IV. Of justification; the notion and signification of the Word in
Scripture

The proper sense of these words, justification, and to justify,
considered--Necessity thereof--Latin derivation of justification--Some of
the ancients deceived by it --From "jus", and "justum"; "justus filius",
who--The Hebrew "hitsdik"--Use and signification of it--Places where it
is used examined, 2 Sam.15:4; Deut.25:1; Prov.17:15; Isa.5:23; 50:8,9; 1
Kings 8:31,32; 2 Chron.6:22,23; Ps.82:3; Exod.23:7; Job 27:5; Isa.53:11;
Gen.44:16; Dan.12:3--The constant sense of the word evinced--"Diakaio-
oo", use of it in other authors, to punish--What it is in the New
Testament, Matt.11:19; 12:37; Luke 7:29; 10:29; 16:15; 18:14; Acts
13:38,39; Rom.2:13; 3:4--Constantly used in a forensic sense--Places
seeming dubious, vindicated, Rom.8:30; 1 Cor.6:11; Tit.3:5-7; Rev.22:11--
How often these words, "diakaio-oo" and "dikaioumai", are used in the New
Testament--Constant sense of this--The same evinced from what is opposed
unto it, Isa.1:8,9; Prov.17:15; Rom.5:116,18; 8:33,34--And the
declaration of it in terms equivalent, Rom.4:6,11; 5:9,10; 2 Cor.5:20,21;
Matt.1:21; Acts 13:39; Gal.2:16, etc.--Justification in the Scripture,
proposed under a juridical scheme, and of a forensic title--The parts and
progress of it--Inferences from the whole
 

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 inquired into; for until that is agreed upon, it is
impossible that our discourses concerning the thing itself 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 signify; 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 itself, or our justification before God, who yet have fully
agreed, in what the proper determinate sense or signification 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 itself, 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 Latin 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 Roman 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 teaches.

   And this appearing sense of the word possibly deceived some of the
ancients, 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 virtue 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, signify 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 signify 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
forensic, denoting an act 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 signify. 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 Latin
tongue, nor can any good author 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 coined and framed to signify 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 signify. And whereas, in this language, these words are
derived from "jus" and "justum," they must respect an act of jurisdiction
rather than 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 filii
vicem obtinentem, naturalis et legitimi filii loco sedentem". Wherefore,
as by adoption there is no internal inherent change made in the person
adopted, but by virtue thereof he is esteemed and adjudged as a true God,
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 completely 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 privileges 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 "tsadak". This the LXX render
by "Dikaion apofainoo", Job 27:5; "Dikaios anafainomai", chap.13:18;
"Dikaion krinoo", Prov.17:15;to show or declare one righteous; to appear
righteous; to judge any one righteous. And the sense may be taken from
any one of them, as Job 13:18, "Hinneh-na 'arakti mishpat yada'ti ki-'ani
'etsdak"--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 "dikaio-
oo", 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, "hitstadak". 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 forensic sense of the
word we plead for,--that is its constant use and signification, nor does
it ever once signify to make inherently righteous, much less to pardon or
forgive: so vain is the pretence of some, that justification consist 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 than 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 nowhere signifying any
such thing. Wherefore those of the church of Rome 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 show 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 forensic sense, and does not
denote a physical operation, transfusion, or transmutation. 2 Sam.15:4,
"If any man has a suit or cause, let him come to me," "wehitsdaktiw",
"and I will do him justice;"--"I will justify him, judge in his cause,
and pronounce for him." Dent.25:1, "If there be a controversy among men,
and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them," "wehitsdiku
et-hatsdik", "they shall justify the righteous;" pronounce sentence on
his side: whereunto is opposed, "wehirshi'u et-harasha" "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 "hirshia" is as much to infuse wickedness into a
man, as "hitsdik" is to infuse a principle of grace or righteousness into
him. The same antithesis occurs, Prov.17:15, "matsdik rasha umarshia
tsadik"--"He that justifieth the wicked, and condemneth the righteous."
Not he that makes the wicked inherently righteous, not he that changes
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 justified 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 favour,
really and inherently changes 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 proceeds on such principles of righteousness, wisdom,
and sovereignty, 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 man's 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, Isa.5:23, "Which justify the
wicked for reward;" and chap. 50:8,9, "karov matsdiki"--"He is near that
justifieth me; who will contend with me? Let us stand together: who is
mine adversary? Let him come near to me. 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 neighbour, and an oath be
laid upon him to cause him to swear, and the oath come before thine altar
in this house; then hear thou in heaven, and do, and judge thy servants,"
"leharchi'a rasha" "to condemn the wicked," to charge his wickedness on
him, to bring his way on his head, "ulhatsdik tsadik", "and to justify
the righteous." The same words are repeated, 2 Chron.6:22,23. Ps.82:3,
"ani warash hatsdiku"--"Do justice to the afflicted and poor;" that is,
justify them in their cause against wrong and oppression. Exod.23:7, "lo-
'atsdik rasha"--"I will not justify the wicked;" absolve, acquit, or
pronounce him righteous. Job 27:5, "chalilah li im-atsdik etchem"--"Be it
far from me that I should justify you," or pronounce sentence on your
side as if you were righteous. Isa.53:11, "By his knowledge my righteous
servant," "yatsdik", "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. Gen.44:16, "And Judah said, What
shall we say unto my lord? What shall we speaks?" "Umah-nitstadak", "and
how shall we justify ourselves? 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. Dan.12:3, "Umatsdikei harabim"--"And they that justify
many," namely, in the same sense that the preachers of the gospel are
said "to save themselves and others," 1 Tim.4:16; for men may be no less
the instrumental causes of the justification of others than of their
sanctification.

   Wherefore, although "tsadak" 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.

   "Dikaio-oo" 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
signify 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, "Dikaioun duo deloi, to te koladzein, kai to dikaion
nomidzein"--"It has two significations; to punish, and to account
righteous." And he confirms this sense of the word by instances out of
Herodotus, Appianus, and Josephus. And again, "Dikaioosai, aitiatikei,
katadikasai, kolasai, dikaion nomisai" with an accusative case; that is,
when it respects and affects 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. "Dikaioumenon, koladzomenon, dikaioosai,
kolasai". They never thought of any sense of this word but what is
forensic. 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 VI, was, "That if any one committed a crime,
he should be justified by the law, upon his trial." And, in general,
"dikaousthai" is "jus in judicio auferre;" and "dikaioosai" is "justum
censere, declarare pronuntiare;" and how in the Scripture 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 "hitsdik" in the Old. And that which
we inquire concerning is,--whether this word be used in the New Testament
in a forensic sense, to denote an act of jurisdiction; or in a physical
sense, to express an internal change or mutation,--the infusion of a
habit of righteousness, and the denomination of the person to be
justified thereon; or whether it signifies not pardon of sin. But this we
may lay aside: for surely no man was ever yet so fond as to pretend that
"dikaio-oo" did signify to pardon sin, yet is it the only word applied 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 Roman
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 or nature than what alone is
signified by that word. Matt.11:19, "Edikaioothe he Sofia",--"Wisdom is
justified of her children;" not made just, but approved and declared.
Chap.12:37, "E, toon logoon sou dikaioothesei"--"By thy words thou shalt
be justified;" not made just by them, but judged according to them, as is
manifested in the antithesis, "kai ek toon logoon sou katadikasthesei"--
"and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Luke 7:29, "Edikaioosan ton
Theon"--"They justified God;" not, surely, by making him righteous in
himself, but by owning, avowing, and declaring his righteousness.
Chap.10:29, "Ho de theloon dikaioun heauton"--"He, willing to justify
himself;" to declare and maintain his own righteousness. To the same
purpose, chap.16:15, "Hemeis este hoi dikaiountes heautous enoopion toon
enthroopoon"--"Ye are they which justify yourselves before men;" they did
not make themselves internally righteous, but approved of their own
condition, as our Saviour declares in the place, chap.18:14, the publican
went down "dedikaioomenos" (justified) unto his house; that is,
acquitted, absolved, pardoned, upon the confession of his sin, and
supplication for remission. Acts 13:38,39, with Rom. 2:13, "Hoi poietai
tou nomou dikaioothesontai"--"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, Rom.3:4, "Hopoos an dikaiootheis en
tois logois sou"--"That thou mightest be justified in thy 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 Cor.4:4; 1 Tim.3:16;
Rom.3:20,26,28,30; 4:2,5; 5:1,9; 6:7; 8:30; Gal.2:16,17; 3:11,24; 5:4;
Tit.3:7; James 2:21,24,25; 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 a 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 signify the declaration or
juridical pronunciation of any one to be righteous; but, in all places
where they are used, they are capable of no other but a forensic 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 Roman 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 endeavors on this article of
justification, ("Thes. de Usu et Acceptatione Vocis, Justificandi,")
grants unto the Papists that the word "dikaio-oo" does, in sundry places
of the New Testament, signify to renew, to sanctify, to infuse a 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 than
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, Rom.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
privileges, 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 comprised
under the name and title of being justified; for it is absurd with some
to refer it unto the head of glorification."

   Ans. 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 privilege 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
apostles 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
privileges 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 a holy
principle of spiritual life, or faith itself, is communicated unto us,
our sanctification radically, and as the effect in it adequate immediate
cause, is contained in it. Hence, we are said to "be called to be
saints," Rom.1:7; which is the same with being "sanctified in Christ
Jesus," 1 Cor.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 acting of it unto an increase 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 itself,
whence its advances in us are said to be from "glory to glory," 2
Cor.3:18; and glory itself is called the "grace of life," l Pet.3:7: it
is much more properly expressed by our being gloried than by being
justified, which is a privilege 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 l Cor.6:11,
"Such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye
are justified in the name of the 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 proper work of the Holy Spirit." 2. "It is manifest," he says,
"that by justification the apostle does signify some change in the
Corinthians, whereby they ceased to be what they were before. For they
were fornicators and drunkards, such at 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 signify 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 heightening of it, he adds the less; for it is more to be washed than
merely to be freed from the punishment of sin."

   Ans. 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 a habit or principle of grace, or righteousness evangelical, whereby
we are inherently righteous, by which he explains 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 vicious 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
comprises both the non-imputation of sin and the imputation of
righteousness, with the privilege 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 privileges, 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 privilege 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", dos signify a real internal work and
physical operation, in that this learned man, a person of more than
ordinary perspicacity, candour, and judgment, designing to prove it,
insisted on such instances as give so little countenance unto what he
pretended. He adds, Tit.3:5-7, "Not by works of righteousness which we
have done, but according to 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 Saviour; that, being justified by his
grace, we should be made heirs according to 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 comprises our
sanctification also.

   Ans. 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 sovereign grace in God, in opposition unto any works of righteousness
that we have wrought. And we plead for the freedom of God's grace in
sanctification no less than 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
"dikaio-oo", is Rev.22:11, "Ho dikaios dikaioothetoo eti"--"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 forensic sense, but
that to be justified, is to go on and increase in piety and
righteousness.

   Ans. 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 ancient copies read, not "Ho dikaios dikaioothetoo eti",
which the Vulgar renders "Justificetur adhuc;" but, "Dikaiosunen
poiesatoo eti"--"Let him that is righteous work righteousness still," as
does the printed copy which now lies before me. So it was in the copy of
the Complutensian edition, which Stephens commends above all others, and
in one more ancient copy that he used. So it is in the Syrian and Arabic
published by Hutterus, and in our own Polyglot. So Cyprian reads the
words, "De bono patientiae; justus autem adhuc justior faciat, similiter
et qui sanctus sanctiora". And I doubt not but that it is the true
reading of the place, "dikaioothetoo" being supplied by some to comply
with "hagiasthetoo" that ensues. And this phrase of "dikaiosunen poiein"
is peculiar unto this apostle, being nowhere used in the New Testament
(nor, it may be, in any other author) but by him. And he uses it
expressly, 1 Epist.2, 29, and chap.3, 7, where these words, "Ho poioon
dikaiosunen, dikaios esti", do plainly contain what is here expressed.
(2.) To be justified, as the word is rendered by the Vulgar, "Let him be
justified more" (as it must be rendered, if the word "dikaioothetoo" 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 show afterwards. (3.) Men are said to be
"dikaioi" generally from inherent righteousness; and if the apostle had
intended justification in this place, he would not have said "ho
dikaios", but "ho dikaiootheis". All which things prefer the
Complutensian, Syrian, and Arabic, 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 "dikaio-oo" and "dikaioumai" are used
thirty-six times in the New Testament, these are all the places whereunto
any exception is put in against their forensic 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, Isa.50:8,9; Prov.17:15; Rom.5:16,18; 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 a
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 declarations of
him to be righteous.

   Moreover, the thing intended is frequently declared in the Scripture
by other equivalent terms, which are absolutely exclusive of any such
sense as the infusion of a habit of righteousness; so the apostle
expresses it by the "imputation of righteousness without works,"
Rom.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," Rom.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
Cor.5:20,21. Reconciliation is not the infusion of a habit of grace, but
the effecting of peace and love, by the removal of all enmity and causes
of offense. To "save," and "salvation," are used to the same purpose. "He
shall save his people from their sins," Matt.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 Gal.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 the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even
as they." Eph.2:8,9, "By grace are ye 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, Rom.4:5,6; by "receiving
the atonement," chap.5:1l; not "coming into judgment" or "condemnation,"
John 5:24; "blotting out sins and iniquities," Isa.43:26; Ps.51:9;
Isa.44:22; Jer.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, "Dikaioi katastathesontai
hoi polloi"--"Many shall be made righteous," Rom.5:19. "Dikaios
kathistatai", [he is made righteous] 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 forensic trial 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, Ps.143:2.
(2.) The judge is God himself, Isa.50:7,8; Rom.8:33. (3.) The tribunal
whereon God sits in judgment, is the "throne of grace," Heb.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," Isa.30:18. (4.) A guilty person. This is the
sinner, who is "hupodikos tooi Theooi",--so guilty of sin as to be
obnoxious to the judgment of God; "tooi dikaioomati tou Theou", Rom.3:19;
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, Rom.2:15; and Satan also, Zech.3:1;
Rev.12:10. (6.) The charge is admitted and drawn up in a handwriting in
form of Law, and is laid before the tribunal of the Judge, in bar, to the
deliverance of the offender, Col.2:14. (7.) A plea is prepared in the
gospel for the guilty person; and this is grace, through the blood of
Christ, the ransom paid, the atonement made the eternal righteousness
brought in by the surety of the covenant, Rom.3:23-25; Dan.9:24; Eph.1:7.
(8.) Hereunto alone the sinner retakes himself, renouncing all other
apologies or defensatives whatever, Ps.130:2,3; 143:2; Job 9:2,3; 42:5-7;
Luke 18:13; Rom.3:24,25; 5:11,16-19; 8:1-3,32,33; Isa.53:5,6; Heb.
9:13-15; 10:1-13; 1 Pet.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
retake 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 ransom, blood, or
sacrifice and righteousness of Christ; with acceptation into favour, as
persons approved of God, Job 33:24; Ps.32:1,2; Rom.3:23-25; 8:1,33,34; 2
Cor.5:21; Gal.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 earnest
with men to seek after reconciliation, 2 Cor.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 a 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.