The difference between the Soteriology of these great divisions of Christendom—Catholic and Protestant—consists chiefly in the conception of the mode in which the Atonement of the Son of God became available to the believers. Shedd, in pointing out these differences, states that the decisions of the Council of Trent, which, as we have seen, formulated the church's doctrine on "Original Sin," and "Justification," "makes inward holiness in conjunction with the merits of Christ the ground of justification. The unintentional confounding of the distinction between justification and sanctification," which Shedd admits appears occasionally in the writings of some of the Christian Fathers—Augustine especially—"becomes a deliberate and emphatic identification in the scheme of the papal church." He then sets forth the Protestant view as follows:
The Protestant Position: "The Anselmic and Protestant soteriologies mean by the term 'justification,' that divine act, instantaneous and complete, by which sin is pardoned. If we distinguish the entire work of redemption into two parts, a negative and a positive, justification in the Pauline and in the Reformed sanctification would include the former and would include nothing more. Justification is the negative acquittal from condemnation, and not in the least the positive infusion of righteousness, or production of holiness. This positive element, the Reformers were careful to teach, invariably accompanies the negative; but they were equally careful to teach that it is not identical with it. The forgiveness of sin is distinct and different from the sanctification of the heart. It is an antecedent which is always followed, indeed, by its consequent; but this does not render the consequent a substitute for the antecedent, or one and the same thing with it."
In a foot note our author quotes the Westminster Confession on the distinction of justification and sanctification:
"The Westminster Confession thus states the distinction between justification and sanctification. 'Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ; in sanctification, his Spirits infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof: in the former, sin is pardoned; in the other it is subdued; the one doth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation; the other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection" (Larger Catechism, Q. 77).
Shedd, continuing the discussion of the differences between the Catholics and Protestants upon this subject, says:
"The Council of Trent resolved justification into sanctification, and in the place of a gratuitous justification and remission of sins through the expiation of the Redeemer, substituted the most subtle form of the doctrine of justification by works that has yet appeared, or that can appear. Man is justified and accepted at the bar of justice by his external acts of obedience to the moral or the ecclesiastical law. This is, indeed, the doctrine that prevails in the common practice of the papal church, but it is not the form in which it appears in the Tridentine canons. According to these, man is justified by an inward and spiritual act which is denominated the act of faith; by a truly divine and holy habit or principle infused by the gracious working of the Holy Spirit. The ground of the sinner's justification is thus a divine and a gracious one. God works in the sinful soul to will and to do, and by making it inherently just justifies it. And all this is accomplished through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ; sot that, in justification there is a combination of the objective work of Christ with the subjective character of the believer. This statement is the more subtle, because it distinctly refers the infused grace or holiness to God as the author, and thereby seems to preclude the notion of self-righteousness. But it is fundamentally erroneous, because this infused righteousness, or holiness of heart, upon which remission of sins rests in part, is not piacular.[A] It has in it nothing of the nature of a satisfaction to justice. So far forth, therefore, as infused grace in the heart is made a ground and procuring cause of the pardon of sin, the judicial aspects and relations of sin are overlooked, and man is received into the divine favor without any true and proper expiation of his guilt."
[Footnote A: "Piacular," expiatory, atoning.]
Our author quotes Hooker as in substantial agreement with the above views as follows:
"Then what is the fault of the church of Rome? Not that she requireth works at their hands which will be saved: but that she attributeth unto works a power of satisfying God for sin" (Hooker "On Justification," Works II, 538).
Another Statement of the Protestant Attitude: "It was in their profound sense of the reality of sin, and of its dominion in the human will, that the Protestants laid the foundation of their theology. The body of the Reformers rested on the Anselmic idea of satisfaction [in the Atonement] which likewise formed a part of the opposing [i. e., the Roman Catholic] creed. The point of difference was on the vital question how the soul, burdened with self-condemnation, is to obtain forgiveness of sins and peaceful reunion to God in the character of a reconciled father. In the teachings, injunctions, services, ceremonies of the Church, the Reformers had sought for this infinite good in vain. They found it in the doctrine of gratuitous pardon, from the bare Mercy of God, through the mediation of Christ; a pardon that waits for nothing but acceptance on the part of the soul—the belief, the trust, the faith of the penitent. Everything of the nature of satisfaction or merit on the part of the offender is precluded, by the utterly gratuitous nature of the gift, by the sufficiency of the Redeemer's expiation. Every assertion of the necessity of works or merit on the side of the offender, as the ground of forgiveness, is a disparagement of the Redeemer's Mercy and of his expiatory office. Faith, thus laying hold of a free forgiveness and reconnecting the soul with God, is the fountain of a new life of holiness, which depends not on fear and homage to law, but on gratitude and on filial sentiments. Christ himself nourishes this new life by spiritual influences that flow into the soul through the channel of its fellowship with him. Justification is thus a forensic[A] term; it is equivalent to the remission of sins. To justify, signifies not to make the offender righteous, to deliver him from the accusation of the law by the bestowal of a pardon. Saving faith is not a virtue to be rewarded, but an apprehensive act; the hand that takes the free gift. Such, in a brief statement, was the cardinal principle of the Protestant interpretation of the Gospel. The Christian life has its centre in this experience of forgiveness. Virtues of character and victories over temptation grow out of it. Christian ethics are united to Christian theology by this vital bond.