JUSTIFICATION

(See Faith and Sanctification .) Justification, in the language of Scripture, signifies our being accounted just or righteous in the sight of God .— Tomline. A clear understanding of the difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome upon this subject is most important, since the difference between the two Churches on this point causes an e ential and vital difference through the whole system of their theology. The definition of the Church of England is set forth in her Articles and Homilies: and it is there propounded in a manner so perspicuous, as to preclude, it might well be thought, all po ibility of misapprehension. As contained in the eleventh and twelfth and thirteenth Articles, the definition runs in terms following: “We are accounted righteous before God , only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ , by faith; and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort: as more largely is expre ed in the homily of justification. “Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God’s judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ , and do spring out nece arily of a true and lively faith; insomuch that, by them, a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree is discerned by the fruit. “Works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his Spirit , are not pleasant to God , forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ ; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the school-authors say) deserve grace of congruity; yea, rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.” The homily referred to in the eleventh Article, under the title of The Homily of Justification , is styled, in the first Book of Homilies itself, “A sermon of the salvation of mankind, by only Christ our Saviour , from sin and death everlasting:” and this homily is described as more largely expre ing the doctrine of justification than the nece ary brevity of an article admitted. Therefore, obviously, the statement contained in it challenges our especial attention. “Because all men be sinners and offenders against God , and breakers of his law and commandments; therefore can no man, by his own acts, words, and deeds, (seem they never so good,) be justified and made righteous before God : but every man of nece ity is constrained to seek for another righteousne of justification, to be received at God’s own hands; that is to say, the forgivene of his sins and trespa es in such things as he hath offended. And this justification or righteousne , which we so receive of God’s mercy and Christ’s merits, embraced by faith, is taken, accepted, and allowed, of God , for our perfect and full justification. “The apostle toucheth specially three things, which must go together in our justification: upon God’s part, his great mercy and grace; upon Christ’s part, justice, that is, the satisfaction of God’s justice, or the price of our redemption by the offering of his body and shedding of his blood, with fulfilling of the law perfectly and thoroughly; and, upon our part, true and lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ , which yet is not ours but by God’s working in us. So that, in our justification, there is not only God’s mercy and grace, but also his justice, which the apostle calleth the justice of God : and it consist eth, in paying our ransom, and fulfilling of the law. And so the grace of God doth not shut out the justice of God in our justification, but only shutteth out the justice of man, that is to say, the justice of our works, as to be merits of deserving our justification. And therefore St. Paul declareth nothing upon the behalf of man concerning his justification, but only a true and lively faith: which, neverthele , is the gift of God , and not man’s only work without God . And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of God , to be joined with faith in every man that is justified; but it shutteth them out from the office of justifying. So that, although they be all present together in him that is justified, yet they justify not altogether. Neither doth faith shut out the justice of our good works, nece arily to be done afterwards of duty toward God ; for we are most bounden to serve God , in doing good deeds, commanded by him in his Holy Scripture, all the days of our life: but it excludeth them, so that we may not do them to this intent, to be made just by doing of them. For all the good works that we can do, be imperfect; and, therefore, not able to deserve our justification. But our justification doth come freely, by the mere mercy of God , and of so great and free mercy, that, whereas all the world was not able of themselves to pay any part toward their ransom, it pleased our heavenly Father of his infinite mercy, without any our desert or deserving, to prepare for us the most precious jewels of Christ’s body and blood; whereby our ransom might be fully paid, the law fulfilled, and his justice fully satisfied. So that Christ is now the righteousne of all them that truly do believe in him. He, for them, paid their ransom by his death. He, for them, fulfilled the law in his life. So that now, in him and by him, every true Christian man may be called a fulfiller of the law; forasmuch as that, which their infirmity lacked, Christ’s justice hath supplied. “That we be justified by faith only, freely, and without works, we do read ofttimes in the best and most ancient writers: as, beside Hilary, Basil, and St. Ambrose, we read the same in Origen, St. Chrysostom, St. Cyprian, St. Augustine, Prosper, Œcumenius, Photius, Bernard us, Anselm, and many other writers, Greek and Latin. Neverthele , this sentence, that ‘we be justified by faith only,’ is not so meant of them that the said justifying faith is alone in man, without true repentance, hope, charity, dread, and the fear of God , at any time and season. Nor, when they say, that we should be justified freely, do they mean that we should or might afterward be idle, and that nothing should be required on our parts afterward. Neither do they mean so to be justified without good works, that we should do no good works at all. But this saying, that ‘we be justified by faith only, freely, and without works,’ is spoken for to take away clearly all merit of our works, as being unable to deserve our justification at God’s hands, and thereby most plainly to expre the weakne of man and the goodne of God , the great infirmity of ourselves and the might and power of God , the imperfection of our own works and the most abundant grace of our Saviour Christ ; and therefore wholly to ascribe the merit and deserving of our justification unto Christ only, and his most precious blood-shedding. This faith the Holy Scripture teacheth us: this is the strong rock and foundation of the Christian religion: this doctrine all old ancient authors of Christ’s Church do approve: this doctrine advanceth and setteth forth the true glory of Christ , and beateth down the vain glory of man: this whosoever denieth, is not to be accounted for a Christian man, nor for a setter-forth of Christ’s glory, but for an adversary to Christ and his gospel, and for a setter-forth of men’s vain glory.” The doctrine of the Church of Rome must be taken from the Council of Trent. The exposition of the Tri dentine fathers, a embled in their sixth se ion, runs through sixteen chapters; and so extreme is its verbosene , and so perplexing is its ince ant alternation, that we might be somewhat puzzled to form a distinct idea of their views in respect to justification, if the last of those chapters had not given us, in the shape of an article or summary, the result of their prolix theologising. Omitting, then, the discu ion upon which their definition is built, we will proceed immediately to the definition itself. “Since Jesus Christ , as the head into the members and as the vine into the branches, perpetually causes his virtue to flow into the justified; which virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they would in nowise be grateful to God and meritorious; we must believe, that nothing more is wanting to the justified themselves, which need prevent us from thinking, both that they can satisfy the Divine law according to the state of this life, by those works which are performed in God ; and that, in their own time, provided they depart in grace, they may truly merit the attainment of eternal life. “Thus, neither our own proper righteousne is so determined to be our own, as if it were from ourselves; nor is the righteousne of God either unknown or rejected. For that which is called our righteousne , because, through it being inherent in us, we are justified; that same is the righteousne of God , because it is infused into us by God through the merit of Christ . “Far, however, be it from a Christian man, that he should either trust or glory in himself and not in the Lord ; whose goodne to all men is so great, that, what are truly his gifts, he willeth to be estimated as their merits.” This article or summary removes all po ibility of misapprehension. Through it, the Church of Rome determines that we are justified, not by any imputation to us of righteousne , or by any imputation to us of faith in the place of righteousne , (though each of these imputations is insisted upon by St. Paul,) but by our own inherent righteousne . On this, the Romish system, the judicious Hooker remarks: “When they are required to show, what the righteousne is whereby a Christian man is justified, they answer, that it is a Divine spiritual quality: which quality, received into the soul, doth first make it to be one of them who are born of God ; and, secondly, endue it with power to bring forth such works as they do that are born of him: even as the soul of man, being joined to his body, doth first make him to be of the number of reasonable creatures; and, secondly, enable him to perform the natural functions which are proper to his kind: that it maketh the soul amiable and gracious in the sight of God , in regard whereof it is termed Grace; that it purgeth, purifieth, and washeth out, all the stains and pollutions of sins; that, by it, through the merit of Christ , we are delivered, as from sin, so from eternal death and condemnation, the reward of sin. This grace they will have to be applied by infusion; to the end that, as the body is warm by the heat which is in the body, so the soul might be made righteous by inherent grace: which grace they make capable of increase; as the body may be more and more warm, so the soul more and more justified according as grace should be augmented; the augmentation whereof is merited by good works, as good works are made meritorious by it. Wherefore, the first receipt of grace, in their divinity, is the first justification: the increase thereof, the second justification. As grace may be increased by the merit of good works, so it may be diminished by the demerit of sins venial; it may be lost by mortal sin. Inasmuch, therefore, as it is needful, in the one case to repair, in the other to recover, the lo which is made, the infusion of grace hath her sundry after-meals; for the which cause they make many ways to apply the infusion of grace. It is applied to infants through baptism, without either faith or works; and, in them, really it taketh away original sin, and the punishment due unto it: it is applied to infidels and wicked men in the first justification, through baptism, without works, yet not without faith: and it taketh away sins both actual and original together, with all whatsoever punishment, eternal or temporal, thereby deserved. Unto such as have attained the first justification, that is to say, the first receipt of grace, it is applied further by good works to the increase of former grace: which is the second justification. If they work more and more, grace doth more increase: and they are more and more justified. To such as diminish it by venial sins, it is applied by holy water, Ave Marias, cro ings, papal salutations, and such like: which serve for reparations of grace decayed. To such as have lost it through mortal sin, it is applied by the sacrament (as they term it) of penance: which sacrament hath force to confer grace anew; yet in such sort, that, being so conferred, it hath not altogether so much power as at the first. For it only cleanseth out the stain or guilt of sin committed; and changeth the punishment eternal into a temporal satisfactory punishment—here, if time do serve, if not, hereafter, to be endured; except it be lightened by ma es, works of charity, pilgrimages, fasts, and such like; or else shortened by pardon for term, or by plenary pardon quite removed and taken away. This is the mystery of the man of sin. This maze the Church of Rome doth cause her followers to tread, when they ask her the way to justification. Whether they speak of the first or second justification, they make ‘the e ence of a Divine quality inherent,’ they make it ‘righteousne which is in us.’ If it be in us, then it is ours: as our souls are ours, though we have them from God , and can hold them no longer than pleaseth him; for, if he withdraw the breath of our nostrils, we fall to dust. But the righteousne , wherein we must be found, if we will be justified, is ‘not our own.’ Therefore we cannot be justified by any inherent quality. The Church of Rome, in teaching justification by inherent grace, doth pervert the truth of Christ : and, by the hands of the apostles, we have received otherwise than she teacheth. Now, concerning the righteousne of sanctification, we deny it not to be inherent: we grant, that, unle we work, we have it not: only we distinguish it, as a thing different in nature from the righteousne of justification. By the one, we are interested in the right of inheriting : by the other, we are brought to the actual po e ion of eternal bli . And so the end of both is ‘everlasting life.’” The difference between the two systems may be pointed out in a few words. The Romish Church teaches that a man is justified by an inherent righteousne , which, though originally a gift of God , as are his soul and his bodily members, is neverthele , like his soul, his own. The Anglican Church, on the contrary, in common with all the other Churches of the Reformation, teaches: “that man is justified by an extrinsic righteousne , which is not his own, but the righteousne of Christ ; the faith which instrumentally lays hold of it and appropriates it, and which itself is the gift of God , being forensically imputed to him of God , instead of a righteousne which he himself po e es not; so that he is justified through faith, though not on account of faith; the sole particular, on account of which he is justified, being the merit and perfect righteousne of our Lord and only Saviour Jesus Christ .” Whichever scheme of doctrine may be preferred as most agreeable to Scripture and to antiquity, it is clear, that the two statements here given are at least incapable of misapprehension. Right or wrong, the two schemes stand flatly and diametrically opposed to each other. The Roman Church a erts: the Anglican Church denies. Conversely, the Roman Church denies: the Anglican Church a erts. The Roman Church a erts the doctrine of justification by an infused and personal inherent righteousne : the Anglican Church strenuously denies that doctrine; admitting, indeed, that the inherent righteousne of sanctification is always consequentially present with the really justified; but refusing to it any, even the least, share in “the procurement of justification.” The Roman Church denies, that the ungodly is justified through faith alone, nothing else being required to obtain the grace of justification: the Anglican Church a erts, that the ungodly is justified through faith alone without works, nothing save faith being required to obtain the grace of justification, inasmuch as the office of works is not the procurement of our justification, and inasmuch as it is a contradictory hysteron-proteron to say that works which “follow after” justification, and are its “effect,” can yet “procure” it and be its “cause.” It has been customary to speak of the doctrine of forensic justification as if it were a Calvin is tic doctrine. That Calvin held it is not to be denied, but all history bears witne that it is not a peculiarity of the Calvin is tic system. Calvin was born in 1509, and he was yet a schoolboy, or a pluralist in the Romish Church, (as he became in his twelfth year,) when Luther was using this doctrine, as the doctrine by which to lay low the whole fabric of Romish superstition. Again, it was the doctrine of our English reformers, as most clearly stated in our Articles and Homilies; and Archbishop Laurence has triumphantly established the historical fact, that our reformers were not Calvinists. If we wish for a clear statement of the doctrine of forensic justification, we may indeed refer to Bishop Andrewes; and the theology of Andrewes had certainly no affinity to that of Calvin. Let the reader peruse with attention the following pa age from his sermon on justification. “In the Scripture, then, there is a double righteousne set down, both in the Old and in the New Testament. “In the Old, and in the very first place that righteousne is named in the Bible: ‘Abraham believed, and it was accounted unto him for righteousne .’ A righteousne accounted. And again, in the very next line, it is mentioned, ‘Abraham will teach his house to do righteousne .’ A righteousne done. In the New likewise. The former, in one chapter, even the fourth to the Romans, no fewer than eleven times, Reputatum est ill i ad just it i am . A reputed righteousne . The latter in St. John: ‘My beloved, let no man deceive you, he that doeth righteousne is righteous.’ A righteousne done. Which is nothing else but our just dealing, upright carriage, honest conversation. Of these, the latter the philosophers themselves conceived and acknowledged; the other is proper to Christians only, and altogether unknown in philosophy. The one is a quality of the party; the other, an act of the judge declaring or pronouncing righteous. The one ours by influence or infusion, the other by account or imputation. That both these there are, there is no question. The question is, whether of these the prophet here principally meaneth in this Name? This shall we best inform ourselves of by looking back to the verse before, and without so looking back we shall never do it to purpose. There the prophet setteth one before us, in his royal judicial power, in the person of a king, and of a king set down to execute judgment; and this he telleth us, before he thinks meet to tell us his name. Before this king, thus set down in his throne, there to do judgment, the righteousne that will stand against the law, our conscience, Satan, sin, the gates of hell, and the power of darkne ; and so stand that we may be delivered by it from death, despair, and damnation; and entitled by it to life, salvation, and happine eternal; that is righteousne indeed, that is it we seek for, if we may find it. And that is not this latter, but the former only; and therefore that is the true interpretation of Jehovah just it i a nostra . Look but how St. Augustine and the rest of the Fathers, when they have occasion to mention that place in the Proverbs, Cum Rex just us seder it in solio, quis potest dicere, Mundum est cor meum? —look how they interpret it then, and it will give us light to understand this name; and we shall see, that no name will serve then, but this name. Nor this name neither, but with this interpretation of it. And that the Holy Ghost would have it ever thus understood, and us ever to represent before our eyes this King thus sitting in his judgment-seat, when we speak of this righteousne , it is plain two ways. 1. By way of position. For the tenor of the Scripture touching our justification all along runneth in judicial terms, to admonish us still what to set before us. The usual joining of justice and judgment continually all along the Scriptures, show it is a judicial justice we are to set before us. The terms of, 1. A judge: ‘It is the Lord that judgeth me.’ 2. A prison: Kept and shut up under Moses. 3. A bar: ‘We must all appear before the bar.’ 4. A proclamation: ‘Who will lay anything to the prisoner’s charge?’ 5. An accuser: ‘The accuser of our brethren.’ 6. A witne : ‘Our conscience bearing witne .’ 7. An indictment upon these: ‘Cursed be he that continueth not in all the words of this law to do them;’ and again, ‘He that breaketh one is guilty of all.’ A conviction that all may be ὑπόδικοι , ‘guilty’ or culpable ‘before God .’ Yea, the very delivering of our sins under the name of ‘debts;’ of the law under the name of a ‘handwriting;’ the very terms of ‘an advocate,’ of ‘a surety made under the law;’ of a pardon, or ‘being justified from those things which by the law we could not:’—all these, wherein for the most part this is still expre ed, what speak they but that the sense of this name cannot be rightly understood, nor what manner of righteousne is in question, except we still have before our eyes this same coram rege jus to judicium faciente .”— Bishop Andrewes’ Sermon on Justification in Christ’s Name. See also Barrow’s Sermon on Justification . Water land on Justification. Heurtley on Justification. Stanley Faber on Justification.