This doctrine, that justification is forensic, and that it is based upon imputed righteousness, was the watch-word of the glorious Reformation—the one word of power which dissolved the venerable power of the Papacy, awakened the people from the sleep. of ages, introduced the new world of modern history, and the stupendous career of progressive liberty and civilization which has issued from it. The state of the world as a whole, to- day, when compared with all the past, 1s a witness to its truth. All the achievements of modern Christianity, in all departments, are a monument to its value. Yet
Bushnell says of this articula stantis vel cadentis _
ecclesia—‘‘I could more easily see the church fall than believe it.” * The presumption appears overwhelming that Protestantism is right, and that Popery, Socinian- ism, and the nondescript genus of Bushnells and Youngs, are wrong. |
The work of Dr. John Young of Edinburgh, entitled the Light and the Life of Men, is, as far as the present writer knows, the most thorough, able, and honest of all
* Vicarious Sacrifice, p. 439.
ow
DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 203
the modern essays | in advocacy of the Moral Influence cuarr: Theory of Redemption. In his chapter on Justification, ~~ in the face of all the facts above given relating to the uniform usage of the Hebrew, Greek, and English words involved in the question at issue, he claims that the analogies. of the English language demand that we should substitute the word ‘to righten,” in place of the word ‘‘to justify,” as the English equivalent of the Greek ducatow. As we have in Greek dlkatos, dicatocvvn, dicalmpa, and dixaidw, so he would have in English the uniform class of words, right, righteous, righteousness or rightness ; and to righten or rectify, or set right.
But the only advantage Young gains in favour of his argument by this substitution results from the fact that his newly-coined term “to righten,”’ having no estab- lished usus loquendi, is necessarily ambiguous. The word may with equal propriety be understood either in the sense of rightening a man subjectively, that is, mak- ing him inherently good, or of rightening the man foren- sically, or vindicating his claim to be regarded and treated as standing in a right relation to the divine law. The entire plausibility of Young’s argument in the chapter in question results from this ambiguity of his chosen word. His theory of the nature of Christ’s work demands that ‘to righten” shall mean to make a man ; subjectively right. On the other hand, as I have shown, the Scripture usage of the words pty and ducaow, which are used by the Holy Ghost in the Old and New Testa- ments, to express his mind upon the nature of this “rightening,” demand that they be represented by an English equivalent which, like the word ‘to justify,” means precisely to pronounce a man to be just in the eye of law—to be free of all legal demands. The newly-invented term may be convenient to veil the real issue involved, but it is impotent to avoid it. Sense,
204 THH NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
carrer candour, and a Hebrew and a Greek Concordance of the
“~~ two Testaments, will settle this question both speedily and finally.
pe ee If. The advocates of the Governmental Theory of the
cation Atonement, while they agree with us that justification
ee z 18, as above shown, a forsate act, yet, nevertheless, are
toGov- forced to differ from us as to the nature of justification
tal Theory in. the following particulars :—
at’ 1. As Christ, according to their view, did not sufter
stated. —_ strictly in the law-place zs his people, and as their sins
| were not really imputed to him, and as he did not die with the purpose of expiating the sins of any particular individuals, but to put all men generally into a salvable state, it follows that his righteousness is not imputed to the believer, and that it is only in some sense the occa- sion, but not at all the strict judicial ground, of our justification.
2. As Christ’s righteousness is not imputed to the be- liever as the ground of his justification, it follows that that justification cannot be an act of God as Judge, pro- nouncing his judgment according to the fact that the man is righteous—that is, free of all unsatisfied claims of law, and entitled to the covenant rewards of right- eousness ; it can only be .a mere executive pardon pro- nounced by God as King, remitting the penalty due to sin.
3. As justification is mere pardon, as it is a Sovereign and not a judicial act, and since it is not founded on imputed righteousness, it follows that it must proceed upon a relaxation of law by sovereign prerogative—an exercise of prerogative in this case wisely guarded from abuse by the governmental device of an atonement. This wise relaxation of the claims of law, in which all, the interests of God, of the moral universe, and of the sinner are reconciled and provided for, involves two
DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 205