THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH (OR BAPTIST) MAGAZINE. No. CCXLIX.-SEPTEMBER 1, 1864. Essays, Expositions, &c. JUSTIFICATION. No. 2.-ITs GROUND. IN a former paper we endeavoured to show the nature of a sinner's justification in the sight of God; we shall make it our present business to point out the ground of that justification. The Scriptures distinctly and repeatedly teach that all God's people are justified. Whether they are old men, or only babes in Christ, they are all justified-justified completely, justified for ever; their sins are remitted, a righteousness is reckoned to their account, and they are dealt with as though they had never sinned. The enquiry is therefore a proper, and an important one-What is the ground on which their justification rests? If God has justified them, as the Scriptures affirm, there must be something on the ground of which he has done so. What is it? In trying to answer this enquiry, it may be remarked that righteousness of some sort furnishes the only ground upon which an accountable creature, whether man or angel, can be justified in the sight of God. All parties seem to be agreed in this. It is admitted, likewise, that this righteousness must be inherent or imputed-found, in some way, in the character and conduct of the person himself, or else reckoned to him. Thus far agreement; but here the unanimity terminates. If we ask, What is the righteousness on the ground of which man, as a sinner, is justified? a diversity of opinion is at once discovered. Some say that repentance and a good life are the righteousness that justifies that "the same conduct which gains the approbation of good men here, will secure the favour of heaven hereafter." Others contend that a sincere obedience is the righteousness that justifies the sinner. In their esteem, the gospel seems to be a sort of modified version of the law, so that whereas under the law a man could only be justified by obeying God's will perfectly, under the gospel he may be justified if he obey it sincerely. Others maintain again, that faith is the sinner's justifying righteousness. We shall not attempt a refutation of these opinions separately; in fact, we shall not attempt a direct refutation of them at all-our time can be better occupied. There is, however, one objection, which applies with equal force to them all. They all assume that the ground of justification is in man himself, and in this respect, to mention nothing else, are decidedly at variance with the Word VOL. XXI.-NO. CCXLIX. 2 of God. Fearless of contradiction, we unhesitatingly assert that the Scriptures uniformly, and with the utmost distinctness, refer man to something out of self as the ground of his acceptance with God. They direct us to look into ourselves for the reason of our condemnation, but out of ourselves for the reason of our justification. They point us to Jesus, declaring as they do so, that " BY HIM all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses' Being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” Here then we have just what we are seeking. We want to know, What is the ground of the sinner's justification in the sight of God? and the Holy Spirit responds, "By Him," i.e. Christ, "all that believe are justified"Being justified through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." Just two or three observations upon these words. 66 1. What are we to understand by this expression, "the redemption that is in Christ Jesus"? In its ordinary signification it comprehends (a) all that Christ became; as mediator, days-man, surety of his people-(b) all that he did; in becoming incarnate, living a life of purity in this lower world, obeying the law, &c.-(e) all that he suffered; in body, in mind, at the hands of men, the hands of devils, and the hand of God. The question arises, Is the expression to be understood in its ordinary signification in the words under review? Some would say, "Not exactly; what Christ did must be understood by the expres sion, but not what Christ suffered. Christ's sufferings ransomed us from hell, but it is Christ's obedience that justifies us." We venture two enquiries upon the distinction which such an observation implies. First, Is it just in itself? Christ's obedience justifies, not Christ's sufferings-it implies that Christ did not obey in suffering. Now, is that correct? A very respectable writer mentions three things as essential to obedience. There must be a law or command enjoining it; it must be voluntary; and it must proceed from a proper inward principle and disposition of heart. Tried by such a test, it cannot be said that suffering generally is obedience. Whatever may be affirmed as to a command or appointment enjoining our sufferings, or as to the motives from which we submit thereto, very few of us indeed can claim the merit of being voluntary in what we suffer. Men, as a rule at least, do not choose to suffer; they suffer because they must. But in reference to our Lord Jesus Christ the case is altogether different. There was a command enjoining what He endured. He submitted to that command from right motives, and he was voluntary in so doing. He chose to suffer. He became "obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Instead, therefore, of distinguishing between the obedience of Christ and the sufferings of Christ, ought we not to look upon his sufferings as the highest type of his obedience-evincing in their fullest, clearest light, his supreme regard to God, and his matchless love to man. Then, secondly, can the distinction now referred to be supported by Scripture? We think not. It is true that the apostle in Rom. v. 19 refers to the obedience of Christ as that which justifies. He there tells us that, as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." But then, in the ninth verse of the same chapter, the apostle refers us to the blood of Christ as that which justifies. His words are, "Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." When, therefore, the Scriptures teach that we are justified through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, we can discover no reason why we should not include what Christ suffered as well as what he did in that expression. The doing and dying of the Son of God constitute, what the Scriptures call, the righteousness of Christ-the righteousness of God, and by that righteousness the sinner is justified. 66 2. This "redemption which is in Christ" avails for our justification by being imputed to us. It is not by having the grace or righteousness involved in "the redemption in Christ" infused into us, but by having it reckoned to our account, that we are justified. When Christ became the substitute of his people, their sins were placed to his account. This truth was very clearly and very beautifully set forth in type by the appointment of the scape-goat (See Lev. xvi. 8, 21, 22). It is also taught by direct statement, as, for instance, Isaiah liii. 6, "All we, like sheep, have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." Now, by virtue of our sins being laid upon Christ-placed to his account, his obedience is placed to our account. God "hath made Him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Believers are made righteous by Christ's righteousness in the same way and in the same sense as Christ was made sin for them. They are not righteous in themselves, as He was not sinful; but he was accounted sinful, and so in like manner they are accounted righteous, and dealt with accordingly. 3. We cannot have it too deeply impressed upon our minds that Christ's righteousness imputed to him, is the only ground of the sinner's justification in the sight of God. Nothing will do apart from this, and there must be nothing mixed with it. We must not mix even faith with it, or feeling, or any of our good deeds. We cannot mix anything of our own with the work of Christ if we would; and it would not be acceptable in the sight of God if we could. God does not like mixtures. He prohibited everything of the kind in the dress of the Israelites (Duet. xxii. 11)—"Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together." In a spiritual sense, the prohibition is binding upon us. We must not appear before God attired in a garment of divers sorts, made up of grace and of works, woven partly by Christ and partly by ourselves. Such raiment is an offence to God. We must appear clothed completely and alone in the one garment which Christ has wrought out and brought in for those who believe on him. There is so much of the spirit of the old covenant in our hearts, that it seems very difficult for us to believe (and yet it is in accordance with the teaching of Scripture, and would promote our comfort if we did believe it) that our good feelings and good deeds have no more to do with the ground of our justification than our bad feelings and bad deeds have. Nothing wrought in us, nothing done by us, affects in the slightest degree our standing before God-that is determined by what Christ has done. It may be asked, "But do not the inspired writers make frequent mention of both faith and good works in connection with justification?" They do. But that does not militate in the least against what we have said. Both faith and works are connected with justification, the one as the instrument, the other as the fruit, but neither as the ground. The imputed righteousness of Christ justifies the sinner at the bar of God. By faith he is brought into the possession and enjoyment of that justification. By good works he manifests its possession to the world at large. A striking confirmation of the truth that the imputed righteousness of Christ is the only ground of justification, is found in the fact that in all Scripture history no account is given of any person being justified in any other way. Abraham was a remarkable character, and one that occupies a prominent place in Scripture history. He was much above the average even of good men, not only in faith, but also in works. But Abraham was justified in the very way we have described, as Paul informs us in the epistle to the Romans, fourth chapter. David, too, was a very remarkable man. He is spoken of as 66 a man after God's own heart." But, "David describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.' And it is evident that he personally entertained no hope of being blessed in any other way, for he felt it needful to present for himself, as well as for others, the request, "Enter not into judgment with Thy servant; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified." In New Testament history the name and deeds of Paul conspicuous. Though he was "the least of the apostles," and esteemed himself unworthy to be called an apostle, yet "the grace of God which was bestowed on him was not in vain: but he laboured more abundantly than they all." He was "in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons are more frequent, in deaths oft." Yet listen to what he says-" God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ"What things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." Such were the utterances of Paul in regard to himself. And in regard to others, so conscious was Paul that justification by Christ was the only way in which a sinner could be justified, and so jealous was he that this doctrine in all its simplicity and integrity should be maintained, that, as one remarks, "he would brand with a curse the brow of an archangel that should dare to subvert or dilute it." (Gal. i. 8.) 4. The imputed righteousness of Christ presents a sufficient ground for our justification. With this, vile and polluted as we are, it is as honourable in God to justify, as apart from this it is imperative upon him to condemn. The righteousness of Christ is a perfect righteousness. Christ was himself perfect. He was perfect in his nature, perfect in his life-perfect in God's sight, perfect in the devil's sight-perfect in every respect, his greatest enemies being judges. As Christ was perfect in his own person, so also is his righteousness perfect; the omniscient eye of God discerns therein no flaw. The righteousness of Christ is unfading. There are many things of bright and dazzling character which length of years deprives of their glory. But the righteousness of Christ shall never fade. It partakes in its nature of the nature of Him who saith, “Fear not; I am the living one who was dead; and behold I am alive for evermore." The righteousness of Christ is divine. It is not the righteousness of a mere creature, how dignified soever that creature may be; it is the righteousness of God-a righteousness, therefore, more dignified than that in which Adam in innocence appeared, and more brilliant than that in which angels in glory shine. Let us be devoutly thankful that there is a ground of justification so worthy of God, so suited to us; and, as we cast ourselves upon it, let our hearts joyfully sing, "Jesus, thy blood and righteousness, My beauty are, my glorious dress; • Jesus hath lived and died for me." " ON THE CO-OPERATION OF CHURCHES IN CASES BY JOHN BROWN, A.M., CONLIG, NEWTOWNARDS, IRELAND. E. P. Ir sometimes happens that churches ignore the discipline of each other by receiving offenders into communion while under the censure of another church-a practice which must destroy all discipline, introduce confusion into the whole Christian community, and terminate all consistent intercourse between the churches concerned. Such a practice must necessarily mar both ministerial and fraternal communion. For, supposing a member to be excommunicated from the church over which I preside, and to be received into the fellowship of another church, how in that case can the pastors of the two churches officiate for each other? In such a case I should be placed in the absurd position of administering the Lord's supper to the same person as a Christian brother, whom I may have excluded on the previous Sabbath, as a wicked man, from Christian privileges. And the same inconsistency would follow as it regards the conduct of private members. The member of one church, who may have voted last Lord's Day for the exclusion of a transgressor, as "a heathen man and a publican," might meet him next Sabbath at the Lord's table in another church, as a brother in Christ. The discipline of the churches must thus either be turned into a perfect farce, or all the churches where such irregularities occur must cease to have any fellowship with each other whatever. For, I think common sense plainly teaches us that if a man be qualified for the communion of one church, he is qualified for all; and if he be unfit for the fellowship of one, he ought to be received into none. It is possible, however, that a man may be unjustly excluded from a particular church, and it may be impossible for him to obtain redress from that congregation. In that case he cannot be expected to be satisfied with the judgment of the church that excluded him, and he must, of course, seek relief where he can obtain it. There are many cases," says Dr. Dwight, "in which individuals are dissatisfied, on reasonable grounds, with the judgment of a church. It is perfectly obvious, that in a debate between two members of the same church the parties may, in many respects, stand on unequal ground. One of them may be ignorant, without family connections, in humble circumstances, and possessed of little or no personal influence. The other may be a person of distinction, opulent, powerfully connected, of superior understanding, of great personal influence, not only in the church, but also in the country at large. As things are in this world, it is impossible that these persons should possess, in any controversy between them, equal advantages. Beyond all this, the church itself may be one party, and a poor and powerless member the other. In this case also, it is unnecessary to observe, the individual must labour under every supposable disadvantage to which a righteous cause can be subjected." That such a state of things as is here described is not a mere supposition, but actually corresponds to matters of fact, is, I think, beyond dispute. Even the apostle John complains of Diotrephes, who loved to have the preeminence among the members of a certain congregation-who prated even against the apostles with malicious words-who received not the brethren into fellowship--who forbade those that would receive them,—and who cast them out of the church. (3 John 9, 10.) And it is to be feared that men of the same stamp are still to be found in the churches, persons both in office and out of office-who obtain undue influence among the members-plausible hypocrites, who "by good words and fair speeches deceive the simple," and thus succeed in carrying out any measure which they may recommend. Diotrephes would seem to have occupied a high position; probably he was a teacher or doctor of the church; and indeed wherever there is social wrong, Dr. Diotrephes is at the bottom of all the mischief, though he generally manages to put forward his dupes so as to cast the responsibility on them, while he sits behind the scenes himself. Now, supposing an innocent person to be excluded, under such circumstances, what is to be done? Is he to be sent back for justice to the church that excluded him? Such a direction would only be to tantalize him. It would be very unreasonable to make his accusers his judges. He might as well plead guilty at once. If they have already expelled him from their society on false grounds, he has no reason now to expect more justice than formerly. Such a step would only make bad worse. Ought another church then to receive him without hesitation on his own representation of the case? That would appear equally improper, for though he may be entirely in the right, and they entirely in the wrong, yet the church to which the aggrieved person applies cannot warrantably decide this without an impartial hearing of both sides. But how is the matter to be investigated? Some have recommended that an affair of this kind should be settled by the ordinary rules of arbitration, i.e. that each party should choose two arbitrators, both parties pledging them |