necessary to render its exercise consistent with the other perfec- tions of the divine nature. It was indispensable that God should be just in justifying the ungodly, but He does not thereby cease to be gracious, inasmuch as it was He who provided the ran- som by which the objects of his love are redeemed from the curse of the law and the power of sin.
Crod cannot declare the Unjust to be Just.
3. Another standing objection to the Protestant doctrine has been so often met, that nothing but its constant repetition justifies a repetition of the answer. It is said to be absurd that one man should be righteous with the righteousness of another ; that for God to pronounce the unjust just is a contradiction. This is a mere play on words. It is, however, very serious play ; for it is caricaturing truth. It is indeed certain that the subjective, inhe- rent quality of one person or thing cannot by imputation become the inherent characteristic of any other person or thing. "Wax cannot become hard by the imputation of the hardness of a stone ; nor can a brute become rational by the imputation of the intelli- gence of a man ; nor the wicked become good by the imputation of the goodness of other men. But what has this to do with one man's assuming the responsibility of another man ? If among men the bankrupt can become solvent by a rich man's assuming his responsibilities, why in the court of God may not the guilty become righteous by the Son of God's assuming their responsi- bilities ? If He was made sin for us, why may we not be made the righteousness of God in Him ? The objection assumes that the word "just" or "righteous" in this connection, expresses moral character ; whereas in the Bible, when used in relation to this subject, it is always used in a judicial sense, i. e., it ex- presses the relation of the person spoken of to justice. AiWos is antithetical to vttoSikos. The man with regard to whom justice is unsatisfied, is woSikos, "guilty." He with regard to whom justice is satisfied, is SiWos, " righteous." To declare righteous, therefore, is not to declare holy ; and to impute righteousness is not to impute goodness ; but simply to regard and pronounce those who receive the gift of Christ's righteousness, free from con- demnation and entitled to eternal life for his sake. Some philo- sophical theologians seem to think that there is real antagonism between love and justice in the divine nature, or that these at- tributes are incompatible or inharmonious. This is not so in man ; why then should it be so in God ? The highest form of moral
176 PART III. Ch. XVII. — JUSTIFICATION.
excellence includes these attributes as essential elements of its perfection. And the Scriptures represent them as mysteriously blended in the salvation of man. The gospel is a revelation to principalities and powers in heaven of the 7roAv7rot/aAos cro^ta toG ®€ov, because therein He shows that He can be just and yet justify, love, sanctify, and glorify the chief of sinners. For which all sinners should render Him everlasting thanksgiving and praise.
Christ's Righteousness due for Himself.
4. It was natural that Socinus, who regarded Christ as a mere man, should object to the doctrine of the imputation of his right- eousness to the believer, that Christ was under the same obliga- tion to obey the law and to take his share of human suffering as other men, and therefore that his righteousness being due for Him- self, could not be imputed to others. This objection is substan- tially urged by some who admit the divinity of Christ. In doing so, however, they virtually assume the Nestorian, or dualistic view of Christ's person. They argue on the assumption that He was a human person, and that he stood, in virtue of his assumption of our nature, in the same relation to the law as other men. It is admitted, however, that the Son, who became incarnate, was from eternity the second person in the Godhead. If, therefore, hu- manity as assumed by him was a person, then we have two per- sons, — two Christs, — the one human, the other divine. But if Christ be only one person, and if that person be the eternal Son of God, the same in substance, and equal in power and glory with the Father, then the whole foundation of the objection is gone. Christ sustained no other relation to the law, except so far as voluntarily assumed, than that which God himself sustains. But God is not under the law. He is Himself the primal, immutable, and infinitely perfect law to all rational creatures. Christ's sub- jection to the law therefore, was as voluntary as his submitting to the death of the cross. As He did not die for Himself, so nei- ther did He obey for Himself. In both forms of his obedience He acted for us, as our representative and substitute, that through his righteousness many might be made righteous.
As to the other form of this objection, it has the same founda- tion and admits of the same answer. It is said that the obedience and sufferings of Christ, being the obedience and sufferings of a mere man, or at best of only the human element in the constitu- tion of his person, could have only a human, and, therefore, only a finite value, and consequently could be no adequate satisfaction