which the papists had circulated respecting them. It is the joint production of Luther, Melancthon, Bugenhagen, and Jonas, who were appointed by the elector of Saxony to draw up a sketch of their doctrines to lay before the emperor Charles V. at Augsburg. For he had commanded the convention of a diet at this place, for the purpose of terminating the disputes between the Pope and the princes who favored the Reformation. It was held June 25, anno 1530. The fourth article is on the subject of justification, and thus reads :* "The churches teach that men cannot be justified before God, by their own strength, merits or works; but that they are justified for Christ's sake, when they believe themselves to be received into favor, and their sins forgiven on account of Christ, who by his death made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes to us for righteousness." The reader cannot but be struck with the similiarity between the language of this article on this subject, and the language of Luther above quoted.

III. During the preceding year was held the Colloquium Marpurgense, in whose Acts are contained the sentiments of Luther, Zuinglius, and their followers. The reader will bear in mind that the object of this colloquium was to settle articles of peace and union among the reformers. We will now listen to its testimony. "We believe that we shall be delivered from this original sin, and from all other sins, and from eternal death, if we believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God who died for us. Without this faith there is no kind of works, or condition, or religion, etc. that can absolve us from a single sin. We believe that this faith is the gift of God; and that we cannot acquire it by any preceding works, or merits, nor can we obtain it by any exertions of our own; but that it is created and bestowed by the Holy Spirit, even as he wills when we hear the gospel or word of Christ. We believe that this faith is our righteousness before God."*

* For the original Latin, see Note Vol. XI. p. 467.

"V. Credimus, nos ab hoc peccato (originali,) aliisque omnibus peccatis et ab aeterna morte liberari, si credamus in Filium Dei JESUM CHRISTUM pro nobis mortuum: absque hac fide nullo operum genere, conditione, vel religione, etc. ab ullo peccato absolvi posse. VI. Hujusmodi fidem esse donum Dei quod nullis praecedentibus operibus vel meritis a nobis acquiri, aut viribus nostris parari possit: Sed Spiritum Sanctum eam largiri et creare, prout vult in cordibus nostris quando Evangelium seu verbum Christi audimus. VII. Hanc fidem esse justitiam nostram coram Deo," etc.

IV. The Confession of Bohemia. We have not the original of this Confession, and shall therefore quote it from a translation. "Now this faith, (viz. justifying faith,) is properly an assent of a willing heart to the whole truth delivered in the gospel, whereby man is enlightened in his mind and soul," etc. V. Moravian Confession, Art. IV. "We likewise teach, that we cannot attain to the forgiveness of sins and righteousness before God, through our own merit, work, or satisfaction; but that we obtain pardon of sins and are made righteous before God, by grace, for Christ's sake through faith, even by believing that Christ hath suffered for us; and that for his sake sin is forgiven us, and righteousness and eternal life bestowed upon us. For it is this faith, which God will account and impute for righteousness before him, as St. Paul says to the Romans, in the third and fourth chapters."

VI. Cloppenburg, a learned and acute theologian, (but he flourished later than any we have yet quoted,) after remarking that, "Justification in the Scriptures signifies absolution from the guilt of sins,"* distinctly states that "it is a problem among the orthodox," (problema est inter orthodoxos), whether justifying faith is to be predicated of the intellect or will. It is worthy of remark too that this eminent divine (whose only fault was, he was too disputatious), the annihilator of Bedell and Smalcius, and the companion of Spanheim, of Polyander, of Triglandius, and Rivetus, and others who were alike the glory of the church and of the age, should pronounce the doctrine of Luther and Melancthon on the very topics before us, "the orthodox doctrine" (orthodoxam doctrinam). Thus showing that on this subject, to quote a primitive Lutheran reformer is equivalent to quoting a strict Calvinist.

VII. Tilenus. "When justification is passively understood, its form is nothing else than the application of faith; whence faith is said to be our righteousness."†

VIII. Gomar. For reasons already stated, our quotations from this eminent Calvinist will be extensive. For as in the case of Luther, so here, we wish to present his views in full, upon each topic embraced in the objection referred to.

Treating upon the nature of faith he thus remarks: "That,

* "Justificationem in sacris literis significare absolutionem a reatu peccatorum, credimus." Opp. Alt. Tom. p. 394.

"Passive cum sumitur justificatio, forma ejus nihil aliud est, quam fidei applicatio, unde fides dicitur justitia nostra." Syntag. Par. II. Loc. XLII. De Just. Thes. VIII. p. 724.

whose subject is the intellect, and not the will alone, that, properly, is not confidence. But the subject of faith is the intellect and not the will only. Therefore faith is not properly confidence. The proposition is true, because, by universal consent, confidence is not in the intellect but in the will alone; because by itself it is an emotion, an affection of the heart and will, and thus it is defined by every one. But it is a contradiction to affirm that a thing is in the intellect and not in the will alone, and at the same time that it is not in the intellect but only in the will. The assumption is true, beyond all controversy. For although it remain a question whether faith is partly in the intellect and partly in the will, it is yet by universal consent, from the general definition of faith, and from the sacred Scriptures, acknowledged, that faith is in the intellect, and not in the will alone. Wherefore, the conclusion necessarily follows from the admitted proposition and assumption, that faith is not confidence."* With the premises of this argument we have nothing to do. The conclusion to which Gomar arrived was that justifying faith is purely an intellectual exercise.

Again. "The same thing concerning confidence is not obscurely signified by some celebrated theologians, who, however, in their definition of faith and confidence assert that the faith by which we are justified is confidence. An illustrious example of this may be found in Dr. Ursinus, in that eminent work of his, the Explanation of the Catechism, which is well known to every one. After a common place exposition of faith, he, in the sixth thesis of those adjoining it defines faith as follows: Justifying faith is a notion by which one firmly assents to all things made known to him in the word of God, and concludes

"Cujus subjectum est intellectus, non autem sola voluntas ; illud proprie non est fiducia. Atqui fidei subjectum est intellectus, non autem sola voluntas. Ergo fides non est proprie fiducia. Propositio vera est, quia omnium consensu fiducia non est intellectu, sed in sola voluntate; quia per se motus, atque affectus cordis, ac voluntatis est, atque ita ab omnibus definitur. Contradictoria autem sunt manifesta, idem esse in intellectu, non autem in sola voluntate: et simul non esse in intellectu, sed in sola voluntate. Assumptio etiam est vera, citra ullam controversiam. Nam licet quaestio sit, an fides sit partim in intellectu; partim in voluntate: illud tamen, omnium consensu, ex Scriptura, et generali fidei significatione, notum est: fidem esse in intellectu, non autem in sola voluntate. Quare conclusio, necessario, ex vera propositione, et assumptione sequitur: fidem non esse fiduciam." Vide Opp. Dr. F. Gomari, Tom. I. p. 655. in folio

be

that the promise of the favor of God for Christ's sake, longs to himself. And the confidence in this favor of God towards himself overcomes all fear and sorrow. Here, as others are accustomed to do, he plainly allows that there are two parts of justifying faith: the first he places in a notion of the word of God, to which he particularly refers, to determine that the promise of grace belongs to himself. He also distinctly subjoins another, to wit, confidence in this favor, or grace. The same further appears from the next sentence of the following thesis, in which he describes this confidence in the following manner: For the confidence in justifying faith is an emotion of the will and heart, consisting of joy because of the knowledge of the present favor of God towards us, and hope of a future liberation from all evils. But I affirm that the faith by which we are justified is not composed of this joy and hope. Therefore the faith by which we are justified is not that confidence. This appears," etc.*

We shall now hear his criticism on the same passage upon which we quoted Luther so largely : "And Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness."

* "Idemque de fiducia, a magnis theologis, qui tamen fidem, per quam justificamur, fiduciam esse tradunt, in definitione fidei et fiduciae, non obscure significatur. Cujus rei exemplum illustre, in egregio illo, quod omnium pene manibus teritur, explicationum Catecheticarum D. Zachariae Ursini, edito opere, post locum communem de fide expositum, in thesibus de ea subnexis: thesi enim sexta, fides ita definitur: Fides justificans est notitia qua quis firmiter assentitur omnibus in verbo Dei sibi patefactis, et statuit, promissionem gratiae Dei, propter Christum ad se pertinere: et fiducia hujus favoris Dei erga se, omnem tristitiam et metum superat : Ubi duas manifeste, ut et alii solent, fidei justificantis partes ponit. I. Notitiam verbi Dei, ad quam refert peculiariter, statuere promissionem gratiae ad se pertinere: ac distincte alteram subjicit, nimirum fiduciam favoris illius, hoc est gratiae. Idemque ex hypothesi, seu sententia proxime sequentis thesis septimae confirmatur: qua fiduciam illam, hoc modo, describit: Est enim fiducia fidei justificantis motus voluntatis, et cordis, compositus ex laetitia, propter certitudinem praesentis gratiae Dei erga nos; et spe futurae liberationis ab omnibus malis. Atqui, inquam, fides, per quam justificamur, non est composita ex laetitia praesentis gratiae Dei erga nos; et spe futurae liberationis ab omnibus malis. Ergo fides per quam justificamur, non est fiducia illa. Assumptio patet: quia illa duo, laetitia et spes, sunt effecta fidei justificantis: quemadmodum in antecedente loco communi de fide, etc. etc." Vide ut supra, p. 656.

"Besides," says he, "for the active verb which Moses uses, to wit, imputed, read God imputed; for which Paul has it in the passive form, it was imputed, to wit, by God. There is a little change, to be sure, in the phraseology, but the sentiment remains unchanged, as verse 6 also declares. As it is certain from Moses that touro this, refers to the faith of Abraham, a question arises as to what is signified by this word? and what did he intend to ascribe to him? (It was counted to him for righteousness.) In answer then to the former question we remark, that some understand that word, and properly, to refer to faith; and others improperly understand it to refer to Christ, or rather to the righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith. They think that faith is here to be understood metonymically for its object; as the word hope, is often used for the thing hoped for. So they think that faith is here employed for the thing believed in by faith. Nevertheless, in this diversity of sentiment, even among the orthodox, the former of these views is evidently the genuine one. It so appears from the preceding declaration. Abraham believed God, and this, to wit, the believing, that is, the faith by which he believed, was imputed to him for righteousness. For the pronoun rovro or it, cannot in this place be otherwise understood. Neither the truth of the Scriptures, nor the context at all militate against this construction.

"What Arminius, in his epistle to Hippolytes, contends for, to wit, that faith ought here to be understood, and not the righteousness of Christ; thus far he does not speak improperly, as appears from what has been offered above. But the reason which he adduces in proof of it is false, etc. etc."*

* "Praeterea pro activo verbo, quo utitur Moses, nempe imputavit, supple Deus, de quo in antecedentibus sermo, Paulus habet passive imputatum est, scilicet, a Deo, vocis aliqua mutatione, sed eadem tamen manente sententia: ut ver. 6 etiam declaratur. Siquidem cum certum sit ea Mose, subjectum esse touto hoc, nempe credere seu fidem Abrahami: quaestio oritur, quid hac voce significetur: et quid attributum, (imputatum est ei ad justitiam,) sibi velit.

"Ad prius, nempe fidem, quod attinet, quidam accipiunt proprie eam vocem: alii vero improprie, pro Christo, aut potius pro justitia Christi fide apprehensa, per metonymiam adjuncti, pro suo objecto: quemadmodum spes pro re sperata nonnunquam usurpatur: sic etiam consentiunt, fidem pro re fide credita, hoc in loco, usurpari.

"Veruntamen in hac sententiarum diversitate, etiam inter orthodoxos, priorem genuinam esse, apparet, ex prima atque antecedente