Lecture 9 Justification; The Proper Nature Of The Blessing

THE meaning of the term, as ascertained from the usage of the sacred writers, indicates generally the nature of the blessing which is denoted by it; but the consideration of that blessing, as it is described or exemplified in Scripture, will serve at once to define our views of its nature, and to shed a reflected light on the meaning of the term.

PROP. IV. The term ‘Justification’ denotes, either an act of God, or a privilege of His people; and, in both cases, that which is denoted by it includes absolution and acceptance,—the full pardon of sin, admission into God’s favour, and a title to eternal life.

It denotes an act of God; for ‘it is God which justifieth:’ ‘He is near that justifieth me;’—and it denotes a privilege of His people; for ’being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.’2 In each of these aspects, some important truths have been revealed concerning it.

Considered as an act of God, who ‘justifies the ungodly,’ it is not a subjective operation producing a moral change in our personal character, although it is invariably accompanied by renewing and sanctifying grace; but an act which is external to us, and which effects an immediate and permanent change in our relation to God,—just such as is consequent on the sentence of a judge, by which any one is absolved from a charge of guilt,—or the act of adoption, by which any one is invested with the privileges of legal sonship. It is an act, too, which is completed at once, and not a work which is gradually accomplished by successive acts; for although we read of the continuance, as well as the commencement, of Justification, considered as the privilege of believers, and of the renewed exercise of forgiving mercy as often as they contract fresh sin, yet there is no second Justification, properly so called, but a decisive and unalterable change in our relation to God, which commences with our union to Christ, and is continued by our remaining in Him; an abiding state of Justification, which is the effect of that indissoluble union. ‘There is now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.’ ‘He that believeth … hath everlasting life, and shall never come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.’2 The act of Justification introduces believers into a state of Justification, which is stable and enduring, and which is described as ’this grace wherein we stand,’ and as ‘a new life:’ for Christ is ‘our life.’ Justification, considered in the same aspect, is, still further, an act of God in time,—not His eternal purpose merely, as some Antinomians have held,—nor is it a mere revealing of what was always true, and is now only made known and believed; it is a real efficacious act of grace, by which God constitutes the sinner legally righteous, and accepts him as such, although till that hour he was not righteous, but guilty and condemned. It is an act of God with reference to individuals, and it takes place at a definite period in the life of each,—for as long as any one remains without Christ, and in a state of unbelief, he is charged with guilt, and exposed to wrath; but as soon as he believes and is united to Christ, his state in this respect is entirely changed. All who are justified were once ‘dead in trespasses and sins;’ and they continued in that state, till the decisive moment when, by an act of divine grace, they were taken out of it, and placed in a state of pardon and peace. ‘For as many as are of the works of the law, are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.’2 ’He that believeth on Christ is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.’ ‘He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.’ This act of God takes instant effect, and produces an immediate and complete change in the sinner’s whole relation to Him; it bestows the full and free pardon of sin, and translates him at once from a state of condemnation into a state of favour and peace. His person is first justified, and then his services are accepted: and should he afterwards incur fresh guilt, he is not suffered to fall again into condemnation, but, as an adopted child, he ‘is chastened of the Lord, that he should not be condemned with the world.’ ’For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth.’4 (1)

Considered, again, as the privilege of a believer, it includes absolution and acceptance—the full pardon of sin, admission into God’s favour now, and a title to eternal life hereafter. We are not concerned at present with some questions, which will meet us at a later stage, in regard to those requirements of the divine Law which render these two parts of Justification equally necessary,—or to the method by which they were procured by the mediatorial work of Christ,—or to the grounds on which they are respectively bestowed; we are as yet only explaining the nature of that which is denoted by the term, and establishing the fact, that, according to the clear testimony of Scripture, it consists in an entire change in the sinner’s relation to God, and in this only; while it includes the pardon of sin, which delivers him from wrath and condemnation, and also the privilege of acceptance, which invests him with a title to eternal life.

The fact that the Gospel proposes to every sinner, and promises to every believer, both the free pardon of sin, and the privilege of immediate acceptance with God, including the gift of eternal life, is so evident from innumerable testimonies of Scripture, that it is seldom, if ever, denied in express terms. Both are included in the most general statement of the Gospel message: ‘God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ The free, and full, pardon of sin is one of the most precious promises both of the Old and the New Testament. ‘Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and He will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon.’2 ’Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.’ ‘I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.’4 ’I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed thee.’ ‘If Thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? But there is forgiveness with Thee.’2 ’To Him give all the prophets witness, that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins.’ ‘In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins.’4 But the believer is not merely forgiven, so as to be delivered from wrath and condemnation, he is also ’accepted in the Beloved,’ and ‘made the righteousness of God in Him,’6—he is admitted into God’s favour, ’which is life,’—he has the privilege of access into His presence,—he is restored to His fellowship,—and obtains the gift of an eternal inheritance. For ‘this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.’ In short, the full and free pardon of sin, delivering him from ‘condemnation’ now, and also from ‘the wrath to come,’—and the acceptance, first of his person, and then of his services, together with the free gift of eternal life,—these are blessings which belong to every believer, and they are included in his Justification, which relates entirely to his judicial relation to God, here and hereafter.

Protestants have generally held that Justification denotes a change in our judicial relation to God, and that only; and that this change includes the pardon of sin, and the acceptance of the sinner. On what ground we are pardoned, on the one hand, and accepted, on the other, is not the present question, but simply the fact that these two blessings belong to every believer, and that they are included in his Justification. This fact is affirmed by all our greatest divines, and they have established their doctrine by a vast array of Scripture proofs and solid arguments in their great controversy with the Romish Church. (2) But as some errors on this point,—distinct from those which relate to the ground of Justification, although closely connected with them,—have always prevailed in the Church of Rome, and have recently been revived among certain parties belonging to the Protestant body, it may be useful to advert to them briefly, not in the way of controversy, but with the view of bringing out clearly and definitely, the nature of Justification, and each of its constituent parts.

That Justification, in the scriptural sense of the term, denotes the acceptance of a sinner as righteous in the sight of God, and that this acceptance must necessarily include, or imply, the pardon of his sins, is the most general and comprehensive statement of the doctrine of Scripture on this point. The truth of that statement is seldom denied in express terms; for, however men may differ in regard to the reason or ground of Justification, they usually hold that, in some way or other, it secures the forgiveness of sin, the enjoyment of the divine favour, and the gift of eternal life. Yet under this seeming agreement, there is a real and radical discordance, of opinion between them in regard to the nature of these blessings; and that discordance becomes strikingly apparent as soon as they severally state their views in distinct and definite terms.

In regard to the pardon or forgiveness of sin, many Popish writers have held that it consists in the deletion or extinction of innate depravity,—this being a part of their more general doctrine, that the Justification of a sinner denotes his being made righteous inherently, with a view to his final acceptance on the ground of his own personal obedience (3); while some Protestants have recently approximated to this view, by maintaining that pardon consists in deliverance from the dominion of sin, as the only possible means of freedom from its natural consequences, which are, in their view, its entire punishment,—and that there neither is, nor can be, pardon in any other sense. We have seen that the doctrine of Pardon was corrupted at a very early period. The Rabbinical Jews, and many of the Gnostics, held that no sin is ever forgiven, or its punishment remitted, but that in every case, the sinner must expiate it, here or hereafter, by his own personal suffering. (4) The Popish doctrine has a close resemblance to theirs; for while it makes Justification to include remission and renovation, as if they were distinct blessings, it describes remission as consisting in the deletion of sin, which is a part of sanctification, and as securing only exemption from eternal punishment, while temporal punishment is still exacted, and that too as a satisfaction to divine justice, either in penance here, or in purgatory hereafter; so that in the Protestant sense of the term, the Romish Church may be said to have no doctrine of Pardon at all. It is said, indeed, by some that Justification is pardon ‘relatively to the past,’ and that ‘nothing else it can be;’ but that it is only a part of one gift, which includes renovation also with respect to the present and the future: and this admission is fatal to their doctrine, unless it can be shown, either that the pardon of past sin is not a change in a sinner’s judicial relation to God, or that personal sanctification can of itself cancel guilt already contracted, and punishment already due. (5) Some Protestant writers have recently perverted, or rather denied, the doctrine of Pardon, in any other sense than that of deliverance from sin, and its natural consequences; and have affirmed that it cancels no curse,—that it removes no condemnation,—that it consists in deliverance from the power and pollution of sin, as the only means of freeing us from its inevitable consequences,—and that any other supposition is blasphemous. We are even told that the pardon of sin is impossible, since its punishment consists only in its natural consequences,—that these can never be removed by any act of God,—and that even the Socinian doctrine, which teaches the pardon of sin on repentance, is ‘a pernicious fallacy.’ (6)

All these errors in regard to the doctrine of Pardon sprung from the same source,—ignorance or unbelief in regard to the guilt and demerit of sin,—the wrath of God which is revealed from heaven against it,—and the nature of punishment, as that is declared in the curse, or condemning sentence, of His law. Those who can bring themselves to believe, either that there is no evil in sin, except as it is a subjective disorder or defilement of the soul,—or that it is not the object of God’s righteous abhorrence and indignation,—or that there is no penal threatening or sentence to be executed against it by direct divine infliction, may feel as if there could be no need, and even no possibility, of pardon; but their false security springs from unbelief of God’s Law, and is widely different from that true peace which springs from faith in Christ’s Gospel. It is not ‘the very peace of God, reigning in the conscience, through Christ Jesus;’ it is rather the atheistic security of those of whom the Psalmist speaks—‘Wherefore doth the wicked contemn God? He hath said in his heart, Thou wilt not require it.’ This state of mind is liable to be suddenly disturbed by the awakening of conscience, when God’s holy law is carried home to it in power, or when any one is brought face to face with death and an eternal world; for then ‘the revelation of wrath’ calls forth a response from within, and all must feel, that if ‘our own hearts condemn us, God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all things.’

The revealed doctrine of Pardon cannot be understood, unless we distinguish the guilt and demerit of sin, from its dominion and defilement. The guilt of sin remains after the act of sin is past and gone; and it is ‘marked’ or ‘retained’ against us, until it is ‘blotted out’, or ‘remitted.’ The fact of sin remains a fact for ever, and can never be undone; it will be true to all eternity that we contracted guilt, and deserved punishment. Pardon presupposes both its reality, and its demerit, and frees us from the charge of guilt, and the sentence of condemnation, without impairing our sense of either: on the contrary, as it proceeds from the Cross of Christ, and is proclaimed in His Gospel, it deepens our deepest convictions of sin, so that ‘we can never open our mouths any more on account of our shame, when God is pacified towards us for all that we have done.’ And it is only by pardon that guilt can be cancelled: it cannot be extinguished by repentance, or even by regeneration; for while these may improve or renew our character, a divine sentence of condemnation can only be reversed by a divine act of remission. This act, like that sentence, affects only a sinner’s relation to God; and that it properly belongs to his Justification, as being included in it, is evident from the Apostle’s statement, ’Be it known unto you, 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.’2 (7)

The pardon of sin is an indispensable and important part of a sinner’s justification, but is not an adequate or complete description of that privilege. It includes also his ‘acceptance as righteous in the sight of God;’ his admission to the divine favour, and possession of the gift of eternal life. His person, although he is still unworthy in himself, and also his services, although they are still imperfect and defiled by sin, ‘are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ,’ both being sprinkled with His blood, and perfumed with the incense of His intercession. Some have been anxious to show that Justification consists in pardon only, and that, when all sin has been forgiven, there is either no need of the distinct privilege of acceptance, or, if there be, that this is not secured by the righteousness of Christ, but is left to depend on the personal obedience of the believer. We are not considering at present the ground on which it rests, or what that righteousness is on account of which the believer is accepted of God, and obtains the gift of eternal life; but, that question being left open for future inquiry, the fact that Justification includes acceptance with God as well as the forgiveness of sin, should be distinctly apprehended, if we would form any adequate estimate of the nature and value of this great Gospel privilege. It has been alleged that some of the leading Reformers represented Justification as consisting in pardon only; but it can be conclusively proved from the writings of Luther and Calvin that when they made use of the expressions on which this allegation has been founded, they were arguing,—not against the doctrine which teaches that Justification includes acceptance with God as well as the forgiveness of sin,—but against the Popish doctrine, which made it to consist in remission and renovation. They excluded infused, but did not exclude imputed, righteousness; and this is admitted by Bellarmine himself. (8) Some Protestants, however, such as Piscator, Wendelinus, and Tillotson, have held that it consists in pardon only,—either because they thought, as Wesley did, that forgiveness necessarily implies our acceptance with God,—or because it seemed to them to be implied in the Apostle’s argument when he adduces the words of David, which refer to forgiveness only, in proof of the doctrine that ‘God imputeth righteousness without works.’ But the mere forgiveness of a sinner is evidently a distinct idea from that of his acceptance to God’s favour and eternal life; and although, in the actual constitution of the scheme of grace, the one may be said to imply the other, since they are never separated, and every sinner who is forgiven is also accepted at the same time, yet, in their own nature, there is no necessary connection between the two; for it is conceivable that a sinner might be pardoned, and yet left to work out his own acceptance, as he best might, by his personal obedience. But the question is, whether this be God’s method of justifying the ungodly, as that is revealed in Scripture? If it could be shown that any believer is there said to have been either accepted without being pardoned, or pardoned without being accepted to eternal life, we might conclude that there is, not only no necessary, but no actual and indissoluble, connection between the two; but if no such instances can be adduced, we are warranted by the fact of their inseparable union to argue, as the Apostle does, from the one to the other, and to prove the more comprehensive doctrine that ‘God imputes righteousness without works’ from that essential part of it which consists in the ‘forgiveness of sins.’ The generic idea of Justification is the imputation of ‘righteousness;’ and this includes under it the pardon of sin, and the acceptance of the sinner, as benefits which flow from it immediately in the case of every believer.

It has been said, indeed, that the pardon of sin restores us to a state of innocence, and that nothing more is necessary to raise us to acceptance with God. But there are several distinct considerations which should be seriously weighed before we adopt this opinion. The first is, that Adam before his fall was innocent,—i.e. not guilty, and even personally holy; but while he continued in a state of probation, he was not righteous, in the sense of having a title to eternal life, which was promised only on condition of perfect obedience. The second is, that the precept of the divine law, not only forbids sin, but requires righteousness; and that the mere remission of sin does not necessarily imply such a righteousness as is required. The third is, that while remission absolves us at once from guilt and condemnation, neither remission, nor even regeneration itself, restores us to such a state of holiness as that in which our first parents were created; we have still within us the remains of indwelling sin, and the flesh is ever lusting against the spirit; and our acceptance, as righteous in the sight of God, can only be ascribed, therefore, to the merits of Christ. (9)

It has been said, again, that our acceptance with God, were it supposed to be distinct from the pardon of sin, may form no part of our Justification, but should rather be connected with the grace of Adoption. The privilege of Adoption is clearly revealed in Scripture. The term is derived from the Roman law, and is purely forensic: it denotes a change of relation, and not a change of character. The privilege of Adoption is one thing; the spirit of Adoption is another. In the case of legal adoption amongst men, these two might be separated,—the adopted son might have the rights and privileges of sonship, although he continued to be destitute of filial affection, or filial obedience. But in the case of divine adoption, they are invariably combined; for no one is adopted legally, who is not also regenerated, or born from above. Still Adoption, which implies only a change of relation, is distinct from the spirit of adoption, which implies a change of character; and the former is also distinct, in some respects, from Justification. For although both denote a change of relation, it may be affirmed that, according to the Scriptures, pardon, acceptance, and adoption, are distinct privileges, the one rising above the other in the order in which they have been stated;—that if it be conceivable that a sinner might have been pardoned, without being accepted to eternal life, it is equally conceivable that he might have been both pardoned and accepted, without being adopted as a son;—and that, while the two first properly belong to his justification, as being both founded on the same relation,—that of a Ruler and Subject,—the third is radically distinct from them, as being founded on a nearer, more tender, and more endearing relation,—that between a Father and his Son. The difference between these two relations is self-evident in the light of human experience; and it is distinctly recognised in Scripture. There is a manifest difference between the position of a servant and a friend,—and also between that of a servant and a son. Both are mentioned, and both affirmed in regard to God and His people, when it is said, ‘A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear?’ A closer and dearer intimacy than that of a master and servant is said to subsist between Christ and His people: ‘Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what is lord doeth: but I have called you friends;’2—and a still closer and dearer relation is said to exist in consequence of adoption; for ’Thou art no more a servant, but a son, and an heir of God through Christ.’ The privilege of adoption presupposes pardon and acceptance, but is higher than either; for, ‘To as many as received Him, to them gave He power,’—not inward strength, but authority, right, or privilege—‘to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name.’2 This is a higher privilege than that of Justification, as being founded on a closer and more endearing relation—’Behold! what manner of love the Father hath bestowed on us, that we should be called the sons of God.’ There is room for such an adoption, even if man, as originally created in the image and likeness of God, had been called,—by reason of this natural relation,—one of ‘the sons of God;’ for by sin, he became one of the ‘seed of the serpent,’ of ‘the children of the wicked one,’ and now he is restored to the same, or rather brought into a higher and more permanent, relation of sonship through the mediation of Christ. And just as there is an actual, and a declarative, Justification, so there is also an actual, and a declarative, Adoption; for we read both of our ‘receiving the adoption of sons,’ and also of our being declared to be sons,—now by the spirit of adoption, ‘which witnesseth with our spirits that we are the children of God;’ and hereafter there will be an ‘Apocalypse,’ or manifestation, of His sons.

This closer and more endearing relation to God, which is constituted by Adoption, is necessary, in addition to that which is included in our Justification, to complete the view of our Christian privileges, and to enhance our enjoyment of them, by raising us above ‘the spirit of bondage, which is unto fear,’ and cherishing ‘the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.’ It is necessary, also, to explain how the sins of believers are not visited with penal inflictions properly so called, but are nevertheless treated in the way of fatherly chastisement; and, still farther, to show that the kingdom of heaven hereafter will not be bestowed as wages for work done, but as an ‘inheritance,’ freely bestowed on those, and those only, who are ‘joint-heirs with Christ.’ (10)

PROP. V. Justification, although inseparably connected with, is yet essentially different from, Sanctification; and the former is not founded on the latter, as its procuring or meritorious cause.

Justification and Sanctification have been confounded by two opposite parties,—by Popish writers, who have held that to justify is to make righteous inherently, by the infusion of personal holiness; and by Antinomian writers, who have spoken as if the righteousness of Sanctification, as well as that of Justification, were imputed, and not infused or inherent. The former have made, indeed, a verbal distinction between the two; since they have described Justification as consisting in remission and renovation: but, in their sense, the remission of sin is the deletion or extinction of it; and, as such, is nothing more than the negative part of Sanctification, while the positive part of it is the infusion of personal holiness. (11) The latter, again, have spoken as if the believer, to whom Christ’s righteousness is imputed, were not only perfectly justified, but perfectly sanctified also,—as if Christ, who is made unto him ‘righteousness,’ were, in the same sense, and in the same way, made unto him ‘sanctification;’—and as if, being perfectly freed from guilt and condemnation, he must also be perfectly delivered from indwelling sin, so as to be no longer called to repent, or exposed even to fatherly chastisement, on account of it. (12) The doctrine of the Reformation stands directly opposed to each of these errors. It admits the invariable and indissoluble connection between Justification and Sanctification, but maintains that they are not only distinguishable in idea, but different in nature,—that they depend on different agencies, and are bestowed in different ways,—and that many of the worst consequences, both of Popish and Antinomian doctrine, may be ascribed to the one being identified with the other, as if both consisted in the infusion of righteousness.

The difference between them has been elaborately stated, in many distinct particulars, by Protestant writers (13); but the substance of their statements is admirably summed up by the Westminster divines, in answer to the question, ‘Wherein do Justification and Sanctification differ?’ ‘Although Sanctification be inseparably joined with Justification, yet they differ,—in that God in Justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ, in Sanctification His Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof;—in the former, sin is pardoned, in the other, it is subdued;—the one doth equally free all believers from the avenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation; the other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection.’

The propositions which have been laid down are sufficient to explain the scriptural meaning of the term, and the nature of that which is denoted by it. For a fuller illustration of them, recourse should be had to the works which have been referred to in connection with each successive topic. The first and most indispensable part of the whole inquiry on the subject of Justification, is to ascertain—What it is? and what it is not? and in order to form distinct and definite ideas on this point, it is useful to acquire some knowledge both of the several distinct errors which have arisen in regard to it, and also of the different methods in which these errors have been maintained. There are three leading errors on this point: the first represents the term Justification as having an efficient and not a forensic sense, and the privilege which is denoted by it as consisting, not in the acquittal and acceptance of a sinner, but in making him righteous by the infusion of inherent personal holiness; the second confounds Justification with the final sentence of the Judge at the last day, as if it were not the present privilege of every believer; the third restricts Justification to pardon only, and leaves acceptance and eternal life to depend on the personal holiness and obedience of the believer. And there are also several different methods in which the Protestant doctrine has been assailed,—namely, by attempting to show that each of the leading terms,—‘Justification,’ ‘Grace,’ ‘Faith,’ ‘Works,’—is susceptible of a different sense from that which they severally bear in the theology of the Reformation,—that Justification means sanctification, or making righteous by a righteousness infused and inherent,—that ‘Grace’ means, not the free favour of God, but the inward operation and renewing power of His Spirit,—that ‘Faith’ is comprehensive of all the graces of the new creature,—and that the ‘Works’ which are excluded from Justification are either ceremonial observances merely, or such as were done without grace, and before faith. The true doctrine must be mainly determined by the import of these terms as they are used by the sacred writers, and by their explicit statements in regard to the nature, ground, and method of a sinner’s Justification; while a strong collateral proof may be derived from the demands of the law, which is the rule of righteousness,—from the nature of Justification by works under the first covenant of life,—from the change in his relation to God which must take place when a condemned sinner is pardoned and accepted of Him,—and from the connection which is revealed in Scripture as subsisting between the Justification of sinners and the redeeming work of Christ. All these topics will demand our consideration, each in its own order, as we advance, step by step, to our ultimate conclusion.