JUSTIFYING ONE'S SELF
KEEPING
same revelation in both cases, and one and the same faith or receptivity in both cases. Justifica- tion and regeneration are therefore vitally con- nected, and it is impossible to experience one with- out the other. Nevertheless Christian theology is compelled to treat them as separate articles, in order to do justice to each. In spite of the oneness of the revelation in Christ, and of the faith of the Christian, it remains true that justification has its ground simply in the Divine grace, and that faith comes into view in the matter, not in its general reference to the Christian life as a whole, but as it reflects the Divine revelation of God's holy forgiveness.
LiTERATTJRE.— Only a, representative selection can be gfiven. It falls into three drvisions, corresponding to those of the article. First, however, must be named a work covering all three divisions, viz. Eitschl's great work, Rechtfertigung und Veradhnung3, 3 vols. 1889 [Eng. tr. (Justijicatirm and Recmi- ciliation.) of 1st vol. from 1st ed. 1872, of 3rd vol. from 3rd ed. 1902].
I. Biblical ri/EOIOCr.— (a) Art. ' Justification ' in Hastings' DB, vol. ii. : E. Smend, Alttest. Religiomgeschichte^, 1899; Weber, Jiid. TheoW^ 1897 ; Bousset, Religion des Judmthums im Neutest. Zeitalter, 1903.— (6) The various NT Theologies, especially that of Holtzmann, 1897 ; the general works on Paulinism ; further, ilinigoz, Le pichi et la redemption d'apris St. Paul, 1882 : Riggenbach, Die Rechtfertigungslehre des Apostets Pauliui, 1897 ; H. Crenier, Die pauhn. Rechtferti- gungslehre^, 1900; the Comm. on St. Paul's Epistles, esp. Sanday-Headlam, RoinanSy 1896.
II. HISTORY OF THE DoCTRIliE.—ia) The general works <
le, esp. Seeberg, Dogmengesch. 1896-189;
ir, Lehre von der Versohmmg, 1838.— (6) The CathoUc c
the History of Doctrine, (
trine : Aquinas, Summa Theologica [many editions] ; Canones et Decreta Concilii Tridentiniy ed. Tauchnitz, 1846 ; Mdhler, Symbolik>i, 1872 [also in Eng. tr.] ; Newman, Lectures on Justification 6, 1892.— (c) The Protestant doctrine : the various Symbols of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches, esp. Formula Cmieordice, 1689, and Berlin, 1857. («) Lutheran : Kostlin, Luthers Theologie 2, 1901 ; Th. Harnack, Luthers Theoiogie, 1862-1886; Melanchthon, Loci Theologici, ISlil, Erlangen, 1828; Gerhard, Loci Theologici, 1610-1625, also ed. by Frank, 1885; Frank, System der Christlichen Wahrheif^, 1894. 03) Reformed : Calvin, Inst. Re.liq. Christ. 1559, and Edin. 1874; Turretin, Inst. Theol. Elencticm, 168S, and Edin. 1847 ; Owen, On Justifi- cation, 1677, and Edin. 1851 ; Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1872. — (d) The Socinian criticism : Faustus Socinus, de Jesu Christo Servatore, in Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, 1656.
III. Modern Theories.— Kant, Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen derilossen Vemun/t, 1793 ; Schleiermacher, Der Christ- tiehe Glaube 2, 1830 ; Rothe, Theol. Ethik '•!, 1867-1871 ; Dorner, System, der Christlichen Glanbeuslehre, 1879-1881 [also Eng. tr. Sj/stem of Christian Doctrine. 1S80-1883); Lipsius, Dogmatik^, 1893; Kahler, Die Wissenschaft der Christlichen Lehre\ 1905; Kaftan, Donmatik^- ", 1901 ; W. N. Clarke, Outlim of Christian Theology, 1903; Stevens, The Christian Doctrine of Salvation,
1905. Robert S. Franks.
JUSTIFYING ONE'S SELF.— When our Lord
told the lawyer that loving God with all the heart and one's neighbour as one's self was the way to inherit eternal life, the man, ' willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neigh- bour?' (Lk 10-"). And on a later occasion, in opposition to tlie Pharisees who derided Him, our Lord said to them, ' Ye are they which justify 1 yourselves before men' (16'*). The English word I ' justify ' always means ' to show to be just,' and in the dift'erent passages the idea of the Greek also is that of showing one's self to be just or righteous. In the first case the lawyer wished to justify either his past neglect of the command to love his neighbour, or else his having asked the question, by seeking to be told to whom the term ' neighbour' was to be applied. He would thereby suggest the impossibility of fulfilling the command until he knew for certain to whom the term was rightly applicable. In the case of the Pharisees in the latter passage, the emphasis is clearly laid upon the fact that they were endeavouring (with apparent success) to show themselves to be right- eous persons in the judgment of men, though God's idea of them was entirely dift'erent. With reference to the lawyer's question, ' Who is my neighbour ? ' the precise form of the inquiiy is noteworthy. Just as if a man could pick and choose after being told who and what constitutes a neighbour. The question really comes from a self-centred man who meant, ' Who is neighbour to me ? ' Bishop Light- foot once preached a sermon on this subject, in which he pointed out that the true question is, ' Who my neighbour is,' that is, ' What is he like ? what are his characteristics ? ' It does not call atten- tion to this or that person as a possible neighbour, but concentrates thought on my getting to know all about the man who is ' nigh ' me, my neighbour in every sense. Thus by his very question the man, so far from justifying himself, that is, show- ing himself to be just, reaUy condemned himself. The character of the question reveals a selfish man whose one thought was about some one being neighbour to him instead of inquiring as to whom he could be a neighbour. Our Lord's parable of the Good Saniarit.in and its application, 'Which of the.se was nciglibnur unto Aiwt ?' revealed the true aspect and attitude. This is but one instance of the great law that no man can justify himself before God. 'By the deeds of the law shall no flesh living be justified ' (Ro S^").