Since Christ is the Word of God and the Truth of God, he may be

received even by those who have not heard of his manifestation in

the flesh. A proud and self‐righteous morality is inconsistent

with saving faith; but a humble and penitent reliance upon God, as

a Savior from sin and a guide of conduct, is an implicit faith in

Christ; for such reliance casts itself upon God, so far as God has

revealed himself,—and the only Revealer of God is Christ. We have,

therefore, the hope that even among the heathen there may be some,

like Socrates, who, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit working

through the truth of nature and conscience, have found the way of

life and salvation.

The number of such is so small as in no degree to weaken the

claims of the missionary enterprise upon us. But that there are

such seems to be intimated in Scripture: _Mat. 8:11, 12_—“_many

shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with

Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven: but the

sons of the kingdom shall be cast forth into the outer darkness_”;

_John 10:16_—“_And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:

them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and they

shall become one flock, one shepherd_”; _Acts 4:12_—“_And in none

other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name

under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved_”;

_10:31, 34, 35, 44_—“_Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine

alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.... Of a truth I

perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation

he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to

him.... While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on

all them that heard the word_”; _16:31_—“_Believe on the Lord

Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house._”

And instances are found of apparently regenerated heathen; see in

Godet on _John 7:17_, note (vol. 2:277), the account of the so‐

called “Chinese hermit,” who accepted Christ, saying: “This is the

only Buddha whom men ought to worship!” Edwards, Life of Brainard,

173‐175, gives an account “of one who was a devout and zealous

reformer, or rather restorer, of what he supposed was the ancient

religion of the Indians.” After a period of distress, he says that

God “comforted his heart and showed him what he should do, and

since that time he had known God and tried to serve him; and loved

all men, be they who they would, so as he never did before.” See

art. by Dr. Lucius E. Smith, in Bib. Sac., Oct. 1881:622‐645, on

the question: “Is salvation possible without a knowledge of the

gospel?” H. B. Smith, System, 323, note, rightly bases hope for

the heathen, not on morality, but on sacrifice.

A chief of the Camaroons in S. W. Africa, fishing with many of his

tribe long before the missionaries came, was overtaken by a storm,

and while almost all the rest were drowned, he and a few others

escaped. He gathered his people together afterwards and told the

story of disaster. He said: “When the canoes upset and I found

myself battling with the waves, I thought: To whom shall I cry for

help? I knew that the god of the hills could not help me; I knew

that the evil spirit would not help me. So I cried to the Great

Father, Lord, save me! At that moment my feet touched the sand of

the beach, and I was safe. Now let all my people honor the Great

Father, and let no man speak a word against him, for he can help

us.” This chief afterwards used every effort to prevent strife and

bloodshed, and was remembered by those who came after as a peace‐

maker. His son told this story to Alfred Saker, the missionary,

saying “Why did you not come sooner? My father longed to know what

you have told us; he thirsted for the knowledge of God.” Mr. Saker

told this in England in 1879.

John Fiske appends to his book, The Idea of God, 168, 169, the

following pathetic words of a Kafir, named Sekese, in conversation

with a French traveler, M. Arbrouseille, on the subject of the

Christian religion: “Your tidings,” said this uncultured

barbarian, “are what I want, and I was seeking before I knew you,

as you shall hear and judge for yourself. Twelve years ago I went

to feed my flocks; the weather was hazy. I sat down upon a rock,

and asked myself sorrowful questions; yes, sorrowful, because I

was unable to answer them. Who has touched the stars with his

hands—on what pillars do they rest? I asked myself. The waters

never weary, they know no other law than to flow without ceasing

from morning till night and from night till morning; but where do

they stop, and who makes them flow thus? The clouds also come and

go, and burst in water over the earth. Whence come they—who sends

them? The diviners certainly do not give us rain; for how could

they do it? And why do I not see them with my own eyes, when they

go up to heaven to fetch it? I cannot see the wind; but what is

it? Who brings it, makes it blow and roar and terrify us? Do I

know how the corn sprouts? Yesterday there was not a blade in my

field; to‐day I returned to my field and found some; who can have

given to the earth the wisdom and the power to produce it? Then I

buried my head in both hands.”

On the question whether men are ever led to faith, without

intercourse with living Christians or preachers, see Life of

Judson, by his son, 84. The British and Foreign Bible Society

publish a statement, made upon the authority of Sir Bartle Frere,

that he met with “an instance, which was carefully investigated,

in which all the inhabitants of a remote village in the Deccan had

abjured idolatry and caste, removed from their temples the idols

which had been worshiped there time out of mind, and agreed to

profess a form of Christianity which they had deduced from the

careful perusal of a single Gospel and a few tracts.” Max Müller,

Chips, 4:177‐189, apparently proves that Buddha is the original of

St. Josaphat, who has a day assigned to him in the calendar of

both the Greek and the Roman churches. “Sancte Socrates, ora pro

nobis.”

The Missionary Review of the World, July, 1896:519‐523, tells the

story of Adiri, afterwards called John King, of Maripastoon in

Dutch Guiana. The Holy Spirit wrought in him mightily years before

he heard of the missionaries. He was a coal‐black negro, a heathen

and a fetish worshiper. He was convicted of sin and apparently

converted through dreams and visions. Heaven and hell were

revealed to him. He was sick unto death, and One appeared to him

declaring himself to be the Mediator between God and man, and

telling him to go to the missionaries for instruction. He was

persecuted, but he won his tribe from heathenism and transformed

them into a Christian community.

S. W. Hamblen, missionary to China, tells of a very earnest and

consistent believer who lived at rather an obscure town of about

2800 people. The evangelist went to visit him and found that he

was a worthy example to those around him. He had become a

Christian before he had seen a single believer, by reading a

Chinese New Testament. Although till the evangelist went to his

house he had never met a Baptist and did not know that there were

any Baptist churches in existence, yet by reading the New

Testament he had become not only a Christian but a strong Baptist

in belief, so strong that he could argue with the missionary on

the subject of baptism.

The Rev. K. E. Malm, a pioneer Baptist preacher in Sweden, on a

journey to the district as far north as Gestrikland, met a woman

from Lapland who was on her way to Upsala in order to visit Dr.

Fjellstedt and converse with him as to how she might obtain peace

with God and get rid of her anxiety concerning her sins. She said

she had traveled 60 (= 240 English) miles, and she had still far

to go. Malm improved the opportunity to speak to her concerning

the crucified Christ, and she found peace in believing on his

atonement. She became so happy that she clapped her hands, and for

joy could not sleep that night. She said later: “Now I will return

home and tell the people what I have found.” This she did, and did

not care to continue her journey to Upsala, in order to get

comfort from Dr. Fjellstedt.

(_c_) That the ground of faith is the external word of promise. The ground

of assurance, on the other hand, is the inward witness of the Spirit that

we fulfil the conditions of the promise (Rom. 4:20, 21; 8:16; Eph. 1:13; 1

John 4:13; 5:10). This witness of the Spirit is not a new revelation from

God, but a strengthening of faith so that it becomes conscious and

indubitable.

True faith is possible without assurance of salvation. But if Alexander’s

view were correct, that the object of saving faith is the proposition:

“God, for Christ’s sake, now looks with reconciling love on me, a sinner,”

no one could believe, without being at the same time assured that he was a

saved person. Upon the true view, that the object of saving faith is not a

proposition, but a person, we can perceive not only the simplicity of

faith, but the possibility of faith even where the soul is destitute of

assurance or of joy. Hence those who already believe are urged to seek for

assurance (Heb. 6:11; 2 Peter 1:10).

_Rom. 4:20, 21_—“_looking unto the promise of God, he wavered not

through unbelief, but waxed strong through faith, giving glory to

God, and being fully assured that what he had promised, he was

able also to perform_”; _8:16_—“_The Spirit himself beareth

witness with our spirit, that we are children of God_”; _Eph.

1:13_—“_in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the

Holy Spirit of promise_”; _1 John 4:13_—“_hereby we know that we

abide in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his

Spirit_”; _5:10_—“_He that believeth on the Son of God hath the

witness in him._” This assurance is not of the essence of faith,

because believers are exhorted to attain to it: _Heb. 6:11_—“_And

we desire that each one of you may show the same diligence unto

the fulness of hope_ [marg.—‘_full assurance_’] _even to the

end_”; _2 Pet. 1:10_—“_Wherefore, brethren, give the more

diligence to make your calling and election sure._” _Cf._ _Prov.

14:14_—“_a good man shall be satisfied from himself._”

There is need to guard the doctrine of assurance from mysticism.

The witness of the Spirit is not a new and direct revelation from

God. It is a strengthening of previously existing faith until he

who possesses this faith cannot any longer doubt that he possesses

it. It is a general rule that all our emotions, when they become

exceedingly strong, also become conscious. Instance affection

between man and woman.

Edwards, Religious Affections, in Works, 3:83‐91, says the witness

of the Spirit is not a new word or suggestion from God, but an

enlightening and sanctifying influence, so that the heart is drawn

forth to embrace the truth already revealed, and to perceive that

it embraces it. “Bearing witness” is not in this case to declare

and assert a thing to be true, but to hold forth evidence from

which a thing may be proved to be true: God “_beareth witness ...

by signs and wonders_” (_Heb. 2:4_). So the “seal of the Spirit”

is not a voice or suggestion, but a work or effect of the Spirit,

left as a divine mark upon the soul, to be an evidence by which

God’s children may be known. Seals had engraved upon them the

image or name of the persons to whom they belonged. The “seal of

the Spirit,” the “earnest of the Spirit,” the “witness of the

Spirit,” are all one thing. The childlike spirit, given by the

Holy Spirit, is the Holy Spirit’s witness or evidence in us.

See also illustration of faith and assurance, in C. S. Robinson’s

Short Studies for S. S. Teachers, 179, 180. Faith should be

distinguished not only from assurance, but also from feeling or

joy. Instance Abraham’s faith when he went to sacrifice Isaac; and

Madame Guyon’s faith, when God’s face seemed hid from her. See, on

the witness of the Spirit, Short, Bampton Lectures for 1846;

British and For. Evan. Rev., 1888:617‐631. For the view which

confounds faith with assurance, see Alexander, Discourses on

Faith, 63‐118.

It is important to distinguish saving faith from assurance of

faith, for the reason that lack of assurance is taken by so many

real Christians as evidence that they know nothing of the grace of

God. To use once more a well‐worn illustration: It is getting into

the boat that saves us, and not our comfortable feelings about the

boat. What saves us is faith in _Christ_, not faith in _our_

faith, or faith in _the_ faith. The astronomer does not turn his

telescope to the reflection of the sun or moon in the water, when

he can turn it to the sun or moon itself. Why obscure our faith,

when we can look to Christ?

The faith in a distant Redeemer was the faith of Christian, in

Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress. Only at the end of his journey does

Christian have Christ’s presence. This representation rests upon a

wrong conception of faith as laying hold of a promise or a

doctrine, rather than as laying hold of the living and present

Christ. The old Scotch woman’s direction to the inquirer to “grip

the promise” is not so good as the direction to “grip Christ.” Sir

Francis Drake, the great English sailor, had for his crest an

anchor with a cable running up into the sky. A poor boy, taught in

a mission school in Ireland, when asked what was meant by saving

faith, replied: “It is grasping God with the heart.”

The view of Charles Hodge, like that of Alexander, puts doctrine

before Christ, and makes the formal principle, the supremacy of

Scripture, superior to the material principle, justification by

faith. The Shorter Catechism is better: “Faith in Christ is a

saving grace, whereby we receive and rest _on him alone_ for

salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel.” If this relation

of faith to the personal Christ had been kept in mind, much

religious despondency might have been avoided. Murphy, Natural

Selection and Spiritual Freedom, 30, 31, tells us that Frances

Ridley Havergal could never fix the date of her conversion. From

the age of six to that of fourteen she suffered from religious

fears, and did not venture to call herself a Christian. It was the

result of confounding _being_ at peace with God and being

_conscious_ of that peace. So the mother of Frederick Denison

Maurice, an admirable and deeply religious woman, endured long and

deep mental suffering from doubts as to her personal election.

There is a witness of the Spirit, with some sinners, that they are

_not_ children of God, and this witness is through the truth,

though the sinner does not know that it is the Spirit who reveals

it to him. We call this work of the Spirit conviction of sin. The

witness of the Spirit that we are children of God, and the

assurance of faith of which Scripture speaks, are one and the same

thing, the former designation only emphasizing the source from

which the assurance springs. False assurance is destitute of

humility, but true assurance is so absorbed in Christ that self is

forgotten. Self‐consciousness, and desire to display one’s faith,

are not marks of true assurance. When we say: “That man has a

great deal of assurance,” we have in mind the false and self‐

centered assurance of the hypocrite or the self‐deceiver.

Allen, Jonathan Edwards, 231—“It has been said that any one who

can read Edwards’s Religious Affections, and still believe in his

own conversion, may well have the highest assurance of its

reality. But how few there were in Edwards’s time who gained the

assurance, may be inferred from the circumstance that Dr. Hopkins

and Dr. Emmons, disciples of Edwards and religious leaders in New

England, remained to the last uncertain of their conversion.” He

can attribute this only to the semi‐deistic spirit of the time,

with its distant God and imperfect apprehension of the

omnipresence and omnipotence of Christ. Nothing so clearly marks

the practical progress of Christianity as the growing faith in

Jesus, the only Revealer of God in nature and history as well as

in the heart of the believer. As never before, faith comes

directly to Christ, abides in him, and finds his promise true:

“_Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world_”

(_Mat. 28:20_). “Nothing before, nothing behind; The steps of

faith Fall on the seeming void and find The Rock beneath.”

(_d_) That faith necessarily leads to good works, since it embraces the

whole truth of God so far as made known, and appropriates Christ, not only

as an external Savior, but as an internal sanctifying power (Heb. 7:15,

16; Gal. 5:6).

Good works are the proper evidence of faith. The faith which does not lead

men to act upon the commands and promises of Christ, or, in other words,

does not lead to obedience, is called in Scripture a “dead,” that is, an

unreal, faith. Such faith is not saving, since it lacks the voluntary

element—actual appropriation of Christ (James 2:14‐26).

_Heb. 7:15, 16_—“_another priest, who hath been made, not after

the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless

life_”; _Gal. 5:6_—“_For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision

availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through

love_”; _James 2:14, 26_—“_What doth it profit, my brethren, if a

man say he hath faith, but have not works? Can that faith save

him?... For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so

faith apart from works is dead._”

The best evidence that I believe a man’s word is that I act upon

it. Instance the bank‐cashier’s assurance to me that a sum of

money is deposited with him to my account. If I am a millionaire,

the communication may cause me no special joy. My faith in the

cashier’s word is tested by my going, or not going, for the money.

So my faith in Christ is evidenced by my acting upon his commands

and promises. We may illustrate also by the lifting of the trolley

to the wire, and the resulting light and heat and motion to the

car that before stood dark and cold and motionless upon the track.

Salvation by works is like getting to one’s destination by pushing

the car. True faith depends upon God for energy, but it results in

activity of all our powers. _Rom. 3:28_—“_We reckon therefore that

a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law._” We

are saved only by faith, yet this faith will be sure to bring

forth good works; see _Gal. 5:6_—“_faith working through love._”

Dead faith might be illustrated by Abraham Lincoln’s Mississippi

steamboat, whose whistle was so big that, when it sounded, the

boat stopped. Confession exhausts the energy, so that none is left

for action.

A. J. Gordon, The First Thing in the World, or The Primacy of

Faith: “David Brainard speaks with a kind of suppressed

astonishment of what he observed among the degraded North American

Indians; how, preaching to them the good news of salvation through

the atonement of Christ and persuading them to accept it by faith,

and then hastening on in his rapid missionary tours, he found, on

returning upon his track a year or two later, that the fruits of

righteousness and sobriety and virtue and brotherly love were

everywhere visible, though it had been possible to impart to them

only the slightest moral or ethical teaching.”

(_e_) That faith, as characteristically the inward act of reception, is

not to be confounded with love or obedience, its fruit.

Faith is, in the Scriptures, called a work, only in the sense that man’s

active powers are engaged in it. It is a work which God requires, yet

which God enables man to perform (John 6:29—ἔργον τοῦ Θεοῦ. _Cf._ Rom.

1:17—δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ). As the gift of God and as the mere taking of

undeserved mercy, it is expressly excluded from the category of works upon

the basis of which man may claim salvation (Rom. 3:28; 4:4, 5, 16). It is

not the act of the full soul bestowing, but the act of an empty soul

receiving. Although this reception is prompted by a drawing of heart

toward God inwrought by the Holy Spirit, this drawing of heart is not yet

a conscious and developed love: such love is the result of faith (Gal.

5:6). What precedes faith is an unconscious and undeveloped tendency or

disposition toward God. Conscious and developed affection toward God, or

love proper, must always follow faith and be the product of faith. So,

too, obedience can be rendered only after faith has laid hold of Christ,

and with him has obtained the spirit of obedience (Rom. 1:5—ὑπακοὴν

πίστεως = “obedience resulting from faith”). Hence faith is not the

procuring cause of salvation, but is only the instrumental cause. The

procuring cause is the Christ, whom faith embraces.

_John 6:29_—“_This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom

he hath sent_”; _cf._ _Rom. 1:17_—“_For therein is revealed a

righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But

the righteous shall live by faith_”; _Rom. 3:28_—“_We reckon

therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of

the law_”; _4:4, 5, 16_—“_Now to him that worketh, the reward is

not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt. But to him that worketh

not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith

is reckoned for righteousness.... For this cause it is of faith,

that it may be according to grace_”; _Gal. 5:6_—“_For in Christ

Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision;

but faith working through love_”; _Rom. 1:5_—“_through whom we

received grace and apostleship, unto obedience of faith among all

the nations._”

Faith stands as an intermediate factor between the unconscious and

undeveloped tendency or disposition toward God inwrought in the

soul by God’s regenerating act, on the one hand, and the conscious

and developed affection toward God which is one of the fruits and

evidences of conversion, on the other. Illustrate by the motherly

instinct shown in a little girl’s care for her doll,—a motherly

instinct which becomes a developed mother’s love, only when a

child of her own is born. This new love of the Christian is an

activity of his own soul, and yet it is a “_fruit of the Spirit_”

(_Gal. 5:22_). To attribute it wholly to himself would be like

calling the walking and leaping of the lame man (_Acts 3:8_)

merely a healthy activity of his own. For illustration of the

priority of faith to love, see Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:533, note;

on the relation of faith to love, see Julius Müller, Doct. Sin,

1:116, 117.

The logical order is therefore: 1. Unconscious and undeveloped

love; 2. Faith in Christ and his truth; 3. Conscious and developed

love; 4. Assurance of faith. Faith and love act and react upon one

another. Each advance in the one leads to a corresponding advance

in the other. But the source of all is in God. God loves, and

therefore he gives love to us as well as receives love from us.

The unconscious and undeveloped love which he imparts in

regeneration is the root of all Christian faith. The Roman

Catholic is right in affirming the priority of love to faith, if

he means by love only this unconscious and undeveloped affection.

But the Protestant is also right in affirming the priority of

faith to love, if he means by love a conscious and developed

affection. Stevens, Johannine Theology, 368—“Faith is not a mere

passive receptivity. As the acceptance of a divine life, it

involves the possession of a new moral energy. Faith works by

love. In faith a new life‐force is received, and new life‐powers

stir within the Christian man.”

We must not confound repentance with fruits meet for repentance,

nor faith with fruits meet for faith. A. J. Gordon, The First

Thing in the World: “Love is the greatest thing in the world, but

faith is the first. The tree is greater than the root, but let it

not boast: ‘_if thou gloriest, it is not thou that bearest the

root, but the root thee_’ (_Rom. 11:18_). Love has no power to

branch out and bear fruit, except as, through faith, it is rooted

in Christ and draws nourishment from him. _1 Pet. 1:5_—‘_who by

the power of God are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready

to be revealed in the last time_’; _1 Cor. 13:13_—‘_now abideth

faith, hope, love_’; _Heb. 10:19‐25_—‘_draw near ... in fulness of

faith ... hold fast the confession of our hope ... provoke unto

love and good works_’; _Rom. 5:1‐5_—‘_justified by faith ...

rejoice in hope ... love of God hath been shed abroad in our

hearts_’; _1 Thess. 1:1, 2_—‘_work of faith and labor of love and

patience of hope._’ Faith is the actinic ray, hope the

luminiferous ray, love the calorific ray. But faith contains the

principle of the divine likeness, as the life of the parent given

to the child contains the principle of likeness to the father, and

will insure moral and physical resemblance in due time.”

A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 112—“ ‘_The love of the

Spirit_’ (_Rom. 15:30_) is the love of the Spirit of Christ, and

it is given us for overcoming the world. The divine life is the

source of the divine love. Therefore the love of God is ‘_shed

abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given unto us_’

(_Rom. 5:5_). Because we are by nature so wholly without heavenly

affection, God, through the indwelling Spirit, gives us his own

love with which to love himself.” A. H. Strong, Christ in

Creation, 286, 287, points out that in _2 Cor. 5:14_—“_the love of

Christ constraineth us_”—the love of Christ is “not our love to

Christ, for that is a very weak and uncertain thing; nor even

Christ’s love to us, for that is still something external to us.

Each of these leaves a separation between Christ and us, and fails

to act as a moving power within.... Not simply our love to Christ,

nor simply Christ’s love to us, but rather Christ’s love _in_ us,

is the love that constrains. This is the thought of the apostle.”

The first fruit of this love, in its still unconscious and

undeveloped state, is faith.

(_f_) That faith is susceptible of increase.

This is evident, whether we consider it from the human or from the divine

side. As an act of man, it has an intellectual, an emotional, and a

voluntary element, each of which is capable of growth. As a work of God in

the soul of man, it can receive, through the presentation of the truth and

the quickening agency of the Holy Spirit, continually new accessions of

knowledge, sensibility, and active energy. Such increase of faith,

therefore, we are to seek, both by resolute exercise of our own powers,

and above all, by direct application to the source of faith in God (Luke

17:5).

_Luke 17:5_—“_And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our

faith._” The adult Christian has more faith than he had when a

child,—evidently there has been increase. _1 Cor. 12:8, 9_—“_For

to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom ... to

another faith, in the same Spirit._” In this latter passage, it

seems to be intimated that for special exigencies the Holy Spirit

gives to his servants special faith, so that they are enabled to

lay hold of the general promise of God and make special

application of it. _Rom. 8:26, 27_—“_the Spirit also helpeth our

infirmity ... maketh intercession for us ... maketh intercession

for the saints according to the will of God_”; _1 John 5:14,

15_—“_And this is the boldness which we have toward him, that, if

we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us: and if we

know that he heareth us whatsoever we ask, we know that we have

the petitions which we have asked of him._” Only when we begin to

believe, do we appreciate our lack of faith, and the great need of

its increase. The little beginning of light makes known the

greatness of the surrounding darkness. _Mark 9:24_—“_I believe;

help thou mine unbelief_”—was the utterance of one who recognized

both the need of faith and the true source of supply.

On the general subject of Faith, see Köstlin, Die Lehre von dem

Glauben, 13‐85, 301‐341, and in Jahrbuch f. d. Theol., 4:177

_sq._; Romaine on Faith, 9‐89; Bishop of Ossory, Nature and

Effects of Faith, 1‐40; Venn, Characteristics of Belief,

Introduction; Nitzsch, System of Christ. Doct., 294.

IV. Justification.

1. Definition of Justification.

By justification we mean that judicial act of God by which, on account of

Christ, to whom the sinner is united by faith, he declares that sinner to

be no longer exposed to the penalty of the law, but to be restored to his

favor. Or, to give an alternative definition from which all metaphor is

excluded: Justification is the reversal of God’s attitude toward the

sinner, because of the sinner’s new relation to Christ. God did condemn;

he now acquits. He did repel; he now admits to favor.

Justification, as thus defined, is therefore a declarative act, as

distinguished from an efficient act; an act of God external to the sinner,

as distinguished from an act within the sinner’s nature and changing that

nature; a judicial act, as distinguished from a sovereign act; an act

based upon and logically presupposing the sinner’s union with Christ, as

distinguished from an act which causes and is followed by that union with

Christ.

The word “declarative” does not imply a “spoken” word on God’s

part,—much less that the sinner hears God speak. That

justification is sovereign, is held by Arminians, and by those who

advocate a governmental theory of the atonement. On any such

theory, justification must be sovereign; since Christ bore, not

the penalty of the law, but a substituted suffering which God

graciously and sovereignly accepts in place of our suffering and

obedience.

Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1100, wrote a tract for the

consolation of the dying, who were alarmed on account of sin. The

following is an extract from it: “_Question_. Dost thou believe

that the Lord Jesus died for thee? _Answer._ I believe it. _Qu._

Dost thou thank him for his passion and death? _Ans._ I do thank

him. _Qu._ Dost thou believe that thou canst not be saved except

by his death? _Ans._ I believe it.” And then Anselm addresses the

dying man: “Come then, while life remaineth in thee; in his death

alone place thy whole trust; in naught else place any trust; to

his death commit thyself wholly; with this alone cover thyself

wholly; and if the Lord thy God will to judge thee, say, ‘Lord,

between thy judgment and me I present the death of our Lord Jesus

Christ; no otherwise can I contend with thee.’ And if he shall say

that thou art a sinner, say thou: ‘Lord, I interpose the death of

our Lord Jesus Christ between my sins and thee.’ If he say that

thou hast deserved condemnation, say: ‘Lord, I set the death of

our Lord Jesus Christ between my evil deserts and thee, and his

merits I offer for those which I ought to have and have not.’ If

he say that he is wroth with thee, say: ‘Lord, I oppose the death

of our Lord Jesus Christ between thy wrath and me.’ And when thou

hast completed this, say again: ‘Lord, I set the death of our Lord

Jesus Christ between thee and me.’ ” See Anselm, Opera (Migne),

1:686, 687. The above quotation gives us reason to believe that

the New Testament doctrine of justification by faith was

implicitly, if not explicitly, held by many pious souls through

all the ages of papal darkness.

2. Proof of the Doctrine of Justification.

A. Scripture proofs of the doctrine as a whole are the following:

_Rom. 1:17_—“_a righteousness of God from faith unto faith_”;

_3:24‐30_—“_being justified freely by his grace through the

redemption that is in Christ Jesus ... the justifier of him that

hath faith in Jesus.... We reckon therefore that a man is

justified by faith apart from the works of the law ... justify the

circumcision by faith, and the uncircumsion through faith_”; _Gal.

3:11_—“_Now that no man is justified by the law before God, is

evident: for, The righteous shall live by faith; and the law is

not of faith; but, He that doeth them shall live in them_”; _Eph.

1:7_—“_in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the

forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his

grace_”; _Heb. 11:4, 7_—“_By faith Abel offered unto God a more

excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he had witness borne

to him that he was righteous.... By faith Noah ... moved with

godly fear, prepared an ark ... became heir of the righteousness

which is according to faith_”; _cf._ _Gen. 15:6_—“_And he believed

in Jehovah; and he reckoned it to him for righteousness_”; _Is.

7:9_—“_If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be

established_”; _28:16_—“_he that believeth shall not be in

haste_”; _Hab. 2:4_—“_the righteous shall live by his faith._”

_Ps. 85:8_—“_He will speak peace unto his people._” God’s great

word of pardon includes all else. Peace with him implies all the

covenant privileges resulting therefrom. _1 Cor. 3:21‐23_—“_all

things are yours,_” because “_ye are Christ’s; and Christ is

God’s_.” This is not salvation by law, nor by ideals, nor by

effort, nor by character; although obedience to law, and a loftier

ideal, and unremitting effort, and a pure character, are

consequences of justification. Justification is the change in

God’s attitude toward the sinner which makes all these

consequences possible. The only condition of justification is the

sinner’s faith in Jesus, which merges the life of the sinner in

the life of Christ. Paul expresses the truth in _Gal. 2:16,

20_—“_Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law

but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ

Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by

the works of the law ... I have been crucified with Christ; and it

is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me: and that life

which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is

in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me._”

With these observations and qualifications we may assent to much

that is said by Whiton, Divine Satisfaction, 64, who distinguishes

between forgiveness and remission: “Forgiveness is the righting of

disturbed personal relations. Remission is removal of the

consequences which in the natural order of things have resulted

from our fault. God forgives all that is strictly personal, but

remits nothing that is strictly natural in sin. He imparts to the

sinner the power to bear his burden and work off his debt of

consequences. Forgiveness is not remission. It is introductory to

remission, just as conversion is not salvation, but introductory

to salvation. The prodigal was received by his father, but he

could not recover his lost patrimony. He could, however, have been

led by penitence to work so hard that he earned more than he had

lost.

“Here is an element in justification which Protestantism has

ignored, and which Romanism has tried to retain. Debts must be

paid to the uttermost farthing. The scars of past sins must remain

forever. Forgiveness converts the persistent energy of past sin

from a destructive to a constructive power. There is a

transformation of energy into a new form. Genuine repentance spurs

us up to do what we can to make up for time lost and for wrong

done. The sinner is clothed anew with moral power. We are all to

be judged by our works. That Paul had been a blasphemer was ever

stimulating him to Christian endeavor. The faith which receives

Christ is a peculiar _spirit_, a certain moral activity of love

and obedience. It is not mere reliance on what Christ was and did,

but active endeavor to become and to do like him. Human justice

takes hold of _deeds_; divine righteousness deals with

_character_. Justification by faith is justification by spirit and

inward principle, apart from the merit of works or performances,

but never without these. God’s charity takes the will for the

deed. This is not justification by outward conduct, as the

Judaizers thought, but by the godly spirit.” If this new spirit be

the Spirit of Christ to whom faith has united the soul, we can

accept the statement. There is danger however of conceiving this

spirit as purely man’s own, and justification as not external to

the sinner nor as the work of God, but as the mere name for a

subjective process by which man justifies himself.

B. Scripture use of the special words translated “justify” and

“justification” in the Septuagint and in the New Testament.

(_a_) δικαιόω—uniformly, or with only a single exception, signifies, not

to make righteous, but to declare just, or free from guilt and exposure to

punishment. The only O. T. passage where this meaning is questionable is

Dan. 12:3. But even here the proper translation is, in all probability,

not “they that turn many to righteousness,” but “they that justify many,”

_i. e._, cause many to be justified. For the Hiphil force of the verb, see

Girdlestone, O. T. Syn., 257, 258, and Delitzsch on Is. 53:11; _cf._ James

5:19, 20.

O. T. texts: _Ex. 23:7_—“_I will not justify the wicked_”; _Deut.

25:1_—“_they_ [the judges] _shall justify the righteous, and

condemn the wicked_”; _Job 27:5_—“_Far be it from me that I should

justify you_”; _Ps. 143:2_—“_in thy sight no man living is

righteous_”; _Prov. 17:15_—“_He that justifieth the wicked, and he

that condemneth the righteous, Both of them alike are an

abomination to Jehovah_”; _Is. 5:23_—“_that justify the wicked for

a bribe, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from

him_”; _50:8_—“_He is near that justifieth me_”; _53:11_—“_by the

knowledge of __ himself shall my righteous servant justify many;

and he shall bear their iniquities_”; _Dan. 12:3_—“_and they that

turn many to righteousness, as the stars for ever and ever_”

(“they that justify many,” _i. e._, cause many to be justified);

_cf._ _James 5:19, 20_—“_My brethren, if any among you err from

the truth, and one convert him; let him know, that he who

converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul

from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins._”

The Christian minister absolves from sin, only as he marries a

couple: he does not join them,—he only declares them joined. So he

declares men forgiven, if they have complied with the appointed

divine conditions. Marriage may be invalid where these conditions

are lacking, but the minister’s absolution is of no account where

there is no repentance of sin and faith in Christ; see G. D.

Boardman, The Church, 178. We are ever to remember that the term

justification is a forensic term which presents the change of

God’s attitude toward the sinner in a pictorial way derived from

the procedure of earthly tribunals. The fact is larger and more

vital than the figure used to describe it.

McConnell, Evolution of Immortality, 134, 135—“Christ’s terms are

biological; those of many theologians are legal. It may be ages

before we recover from the misfortune of having had the truth of

Christ interpreted and fixed by jurists and logicians, instead of

by naturalists and men of science. It is much as though the

rationale of the circulation of the blood had been wrought out by

Sir Matthew Hale, or the germ theory of disease interpreted by

Blackstone, or the doctrine of evolution formulated by a

legislative council.... The Christ is intimately and vitally

concerned with the eternal life of men, but the question involved

is of their living or perishing, not of a system of judicial

rewards and penalties.” We must remember however that even biology

gives us only one side of the truth. The forensic conception of

justification furnishes its complement and has its rights also.

The Scriptures represent both sides of the truth. Paul gives us

the judicial aspect, John the vital aspect, of justification.

In Rom. 6:7—ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας = “he that once

died with Christ was acquitted from the service of sin considered as a

penality.” In 1 Cor. 4:4—οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐμαυτῷ σύνοιδα. ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐν τούτῳ

δεδικαίωμαι = “I am conscious of no fault, but that does not in itself

make certain God’s acquittal as respects this particular charge.” The

usage of the epistle of James does not contradict this; the doctrine of

James is that we are justified only by such faith as makes us faithful and

brings forth good works. “He uses the word exclusively in a judicial

sense; he combats a mistaken view of πίστις, not a mistaken view of

δικαιόω”; see James 2:21, 23, 24, and Cremer, N. T. Lexicon, Eng. trans.,

182, 183. The only N. T. passage where this meaning is questionable is

Rev. 22:11; but here Alford, with א, A and B, reads δικαιοσύνην ποιησάτω.

N. T. texts: _Mat. 12:37_—“_For by thy words thou shalt be

justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned_”; _Luke

7:29_—“_And all the people ... justified God, being baptized with

the baptism of John_”; _10:29_—“_But he, desiring to justify

himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor?_” _16:15_—“_Ye

are they that justify yourselves in the sight of men; but God

knoweth your hearts_”; _18:14_—“_This man went down to his house

justified rather than the other_”; _cf._ _13_ (lit.) “_God, be

thou propitiated toward me the sinner_”; _Rom. 4:6‐8_—“_Even as

David also pronounceth blessing upon the man, unto whom God

reckoneth righteousness apart from works, saying, Blessed are they

whose iniquities are forgiven, And whose sins are covered. Blessed

is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin_”; _cf._ _Ps.

32:1, 2_,—“_Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, Whose

sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom Jehovah imputeth not

iniquity, And in whose spirit there is no guile._”

_Rom. 5:18, 19_—“_So then as through one trespass the judgment

came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of

righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of

life. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made

sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many

be made righteous_”; _8:33, 34_—“_Who shall lay anything to the

charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth; who is he that

condemneth?_” _2 Cor. 5:19, 21_—“_God was in Christ reconciling

the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their

trespasses.... Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our

behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God_ [God’s

justified persons] _in him_”; _Rom. 6:7_—“_he that hath died is

justified from sin_”; _1 Cor. 4:4_—“_For I know nothing against

myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is

the Lord_” (on this last text, see Expositor’s Greek Testament,

_in loco_).

_James 2:21, 23, 24_—“_Was not Abraham our father justified by

works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?...

Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for

righteousness.... Ye see that by works __ a man is justified, and

not only by faith._” James is denouncing a dead faith, while Paul

is speaking of the necessity of a living faith; or, rather, James

is describing the nature of faith, while Paul is describing the

instrument of justification. “They are like two men beset by a

couple of robbers. Back to back each strikes out against the

robber opposite him,—each having a different enemy in his eye”

(Wm. M. Taylor). Neander on _James 2:14‐26_—“James is denouncing

mere adhesion to an external law, trust in intellectual possession

of it. With him, law means an inward principle of life. Paul,

contrasting law as he does with faith, commonly means by law mere

external divine requisition.... James does not deny salvation to

him who _has_ faith, but only to him who falsely _professes_ to

have. When he says that ‘_by works a man is justified_,’ he takes

into account the outward manifestation only, speaks from the point

of view of human consciousness. In works only does faith show

itself as genuine and complete.” _Rev. 22:11_—“_he that is

righteous, let him do righteousness still_”—not, as the A. V.

seemed to imply, “he that is just, let him be justified still”—_i.

e._, made subjectively holy.

Christ is the great Physician. The physician says: “If you wish to

be cured, you must trust me.” The patient replies: “I do trust you

fully.” But the physician continues: “If you wish to be cured, you

must take my medicines and do as I direct.” The patient objects:

“But I thought I was to be cured by trust in you. Why lay such

stress on what I do?” The physician answers: “You must show your

trust in me by your action. Trust in me, without action in proof

of trust, amounts to nothing” (S. S. Times). Doing without a

physician is death; hence Paul says works cannot save. Trust in

the physician implies obedience; hence James says faith without

works is dead. Crane, Religion of To‐morrow, 152‐155—“Paul insists

on apple‐tree righteousness, and warns us against Christmas‐tree

righteousness.” Sagebeer, The Bible in Court, 77,78—“By works,

Paul means works of law; James means by works, works of faith.”

Hovey, in The Watchman, Aug. 27, 1891—“A difference of emphasis,

occasioned chiefly by the different religious perils to which

readers were at the time exposed.”

(_b_) δικαίωσις—is the act, in process, of declaring a man just,—that is,

acquitted from guilt and restored to the divine favor (Rom. 4:25; 5:18).

_Rom. 4:25_—“_who was delivered up for our trespasses, and was

raised for our justification_”; _5:18_—“_unto all men to

justification of life._” Griffith‐Jones, Ascent through Christ,

367, 368—“Raised for our justification” = Christ’s death made our

justification possible, but it did not consummate it. Through his

rising from the dead he was able to come into that relationship to

the believer which restores the lost or interrupted sonship. In

the church the fact of the resurrection is perpetuated, and the

idea of the resurrection is realized.

(_c_) δικαίωμα—is the act, as already accomplished, of declaring a man

just,—that is, no longer exposed to penalty, but restored to God’s favor

(Rom. 5:16, 18; _cf._ 1 Tim. 3:16). Hence, in other connections, δικαίωμα

has the meaning of statute, legal decision, act of justice (Luke 1:6; Rom.

2:26; Heb. 9:1).

_Rom. 5:16, 18_—“_of many trespasses unto justification ...

through one act of righteousness_”; _cf._ _1 Tim.

3:16_—“_justified in the spirit._” The distinction between

δικαίωσις and δικαίωμα may be illustrated by the distinction

between poesy and poem,—the former denoting something in process,

an ever‐working spirit; the latter denoting something fully

accomplished, a completed work. Hence δικαίωμα is used in _Luke

1:6_—“_ordinances of the Lord_”; _Rom. 2:26_—“_ordinances of the

law_”; _Heb. 9:1_—“_ordinances of divine service._”

(_d_) δικαιοσύνη—is the state of one justified, or declared just (Rom.

8:10; 1 Cor. 1:30). In Rom. 10:3, Paul inveighs against τὴν ἰδίαν

δικαιοσύνην as insufficient and false, and in its place would put τὴν τοῦ

Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην,—that is, a δικαιοσύνη which God not only requires, but

provides; which is not only acceptable to God, but proceeds from God, and

is appropriated by faith,—hence called δικαιοσύνη πίστεως or ἐκ πίστεως.

“The primary signification of the word, in Paul’s writings, is therefore

that state of the believer which is called forth by God’s act of

acquittal,—the state of the believer as justified,” that is, freed from

punishment and restored to the divine favor.

_Rom. 8:10_—“_the spirit is life because of righteousness_”; _1

Cor. 1:30_—“_Christ Jesus, who was made unto us ...

righteousness_”; _Rom. 10:3_—“_being ignorant of God’s

righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not

subject themselves to the righteousness of God._” Shedd, Dogm.

Theol., 2:542—“The ‘_righteousness of God_’ is the active and

passive obedience of incarnate God.” See, on δικαιοσύνη, Cremer,

N. T. Lexicon, Eng. trans., 174; Meyer on Romans, trans.,

68‐70—“δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ (gen. of origin, emanation from) =

rightness which proceeds from God—the relation of being right into

which man is put by God (by an act of God declaring him

righteous).”

E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 304—“When Paul addressed those

who trusted in their own righteousness, he presented salvation as

attainable only through faith in another; when he addressed

Gentiles who were conscious of their need of a helper, the

forensic imagery is not employed. Scarce a trace of it appears in

his discourses as recorded in the Acts, and it is noticeably

absent from all the epistles except the Romans and the Galatians.”

Since this state of acquittal is accompanied by changes in the character

and conduct, δικαιοσύνη comes to mean, secondarily, the moral condition of

the believer as resulting from this acquittal and inseparably connected

with it (Rom. 14:17; 2 Cor. 5:21). This righteousness arising from

justification becomes a principle of action (Mat. 3:15; Acts 10:35; Rom.

6:13, 18). The term, however, never loses its implication of a justifying

act upon which this principle of action is based.

_Rom. 14:17_—“_the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but

righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit_”; _2 Cor.

5:21_—“_that we might become the righteousness of God in him_”;

_Mat. 3:15_—“_Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all

righteousness_”; _Acts 10:35_—“_in every nation he that feareth

him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him_”; _Rom.

6:13_—“_present yourselves unto God, as alive from the dead, and

your members as instruments of righteousness unto God._” Meyer on

_Rom. 3:23_—“Every mode of conception which refers redemption and

the forgiveness of sins, not to a real atonement through the death

of Christ, but subjectively to the dying and reviving with him

guaranteed and produced by that death (Schleiermacher, Nitzsch,

Hofmann), is opposed to the N. T.,—a mixing up of justification

and sanctification.”

On these Scripture terms, see Bp. of Ossory, Nature and Effects of

Faith, 436‐496; Lange, Com., on _Romans 3:24_; Buchanan on

Justification, 226‐249. _Versus_ Moehler, Symbolism, 102—“The

forgiveness of sins ... is undoubtedly a remission of the guilt

and the punishment which Christ hath taken and borne upon himself;

but it is _likewise_ the transfusion of his Spirit into us”;

Newman, Lectures on Justification, 68‐143; Knox, Remains; N. W.

Taylor, Revealed Theology, 310‐372.

It is a great mistake in method to derive the meaning of δίκαιος

from that of δικαιοσύνη, and not _vice versa_. Wm. Arnold Stevens,

in Am. Jour. Theology, April, 1897—“δικαιοσύνη, righteousness, in

all its meanings, whether ethical or forensic, has back of it the

idea of _law_; also the idea of _violated_ law; it derives its

forensic sense from the verb δικαιόω and its cognate noun

δικαίωσις; δικαιοσύνη therefore is legal acceptableness, _the

status before the law of a pardoned sinner_.”

Denney, in Expos. Gk. Test., 2:565—“In truth, ‘sin,’ ‘the law,’

‘the curse of the law,’ ‘death,’ are names for something which

belongs not to the Jewish but to the human conscience; and it is

only because this is so that the gospel of Paul is also a gospel

for us. Before Christ came and redeemed the world, all men were at

bottom on the same footing: Pharisaism, legalism, moralism, or

whatever it is called, is in the last resort the attempt to be

good without God, to achieve a righteousness of our own, without

an initial all‐inclusive immeasurable debt to him; in other words,

without submitting, as sinful men must submit, to be justified by

faith apart from works of our own, and to find in that

justification, and in that only, the spring and impulse of all

good.”

It is worthy of special observation that, in the passages cited above, the

terms “justify” and “justification” are contrasted, not with the process

of depraving or corrupting, but with the outward act of condemning; and

that the expressions used to explain and illustrate them are all derived,

not from the inward operation of purifying the soul or infusing into it

righteousness, but from the procedure of courts in their judgments, or of

offended persons in their forgiveness of offenders. We conclude that these

terms, wherever they have reference to the sinner’s relation to God,

signify a declarative and judicial act of God, external to the sinner, and

not an efficient and sovereign act of God changing the sinner’s nature and

making him subjectively righteous.

In the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, session 6,

chap. 9 is devoted to the refutation of the “inanis hæreticorum

fiducia”; and Canon 12 of the session anathematizes those who say:

“fidem justificantem nihil aliud esse quam fiduciam divinæ

misericordiæ, peccata remittentis propter Christum”; or that

“justifying faith is nothing but trust in the divine mercy which

pardons sins for Christ’s sake.” The Roman Catholic doctrine on

the contrary maintains that the ground of justification is not

simply the faith by which the sinner appropriates Christ and his

atoning work, but is also the new love and good works wrought

within him by Christ’s Spirit. This introduces a subjective

element which is foreign to the Scripture doctrine of

justification.

Dr. E. G. Robinson taught that justification consists of three

elements: 1. Acquittal; 2. Restoration to favor; 3. Infusion of

righteousness. In this he accepted a fundamental error of

Romanism. He says: “Justification and sanctification are not to be

distinguished as chronologically and statically different.

Justification and righteousness are the same thing from different

points of view. Pardon is not a mere declaration of forgiveness—a

merely arbitrary thing. Salvation introduces a new law into our

sinful nature which annuls the law of sin and destroys its penal

and destructive consequences. Forgiveness of sins must be in

itself a gradual process. The final consequences of a man’s sins

are written indelibly upon his nature and remain forever. When

Christ said: ‘Thy sins are forgiven thee’, it was an objective

statement of a subjective fact. The person was already in a state

of living relation to Christ. The gospel is damnation to the

damnable, and invitation, love and mercy to those who feel their

need of it. We are saved through the enforcement of law on every

one of us. Forgiveness consists in the removal from consciousness

of a sense of ill‐desert. Justification, aside from its forensic

use, is a transformation and a promotion. Sense of forgiveness is

a sense of relief from a hated habit of mind.” This seems to us

dangerously near to a denial that justification is an act of God,

and to an affirmation that it is simply a subjective change in

man’s condition.

E. H. Johnson: “If Dr. Robinson had been content to say that the

divine fiat of justification had the manward effect of

regeneration, he would have been correct; for the verdict would be

empty without this manward efficacy. But unfortunately, he made

the effect a part of the cause, identifying the divine

justification with its human fruition, the clearance of the past

with the provision for the future.” We must grant that the words

_inward_ and _outward_ are misleading, for God is not under the

law of space, and the soul itself is not in space. Justification

takes place just as much in man as outside of him. Justification

and regeneration take place at the same moment, but logically

God’s act of renewing is the cause and God’s act of approving is

the effect. Or we may say that regeneration and justification are

both of them effects of our union with Christ. _Luke 1:37_—“_For

no word from God shall be void of power._” Regeneration and

justification may be different aspects of God’s turning—his

turning us, and his turning himself. But it still is true that

justification is a change in God and not in the creature.

3. Elements of Justification.

These are two:

A. Remission of punishment.

(_a_) God acquits the ungodly who believe in Christ, and declares them

just. This is not to declare them innocent,—that would be a judgment

contrary to truth. It declares that the demands of the law have been

satisfied with regard to them, and that they are now free from its

condemnation.

_Rom. 4:5_—“_But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him

that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for

righteousness_”; _cf._ _John 3:16_—“_gave his only begotten Son,

that whosoever believeth on him should not perish_”; see page 856,

(_a_), and Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:549. _Rom. 5:1_—“_Being

therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God_”—not

subjective peace or quietness of mind, but objective peace or

reconciliation, the opposite of the state of war, in which we are

subject to the divine wrath. Dale, Ephesians, 67—“Forgiveness may

be defined: 1. in _personal_ terms, as a cessation of the anger or

moral resentment of God against sin; 2. in _ethical_ terms, as a

release from the guilt of sin which oppresses the conscience; 3.

in _legal_ terms, as a remission of the punishment of sin, which

is eternal death.”

(_b_) This acquittal, in so far as it is the act of God as judge or

executive, administering law, may be denominated pardon. In so far as it

is the act of God as a father personally injured and grieved by sin, yet

showing grace to the sinner, it is denominated forgiveness.

_Micah 7:18_—“_Who is a God like into thee, that pardoneth

iniquity, and passeth over the transgression of the remnant of his

heritage?_” _Ps. 130:4_—“_But there is forgiveness with thee, That

thou mayst be feared._” It is hard for us to understand God’s

feeling toward sin. Forgiveness seems easy to us, largely because

we are indifferent toward sin. But to the holy One, to whom sin is

the abominable thing which he hates, forgiveness involves a

fundamental change of relation, and nothing but Christ’s taking

the penalty of sin upon him can make it possible. B. Fay Mills: “A

tender spirited follower of Jesus Christ said to me, not long ago,

that it had taken him twelve years to forgive an injury that had

been committed against him.” How much harder for God to forgive,

since he can never become indifferent to the nature of the

transgression!

(_c_) In an earthly tribunal, there is no acquittal for those who are

proved to be transgressors,—for such there is only conviction and

punishment. But in God’s government there is remission of punishment for

believers, even though they are confessedly offenders; and, in

justification, God declares this remission.

There is no forgiveness in nature. F. W. Robertson preached this.

But he ignored the _vis medicatrix_ of the gospel, in which

forgiveness is offered to all. The natural conscience says: “I

must pay my debt.” But the believer finds that “Jesus paid it

all.” Illustrate by the poor man, who on coming to pay his

mortgage finds that the owner at death had ordered it to be

burned, so that now there is nothing to pay. _Ps. 34:22_—“_Jehovah

redeemeth the soul of his servants, And none of them that take

refuge in him shall be condemned._”

A child disobeys his father and breaks his arm. His sin involves

two penalties, the alienation from his father and the broken arm.

The father, on repentance, may forgive his child. The personal

relation is re‐established, but the broken bone is not therefore

at once reknit. The father’s forgiveness, however, will assure the

father’s help toward complete healing. So justification does not

ensure the immediate removal of all the natural consequences of

our sins. It does ensure present reconciliation and future

perfection. Clarke, Christian Theology, 364—“Justification is not

equivalent to acquittal, for acquittal declares that the man has

not done wrong. Justification is rather the acceptance of a man,

on sufficient grounds, although he has done wrong.” As the

Plymouth Brethren say: “It is not the _sin_‐question, but the

_Son_‐question.” “_Their sins and their iniquities will I remember

no more_” (_Heb. 10:17_). The father did not allow the prodigal to

complete the confession he had prepared to make, but interrupted

him, and dwelt only upon his return home (_Luke 15:22_).

(_d_) The declaration that the sinner is no longer exposed to the penalty

of law, has its ground, not in any satisfaction of the law’s demand on the

part of the sinner himself, but solely in the bearing of the penalty by

Christ, to whom the sinner is united by faith. Justification, in its first

element, is therefore that act by which God, for the sake of Christ,

acquits the transgressor and suffers him to go free.

_Acts 13:38, 39_—“_Be it known unto you therefore, brethren, that

through this man is proclaimed unto you remission of sins: and by

him_ [lit.: ‘in him’] _every one that believeth is justified from

all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of

Moses_”; _Rom. 3:24, 26_—“_being justified freely by his grace

through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus ... that he might

himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in

Jesus_”; _1 Cor. 6:11_—“_but ye were justified in the name of the

Lord Jesus_”; _Eph. 1:7_—“_in whom we have our redemption through

his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the

riches of his grace._”

This acquittal is not to be conceived of as the sovereign act of a

Governor, but rather as a judicial procedure. Christ secures a new

trial for those already condemned—a trial in which he appears for

the guilty, and sets over against their sin his own righteousness,

or rather shows them to be righteous in him. C. H. M.: “When Balak

seeks to curse the seed of Abraham, it is said of Jehovah: ‘_He

hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, Neither hath he seen

perverseness in Israel_’ (_Num. 23:21_). When Satan stands forth

to rebuke Joshua, the word is: ‘_Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan ...

is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?_’ (_Zech. 3:2_). Thus

he ever puts himself between his people and every tongue that

would accuse them. ‘_Touch not mine anointed ones_,’ he says,

‘_and do my prophets no harm_’ (_Ps. 105:15_). ‘_It is God that

justifieth; who is he that condemneth?_’ (_Rom. 8:33, 34_).” It is

not sin, then, that condemns,—it is the failure to ask pardon for

sin, through Christ. Illustrate by the ring presented by Queen

Elizabeth to the Earl of Essex. Queen Elizabeth did not forgive

the penitent Countess of Nottingham for withholding the ring of

Essex which would have purchased his pardon. She shook the dying

woman and cursed her, even while she was imploring forgiveness.

There is no such failure of mercy in God’s administration.

Kaftan, in Am. Jour. Theology, 4:698—“The peculiar characteristic

of Christian experience is the forgiveness of sins, or

reconciliation—a forgiveness which is conceived as an unmerited

gift of God, which is bestowed on man independently of his own

moral worthiness. Other religions have some measure of revelation,

but Christianity alone has the clear revelation of this

forgiveness, and this is accepted by faith. And forgiveness leads

to a better ethics than any religion of works can show.”

B. Restoration to favor.

(_a_) Justification is more than remission or acquittal. These would leave

the sinner simply in the position of a discharged criminal,—law requires a

positive righteousness also. Besides deliverance from punishment,

justification implies God’s treatment of the sinner as if he were, and had

been, personally righteous. The justified person receives not only

remission of penalty, but the rewards promised to obedience.

_Luke 15:22‐24_—“_Bring forth quickly the best robe, and put it on

him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: and bring

the fatted calf, and kill it, and let us eat, and make merry: for

this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is

found_”; _John 3:16_—“_gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever

believeth on him should ... have eternal life_”; _Rom. 5:1,

2_—“_Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God

through our Lord Jesus Christ; through whom also we have had our

access by faith into this grace wherein we stand; and we rejoice

in hope of the glory of God_”—“_this grace_” being a permanent

state of divine favor; _1 Cor. 1:30_—“_But of him are ye in Christ

Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and

sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written,

He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord_”; _2 Cor.

5:21_—“_that we might become the righteousness of God in him._”

_Gal. 3:6_—“_Even as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned

unto him for righteousness_”; _Eph. 2:7_—“_the exceeding riches of

his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus_”; _3:12_—“_in

whom we have boldness and access in confidence through our faith

in him_”; _Phil. 3:8, 9_—“_I count all things to be loss for the

excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord ... the

righteousness which is from God by faith_”; _Col.

1:22_—“_reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to

present you holy and without blemish and unreprovable before

him_”; _Tit. 3:4, 7_—“_the kindness of God our Savior ... that,

being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to

the hope of eternal life_”; _Rev. 19:8_—“_And it was given unto

her that she should array herself in fine linen, bright and pure:

for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints._”

Justification is setting one right before law. But law requires

not merely freedom from offence negatively, but all manner of

obedience and likeness to God positively. Since justification is

in Christ and by virtue of the believer’s union with Christ, it

puts the believer on the same footing before the law that Christ

is on, namely, not only acquittal but favor. _1 Tim. 3:16_—Christ

was himself “_justified in the spirit_,” and the believer partakes

of _his_ justification and of the whole of it, _i. e._, not only

acquittal but favor. _Acts 13:39_—“_in him every one that

believeth is justified_” _i. e._, in Christ; _1 Cor.

6:11_—“_justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ_”; _Gal.

4:5_—“_that we might receive the adoption of sons_”—a part of

justification; _Rom. 5:11_—“_through whom we have now received the

reconciliation_”—in justification; _2 Cor. 5:21_—“_that we might

become the righteousness of God in him_”; _Phil. 3:9_—“_the

righteousness which is from God by faith_”; _John 1:12_—“_to them

gave he the right to become children of God_”—emphasis on

“_gave_”—intimation that the “_becoming children_” is not

subsequent to the justification, but is a part of it.

Ellicott on _Tit. 3:7_—“δικαιοθέντες, ‘_justified_,’ in the usual

and more strict theological sense; not however as implying only a

mere outward non‐imputation of sin, but as involving a ‘mutationem

status,’ an acceptance into new privileges, and an enjoyment of

the benefits thereof (Waterland, Justif, vol. vi, p. 5); in the

words of the same writer: ‘Justification cannot be conceived

without some work of the Spirit in conferring a title to

salvation.’ ” The prisoner who has simply served out his term

escapes without further punishment and that is all. But the

pardoned man receives back in his pardon the full rights of

citizenship, can again vote, serve on juries, testify in court,

and exercise all his individual liberties, as the discharged

convict cannot. The Society of Friends is so called, not because

they are friends to one another, but because they regard

themselves as friends of God. So, in the Middle Ages, Master

Eckart, John Tauler, Henry Suso, called themselves the friends of

God, after the pattern of Abraham; _2 Chron. 20:7_—“_Abraham thy

friend_”; _James 2:23_—“_Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned

unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God_”,

_i. e._, one not merely acquitted from the charge of sin, but also

admitted into favor and intimacy with God.

(_b_) This restoration to favor, viewed in its aspect as the renewal of a

broken friendship, is denominated reconciliation; viewed in its aspect as

a renewal of the soul’s true relation to God as a father, it is

denominated adoption.

_John 1:12_—“_But as many as received him, to them gave he the

right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his

name_”; _Rom. 5:11_—“_and not only so, but we also rejoice in God

through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received

the reconciliation_”; _Gal. 4:4, 5_—“_born under the law, that he

might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive

the adoption of sons_”; _Eph. 1:5_—“_having foreordained us unto

adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself_”; _cf._ _Rom.

8:23_—“_even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for our

adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body_”—that is, this

adoption is completed, so far as the body is concerned, at the

resurrection.

Luther called _Psalms 32, 51, 130, 143_, “the Pauline Psalms,”

because these declare forgiveness to be granted to the believer

without law and without works. _Ps. 130:3, 4_—“_If thou, Jehovah,

shouldst mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? But there is

forgiveness with thee, That thou mayest be feared_” is followed by

_verses 7, 8_—“_O Israel, hope in Jehovah; For with Jehovah there

is lovingkindness, And with him is plenteous redemption. And he

will redeem Israel From all his iniquities._” Whitefield was

rebuked for declaring in a discourse that Christ would receive

even the devil’s castaways; but that very day, while at dinner at

Lady Huntington’s, he was called out to meet two women who were

sinners, and to whose broken hearts and blasted lives that remark

gave hope and healing.

(_c_) In an earthly pardon there are no special helps bestowed upon the

pardoned. There are no penalties, but there are also no rewards; law

cannot claim anything of the discharged, but then they also can claim

nothing of the law. But what, though greatly needed, is left unprovided by

human government, God does provide. In justification, there is not only

acquittal, but approval; not only pardon, but promotion. Remission is

never separated from restoration.

After serving a term in the penitentiary, the convict goes out

with a stigma upon him and with no friends. His past conviction

and disgrace follow him. He cannot obtain employment. He cannot

vote. Want often leads him to commit crime again; and then the old

conviction is brought up as proof of bad character, and increases

his punishment. Need of Friendly Inns and Refuges for discharged

criminals. But the justified sinner is differently treated. He is

not only delivered from God’s wrath and eternal death, but he is

admitted to God’s favor and eternal life. The discovery of this is

partly the cause of the convert’s joy. Expecting pardon, at most,

he is met with unmeasured favor. The prodigal finds the father’s

house and heart open to him, and more done for him than if he had

never wandered. This overwhelms and subdues him. The two elements,

acquittal and restoration to favor, are never separated. Like the

expulsion of darkness and restoration of light, they always go

together. No one can have, even if he would have, an incomplete

justification. Christ’s justification is ours; and, as Jesus’ own

seamless tunic could not be divided, so the robe of righteousness

which he provides cannot be cut in two.

Failure to apprehend this positive aspect of justification as

restoration to favor is the reason why so many Christians have

little joy and little enthusiasm in their religious lives. The

preaching of the magnanimity and generosity of God makes the

gospel “_the power of God unto salvation_” (_Rom. 1:16_). Edwin M.

Stanton had ridden roughshod over Abraham Lincoln in the conduct

of a case at law in which they had been joint counsel. Stanton had

become vindictive and even violent when Lincoln was made

President. But Lincoln invited Stanton to be Secretary of War, and

he sent the invitation by Harding, who knew of all this former

trouble. When Stanton heard it, he said with streaming eyes: “Do

you tell me, Harding, that Mr. Lincoln sent this message to me?

Tell him that such magnanimity will make me work with him as man

was never served before!”

(_d_) The declaration that the sinner is restored to God’s favor, has its

ground, not in the sinner’s personal character or conduct, but solely in

the obedience and righteousness of Christ, to whom the sinner is united by

faith. Thus Christ’s work is the procuring cause of our justification, in

both its elements. As we are acquitted on account of Christ’s suffering of

the penalty of the law, so on account of Christ’s obedience we receive the

rewards of law.

All this comes to us in Christ. We participate in the rewards

promised to his obedience: _John 20:31_—“_that believing ye may

have life in his name_”; _1 Cor. 3:21‐23_—“_For all things are

yours; ... all are yours; and ye are Christ’s; and Christ is

God’s._” Denovan, Toronto Baptist, Dec. 1883, maintains that

“grace operates in two ways: (1) for the _rebel_ it provides a

scheme of _justification_,—this is judicial, matter of debt; (2)

for the _child_ it provides pardon,—fatherly forgiveness on

repentance.” _Heb. 7:19_—“_the law made nothing perfect ... a

bringing in thereupon of a better hope, through which we draw nigh

unto God._” This “_better hope_” is offered to us in Christ’s

death and resurrection. The veil of the temple was the symbol of

separation from God. The rending of that veil was the symbol on

the one hand that sin had been atoned for, and on the other hand

that unrestricted access to God was now permitted us in Christ the

great forerunner. Bonar’s hymn, “Jesus, whom angel hosts adore,”

has for its concluding stanza: “’T is finished all: the veil is

rent. The welcome sure, the access free:—Now then, we leave our

banishment, O Father, to return to thee!” See pages 749 (_b_), 770

(_h_).

James Russell Lowell: “At the devil’s booth all things are sold.

Each ounce of dross costs its ounce of gold; For a cap and bells

our lives we pay: Bubbles we buy with a whole soul’s tasking; ’T

is heaven alone that is given away, ’T is only God may be had for

the asking.” John G. Whittier: “The hour draws near, howe’er

delayed and late, When at the Eternal Gate, We leave the words and

works we call our own, And lift void hands alone For love to fill.

Our nakedness of soul Brings to that gate no toll; Giftless we

come to him who all things gives, And live because he lives.”

H. B. Smith, System of Christian Doctrine, 523, 524—“Justification

and pardon are not the same in Scripture. We object to the view of

Emmons (Works, vol. 5), that ‘justification is no more nor less

than pardon,’ and that ‘God rewards men for their own, and not

Christ’s, obedience,’ for the reason that the words, as used in

common life, relate to wholly different things. If a man is

declared just by a human tribunal, he is not pardoned, he is

acquitted; his own inherent righteousness, as respects the charge

against him, is recognized and declared. The gospel proclaims both

pardon and justification. There is no significance in the use of

the word ‘justify,’ if pardon be all that is intended....

“Justification involves what pardon does not, a righteousness

which is the ground of the acquittal and favor; not the mere favor

of the sovereign, but the merit of Christ, is at the basis—the

righteousness which is of God. The ends of the law are so far

satisfied by what Christ has done, that the sinner can be

pardoned. The law is not merely set aside, but its great ends are

answered by what Christ has done in our behalf. God might pardon

as a sovereign, from mere benevolence (as regard to happiness);

but in the gospel he does more,—he pardons in consistency with his

holiness,—upholding that as the main end of all his dealings and

works. Justification involves acquittal from all the penalty of

the law, and the inheritance of all the blessings of the redeemed

state. The penalty of the law—spiritual, temporal, eternal

death—is all taken away; and the opposite blessings are conferred,

in and through Christ—the resurrection to blessedness, the gift of

the Spirit, and eternal life....

“If justification is forgiveness simply, it applies only to the

_past_. If it is also a title to life, it includes the future

condition of the soul. The latter alone is consistent with the

plan and decrees of God respecting redemption—his seeing the end

from the beginning. The reason why justification has been taken as

pardon is two‐fold: first, it _does_ involve pardon,—this is its

negative side, while it has a positive side also—the title to

eternal life; secondly, the tendency to resolve the gospel into an

ethical system. Only our acts of choice as meritorious could

procure a title to favor, a positive reward. Christ might remove

the obstacle, but the title to heaven is derived only from what we

ourselves do.

“Justification is, therefore, not a merely governmental provision,

as it must be on any scheme that denies that Christ’s work has

direct respect to the ends of the law. Views of the atonement

determine the views on justification, if logical sequence is

observed. We have to do here, not with views of natural justice,

but with divine methods. If we regard the atonement simply as

answering the ends of a governmental scheme, our view must be that

justification merely removes an obstacle, and the end of it is

only pardon, and not eternal life.”

But upon the true view, that the atonement is a complete

satisfaction to the holiness of God, justification embraces not

merely pardon, or acquittal from the punishments of law, but also

restoration to favor, or the rewards promised to actual obedience.

See also Quenstedt, 3:524; Philippi, Active Obedience of Christ;

Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:432, 433.

4. Relation of Justification to God’s Law and Holiness.

A. Justification has been shown to be a forensic term. A man may, indeed,

be conceived of as just, in either of two senses: (_a_) as just in moral

character,—that is, absolutely holy in nature, disposition, and conduct;

(_b_) as just in relation to law,—or as free from all obligation to suffer

penalty, and as entitled to the rewards of obedience.

So, too, a man may be conceived of as justified, in either of two senses:

(_a_) made just in moral character; or, (_b_) made just in his relation to

law. But the Scriptures declare that there does not exist on earth a just

man, in the first of these senses (Eccl. 7:20). Even in those who are

renewed in moral character and united to Christ, there is a remnant of

moral depravity.

If, therefore, there be any such thing as a just man, he must be just, not

in the sense of possessing an unspotted holiness, but in the sense of

being delivered from the penalty of law, and made partaker of its rewards.

If there be any such thing as justification, it must be, not an act of God

which renders the sinner absolutely holy, but an act of God which declares

the sinner to be free from legal penalties and entitled to legal rewards.

_Justus_ is derived from _jus_, and suggests the idea of courts

and legal procedures. The fact that “justify” is derived from

_justus_ and _facio_, and might therefore seem to imply the making

of a man subjectively righteous, should not blind us to its

forensic use. The phrases “_sanctify the Holy One of Jacob_” (_Is.

29:23_; _cf._ _1 Pet. 3:15_—“_sanctify in your hearts Christ as

Lord_”) and “_glorify God_” (_1 Cor. 6:20_) do not mean, to _make_

God subjectively holy or glorious, for this he _is_, whatever we

may do; they mean rather, to _declare_, or _show_, him to be holy

or glorious. So justification is not making a man righteous, or

even pronouncing him righteous, for no man _is_ subjectively

righteous. It is rather to count him righteous so far as respects

his relations to law, to treat him as righteous, or to declare

that God will, for reasons assigned, so treat him (Payne). So long

as any remnant of sin exists, no justification, in the sense of

making holy, can be attributed to man: _Eccl. 7:20_—“_Surely there

is not a righteous man upon earth, that doeth good and sinneth

not._” If no man is just, in this sense, then God cannot pronounce

him just, for God cannot lie. Justification, therefore, must

signify a deliverance from legal penalties, and an assignment of

legal rewards. O. P. Gifford: There is no such thing as “salvation

_by_ character”; what men need is salvation _from_ character. The

only sense in which salvation by character is rational or

Scriptural is that suggested by George Harris, Moral Evolution,

409—“Salvation by character is not self‐righteousness, but Christ

in us.” But even here it must be remembered that Christ _in_ us

presupposes Christ _for_ us. The objective atonement for sin must

come before the subjective purification of our natures. And

justification is upon the ground of that objective atonement, and

not upon the ground of the subjective cleansing.

The Jews had a proverb that if only one man could perfectly keep

the whole law even for one day, the kingdom of Messiah would at

once come upon the earth. This is to state in another form the

doctrine of Paul, in _Rom. 7:9_—“_When the commandment came, sin

revived, and I died._” To recognize the impossibility of being

justified by Pharisaic works was a preparation for the gospel; see

Bruce, Apologetics, 419. The Germans speak of Werk‐, Lehre‐,

Buchstaben‐, Negations‐, Parteigerechtigkeit; but all these are

forms of self‐righteousness. Berridge: “A man may steal some gems

from the crown of Jesus and be guilty only of petty larceny, ...

but the man who would justify himself by his own works steals the

crown itself, puts it on his own head, and proclaims himself by

his own conquests a king in Zion.”

B. The difficult feature of justification is the declaration, on the part

of God, that a sinner whose remaining sinfulness seems to necessitate the

vindicative reaction of God’s holiness against him, is yet free from such

reaction of holiness as is expressed in the penalties of the law.

The fact is to be accepted on the testimony of Scripture. If this

testimony be not accepted, there is no deliverance from the condemnation

of law. But the difficulty of conceiving of God’s declaring the sinner no

longer exposed to legal penalty is relieved, if not removed, by the three‐

fold consideration:

(_a_) That Christ has endured the penalty of the law in the sinner’s

stead.

_Gal. 3:13_—“_Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having

become a curse for us._” Denovan: “We are justified by faith,

instrumentally, in the same sense as a debt is paid by a good note

or a check on a substantial account in a distant bank. It is only

the intelligent and honest acceptance of justification already

provided.” _Rom. 8:3_—“_God, sending his own Son ... condemned sin

in the flesh_” = the believer’s sins were judged and condemned on

Calvary. The way of pardon through Christ honors God’s justice as

well as God’s mercy; _cf._ _Rom. 3:26_—“_that he might himself be

just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus._”

(_b_) That the sinner is so united to Christ, that Christ’s life already

constitutes the dominating principle within him.

_Gal. 2:20_—“_I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no

longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me._” God does not

justify any man whom he does not foresee that he can and will

sanctify. Some prophecies produce their own fulfilment. Tell a man

he is brave, and you help him to become so. So declaratory

justification, when published in the heart by the Holy Spirit,

helps to make men just. Harris, God the Creator, 2:332—“The

objection to the doctrine of justification by faith insists that

justification must be conditioned, not on faith, but on right

character. But justification by faith is itself the doctrine of a

justification conditioned on right character, because faith in God

is the only possible beginning of right character, either in men

or angels.” Gould, Bib. Theol. N. T., 67‐79, in a similar manner

argues that Paul’s emphasis is on the spiritual effect of the

death of our Lord, rather than on its expiatory effect. The course

of thought in the Epistle to the Romans seems to us to contradict

this view. Sin and the objective atonement for sin are first

treated; only after justification comes the sanctification of the

believer. Still it is true that justification is never the sole

work of God in the soul. The same Christ in union with whom we are

justified does at that same moment a work of regeneration which is

followed by sanctification.

(_c_) That this life of Christ is a power in the soul which will

gradually, but infallibly, extirpate all remaining depravity, until the

whole physical and moral nature is perfectly conformed to the divine

holiness.

_Phil. 3:21_—“_who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation,

that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, according to

the working whereby he is able even to subject all things unto

himself_”; _Col. 3:1‐4_—“_If then ye were raised together with

Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated on

the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things that are above,

not on the things that are upon the earth. For ye died, and your

life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life,

shall be manifested, then shall ye also with him be manifested in

glory._”

Truth of fact, and ideal truth, are not opposed to each other. F.

W. Robertson, Lectures and Addresses, 256—“When the agriculturist

sees a small, white, almond‐like thing rising from the ground, he

calls that an oak; but this is not a truth of fact, it is an ideal

truth. The oak is a large tree, with spreading branches and leaves

and acorns; but that is only a thing an inch long, and

imperceptible in all its development; yet the agriculturist sees

in it the idea of what it shall be, and, if I may borrow a

Scriptural phrase, he _imputes_ to it the majesty, and excellence,

and glory, that is to be hereafter.” This method of representation

is effective and unobjectionable, so long as we remember that the

force which is to bring about this future development and

perfection is not the force of unassisted human nature, but rather

the force of Christ and his indwelling Spirit. See Philippi,

Glaubenslehre, v, 1:201‐208.

Gore, Incarnation, 224—“’Looking at the mother,’ wrote George

Eliot of Mrs. Garth in The Mill on the Floss, ‘you might hope that

the daughter would become like her—which is a prospective

advantage equal to a dowry—the mother too often standing behind

the daughter like a malignant prophecy: Such as I am, she will

shortly be.’ George Eliot imputes by anticipation to the daughter

the merits of the mother, because her life is, so to speak, of the

same piece. Now, by new birth and spiritual union, our life is of

the same piece with the life of Jesus. Thus he, our elder brother,

stands behind us, his people, as a prophecy of all good. Thus God

accepts us, deals with us, ‘_in the Beloved_,’ rating us at

something of his value, imputing to us his merits, because in

fact, except we be reprobates, he himself is the most powerful and

real force at work in us.”

5. Relation of Justification to Union with Christ and the Work of the

Spirit.

A. Since the sinner, at the moment of justification, is not yet completely

transformed in character, we have seen that God can declare him just, not

on account of what he is in himself, but only on account of what Christ

is. The ground of justification is therefore not, (_a_) as the Romanists

hold, a new righteousness and love infused into us, and now constituting

our moral character; nor, (_b_) as Osiander taught, the essential

righteousness of Christ’s divine nature, which has become ours by faith;

but (_c_) the satisfaction and obedience of Christ, as the head of a new

humanity, and as embracing in himself all believers as his members.

Ritschl regarded justification as primarily an endowment of the

church, in which the individual participated only so far as he

belonged to the church; see Pfleiderer, Die Ritschl’sche

Theologie, 70. Here Ritschl committed an error like that of the

Romanist,—the church is the door to Christ, instead of Christ

being the door to the church. Justification belongs primarily to

Christ, then to all who join themselves to Christ by faith, and

the church is the natural and voluntary aggregation of those who

in Christ are thus justified. Hence the necessity for the

resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus. “For as the ministry

of Enoch was sealed by his reception into heaven, and as the

ministry of Elijah was also abundantly proved by his translation,

so also the righteousness and innocence of Christ. But it was

necessary that the ascension of Christ should be more fully

attested, because upon his righteousness, so fully proved by his

ascension, we must depend for all our righteousness. For if God

had not approved him after his resurrection, and he had not taken

his seat at his right hand, we could by no means be accepted of

God” (Cartwright).

A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 46, 193, 195, 206—“Christ

must be justified in the spirit and received up into glory, before

he can be made righteousness to us and we can become the

righteousness of God in him. Christ’s coronation is the

indispensable condition of our justification.... Christ the High

Priest has entered the Holy of Holies in heaven for us. Until he

comes forth again at the second advent, how can we be assured that

his sacrifice for us is accepted? We reply: By the gift of the

Holy Spirit. The presence of the Spirit in the church is the proof

of the presence of Christ before the throne.... The Holy Spirit

convinces of righteousness, ‘_because I go unto the Father, and ye

see me no more_’ (_John 16:10_). We can only know that ‘_we have a

Paraclete with the Father, even Jesus Christ the Righteous_’ (_1

John 2:1_), by that ‘_other Paraclete_’ sent forth from the

Father, even the Holy Spirit (_John 14:25, 26; 15:26_). The

church, having the Spirit, reflects Christ to the world. As Christ

manifests the Father, so the church through the Spirit manifests

Christ. So Christ gives to us his name, ‘Christians,’ as the

husband gives his name to the wife.”

As Adam’s sin is imputed to us, not because Adam is in us, but because we

were in Adam; so Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us, not because

Christ is in us, but because we are in Christ,—that is, joined by faith to

one whose righteousness and life are infinitely greater than our power to

appropriate or contain. In this sense, we may say that we are justified

through a Christ outside of us, as we are sanctified through a Christ

within us. Edwards: “The justification of the believer is no other than

his being admitted to communion in, or participation of, this head and

surety of all believers.”

_1 Tim. 1:14_—“_faith and love which is in Christ Jesus_”;

_3:16_—“_He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the

spirit_”; _Acts 13:39_—“_and by him_ [lit.: ‘_in him_’] _every one

that believeth is justified from all things, from which ye could

not be justified by the law of Moses_”; _Rom. 4:25_—“_who was

delivered up for our trespasses, and was raised for our

justification_”; _Eph. 1:6_—“_accepted in the Beloved_”—Rev.

Vers.: “_freely bestowed on us in the Beloved_”; _1 Cor.

6:11_—“_justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ._” “We in

Christ” is the formula of our justification; “Christ in us” is the

formula of our sanctification. As the water which the shell

contains is little compared with the great ocean which contains

the shell, so the actual change wrought within us by God’s

sanctifying grace is slight compared with the boundless freedom

from condemnation and the state of favor with God into which we

are introduced by justification; _Rom. 5:1, 2_—“_Being therefore

justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus

Christ; through whom also we have had our access by faith into

this grace wherein we stand; and we rejoice in hope of the glory

of God._”

Here we have the third instance of imputation. The first was the

imputation of Adam’s sin to us; and the second was the imputation

of our sins to Christ. The third is now the imputation of Christ’s

righteousness to us. In each of the former cases, we have sought

to show that the legal relation presupposes a natural relation.

Adam’s sin is imputed to us, because we are one with Adam; our

sins are imputed to Christ, because Christ is one with humanity.

So here, we must hold that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to

us, because we are one with Christ. Justification is not an

arbitrary transfer to us of the merits of another with whom we

have no real connection. This would make it merely a legal

fiction; and there are no legal fictions in the divine government.

Instead of this external and mechanical method of conception, we

should first set before us the fact of Christ’s justification,

after he had borne our sins and risen from the dead. In him,

humanity, for the first time, is acquitted from punishment and

restored to the divine favor. But Christ’s new humanity is the

germinal source of spiritual life for the race. He was justified,

not simply as a private person, but as our representative and

head. By becoming partakers of the new life in him, we share in

all he is and all he has done; and, first of all, we share in his

justification. So Luther gives us, for substance, the formula: “We

in Christ = justification; Christ in us = sanctification.” And in

harmony with this formula is the statement quoted in the text

above from Edwards, Works, 4:66.

See also H. B. Smith, Presb. Rev., July, 1881—“Union with Adam and

with Christ is the ground of imputation. But the parallelism is

incomplete. While the sin of Adam is imputed to us because it is

ours, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us simply because

of our union with him, not at all because of our personal

righteousness. In the one case, character is taken into the

account; in the other, it is not. In sin, our demerits are

included; in justification, our merits are excluded.” For further

statements of Dr. Smith, see his System of Christian Theology,

524‐552.

C. H. M. on Genesis, page 78—“The question for every believer is

not ‘What am I?’ but ‘What is Christ?’ Of Abel it is said: ‘_God

testified of his gifts_’ (_Heb. 11:4_, A. V.). So God testifies,

not of the believer, but of his gift,—and his gift is Christ. Yet

Cain was angry because he was not received _in his sins_, while

Abel was accepted _in his gift_. This was right, if Abel was

justified in himself; it was wrong, because Abel was justified

only in Christ.” See also Hodge, Outlines of Theology, 384‐388,

392; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 448.

B. The relation of justification to regeneration and sanctification,

moreover, delivers it from the charges of externality and immorality. God

does not justify ungodly men in their ungodliness. He pronounces them just

only as they are united to Christ, who is absolutely just, and who, by his

Spirit, can make them just, not only in the eye of the law, but in moral

character. The very faith by which the sinner receives Christ is an act in

which he ratifies all that Christ has done, and accepts God’s judgment

against sin as his own (John 16:11).

_John 16:11_—“_of judgment, because the prince of this world hath

been judged_”—the Holy Spirit leads the believer to ratify God’s

judgment against sin and Satan. Accepting Christ, the believer

accepts Christ’s death for sin, and resurrection to life for his

own. If it were otherwise, the first act of the believer, after

his discharge, might be a repetition of his offences. Such a

justification would offend against the fundamental principles of

justice and the safety of government. It would also fail to

satisfy the conscience. This clamors not only for pardon, but for

renewal. Union with Christ has one legal fruit—justification; but

it has also one moral fruit—sanctification.

A really guilty man, when acquitted by judge and jury, does not

cease to be the victim of remorse and fear. Forgiveness of sin is

not in itself a deliverance from sin. The outward acquittal needs

to be accompanied by an inward change to be really effective.

Pardon for sin without power to overcome sin would be a mockery of

the criminal. Justification for Christ’s sake therefore goes into

effect through regeneration by the Holy Spirit; see E. H. Johnson,

in Bib. Sac., July, 1892:362.

A Buddhist priest who had studied some years in England printed in

Shanghai not long ago a pamphlet entitled “Justification by Faith

the only true Basis of Morality.” It argues that any other

foundation is nothing but pure selfishness, but that morality, to

have any merit, must be unselfish. Justification by faith supplies

an unselfish motive, because we accept the work done for us by

another, and we ourselves work from gratitude, which is not a

selfish motive. After laying down this Christian foundation, the

writer erects the structure of faith in the Amida incarnation of

Buddha. Buddhism opposes to the Christian doctrine of a creative

Person, only a creative process; sin has relation only to the man

sinning, and has no relation to Amida Buddha or to the eternal law

of causation; salvation by faith in Amida Buddha is faith in one

who is the product of a process, and a product may perish.

Tennyson: “They are but broken lights of Thee, And thou, O Christ,

art more than they.”

Justification is possible, therefore, because it is always accompanied by

regeneration and union with Christ, and is followed by sanctification. But

this is a very different thing from the Romanist confounding of

justification and sanctification, as different stages of the same process

of making the sinner actually holy. It holds fast to the Scripture

distinction between justification as a declarative act of God, and

regeneration and sanctification as those efficient acts of God by which

justification is accompanied and followed.

Both history and our personal observation show that nothing can

change the life and make men moral, like the gospel of free pardon

in Jesus Christ. Mere preaching of morality will effect nothing of

consequence. There never has been more insistence upon morality

than in the most immoral times, like those of Seneca, and of the

English deists. As to their moral fruits, we can safely compare

Protestant with Roman Catholic systems and leaders and countries.

We do not become right by doing right, for only those can do right

who have become right. The prodigal son is forgiven before he

actually confesses and amends (_Luke 15:20, 21_). Justification is

always accompanied by regeneration, and is followed by

sanctification; and all three are results of the death of Christ.

But the sin‐offering must precede the thank‐offering. We must

first be accepted ourselves before we can offer gifts; _Heb.

11:4_—“_By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice

than Cain, through which he had witness borne to him that he was

righteous, God bearing witness in respect of his gifts._”

Hence we read in _Eph. 5:25, 26_—“_Christ also loved the church,

and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it, having

cleansed_ = [after he had cleansed] _it by the washing of water

with the word_” [= regeneration]; _1 Pet. 1:1, 2_—“_elect ...

according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in

sanctification of the Spirit_ [regeneration], _unto obedience_

[conversion] _and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ_

[justification]”; _1 John 1:7_—“_if we walk in the light, as he is

in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood

of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin_”—here the “cleansing”

refers primarily and mainly to justification, not to

sanctification; for the apostle himself declares in _verse 8_—“_If

we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is

not in us._”

Quenstedt says well, that “justification, since it is an act,

outside of man, in God, cannot produce an intrinsic change in us.”

And yet, he says, “although faith alone justifies, yet faith is

not alone.” Melanchthon: “Sola fides justificat; sed fides non est

sola.” With faith go all manner of gifts of the Spirit and

internal graces of character. But we should let go all the

doctrinal gains of the Reformation if we did not insist that these

gifts and graces are accompaniments and consequences of

justification, instead of being a part or a ground of

justification. See Girdlestone, O. T. Synonyms, 104,

note—“Justification is God’s declaration that the individual

sinner, on account of the faith which unites him to Christ, is

taken up into the relation which Christ holds to the Father, and

has applied to him personally the objective work accomplished for

humanity by Christ.”

6. Relation of Justification to Faith.

A. We are justified by faith, rather than by love or by any other grace:

(_a_) not because faith is itself a work of obedience by which we merit

justification,—for this would be a doctrine of justification by works;

(_b_) nor because faith is accepted as an equivalent of obedience,—for

there is no equivalent except the perfect obedience of Christ; (_c_) nor

because faith is the germ from which obedience may spring hereafter,—for

it is not the faith which accepts, but the Christ who is accepted, that

renders such obedience possible; but (_d_) because faith, and not

repentance, or love, or hope, is the medium or instrument by which we

receive Christ and are united to him. Hence we are never said to be

justified διὰ πίστιν, = on account of faith, but only διὰ πίστεως, =

through faith, or ἐκ πίστεως, = by faith. Or, to express the same truth in

other words, while the grace of God is the efficient cause of

justification, and the obedience and sufferings of Christ are the

meritorious or procuring cause, faith is the mediate or instrumental

cause.

Edwards, Works, 4:69‐73—“Faith justifies, because faith includes

the whole act of unition to Christ as a Savior. It is not the

nature of any other graces or virtues directly to close with

Christ as a mediator, any further than they enter into the

constitution of justifying faith, and do belong to its nature”;

Observations on Trinity, 64‐67—“Salvation is not offered to us

upon any condition, but freely and for nothing. We are to do

nothing for it,—we are only to take it. This taking and receiving

is faith.” H. B. Smith, System, 524—“An internal change is a _sine

qua non_ of justification, but not its meritorious ground.” Give a

man a gold mine. It is _his_. He has not to work _for_ it; he has

only to work _it_. Working _for_ life is one thing; working _from_

life is quite another. The marriage of a poor girl to a wealthy

proprietor makes her possessor of his riches despite her former

poverty. Yet her acceptance has not _purchased_ wealth. It is

hers, not because of what she is or has done, but because of what

her husband is and has done. So faith is the condition of

justification, only because through it Christ becomes ours, and

with him his atonement and righteousness. Salvation comes not

because our faith saves us, but because it links us to the Christ

who saves; and believing is only the link. There is no more merit

in it than in the beggar’s stretching forth his hand to receive

the offered purse, or the drowning man’s grasping the rope that is

thrown to him.

The Wesleyan scheme is inclined to make faith a work. See Dabney,

Theology, 637. This is to make faith _the_ cause and ground, or at

least to add it to Christ’s work as a _joint_ cause and ground, of

justification; as if justification were διὰ πίστιν, instead of διὰ

πίστεως or ἐκ πίστεως. Since faith is never perfect, this is to go

back to the Roman Catholic uncertainty of salvation. See Dorner,

Glaubenslehre, 2:744, 745 (Syst. Doct., 4:206, 207). C. H. M. on

_Gen. 3:7_—“They made themselves aprons of fig‐leaves, before God

made them coats of skin. Man ever tries to clothe himself in

garments of his own righteousness, before he will take the robe of

Christ’s. But Adam felt himself naked when God visited him, even

though he had his fig‐leaves on him.”

We are justified efficiently by the grace of God, meritoriously by

Christ, instrumentally by faith, evidentially by works. Faith

justifies, as roots bring plant and soil together. Faith connects

man with the source of life in Christ. “When the boatman with his

hook grapples the rock, he does not pull the shore to the boat,

but the boat to the shore; so, when we by faith lay hold on

Christ, we do not pull Christ to us, but ourselves to him.” Faith

is a coupling; the train is drawn, not by the coupling, but by the

locomotive; yet without the coupling it would not be drawn. Faith

is the trolley that reaches up to the electric wire; when the

connection is sundered, not only does the car cease to move, but

the heat dies and the lights go out. Dr. John Duncan: “I have

married the Merchant and all his wealth is mine!”

H. C. Trumbull: “If a man wants to cross the ocean, he can either

try swimming, or he can trust the captain of a ship to carry him

over in his vessel. By or through his faith in that captain, the

man is carried safely to the other shore; yet it is the ship’s

captain, not the passenger’s faith, which is to be praised for the

carrying.” So the sick man trusts his case in the hands of his

physician, and his life is saved by the physician,—yet by or

through the patient’s faith. This faith is indeed an inward act of

allegiance, and no mere outward performance. Whiton, Divine

Satisfaction, 92—“The Protestant Reformers saw that it was by an

inward act, not by penances or sacraments that men were justified.

But they halted in the crude notion of a legal court room process,

a governmental procedure external to us, whereas it is an

educational, inward process, the awakening through Christ of the

filial spirit in us, which in the midst of imperfections strives

for likeness more and more to the Son of God. Justification by

principle apart from performance makes Christianity the religion

of the spirit.” We would add that such justification excludes

education, and is an act rather than a process, an act external to

the sinner rather than internal, an act of God rather than an act

of man. The justified person can say to Christ, as Ruth said to

Boaz: “_Why have I found favor in thy sight, that thou shouldest

take knowledge of me, seeing I am a foreigner?_” (_Ruth 2:10_).

B. Since the ground of justification is only Christ, to whom we are united

by faith, the justified person has peace. If it were anything in

ourselves, our peace must needs be proportioned to our holiness. The

practical effect of the Romanist mingling of works with faith, as a joint

ground of justification, is to render all assurance of salvation

impossible. (Council of Trent, 9th chap.: “Every man, by reason of his own

weakness and defects, must be in fear and anxiety about his state of

grace. Nor can any one know, with infallible certainty of faith, that he

has received forgiveness of God.”). But since justification is an

instantaneous act of God, complete at the moment of the sinner’s first

believing, it has no degrees. Weak faith justifies as perfectly as strong

faith; although, since justification is a secret act of God, weak faith

does not give so strong assurance of salvation.

Foundations of our Faith, 216—“The Catholic doctrine declares that

justification is not dependent upon faith and the righteousness of

Christ imputed and granted thereto, but on the actual condition of

the man himself. But there remain in the man an undeniable amount

of fleshly lusts or inclinations to sin, even though the man be

regenerate. The Catholic doctrine is therefore constrained to

assert that these lusts are not in themselves sinful, or objects

of the divine displeasure. They are allowed to remain in the man,

that he may struggle against them; and, as they say, Paul

designates them as sinful, only because they are derived from sin,

and incite to sin; but they only become sin by the positive

concurrence of the human will. But is not internal lust

displeasing to God? Can we draw the line between lust and will?

The Catholic favors self here, and makes many things _lust_, which

are really _will_. A Protestant is necessarily more earnest in the

work of salvation, when he recognizes even the evil desire as sin,

according to Christ’s precept.”

All systems of religion of merely human origin tend to make

salvation, in larger or smaller degree, the effect of human works,

but only with the result of leaving man in despair. See, in

Ecclesiasticus 3:30, an Apocryphal declaration that alms make

atonement for sin. So Romanism bids me doubt God’s grace and the

forgiveness of sins. See Dorner, Gesch. prot. Theol., 228, 229,

and his quotations from Luther. “But if the Romanist doctrine is

true, that a man is justified only in such measure as he is

sanctified, then: 1. Justification must be a matter of degrees,

and so the Council of Trent declares it to be. The sacraments

which sanctify are therefore essential, that one may be

increasingly justified. 2. Since justification is a continuous

process, the redeeming death of Christ, on which it depends, must

be a continuous process also; hence its prolonged reiteration in

the sacrifice by the Mass. 3. Since sanctification is obviously

never completed in this life, no man ever dies completely

justified; hence the doctrine of Purgatory.” For the substance of

Romanist doctrine, see Moehler, Symbolism, 79‐190; Newman,

Lectures on Justification, 253‐345; Ritschl, Christian Doctrine of

Justification, 121‐226.

A better doctrine is that of the Puritan divine: “It is not the

quantity of thy faith that shall save thee. A drop of water is as

true water as the whole ocean. So a little faith is as true faith

as the greatest. It is not the measure of thy faith that saves

thee,—it is the blood that it grips to that saves thee. The weak

hand of the child, that leads the spoon to the mouth, will feed as

well as the strong arm of a man; for it is not the hand that

feeds, but the meat. So, if thou canst grip Christ ever so weakly,

he will not let thee perish.” I am troubled about the money I owe

in New York, until I find that a friend has paid my debt there.

When I find that the objective account against me is cancelled,

then and only then do I have subjective peace.

A child may be heir to a vast estate, even while he does not know

it; and a child of God may be an heir of glory, even while,

through the weakness of his faith, he is oppressed with painful

doubts and fears. No man is lost simply because of the greatness

of his sins; however ill‐deserving he may be, faith in Christ will

save him. Luther’s climbing the steps of St. John Lateran, and the

voice of thunder: “The just shall live by faith,” are not certain

as historical facts; but they express the substance of Luther’s

experience. Not obeying, but receiving, is the substance of the

gospel. A man cannot merit salvation; he cannot buy it; but one

thing he must do,—he must take it. And the least faith makes

salvation ours, because it makes Christ ours.

Augustine conceived of justification as a continuous process,

proceeding until love and all Christian virtues fill the heart.

There is his chief difference from Paul. Augustine believes in sin

and grace. But he has not the freedom of the children of God, as

Paul has. The influence of Augustine upon Roman Catholic theology

has not been wholly salutary. The Roman Catholic, mixing man’s

subjective condition with God’s grace as a ground of

justification, continually wavers between self‐righteousness and

uncertainty of acceptance with God, each of these being fatal to a

healthful and stable religious life. High‐church Episcopalians,

and Sacramentalists generally, are afflicted with this distemper

of the Romanists. Dr. R. W. Dale remarks with regard to Dr. Pusey:

“The absence of joy in his religious life was only the inevitable

effect of his conception of God’s method of saving men; in parting

with the Lutheran truth concerning justification, he parted with

the springs of gladness.” Spurgeon said that a man might get from

London to New York provided he took a steamer; but it made much

difference in his comfort whether he had a first class or a second

class ticket. A new realization of the meaning of justification in

our churches would change much of our singing from the minor to

the major key; would lead us to pray, not _for_ the presence of

Christ, but _from_ the presence of Christ; would abolish the

mournful upward inflections at the end of sentences which give

such unreality to our preaching; and would replace the pessimistic

element in our modern work and worship with the notes of praise

and triumph. In the Pilgrim’s Progress, the justification of the

believer is symbolized by Christian’s lodging in the Palace

Beautiful whose window opened toward the sunrising.

Even Luther did not fully apprehend and apply his favorite

doctrine of justification by faith. Harnack, Wesen des

Christenthums, 168 _sq._, states the fundamental principles of

Protestantism as: “1. The Christian religion is wholly given in

the word of God and in the inner experience which answers to that

word. 2. The assured belief that the Christian has a gracious God.

‘Nun weisz und glaub’ ich’s feste, Ich rühm’s auch ohne Scheu,

Dasz Gott, der höchst’ und beste, Mein Freund und Vater sei; Und

dasz in allen Fällen Er mir zur Rechten steh’, Und dampfe Sturm

und Wellen, Und was mir bringet Weh’.’ 3. Restoration of simple

and believing worship, both public and private. But Luther took

too much dogma into Christianity; insisted too much on the

authority of the written word; cared too much for the _means_ of

grace, such as the Lord’s Supper; identified the church too much

with the organized body.” Yet Luther talked of beating the heads

of the Wittenbergers with the Bible, so as to get the great

doctrine of justification by faith into their brains. “Why do you

teach your child the same thing twenty times?” he said. “Because I

find that nineteen times is not sufficient.”

C. Justification is instantaneous, complete, and final: instantaneous,

since otherwise there would be an interval during which the soul was

neither approved nor condemned by God (Mat. 6:24); complete, since the

soul, united to Christ by faith, becomes partaker of his complete

satisfaction to the demands of law (Col. 2:9, 10); and final, since the

union with Christ is indissoluble (John 10:28, 29). As there are many acts

of sin in the life of the Christian, so there are many acts of pardon

following them. But all these acts of pardon are virtually implied in that

first act by which he was finally and forever justified; as also

successive acts of repentance and faith, after such sins, are virtually

implied in that first repentance and faith which logically preceded

justification.

_Mat. 6:24_—“_No man can serve two masters_”; _Col. 2:9, 10_—“_in

him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and in him ye

are made full, who is the head of all principality and power_”;

_John 10:28, 29_—“_they shall never perish, and no one shall

snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who hath given them unto

me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of

the Father’s hand._”

Plymouth Brethren say truly that the Christian has sin in him, but

not on him, because Christ had sin on him, but not in him. The

Christian has sin but not guilt, because Christ had guilt but not

sin. All our sins are buried in the grave with Christ, and

Christ’s resurrection is our resurrection. Toplady: “From whence

this fear and unbelief? Hast thou, O Father, put to grief Thy

spotless Son for me? And will the righteous Judge of men Condemn

me for that debt of sin, Which, Lord, was laid on thee? If thou

hast my discharge procured, And freely in my room endured The

whole of wrath divine, Payment God cannot twice demand, First at

my bleeding Surety’s hand, And then again at mine. Complete

atonement thou hast made, And to the utmost farthing paid Whate’er

thy people owed; How then can wrath on me take place, If sheltered

in thy righteousness And sprinkled with thy blood? Turn, then, my

soul, unto thy rest; The merits of thy great High‐priest Speak

peace and liberty; Trust in his efficacious blood, Nor fear thy

banishment from God, Since Jesus died for thee!”

Justification, however, is not eternal in the past. We are to

repent unto the remission of our sins (_Act 2:38_). Remission

comes after repentance. Sin is not pardoned before it is

committed. In justification God grants us actual pardon for past

sin, but virtual pardon for future sin. Edwards, Works,

4:104—“Future sins are respected, in that first justification, no

otherwise than as future faith and repentance are respected in it;

and future faith and repentance are looked upon by him that

justifies as virtually implied in that first repentance and faith,

in the same manner that justification from future sins is implied

in that first justification.”

A man is not justified from his sins before he has committed them,

nor is he saved before he is born. A remarkable illustration of

the extreme to which hyper‐Calvinism may go is found in Tobias

Crisp, Sermons, 1:358—“The Lord hath no more to lay to the charge

of an elect person, yet in the height of iniquity, and in the

excess of riot, and committing all the abomination that can be

committed ... than he has to the charge of the saint triumphant in

glory.” A far better statement is found in Moberly, Atonement and

Personality, 61—“As there is upon earth no consummated penitence,

so neither is there any forgiveness consummated.... Forgiveness is

the recognition, by anticipation, of something which is to be,

something toward which it is itself a mighty quickening of

possibilities, but something which is not, or at least is not

perfectly, yet.... Present forgiveness is inchoate, is

educational.... It reaches its final and perfect consummation only

when the forgiven penitent has become at last personally and

completely righteous. If the consummation is not reached but

reversed, then forgiveness is forfeited (_Mat. 18:32‐35_).” This

last exception, however, as we shall see in our discussion of

Perseverance, is only a hypothetical one. The truly forgiven do

not finally fall away.

7. Advice to Inquirers demanded by a Scriptural View of Justification.

(_a_) Where conviction of sin is yet lacking, our aim should be to show

the sinner that he is under God’s condemnation for his past sins, and that

no future obedience can ever secure his justification, since this

obedience, even though perfect, could not atone for the past, and even if

it could, he is unable, without God’s help, to render it.

With the help of the Holy Spirit, conviction of sin may be roused

by presentation of the claims of God’s perfect law, and by drawing

attention, first to particular overt transgressions, and then to

the manifold omissions of duty, the general lack of supreme and

all‐pervading love to God, and the guilty rejection of Christ’s

offers and commands. “Even if the next page of the copy book had

no blots or erasures, its cleanness would not alter the smudges

and misshapen letters on the earlier pages.” God takes no notice

of the promise “_Have patience with me, and I will pay thee_”

(_Mat. 18:29_), for he knows it can never be fulfilled.

(_b_) Where conviction of sin already exists, our aim should be, not, in

the first instance, to secure the performance of external religious

duties, such as prayer, or Scripture‐reading, or uniting with the church,

but to induce the sinner, as his first and all‐inclusive duty, to accept

Christ as his only and sufficient sacrifice and Savior, and, committing

himself and the matter of his salvation entirely to the hands of Christ,

to manifest this trust and submission by entering at once upon a life of

obedience to Christ’s commands.

A convicted sinner should be exhorted, not first to prayer and

then to faith, but first to faith, and then to the immediate

expression of that faith in prayer and Christian activity. He

should pray, not _for_ faith, but _in_ faith. It should not be

forgotten that the sinner never sins against so much light, and

never is in so great danger, as when he is convicted but not

converted, when he is moved to turn but yet refuses to turn. No

such sinner should be allowed to think that he has the right to do

any other thing whatever before accepting Christ. This accepting

Christ is not an outward act, but an inward act of mind and heart

and will, although believing is naturally evidenced by immediate

outward action. To teach the sinner, however apparently well

disposed, how to believe on Christ, is beyond the power of man.

God is the only giver of faith. But Scripture instances of faith,

and illustrations drawn from the child’s taking the father at his

word and acting upon it, have often been used by the Holy Spirit

as means of leading men themselves to put faith in Christ.

Bengel: “Those who are secure Jesus refers to the law; those who

are contrite he consoles with the gospel.” A man left work and

came home. His wife asked why. “Because I am a sinner.” “Let me

send for the preacher.” “I am too far gone for preachers. If the

Lord Jesus Christ does not save me I am lost.” That man needed

only to be pointed to the Cross. There he found reason for

believing that there was salvation for him. In surrendering

himself to Christ he was justified. On the general subject of

Justification, see Edwards, Works, 4:64‐132; Buchanan on

Justification, 250‐411; Owen on Justification, in Works, vol. 5;

Bp. of Ossory, Nature and Effects of Faith, 48‐152; Hodge, Syst.

Theol., 3:114‐212; Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, 3:133‐200;

Herzog, Encyclopädie, art.: Rechtfertigung; Bushnell, Vicarious

Sacrifice, 416‐420, 435.