude, in this treasury there is contained every thing that can constitute happiness; from thence you may draw, and be satisfied, but not from any tamen non per mortem, sed per resurrectionem regenerati in spem vivam (1 Pet. 1:3): quia ut ille resurgendo victor mortis emersit, ita fidei nostrae victoria in ipsa demum consistit resurrectione. Quale hoc sit, melius Pauli verbis exprimitur: mortuum enim dicit propter peccata nostra, suscitatum propter nostram justificationem (Rom. 4: 25): acsi diceret, morte ejus sublatum peccatum, resurrectione instauratain restitutainque justitiam. Quomodo enim moriendo liberare nos a morte poterat, si morti ipse succubuisset? quomodo comparasset nobis victoriam, si in certamine defecisset? Quare sic salutis nostrae materiam inter Christi mortem et resurrectionem partimur, quod per illam peccatum abolitum, et mors extincta: per hanc, justitia reparata, et erecta vita: sic tamen ut hujus beneficio vim efficaciamque suam illa nobis proferat. Proinde memimerimus, quoties solius mortis sit mentio, simul comprehendi quod proprium est resurrectionis parem quoque synecdochen esse in voce resurrectionis, quoties seorsum a morte ponitur: ut secum trahat, quod peculialiter morti convenit."-Ut supra, Cap. II. sect. 13.

VOL. XII. No. 32.

54

other." Not one word here about any thing flowing to us from his active obedience.

Once more." But that Christ by his obedience, truly merited and acquired favor with the Father for us, can be clearly and fully collected from many places in the Scriptures. For this I take for granted, that if Christ made satisfaction for our sins, if he paid thoroughly the penalty due to us; if his obedience pleased God, and to conclude, if the just suffered for the unjust; then his righteousness obtained salvation for us, just in proportion as it availed and deserved. Truly as is testified by Paul, we are reconciled, and obtain reconciliation by his death (Rom. 5: 11). But reconciliation cannot exist, unless where the offence precedes. The sense therefore is that God, to whom we are hateful on account of sin, has become appeased by the death of his Son, so that he is now pacified towards us. And it should be particularly noticed what the antithesis is which fol lows in Rom. 2: 19: As by the transgression of one, many were constituted sinners: so even by obedience many were constituted righteous.' For the sense is, as we are alienated from God, and destined to destruction by the sin of Adam, so by the obedience of Christ, we were received into favor as righteous.— In all other respects, when we affirm that grace was obtained for us by the merit of Christ, we thereby understand that we are cleansed by his blood, and that his death is an expiation for our sins. His blood cleanses us from sin.' His blood was pour

"Quando autem totam salutis nostrae summam ac singulas etiam partes videmus in Christo comprehensas, cavendum ne vel minimam partiunculam alio derivemus. Si salus quaeritur, ipso nomine Jesu docemur, penes eum esse: si Spiritus alia quaelibit dona, in ejus unctione reperientur: si fortitudo, in ejus dominio: si puritas, in ejus conceptione: si indulgentia, in ejus nativitate se profert, qua factus est nobis per omnia similis, ut condolescere disceret: si redemptio, in ejus passione si absolutio, in ejus damnatione: si maledictionis remissio, in ejus cruce: si satisfactio, in ejus sacrificio: si purgatio, in ejus sanguine: si reconciliatio, in descensu ad inferos: si mortificatio carnis, in ejus sepulchro: si vitae novitas, in ejus resurrectione: si immortalitas, in eadem : si haereditas regni coelestis, in coeli ingressu: si praesidium, si securitas, si bonorum omnium copia et facultas, in ejus regno: si secura judicii expectatio, in potestate judicandi expectatio, in potestate judicandi illi tradita. Demque in ipso thesauro omne genus bonorum quum sint, inde ad satietatein hauriantur, non aliunde."-Ut Sup. Cap. XVI. sect. 19.