07a Justification

CHURCH-MEMBERS’

HAND - BOOK OF THEOLOGY.

CHAPTER VII.

JUSTIFICATION.

HAVING engaged your attention to the primary graces of the Spirit, I would now have you take a view of what may be called covenant blessings. And the first of these to which I would direct your attention is justification. No subject of more importance to us can employ our thoughts. We shall all be brought, in a coming day, before the tribunal of the Judge of all the earth. There we shall hear the doom of eternal condemnation, or the sentence of our filial justification. Then we shall receive the award of eternal life, or be consigned to a state of eternal death. He that is unholy and unjust will be unholy and unjust forever, and he that is righteous and holy will remain so forever. How immensely important, then, that we see to it, even now, that we are prepared to stand before the Judge, not only without dismay, but with exceeding joy. And there is a wayhowever guilty we may be, there is a waywhereby we may be made to appear faultless before the throne of judgment. And it is my heart’s desire, and shall be my earnest endeavor, to set this way before you in the clearest light that I possibly can, so that you may be able to say with the old patriarch, "Behold now I have ordered my cause; I know that I shall be justified." In speaking on this doctrine it is not possible to exceed the solemnity of the subject, or to clothe it in language beyond what its importance demands; but in my judgment simplicity of expression is preferable to artificial embellishment. Those over-strained efforts at eloquence and poetic sentimentalism which so much characterize the literature of the present age, on so solemn a subject as this would be rather injurious than beneficial to the student. And the subject stands in no need of them.

Justification is a different thing from election, and from adoption, and from sanctification. It is also different from regeneration and repentance; and has no necessary connection with any of the graces of the Spirit, except that one by which we appropriate the blessing of justification to ourselves personally. Hence the propriety of considering this doctrine separately and independently of all the other doctrines of the gospel, and all the graces of the Spirit, except, as before said, the one grace of faith, by which we lay hold, as it were, of that which is the matter or ground upon which our justification is based. But in this view it is necessary that I make a remark on the subject of pardon. Some understand pardon and justification to be the same thing. I think there is, in some respects, a distinction, and I could easily show wherein they may be distinguished. But I do not wish to embarrass the reader; and as I doubt whether in making these distinctions, I should render any particular service to a majority of those for whose edification I am laboring, I will just say, that he that is justified is also pardoned. These blessings are never disjoined. Justification proceeds from God the Judge; pardon comes from God the Sovereign. And he that believes in Jesus Christ, has both pardon and justification, and receives, both in the waythat is, by faith.

Justification is a well known and definite term in the administration of judicial law; and-is applied to a person who is arraigned before the court for having committed a crime, and on trial it is found that he is not guilty, whereupon the judge acquits himthat is, he justifies him. Thus the term stands opposed to condemnation: "Thou shalt justify the righteous and condemn the wicked." This simple idea, so plain in itself, and so easily apprehended, is sufficient to give us a clear conception of what justification means. The accused person is either condemned or justified. In common discourse we more frequently use the word acquitted; but whether we say acquitted, or justified, or discharged, we mean the same thing. Without employing figures for illustration, we will just say that whatever will satisfy the demand of the law, will justify the accused party. But that demand must be satisfied. And this fundamental idea should be kept constantly in view in all our discussions and investigations of the subject of justification.

Whatever the nature of the law may bewhether it be Divine or human, whether moral or positive whether it requires little or muchthat which will fully satisfy its demands will justify him who is under the particular law by which he is to be judged, and nothing else will do it; so that there is but one plea that will justify under any law, and that one plea will justify under every variety of law, and will apply to every variety of accusation.

Now, happily, we have a word in our language that will express that plea. That word is RIGHTEOUSNESS. This word, when used in reference to judicial law, comprehends all that that law can require, and will meet the law successfully in every point. The word righteous, in common discourse, is often used in a general and indefinite sense, in which it has a comparative meaning, and is used in this comparative sense in many places in the Scriptures. But when used in a judicial sense, it is a word of absolute and determinate meaning, and admits of no modification; and it is in its strict judicial signification that we use it in its application to justification.

Viewing, the subject in this light, we see just what a man must have that he may be justified by any law before which he may be arraigned; he must have a righteousness, such a righteousness as that particular law requires; and that which will constitute such a righteousness is a perfect obedience to all the requirements of the law. Nothing short of a perfect obedience will answer the purpose. For if in any thing he failsif his obedience is not absolutely perfectit can not support the plea of righteousness, which is the only plea that will justify him before the law. Thus, when we shall stand before God in judgment, if we have not a positive righteousness consisting of a perfect obedience to His holy law, our condemnation is certainis inevitable.

I am not skillful in constructing figures for illustration, but as I am very desirous that you should understand this important subject as clearly as possible, I will submit to your consideration a few examples, presenting the subject in different points of view. But I request you to keep in mind the particular point now immediately under discussionthat is, a righteousness that will satisfy law, and consequently will justify him who has the righteousness; or, in other words the question may be stated thus: What kind of obedience will constitute a justifying righteousness? for we can have no salvation without it. The first example I will offer is the obedience of Moses on a special occasion. The Lord showed him the pattern of a tabernacle which He would have built, and said to him, "See that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount." This commandment was God’s law to Moses (in that particular case). And Moses made all things according to the pattern. This was his obedience a perfect obedienceand therefore a perfect righteousness under that lawa justifying righteousness. If Moses had disobeyed any number of other commands, and had incurred the penalties of disobedience annexed to them, yet he was righteous and justified so far as that one law extended.

I will take a second example from the case of King Saul, when God, by his prophet Samuel, commanded him to go and utterly destroy the Amelekites, with their flocks and herds, and every thing they possessed. This command was the law under which Saul was to act, and which he was under obligation to obey. Nothing was left to his discretion. Saul went with his army and made the whole country a scene of desolation. But he spared Agag the king, and reserved the best of the flocks and herds (as he said) for sacrifices to the Lord, and returned victorious to Gilgal. When called to account by the prophet, he said, " I have performed the commandment of the Lord. " Here we have Saul’s pleahe pleads obedience. But his obedience was not perfect; it fell short of the whole requirement, and therefore was not righteousness. So far as his compliance with the law extended, it might be well enough, but he did not execute the whole commandment, and it was not a perfect obedience. We may properly speak of an imperfect obedience, but in strictness of’ language it is not proper to speak of an imperfect righteousness, in a judicial sense, for it is a self-contradiction, and therefore an impossibility. Saul’s obedience coming short of perfection, did not amount to a righteousness, and consequently would not justify him. It would seem, indeed, that if any excuse could be admitted, Saul’s was as good as any excuse could be, for his object was to serve the Lord, which was in itself a religious duty. But no excuse is admissible; there must be a punctual fulfillment of the whole law, or the plea of righteousness can not be supported. Saul failed to perform a perfect obedience, and the Judge of Israel pronounced sentence against himhe lost the kingdom. And how many thousands there are in these days that hope to obtain the kingdom of heaven, while they know that they have not performed a perfect obedience to the Divine law, and therefore have not an acceptable righteousness! Their sincere desires their honest endeavors, and their good intentions may all be well enough, so far as they go, but they come far short of a perfect righteousness; and for want of this, in the judgment-day they will be doomed to eternal banishment. Being solicitous that you should form as clear and correct a view of this important subject as possible, I must call your attention to it in another point of view, which I will attempt to exemplify by the law of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat. King Jeroboam commanded his subjects, the ten tribes of Israel, to worship the calves which he had set up in Bethel and Dan, and they obeyed his order; "they willingly walked after the commandment." They (the people generally) rendered a perfect obedience to this law of Jeroboam and their perfect obedience was a righteousness sufficient to justify them before that law. But they were under God’s law also. and their obedience to their king was a most flagrant act of disobedience to the Divine law their obligation to the Divine law was paramount, and they should have disregarded the law of the king; and like the three Hebrew children answered the king of Babylon, they should have said to Jeroboam, "Be it known unto thee, O king! we will not." Before the tribunal of Jeroboam they had a righteousness which would justify them, but this very righteousness would condemn them at the bar of God. So will it be with every one of the many thousands who are very punctual to observe the prescriptions of their church; or the teachings of the ministers when they are not in accordance with the word of God. You have the word of God, which shows you His will, and the way by which you may obtain justification in His sight, and if you choose to follow the teaching of the Church, or any other prescriptive authority, it is at your peril, and "be sure your sin will find you out." But this example may be applied also in another point of view, still illustrating the same fundamental principle. There is reason to fear that many flatter themselves with the idea that if they are honest and just in all their dealings with others if they injure no one in person, or property, or reputation; if they abide by the truth, and are peaceable and generous; if they do their duty to their family and relatives; if they fulfill all political and social obligations; and especially if, in addition to all this, they abstain from the grosser viceswith all this in their behalf; they will surely escape condemnation. But let such a one consider that if he should come up to the full measure of doing in all things to others as he would they should do to him, and of loving his neighbor as himself, he would still be under obligation to love God with all his heart; and except he has a righteousness that will satisfy both of these demands, he can not stand approved before God in judgment. In order to exemplify an important principle in respect to justification, I will engage your attention for a few moments to the first introduction of sin into our moral world. It is not my intention to enter into the subject of our relations to Adam, but merely to use the facts as they are recorded, for the purpose of illustration. When Adam was created and became a living soul, the Creator pronounced him good, which He would not have done if Adam had not been perfectly holy according to his created nature. This could not have been said of him in truth if he had been in any respect or in any degree unholy. That Adam was a subject of the moral law, I have no doubt; but he was in no danger of violating that law, for the spirit of the moral law was in his hearthe delighted in itit was his glory and his joy. It was the law of his nature, as well as a law to his will. He loved it so well that he could have no disposition to transgress, and therefore was morally incapable of violating it; and he would have continued to be out of danger of disobeying this law, if he had obeyed another lawa positive lawwhich imposed an obligation upon him. I have adverted to Adam’s relation to the moral law, not for the purpose of making any use of it in this place, but that you may keep it entirely out of mind in our present illustration. That special law to which I now direct your notice was that which prohibited the use of the fruit of a certain tree. The law was this: "Thou shalt not eat of it." Nothing can be more simple, plain, and definite than this law. Every child understands it. So long as Adam forbore to eat, he rendered a perfect obedience to this law, and of course had a perfect righteousness in his relation to it that would justify him, and save him from the penalty. It was the only law that could bring its authority to bear upon his will; and so far as it respected his physical ability, it was easier for Adam to obey than to disobey. Thus he stood justified in his own perfect righteousness. But Adam transgressedhe disobeyedand by that one act of disobedience he lost his righteousness, and lost it forever. For you know that that which is past can not be recalled. The deed once done, can not be undone. Hence it was an impossibility for him to recover his lost righteousness. It is not necessary in this place to notice any connection that the loss of this righteousness has with the moral law, but I will only say that, having lost this righteousness, he lost with it the favor of God. If, then, he should ever recover the Divine favor, it must be through some other medium; he must have righteousness in some other way, for it is impossible for him to recover his former innocence. And the particular point that we should notice is, that a righteousness under any law, when once lost, is lost forever. This principle applies to all law. The preceding examples illustrate the following fundamental principles:

1. A perfect obedience constitutes a perfect righteousness under any law, and will therefore justify.

2. A partial or imperfect obedience, however nearly it may approach perfection, can not amount to righteousness and therefore will not justify.

3. A perfect obedience to one law is not righteousness under any other law that may hold authority over us; or a righteousness before one law, will not justify under another law.

4. A righteousness under any law, when once lost, can never be regained by obedience to that law.

Although I have detained you so long on these examples, I must beg your indulgence and claim your attention to one more, because it brings into view an important principle which obtains in the matter and manner of our justification.

Ahasuerus, king of Persia, ordained a law that whosoever, man or woman, should come into his presence in the inner court unbidden, should be put to death. Esther, the queen, on a very urgent occasion, resolved to enter the chamber without being called. Accordingly she made the perilous adventure, and the moment she passed the door she was under condemnation. She had disobeyed the king’s law, and might, according to law, have been sent to immediate execution. She had no righteousness that could satisfy the king’s law; she was guilty and not righteous. She might, indeed, have pled the urgency and great importance of her object, but that could not justify under that law, for the law had made no provision for such cases. If, when she had entered, she had immediately returned before she had advanced three paces, it would have been of no avail; the righteousness which she had before the deed was done, and would have justified her under that particular law of the king, was gone and lost forever. But the king had also ordained a constitution by which the execution of that law might be dispensed with. If he held out his golden scepter to one who had transgressed, the penalty was instantly removed. This scepter was extended to Esther, and she approached and touched the gracious symbol. That moment her life was safe; she was beyond danger. She had a righteousness now, under a different constitution, that delivered her from the law that stood against her. She had not that righteousness which consisted in obedience to the king’s prohibition; but we find here the superinduction of a righteousness by the king’s grace, which answered all the demands of the king’s law, and by it Queen Esther was justified before the king’s throne. Now let us suppose that Haman, the queen’s bitter enemy, had brought an accusation against her, alleging that she had transgressed the king’s commandment, and had incurred the penalty of death; what defense could she have made? The charge would have been true, and she could not deny it. But she might say, I did disobey the king’s law, and forfeit my life; but I touched the golden scepterthis is my plea. I do not look to my obedience for justification, but I look to the king’s most gracious scepter; and I bid defiance to Haman, and to all the realms of the king. Thus we see, that though a man may not have a righteousness that will justify him before a particular law, and that it may be impossible for him to obtain such a justifying righteousness, yet there may be, by the intervention of a different constitution, a way whereby he may obtain a righteousness that will remove the penalty he has incurred, and avail for his justification.

Keeping in view the principles of law exemplified in the foregoing remarks, we will endeavor to bring them to bear on our relation to God as subjects of His law. And it is hardly necessary to remind you that the law by which we must he judged, and by which we will either be condemned or justified, is that which we usually denominate the moral law. The substance of this law we find set forth in the ten commandments. Great pains have been taken by many to teach children at an early age to repeat these precepts by memory, while at the same time little or no care has been taken to make them understand their extensive import, or the sacredness of the obligation thus imposed upon them, or the fearful consequence which disobedience will entail upon the transgressor. Hence there are multitudes who give themselves very little concern about these things, and scarcely feel their accountability. They seldom reflect that this holy law holds its authority over every action, every word, and every thought of their whole life. This is truly a solemn reflection; but the solemnity of the subject should not repress our inquiries, but impel us to so much the greater earnestness and diligence, in proportion to the magnitude of the interests involved in it. Let us beware that we do not shun the light, and, from dread of the consequences, hide the truth from our eyes. It is much better that we should know the worst that can and must come, lest a vain and unwarranted hope of security should induce us to neglect the only remedy that will answer our desperate necessity. The ten commands before referred to may be reduced to two: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself." This epitome of the Divine law is warranted by our Savior himself, and it shows the spiritual nature and the great extent of the obligation; all which we must bring into the account, if we would know our true character and condition, as we stand related to its requirements and its sanctions. But, as I have said in a preceding part of this work, the whole requirement of the law is comprehended in one short sentence: "Be ye holy, for I the Lord thy God am holy." What, now, does your conscience say to this comprehensive obligation? Are you ready for the judgment? You must be prepared to meet this demand. Nothing less than positive, perfect holiness will be accepted. Measure your obedience by this rule, and say whether you have a righteousness every way equal to this perfect and comprehensive requisition; if you have not, there is no alternative. There is nothing before you but a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation. The law is absolute, and will notnay, can not show mercy. The law can and will curse, but it can not bless; it must give death to the transgressor, but it can not give life. The law being just, it is its proper office to dispense justice to all; but it can not be a medium of mercy to the sinnerit will "by no means acquit the guilty."

Let us cast a broad look upon this law for a few moments. It is well worth the while, and you may never repent the time thus employed. This law is perfect in holiness, and is the fundamental principle from which all holiness in created beings is derived. As I have said before, it is the manifestation or expression of the glory of the Divine nature. By this law the Creator shows to us the holiness of His character, that we may know how to conform our character to His. Just so far as we have the likeness of God in the holiness of His character, we also resemble Him in all His moral perfections. The law is also a declaration of His holy will in relation to us; and, indeed, to all His creatures that are capable of understanding His will. Hence the obligation to be holy rests upon every intelligent being in creation. Satan, with all his apostate crew, though they are so depraved that they never will be holy, and will never desire to be so, are, notwithstanding, bound in duty under this law to be perfectly holy. And this obligation arises from the fact that they are intelligent creatures, and possess a moral nature. And the angels in heaven, which were created holy, and have preserved their holy character till now, and probably will maintain their holiness forever, are, for the same reason, under obligation to be perfectly conformed to the requirements of this holy law. And they are no more bound nor any less bound by it than the devils are. No change of condition or of moral character can in the least degree affect this obligation. Adam, who was created an intelligent being, and endowed with a moral nature, and who was perfectly holy in his created nature, was under obligation, by this law, to maintain intact his holy character in the sight of God. When he sinned he lost his holiness, and a change took place, both in his moral nature and in his relation to God; but there was no change in his obligation to be holy and to perfectly fulfill the holy requirement of this law. Furthermore, we ourselves are unholy in our nature, as all men must know, yet God says to us, "Be ye holy;" and if we fail, we shall learn in due time whether He speaks in vain. And if by the almighty grace of the Divine Spirit a holy nature should be given to us, and we should eventually be perfectly sanctified, both in soul and body, and so stand in absolute unblemished holiness in His presence, we shall not then be released from the authority of this law, nor will the obligation be in the smallest degree relaxed or abated. Any change diminishing the obligation of this law would require a corresponding change in the character of the law itself; any change in the character of the law would necessarily involve a corresponding change in the character of the lawgiver. A doctrine has been advanced, that the moral law, being too severe, and requiring more of man than he is able to perform, has been repealed, and a milder law has been substituted in its place, prescribing duties which are not beyond the moral abilities of man to comply with. It is not alleged that the penalty of this new law is less severe, but some affirm that it is even more severe than the penalty of the moral law. Now, whatever may be the duties prescribed by- any law, the obligation to obedience must be imperative, otherwise it is no law. The extent of the obligation must he equal to the extent of the duties required; therefore, there can not be any mitigation of the obligation whether the law requires little or much. It is not claimed that the obligation to obedience is less sacred and imperative, but it is held that the duties imposed by this new law are not so severe, so rigid, so extreme as our duty to the moral law; so that the duties enjoined are brought within the compass of man’s moral ability, in his present state of moral imperfection.

Now the moral law requires perfect holiness; and if this new and milder law does not require perfect holiness, it follows inevitably that it, in its own nature, is not perfectly holy. And if we assume that God has given a law that is not perfectly holy, how is it possible to vindicate the perfect holiness of the Divine character? His law must be an expression of His will in respect to us as His subjects. And must we believe that because we are unholy, a holy God has given us a law to accommodate our unholiness, and thus tolerate, or rather sanction, our alienation from His holy character? If this does not necessarily imply unholiness in the will of God, I would like that some one would show the reason. And it is indisputable that if the will of God is not holy, He is not holy Himself. A sincere and habitual desire after holiness, is the distinguishing characteristic of the renewed heart. The sincere and enlightened Christian desires to be perfectly holy, and cherishes the pleasing hope that a time will come when this desire shall be consummated; but if this desire shall be realized, he will be more holy than any law of God requires him to be, and the desire goes beyond the will of God.

It would seem unnecessary to say any thing more to expose the inconsistency and absurdity of this scheme of law; but as such an arrangement would be quite congenial to that spirit of self-righteousness which is in every natural heart, and which, indeed, it is so difficult to eradicate even from the renewed heart, I will offer a few additional thoughts on the subject. If the moral law is perfectly just and good, why should it be abrogated? If it is not perfectly just and good, why was it ever ordained? It is not out of place to inquire also, When was this new law given? We can not find it on record. And what is the specific requirement of this new law? If because of the present moral imperfection of human nature it does not require perfect holiness, but will be satisfied with something less, it would appear to follow that it requires just so much holiness as our innate love of sin will permit us to render or enable us to acquire, and it tolerates the love of sin. Furthermore, how are we to be justified under this law? If we are to be justified by our obedience to this new law, then, without controversy, we are, to all intents and purposes, justified by the works of the law. But in the meantime faith is made void, so far as justification is concerned. I might enlarge to a much greater extent on this subject, and expose its falsity by other arguments, but I deem it unnecessary, for in every point of light in which we can view the scheme it is full of inconsistency and absurdity. It has no foundation in Scripture, and it reflects most injuriously on the holiness and justice of the Divine character. When the Scripture says we are not under the law, but under grace, we are not to understand that the law has no authority over us, and that we are under no obligation to obey its precepts. There are two senses in which we are not under the law, and both of them are of very great importance: 1. The believer is not under the penalty of the lawhe is not exposed to its cursehe is no longer under its condemnation: "There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus." 2. He is not under the law as a covenant of life. His acceptance with God does not depend on his obedience to the law. It is his rule of duty, but not a condition of life. His justification does not depend on his obedience to the law. These two principles should never be lost sight of, if we would understand the doctrine of justification. We shall have frequent occasion to advert to these principles as we proceed. But at present I must remind you that the obligation to a perfect obedience is perpetual; it can never cease, nor can its authority be suspended for a moment. The Author of the law is ever the same unchangeable God; and if the law were to change, it would no longer be a true representation of the Divine character, and therefore could not answer the purpose for which it was ordained. This law requires that every thing we do should be done from a principle of love to God. This is manifest from the fact that the spirit of the law is, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and mind, and soul, and strength." The good Lord has placed us here in this world, in circumstances in which we possess and enjoy many rational satisfactions and lawful gratifications; but these are all to be enjoyed from a principle of love to Godwith gratitude to Him as the Giverin subordination to his will, and with a view to His glory. The various relations in which we stand to the human family, and other things of His making, devolve upon us many relative duties, all of which we are to perform from a principle of love to God, and with a view to His glory. Many of these duties are congenial to our moral naturesuch as loving our parents, our children, our near kindred and friendssympathizing with the afflicted, and relieving the distressed; and it gives us a sincere pleasure to exercise these affections, and to perform these kind offices, and thus doing, what we well can to promote their welfare and happiness all which is rightbut it does not fulfill the law unless there is in it the element of love to God, and a desire to do His will, that His Name may be glorified. In all that we do for ourselves, in all our transactions with others, in all our social intercourse with friends and acquaintances, with strangers and enemies, we are to have an eye fixed steadfastly on the will of God; and a desire to do those things which are pleasing in His sight must have a supreme influence. Moreover, we are not to utter a word with our tongues that He will not approve; for we have to give account of every word that we speak, and all our words will be judged by this law; and if they have not in them the spirit of holiness, the law will condemn them. And not only this, but the law takes knowledge of the thoughts and intents of the heart, and extends its authority over all the exercises of the mind. Every desire and emotion of the heart, and every thought of the imagination must be perfectly holy, and exercised in the love of God. And yet further, all this holy and spiritual obedience must be performed willingly, cheerfully, and we must delight in it. It must be our chief pleasure to do the will of God. To obey reluctantly and unwillingly would be highly offensive in His sight. We must not be pleased with anything that does not please Him, but we must hold in aversion every thing in which He does not delight. And all must be done continually and unceasingly, without a moment’s intermission or relaxation, from the beginning of your life to the end of your days.