Chapter 4: Of Justification, the Notion and Signification of the Word in Scripture

UNto the right understanding of the nature of justification, the proper sense and signification of these words themselves, justification and to justify, is to be enquired into. For until that is agreed upon, it is impossible that our discourses concerning the thing it self should be freed from equivocation. Take words in various senses, and all may be true that is contradictorily affirmed or denied concerning what they are supposed to signifie. And so it has actually fallen out in this case, as we shall see more fully afterwards. Some taking these words in one sense, some in another, have appeared to deliver contrary doctrines concerning the thing it self, or our justification before God; who yet have fully agreed in what the proper determinate sense or sigfication of the words does import. And therefore the true meaning of them has been declared and vindicated already by many. But whereas the right stating hereof, is of more moment unto the Determination of what is principally controverted about the doctrine it self, or the thing signified, than most do apprehend; and something at least remains to be added for the declaration and Vindication of the import and only signification of these words in the scripture, I shall give an account of my observations concerning it, with what diligence I can.

The Latine Derivation and Composition of the word Justificatio would seem to denote an internal change from inherent Unrighteousness, unto righteousness likewise inherent; by a Physical motion, and Transmutation, as the Schoolmen speak. For such is the signification of words of the same Composition. So sanctification, Mortification, Vivification, and the like do all denote a real internal work on the subject spoken of. Hereon in the whole Romansan School, justification is taken for Justifaction, or the making of a man to be inherently righteous by the infusion of a principle or habit of grace, who was before inherently and habitually unjust and unrighteous. Whilst this is taken to be the proper signification of the word; we neither do, nor can speak ad idem in our Disputations with them about the cause and nature of that justification, which the scripture teachs.

And this appearing sense of the word possibly deceived some of the Antients, as Austin in particular, to declare the doctrine of free gratuitous sanctification, without respect unto any works of our own, under the name of justification. For neither he nor any of them, ever thought of a justification before God, consisting in the pardon of our sins and the Acceptation of our persons as righteous, by vertue of any inherent habit of grace infused into us, or acted by us. Wherefore the subject matter must be determined by the Scriptural use and signification of these words, before we can speak properly or intelligibly concerning it. For if to justify men in the scripture, signifie to make them subjectively and inherently righteous, we must acknowledge a mistake in what we Teach concerning the nature and causes of justification. And if it signifie no such thing, all their Disputations about justification by the infusion of grace and inherent righteousness thereon fall to the ground. Wherefore all protestants (and the socinians all of them comply therein) do affirm that the use and signification of these words is Forensick, denoting an Acts of Jurisdiction. Only the socinians, and some others would have it to consist in the pardon of sin only, which indeed the word does not at all signifie. But the sense of the word, is to Assoil, to Acquit, to Declare and pronounce righteous upon a trial, which in this case, the pardon of sin does necessarily accompany.

Justificatio and Justifico belong not indeed unto the Latine Tongue; nor can any good Authour be produced who ever used them, for the making of him inherently righteous by any means who was not so before. But whereas these words were coyned and framed to signifie such things as are intended, we have no way to determine the signification of them, but by the consideration of the nature of the things, which they were invented to declare and signifie. And whereas in this Language these words are derived from Jus and Justum, they must respect an Acts of Jurisdiction, rather then a Physical Operation or infusion. Justificari is Justus censeri, pro justo haberi; to be esteemed, accounted or adjudged righteous. So a Man was made Justus Filius in adoption unto him, by whom he was Adopted: Which what it is, is well declared by Budaeus. Cajus lib. 2. F. de Adopt. De Arrogatione loquens—; Is qui adoptat rogatur, id est, interrogatur, an velit eum quem adopturus sit, Justum sibi Filium esse. Justum (says he) intelligo non verum, ut aliqui censent, sed omnibus partibus ut ita dicam Filiationis, veri Filij vicem obtinentem, naturalis & legitimi Filij loco sedentem. Wherefore as by adoption, there is no internal inherent change made in the person Adopted; but by vertue thereof he is esteemed and adjudged as a true Son, and has all the rights of a legitimate Son; so by justification, as to the importance of the word, a man is only esteemed, declared and pronounced righteous, as if he were compleatly so. And in the present case, justification and gratuitous adoption are the same grace for the substance of them, John 1:12. only respect is had in their different denomination of the same grace, unto different effects or priviledges that ensue thereon.

But the true and genuine signification of these words is to be determined from those in the Original languages of the scripture which are expounded by them. In the Hebrew it is This the Lxx. render by Job. 27:5. , Chap. 13:18. Proverbs 17:15. To shew or declare one righteous; to appear righteous; to judge any one righteous. And the sense may be taken from any one of them, as Chap. 13:18. Behold now I have ordered my cause, I know that I shall be justified. The ordering of his cause, (his judgment) his cause to be judged on, is his preparation for a sentence, either of absolution or condemnation; and hereon his confidence was that he should be justified, that is, absolved, acquitted, pronounced righteous. And the sense is no less pregnant in the other places; commonly they render it by , whereof I shall speak afterwards.

Properly it denotes an action towards another, (as justification, and to justify do) in Hiphil only: and a reciprocal action of a man on himself in Hithpael. Hereby alone is the true sense of these words determined. And I say that in no place, or on any occasion, is it used in that Conjugation wherein it denotes an action towards another, in any other sense, but to absolve, acquit, esteem, declare, pronounce righteous, or to impute righteousness, which is the Forensick sense of the word we plead for; that is its constant use and signification, nor does it ever once signifie to make inherently righteous; much less to pardon or forgive, so vain is the pretence of some that justification consists only in the pardon of sin, which is not signified by the word in any one place of scripture. Almost in all places this sense is absolutely unquestionable; nor is there any more then one which will admit of any debate, and that on so faint a pretence as cannot prejudice its constant use and signification in all other places. Whatever therefore an infusion of inherent grace may be, or however it may be called, justification it is not, it cannot be; the word no where signifying any such thing. Wherefore those of the church of Romanse do not so much oppose justification by faith through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, as indeed deny that there is any such thing as justification. For that which they call the first justification, consisting in the infusion of a principle of inherent grace, is no such thing as justification. And their second justification which they place in the merit of works wherein absolution or pardon of sin, has neither place nor consideration, is inconsistent with Evangelical justification, as we shall shew afterwards.

This word therefore, whether the act of God towards men, or of men towards God, or of men among themselves, or of one towards another be expressed thereby, is always used in a Forensick sense, and does not denote a Physical operation, Transfusion or Transmutation. 2 Samuel 15:4. If any man has a Suit or cause let him come to me, and I will do him justice; I will justify him, judge in his cause and pronounce for him. Deuteronomy 25:1. If there be a Controversie among men, and they come to judgment, that the judges may judge them, they shall justify the righteous, pronounce sentence on his side, whereunto is opposed and they shall condemn the wicked; make him wicked, as the word signifies; that is, judge, declare and pronounce him wicked, whereby he becomes so judicially, and in the eye of the law; as the other is made righteous, by declaration and acquitment. He does not say this shall pardon the righteous, which to suppose would overthrow both the Antithesis and design of the place. And is as much to infuse wickedness into a man, as is to infuse a principle of grace or righteousness into him. The same Antithesis occurs; Proverbs 17:15. He that justifies the wicked, and condemns the righteous. Not he that maks the wicked inherently righteous, not he that changs him inherently from Unrighteous unto righteousness: But he that without any ground, reason or Foundation acquits him in judgment, or declares him to be righteous, is an Abomination unto the Lord. And although this be spoken of the judgment of men, yet the judgment of God also is according unto this truth. For although he justifies the Ungodly, those who are so in themselves; yet he does it on the ground and consideration of a perfect righteousness made theirs by imputation; and by another act of his grace, that they may be meet Subjects of this righteous favor, really and inherently changs them from Unrighteousness unto holiness, by the Renovation of their natures: And these things are singular in the actings of God, which nothing amongst men has any Resemblance unto or can represent. For the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, unto a person in himself ungodly unto his justification, or that he may be acquitted, absolved, and declared righteous, is built on such Foundations, and proceds on such principles of righteousness, wisdom, and Soveraignty, as have no place among the actions of men, nor can have so, as shall afterwards be declared. And moreover, when God does justify the ungodly on the account of the righteousness imputed unto him, he does at the same instant, by the power of his grace, make him inherently and subjectively righteous or Holy, which men cannot do one towards another. And therefore whereas mans Justifying of the wicked, is to justify them in their wicked ways, whereby they are constantly made worse and more obdurate in evil; when God justifies the ungodly, their change from personal unrighteousness and unholiness, unto righteousness and holiness, does necessarily and infallibly accompany it.

To the same purpose is the word used; Isaiah 5:23. Which justify the wicked for reward. Chap. 50:8. . He is near that justifies me, who shall contend with me, let us stand together, who is my Adversary, let him come near unto; Behold the Lord God will help me, who shall condemn me; Where we have a full declaration of the proper sense of the word, which is to acquit and pronounce righteous on a trial. And the same sense is fully expressed in the former Antithesis. 1 kings 8:31, 32. If any man trespass against his neighbor, and an Oath be laid upon him to cause him to swear, and the Oath came before yours Altar in this House; then hear you in heaven and do, and judge your Servants, to condemn the wicked, to charge his wickedness on him, to bring his way on his head, and to justify the righteous. The same words are repeated 2 Chron. 6:22, 23. Psalm 82:3. Do justice to the Afflicted and Poor; that is, justify them in their cause against Wrong and Oppression. Exodus 23:7. I will not justify the wicked; absolve, acquit, or pronounce him righteous. Job. 27:5. Be it far from me that I should justify you, or pronounce sentence on your side, as if you were righteous. Isaiah 53:11. By his knowledge my righteous servant shall justify many; the reason whereof is added: For he shall bear their Iniquities, whereon they are absolved and justified.

Once it is used in Hithpael, wherein a reciprocal action is denoted, that whereby a man justifies himself. Genesis 44:16. And Judah said, what shall we say unto my Lord? what shall we speak and how shall we justify our selves, God has found out our iniquity? they could plead nothing why they should be absolved from Guilt.

Once the Participle is used to denote the outward instrumental cause of the justification of others, in which place alone there is any doubt of its sense. Daniel 12:3. ; And they that justify many; namely, in the same sense that the Preachers of the gospel are said to save themselves and others. 1 Timothy 4:16. For men may be no less the Instrumental causes of the justification of others, than of their sanctification.

Wherefore although in Kal, signifies justum esse, and sometimes juste agere, which may relate unto inherent righteousness; yet where any action towards another is denoted, this word signifies nothing, but to esteem, declare, pronounce, and adjudge any one absolved, acquitted, cleared, justified: There is therefore no other kind of justification once mentioned in the Old testament.

is the word used to the same purpose in the New testament, and that alone. Neither is this word used in any good author whatever, to signifie the making of a man righteous by any applications to produce internal righteousness in him; but either to absolve and acquit, to judge, esteem, and pronounce righteous, or on the contrary to condemn So Suidas. It has two signifiications, to punish, and to account righteous. And he confirms this sense of the word by instances out of Herodotus, Appianus, and Josephus. And again, ; with an Accusative case, that is, when it respects and effects a subject, a person, it is either to condemn and punish, or to esteem and declare righteous; and of this latter sense, he gives pregnant instances in the next words. Hesychius mentions only the first signification. . They never thought of any sense of this word, but what is Forensick. And in our Language to be justified, was commonly used formerly, for to be judged and sentenced; as it is still among the Scots. One of the Articles of peace between the two nations at the surrender of Leith, in the days of Edward the sixth was; That if any one committed a crime, he should be justified by the law, upon his trial. And in general , is Jus in judicio auferre; and , is justum censere, declarare, pronuntiare; and how in the scriptures it is constantly opposed unto condemnare, we shall see immediately.

But we may more distinctly consider the use of this word in the New testament, as we have done that of in the Old And that which we inquire concerning is, whether this word be used in the New testament, in a Forensick sense to denote an Acts of Jurisdiction, or in a Physical sense to express an internal change or mutation, the infusion of an habit of righteousness, and the denomination of the person to be justified thereon; or whether it signifis not pardon of sin. But this we may lay aside; For surely no man was ever yet so fond, as to pretend that did signifie to pardon sin; yet is it the only word apply'd to express our justification in the New testament. For if it be taken only in the former sense, then that which is pleaded for by those of the Romansan church, under the name of justification, whatever it be, however good, useful and necessary, yet justification it is not, nor can be so called; seeing it is a thing quite of another nature than what alone is signified by that word. Matthew 11:19. ; wisdom is justified of her Children, not made just, but approved and declared. Chap. 12:37. ; by the words you shalt be justified; not made just by them, but judged according to them, as is manifest in the Antithesis, ; and by your words you shalt be condemned. Luke. 7:29. ; they justified God; not surely by making him righteous in himself, but by owning, avowing and declaring his righteousness; Chap. 10:29. ; He willing to justify himself, to declare and maintain his own righteousness. To the same purpose; Chap. 16:15. ; you are they that justify your selves before men, they did not make themselves internally righteous, but approved of their own condition; as our savior declares in the place; Chap. 18:14. The Publican went down justified unto his House; that is acquitted, absolved, pardoned, upon the confession of his sin, and supplication for remission. Acts 13:38, 39. with Romans 2:13. . The doers of the law shall be justified. The place declares directly the nature of our justification before God, and puts the signification of the word out of question. For justification ensues, as the whole effect of inherent righteousness according unto the law: And therefore it is not the making of us righteous; which is irrefragable. It is spoken of God; Romans 3:4. ; That you may be justified in your sayings, where to ascribe any other sense to the word is Blasphemy. In like manner the same word is used, and in the same signification; 1 Corinthians 4:4. 1 Timothy 3:16. Romans 3:20, 26, 28, 30. Chap. 4:2, 5. Chap. 5:1, 9. Chap. 6:7. Chap. 8:30. Galatians 2:16, 17. Chap. 3:11, 24. Chap. 5:4. Titus 3:7. Jam. 2:22, 24, 25. And in no one of these instances can it admit of any other signification, or denote the making of any man righteous by the infusion of an habit, or principle of righteousness, or any internal mutation whatever.

It is not therefore in many places of scripture as Bellarmine grants, that the words we have insisted on, do signifie the declaration or juridical pronuntiation of any one to be righteous, but in all places where they are used, they are capable of no other but a Forensick sense; especially, is this evident where mention is made of justification before God. And because in my judgment this one consideration does sufficiently defeat all the pretences of those of the Romansan church about the nature of justification, I shall consider what is excepted against the observation insisted on, and remove it out of our way.

Lud. de Blanc. In his Reconciliatory endeavours on this Article of justification (Thes. de usu & acceptatione vocis, Justificandi) grants unto the papists, that the word does in sundry places of the New testament, signifie to renew, to sanctify, to infuse an habit of holiness or righteousness according as they plead. And there is no reason to think but he has grounded that concession on those instances, which are most pertinent unto that purpose. Neither is it to be expected that a better countenance will be given by any unto this concession, then is given it by him. I shall therefore examine all the instances which he insists upon unto this purpose, and leave the determination of the difference unto the judgment of the reader. Only I shall premise that which I judge not an unreasonable demand; namely, That if the signification of the word in any, or all the places which he mentions, should seem doubtful unto any (as it does not unto me) that the uncertainty of a very few places, should not make us question the proper signification of a word, whose sense is determined in so many, wherein it is clear and unquestionable. The first place he mentions, is that of the apostle Paul himself, Romans 8:30. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified, and whom he justified them he also glorified. The reason whereby he pleads that by justified in this place, an internal work of inherent holiness in them that are predestinated is designed, is this and no other. It is not, says he, likely that the Holy apostle in this enumeration of gracious Priviledges, would omit the mention of our sanctification by which we are freed from the service of sin, and adorned with true internal holiness and righteousness: But this is utterly omitted, if it be not comprized under the name and title of being justified; For it is absurd with some, to refer it unto the head of glorification.

Answ. (1) The grace of sanctification, whereby our natures are spiritually washed, purified and endowed with a principle of life, holiness and obedience unto God, is a Priviledge unquestionably great and excellent, and without which none can be saved. Of the same nature also is our redemption by the Blood of Christ. And both these does this apostle in other places without number, declare, commend, and insist upon. But that he ought to have introduced the mention of them, or either of them in this place, seeing he has not done so, I dare not judge.

2. If our sanctification be included or intended in any of the Priviledges here expressed, there is none of them, Predestination only excepted, but it is more probably to be reduced unto, than unto that of being justified. Indeed in Vocation it seems to be included expressly. For whereas it is effectual Vocation, that is intended wherein an Holy principle of spiritual life, or faith it self is communicated unto us, our sanctification radically, and as the effect in its adaequate immediate cause is contained in it. Hence we are said to be called to be saints; Romans 1:7. which is the same with being sanctified in Christ Jesus. 1 Corinthians 1:2. And in many other places is sanctification included in Vocation.

3. Whereas our sanctification in the infusion of a principle of spiritual life, and the actings of it unto an encrease in duties of holiness, righteousness and obedience, is that, whereby we are made meet for glory, and is of the same nature essentially with glory it self, whence its advances in us, are said to be from glory to glory; 2 Corinthians 3:18. and glory it self is called the grace of life; 1 Peter 3:7. It is much more properly expressed by our being Glorified, than by being justified, which is a Priviledge quite of another nature. However it is evident, that there is no reason why we should depart from the general use and signification of the word, no circumstance in the Text compelling us so to do.

The next place that he gives up unto this signification is 1 Corinthians 6:11. Such were some of you, but you are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God; That by justification here, the infusion of an inherent principle of grace making us inherently righteous, is intended, he endeavours to prove by three reasons. (1) Because justification is here ascribed unto the Holy Ghost, ye are justified by the Spirit of our God. But to renew us is the properwork of the Holy Spirit. (2) It is manifest, he says, That by justification, the apostle does signifie some change in the Corinthians, whereby they ceased to be what they were before. For they were Fornicators and Drunkards, such as could not inherit the kingdom of God, but now were changed, which proves a real inherent work of grace, to be intended. (3) If justification here signifie nothing, but to be absolved from the punishment of sin, then the reasoning of the apostle will be infirm and frigid. For after he has said that which is greater, as heightning of it, he adds the less: For it is more to be washed, then merely to be freed from the punishment of sin.

Answ. 1. All these reasons prove not, that it is the same to be sanctified and to be justified, which must be, if that be the sense of the latter, which is here pleaded for. But the apostle makes an express distinction between them, and as this author observes, proceeds from one to another by an ascent from the lesser to the greater. And the infusion of an habit or principle of grace, or righteousness Evangelical, whereby we are inherently righteous, by which he explains plains our being justified in this place, is our sanctification and nothing else. Yea, and sanctification is here distinguished from washing; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified; So as that it peculiarly in this place denotes positive habits of grace and holiness: Neither can he declare the nature of it, any way different from what he would have expressed by, being justified.

2. justification is ascribed unto the Spirit of God, as the principal efficient cause of the application of the grace of God and Blood of Christ, whereby we are justified, unto our souls and Consciences. And he is so also of the operation of that faith whereby we are justified; whence, although we are said to be justified by him, yet it does not follow that our justification consists in the Renovation of our natures.

3. The change and mutation that was made in these Corinthians, so far as it was Physical in effects inherent, (as such there was) the apostle expressly ascribes unto their washing and sanctification; So that there is no need to suppose this change to be expressed by their being justified. And in the real change asserted, that is, in the Renovation of our natures, consists the true entire work and nature of our sanctification. But whereas by reason of the vitious habits and practices mentioned, they were in a state of condemnation, and such as had no right unto the kingdom of heaven, they were by their justification changed and transferred out of that state into another, wherein they had peace with God, and right unto life Eternal.

4. The third reason proceeds upon a mistake; namely, That to be justified, is only to be freed from the punishment due unto sin. For it comprizs both the Non-imputation of sin, and the imputation of righteousness, with the priviledge of adoption and right unto the Heavenly Inheritance, which are inseparable from it. And although it does not appear that the apostle in the enumeration of these Priviledges, did intend a process from the lesser unto the greater; nor is it safe for us to compare the unutterable effects of the grace of God by Christ Jesus, such as sanctification and justification are, and to determine which is greatest, and which is least; yet following the conduct of the scripture, and the due consideration of the things themselves, we may say that in this life we can be made partakers of no greater mercy or Priviledge, than what consists in our justification. And the reader may see from hence, how impossible it is to produce any one place wherein the words, justification, and to justify, do signifie a real internal work and Physical operation; in that this learned man, a person of more then ordinary perspicuity, candor and judgment, designing to prove it, insisted on such instances, as give so little countenance unto what he pretended. He adds, Titus 3:5, 6, 7. Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according unto his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our savior; that being justified by his grace, we should be made Heirs according unto the hope of Eternal life. The argument which he alone insists upon to prove, that by justification here, an infusion of internal grace is intended, is this; That the apostle affirming first, that God saved us, according unto his mercy by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, and afterwards affirming that we are justified by his grace, he supposes it necessary, that we should be regenerate and renewed, that we may be justified; and if so, then our justification contains and compriss our sanctification also.

Answ. The plain truth is, the apostle speaks not one word of the Necessity of our sanctification, or regeneration, or Renovation by the Holy Ghost, antecedently unto our justification, a supposition whereof contains the whole force of this argument. Indeed he assigns our regeneration, Renovation, and justification all the means of our salvation, all equally unto grace and mercy, in opposition unto any works of our own, which we shall afterwards make use of. Nor is there intimated by him, any order of precedency, or connection between the things that he mentions, but only between justification and adoption, justification having the priority in order of nature; that being justified by his grace, we should be Heirs according to the hope of Eternal life. All the things he mentions are inseparable. No man is regenerate or renewed by the Holy Ghost, but withal he is justified. No man is justified, but withal he is renewed by the Holy Ghost. And they are all of them equally of Soveraign grace in God in opposition unto any works of righteousness that we have wrought. And we plead for the freedom of Gods grace in sanctification, no less then in justification. But that it is necessary that we should be sanctified that we may be justified before God, who justifies the ungodly; the apostle says not in this place, nor any thing to that purpose; neither yet if he did so, would it at all prove, that the signification of that expression to be justified, is to be sanctified, or to have inherent holiness and righteousness wrought in us. And these testimonies would not have been produced to prove it, wherein these things are so expressly distinguished, but that there are none to be found of more force or evidence.

The last place wherein he grants this signification of the word is Revel. 22:11. , qui Justus est, Justificetur adhuc; which place is pleaded by all the Romanists. And our author says, they are but few among the protestants who do not acknowledge that the word cannot be here used in a Forensick sense but that to be justified, is to go on and encrease in piety and righteousness.

Answ. But (1) There is a great objection lies in the way of any argument from these words; namely, from the various Reading of the place. For many antient Copies read not ; which the vulgar renders Justificetur adhuc, but ; Let him that is righteous work righteousness still, as does the Printed Copy which now lyeth before me. So it was in the Copy of the Complutensian edition which Stephens commends above all others; and in one more antient Copy that he used. So it is in the Syriack and Arabick published by Huterus, and in our own Polyglot. So Cyprian reads the words de bono patientiae; Justus autem adhuc justiora faciat, similiter & qui sanctus sanctiora. And I doubt not but that is the true reading of the place; being supplied by some to comply with that ensues. And this phrase of is peculiar unto this apostle, being no where used in the New testament, (nor it may be in any other author) but by him. And he useth it expressly; 1 Epist. 2:29. and Chap. 3:7. where those words, , do plainly contain what is here expressed. (2) To be justified, as the word is rendred by the vulgar, let him be justified more (as it must be rendred, if the word be retained) respects an act of God, which neither in its beginning nor continuation is prescribed unto us as a duty, nor is capable of increase in degrees as we shall shew afterwards. (3) Men are said to be generally from inherent righteousness; and if the apostle had intended justification in this place, he would not have said but . All which things prefer the Complutensian, Syriack, and Arabick, before the vulgar reading of this place. If the vulgar reading be retained, no more can be intended, but that he who is righteous, should so proceed in working righteousness, as to secure his justified estate unto himself, and to manifest it before God and the world.

Now whereas the words and are used 36 times in the New testament, these are all the places, whereunto any exception is put in against their Forensick signification; And how ineffectual these exceptions are, is evident unto any impartial judge.

Some other considerations may yet be made use of and pleaded to the same purpose: Such is the opposition that is made between justification and condemnation; So is it, Isaiah 50:8, 9. Proverbs 17:15. Romans 5:16, 18. Chap. 8:33, 34. and in sundry other places, as may be observed in the preceding enumeration of them. Wherefore as condemnation is not the infusing of an habit of wickedness into him that is condemned; nor the making of him to be inherently wicked, who was before righteous; but the passing a sentence upon a man with respect unto his wickedness; no more is justification the change of a person from inherent unrighteousness unto righteousness, by the infusion of a principle of grace, but a sentential declaration of him to be righteous.

Moreover, the thing intended is frequently declared in the scripture by other aequivalent terms, which are absolutely exclusive of any such sense, as the infusion of an habit of righteousness; So the apostle expresss it by the imputation of righteousness without works; Romans 4:6, 11. And calls it the Blessedness, which we have by the pardon of sin, and the covering of iniquity in the same place. So it is called reconciliation with God; Romans 5:9, 10. To be justified by the Blood of Christ, is the same with being Reconciled by his death. being now justified by his Blood, we shall be saved from wrath by him. For if when we were Enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. See 2 Corinthians 5:20, 21. reconciliation is not the infusion of an habit of grace, but the effecting of peace and love, by the removal of all enmity and causes of offence. To save, and salvation are used to the same purpose. He shall save his people from their sins; Matthew 1:21. is the same, with, by him all that believe are justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses. Acts 13:39. That of Galatians 2:16. We have believed that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law, is the same with Acts 15:11. But we believe that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved even as they; Ephesians 2:8, 9. By grace ye are saved, through faith, and not of works; is so to be justified. So it is expressed by pardon, or the remission of sins, which is the effect of it; Romans 4:5, 6. By receiving the atonement; Chap. 5:11. not coming into judgment or condemnation; John 5:24. Blotting out sins and Iniquities; Isaiah 43:25. Psalm 51:9. Isaiah 44:22. Jeremiah 18:23. Acts 3:19. Casting them into the bottom of the Sea; Micah. 7:19. and sundry other expressions of an alike importance. The apostle declaring it by its effects, says, Many shall be made righteous, Romans 5:19. , who on a juridical trial in open court, is absolved and declared righteous.

And so it may be observed that all things concerning justification are proposed in the scripture under a juridical Scheme, or Forensick Tryal and sentence. As (1) A judgment is supposed in it, concerning which, the Psalmist prays that it may not proceed on the terms of the law, Psalm 143:2. (2) The judge, is God himself; Isaiah 50:7, 8. Romans 8:33. (3) The tribunal whereon God sits in judgment, is the throne of grace, Hebrews 4:16. Therefore will the Lord wait, that he may be gracious unto you, and therefore will he be exalted, that he may have mercy upon you; for the Lord is a God of judgment Isaiah 30:18. (4) A Guilty person. This is the sinner, who is , so guilty of sin, as to be obnoxious to the judgment of God; . Romans 3:19. Chap. 1:32. whose mouth is stopped by conviction. (5) Accusers are ready to propose and promote the charge against the guilty person; These are the law, John 5:45. and conscience, Romans 2:15. and Sathan also, Zechariah. 3:2. Revelation 12:10. (6) The Charge is admitted and drawn up into an Handwriting in form of law, and is laid before the tribunal of the judge in Bar, to the Deliverance of the Offender. Colossians 2:14. (7) A Plea is prepared in the gospel for the guilty person. And this is grace, through the Blood of Christ, the Ransome paid, the atonement made, the Eternal righteousness brought in by the Surety of the covenant. Romans 3:23, 24, 25. Daniel 9:24. Ephesians 1:7. (8) Hereunto alone the sinner betakes himself, renouncing all other Apologies or defensatives whatever. Psalm 130:2, 3. Psalm 143:2. Job. 9:2, 3. Chap. 42:5, 6, 7. Luke. 18:13. Romans 3:24, 25. Chap. 5:11, 16, 17, 18, 19. Chap. 8:1, 2, 3. verse 32:33. Isaiah 53:5, 6. Hebrews 9:13, 14, 15. Chap. 10:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13:1 Peter 2:24. 1 John 1:7. Other Plea for a sinner before God there is none. He who knows God and himself, will not provide or betake himself unto any other. Nor will he as I suppose trust unto any other defense, were he sure of all the Angels in heaven to plead for him. (9) To make this Plea effectual we have an Advocate with the father, and he pleads his own propitiation for us. 1 John 2:1, 2. (10) The sentence hereon is absolution, on the account of the Ransome, Blood or sacrifice and righteousness of Christ; with Acceptation into favor, as persons approved of God. Job. 33:24. Psalm 32:1, 2. Romans 3:23, 24, 25. Chap. 8:1, 33, 34:2 Corinthians 5:21. Galatians 3:13, 14.

Of what use the declaration of this Process in the justification of a sinner may be, has been in some measure before declared. And if many did seriously consider, that all these things do concur and are required unto the justification of every one that shall be saved, it may be they would not have such slight thoughts of sin, and the way of Deliverance from the guilt of it, as they seem to have. From this consideration did the apostle learn that terror of the Lord, which made him so earn with men to seek after reconciliation; 2 Corinthians 5:10, 11.

I had not so long insisted on the signification of the words in the scripture, but that a right understanding of it, does not only exclude the pretences of the Romanists about the infusion of an habit of charity, from being the formal cause of our justification before God, but may also give occasion unto some to take advice, into what place or consideration they can dispose their own personal inherent righteousness in their justification before him.

To understand the nature of justification rightly, we must first examine the proper meaning and usage of the words "justification" and "to justify" in Scripture. Until that is settled, all our discussion of the thing itself will be tangled in ambiguity. When words are taken in different senses, anything that seems contradictory may actually be true — depending on which sense is assumed. This has in fact happened in this debate, as we will see more fully later. Some taking these words in one sense and others in another have appeared to teach opposite doctrines about justification before God, even while fully agreeing on what the words actually mean in their proper and definite sense. The true meaning of these words has therefore already been declared and defended by many writers. But since settling this is more important for resolving the central disputes about the doctrine than most people recognize — and since something remains to be added for the clarification and defense of these words' proper meaning in Scripture — I will give my own account of what I have observed, as carefully as I can.

The Latin derivation and construction of the word "justificatio" might seem to suggest an internal change from inherent unrighteousness to inherent righteousness, through a physical transformation — as the scholastic writers put it. Words of the same formation in Latin do typically carry this sense. So sanctification, mortification, vivification, and similar words all denote a real internal work in the subject. This is why throughout the entire Roman Catholic school, justification is understood as a making righteous — that is, making a person inherently righteous through the infusion of a principle or habit of grace, who was previously inherently and habitually unrighteous. As long as this is taken to be the proper meaning of the word, we cannot speak to the same point in our disputes with them about the cause and nature of the justification Scripture teaches.

This apparent sense of the word may have misled some of the ancient writers — Augustine in particular — to describe the doctrine of free, gratuitous sanctification, without reference to any works of our own, under the heading of justification. But neither he nor any of the other ancient writers ever conceived of a justification before God consisting in the pardon of sins and the acceptance of persons as righteous through any inherent habit of grace infused into us or acted out by us. Therefore, the scriptural use and meaning of these words must determine the subject matter before we can speak of it accurately or intelligibly. For if to justify in Scripture means to make people subjectively and inherently righteous, then we must acknowledge an error in what we teach about the nature and causes of justification. But if it means no such thing, then all their arguments about justification by the infusion of grace and consequent inherent righteousness fall to the ground. All Protestants — and the Socinians agree with them here — affirm that the use and meaning of these words is forensic, denoting a legal act of judgment. The Socinians and some others, however, would have it consist in the pardon of sin alone — which the word does not signify at all. The sense of the word is to acquit, to clear, to declare and pronounce righteous following a trial — in which case the pardon of sin necessarily accompanies the verdict.

The Latin words "justificatio" and "justifico" are not native Latin terms, and no good classical author can be cited who ever used them to mean making someone inherently righteous by any means. Since these words were coined to express specific meanings, the only way to determine their sense is by examining the nature of the things they were invented to describe. Since in Latin they derive from "jus" and "justum," they must refer to an act of legal judgment rather than a physical operation or infusion. "Justificari" means to be regarded, counted, or adjudged as righteous. So by adoption, a person was made a legitimate son — "justus filius" — by the one who adopted him. As Budaeus explains, commenting on Gaius (Institutes, Book 2, concerning adoption): "In cases of arrogation, the adopting party is asked — that is, questioned — whether he wishes the one to be adopted to be his legitimate son. By legitimate I mean not merely genuine, as some think, but one who in every respect holds the place of a true son and stands in the position of a natural and lawful son." Therefore, just as adoption involves no internal inherent change in the person adopted — yet by virtue of it he is regarded and adjudged as a true son with all the rights of a legitimate son — so also by justification, in the meaning of the word, a person is simply regarded, declared, and pronounced righteous as if completely so. In fact, justification and gratuitous adoption are in substance the same grace (John 1:12) — their different names simply reflect different effects or privileges that follow from the same gracious act.

But the true and genuine meaning of these words must ultimately be determined from the original biblical languages they represent. In Hebrew the root term is rendered in the Septuagint, for instance in Job 27:5; Job 13:18; and Proverbs 17:15. It means to show or declare someone righteous, to appear righteous, or to judge someone righteous. The sense can be seen clearly in Job 13:18: "Behold now, I have prepared my case; I know that I will be justified." His preparation of his case — that is, his cause ready to be judged — is his readiness for a verdict of either acquittal or condemnation. His confidence was that he would be justified — that is, acquitted, cleared, and declared righteous. The same sense is equally clear in the other passages. The Septuagint commonly renders this Hebrew root with a Greek term that will be discussed further.

Properly, this Hebrew verb denotes an action toward another — in the active causative form — and in the reflexive form it denotes a person's action on themselves. This alone determines the true meaning of these words. I affirm that in the active causative form, wherever this verb denotes an action toward another, it is always used in one sense only: to absolve, acquit, regard, declare, or pronounce righteous, or to impute righteousness — the forensic sense of the word we are arguing for. This is its constant use and meaning; it never once means to make inherently righteous, much less to pardon or forgive. The claim of some that justification consists only in the pardon of sin is therefore groundless, since the word does not carry that meaning in any passage of Scripture. In almost every passage this forensic sense is beyond question, and there is at most one passage where any debate arises — and even that is so weak a case that it cannot undermine the word's consistent meaning everywhere else. Whatever infusion of inherent grace may be, and however it might be named, justification it is not and cannot be — the word never signifies any such thing. The Roman Catholic church therefore does not so much oppose justification by faith through the imputation of Christ's righteousness as deny that there is any such thing as justification at all. What they call first justification — consisting in the infusion of a principle of inherent grace — is not justification at all. And their second justification, which they locate in the merit of works with no place or role for acquittal or pardon of sin, is incompatible with evangelical justification, as will be shown later.

This word — whether expressing God's act toward people, people's acts toward God, or acts of people toward one another — is always used in a forensic sense and does not denote a physical operation, infusion, or transformation. In 2 Samuel 15:4, David says: "If any man has a suit or cause, let him come to me and I will do him justice" — I will justify him, judge his cause, and pronounce in his favor. Deuteronomy 25:1: "If there is a dispute between men and they go to court, the judges shall judge them — they shall justify the righteous" — that is, pronounce sentence in his favor. This is set in opposition to: "they shall condemn the wicked" — pronounce him wicked. The word for "condemn" means to judge, declare, and pronounce someone wicked, making them so judicially and in the eyes of the law — just as the other is made righteous by declaration and acquittal. The text does not say "they shall pardon the righteous" — which would overthrow both the contrast and the purpose of the passage. Declaring someone wicked is no more a physical infusion of wickedness than declaring someone righteous is a physical infusion of righteousness. The same contrast appears in Proverbs 17:15: "He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous." Not the one who makes the wicked inherently righteous, not the one who changes him inwardly from unrighteous to righteous — but the one who without any ground, reason, or basis acquits him in judgment or declares him to be righteous, is an abomination to the Lord. And although this speaks of human judgment, God's judgment also operates according to this same truth. For although God justifies the ungodly — those who are so in themselves — He does so on the ground and basis of a perfect righteousness made theirs by imputation. And by another act of His grace — that they may be fitting subjects of this righteous favor — He genuinely and inherently transforms them from unrighteousness to holiness through the renewal of their natures. These acts of God are unique and have no real human parallel. For the imputation of Christ's righteousness to a person who is in himself ungodly — for his justification, so that he may be acquitted, cleared, and declared righteous — is built on foundations and proceeds on principles of righteousness, wisdom, and sovereignty that have no counterpart in human actions, as will be explained later. Moreover, when God justifies the ungodly on the basis of the righteousness imputed to him, He simultaneously, by the power of His grace, makes him inherently and subjectively righteous and holy — which no human being can do for another. Therefore, while when a human being justifies the wicked he justifies them in their wicked ways, making them more hardened in evil, when God justifies the ungodly, their personal change from unrighteousness and unholiness to righteousness and holiness necessarily and unfailingly accompanies it.

The same word is used to the same effect in Isaiah 5:23: "who justify the wicked for a bribe." And in Isaiah 50:8: "He who vindicates Me is near — who will contend with Me? Let us stand together. Who has a case against Me? Let him approach Me. Behold, the Lord God will help Me — who will condemn Me?" Here we have a full statement of the word's proper meaning: to acquit and pronounce righteous upon a legal proceeding. The same sense is fully expressed in the earlier contrast as well. 1 Kings 8:31-32: "If a man sins against his neighbor and is made to take an oath, and he comes and makes an oath before Your altar in this house, then hear in heaven and act and judge Your servants, condemning the wicked by bringing his conduct on his own head, and justifying the righteous." The same words are repeated in 2 Chronicles 6:22-23. Psalm 82:3: "Vindicate the weak and fatherless" — that is, justify them in their cause against wrongdoing and oppression. Exodus 23:7: "I will not justify the wicked" — I will not absolve, acquit, or pronounce him righteous. Job 27:5: "Far be it from me that I should declare you righteous" — that is, pronounce sentence in your favor as if you were righteous. Isaiah 53:11: "By His knowledge My righteous Servant will justify the many" — and the reason is added: "for He will bear their iniquities," upon which they are absolved and justified.

Once the reflexive form is used, in which a reciprocal action is expressed — a person justifying themselves. Genesis 44:16: "Judah said, 'What can we say to my lord? What can we speak? And how can we justify ourselves? God has found out the iniquity of your servants.'" They could offer nothing to plead for their acquittal from guilt.

Once the participial form is used to denote the outward instrumental cause of others' justification — the only passage where any ambiguity about its sense arises. Daniel 12:3: "those who justify many" — meaning in the same sense that gospel preachers are said to save both themselves and others (1 Timothy 4:16). For people may be instrumental causes of others' justification no less than of their sanctification.

Therefore, although in the simple active form the Hebrew root can mean "to be righteous" or sometimes "to act righteously" — which may relate to inherent righteousness — wherever the word denotes an action toward another, it means nothing other than to regard, declare, pronounce, and adjudge a person as absolved, acquitted, cleared, and justified. There is therefore no other kind of justification so much as mentioned in the Old Testament.

The corresponding Greek word is used to the same end in the New Testament — and it alone is used for this purpose. This Greek word is not used in any good author to mean making a man righteous by any process that produces internal righteousness in him. It means either to acquit and clear, to judge, regard, and pronounce righteous — or, on the contrary, to condemn. So Suidas states it has two meanings: to punish, and to count as righteous. He confirms this meaning with examples from Herodotus, Appian, and Josephus. He also notes that when the word takes a direct object — that is, when it acts on and affects a person — it means either to condemn and punish, or to regard and declare righteous, and he gives strong examples of this latter sense immediately after. Hesychius mentions only the first meaning. These lexicographers never considered any meaning for this word other than the forensic one. In older English as well, "to be justified" was commonly used to mean being judged and sentenced — as it is still used among the Scots. One of the articles of peace between England and Scotland at the surrender of Leith in the reign of Edward VI stated that if anyone committed a crime, he should be "justified" by the law upon his trial. In general, the Greek verb means to take one's right in court, and the related form means to judge, declare, and pronounce righteous — and how consistently it is set in opposition to "to condemn" throughout Scripture we shall see at once.

We may examine the use of this Greek word in the New Testament more specifically, just as we have done with the Hebrew term in the Old Testament. The question is whether this word is used in the New Testament in a forensic sense — denoting a legal act of judgment — or in a physical sense to express an internal change, the infusion of a habit of righteousness, with the person then called righteous as a result. Or whether it means the pardon of sin — but we may set that aside at once, since surely no one has been so bold as to claim that this Greek word means to pardon sin, yet it is the only word used to express our justification in the entire New Testament. If the word is used only in the forensic sense, then what the Roman Catholic church calls justification — whatever it may be, however good, useful, and necessary — is not justification and cannot be called so, since it is an entirely different kind of thing from what the word alone signifies. Matthew 11:19: "wisdom is justified by her children" — not made righteous, but approved and vindicated. Matthew 12:37: "by your words you will be justified" — not made righteous by them, but judged by them, as is plain from the contrasting phrase: "by your words you will be condemned." Luke 7:29: "they justified God" — not by making Him righteous in Himself, but by owning, affirming, and declaring His righteousness. Luke 10:29: "he wanting to justify himself" — to demonstrate and maintain his own righteousness. Similarly, Luke 16:15: "you are those who justify yourselves before men" — they did not make themselves internally righteous, but approved of their own condition, as our Savior explains in the passage. Luke 18:14: "this man went down to his house justified" — that is, acquitted, absolved, and pardoned upon his confession of sin and plea for forgiveness. Acts 13:38-39; Romans 2:13: "the doers of the law will be justified." This passage directly describes the nature of our justification before God and puts the meaning of the word beyond question — for justification follows as the complete result of inherent righteousness according to the law, and therefore it is not the making of us righteous, which is conclusive. It is said of God in Romans 3:4: "that You may be justified in Your words" — to assign any other meaning to the word here would be blasphemy. The same word is used in the same sense in 1 Corinthians 4:4; 1 Timothy 3:16; Romans 3:20, 26, 28, 30; Romans 4:2, 5; Romans 5:1, 9; Romans 6:7; Romans 8:30; Galatians 2:16-17; Galatians 3:11, 24; Galatians 5:4; Titus 3:7; James 2:22, 24-25. In not one of these instances can it bear any other meaning or denote the making of any person righteous through the infusion of a habit or principle of righteousness, or any internal transformation whatsoever.

Therefore, it is not merely in many places of Scripture — as Bellarmin concedes — that these words denote the declaration or judicial pronouncement of someone as righteous. In every single place where they are used, they admit of no other than a forensic meaning. This is especially evident wherever justification before God is mentioned. Because I judge this one observation sufficient to demolish all the claims of the Roman Catholic church about the nature of justification, I will consider the objections raised against it and clear them out of the way.

Le Blanc, in his conciliatory work on the article of justification (his thesis on the use and meaning of the word "justifying"), grants to the Roman Catholics that the word does in several New Testament passages mean to renew, sanctify, or infuse a habit of holiness or righteousness, as they argue. There is every reason to think he has based this concession on the most relevant examples he could find. And it is unlikely that anyone else could present this concession in a more favorable light than he does. I will therefore examine every example he cites for this purpose and leave the decision to the reader's judgment. I will only state one preliminary demand that I consider reasonable: that if the meaning of the word in any or all of the passages he mentions should seem doubtful to anyone — though it does not to me — the uncertainty of a very few passages should not lead us to question the established meaning of a word whose sense is clearly and unquestionably settled in so many others. The first passage he cites is Romans 8:30: "Moreover, those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified." His argument that "justified" in this passage refers to an internal work of inherent holiness in those who are predestined is this and nothing more: it is unlikely, he says, that the apostle in this catalog of gracious privileges would omit sanctification — by which we are freed from the dominion of sin and endowed with true internal holiness and righteousness. But sanctification is entirely absent unless it is included under the name of being justified, since it is absurd, as some claim, to refer it to glorification.

Answer. First, the grace of sanctification — by which our natures are spiritually washed, purified, and given a principle of life, holiness, and obedience to God — is unquestionably a great and excellent privilege, without which no one can be saved. Our redemption through the blood of Christ is of the same kind. And the apostle in countless other places declares, commends, and dwells on both of these. But that he ought to have introduced mention of them, or either of them, in this passage — seeing he has not done so — I would not presume to judge.

2. If our sanctification is to be included or intended in any of the privileges mentioned here, there is none — except predestination — under which it would more naturally fall than calling. In fact, sanctification seems to be expressly included in effectual calling. For effectual calling is the act by which a holy principle of spiritual life — or faith itself — is communicated to us. Our sanctification is therefore radically contained in it, the way an effect is contained in its full immediate cause. This is why we are said to be "called to be saints" (Romans 1:7), which is the same as being "sanctified in Christ Jesus" (1 Corinthians 1:2). And in many other passages, sanctification is included in the concept of calling.

3. Since sanctification — consisting in the infusion of a principle of spiritual life and its ongoing activity increasing in holiness, righteousness, and obedience — is what makes us fit for glory, and is essentially of the same nature as glory itself (so that its growth in us is described as going "from glory to glory," 2 Corinthians 3:18, and glory itself is called "the grace of life," 1 Peter 3:7) — sanctification is far more properly expressed by "being glorified" than by "being justified," which is a privilege of an entirely different kind. In any case, there is clearly no reason to depart from the consistent use and meaning of the word when nothing in the text compels us to do so.

The next passage Le Blanc interprets this way is 1 Corinthians 6:11: "And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." He attempts to prove that justification here means the infusion of an inherent principle of grace making us inherently righteous, by three arguments. First, because justification here is attributed to the Holy Spirit — "you were justified by the Spirit of our God" — and the proper work of the Holy Spirit is to renew us. Second, he says it is clear that by justification the apostle means some change in the Corinthians by which they ceased to be what they were before. For they had been fornicators and drunkards — people who could not inherit the kingdom of God — but now they were changed, which proves that a real inherent work of grace is intended. Third, if justification here means nothing more than being absolved from the punishment of sin, then the apostle's argument will be weak and flat. For after stating something greater, as an intensification, he would then add something lesser — since to be washed is more than merely to be freed from the punishment of sin.

Answer. 1. None of these arguments proves that to be sanctified and to be justified are the same thing — which they would have to be if the meaning of the latter is what is being argued here. But the apostle makes an explicit distinction between them, and as this author himself notes, moves from one to the other in ascending order from the lesser to the greater. The infusion of a habit or principle of grace or evangelical righteousness — by which we are inherently righteous — which he uses to explain what "being justified" means in this passage, is our sanctification and nothing else. In fact, sanctification here is also distinguished from washing: "you were washed, you were sanctified" — so sanctification specifically denotes positive habits of grace and holiness in this context. And he cannot describe what he means by sanctification here in any way that differs from what he would have expressed by "being justified."

2. Justification is attributed to the Spirit of God as the principal efficient cause of applying the grace of God and the blood of Christ — through which we are justified — to our souls and consciences. He is equally the efficient cause of the working of the faith by which we are justified. Therefore, even though we are said to be justified by Him, it does not follow that our justification consists in the renewal of our natures.

3. The change and transformation that was made in these Corinthians — insofar as it was a physical, inherent effect (and such there was) — the apostle explicitly attributes to their washing and sanctification. There is therefore no need to suppose that this change is what is expressed by their being justified. The entire true work and nature of sanctification consists in that real change — the renewal of our natures. But because of the vicious habits and practices mentioned, these Corinthians had been in a state of condemnation, with no right to the kingdom of heaven. Through their justification they were transferred out of that state into one in which they had peace with God and a right to eternal life.

4. The third argument rests on a mistake — namely, that to be justified means only to be freed from the punishment due to sin. For justification includes both the non-imputation of sin and the imputation of righteousness, along with the privilege of adoption and the right to the heavenly inheritance, which are inseparable from it. Although it does not appear that the apostle in listing these privileges intended to move from the lesser to the greater — and it is dangerous for us to compare and rank the inexpressible effects of God's grace in Christ (such as sanctification and justification) — we may nevertheless say, following the guidance of Scripture and proper reflection on the things themselves, that in this life we can receive no greater mercy or privilege than what consists in our justification. The reader can see from this how impossible it is to produce even a single passage where the words "justification" and "to justify" mean a real internal work and physical operation. A learned man of more than ordinary insight, clarity, and judgment, who set out to prove it, could do no better than these examples — which give so little support to what he was trying to establish. He adds Titus 3:5-7: "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we did in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, being justified by His grace, we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." The only argument he presses to prove that justification here refers to an infusion of internal grace is this: the apostle says first that God saved us according to His mercy through the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, and then says that we are justified by His grace. He therefore assumes it is necessary that we be regenerated and renewed before we can be justified — and if that is so, then justification includes and encompasses sanctification as well.

Answer. The plain truth is that the apostle says not a single word about the necessity of sanctification, regeneration, or renewal by the Holy Spirit prior to justification — the assumption of which constitutes the entire force of this argument. In fact, the apostle assigns regeneration, renewal, and justification — all the means of our salvation — equally to grace and mercy, in opposition to any works of our own. Nor does he suggest any order of priority or causal connection between the things he mentions, except between justification and adoption — with justification having logical priority: "that being justified by His grace, we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." All the things he mentions are inseparable. No one is regenerated and renewed by the Holy Spirit without at the same time being justified. No one is justified without at the same time being renewed by the Holy Spirit. And all of these are equally products of God's sovereign grace, in contrast to any works of righteousness we have performed. We insist on the freedom of God's grace in sanctification no less than in justification. But that it is necessary to be sanctified before being justified before God — who justifies the ungodly — the apostle does not say here, nor anything to that effect. And even if he did, it would not at all prove that the expression "to be justified" means "to be sanctified" or to have inherent holiness and righteousness worked in us. These passages would not have been produced to prove it — where these things are so clearly distinguished — unless there were no stronger or clearer ones to be found.

The last passage where Le Blanc grants this meaning to the word is Revelation 22:11: "He who is righteous, let him be justified still" — a verse appealed to by all the Roman Catholic writers. Our author says that few Protestants deny that the word here cannot be used in a forensic sense, and that "to be justified" must mean to continue and grow in piety and righteousness.

Answer. First, there is a significant textual objection standing in the way of any argument from these words — namely, a textual variant. Many ancient manuscripts do not read the word the Vulgate renders as "let him be justified still," but instead read "let him who is righteous do righteousness still" — as does the printed copy currently before me. This was the reading in the Complutensian edition's copy, which Stephens commends above all others, and in another more ancient copy he used. It is also the reading of the Syriac and Arabic translations published by Hutter, and of our own Polyglot. Cyprian reads it this way in his work on patience: "But let the righteous do more righteous things still, and likewise let the holy do more holy things." I have no doubt that this is the correct reading, with the variant having been introduced by someone seeking to harmonize it with what follows. This Greek phrase is distinctive to this apostle — it appears nowhere else in the New Testament, and perhaps not in any other author — except in his own first letter at 2:29 and 3:7, where similar words plainly express what is meant here. Second, if the Vulgate's reading is retained, "let him be justified more" — which is how it must be rendered — refers to an act of God that is neither commanded as our duty in its beginning or continuation, nor capable of increase in degrees, as will be shown later. Third, people are generally described from their inherent righteousness by a different Greek term, and if the apostle had intended justification in this sense he would not have used the term he did. All these considerations favor the Complutensian, Syriac, and Arabic texts over the Vulgate reading of this passage. Even if the Vulgate reading is kept, the most that can be intended is that one who is righteous should continue working righteousness in a way that confirms their justified standing before themselves and demonstrates it before God and the world.

Now, the Greek words for "justify" and "justification" appear 36 times in the New Testament. These are all the passages where any objection has been raised against their forensic meaning. How weak these objections are is evident to any fair-minded reader.

Several additional considerations confirm the same conclusion. One is the consistent contrast between justification and condemnation found in Scripture: Isaiah 50:8-9; Proverbs 17:15; Romans 5:16, 18; Romans 8:33-34; and various other places noted in the earlier survey. Just as condemnation is not the infusing of a habit of wickedness into the condemned, nor the making of someone inherently wicked who was previously righteous, but the pronouncing of a sentence upon a person in view of their wickedness — so justification is not the transformation of a person from inherent unrighteousness to righteousness through the infusion of a principle of grace, but a declarative pronouncement that they are righteous.

Furthermore, justification is frequently expressed in Scripture by equivalent terms that absolutely exclude any sense of infusing a habit of righteousness. The apostle describes it as "the imputation of righteousness apart from works" (Romans 4:6, 11) and calls it the blessedness that comes through the pardon of sin and the covering of iniquity in the same passage. It is called reconciliation with God (Romans 5:9-10): "having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him; for if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." See also 2 Corinthians 5:20-21. Reconciliation is not the infusing of a habit of grace but the establishing of peace and love by the removal of all enmity and its causes. The language of "to save" and "salvation" is used for the same thing. "He will save His people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21) is equivalent to "everyone who believes is justified from all things, from which you could not be justified through the law of Moses" (Acts 13:39). Galatians 2:16 — "we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law" — is equivalent to Acts 15:11 — "we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus." Ephesians 2:8-9 — "by grace you have been saved through faith, and not of works" — is the same as being justified. It is also expressed as the pardon or forgiveness of sins, which is its effect (Romans 4:5-6), as receiving the atonement (Romans 5:11), as not coming into judgment or condemnation (John 5:24), as blotting out sins and iniquities (Isaiah 43:25; Psalm 51:9; Isaiah 44:22; Jeremiah 18:23; Acts 3:19), as casting sins into the depths of the sea (Micah 7:19), and in various other equivalent expressions. The apostle, describing justification by its effects, says "many will be made righteous" (Romans 5:19) — meaning those who, in a judicial proceeding in open court, are acquitted and declared righteous.

It may also be observed that everything about justification in Scripture is presented under a legal framework — a forensic trial and sentence. First, a judgment is assumed, concerning which the psalmist prays that it would not proceed on the terms of the law (Psalm 143:2). Second, the judge is God Himself (Isaiah 50:7-8; Romans 8:33). Third, the bench from which God judges is the throne of grace (Hebrews 4:16): "Therefore the Lord longs to be gracious to you, and therefore He waits on high to have compassion on you. For the Lord is a God of justice" (Isaiah 30:18). Fourth, there is a guilty person — the sinner, who is declared liable to God's judgment and whose mouth is stopped by conviction (Romans 3:19; Romans 1:32). Fifth, accusers are ready to press the charge against the guilty person: the law (John 5:45), conscience (Romans 2:15), and Satan (Zechariah 3:2; Revelation 12:10). Sixth, the charge is formally drawn up into a written indictment and presented before the judge's bench against the release of the offender (Colossians 2:14). Seventh, a plea is prepared in the gospel for the guilty person — the plea of grace through the blood of Christ, the ransom paid, the atonement made, and the eternal righteousness brought in by the surety of the covenant (Romans 3:23-25; Daniel 9:24; Ephesians 1:7). Eighth, to this alone the sinner turns, renouncing all other defenses and arguments (Psalm 130:2-3; Psalm 143:2; Job 9:2-3; Job 42:5-7; Luke 18:13; Romans 3:24-25; Romans 5:11, 16-19; Romans 8:1-3, 32-33; Isaiah 53:5-6; Hebrews 9:13-15; Hebrews 10:1-13; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 1:7). There is no other plea for a sinner before God. Whoever truly knows God and themselves will not prepare or resort to any other. Nor, I believe, would they trust any other defense even if they were sure of all the angels in heaven pleading on their behalf. Ninth, to make this plea effective, we have an Advocate with the Father, who pleads His own propitiation for us (1 John 2:1-2). Tenth, the resulting verdict is acquittal on the basis of the ransom, blood, sacrifice, and righteousness of Christ — along with acceptance into favor as persons approved by God (Job 33:24; Psalm 32:1-2; Romans 3:23-25; Romans 8:1, 33-34; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13-14).

The value of laying out this whole process in the justification of a sinner has already been touched on to some degree. If many people would seriously consider that all of these things come together and are required for the justification of everyone who will be saved, perhaps they would not have such casual thoughts about sin and the way of deliverance from its guilt as they seem to have. It was from this understanding that the apostle learned that fear of the Lord which made him so earnest with people to seek reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:10-11).

I would not have dwelt so long on the scriptural meaning of these words were it not that a right understanding of it not only excludes the Roman Catholic claim that an infused habit of charity is the formal cause of our justification before God, but may also prompt some people to ask where precisely their own personal inherent righteousness can be located in their justification before Him.