"If any one shall say that justiying faith is nothing but confidence in the divine mercy remitting sin on account of Christ, or that this faith is the sole thing by which we are justified; let him be accursed."
Protestant Rejoinder: Upon this statement Shedd makes the following comment, with which, we think, not even Catholics would be displeased, as it but emphasizes their position on justification:
"It will be perceived from these extracts that the Tridentine theologian regarded 'justification' as prospective and not retrospective, in its essential nature. It is not the forgiveness of 'sins that are past,' but the cure and prevention of sins that are present and future. The element of guilt is lost sight of, and the piacular [expiatory] work of Christ is lost sight of with it; and the whole work of redemption is interpreted to be merely a method of purification. Thus the Tridentine theory implies, logically, that sin is not guilt, but only disease and pollution. Furthermore, according to the papal theory, justification is not instantaneous, but successive. It is not a single and complete act upon the part of God, but a gradual process in the soul of man. For it is founded upon that inward holiness or love which has been infused by divine grace."[A]
[Footnote A: History Christian Doctrine—Shedd—Vol. II, p. 326.]
V.
"THE MODERN LIBERAL VIEW" ON THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
There is still another class of Christians entertaining views upon the Atonement whose ideas ought to be presented and yet are extremely difficult to classify, as they may neither be called Protestant nor Catholic. They are a modern product, accepting the conclusions of what is called "higher criticism," and the doctrine of evolution. They make a wide departure from the old conception of the doctrine of Atonement as of all things else in the old Christian theological schools, and yet retain a respect and I may say a veneration for the Christ, and seek to give him place in the order of things as conceived by them. For want of a better title I have called their conception of the work of Christ, "The Modern Liberal View," which, while it may not be as perfectly descriptive as could be desired, will not, I trust, be offensive, and will serve the mere purpose of classification.
Perhaps the most complete statement, in concise form, of this Liberal View is made by Dr. Lyman Abbott in his "Theology of an Evolutionist," published in 1897. I begin his statement with what he says of sin.
"Innocence, Temptation, Fall, Sin: This is the biography of every man, save only Him who passed from innocence to virtue through temptation, yet without sin. Man cannot grow from innocence to virtue without temptation; he cannot experience temptation without a possibility of sin,—that is, of yielding to temptation; and yielding to temptation is fall. Every man when he yields to temptation and sins falls from a higher to a lower, from a spiritual to an animal condition. He falls back from that state from which he had begun to emerge. It is true that the animal man is worse in his animalism than the animal from which he has emerged or is emerging. The ferocity of the tiger is no match for that of the ferocious man; the intemperance of the brute is far less than that of the brutalized man. How can it be otherwise when the higher powers which God has conferred upon him are subordinated to and made the instruments of his animalism?
"Sin, then, is not a means to good. It is not "good in the making." The fall is not a "fall upward." Every yielding to temptation is a hindrance, not a help, to moral development; but every temptation offers what, rightly employed, is an indispensable means of moral development. For all moral development is through temptation to virtue. There can be no virtue without temptation; for virtue is victory over temptation. An untempted soul may be innocent, but cannot be virtuous, for virtue is the choice of right when wrong presses itself upon us and demands our choosing. How can we have courage, unless there is danger and apprehension of the danger? How can we have patience, unless there are burdens? How can we have fidelity, unless there is some trust to be maintained, and some temptation calling on us to leave the trust and be false to it? The scorn of "goody-goody" is justified, for "goody-goody" is innocence, not virtue; and the boy who never does anything wrong because he never does anything at all is of no use in the world. Temptation is struggle, and virtue emerges from struggle. And we cannot have the choice of right without the possibility of doing wrong; and choosing wrong is sin; and sin is fall; because it is choosing the animal from which we are emerging rather than the spiritual condition into which we have partially emerged.