'Hence, we must believe that to the justified themselves nothing more is wanting which needs to prevent us from thinking both that they have satisfied the divine law, according to the state of this life, by those works which are performed in God, and also that, in their ovvn time, provided they depart in grace, they truly merit the attain ment of eternal life.
'Thus neither our own proper righteousness is so determined to be our own, as if it were from our selves, nor is the righteousness of God either unknown or rejected. For that which is called our righteousness, because through its being inherent in us We are justified, that same is the right eousness of God, because it is infused into us by God through the merit of Christ. Far, however, be it from a Christian man that he should either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord, whose goodness to all .is so great that what are truly 'his gifts he willeth to be estimated as their merits.' (5) General Protestant View. Such, so far as the justification and acceptance of man before God are concerned, is the doctrinal scheme of the church of Rome, and nothing can be more for eign than it is from the system set forth by the Protestant church in general. In the view of the latter, justification signifies making hist in trial and judgment, as sanctification is making holy; but not making just by infusion of grace and holi ness into a person, according to the view of the former, thus confounding justification and sancti fication together. On the Protestant principle justification is not a real change of a sinner in himself, though a real change is annexed to it; but only a relative change in reference to God's judgment. Thus we find the word used in Rom. hi :23, 24, 25, 26. In fine, the doctrine of Justifi cation by Faith may be expressed in Scriptural language thus: 'All have sinned and come short of the glory of God ; every mouth must be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God ; therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh living be justified in his sight. But we are justified freely by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth as a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. Where is boasting, then? It is excluded. By what law ? of works? Nay; but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.' For a full exposition of the differ ences between the two churches, see Mohler's Symboilk, translated from the German by Rob ertson.
2. Objectiops. We now come to notice the objections which may be urged against this view of justification.
(1) Cruelty and Butler's Answer. It does not consist, say some, with the truth and holiness of God that the innocent should suffer for the guilty. We answer, that it is no injustice, or cruelty, for an innocent person to suffer for the guilty, as Christ did, provided there be these con ditions: (a) That the person suffering be of the same nature with those for whom he suffers.
(b) That he suffers of his own free will.
(c) That he be able to sustain all that shall be laid upon him.
(d) That a greater amount of glory redound to the divine attributes than if he had not so suf fered. Now the Scriptures assure us that all these conditions were realized in the incarnate Savior.
Bishop Butler (Analogy, ch. v.) has a striking answer to this objection. He shows that in the daily course of God's natural providence the in nocent do often and constantly suffer for the guilty ; and then argues that the Christian ap pointment against which this objection is taken, is not only of the same kind, but is even less open to exception, 'because, under the former, we are in many cases commanded, and even necessitated whether we will or no, to suffer for the faults of others; whereas the sufferings of Christ were vol untary. The world's being under the righteous government of God does, indeed, imply that, finally, and upon the whole, every one shall re ceive according to his personal deserts; and the general doctrine of the whole Scripture is that this shall be the completion of the Divine govern ment.
'But during thc progress, and for aught we know even in order to the completion, of this moral scheme, vicarious punishments may be fit, and absolutely necessary. Men, by their follies, run themselves into extreme distress—into diffi enIties which would be absolutely fatal to them, were it not for the interposition and assistance of others. God commands by the law of nature that we afford them this assistance, in many cases where we cannot do it without very great pains and labor and suffering to ourselves. And we see in what variety of ways one person's suffer ings contribute to the relief of another, and how, or by what particular means, this comes to pass, or follows from the constitution or laws of na ture which come under our notice, and, being familiarized with it, men are not shocked by it. So that the reason of their insisting upon objec tions of the foregoing kind against the satisfac tion of Christ is either that they do not consider God's settled and uniform appointments as his appointments at all, or else they forget that vi carious punishment is a providential appointment of every day's experience; and then, from their being unacquainted with the more general laws of nature or Divine government over the world, and not secing how the sufferings of Christ could contribute to the redemption of it unless by arbi trary and tyrannical will, they conclude his suf ferings could not contribute to it any other way. And yct, what has been often alleged in justifica tion of this doctrine, even from the apparent natural tendency of this method of our redemp tion—its tendencies to vindicate the authority of God's laws, and deter his creatures from sin— this has never yet been answered, and is, I think, plainly unanswerable.' (2) Contxadietion of St. Paul by St. James.