charge which affects the moral character; but in theology it is used for
the acceptance of one, by God, who is, and confesses himself to be,
guilty. To justify a sinner, says Mr. Bunting, in an able sermon on this
important subject, is to account and consider him relatively righteous;
and to deal with him as such, notwithstanding his past actual
unrighteousness, by clearing, absolving, discharging, and releasing him
from various penal evils, and especially from the wrath of God, and the
liability to eternal death, which, by that past unrighteousness, he had
deserved; and by accepting him as if just, and admitting him to the
state, the privileges, and the rewards of righteousness. Hence it
appears that justification, and the remission or forgiveness of sin, are
substantially the same thing. These expressions relate to one and the
same act of God, to one and the same privilege of his believing people.
Accordingly, St. Paul clearly uses justification and forgiveness as
synonymous terms, when he says, “Be it known unto you, therefore, men
and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness
of sins: and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from
which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses,” Acts xiii, 38, 39.
Also in the following passage: “To him that worketh not, but believeth
on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for
righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man,
unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are
they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed
is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin,” Rom. iv, 5–8. Here,
the justification of the ungodly, the counting or imputation of
righteousness, the forgiveness of iniquity, and the covering and
non-imputation of sin, are phrases which have all, perhaps, their
various shades of meaning, but which express the very same blessing
under different views. But (1.) the justification of a sinner does not
in the least degree alter or diminish the evil nature and desert of sin.
For we know “it is God,” the holy God, “that justifieth.” And he can
never regard sin, on any consideration, or under any circumstances, with
less than perfect and infinite hatred. Sin, therefore, is not changed in
its nature, so as to be made less “exceedingly sinful,” or less worthy
of wrath, by the pardon of the sinner. The penalty is remitted, and the
obligation to suffer that penalty is dissolved; but it is still
naturally due, though graciously remitted. Hence appear the propriety
and duty of continuing to confess and lament even pardoned sin with a
lowly and contrite heart. Though released from its penal consequences by
an act of divine clemency, we should still remember that the dust of
self-abasement is our proper place before God, and should temper our
exultation in his mercy by an humbling recollection of our natural
liability to his wrath. “I will establish my covenant with thee, and
thou shalt know that I am the Lord: that thou mayest remember, and be
confounded, and never open thy mouth any more because of thy shame, when
I am pacified toward thee for all that thou hast done, saith the Lord
God,” Ezek. xvi, 62, 63. (2.) The account which has been given of
justification, if correct, sufficiently points out the error of many of
the Roman Catholic divines, and of some mystic theologians, who seem to
suppose that to be justified is to be, not reckoned righteous, but
actually made righteous, by the infusion of a sanctifying influence,
producing a positive and inherent conformity to the moral image of God.
This notion confounds the two distinct though kindred blessings of
justification and regeneration. The former, in its Scriptural sense, is
an act of God, not in or upon man, but for him, and in his favour; an
act which, abstractedly considered, to use the words of Dr. Barrow,
“respects man only as its object, and translates him into another
relative state. The inherent principle of righteousness is a consequent
of this act of God; connected with it, but not formally of it.” (3.) The
justification extends to all past sins; that is, to all guilt contracted
previously to that time at which the act of justification takes place.
In respect of this, it is, while it remains in force, a most full,
perfect, and entire absolution from wrath. “All manner of sin” is then
forgiven. The pardon which is granted is a “justification,” not merely
from some things, from many things, from most things, but “from all
things,” Acts xiii, 39. God does not justify us, or pardon our
innumerable offences, by degrees, but at once. As by the law of works he
is cursed, who “continueth not in all things” which that law enjoined,
so he who is truly absolved by the Gospel is cleared from all and every
thing which before stood against him; and “there is no condemnation to
them that are in Christ Jesus.” Well may that Gospel which reveals and
offers such a benefit be termed a “great salvation!” (4.) Another
remark, which it may not be unnecessary to make, is, that justification,
however effectual to our release from past guilt, does not terminate our
state of probation. It is not irreversible, any more than eternal. As he
who is now justified was once condemned, so he may in future come again
into condemnation, by relapsing into sin and unbelief, although at
present “accepted in the Beloved.” Thus Adam, before transgression, was
in a state of favour; but as he had not then fulfilled, to the end of
his probation, the righteousness of that law under which he was placed,
his ultimate and final acceptance was not absolutely certain. His
privilege, as one accepted of God, might be forfeited, and was actually
forfeited, by his subsequent sin. Now our own justification or pardon
only places us, as to this point, in similar circumstances. Though ever
so clearly and fully forgiven, we are yet on our trial for eternity, and
should “look to ourselves, that we lose not the things which we have
gained.” That justification may for our sin be reversed, appears from
our Lord’s parable of the two debtors, in which one who had obtained the
blessing of forgiveness is represented as incurring the forfeiture of it
by the indulgence of an unforgiving spirit toward his fellow servant,
Matt. xviii, 23–35. Let us therefore “watch and pray, that we enter not
into temptation.”
2. The immediate results of justification are (1.) The restoration of
amity and intercourse between the pardoned sinner and the pardoning God.
For, “being justified by faith, we have peace with God,” and,
consequently, unforbidden access to him. The matter and ground of God’s
controversy with us being then removed by his act of gracious
absolution, we become the objects of his friendship. “Abraham believed
God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness; and he was”
immediately “called the friend of God,” Jas. ii, 23; and so are all
those who are similarly justified. This reconciliation, however, does
not extend to their instant and absolute deliverance from all those
evils which transgression has entailed on man. They are still liable,
for a season, to affliction and pain, to temporal suffering and
mortality. These are portions of the original curse from which their
justification does not as yet release them. But it entitles them to such
supports under all remaining trouble, and to such promises of a
sanctifying influence with it, as will, if embraced, “turn the curse
into a blessing.” Whom the Lord loveth, he may still chasten, and in
very faithfulness afflict them. But these are acts of salutary
discipline, rather than of vindictive displeasure. His friendship, not
his righteous hostility, is the principle from which they all proceed;
and the salvation, not the destruction, of the sufferer is the end to
which they are all directed. (2.) Another immediate result of
justification is the adoption of the persons justified into the family
of God, and their consequent right to eternal life of body and soul. God
condescends to become not only their Friend, but their Father; they are
the objects not merely of his amicable regard, but of his paternal
tenderness. And, admitted to the relation of children, they become
entitled to the children’s inheritance; for, “if children, then heirs;
heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with
him, that we may be also glorified together,” Rom. viii, 17. (3.) With
these results of justification is inseparably connected another, of the
utmost value and importance; namely, _the habitual indwelling of the
Holy Spirit_. “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being
made a curse for us; that the blessing of Abraham might come on the
Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the
Spirit through faith,” Gal. iii, 13, 14. “Because ye are sons, God hath
sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts,” Gal. iv, 6. With the
remission of sins, St. Peter also connects, as an immediate result, as a
distinct but yet a simultaneous blessing, “the gift of the Holy Ghost,”
Acts ii, 38. And in the fifth verse of this chapter, the Holy Ghost is
said to be given to those who are justified by faith. Of this indwelling
the immediate effects are, (i.) _Tranquillity of conscience_. For he
testifies and manifests to those in whom he dwells their free
justification and gracious adoption. The spirit which such persons have
received is “not the spirit of bondage to fear, but the Spirit of
adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth
witness with our spirit that we are the children of God,” Rom. viii, 15,
16. (ii.) _Power over sin_; a prevailing desire and ability to walk
before God in holy obedience. No sooner is the Holy Spirit enthroned in
the heart, than he begins to make all things new. In his genuine work,
purity is always connected with consolation. Those to whom he witnesses
their freedom from condemnation he also enables to “walk, not after the
flesh, but after the Spirit,” Rom. viii, 1. (iii.) _A joyous hope of
heaven._ Their title results from the fact of their adoption; their
power to rejoice in hope, from the Spirit’s testimony of that fact. “We,
through the Spirit, wait for the hope of righteousness by faith,” and
“abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost,” Gal. v, 5; Rom.
xv, 13.
3. To have a complete view of the method by which justification and all
its consequent blessings are attained, we must consider the originating,
the meritorious, and the instrumental cause of justification. (1.) The
originating cause is the grace, the free, undeserved, and spontaneous
love of God toward fallen man. He remembered and pitied us in our low
estate; for his mercy endureth for ever. “After that the kindness and
love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of
righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved
us. The grace of God bringeth salvation,” Titus ii, 11; iii, 4, 5. We
are “justified freely by his grace,” Rom. iii, 24. But God is wise, and
holy, and just, as well as merciful and gracious. And his wisdom
determined, that, in order to reconcile the designs of his mercy toward
sinners with the claims of his purity and justice, those designs should
be accomplished only through the intervention of a divine Redeemer. We
are justified “through our Lord Jesus Christ,” Rom. i, 5. (2.) Our Lord
Jesus Christ is the sole meritorious cause of our justification. All he
did and all he suffered in his mediatorial character may be said to have
contributed to this great purpose. For what he did, in obedience to the
precepts of the law, and what he suffered, in satisfaction of its
penalty, taken together, constitute that mediatorial righteousness, for
the sake of which the Father is ever well pleased in him. Now, in this
mediatorial righteousness all who are justified have a saving interest.
It is not meant that it is personally imputed to them in its formal
nature or distinct acts; for against any such imputation there lie
insuperable objections both from reason and from Scripture. But the
collective merit and moral effects of all which the Mediator did and
suffered are so reckoned to our account when we are justified, that, for
the sake of Christ and in consideration of his obedience unto death, we
are released from guilt, and accepted of God. From this statement of the
meritorious cause of justification, it appears that while our pardon is,
in its origin, an act of the highest grace, it is also, in its mode, an
act most perfectly consistent with God’s essential righteousness, and
demonstrative of his inviolable justice. It proceeds not on the
principle of abolishing the law or its penalty; for that would have
implied that the law was unduly rigorous, either in its precepts or in
its sanctions. But it rests on the ground that the law has been
magnified and vindicated, and that its penalty, or sufferings, which
were fully equivalent to that penalty in a moral view, when the dignity
of the sufferer is considered, have been sustained by our voluntary
Substitute. Thus “grace reigns through righteousness,” not at the
expense of righteousness. “Now, the righteousness of God without the law
is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the
righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon
all them that believe: being justified freely by his grace, through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a
propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness
for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness; that he might be
just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus,” Romans iii,
21–26. (3.) As to the instrumental cause of justification, the merit of
the blood of Jesus does not operate necessarily so as to produce our
pardon as an immediate and unavoidable effect, but through the
instrumentality of faith. The faith by which we are justified is present
faith, faith actually existing and exercised. We are not justified by
to-morrow’s faith foreseen; for that would lead to the Antinomian notion
of justification from eternity, a notion which to mention is to confute.
We are not justified by yesterday’s faith recorded or remembered; for
that would imply the opinion that justification is irreversible. The
justification offered in the Scriptures is a justification upon
believing, in which we are never savingly interested until we believe,
and which continues in force only so long as we continue to believe. On
all unbelievers the wrath of God abides. The atonement of Jesus was
indeed accepted, as from him, at the time when it was offered; but it is
not accepted, as for us, to our individual justification, until we
individually believe, nor after we cease to believe. The OBJECT of
justifying faith may be inferred from what has been before said, as to
the originating and meritorious causes of justification. It has respect,
in general, to all that Christ is set forth in the Gospel as doing or
suffering, by the gracious appointment of the Father, in order to our
redemption and pardon. But it has respect, in particular, to the atoning
sacrifice of Christ, as exhibited by divine authority in the Scriptures,
and as attested to be acceptable and sufficient by his resurrection from
the dead, and by his mediatorial exaltation at the right hand of God.
The acts or exercises of this faith seem to be three; or rather, that
faith which is required in order to our justification is a complex act
of the mind, which includes three distinct but concurrent exertions of
its powers. It includes, (1.) The assent of the understanding to the
truth of the testimony of God in the Gospel; and especially to that part
of it which concerns the design and efficacy of the death of Jesus as a
sacrifice for sin. (2.) The consent of the will and affections to this
plan of salvation; such an approbation and choice of it as imply a
renunciation of every other refuge, and a steady and decided preference
of this. Unbelief is called a disallowing of the foundation laid in
Zion; whereas faith includes a hearty allowance of it, and a thankful
acquiescence in God’s revealed method of forgiveness. (3.) From this
assent of the enlightened understanding, and consent of the rectified
will, to the evangelical testimony concerning Christ crucified, results
the third thing, which is supposed to be implied in justifying faith;
namely, actual trust in the Saviour, and personal apprehension of his
merits. When, under the promised leading and influence of the Holy
Ghost, the penitent, sinner thus confidently relies and individually
lays hold on Christ, then the work of justifying faith is complete;
then, and not till then, he is immediately justified. On the whole, it
may be said that the faith to which the privilege of justification is
annexed, is such a belief of the Gospel, by the power of the Spirit of
God, as leads us to come to Christ, to receive Christ, to trust in
Christ, and to commit the keeping of our souls into his hands, in humble
confidence of his ability and his willingness to save us.
The grand doctrine of the Reformation was that of justification by
faith, and was therefore held by all the Lutheran and Reformed churches.
The Papists assert that man’s inherent righteousness is the meritorious
cause of his justification; many Protestant divines have endeavoured to
unite the two, and have held that men are justified by faith and good
works; and others have equally departed from the opinions of the
earliest reformers on the subject of justification, in representing it
as resulting from the imputation of Christ’s active and passive
righteousness to those that believe, instead of confining the imputation
to the moral consequence and effect of both. In other words, that which
is reckoned to us in our justification for righteousness is our faith in
Christ’s merits, and that not because of any intrinsic value in faith;
but only for the sake of those merits. In a mere moral sense man’s sin
or righteousness is imputed to him, when he is considered as actually
the doer of sinful or of righteous acts. A man’s sin or righteousness is
imputed to him in its _legal consequence_, under a government of rewards
and punishments; and then to impute sin or righteousness signifies, in a
legal sense, to reckon and to account it, to acquit or condemn, and
forthwith to punish, or to exempt from punishment. Thus Shimei entreats
David, that he would “not impute folly to him,” that is, that he would
not punish his folly. In this sense, too, David speaks of the
blessedness of the man whose “transgression is forgiven,” and to whom
the Lord “imputeth not sin,” that is, whom he forgives, so that the
legal consequence of his sin shall not fall upon him. This
non-imputation of sin, to a sinner, is expressly called the “imputation
of righteousness, without works;” the imputation of righteousness is,
then, the non-punishment, or the pardon of sin; and if this passage be
read in its connection, it will also be seen, that by “imputing” faith
for righteousness, the Apostle means precisely the same thing: “But to
him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly,
his faith is counted for righteousness; even as David also describeth
the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying,
Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are
covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sin.” This
quotation from David would have been nothing to the Apostle’s purpose,
unless he had understood the forgiveness of sins, and the imputation of
righteousness, and the non-imputation of sin, to signify the same thing
as “counting faith for righteousness,” with only this difference, that
the introduction of the term “faith” marks the _manner_ in which the
forgiveness of sin is obtained. To have faith imputed for righteousness,
is nothing more than to be justified by faith, which is also called by
St. Paul, “being made righteous,” that is, being placed by an act of
free forgiveness, through faith in Christ, in the condition of righteous
men, in this respect, that the penalty of the law does not lie against
them, and that they are the acknowledged objects of the divine favour.
See FAITH.
KADESH-BARNEA, a station of the Israelites, to which they returned again
after thirty-eight years, is said to be in the wilderness of Zin, Num.
xiii, 21; xx, 1; Deut. xxxii, 51; but in the wilderness of Paran, Num.
xii, 16. In the Itinerary it is simply called Rithmah, “the wilderness.”
Dr. Hales observes, that Wells, Shaw, the authors of the “Universal
History,” &c, have greatly perplexed and obscured the geography of this
Itinerary, by supposing that there were two places of this name distinct
from each other. They consider the latter of them as situated on the
western side of Mount Hor, toward the land of Canaan, and thus confound
it with that Kadesh in the land of the Philistines, where Abraham
sojourned, Gen. xvi, 13; xx, 1. But that it lay on the east side of
Mount Hor, is evident; for why should Moses send messengers from Kadesh
to the king of Edom, requesting permission to pass through his
territories in the way to Canaan, if they were already at the verge of
Palestine, Num. xx, 14? This application, however, was necessary if his
territories were situated between Canaan and the Israelites. The true
situation of Kadesh is ascertained beyond a doubt, from its lying
between Mount Hor and Ezion-Geber, on the Elanitic Gulf, Num. xxxiii,
35–37.
KADMONITES, ancient inhabitants of the land of Canaan, whose habitation
was beyond Jordan, to the east of Phenicia, Gen. xv, 19. The Kadmonites
were descended from Canaan, the son of Ham. It has been conjectured that
the celebrated Cadmus, the founder of Thebes in Bœotia, was
originally a Kadmonite; and that his wife, Hermione, was so named from
Mount Hermon.
KEDAR. This name signifies _black_ in the original; and hence Bochart
concludes that it refers to a people or tribe of Arabs who were more
than others burned by the sun; but none of the Arabs are black. The name
is also supposed to refer to the black tents made of felt, which are
still in use; and Cant. i, 5, is quoted in support of this usage of the
word: “I am black, but comely as the tents of Kedar.” But the Arabic
root is by some said to signify power and dignity. Kedar was the second
son of Ishmael, whose family probably became more numerous, or more
warlike, than those of his brethren, and so took precedence of name.
This latter supposition appears probable from the manner in which they
are mentioned by Isaiah, xxi, 16, 17, who speaks of “the glory of
Kedar,” and “the archers and mighty men of Kedar.” Their flocks are also
spoken of by the same Prophet, Isaiah lx, 7, together with those of
Nebaioth, whose tribe or family both shared and outlived the glory of
Kedar.
KEDRON, a small brook which, rising near Jerusalem, runs through the
valley on the east of the city, between it and the Mount of Olives.
Descending into the valley from St. Stephen’s gate, the traveller comes
to the bed of the brook Kedron, which is but a few paces over. This
brook is stated by Pococke to have its rise a little way farther to the
north, but its source does not appear to have been ascertained. Like the
Ilissus, it is dry at least nine months in the year; its bed is narrow
and deep, which indicates that it must formerly have been the channel
for waters that have found some other and probably subterranean course.
There is now no water in it, except after heavy rains. A bridge is
thrown over it a little below the gate of St. Stephen; and they say,
that when there is water, unless the torrent swells much, which very
rarely occurs, it all runs under ground to the north of this bridge. The
course of the brook is along the valley of Jehoshaphat, to the
south-west corner of the city, and then turning to the south, it runs to
the Dead Sea.