THE

PRESBYTERIAN MAGAZINE.

MAY, 1855.

Miscellaneous Articles.

HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?

"HAVE you read the Presbyterian Tract on Justification?" "Yes, sir, long ago, and consider it one of the ablest and best treatises on this subject, which we have ever seen, particularly for popular reading-it being brief, clear, and scriptural." "You misapprehend my question; I do not allude to the Tract written many years since by the Rev. Dr. Archibald Alexander, and forming one of the series of tracts issued by the Presbyterian Board of Publication; but to a new tract, recently published by the New School Presbyterian Publication Committee, and penned by the Rev. Albert Barnes." As we had not seen this tract, we availed ourselves of an early opportunity to obtain it. We commenced its perusal with more than ordinary interest, and scarcely laid it down until it was finished. Our particular interest arose from the report (which we hoped to find true) that its author was becoming more orthodox than he had been in former years, and especially from the circumstance that the tract is virtually endorsed by the New School Presbyterian Church, it being published with the sanction of fifteen of their prominent men (ministers and laymen), appointed by their General Assembly as a Publishing Committee. For their sakes, and for the sake of the cause of truth, we hoped to find this cardinal doctrine of Christianity treated in a scriptural and satisfactory

manner.

The tract contains 132 pages, about 60 of which are occupied in discussing preliminary topics, to prepare the way for answering the question, which forms the title of the tract, "How shall man be just with God?" In those preliminaries we saw no evidence of the author's returning to old-fashioned orthodoxy. His views (expressed incidentally) on the nature of sin, the imputation of

the guilt of Adam's first sin to his posterity, original sin and human ability, are not materially different from those which he entertained and published on these points, in 1830-35. But our design in this notice is not remark upon these particulars.

He commences the discussion of the main question by explaining the phrase "the merits of Christ," which phrase he employs subsequently instead of the one ordinarily used by Calvinistic writers, viz. Christ's righteousness. He says, "the phrase [i. e. the one he employs] does not occur in the Bible; but the idea which is intended to be conveyed by it exists there as a vital and central thought in the whole plan of justification by faith." He explains the phrase thus: "that there was an amount of merit in his services which he did not need for any personal advantage or for himself, which had been secured with a special purpose to supply the great and undisputed deficiency of man, and which can be made available to us on certain conditions, and in the way which God has revealed as the ground of our acceptance."

As the use of the word "merit," instead of righteousness, is the hinge on which the author's views are made chiefly to turn, we will give special attention to this point. Though we do not object to the word, in itself considered, but are willing to admit that it conveys, when rightly understood, a true and scriptural sense, yet we feel no small objection to the laying aside of the scriptural term righteousness," and substituting for it a word which is confessedly not found in the Bible. And our objection becomes still stronger, when we perceive by the subsequent discussion, that his reason for this course obviously is (though not so stated), that he can make his own views concerning justification, without reference to law, appear more plausible and consistent by employing the word merit, than he could do by using the other term.

The frequency with which the word righteousness is employed in the Holy Scriptures when speaking on this subject, ought to decide the question, if there were no other reason, in favour of its use by theological writers. In the Old Testament the Psalmist resolved to make mention of "God's righteousness, even of his only.' And the prophet foretold of Christ, "this is the name whereby he shall be called, the Lord our righteousness." In the New Testament the phrases, "righteousness of God," "the righteousness of faith," "the righteousness of God in him," i. e., in Christ, and other similar expressions, are employed so uniformly with reference to this doctrine, that their almost total disuse in a treatise on justification, has, to say the least, an unfavourable appearance. What would be thought of the conduct of a writer, who should substitute some other word of human invention for the name of Jesus, on the assumption that it expresses the true idea intended to be conveyed by that divine name, better than the name itself? Or who should employ another word, not found in the Bible, as the principal, leading term, and then barely introduce the scriptural name of the

Saviour, with the remark, that the name before used expresses the true meaning of the name Jesus? This latter course would be analogous to that pursued by the author of this tract, in his use of the two words, merit and righteousness.

But what does he expect to accomplish by this course? The word righteousness is so closely allied to the term law, both by common usage and in the word of God, that he could not easily divest the mind of the reader of the idea that justification is a legal transaction, if he should employ the scriptural word righteousness, until he had first provided a key to unlock its meaning by the word merit, so explained and illustrated as to indicate that Christ's mediatorial services had no direct reference to the law of God, and so far as they had any reference to it, they were over and above what the law demanded. "It is not meant," says he, "that a man who is justified on the Gospel plan, is justified in a legal sense.' Again, "it is not, in any proper sense, a legal transaction." And further, "the plan of justification in the Gospel is a departure from the regular process of law".... and still further, "all attempts to show that the plan of justification in the Gospel is a legal transaction, or is in accordance with the legal principles, have been signal failures." In defining the term justification as used in the Gospel, he says it "does not mean mere pardon," but it includes also "treating the offender as if he had not sinned." Yet this treatment, according to him, is not based on any legal connection between the believer and Christ, or the imputation of Christ's righteousness to him in any legal or proper sense, but on the superabounding merits of Christ, of which the sinner avails himself by faith.

But is not justification a legal transaction? and are not the obedience and sufferings of Christ, on the ground of which the believing sinner is justified, legal in their character? These are vital questions, and must be settled by the Scriptures alone. Human reason and philosophy are inadequate to such a task. The term justification is admitted to be a legal term. Paul, who employs it so often, had been a lawyer, and he uses it as a correlate of the word righteousness, which strongly indicates that he designed to employ it in a legal sense. "For therein," says he, i. e., in the Gospel, is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, The just shall live by faith." Again, he says, "If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." Here Abraham's being justified, is synonymous with the phrase, "being counted to him for righteousness," which was not by the deeds of the law, but by faith in Christ. The former was impracticable, because he was a transgressor, and hence could be justified only by the vicarious obedience and sufferings of the Redeemer, called God's righteousness. "But now," says he, "the righteousness

of God without the law [i. e. without our obedience to the law] is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets, even the righteousness of God, which is by the faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe."

In accordance with this view of justification, the obedience and sufferings of Christ had a direct and specific reference to the law of God, and were designed to meet its claims against the sinner, in such a way that upon his believing in Christ, the righteousness of the latter might be set to his account, and he be justified, i. e., pardoned and accepted as righteous. Our Lord affirms that "he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil." And Paul says that "he is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." Again, that "he was made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law." And further, that "what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us." How is it possible, in view of such passages as these, to deny that Christ's mediatorial work and our justification through him possess a legal character? If interpreted according to the obvious meaning of the terms here employed, this aspect of the Gospel scheme is clearly set forth; and it cannot be avoided. except by understanding the terms (as our author does) in an unusual, and (as we think) an unwarranted sense. The doctrine of our Confession is unquestionably the legal view, and its language cannot be made to harmonize with the sentiments of this tract, any more easily than with the Scripture phraseology, except by treating it in the same way, viz., as having a peculiar sense, unlike that ordinarily attached to the same forms of expression in other writings.

In comparing these two views with each other, three things occur to us as worthy of particular consideration.

1. Their relation to the grace of the Gospel. The new theory claims some advantage in this respect over the old, but without any good reason. Indeed the advantage is on the other side. While both views are gracious, the new doctrine so disconnects the grace of Jesus Christ from his vicarious obedience to the Divine law, as to render it very difficult, not to say impossible, to solve the question in a satisfactory manner, how God can be just, in justifying the believing sinner. The Holy Scriptures, as well as our Confession of Faith, connect in distinct terms the grace of the Gospel and the satisfaction rendered to Divine justice by the legal obedience and sufferings of Christ. "Do we make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law." "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace. Redemption is a legal term. Among the earliest provisions recorded in the Old Testament for administering criminal jurisprudence, was the i, or kinsman