fied of her children." Galatians ii. 16, "A man is not justi- fied by the works of the law." v. 6, " Whosoever of you are justified by the law ; ye are fallen from grace." Thus men are said to justify God. Job xxxii. 2, " Because he justified himself, rather than God." Psalms li. 4, " That thou might- est be justified when thou speakest." Luke vii. 29, " All the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God." The only passage in the New Testament where the word St/caidco is used in a different sense is Revelation xxii. 11, 6 SiWos, Sikcuw- OrjTu In, " He that is righteous, let him be righteous still." Here the first aorist passive appears to be used in a middle sense, jj Let him show himself righteous, or continue righteous.' Even if the reading in this passage were undoubted, this single case would have no force against the established usage of the word. The reading, however, is not merely doubtful, but it is, in the judgment of the majority of the critical editors, Tischendorf among the rest, incorrect. They give, as the true text, SiKcuoavv-qv iroLrjaa.™ m. Even if this latter reading be, as De Wette thinks, a gloss, it shows that 6 86cooos hiKauaO-qrio In was as intolerable to a Greek ear as the expression, ' He that is righteous, let him justify him- self still,' would be to us.
The usage of common life as to this word is just as uniform as that of the Bible. It would be a perfect solecism to say of a criminal whom the executive had pardoned, that he was justified ; or that a reformed drunkard or thief was justified. The word always expresses a judgment, whether of the mind, as when one man justifies another for his conduct, or officially of a judge. If such be the established meaning of the word, it ought to settle all controversy as to the nature of justification. "We are bound to take the words of Scripture in their true established sense. And, therefore, when the Bible says, " God justifies the believer," we are not at liberty to say that it means that He pardons, or that He sanctifies him. It means, and can mean only that He pro- nounces him just.
Justification the Opposite of Condemnation.
2. This is still further evident from the antithesis between condemnation and justification. Condemnation is not the oppo- site either of pardon or of reformation. To condemn is to pro- nounce guilty ; or worthy of punishment. To justify is to declare not guilty ; or that justice does not demand punish- ment ; or that the person concerned cannot justly be condemned.
122 part m. Ch. XVII. -justification.
When, therefore, the Apostle says (Rom. viii. 1), " There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Je- sus," he declares that they are absolved from guilt ; that the pen- alty of the law cannot justly be inflicted upon them. " Who," he asks, " shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect ? God who justifieth? Who is he that condemneth ? Christ who died? " (vers. 33, 34.) Against the elect in Christ no ground of condemnation can be presented. God pronounces them just, and therefore.no one can pronounce them guilty.
This passage is certainly decisive against the doctrine of sub- jective justification in any form. This opposition between con- demnation and justification is familiar both in Scripture and in common life. Job ix. 20, "If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me." xxxiv. 17, "And wilt thou con- demn him that is most just." If to condemn does not mean to make wicked, to justify does not mean to make good. And if condemnation is a judicial, as opposed to an executive act, so is justification. In condemnation it is a judge who pronounces sen- tence on the guilty. In justification it is a judge who pronounces or who declares the person arraigned free from guilt and entitled to be treated as righteous.
Argument from Equivalent Forms of Expression.
3. The forms of expression which are used as equivalents of the word " justify " clearly determine the nature of the act. Thus Paul speaks of " the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works." (Rom. iv. 6.) To im- pute righteousness is not to pardon ; neither is it to sanctify. It means to justify, i. e., to attribute righteousness. The negative form in which justification is described is equally significant. " Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not im- pute sin." (Rom. iv. 7, 8.) As " to impute sin " never means and cannot mean to make wicked; so the negative statement " not to impute sin " cannot mean to sanctify. And as " to im- pute sin " does mean to lay sin to one's account and to treat him accordingly ; so to justify means to lay righteousness to one's ac- count and treat him accordingly. " God sent not his Son into the
world to condemn the world He that believeth on him
is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already." (John iii. 17, 18.)
For " as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to