works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” Gal. 11. 11: “But that no man is justi- fied by the law in the sight of God, it is evident.” See also Acts xiii, 395. Rom)'yv.; 7—9; 1. Cor. vis tas Christ died as God’s medium of moral influence upon the sinner, and not as propitiating mediator in behalf of men with a justly offended God, then to justify must mean to make just, to sanctify. What sense, in that case, can be put upon those passages which speak of our being “‘justified,” that is, sanctified, “without the deeds of the law?” What meaning can be imported into such phrases as, ‘‘ By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be ‘sanctified’” (Rom. ii. 20); or, “Christ is become of no effect unto you, [who are ‘sanctified’ by the law ;] who- soever of you are ‘sanctified’ by the law, are fallen from grace” (Gal. v. 4); or, ““Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, ... to declare at this time his righteousness : [in order] that he [God] might be ‘holy,’ and the‘ sancti- fier’ of him which believeth in Jesus” ?* (Rom. iti. 25, 26). 5. The phrases, ‘‘to justify” and “justification” are in the Scriptures constantly used as the opposite of “to condemn” and “condemnation.” “Who shall lay any- thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth : who is he that condemmeth?” (Rom. viii. 33, 34.) ‘Therefore, as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men * That Bushnell should say, as he does on page 420, that he has estab- lished his point, that dcca:dw is not used in a declarative or judicial sense, but means to make morally good, ‘“‘in a manner that leaves no room for dispute,’ is an exhibition of the very insanity of self-conceit. So far from
the word in Scripture always having that sense, it never has it—Princeton Review, April 1866.
DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. 201
unto justification of life” (Rom. v. 18. See also Rom. c#sr7se viii. 1; John ii, 18). Now the phrase “to condemn” ie must be taken in a legal sense. Therefore, “to justify” must be legal also. The opposite of ‘‘to sanctify” is to pollute, but the opposite of “to condemn” is to justify.
6. The same truth is established by the character of the terms which in Scripture are used interchangeably with duaow to bring out the full sense of Christian . justification. These are such as, “To impute righteous- ness without works ;” “to forgive iniquities ;” “to cover . sins ;” “not to impute or charge sin to account’ (Rom. iv. 6-8). “Justified by his blood;” ‘saved from wrath ;” “being sinners and yet reconciled to God by the death een con; | (Rom, v.. 9, 10): 7. The same truth is proved by Paul’s argument as to the gratwitous character of justification, Rom. ii. 27,
28, and iv. 3-5: ‘ Where is boasting then? It is ex- cluded. By what law? of works? Nay; but by the lave cot faith) S828 Abraham believed God, and it was
counted to him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” But if justification be only setting a man subjectively right, making him to be good in fact, why should “sanctification” by works be a ground of boasting any more than “sanctification” by faith? It is easy to understand how a man can be forensically just without works, on the credit of the works of a “‘surety.” But what mortal can construe in thought the thing meant by saying that a man is personally holy without works of righteousness? How can faith be counted for “sanctification” in the case of a man who has no works, but believes in a God who “ sanctifies” the ungodly ?
8. The sense in which Paul used the terms in ques-
CHAPTER XIV.
The argu- ments of - Dr. John
Young an- swered.
202 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
tion is put beyond all doubt by the nature of the objecs tions which he introduces into his Epistle to the Romans as likely to be made to his doctrine. The question whether, being justified by grace, we should continue in sin in order that grace might abound, is both obvious and plausible, if the phrase, ‘“‘ being justified,” be taken
in the forensic sense attributed to it by the Protestant —
Church in all its branches. That is, Will not the free, gratuitous acquittal of the sinner, without either obedi- ence or punishment on his part, inevitably lead to licen- tiousness? But the question whether, being “‘sanctified” by grace, we shall continue in sin that grace may abound, has not even a decent appearance of plausibility, because utterly devoid of sense.