Farewell to the First Congregational Church in Norwalk, Conn. (bound with other addresses)

to remove the condemnation, [p. 269.] Forensic justification is nothing, in fact, but a mode of conceiving of the inward deliverance, [pp. 288'-9.] Justification, forgiveness, and re- pentance, are only different conceptions of the same thing, [p. 289(Z.] The forensic justification many speak of, is only an objective conception of. an inward change; for to renew and clear a soul of (inward) death, is to roll back justice from it; that is, to roll back the currents of judicial causes in it; which is the only real justification, [289j. 312-13, -293, 293a, 294, 294a, 259.] [p. 269.] " Th6 doctrine then ia that faith in him is to regenerate, or to be a Bubjeotively regenerated life ;, and eo is to suhjfictivdy juslifij, or remove condem- nation. Let ns see if we can trace the method." . - [P. 289.] " Instead, therefore, of stating an alternative betiveen. repentance, er a new birth in spiritual freedom, on one side ; and forgiveness, or justification, on the other, after the manner of Bishop Butler in the extract just now cited; they are only to be taken as different conceptions of the same thing. To deliver a soul from spiritual death and bondage, siai. quicken it in freedom and new capa- city, is, so far, taking it away from its deserts, , or disappointing the claims of justice and retributive ojder." [P., 289.] "Xo renew and clear a soul of death is to roll iacJc justice from it, or the currents, of j\Idici£^l causes in it, and, in that view, is a grace dispensed against justice ; and the forensic justification many speak of and think of, regard- ing notliing else, is yet only an. objective conception of an inward subjective change, which, on that account, is called "justification of life." [P. 312-13.] "Or ta,ke the doctrine of imputed righteousness. Christ, in the way just described, comes in place of a righteousness in ourselves ; and then we see, or by faith embrace him as a righteousness imputed to us. And then, if we ask what is the real truth, or verity of this imputation, it is that in holding it we are set in just the attitude of mind, by which the grace and passion of Christ wiU most effectually work, ,in our. subjective experience, that reversal of the law of sin and death, that deliverance of the Judicial consequences of sin, which is the basis of reality in what is called justification. The Eomish doctrine is that Xihrist brings justification to sinners, by making them just or righteoua The Protestant appears to be that he does it, by his righteousness, imputed to them. The true doctrine appears to be, neither exactly one nor the other; or rather "to be both; viz., that sinners are made subjectively righteous by receiving Christ as an objective or imputed righteousness. For, to make a sinner righteous, it will be seen, involves a deliverance from the judicial consequences of ill desert and sin; which is a disturbance of God's retributive order, and a rolling back of causes that were vindicatory of the Divine justiee." [P. 293.] "Are we to conceive that God passes an objective sentence of jus- tification upon them that believe, which is followed by an internal and experi- mental dehveranee; or that, executing this deliverance, in and through the faith of them that believe, we apprehend the fact, or conceive it, in a way of ob- jective representation that supports onrfai,th? The former is ithe conception of Tholuck and other distinguished theologians of Germany." [P. 293-4.] "I differ from this representation, as far as I can see, only in saying that, instead of conceiving the condemnation or the free gift of justifica- tion to be passed objectively and then to issue or be, executed in subjective misery or bliss ; we are sir/iply to conceive the misery or the bliss, executed in us, under these objective forms, oondeminationj or justification; seeing thus in Qod, or in the will of. God, that which has its reality in ourselves." [P. 294'.] "Which is the same as to say, 'I ani not condemned of God any 42 There is no other remission of eins, of any effect or value, than simply having a better conscience, a freer spirit of obe- dience, and a new desire after purity of life, [p. 259.] No pro- pitiation or sacrifice was needed as an atonement for sin, [See more, but justified before him ; because I am internally delivered from the conse- quences of death that reigned, as by a law^ within me' " [P. 259.] " Only let us not be so childish, when speaMng in the manner of Dr. Tholuck, as to imagine (which I am quite certain he does not), that God takes a local seat of judgment, in some supernal region, and passes sentences there of condemnation or delivery, which he afterwards executes ; for the execution, considered as proceeding from his will, is the sentence, — except that we may need, in practice, to think of it under the former and more objective mode of representation. [P. 307.] "These words, I say, hang all their -virtue on the assurance that God only waits to be mercifid ; that he is not estranged from, us, but we averse from him ; and that Christ, in Ws death and sacrifice, came to assure us of this, and so to bring us unto God. The very point of his counsel coincides with my supposed heresy, and just this heresy it was that Luther himself wanted." * The whole passage from which the citation on page 307 is taken, reads thus, — "If I had time and leisure, I would go into the doctrine of justification by faith as maintained by Luther, and would undertake to show that the pre- cise operative truth of it, that which made it true to him, is no other than the doctrine I have stated, however different it may at first view appear. But I will only refer you, here, to the fact that the famous words of Staupitz, which are said to have shed-such light on the distressed mind of Luther, and finally to have led him out of his bopdage into the liberty of Christ, — words that were, in fact, the beginning at once of his grand mission as a reformer, and of the justi- fication of life in his heart, the very point of his counsel, — coincides wititi my supposed heresy, and just this heresy it was that Luther himself wanted. These words, I say, hang all their virtue on the assurance that God only waits to be merciful ; that he is not estranged from us, but we averse from him ; and that Christ, in his death and sacrifice, came to assure us of this, and so to bring us unto God. He was not in trouble because he wanted some theory of compensa- tion for sin or punishment ; but his trouble came of the fact that he was afraid of God, and could not find how to assure himself before God, or how to make, himself, what he evidently must be, to be accepted of God. Staupitz, therefore, says : ' Why do you distress yourself with these speculations and high thoughts I Look to the wounds of Jesus Christ, to the blood which he has shed for you ; it is there you will see the mercy of God. Instead of torturing yourself for your faults, oast yourself into the arms of the Redeemer. Trust in him, in the righ- teousness of his life, in the expiatory sacrifice of his death. Do not shrink from him. God is not against yod ; it is tou who ake estranged and aveese from God. Listen to the Son of God. He became man to assure you of the Divine favor.' — (Luther's Works, vol. ii., Liepsic Ed., p. 264.) " These fragrant words of life, out of which, as a consecrated parentage, sprang both the faith of Luther and his doctrine, affirm precisely all that is most distinctive in my supposed heresy ; that God is not to be conciliated to us but we to him ; and that Christ came, not literally to appease his justice, but to ' assure us of his favor.' " Dr. B. cites the language of Staupitz to Luther as afiirming "precisely all that is most distinctive in his supposed heresy," viz., that God is not to be concili- ated to us (meaning that there was no need of an atoning sacrifice or propitia- tion); that without this " God is not estranged from" the sinner, but only wants to be merciful ;" and that Christ did not die to make atonement for our sins ; that he " came not literally to appease" the "justice of God, " but to assure us of his favor." 43 pp. 243, 307, and God in Christ, 201, 198, already cited.] God was, without this, ready to pardon, whenever men were penitent, [p. 307* ;] and had no use to make of the blood of atonement, [p. 257.] Wow, who does not know that Luther, instead of denying the reality and the necessity of a Ticarious atonement, held that doctrine as the corner-stone of Christianity; declaring "justification by faith" (viz., faith in the atoning sacri- fice of Christ), as " tlie article of a standing or of a falling church ?" And does Staupitz teach Luther, in his distress, that " there is no need" of some " compen- sation for sin or punishment f — no atoning sacrifice and no need of one ? Is this Luther's doctrine ? Is it the doctrine of Staupitz ? Is this the answer to be given to a distressed sinner : Christ did not die for you ; God is not angry with you ; the Christ of God " came not to appease his justice, but to assure us of his favor ?" There is no justice of which a sinner need be " afraid," that he should want a "theory of compensation for sin or punishment !" The counsel of Stau- pitz is exactly the opposite of this. In the clearest and most earnest terms he holds up to Luther's distressed mind the very atoning sacrifice of Christ which Dr. B. denies as unnecessary and absurd : " Look to the wounds of Jesus Cheist, to the blood which he has shed foe tou ; rr is there you will see the MEEct OF God. Instead of torturing yourself for your faults, cast yma-self into the arms of the Redeemer. Trust in him ; in the righteousness of his life ; in the expiatoey saceifice OF his death." It is through this expiatory sacrifice, and through this alone, that Staupitz says, " God is not against you ; it is you who are averse from God." And now when Staupitz says, with such emphasis, "Trust in him; in ^e righteousness of his \\k; in the expiatory sacrifice of his death" Dr. B. would persuade his readers that the "expiatory sacrifice of his death" was the very thing which Staupitz would show to be unnecessary, and so remove the very idea of it from Luther's mind. Nay, that the belief that no atoning sacrifice was needed, was the very thing that brought relief to Luther's mind ! [P. 257.] "If now we take the word atonement in the sense of expiation, and put it through the same process that we have traced in the word propitiation, we bring it to the same result. The Hebrew worshiper comes to expiate, or atone, or make amends for his sins. As in propitiation his thought was objectively occupied with propitiating God, so here it is objectively occupied with giving him that compensation that will make him propitious — expiating the sin that angers him. If now you ask him whether he really supposes, that offering his animal makes amends for his sins, your question may perplex him ; and, if he is a rude man, little exercised in tracing distinctions, he may feel obliged to say that it does. And yet, if you press him with the absurdity of supposing that Ood has any use to make of the blood of bulls and goais, such that he is willing to accept his victim in commutation for his sins, he is likely to say," <fec ■ 44 Sec. II.