We are, therefore, shut up to the choice presented in the third and fourth alternatives above stated, the former representing the Arminian and the latter the Calvinistic theory as to the legal grounds upon which the positive justification of the believer in Christ proceeds. The Arminian holds that, in some way never defined, the sufferings of Christ make it consistent with the rectoral justice of God to remit the. penalty of the law in the ease of believers, and to offer them on the lowered con- ditions of faith and evangelical obedience the same bless- ings that were originally conditioned on perfect obedience. The Calvinist holds that Christ, acting as our Represen- tative in a strictly legal sense, has suffered in our stead the penalty of the law, in order to free us from eternal bondage to the same, and obeyed the precept in order to secure for us the blessings so conditioned. There is no third plan that can be substituted in place of these. Every conceivable plan of justification that admits the facts of the gospel at all, can, in its last analysis, be reduced to one or other of these. All logical Arminians have uniformly chosen the former. The Romish theory of co-operative justification (Christ's merits and the merit of good works) amounts to the same thimg. The Governmental Atonement men, whenever they condescend to a definite statement of the nature of the grounds of justification, must come to the same conclusion. Emmons,* for instance, maintains (a.) That “justification, in a gos- pel sense, signifies no more nor less than the pardon or remission of sin.” (b.) ‘That forgiveness is the only favour which God bestows upon men on Christ’s account.”
Vol. iii., pp. 8-67.
ACTIVE AND PASSIVE OBEDIENCE. 239
(c.) “The full and final justification of believers, or their cmarrea title to their eternal inheritance, is conditional. Theymust “"" perform certain things, which he has specified as terms
or conditions of their taking possession of their several legacies.” (d.) ‘‘That God does promise eternal life to
all who obey his commands or exercise those holy and benevolent affections which his commands require.” Good
John Wesley and Richard Watson waver between the
two views of justification stated, alike unable to acqui-
esce in either or to find any stable position between them. The same must inevitably be the case with all those who, while holding the truth with respect to the nature of sin, of grace, and of expiation, refuse to accept,
in their plain Biblical sense, the complementary truths
with respect to the sovereignty of God, the extent of
the Atonement, and the imputation of sin and of right- eousness.
Now we maintain that the Calvinistic side of this The truth alternative must be true,—(1.) Because, as proved in the fourteenth chapter, Christ’s righteousness is-the ground ay" of justification. (2.) Because faith, which includes trust as well as assent, from its essential nature excludes the possibility of its being itself the ground upon which anything can rest, and renders it certain that its true office is to appreliend as an instrument the righteousness of Christ upon which the trust terminates ; which right- eousness, consequently, must be the real ground upon which the justification proceeds. (3.) The law of God, which cannot be relaxed, demanded at the beginning, and must continue to demand to the end, perfect obedi-
- ence ; which, obviously enough, transcends the best graci- ous ability of any saint. Faith and evangelical obedience can never take its place. (4.) Every Christian knows, in his inmost heart, that he deserves nothing, and that the adoption of sons and eternal life are given to him
16
CHAPTER XVIII.
240 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.