Lecture 8 Justification; The Scriptural Meaning Of The Term

PROPOSITION I. Justification is a legal, or forensic, term, and is used in Scripture to denote the acceptance of any one as righteous in the sight of God.

As God has been pleased to employ this term, and its cognates, in revealing His will in regard to the method of our acceptance with Him, it is our first duty to ascertain their precise import, and it cannot be a matter of slight importance to determine it aright. Erroneous or confused views of the scriptural meaning of these terms, must exert an injurious influence on our conception of the doctrine which they are designed to teach; while the right interpretation of many passages of Scripture can only be satisfactorily established by a careful inductive inquiry into the ‘usus loquendi’ of the sacred writers; and it is far from being a mere verbal discussion, since it has an important bearing on the substance and evidence of the truth itself.

The scriptural meaning of these terms is to be determined, neither by their mere etymology, nor by the sense which they bear in classical literature, but by the usage of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, including the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. So far as etymology is concerned, the verb to ‘justify’ might possibly mean to make righteous inherently, just as the verb to ‘sanctify’ often means to ‘make holy’ in that way; but this can in no case be determined by the mere derivation or composition of the term,—as is manifest from the fact, that to ‘glorify God’ does not mean to make God glorious, and to ‘sanctify the Lord God in our hearts,’ does not mean to make Him holy, but only to account and declare Him to be glorious, in the one case, and holy, in the other. In this sense, God is said to be ‘justified,’ and Christ also,—not that they were, or could be, made righteous,—but that they were respectively declared to be righteous,—the one by His judgments, the other by His resurrection from the dead. The mere etymology of the term cannot determine, therefore, the question in regard to its scriptural meaning; and this can only be ascertained from the usage of the sacred writers. (1)

In order to determine its scriptural meaning, it is not necessary to undertake the burden of proving, either that it might not be used, or that, in point of fact, it has never been used, in the sense of making one righteous; for, although Popish divines and their followers have generally attempted to show that, in some passages, it is used in an ‘efficient, moral’ sense, and some Protestant writers have maintained, in opposition to them, that these passages do not necessarily require that construction, it is enough to establish the only point which is of essential importance in the argument,—namely, that, wherever it is used with reference to our acceptance with God, it can only be understood in a judicial or forensic sense. (2)

Some recent writers, in assailing the Protestant doctrine, have proceeded on the supposition that, if the term could be proved to bear in some instances, or even to be capable of bearing, an ‘efficient, moral sense,’ Justification could no longer be regarded as ‘forensic.’ But it is an egregious error, to imagine that the ‘forensic,’ or ‘judicial,’ nature of Justification is at all affected by the ground on which it is supposed to rest. It would bear that character, and could only be correctly described by these terms, in the case even of a perfectly righteous man; and were it possible for a sinner to be justified on the ground of an infused and inherent, but imperfect, righteousness, his acceptance as righteous on that ground would still be a forensic and judicial sentence, recognising his righteousness and reputing him accordingly. This is virtually admitted when the ‘reputative’ idea is said to be involved in the meaning of the term Justification: and yet, with singular inconsistency, the doctrine of a ‘forensic,’ is contrasted with that of a ‘moral,’ Justification, as if the two epithets—‘forensic’ and ‘moral’—related to the same point, and did not refer—the one to the nature of Justification,—the other to the ground on which it is supposed to rest. The real question at issue is,—not whether Justification be judicial or moral,—for it must be judicial even when it rests on moral grounds,—but whether a sinner is accepted on the ground of a righteousness vicarious and imputed, or of a righteousness infused and inherent? It may be added, that this being the point on which the discussion really turns, the question is not fully stated when it is asked whether the term signifies to ‘make righteous’ or to ‘account righteous;’ for all parties must be held to admit that, when a sinner is justified, he is, in some sense, both made and accounted righteous; and the real difference between them becomes apparent only when they proceed to explain in what way he is made righteous, and adjudged so to be. When the question is thus stated, Justification must be regarded as involving a forensic or judicial sentence, on whatever ground it may be supposed to rest; and the two distinct alternatives are clearly presented to us,—Justification by Christ’s vicarious righteousness imputed, or by man’s personal righteousness infused. Which of these alternatives is the true scriptural doctrine must be determined by a careful consideration of the evidence bearing on that precise point. At present we are only adjusting the state of the question in regard to the meaning of the term, and extricating it from some collateral questions which must be determined afterwards, each on its proper merits.

The forensic or judicial sense of the term may be established by three distinct proofs, arising from the antithetic—correlative—and equivalent, expressions which also occur in Scripture.

We place the antithetic expressions first, because the true meaning of any term is often best ascertained from that of those which are placed in opposition to it. The Hebrew and Greek verbs which are employed by the sacred writers to denote ‘justification,’ are invariably set over against such as denote ‘condemnation.’ They are applied to the judgments of men, and also to the judgments of God; and the analogy between these two is the ground of its common application to both. With reference to the judgments of men, justification is always opposed to condemnation. ‘If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judge may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked.’ ‘He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.’ ‘Woe unto them … which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him.’ In these passages, and many more, two judicial sentences are mentioned which are directly the reverse of each other; and they are so stated, with reference both to the righteous and to the wicked, as to imply that the justification of the one no more signifies the infusion of righteousness, than the condemnation of the other signifies the infusion of wickedness. With reference, again, to the judgments of God, the same terms—‘justification’ and ‘condemnation’—are frequently employed to denote judicial sentences which are directly opposite to each other. ‘It is God that justifieth: who is he that condemneth?’ ‘By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.’ ‘The judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.’ If Justification is thus proved to be the opposite of condemnation, it can only be, like the latter, a forensic and judicial term; and the one can no more signify to sanctify or to make righteous inherently, than the other to deprave or deteriorate the moral character of one who is convicted of crime. (3)

A second proof of the forensic or judicial sense of the term may be derived from the fact, that all the correlative terms, with which it is associated, bear that character, and designate one or other of the various circumstances which are implied in a process of judgment. In strict connection with it, we read of a judgment: ‘Enter not into judgment with Thy servant: for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified;’—of a Judge: ‘Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?’ ‘We are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth;’—of a tribunal: ‘We shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ;’—of an accuser: ‘Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth;’—of an indictment: ‘Forgiving you all trespasses, and blotting out the handwriting of ordinances which was against us, which was contrary to us;’—of a witness: ‘Their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts accusing or else excusing one another;’—of an Advocate: ‘If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;’—and of a sentence of absolution: ‘Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity.’ All these expressions imply a judicial process, and they are correlative to the term Justification.

A third proof of the forensic or judicial sense of the term ‘Justification’ is supplied by those equivalent expressions, which are sometimes substituted for it, and which serve to explain it. If these expressions cannot imply infusion of righteousness, but denote merely either the forgiveness of sin, or the acceptance of the sinner, they show that Justification denotes a change in his judicial relation to God, and not a change in his moral or spiritual character. It is expressly described as the ‘imputation of righteousness:’ ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness…. David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works;’—it is inclusive of the non-imputation,—the covering,—the forgiveness of sin: ‘Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin;’—it is equivalent to reconciliation: ‘For God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;’—and it amounts to making us ‘the righteousness of God:’ ‘For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.’ If these phrases are the scriptural equivalents of Justification, they serve to explain the import of that term, and to show that it can mean nothing else than the acceptance of a sinner as righteous in the sight of God. (4)

There are thus three distinct classes of expressions,—the antithetic, correlative, and equivalent terms,—which are used in Scripture, and which afford abundant materials for determining the sense in which the sacred writers speak of Justification. Every one of them furnishes some contribution to the evidence of its scriptural meaning; and when they are all combined, they have the weight and force of a cumulative proof. It is necessary to add on this point, with reference to some recent cavils, that the meaning of the term may be strictly forensic, although the method of Justification by grace should differ, in many respects, from that of Justification by Law, and should have no exact analogue in the proceedings of human courts;—for the former may contain a provision for the fulfilment of the Law, and may only substitute a vicarious, for a personal, righteousness as the ground of our acceptance with God; while Justification itself is still a judicial sentence, and God is declared to be ‘just’ while He is ‘the justifier of the ungodly.’ Were it a mere act of indemnity, securing impunity for past sin, and were it proclaimed irrespective of any satisfaction to God’s justice, or any vindication of His righteous Law, it might be regarded as a sovereign exercise of mercy,—above, and even against, the principles of His moral government; and, in that case, its judicial and forensic character must be merged and lost in the virtual abolition of any legal rule, whether of justification or of condemnation. But if, instead of being abolished, the Law is to be fulfilled,—and if a righteousness is still to be the ground of our acceptance with God, then Justification, as being related to, and founded upon, that righteousness, which is both provided and wrought out for us, must still retain its forensic and judicial character, even while it is also an act of grace. For this reason Protestant divines have been careful to combine, in their definitions or descriptions of it, both its judicial and its gracious aspect, and to show that, according to the scheme of the Gospel, ‘He is faithful and just,’ while He is also ‘merciful and gracious’ ‘to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.’ ‘Justification,’ says Bishop Downhame, ‘is a most gracious and righteous act of God, whereby He, imputing the righteousness of Christ to a believing sinner, absolveth him from his sins, and accepteth of him as righteous in Christ, and as an heir of eternal life, to the praise and glory of His own Mercy and Justice.’

PROP. II. While ‘Justification’ is a forensic or judicial term, it is used in Scripture to denote, sometimes the acceptance of a sinner as righteous in the sight of God,—sometimes the manifestation or proof of his acceptance, by which it is attested and made sure: and this variety in the application of it is the ground of an important theological distinction,—the distinction between ACTUAL and DECLARATIVE Justification.

This distinction does not imply, either that there is more than one Justification before God, as Romish writers have alleged, or that the sense of the term is ambiguous; for that term relates invariably to one and the same Justification, when it denotes a change in man’s relation to God; but this change may be considered in two distinct aspects,—either as being actually accomplished when he is accepted as righteous,—or as being declared and attested, so as to give him the comfortable assurance of it; and the same term may be applied to it in each of these aspects, without making its meaning ambiguous, since the context will enable us to determine in which of the two it is contemplated by the sacred writer. The Protestant doctrine affirms that a sinner is made or constituted righteous by having Christ’s righteousness imputed to him; and that, being thus justified actually, he is also justified declaratively, when his acceptance is proved or attested, so as to be made manifest to his own conscience, or to his fellow-men. In both cases it is one and the same Justification that is spoken of,—his acceptance as righteous in the sight of God; but, in the one, it is considered simply as a fact, in the other, as a fact that is attested and proved. Actual Justification comes first, and is necessarily presupposed in that which is declarative; and hence, if any one is declared to have been justified, we conclude that he was actually justified, or accepted as righteous in the sight of God. While there is a real analogy, there is also an important difference, between the divine act of Justification, and the judicial procedure of human courts. The sentence of a human judge is merely declarative; it does not constitute a man either innocent or guilty, it only pronounces him to be so in the eye of the law: it may even be erroneous, and may pronounce one to be innocent who is really guilty, and another to be guilty who is really innocent; whereas in justifying a sinner, God does what no human judge can do,—He first constitutes him righteous, who was not righteous before, and then declares him to be righteous, in His infallible judgment, which is ever according to truth. It is chiefly in its declarative aspect that the divine act of Justification is analogous to the sentence of a human judge; and the difference between the two cases consists in the one having respect to a vicarious, the other to a personal, righteousness; while both are forensic or judicial, as being pronounced with reference to a law or rule of righteousness, which is applicable to each of them respectively.

The distinction between ACTUAL and DECLARATIVE Justification is illustrated by many passages of Scripture.

The term must necessarily bear a declarative sense only, when it is applied to God,—‘All the people justified God;’ or to Christ,—‘God manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit;’2 or to Wisdom,—’Wisdom is justified of her children.’ In the same sense it must be understood when it is used to denote self-justification from a charge of guilt, true or false. The lawyer is described as ‘willing to justify himself;’4 and the Pharisees as ’they who justify themselves before men.’ In these and similar cases, the purely declarative sense of the term is self-evident, since every other is necessarily excluded.

We have a beautiful example of ACTUAL, followed by DECLARATIVE, justification, in the case of one, who is simply described as ‘a woman in the city which was a sinner.’ She came into the presence of Jesus in the house of a Pharisee, and manifested her devoted love to Him; for ‘she brought an alabaster box of ointment, and stood at His feet behind Him weeping, and began to wash His feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed His feet, and anointed them with the ointment.’ The Pharisee, offended by such a sinner being permitted to approach one who professed to be a prophet sent from God, began to reason within himself against Christ’s claims to that character, on the ground that He must be ignorant what manner of woman she was; but his unuttered thought was answered by our Lord, when He pointed to the tokens of her love to Him as a proof that if she had sinned, she had also been forgiven; and then proceeded to add His own assurance of her forgiveness, addressed to herself. It is manifest that she was actually justified before she came into His presence; for her love was the evidence and the effect,—not the cause or ground,—of her forgiveness: it was love which constrained her to follow Him,—it was love that prompted her to bring an alabaster box of ointment,—it was love that burned in her heart while she stood behind Him weeping: and ‘she loved much,’ because ‘much had been forgiven her;’ but she was now justified declaratively, so as to obtain, perhaps for the first time, an assurance of her personal acceptance,—for not only did her Lord acknowledge her ‘great love’ as being in itself a practical proof of her forgiveness, but He further attested it, first by His words to the Pharisee—‘Wherefore, I say unto thee, her sins which are many are forgiven;’ and then by His words to herself, when ‘He said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven;’ ‘Thy faith hath saved thee, go in peace.’ This case brings out very clearly both the distinction between actual and declarative Justification, and also the two distinct methods in which the justification of a believer may be manifested and proved. The woman was forgiven before, but she now obtained the assurance of her forgiveness; and that assurance was conveyed to her mind in two ways—first by means of an experimental evidence of her having that ‘faith which worketh by love;’ and secondly, in addition to this experimental evidence, by means of an authoritative testimony from the lips of her Lord Himself.

The distinction between ACTUAL and DECLARATIVE Justification, in the sense already explained, may be further illustrated by what is said of the Old Testament believers in the 11th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Apostle refers to them as been actually justified by faith; but his expressions show that he speaks also, and very specially, of their declarative justification. By faith, he says, ‘the elders obtained a good report’ (ἐμαρτυρήθησαν),—they were not only justified, but attested or declared so to be. Of Abel it is said, that ‘by faith he offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts’ (ἐμαρτυρήθη εἶναι δίκαιος, μαρτυροῦντος ἐπὶ τοῖς δώροις αὐτοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ); the prominent idea being not merely the fact, that Abel and his offering were accepted of God, but that God testified His acceptance of both, or bore witness to him that ‘he was righteous.’ Of Enoch it is said, that ‘before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God’ (μεμαρτύρηται εὐηρεστηκέναι τῷ Θεῷ). And of many more it is said, ‘These all having obtained a good report through faith’ (μαρτυρηθέντες διὰ τῆς πίστεως). Their ACTUAL Justification is presupposed, but their DECLARATIVE Justification is specially referred to; and this is represented as depending partly on the practical fruits of faith, by which it was proved to be alive and active, and partly on the divine testimony bearing witness to their acceptance.

The distinction between actual and declarative Justification may be still further illustrated by what is said in Scripture of the final judgment at the last day. No one will be actually justified then, who was not justified before: but every believer will be justified declaratively, when he is openly acknowledged and acquitted by the sentence of the Judge. No one will then be forgiven or accepted for the first time; for as there is no repentance, so there is no pardon in the grave; the day of salvation terminates at the close of life; and over every deathbed this solemn inscription might be written, ‘He that is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still; and he that is holy, let him be holy still.’ But the righteous and holy, who have been already justified and sanctified on earth, will be publicly declared to be ‘blessed’ in that day which is emphatically called ‘the day of the Apocalypse, or revelation, of the sons of God.’ And on that solemn occasion, just as in the case of the woman that was a sinner, the acquittal and acceptance of the believer will not only be authoritatively declared by the sentence of the Judge, but that sentence will refer to the fruits of his faith, and especially to his love to Christ, as manifested by love to His afflicted people: ‘Inasmuch as ye did it to one of these my brethren, ye did it unto me.’ Justification, considered as the pardon of a sinner and his acceptance as righteous in the sight of God, is by faith; but judgment is according to works; and it is not a second Justification,—as if there might be two—the one by faith, the other by works—it is one and the same Justification, which is actually bestowed in the present life, and authoritatively declared and attested at the judgment-seat. Some have imagined that the doctrine of a free Justification now by grace, through faith alone, is inconsistent with that of a future judgment according to works; and for this reason they have attempted to show, either that Justification and Judgment are precisely the same, or that we must modify the doctrine of Justification by faith alone so as to bring it into accordance with that of a judgment according to works. (5) But there is no real inconsistency between the two doctrines. They relate to different parts of the divine procedure; and are equally necessary,—the one for the immediate relief of the sinner’s conscience,—the other for the regulation of the believer’s conduct. ‘I would have every preacher,’ said Dr. Chalmers to the author, ‘insist strenuously on these two doctrines—a present Justification by grace, through faith alone—and a future Judgment according to works;’ and all faithful ministers have made use of both, that they might guard equally against the peril of self-righteous legalism, on the one hand, and of practical Antinomianism, on the other. But we refer to the future judgment only as it affords an additional proof of the distinction between actual and declarative Justification.

PROP. III. The distinction between actual and declarative Justification,—viewed in connection with the difference between a living and a dead faith,—affords a sufficient explanation of the apparent discrepancy between the teaching of Paul and James.

‘Therefore we conclude,’ says Paul, ‘that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law.’

‘Ye see, then,’ says James, ‘how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.’

That these statements might be understood in a sense in which they would be at direct variance with each other, is evident, both from a simple comparison of the terms in which they are expressed, and from the history of their actual interpretation. It is equally evident, that there can be no real contradiction between the two, since both Apostles wrote under the inspiration of the same Spirit of Truth; and it is the first duty, therefore, of all parties to ascertain their real meaning, by a careful collation of their respective lines of thought, as these are developed in the context, and illustrated by other passages of Scripture; and thereafter to show that, when thus interpreted, they are in perfect accordance with each other, and with the general ‘analogy of faith.’

From the age of Augustine downwards, the most various and conflicting interpretations have been proposed. Recourse has been had to each of the principal terms in succession,—Justification,—Faith,—Works,—with the view of finding, in one or other of them, a means of harmonizing the teaching of the two Apostles. Some have founded their theory on the first of these terms, and have contended for a first and second, or an initial and final, Justification,—not in the sense of the one being actual, and the other declarative merely,—but in the sense of both being actual, while the one is by faith, and the other by works. Others have founded on the second term, and have attempted to show that, if every believer is actually justified in the present life, it can only be because faith is considered as the germ of personal holiness, and as comprehensive of all the other graces, and acts of new obedience, which spring from it. Others still have founded on the third term, and have endeavoured to show, that the works which are excluded from the ground of our Justification, are—either mere ceremonial observances such as were enjoined in that part of the Mosaic law which is now abolished,—or moral duties such as the heathen practised, which were done in the unaided strength of nature, without grace, and before faith in Christ,—or perfect obedience to the divine law, such as no man in his own strength can possibly accomplish, but not that sincere, though imperfect, obedience which every Christian is enabled by the grace of the Spirit to render to its requirements. For a full discussion of these various theories, recourse must be had to the writings of their respective advocates or opponents; it is sufficient for the establishment of the proposition which is now before us, if it can be shown, by a correct exposition of the language of both Apostles, that Paul is treating of actual, and James of declarative, Justification; and that, when their respective statements are thus understood, there is not even the shadow of a discrepancy between them.

Paul, in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, treats at great length, and with much earnestness, the question of a sinner’s actual Justification, or acceptance in the sight of God. He states the conclusion of his whole argument, when he says, ‘Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin;’ and again, ‘Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law.’ To lay a deep and firm foundation for this conclusion in each of its constituent parts, he had first taken a comprehensive survey of the state and character of all men,—whether Gentiles or Jews,—considered as subjects of the divine Law; of the Gentiles, as being subjects of a moral law inscribed on their own hearts, by which ‘they were a law to themselves;’ and of the Jews, as being subjects both of that natural law in common with the Gentiles, and also of a revealed law, which was peculiar to them: and the result of his survey is declared in these sweeping terms—‘What things soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God;’ for ‘there is no difference; for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.’ This result of his comprehensive survey is the ground of the first part of his conclusion, ‘Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin;’ and this conclusion shuts out all Justification by the law in the case of sinners, whether it be the purely moral law of Conscience, or the partly moral and partly positive law of the Mosaic Revelation. But at this point he advances a step further, and, having excluded the righteousness of man altogether from the ground of his justification, he brings into view another righteousness, emphatically called ‘the righteousness of God,’ because God claims a special propriety in it, as being peculiarly His own—devised, provided, wrought out, and revealed by Himself alone; he speaks of this righteousness as being now clearly manifested, and fully revealed; and he describes it as ‘a righteousness without the law,’—as a righteousness, since it has some relation to the law; for if it be true that ‘where there is no law, there is no transgression,’ it is equally true, that where there is no law, there is no ‘righteousness;’—and yet a ‘righteousness without the law,’ as being above and beyond the law,—neither contained in it, nor provided by it;—as a ‘righteousness’ which is, nevertheless, ‘witnessed by the law and the prophets,’ having been indicated, although not fully revealed—predicted, prefigured, and promised, when mention was made of Him who ‘should be called the Lord our Righteousness,’ and ‘the Lord in whom all the seed of Israel shall be justified;’—as a ‘righteousness which is by faith,’ and ‘upon all them that believe,’ so that ‘they are justified freely by His grace;’ and ‘if by grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace: and if it be of works, then is it no more grace; otherwise work is no more work;’ ‘for to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt;’2—and, finally, as a righteousness which is ’through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;’ and which was wrought out for us when ‘God set Him forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness;… that He might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.’ This result, again, of the revealed method of grace and redemption is the ground of the second part of his conclusion;—‘Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law.’ So that man’s righteousness arising from his works of obedience to the divine Law, is excluded from the ground of his Justification on two distinct grounds,—first, on the ground of God’s Law, which convicts and condemns every sinner;—and secondly, on the ground of God’s method of redeeming mercy, which brings in another righteousness altogether,—the righteousness of Him who ‘became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross.’ It is manifest from the whole course of his argument, that Paul’s design was to explain the method and ground, and even, to some extent, the rationale, of the actual justification of a sinner in the sight of God,—to show how, and why, he may be forgiven and accepted as righteous,—and to set forth this as the immediate privilege of every believer, as soon as he renounces all confidence in his own righteousness, and submits ‘to the righteousness of God.’

It is equally clear, that the Apostle James, while he refers incidentally, or by necessary implication, to the actual justification of sinners in the sight of God, is not engaged in expounding either the nature, or grounds, of that great Gospel privilege, but rather in illustrating the declarative justification of believers, or the practical evidence by which their actual justification is attested and proved. He refers to the same justification of a sinner in the sight of God, which is more fully expounded by Paul; for he speaks, like Paul, of the justification of Abraham, which was evidently, in the first instance, that of a sinner before God; and for this reason, it is a defective statement to say that he speaks only of justification before men. But actual justification is necessarily presupposed in that which is declarative; for the latter is the mere evidence, manifestation, or proof of the former; and the Apostle proves the actual justification of Abraham, first, from the testimony of God Himself, as it is recorded in Scripture, ‘which saith, Abraham believed in God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God;’ and secondly, from the practical fruits or manifestations of his faith in works of holy obedience: ‘For was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?’

Here Abraham is said to have been ‘justified by works,’ and the special work of obedience which is mentioned is that marvellous proof of his faith,—his offering up his son Isaac on the altar. But the history of Abraham shows that he was actually justified, in the sense of being forgiven and accepted of God, long before his faith was subjected to that severe trial. He was a believer, and, as such, a justified sinner, many years before Isaac was born: and the first notice of his justification makes mention only of God’s promise, and of Abraham’s faith; for ‘he believed in the Lord, and He counted it to him for righteousness.’ But his justification, which was real and saving as soon as he believed, was attested and made sure at a later period, when ‘the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me…. And again the second time, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, that in blessing I will bless thee, … and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.’ He was ACTUALLY justified before; but there was here a divine DECLARATION of his acceptance, which expressly referred to his obedience, as the fruit and manifestation of his faith. The fact that he was accepted at an earlier, and declared to be accepted at a later, period, while in both cases he is spoken of as ‘justified,’ has an important application to our present argument; for it shows conclusively that the same term is used to denote both his actual and his declarative justification. But in addition to this, the priority of his actual justification by faith to his declarative justification by works, affords ground for an argument precisely analogous to that which the Apostle founds on the date of his justification as compared with that of his circumcision. ‘We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? When he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised.’ Following this apostolic precedent, and proceeding exactly on the same principle, we might say, ‘Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? When he had manifested his faith by offering up his son Isaac upon the altar, and when both his faith and obedience were declared to be accepted by an audible voice from heaven? No, but long before; and he obtained that declarative justification, just as he received circumcision, as a sign and seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had before.’

But the distinction between actual and declarative Justification must be viewed in connection with the difference between a LIVING and a DEAD FAITH, in order to afford a full explanation of the apparent discrepancy between the teaching of the two Apostles. When Paul and James speak of the faith of Abraham, they both regard it as a genuine, vital, operative principle; for Paul, not less strongly than James, describes it as ‘working by love,’ and bringing forth the fruits of new obedience; for ‘by faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should afterward receive for an inheritance, obeyed;’ and so, ‘by faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only-begotten son.’ He acted by faith on both occasions; so that faith was prior to his obedience; and if every believer is justified, he was actually pardoned and accepted before he manifested his faith in these signal acts of obedience. But while James refers, as Paul also does, to the living faith of Abraham and its practical fruits, he speaks of another thing under the name of faith, which is described,—partly as a mere profession, where there was no real principle,—and partly as a mere doctrinal belief, which had no spiritual life in it. He speaks, in the first instance, of a mere profession, where there was no real principle: ‘What doth it profit though a man SAY he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith (evidently such a faith as is here meant) save him?’ The case supposed is that of a faith professed merely, and not productive of obedience—and the question raised is, Whether that be saving faith? He compares it to a mere profession of charity, which leads to no deeds of active beneficence, and concludes that the one is as worthless as the other. ‘Even so,’ says he, ‘faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone:’ ‘for as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.’ We read in Scripture both of a ‘dead faith’ and of ‘dead works;’2—faith is dead when it is without works, and works are dead when they are without faith;—and hence we are called equally, in the exercise of self-examination, to test our faith by our works, and to test our works by the principle from which they spring. The purely evidential or declarative use of works in their relation to faith is very clearly brought out, when he adds, ’Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: SHOW ME thy faith without thy works, and I will SHOW THEE my faith by my works.’ But suppose that there is something more than mere profession,—that there is a belief in some of the elementary truths of religion, such as the devils have, who ‘believe and tremble,’—but that still it is productive of no fruits of holy obedience; it is still a ‘dead faith,’ and altogether different from the faith of Abraham. ‘For was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.’ If we understand the words, ‘Abraham was justified by works,’ in a declarative sense, as importing that he was then, and on account of his obedience, attested as a true believer and a justified man, the whole passage will be seen to be self-consistent, as well as in perfect harmony with the doctrine of Paul; but if we understand them as referring to the ground and reason of his actual justification, not only must one Apostle be held to contradict another, but no consistent explanation can be given of the statement of James himself.

From this brief review of the teaching of Paul and James, it appears that the distinction between actual and declarative Justification, which can be established, as we have seen, from many other passages of Scripture, is sufficient, especially when viewed in connection with the difference between a living and a dead faith, to afford a sufficient explanation of the apparent discrepancy of their teaching on the subject of Justification. (6) It may be right to add, that the same practical doctrine which is taught by James, is frequently taught in substance, although in different terms, by Paul himself; and that, so far from regarding it as being either a contradiction or a correction of his own teaching, he would have cordially concurred with his fellow-Apostle in striving to guard against every perversion of the doctrine of grace. In treating the whole question of a sinner’s justification, he does not overlook, but anticipates and answers, the false inferences which carnal minds might draw from it. ‘Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid! yea, we establish the law.’ ‘What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid!’ ‘Our old man is crucified with Christ, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.’ ‘But now, being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.’ He declares that ‘the grace of God which bringeth salvation’ is designed to teach us that, ‘denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the world;’ and that the grand end of Christ ‘in giving Himself for us,’ was that ‘He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify us to Himself, a peculiar people zealous (not jealous) of good works.’2 He exhorts believers to ’make their calling and election sure,’ and, for this end, to ‘examine themselves whether they be in the faith;’ and he furnishes them with a criterion or touchstone of their real condition in the sight of God, by specifying in detail both ‘the works of the flesh’ and ’the fruits of the Spirit.’2

The two Apostles were combating two opposite errors, and sought to check two opposite tendencies. Paul contended against Legalism, and the self-righteous tendency which leads men ‘to go about to establish their own righteousness,’ and to seek Justification by the works of the Law. James contends against Libertinism, or the Antinomian tendency which leads men to pervert the Gospel itself, and to ‘turn the grace of God into licentiousness.’ Both tendencies still exist, alike in the world and in the Church: for however Legalism and Libertinism may be disowned in theory, the tendency towards the one exists wherever there remains the slightest feeling of self-confidence,—and the tendency towards the other, wherever there is one lust unsubdued, or the smouldering fire of indwelling sin. And for this reason, every faithful minister finds it necessary to make use, alternately, of the teaching of Paul and of James. (7)