for the sins of the whole world. Our Lord told his disciples, " Ye are of more value than many sparrows." If, then, in the sight of God a man is of far greater value than irrational creatures, why should it be thought incredible that the blood of the eternal Son of God should cleanse from all sin ? What a man does with his hands, the man does ; and what Christ through his human nature did, in the execution of his mediatorial work, the Son of God did Therefore, men who spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit did not hesitate to say, that the Lord of glory was crucified (1 Cor. ii. 8), and that God purchased the Church " with his own blood." (Acts xx. 28. )* If, then, the obedience rendered, and the sufferings endured, were those of a divine person, we can only shut our mouths and bow down before God in adoring wonder, with the full assurance that the merit of that obedience and of those sufferings, must be abundantly sufficient for the justification of every sinner upon earth, in the past, the present, or the future.
Believers continue G-uilty, and liable to Punishment. 5. It is sometimes objected to the Protestant doctrine on this subject, that believers not only recognize themselves as justly ex- posed to condemnation for their present shortcomings and trans- gressions, but that the Scriptures so represent them, and con- stantly speak of God as punishing his people for their sins. How is this to be reconciled with the doctrine that they are not under
1 The text in this nassage is indeed disputed. The common text has 0«ov, " the Church of God; " which is retained by Mill, Bengel, Knapp, Hahn, and others in their editions of the New Testament. Many MSS. have (tvpioC *ai fleoG; and others, simply KvpioO. The fact that the phrase " the Church of God " occurs eleven times in the New Testament, while " Church of the Lord " never occurs, is urged as a reason in favour of the latter reading, as it is as- sumed that transcribers would be apt to adopt a familiar, rather than an unexampled ex- pression. There may be some force in this. Qn the other hand, the presumption is that the sacred writers adhere to their own " usus loquendi." The words in Acts xx. 28 are Paul's words, and as he, at least in ten other cases, speaks of the " Church of God," and never once uses the expression " Church of the Lord," it is in the highest degree improb- able that he uses that phrase here. Besides, it is evident that transcribers, critics, and her- etics would have a strong disposition to get rid of such a phrase as "the blood of God." Modern critics do not hesitate to assign, as one of their reasons for rejecting the common text, that the expression is "too strong." The passage, however, though sacred, is not es- sential. The usage pervades the New Testament of predicating of the person of Christ what is true of either element, the human or the divine, of his mysteriously constituted personality. In Hebrews i. 3 the person who upholds the universe by the word of his pow- er, is said to have purged our sins by Himself, i. e., by the sacrifice of Himself. And in ii. 14, the person whom the sacred writer had set forth as higher than the angels, as God, as creator of heaven and earth, as eternal and immutable, is said to have become partaker of flesh and blood, in order that by death He might destroy him that had the power of death. And in Philippians ii. 6, 9, he who was in the form of God and thought it not robbery to be equal with God, became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Nevertheless, al- though Acts xx. 28 be not essential to prove any doctrine, those who believe it as it reads in the common text, to be part of the word of God, are bound to stand by it.
vol. m. 12
178 PART IH Ch. XVII.- JUSTIFICATION.
condemnation ; that, as regards them, justice has been fully sat- isfied, and that no one can justly lay anything to the charge of God's elect.
It must be admitted, or rather it is fully acknowledged that every believer feels himself unworthy of the least of God's mercies. He knows that if God were to deal with him according to his character and conduct, he must inevitably be condemned. This sense of ill-desert or demerit, is indelible. It is a righteous judg- ment which the sinner passes, and cannot but pass upon him- self. But the ground of his justification is not in himself. The believer acknowledges that in himself he deserves nothing but indignation and wrath, not only for what he has been, but for what he now is. This is what he feels when he looks at himself. Nevertheless, he knows that there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus ; that Christ has assumed the responsi- bility of answering for him at the bar of God ; that He constantly pleads his own perfect righteousness, as a reason why the de- served penalty should not be inflicted. If punishment were not deserved, pardon would not be gratuitous ; and if not felt to be deserved, deliverance could not be received as a favour. The con- tinued sense of ill-desert, on the part of the believer, is in no wise inconsistent with the Scriptural doctrine that the claims of jus- tice in regard to him have been satisfied by his substitute and advocate. There is a great difference, as often remarked, be- tween demerit and guilt. The latter is the liability in justice to the penalty of the law. The former is personal ill-desert. A criminal who has suffered the legal punishment of his crime, is no longer justly exposed to punishment for that offence. He how ever thinks of himself no better than he did before. He knows he cannot be subjected to further punishment ; but his sense of de- merit is not thereby lessened. And so it is with the believer ; he knows that, because of what Christ has done for him, he cannot be justly condemned, but he feels and admits that in himself he is as hell-deserving as he was from the beginning. The heart of the believer solves many difficulties which* the speculative under- standing finds it hard to unravel. And it need not inordinately trouble him, if the latter be dissatisfied with the solution, pro- vided he is sure that he is under the guidance of the Spirit by the word.
This Theory concerns only the Outward. 6. Modern theologians in many instances object to the Protes- tant doctrine of justification, that it is outward ; concerns only