Lecture 11 Justification; Its Relation To The Mediatorial Work Of Christ

THAT the Mediatorial work of Christ has some relation to the Law of God,—and that our Justification has, also, some relation to the work of Christ,—are truths so evident from every part of Scripture, that they are universally admitted by those who acknowledge its authority in matters of faith. Popish, Pelagian, Arian, Socinian, Arminian, Neonomian, and Antinomian, writers are all agreed in affirming that Christ’s work was a work of obedience to God’s Law; and that our Justification is, in some way or other, founded upon it, or connected with it. But they differ from one another, as soon as they proceed to explain the sense in which these truths are understood by them respectively. It is not sufficient, therefore, to lay down the general statement,—that the Mediatorial work of Christ had some relation to the Law of God—that our Justification is, in some sense, dependent on His work—and that, through His work, it is connected, in some way, with the original rule of righteousness; for that statement, although true, so far as it goes, does not bring out the whole truth which is clearly revealed in Scripture; and the nature of the relation which subsists between Christ’s work and the Law, on the one hand, and between our Justification and His work, on the other, must be explained in several distinct propositions, and established by scriptural proofs.

PROP. XI. It was God’s eternal purpose to overrule the fall of man for His own glory, by a signal manifestation of all His moral perfections, in justifying ‘the ungodly,’ through Christ as Mediator.

We read in Scripture of ‘the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord,’ of ‘the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure, which He hath purposed in Himself,’ and of ‘the purpose of Him, who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will.’ That purpose, and the whole plan of salvation which flowed from it, had its origin in ‘the riches of His grace,’ and its end in ‘the praise of the glory of His grace,’ ‘wherein He hath abounded towards us in all wisdom and prudence.’ It was not a mere purpose of mercy; it was a purpose of mercy ‘in Christ Jesus;’ and through Him it was to be carried into effect. It was formed in the eternal councils of the Godhead before the world was; and the fall itself, which was foreseen, was permitted to occur, that it might be overruled for the accomplishment of this great design. Each of the three Persons in the Godhead,—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,—concurred in it; and they are represented as severally assuming distinct offices, and undertaking different parts of the work, by which it was to be carried into effect.

That work was to be a signal and unparalleled revelation of God, in two distinct respects; first, as it should be the highest manifestation of His moral attributes, each in its utmost perfection, and all acting in perfect harmony, such as could not have been equally afforded, either by the mere reward of the righteous, or the mere punishment of the wicked (1); and, secondly, as it should be an effectual means of making Him known in His essential nature as the Triune Jehovah, through the medium of the distinct operations which should be accomplished by the three Divine Persons respectively. (2)

We further read, in various parts of Scripture, of an eternal covenant between the Father and the Son. The Father, representing the majesty, and exercising the prerogatives, of the undivided Godhead, invested the Son with the office of Mediator,—commissioned and consecrated Him for His work,—sent Him forth as His Son, and yet as His servant,—gave Him a people to be redeemed and saved,—prescribed the conditions which He should fulfil for that end,—and promised Him that ‘He should see of the travail of His soul, and be satisfied.’ The Son accepted the office of Mediator,—consented to act in official subordination to the Father’s will,—voluntarily engaged to ‘empty Himself,’ and to veil His glory, ‘the glory which He had with the Father before the world was,’—and undertook to become incarnate, to suffer, to obey, and to die, for the accomplishment of His work. Express mention is made of mutual stipulations,—of precepts, and promises, addressed by the Father to the Son, and of the Son’s acquiescence in the one, and His acceptance of the other; while these stipulations were the terms of ‘an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and sure,’ of which Christ is expressly said to be the Mediator (μεσίτης) and the surety (ἔγγνος). (3)

The terms of this eternal covenant, whatever they were, determined the whole plan of man’s salvation, and regulated every one of its provisions. It contemplated the end which was to be accomplished, and prescribed the agency and the means by which it was to be carried into effect. It provided for the incarnation, the sufferings, the death, the resurrection, and the exaltation of Christ; it equally provided for the saving efficacy of His work by the effectual application of His Holy Spirit; and every part of the plan, from first to last, must be traced up to the sovereign Will, and the free Grace, of God, as its original source. That covenant was the spontaneous expression of the ‘good pleasure of His goodness;’ and much evil has arisen from confused or incorrect conceptions of it, as if the provision which it made for man’s salvation, instead of being the fruit and manifestation, had been the procuring cause, of His love; whereas the, covenant of Grace, and every provision which it contains, had its spring and fountainhead in His spontaneous loving-kindness and tender mercy. ‘God so loved the world as to give His Son;’ and ‘herein truly is love, not that we loved God, but that God loved us.’ It was not the Mediatorial work of Christ that prompted the love of the Father, or that procured the covenant of redemption; it was the free sovereign purpose of God which originated the whole plan of man’s salvation,—which ordained the end, and provided also the means for its accomplishment. He appointed His own Son to the office of Mediator, and His people ‘were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world;’2 they were ’given to Him’ to be redeemed, renewed, sanctified, and saved; but neither His election, nor theirs, was procured by His sufferings and obedience; for it was prior to both in the order of nature, although it was not irrespective of them as the means, by which His eternal purpose should be fulfilled in time. His purpose of grace could not be irrespective of the work of Christ, for it comprehended the means, not less than the end; but it was not originated by that work,—it was a free, spontaneous movement of mercy in the divine mind, and His omniscient wisdom provided the way in which it should take effect, so as to illustrate all the perfections of His nature, and overrule the fall itself for the vindication and establishment of His righteous government.

Some deprive themselves of all the comfort which such a manifestation of divine love might be expected to impart, by entertaining a confused notion of the real relation which subsists between the work of Christ and the love of God, as if the one were the procuring cause, and not, as it really is, the fruit and manifestation of the other; while many more, going to the opposite extreme, are ready to conclude, that if God could form a purpose of grace towards sinners, and if He could give the highest expression and proof of His love in the gift of His own Son, there could be no necessity, and no room even, for any expiation of human guilt, or any satisfaction to divine justice. Both extremes are equally dangerous; the one derogates from the free grace of God, the other from the claims of His justice: and the grand design of the whole plan of salvation is to combine the two,—to manifest them in their actual exercise, and harmonious co-operation, for the accomplishment of the same end,—and so to ‘declare the righteousness’ of God, as that He may be seen to be both ‘merciful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.’ Men are ever prone to take partial, one-sided views of the character of God, and to deduce erroneous conclusions from them. They imagine,—either that there can be no real love in the divine mind, if there be any law-wrath, or judicial displeasure, against sin; or that there can be no serious wrath, and no strict adherence to justice, when love exists. The experience of every parent and magistrate on earth might be sufficient to dispel these gross delusions; for the one, in dealing with a prodigal son, and the other, with a convicted criminal, may be conscious of a yearning love,—a tender compassion,—such as he finds it difficult to restrain; and yet feels, notwithstanding, that justice has its claims, and government its laws, which he must not disregard,—that the rights of authority ought to be maintained, even by the infliction of punishment, and at whatever sacrifice of personal feeling. In such cases every one may see that justice is never more solemn, or more sure, than when it is purified from every feeling of personal malice or vindictiveness, and when its sentence is pronounced by an affectionate father, or by a benevolent and compassionate judge. But what are all these human analogies, when compared with the union of love and justice in God’s treatment of His ‘only-begotten,’ and ‘well-beloved,’ Son? Christ was the object of His supreme complacency and delight, and never more than when He became ‘obedient unto death, even the death of the cross;’ for ‘therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life;’ and yet even such love did not supersede the claims of justice and law, for when He stood charged, not with personal, but imputed guilt, ‘it pleased the Father to bruise Him;’ ‘He spared not His own Son;’ ‘He set him forth to be a propitiation;’ ‘He made His soul an offering for sin;’ and this, too, when once and again the Saviour knelt down and prayed, saying, ’O my Father! if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.’2 Never was the union of infinite love with inflexible justice more signally displayed, and never was the nature, as well as the reality, of both more strikingly illustrated, than in the Cross of Christ. (4)

Such a marvellous combination of mercy and justice in the salvation of sinners, is peculiar to the scheme which is revealed in the Gospel. It had no place in the Justification of the righteous, such as the ‘angels who kept their first estate;’ for they were accepted and confirmed in everlasting holiness, according to the terms of that law which they had obeyed: it had no place in the condemnation of fallen spirits; for they were dealt with according to the rule of strict retributive justice. But in the case of every sinner who is saved from among men, ‘mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.’ The manifestation of all the moral perfections of God in the work of man’s salvation, attracts the astonishment and attention of the heavenly host, for ‘into these things the angels desire to look.’2 It was designed for their instruction in some of the highest lessons of heavenly wisdom, as well as for the saving benefit of men; for ’God created all things by Jesus Christ, to the intent that now, unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places, might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.’ And the whole plan of salvation, which is revealed in the Gospel, is simply the unfolding and the execution of God’s eternal purpose to overrule the fall of man for His own glory, by a signal manifestation of all His perfections, in the salvation of sinners through the mediatorial work of Christ.

PROP. XII. Christ, as Mediator, was ‘made under law’ as the substitute, representative, and surety, of His people.

A scheme of mediation does not necessarily imply in all cases the substitution of the Mediator in the room and stead of either of the two parties between whom he interposes. Had Christ been a mere prophet, sent from God to instruct men in the knowledge of divine truth,—or had He even received a divine commission to exercise royal powers, to establish a spiritual kingdom in the earth, and to rule over it as His delegated dominion,—He might have fulfilled His mission as the representative of God, without becoming also the substitute of men: and it is in some such sense that Socinians speak of His mediation. But it is not in this one-sided and partial sense that He is said to be ‘Mediator of the new covenant’ in Scripture; for He is not only a prophet sent from God to instruct them, or a king commissioned by God to rule over them, in His name,—He is also their ‘high priest in things pertaining to God;’ and what He did for them, Godwards, was the fundamental part of His mediatorial work. There may be other methods of mediation, more or less partial, in many conceivable cases; but He identified Himself with His people, and acted towards God as their substitute and representative. His legal liability on their account depended on His taking their law-place, and becoming answerable for them at the bar of divine justice: and as this is involved in the kind of mediation which is ascribed to Him in Scripture, so it is fully expressed when He is called ‘the surety’ or ‘the sponsor’ of the covenant; for just as a cautioner becomes the legal substitute of a debtor, and is liable for the payment of whatever he undertakes to discharge, Christ became surety for the debts of His people, when they were bankrupt, and ‘had nothing to pay.’

But, it has been asked, can there be any real substitution of one for another under a system of moral government? Does not the Law require personal obedience, and threaten personal punishment? and must it not, therefore, be exclusive of vicarious agency, whether in the shape of obedience, or of suffering? We answer, that the Law of God, in its covenant form, recognised from the first the principle of representation, by constituting Adam the federal head of his race; and that it is only the transference of the same principle to a new relation, when the Gospel reveals the fact that Christ, as Mediator, was constituted the legal representative and surety of His people. The ‘first Adam’ gives place to the ‘second Adam, the Lord from heaven;’ and, in either instance, the welfare of others is made to depend on them. For ‘as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners; so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.’ For as Adam was ‘made under law,’ the representative of his posterity; so Christ was ‘made under law,’ the substitute of His people. ’God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law.’2

If the question be raised, Under what law? the Apostle teaches us that it was the same which was binding on men,—the Moral Law as a covenant of works; for He was ‘made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law,’—and He ‘hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.’ The law to which He became subject, was evidently the same with that under which His people had been previously placed. Some have attempted to evade the force of this evidence, by having recourse to a distinction between the Moral Law, which was incumbent on men, and the Mediatorial Law, which was imposed upon Christ; and they have contended that He was subject only to the conditions or terms of the covenant of grace, but not to the requirements, whether preceptive or penal, of the covenant of works. This theory is subversive of the doctrine of His legal substitution, for He could only be their substitute by standing in their room, and coming under the same law with them; it is equally subversive of His vicarious expiation and obedience, for His sufferings were not vicarious unless they were inflicted as the curse which rested on His people; nor was His obedience vicarious if it was not rendered to the precepts which they were bound to observe. Moreover, it leaves the Law of God, as a covenant of works, for ever unfulfilled; for, on this theory, no provision has been made for its fulfilment, either vicariously or personally. The Mediatorial Law, which was imposed on Christ, may be distinguishable, in some respects, from the Moral Law, to which His people were subject; but there is no such difference between them as makes it possible to separate the one from the other, or to warrant us in affirming that Christ was not made under the same law which had been broken, and must be fulfilled. The only important questions on this point are these two: first, Did not the law of mediation, supposing it to be distinguishable in some respects from the law of works, comprehend and include under it the fulfilment, by His vicarious sufferings and obedience, of that law, by which His people were bound? and secondly,—if this question must be answered in the affirmative,—Was there any other difference between the Mediatorial and the Moral Law, except what consisted in the fact of His substitution in the room of His people, or what is necessarily involved in the distinction which must always subsist between a representative, and those who are represented by him? (5)

PROP. XIII. The Mediatorial work of Christ on earth properly consisted in His humiliation, sufferings, and obedience; or, as it is stated by the Apostle, ‘He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross.’

His voluntary state of humiliation, including His assumption of human nature,—His being born in a low condition,—His taking the form of a servant,—and His being ‘made under law,’—may be regarded partly as the commencement of His Mediatorial work, and partly as an indispensable preparation for His enduring those penal sufferings, and rendering that vicarious obedience, on which the redemption of His people mainly depended. His Incarnation is a fact of fundamental importance, not only as being in itself an amazing manifestation of His condescension and love, but also as it fitted Him for the discharge of every one of His offices, and the accomplishment of every part of His work. The union of the divine and human natures in His one Person, as ‘God manifest in the flesh,’ lies at the foundation of the whole system of Christian doctrine, and none of its peculiar lessons can be understood in their true meaning, or duly realized and felt, without constant reference to it. The Person of Christ is the ‘great mystery of godliness;’ and by the reception or rejection of the truth which has been revealed concerning it, every other doctrine will be brightened or obscured. The union of the divine and human natures in the constitution of His person was necessary to qualify Him, in various respects, for the execution of all His offices, even such of them as He was to exercise towards men; but especially for the work of His priesthood, in which He was to transact for men with God. He was to be both the Priest and the Victim; HE was to ‘offer up HIMSELF as a sacrifice and an offering to God of a sweet-smelling savour;’ and whether we regard Him as Priest or Victim, the union of the divine and human natures in His Person, was that which served alike to make such an offering possible, and to impart to it, when presented, an infinite moral value, as a satisfaction to the Law and Justice of God. For, in the words of Sir M. Hale, ‘the unsearchable wisdom of God is manifested in this—that He provided such a Mediator as was fit for so great a work. Had all the world consulted that God must suffer, it had been impossible; and had all the world contributed, that any man, or all the men in the world, should have been a satisfactory sacrifice for any one sin, it had been deficient. Here is, then, the wonderful counsel of the Most High God: the sacrifice that is appointed shall be so ordered, that God and man shall be conjoined in one Person, that so, as Man, He might become a sacrifice for sin, and as God, He might give a value to the sacrifice. And this is the great “mystery of godliness—God manifest in the flesh.” ’ (6)

But the Incarnation of Christ, so far from being, as some recent writers seem to suppose, the whole of His Mediatorial work, was only a preparation for it, or, at the most, its mere commencement; for that ‘work which the Father had given Him to do,’ and on which the redemption of His people depended, was to be carried on during His whole life on earth, and to be completed only when He could say on the cross, ‘It is finished.’ All the other parts of His humiliation had a similar relation to that work; but the two which, more than any other,—more than His incarnation, more than His lowly birth, more than His early privations,—furnish a key to the nature and design of His whole undertaking, are these: first, the fact that ‘He took upon Him the form of a servant,’—placing Himself voluntarily in a state of official subordination to the Father’s will; and secondly, the fact that, in order to the accomplishment of that will, ‘He was made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.’ These expressions show that,—as He was the servant of God, and the subject of His law, so He was also the substitute and representative of His people,—that He came to ‘redeem them who were under the law,’ by being Himself ‘made under the law,’ for them,—that He took their law-place, as their substitute and representative,—and that He engaged to fulfil all its requirements, whether preceptive or penal, for their redemption and deliverance.

Such being the relation of Christ, as Mediator, to His people and their sins, on the one hand, and to God and His Law, on the other, the nature of His redeeming work is necessarily determined by it. If all that He did and suffered, was done and endured by Him as the substitute of His people, and with a view to their salvation,—and if, moreover, all that He did and suffered, was done and endured by Him as His Father’s ‘servant,’ and with a view to the fulfilment of His ‘Law,’ it follows, that His whole work is correctly described, when it is said to have been strictly Vicarious, with respect to those for whom it was accomplished, and, also, to have been a true and proper Propitiation for sin, with respect to God and His righteous government.

The general nature of His mediatorial work may thus be deduced from the fact of His subjection to law, as the substitute and representative of His people. But wherein that work properly consisted,—what were its constituent parts,—and how they severally contributed to the accomplishment of His great design, may be ascertained from many express testimonies of Scripture. His redeeming work included both His sufferings and His obedience, and is briefly but comprehensively stated, when it is said that ‘He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.’ But the causes of His death, and the reasons of His obedience, which are also revealed, must be connected with that general statement, so as to explain its full meaning. His death is ascribed to various causes, according to the different aspects and relations in which it may be viewed. It is ascribed to ‘the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,’—to the justice of God the Father, who ‘set Him forth to be a propitiation’2 for sin,—to the love of God, ’who gave His only-begotten Son,’ and ‘delivered Him up for us all;’4—it is ascribed to the free, unconstrained will of Christ: ’I lay down my life, … I lay it down of myself;’ and to His self-sacrificing love, for ‘Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it;’6 and ’Christ loved us, and hath given Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God;’—it is ascribed, instrumentally, to the agency of evil spirits and of wicked men: ‘This is your hour, and the power of darkness,’8—’Him ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain;’—it is ascribed to the sins of those for whom He died, for ’He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities.’10 We thus find, as we might have expected in such a case, various causes concurring to bring about His death; but if we seek to ascertain the reasons which rendered it necessary, rather than the causes which contributed merely to the result, we are taught by Scripture to ascribe it to the sins of men,—and the justice of God,—viewed in connection with His purpose of saving sinners, in a way consistent with the honour of His law, and the interests of His righteous government, through a Divine Redeemer.

If this be a correct view of the reason of His death—the reason which rendered it necessary, with a view to the highest ends of the divine government,—the reason for which it was ordained and inflicted by the Father,—and the reason also for which it was voluntarily endured by His incarnate Son,—then we cannot fail to regard all the sufferings, which constituted so important a part of Christ’s Mediatorial work, as strictly penal. They were the punishment, not of personal, but of imputed, guilt. They were inflicted on Him as the Substitute of sinners. He was ‘made a curse’ for them, but only because He had been ‘made sin for them.’ In this view, His sufferings were penal, because they were judicially imposed on Him as the legal representative of those who had come under ‘the curse,’ according to the rule of that law which proclaimed that ‘the wages of sin is death,’ and that ‘the soul which sinneth it shall die.’

If His sufferings were penal, His obedience must also have been vicarious; for, however easy it may be to distinguish between two things so manifestly different as suffering and obedience are, yet it is impossible, in this case, to separate the one from the other, for He obeyed in suffering, and He suffered in obeying: ‘He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.’ His mere sufferings, apart from the moral element of obedience which pervaded them, would not have been a sufficient vindication of the divine Law, nor would they have been acceptable to God, without the exercise of those lovely graces of His character, which were ‘the sweet spices’ that perfumed His sacrifice, and made it ‘an offering of a sweet-smelling savour.’ His obedience, too, was not rendered in His personal and private character, but in His official capacity as Mediator,—as the federal Head and Representative of His people; so that whatever He did in the way of obedience, as well as whatever He endured in the way of suffering, was done in their stead, and on their behalf.

Divines have generally made a distinction between what is called the active, and passive, obedience of Christ; and this distinction is both legitimate and useful, when it is correctly understood, and judiciously applied. It is not to be interpreted as if it meant, that His passive obedience consisted in mere suffering, or that His active obedience consisted in mere service; for it implies obedience in both, and excludes suffering from neither: nor is it to be interpreted as if it meant, that the two might be so separated from each other, as to admit of His mere sufferings being imputed to us, without any part of His obedience; for if His death be reckoned to us at all, it must necessarily include both the pains which He endured, and the obedience which he rendered, in dying. But the distinction may be understood in a sense which serves to discriminate, merely, one part of His work from another, without destroying their indissoluble union; and to exhibit them in the relation which they severally bear to the penal and preceptive requirements of the divine Law. That Law required the punishment of sin, and in the sufferings and death of Christ we see its penalty fulfilled; it required also perfect righteousness, and in the lifelong obedience of Christ,—but especially in His death as the crowning act of His obedience,—we see its precept fulfilled; and by thus connecting His penal sufferings with the evil desert of sin, and His vicarious obedience with the righteousness which the Law requires, we are enabled to apprehend more clearly our need of both, and also the suitableness and fulness of the provision which has thus been made for our acceptance with God. (7)

PROP. XIV. The Mediatorial work of Christ, including both His sufferings and His obedience, constituted a complete and effectual satisfaction to the Law and justice of God.

The term SATISFACTION is often restricted to His sufferings and death, as if it had an exclusive reference to the penalty of the Law which had been violated and dishonoured by sin. But ad it must be held, even when employed with special reference to the death of Christ, to include, not only the pains which He endured, but also the obedience which He rendered, in dying,—so it may comprehend the whole of that work, by which ‘He magnified the law and made it honourable.’ The precept, not less than the penalty, of the Law must be fulfilled; and His fulfilment of both is the complete satisfaction which He rendered to the Law and Justice of God. (8)

Using the term in this comprehensive sense, as including the whole homage which He paid to the divine Law both in His life and in His death, His satisfaction is said to be complete, because it was commensurate with all the righteous requirements of that Law, whether preceptive or penal; and it is said to be effectual, because it actually secured the salvation of His people, and laid a sure and solid ground of immediate acceptance with God for all that should ever believe in His name.

Both the completeness, and the efficacy, of this satisfaction have been doubted or denied. So far from regarding it as complete, and resting upon it as the one foundation which God has laid in Zion, many have imagined that the merits of Christ’s death must be supplemented by their own austerities, and penances, and satisfactions for sin; and that the merits of Christ’s obedience can only be made available by their own personal holiness, and diligence in good works. And so far from regarding it as effectual, in actually securing the redemption of His people, many have spoken of it as if its only effect were to provide mere salvability for all, without entitling any to salvation. These views are as injurious to the souls of men, as they are dishonouring to the work of Christ. They prevent many from ‘receiving and resting on Christ,’ at once and alone, ‘for salvation, as He is freely offered to them in the Gospel;’ and even when there is a yearning of heart towards Him, and, perhaps, an incipient trust in Him, they prevent all ‘joy and peace in believing,’ by spreading a veil over the eye of faith itself, and generating ‘the spirit of bondage unto fear.’ These obstacles to a simple, childlike, cordial, confiding reception of the Gospel as ‘glad tidings of great joy,’ can only be removed by a right scriptural apprehension of the completeness, and the efficacy, of that satisfaction, which Christ has already made to the Law and Justice of God. But what reason can there be, why we should doubt either the completeness, or the efficacy, of His satisfaction? If it was sufficient for the acquittal and acceptance of Him who ‘was made sin for us,’—who ‘bare our sins in His own body on the tree,’—and on whom ‘the Lord laid the iniquities of us all,’—if it could expiate the accumulated guilt of ‘a great multitude whom no man can number, out of every country, and nation, and people, and tongue,’—and if it was rewarded, in His Person, with an everlasting and universal dominion, in the exercise of which He has ‘all power in heaven and in earth,’ to bestow the forgiveness of sin, and the gift of eternal life, why should it be inadequate for the immediate Justification of any sinner who believes in His name? Or what need can there be of any other satisfaction, to save us from ‘the wrath to come,’—of any other merit, to ensure our acceptance with God,—of any other title to the inheritance of eternal life, if Christ, as our Redeemer, has already ‘finished the transgressions, and made an end of sins, and made reconciliation for iniquity, and brought in everlasting righteousness?’

PROP. XV. The Justification of sinners is directly connected in Scripture with the Mediatorial work of Christ, as a satisfaction rendered to the Law and Justice of God.

The reason why ‘God set Him forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood,’ is explained by the Apostle, when he says that ‘it was to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins;’ and his statement evidently implies, both that there is a declaration of righteousness, as well as of mercy, in this method of justifying sinners, and, also, that God could either not have been just in superseding the punishment of sin by an act of mere pardon, or that He could not have been so evidently declared to be just without a propitiation.

Accordingly, we find that, in Scripture, the punishment of sin, which is the penalty of the Law,—and the pardon of sin, which is the privilege of the Gospel,—are brought together and harmonized in a propitiation, in which justice and mercy are equally displayed. We further find that the Justification of sinners is directly connected with that propitiation, and described, in every variety of expression, as having been effectually procured by it, and as being entirely founded upon it. It is connected with the death of Christ: ‘When we were enemies, we were reconciled unto God by the death of His Son;’ ‘You that were sometime alienated, and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath He reconciled, in the body of His flesh through death.4 It is connected with the blood of Christ: ’In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace;’ ‘This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins;’2 ’Being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.’ It is connected with the obedience of Christ: ‘By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous;’4 ’Though He were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered; and being made perfect, He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him.’ It is connected with the righteousness of Christ: ‘Surely shall one say, In the Lord have I righteousness … In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified;’6 ’For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him;’ ‘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 the righteousness which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.’8 It is connected with the name of Christ: ’Ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus;’ ‘That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations;’10 ’To Him give all the prophets witness, that, through His name, whosoever believeth in Him shall receive the remission of sins.’ It is connected with the knowledge of Christ: ‘By His knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities;’12 ’This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent. I have glorified Thee on the earth, I have finished the work which Thou gavest me to do.’ In short, in every form of expression, and in every part of Scripture, the Justification of sinners is connected directly with Christ, and His Mediatorial work: and His people are so absolutely dependent on what He did and suffered for their pardon and acceptance with God, that He is said to be their Life,—their Peace,—their Righteousness,—their Hope,—their Joy,—as if ‘all their springs were in Him,’ and ‘Christ were all in all.’ No marvel, that to them who believe ’He is precious.’2

The fact that the Justification of sinners is thus directly connected with the Mediatorial work of Christ, serves to connect it also with what is declared to be God’s chief end in the whole administration of His righteous government—the glory of His great Name. For that work was designed to manifest, in their actual exercise, the moral perfections of His nature, and to make Him known as ‘the Just God, and the Saviour,’—the righteous Ruler, and yet the gracious Redeemer,—of sinful men. By means of that work, He may be glorified in their salvation, glorified in His justice, and glorified, also, in His mercy and grace. What unspeakable peace may dawn upon the soul, when it first discerns ‘the light of this knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ,’—when it is enabled to see that the same justice, which might have been glorified in the punishment of the sinner, may now be still more glorified in His pardon,—that the same love which prompted the gift of His Son will be glorified in the salvation of every one of His people,—and that all the attributes of God, which were formerly arrayed against us, are now in Christ, the firmest grounds of our confidence and hope,—that the flaming sword of justice itself, which once menaced us, has been converted into a shield and buckler for our protection and defence! What a comfort to know, that through Christ’s redeeming work, our Justification is connected indissolubly with the glory of God,—that all His attributes will be more fully made manifest than they could have been, either in the mere justification of the righteous, or in the mere punishment of the wicked,—that the majesty of His Law, so far from being impaired, will be magnified and made honourable, and all the highest ends of His righteous government most effectually secured, by the very means which have opened up a way for the freest exercise of mercy even to the chief of sinners! But how insecure must be the hope, or rather how fatal the presumption, of those who look for pardoning mercy, without any regard either to the honour of His law, or the claims of His justice, or the glory His great Name!