• ' •

•
•
•

• •

• •
I
· CH .APTER VI. •• •

•
•

JUSTIFICATION BY FA ITH.
• I
,

D. D.•~ .
•

• BY H. C. G~ MOULE,
•

BISI 'i OP 0F DURHAl\i,

1
ENGLAND . •
• •
•

''Justification by Faith"; tl1e pl1rase is weighty alik e witl1

Scripture and with history. 1 11 Holy cripture it is the main
theme of two great dogmatic epistles, Romans and Galatia11s.
In Christian history it was ·the pote11t watchword of the Ref-
•
orrna tion movement in its aspect a.s a vast spiritual ttpheaval
of the church. It is not by any means tl1e only great tn tth •

co11side·red in the two epis-tles; w.e sho uld woefully mi.sread

1
•

the1n if we allowed th ,eir m essage.

abo ut J ·
u ,
s tification by Faith
1 1

to obscure their message ab,out the Holy Ghost, and the . strong • •

relation between the two messages. It was not the only great
truth .which moved and ani1na·ted t11e sp i1·itu,a·1 leade,r ·s of the 1

Reformation. Never ·theless, SU Ch is the depth a~d dign·ity of 1 1

this truth, : and .so central in some res ,pects is its reference to
• •

other t1·uths of our salvation, th .at we m.ay fairly say tl1at

•

it was the message of St. Paul, and tJie truth tl1at lay at the
heart of the distin ,ctive messages of tl1·e non -P 'auline · epistles
too, and that it was the truth of the great Reformation of the •

Western cht1rch. •
•

With reason, seeing things as he was led in a pi-ofoulld •

experience to see thetrt, did Luther say that Justification by

Faith wa ls ''the ,articles of a standing 10r ,a falling churcl1."
•
\i\!ith reas on· does · an iIIust1·ious representative of t·he · older
1
1

scho ol of ''higher'" A11glicanisn1,a name to me ever bright

and ven~.ra .ble, Edwar ·d H .arold B·1·o· wne, say that Justification
by Faith is not only this, but also ''the article of a Standing
or a falling so ul.''* 1
· •
•
•
• =:
·''T\,Iessiah Foretold .and Expecte ·d,'' ' ad finem. j

•
•

•
106
•

•
 •

•
Jitstification bJ, Faitlz• 1.07
•

• •
IMPORT OF TlfE TE RM S •
•

Let us apply ourselves first to a stud y of the 1neaning ·of

our terms. Here are two great terms before us, Justificatio11
and Faith. We shall, of course, consider in its place the word
WI1icl1,in our title, link s them , and aslr how Justifi cation i · 1
..
''by'' Faith. But first, what is Ju stificatio11,a11d then, what i
Paith? ·
By de1·ivatio11 , 110 doubt, J r ·'1~1E"'ICATION n1eans to 111al<e.
just, that is to say , to make confo rn1able to a true standard.
It w6ttld seem thu s to 111 ean a process by wh ich wrong is cor-
rect ed, and b.ad is made go ,od, and good better, in the way . •

of actual improveme11t of the thing 01· pe rson ju st ified . I11

011ecurious .
cas,
e , and, so f a1--
a I knovv, in
'
tl1at case on ly tl1e '
•

' ord ha s tl1is me aning in actual u e. ''Justification' ' is a te1·1n

• •

of the pri11ter's art. The C:Otnpos itor '' ju stifies'' a Piece of

typework when l1e co1·1·ects, b1·ing · i11to perfect order, as to •

!)aces bet\ vcen , 01..ds a11d lett ers, a11clso on, .the ty1)es ,vl1ich
he has ~et 11p. ·
B ut thi s, ·as I have sai,d , i .a solitary case. In the use of ~ -
1

word s otherwise, u1Uve1s· ally, Justification and Ju stify mean

somethin g qttite diff~rent f ro1n i1npro,,ement o,f .conditio11. •

They 111ean establishment of l)O iti,011as before a judge or ju1·y,

•

lite1·al oi'r figurative. They n1ea11 the winning of a favoi·able

Verdict i11 .uch a presence, .or agai11 ( wl1at is the satne thing
• •

from. another sid e) tl1e 11tterance o,f that verdict ,, the sen-
1

tence of acquittal, 01.. the e11tence of vindjcated right, as tl1e

case may be. ·
. I -a1n thi-nking of · the word 11ot at all e.-elusively as a re- 1

ligious word. Take it i11 its com1non, ev eryday employment; 1 1

it is always thus. To ju stify a11 opinion, to ju stify a course

of conduct, to jtistify a Statement , to ju stify a friend, what doe
it 1nean? Not to readj 11t and in1prove you1· thoughts, or your
actions, or your words ; not to educate your friend to be wise1·
or 1nore able. N·0, bt1t t,o win a verdict for thought , or ac-
1

•
 •
•

108 The F undamen .tals.

tio ,n, or word, or friend, at so,me bar £ jL1dgment, , as for ex -

0 1

ample the bar 0£ public. opinion, ,or of common . cons cienc ,e .

1 1

It is not t·o, improve , but to vin dicat e. 1

.
Take a ready illt1stratio ,n to tl1e san1e effect from Scrip- 1

ture, and from a pas sage not of doctrine, but of public Is:..·ae1-
ite law: '~If ·there be a controver sy betw een men, and they 1

come W1to judgment, that tl1e judges 1nay jt1dge them, thei1
they shall justify the rig~teo us and condemn the wicked'' 1

(Deut. 25 :1). Here it isl .ob·vious that the question is not

on e oi · moral in1pr.ove,ment. T he ju dges are , not to make t'h.e
1
1 1 1

rig ,hteo ,us man better. Th ,ey are to vindicate his position as
satisfactory to the law. ·
Non-theological pas ..sages, it may be observed, and generally
non-theological c,onnections, are of the greatest use in determin-
ing the true, native meaning of theolo ,gical terms. For with
rare exc,eptions, which are for · the most part matter .s oi ope.n
histocy, as in tl1e case o,f the H omousion, theological tertns are
terms of common tho ught, ·ada .pted to a special . us,c, b,ut in
1

themselves unchanged. That is, they were thus used at firs,t,

in the simplicity of origina l truth. Later ages may have de~
fleeted that simplicity. It was so as a fact with o.ur word
Justification, as we sha1·1 see imme ,diately. But at first the
word meant in religion precis ,e1y wha ,t it meant out of it. It
meant the winning , o,r tl1e· c:onsequent anno uncem,e·nt, of a fa ... 1

vorable verdi ,ct. Not t:he word, b ut th,e application w.as al-
1

tered wh .en ,salvati on was in question . It was indeed a new

1

and ,glorious appli ,cation. The verdict in questi on was the ver- 1

dict not of a He;.brew court, nor of public opinion, but of the

1

eternaJ Judge of all the earth. But that left the meaning of
the wo,rd the same.
JUS ,TIF 'ICATION A ''FOR :ENSIC'' ' TERM •
•

It is thus e·vident ·that the word Justificati ,on, alike in re 1

-

ligious and in common parlan ce, is a wo rd co,nnected with

1 1 1

Ja,w. It has. to do witl1 acquittal, vindication, acceptance before

'
•
 • •
•

,I'

.Justificati'on by Fait/,,, . 109

•
•

a judgment seat. To use a technical te1·111, it is a f orens·ic

\Vord, a wot·d of the law -cout"ts ( which in old Rome. stood ·i11
the forum). In regard · ,of ''us men and our salvation't it
stands related not so much, not so directly, to our need of
spiritual revolution, amendment, pttrification, holiness, as t
our need of getting, some how in spite of our guilt, Oltr lia-
bility, our debt, our dese1-ved conden1natio11 a sentence of
acquittal," a sentence of acceptance, at the judgment seat of
• •

a holy God.
Not that it h.as nothing to do with our inward spiritual
purification. It has inten•
se and vital re·
t ations that way. But
they are not direct r elations. Tl1e direct concern of Justifi ___
1
--...
=··
,cation is with man's need of a divine deliverance 1 not frotn
•a•, -~

the power of his sin, but f r,om its guilt.

- --=c. -"
•
•

MISTAKEN INTERPRETAT I ONS.

He1··e we inust note accordingly two 1·ernarkable instance s

o,f 111isuseof the word ·Justifi cation in the history of Q1ris-
1

tian thought. The first is found in the theology of the School -

men, the great th.inkers of tl1e Midd ,le Ages in Western Chris-
tend,om Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, and others.* To
them Justification appears to have meant mu.ch the same as
•

regeneration, the great internal chan,ge in the state of our na-

ture wrought by grace. The other instance appears in the
sixteenth century, in the Decrees of the Council of Trent, a
•

highly authoritative statement of Romanist belief and teach.-

ing. There Justification is descri 'bed (vi. c. 7) as ''not the mere •

remission of sins but also the sanctification and · renovation

of the inner man.'' In this remarkable sentence the Roman - ·
ist theologians seem to co111bi
1
·ne the true account of the word
though imperfectly stated, wit'h the view of the Schoolmen. It
i? no,t too much to say that a careful review of th e facts su1n- 1

marized above, as regard~ the secular use of the word Justi-

ficatio1n, and the Scriptural use of it in the doct,rine of salvia-
*S.ee T. B. Mozley, ''Baptismal Controversy,'' Chap. VII ,
•

•
 •

. 110 . Tl1e F·itndam entals.

I
• tion, i.s enough to µegative t:l1ese e·xplanations. They a1~ecur i~
•
otts ·and memo r·abl e examples of misinte ·rpretation of t e1-1
1
·11s;
• '

tl1at. mos t frµitful so·urce of ' fur ·th,e1·,wi.der ·and deepe :r er .rot . •

' •

• JUSTIFICAT •
'ION NOT TflE SAME AS PARDON .. •
• •

The probl em raised the n, in 1§eligio11, by the word Jttstifica-

tion, is, How shall man be ju st be£ore God? To use the wor ds 1

of our Eleven ·th Article, it is, How shall we be ''accounted

righteous bef or,e God?'' In other words, How ·shall we, l1av-
.ing sinned, having brol <en the holy Law, having violated the
will of God, be tr ·eated, as · to our acceptance before Him, as
to our ''·peace with Him'' ( Rom. 5 :l ) , as if we had not done
so? Its question is not, dir ectly; How shall I a sinner become
holy, , but, How shall I a s,inner be received by my God, whom
I have grie ·ved, as if I h.a,d n~ot griev ed Him? · 1

Here let us not e, what Will be clear on r,efle.ctio ,n, that

•
1

Jt1stification , me.ans properl y no less than this, the being re-

1

ceived by Hir6 as ii we h~d not grieved Him. It is not only,

the being ~forgi ·ven . by Him. We do indeed as sinners mo ,s t 1

• urgently ne:ed forgi veness, the . remission .of our . sins,, the put -
ti~g away :of ·'the holy vengeance of . God ·upon our rebellion. 1

Bt1t ,ve need more. We need tl1e voice wl1ich says, not mere- 1

ly, )rou may go; you ar ,e -let off your penalty; but, · you may
come; you are welcomed i11to My presence and fellowship.
We shall see lat ,er how important . thi s diff~rence is · i·n the
practical problems of our full salvation. But one thing · is,
evident at first sight, namely , that tl1is · is impliad ..in the ve ry
,vord Justification. For lll:stification
.-
-
, .in common speech, ne ,·-
er 1neans pardon. I t mean s winnjng, o·r ,granting, a po sit ion
1

of .acceptance. ' ' Yott are justi -e·· 1n taking this course of 1

'

action,'' ' doels not mean, yot1 wer e wro,ng, yet yo1.1ar ·e fo1~-
•
1

• given; Jt, me,ans.,. ·.yott w ere ri g,h t, an,d in the cot1rt ,of .111y
1

0 pinio ,n you have pr oved it. In 1·eligion accor,di:n.gl.y ,our ] 't1s-

1

1 1 1

tification m eans not . m,e1·ely a grant 0 £' p·ardo ,n, but a verdict
1

•
1

in favor of our standi ng a.s sa tisfactory be·fore tl1e JL1dge~

•
•

.. •

, •
•
 •
. \.

•
111
•

THE SPECIA L PROBLE f OF O'ltr J U S'f I FI C1\TIO ~ . •

I ere in passing let us notice that ·of ·course the \Vord Ju s-

tification does not of itself imply that the justified person is
•

a sinner. To see · this as plainly as possible, recollect that

God Himse lf ·is said to be justified, in Psa lm 51 :4, and Chri st
l-Iimse1f, in 1 Tim. 3 :16. In a hu1n,an· court of 1:aw, as v,·e
have seen above, it is the supreme d11ty of the judge to ''jus-
ti fy the righteous'' (Deut. 25: 1), and the righteous only. In
all such cases Justification bears its perfectly proper meaning •

unperplexed, crossed by no mystery or problem. But then , •

the moment we come to the concrete, practical q11estion, ho'-V

shall we, be justified, an,d· before God) or ·, to bring , it clo er
hoine, how sl1all I, I the sinne1,.,be we1cotned by my offended
Lord as if I were satisfactory, then the thought of Justifica-
tion presents its elf to t1s in a new and most solemn aspect.
1

The word keeps its meaning un shaken. Bu t how abottt its

app]ication. Here am I, gt1ilty. To be justified i·s to be pro-
t1ounced not guilty, to be vindicated and accepted by Lawgiver •

and Law. Is it possi ,b le ? . Is it not "impos ,sible? ·

J.ustification by Faith., in the actual case · of our s:ilva tion , •

is tht1s a ''short · phrase.' ' It 111eans,, i·n full, the acceptance

of guilty sinners, before God ·, by aith. Great is the prob-
lem o indic·ated. And great is the wonder and the glory
of the solution given us by the grace of God. But to this so1Lt-
tion ive must advance · by .so1ne furtl1er step s~ .
• •
... •
• • • • •
• ••

•
•

. We may now fitly approacl1 our second great term, Faitl1,

and - ask ourselves, What does it mean? As with Justifica-
tio11,so with Fa ith , we may best approach the answer by fir t
asking,, What does Faith mean in common life and speech?
Take sucli phrases as to have faith in a policy, faith in a
remedy, faith in a political l~ader, or a n1ilitaey Jeader, faith
in a lawyer, faith in a phy ician. Here th e word Faith i
u sed in a way obv iou sly parallel to that in which, for exam~

•
112 The F itndamentals.

pie, our Lord uses it when He appeals to the Apostles, in the

Gospels, to have faith in Him; as He did in the storm on the
Lake. The use is parallel also to its habitual use in the epistle ;
for example, in Roman s 4, where St. Paul makes so much of
Abraham's faith, in close connection with the faith which he
seeks to develop in us.
Now is it not plain that the word means, to all practical
intents and purposes, tru st, reliance? Is not this obviou
without comment when a sick man sends for the physician in
whom he has faith, and when the soldier follows, perhap s
literally in utter darknes s, the general in whom he has faith?
Relian ~e upon thing or person supposed to be trustworthy ,
thi s is f aith.
P RACTICAL CONFIDENCE .

To note a further aspect of the word. Faith, in actual

common use, tend s to mean a practical confidence. Rarely, if
ever, do we use it of a mere opinion, however distinct, lying
pa ssive in the mind. To have faith in a commander does not
mean merely to entertain a conviction, a belief, however po si-
tive, that he is skillful and competent. We may entertai n
such a belief about the co1nmander of the enemy-with very
unplea sant impressions on our minds in consequence. We
may be confident that he is a great general in a sense the very
oppo site to a personal confid ence in him. No, to have faith
in a commander itnplie s a view of him in which we either
actually do, or are quite read y to, tru st ourselves and our
cause to his command. And ju st the same is true of faith
in a divine Promise, faith in a divine Redeemer. It n1eaQs
a reliance, genuine and _practical. I_t means a putting of our-
selves and our needs, in p~ r ~a l relianc e.-,int o His hand s.-
-
--- - -
Here, in passing, we observe th at Faith accordingly al-
ways irnplies an element , more or less, of the dark, of th e
unk nown. Where everything is, so to speak , visible to the
heart an d mind there scarcely can be Faith. I am <;>na dan-
 I

•
•

•
Justificiation by Faitli. 113 •
•

get·ous piece of water, in a boat, with a sl<illed and experi-

enced boatman. I cross it, not without tremor perhaps ., but •

with faith. Here faith is ex ,ercised on a trustworthy and

known ·object, the boatn1an. Bt1t it is exercised regarding
what are mo ,re or l ess, to me, uncertain cir,cums·tanc es, the
1
1

amount of peril, a11d the way to handle the boat in it. Were
there no uncertain circumstance s n1y opinion of the boatman
would not be faith, but mere opinion; esti1n.ate, not relilance.
'
Our illustration suggests the remark that Faith, as con- •

cerned with o,ttr salvation, needs a certain and trustworthy

Object, even Jesus Christ. Having Him, we have the right
•

condition for exercising Fai ·th, re,Jiance in the dark, trust in

His skill and power on our behalf in unknown or mysterious
•
circumstance s.
•

• •
HEBREWS XI :I NOT A DEFINITION.

It see111swell to remark here on that great sentence, Heb. ,

11 :1, sometimes quoted as a definition of Faith: ''~ow faith
is certainty of things hoped for, proof of things not seen.'' If ·-
this is a · definition, properly speaking, it mt1st negative tl1e
simple definition of Faith which we have arrived at above,
namely, reliance. For it leads us towards a totally different
region of thought, and sugges ·ts, what many religious think-
e,rs h.ave held, that Faitl1 is as it ·were a myst .eriou .s spiritual
•

sense, a subtle power' o,f touching anld feeling the unseen and
eternal, a ''vision and a faculty divine," almost a ''second-
sight" in the soul. We on the contrary maintain that it is
always the same thing in itself, whe·th er con,ce,rned with co,m-
1

111o·n o·r wi'th spiritual things, namely, reliance, reposed on a

trustworthy- object, and exercised · more or less in the dark.
The othe .r view would . look 0n Faith (in things spiritual)
1

r,ather as a fa,culty in itself than as an attitude towards an •

Object. The tho ,ught is thus more engaged with Faith ,'s own
lratent power than with the po ,wer and truth of a Promiser.
Now on this I remark, first, that the words of Heb. 11 :1
•

•
 114 The Funda1nentals.

_ scarcely read like a definition at all. For a definition is a

description which fits the thing defined and it alone, so that
the thing is fixed and settled by the description. But the
words "certainty of things . hoped for, proof of things not
seen," are not exclusively applicable to Faith. They would be
equally fit to describe, for example, God's promi ses in their ·
power. .For they are able to make the hoped ...for certain and
the un seen visible.
And this is just what we take the ·words to mean a~ a
description of Faith. They do not define Fait h in itself; they
describe it in its power. They are the sort of state1nent we
make wh en we say, Knowledge is power. That is not a defi-
nition of knowledge, by any means. It is a description of it
in one of its g reat effects.
The whole chapter, He b. 11, illustrate s this, and, as it
seems to me, confirms our simple definition of Faith. Noah,
Abraham, Jo seph, 1V1oses-they all treated the hoped-for and
the unsee1:1as solid and certain because they all relied upon
the faithful Pron1iser. Their victori es were mysteriously
great, theit;" lives were related vitally to the Unseen. But the
action to this end was on their part sublimely simple. It was
reliance on the Promiser. It was taking God at His Word.
I remember a friend of 1nine, many years ~o , complain-
ing of the . skep tical irr everence of a then lecturer at Oxford,
who asked his class for a definition of Faith. Heb. 11 :1 was
quoted as ~n answer, and he repli ed, "You .could not have .
given me a worse definition." Now this teacher may have
been really flippant. But I still think it .possible that he meant
no contempt of the Scripture. He may merely have objected,
though with needle ss roughne ss, to a false use of the Scrip-
tun ~. He felt, I cannot but surmi se, that Heb. 11 :1 was really
no definition at all.
DEF INITION AND EFFECT ,

It is all-important to remember alike this simplicjty of

 •

defi·nition and tl1is gt"andeur of effect in the matter of Faith . •

It is all- ,important in the g·1·eat question of our sal·va·tion. Here

011 the one .side is an actio11 of the 111i11d and will, in_ itself
1
~
•

per£ ectly simple, capab le of the . ve1·y l1omeliest illustration.

1

•
We all know what relia11ce ffieans.. vVell, Faith is reliance.
.....,
ut tl1en, when the r eliance is directed upon an Object i11fi-·
1

11itely great and good, when it reposes ttpon God in Christ,

· t1pon I-Iim in His pron1ise,
,
I-Iis fidelity, His love, upon Hi
very Self, what is, not tl1is 1··elian ce in its effects? It is tl1e
1 1

creature laying hold upon the Creator. It is our recep .tion of

God . Himself in. His \V ord. So, i.t is the putting ourselves in.
the way of His own almighty action in ·the fulfilment of His
\i\Tord, in the keeping of . His promi e.
•
·"'
1

''T11e virtue of F'aith lies in the vi.1·tue of its O_bject. That -

•
'

Object, i_n this .matter of Justification, s,o tl1e Scriptnre s a -

·,ure tis abundantly and with the utmost clearness, is our: Lord
·Jesus Christ Himself, who died for tts and rose again. .
Here the simplest relian c,e, so it be .sinc,ere; is ou r point
1

of contact with infinite res ,ou1·ces. When lately t~e vast , dam . ·-
cf the Nile was co1npleted, ,yith all its giant sluices, there·
11eeded but the touch of a finger ort an electric btttton to swing
1naje st ically open the gates of the -barrier a11dso to let through
tl1e Nile in all its mass and 'tnight. Th ere was the simples ,t
•
1

. possible contact~ But it was contact with forces and appli - .

ances adequate to control or liberate at ple,asur ·e th,e great
river. So F 'aith, in reliance of the soi1l, the soul perhaps o,f
the child, perhaps of the peasant, perhaps of the outcast, is.
only a reliant look, a reliant toucl1. But it sets up contact
with JESUS CHRIST, · in all His greatness, in His grace, 111e
·rit, •

sa vi11gl)OW er·, eternal love.

1 .. •

•
. • •
FAITH, 0 MERIT. •
•

• • •
I
• •

One mo1nentous issue from this reflection is as follows:

,¥ e are here ,varned off f ro1n the temptation to erect Faith
into a Saviour, to re t oi.11·reliance . upon our Faith, if I may
•

•
116 the P undamentals.

put it so. That is a real temptation to many. Hearing, and

fully thinking, that to be justified we must have Faith, they,
1

we, are soon occupied with an anxious analysis of our Faith.

Do I tru st enough ? I s my reliance satisfactory in kind and
quantity? But if saving Faith is, in its essence, simply a
reliant attitude, then the question of its effect and virtue is
at once shifted to the question of the adequacy of its Object.
The man then is drawn to ask, not, Do I rely enough? but, Is
Jesus Christ great enough, and gracious enough, for me to
rely upon? The intro spective microscope is laid down. Th~
soul's open eyes turn upward to the face of our Lord Jesus
Christ; and Faith forget s itself in its own proper action. In
other words, the man relies instinctively upon an Object seen
to be so magnificently, so supremely, able to sustain him.
His feet are on the Rock, and he knows it, not by feeling for
his feet, but by feeling the Rock.
Here let us note that Faith, thus seen to be reliance, is
obviously a thing as different as possible from merit. No
one in common life thinks of a well-placed reliance as meri-
torious. It is right, but not righteous. It does not make a
man deserving of rescue when, being in imminent danger, he
implicitly accepts the guidance of his rescuer. And the man
who, discovering . himself, in the old-fashioned way (the way
as old as David before Nathan, Isaiah in the vision, the pub-
lican in the temple, the jailor at Philippi, Augustine at Milan),
to be a guilty sinner, whose "mouth is shut" before God, relies
upon Christ as his all for pardon and peace, certainly does
not merit anything for closing with his own salvation. .He
deserves nothing by the act of accepting all.
"God," says Richard Hooker, in that great "Discourse" of
his on Justification, "doth justify the believing man, yet not
for the worthiness of his belief but for the worthiness _of
Him which is believed."* So it is not our attitude which we
rely on. Our attitude is ju st our reliance. And reliance
means the going out upon Another for repose.
*"A Discourse of Justification," ·Chap. 33.
 Ju,st ificatio n by Faith. 117

Once for all let us .remember that we may make the fal sest
u e, even under the tru est definitions, of both ideas, Justifi ca-
tion and Faith. We 1nay th ink of either of them as the
object of our hop e, the ultimate cause of our salvation. So
thought of, th ey are phantom s, nay , th ey are idols. Seen
t ruly, they are but expr essions for Je sus Christ our Lord as
H e is given and take n. Ju stification is no Saviour, nor is
F aith. Ju stification · by Fa ith- what is it? It is the accept -
ance of fhe guilty by reason of a T ru sted Chri st.
"uy" DEFINED •
.,.
So now we 111ayta ke up the question of that middl e and
connective word in our titl e, "by." Ju stification by Faith,
what does it mean? Thi s divine welcome of the guilty as if
th ey were not guilty, by relian ce up on Jesus Christ, what have
we to think about this?
We have seen a moment ago tha t one meaning most cer-
tainly cannot be borne by the word "by." It cannot mean ''o n
account of," as if Faith were a valuable consideration which -
entitled us to Justification. The surrendering rebel is not
amnestied becau se of the · valuable consideration of his sur -
render, but becau se of the grace of the sovereign or s~t e
which a1nnesties. On the other hand , his surrender is the
nece ssary means to the an1nesty becoming actually his . . It is
his only proper attitude ( in a supposed case of unlawful rebel -
lion) toward s the offended power. That power cannot, in
the nature of things, make peace with a subject who is in a
wrong attitude towards it. It wishes him well, or it woul d
not provide amnesty. But it cannot make peace with him
while he declines the provision. Surrender is accordingly not
the price paid £or peace, but it is nevertheless the open hand
necessary to appropriate the gift of it.
In a fair measure this illustrates our word "by" in the
matter of Justification by Faith. Faith , reliance, is, from one
side, ju st the sinful man' s "coming in" to accept the acred
 T h.e F undam cntals. .

ainnesty of God in Christ, ta king at I-Iis \Vord his benignant

I( in~.· It is the rebel's putting himself into right relation
with hi s offended Lord in thi s grea t matter of forgi vene
and acceptance. It is not a virtue, not a merit , but a proper
mean s.
UNION WITH CHRIST .

The word "by," per, lend s itself meantime to the expre -

ion of another aspect of th e subject. One of the great prob-:
lems attaching to the mighty truth of Christ our Right eou s-
ness, our Merit, our Acceptance, is that of the nexus, the
bond, which so draw s us and H im together that, not in fiction
but in fact., our load can pass over to Him and His wealth t
u . The New Testam ent largely teache s, what lies assure d!)
in the -very nature of things, as it put s the facts of salvatio n
before us, that we enter "into" Christ , we come to be "in '
Him, · we get part and lot in the life eternal, which is in Hitn
alone, by . Faith. "He · gave power to become the sons of
God, to them that believed on His Name." "Believing , we
ha ve life in His Name" ( John 1:12; 20:31). Faith is our
soul-contact with the Son of God, sett ing up ( upon our side )
that uni on with Him in His lif e of which Scripture is so full.
And thus it is open to u s, sure ly, to ·say that Ju stification by
Fai th means, from one mon1entous aspect, Ju stificat ion be-
cau se of ,the Chri st with whom thr ough Faith we are 111ade·
myste riou sly but trul y one. Believing, we are one with H im,
one in the ~ommon life with which the living member s live
with th~ He ad ; by the power of His Spirit. · One with Hi1n
in life, we are the refore, by no mere legal fiction but in vital
fact , -capable of onene ss with Him in intere st also. ·

THE MARRIAGE -BO ND.

"F aith," says Bi hop Hopkins of Derry , ''i s the marriag e-

bond between Chri st and a believer; and the ref ore all the
debts of the . believer are chargeabl e upon Christ. and the
 •
r • ..
•
• •
•

• •
Justification by Faith. 119

, ri ghteousness of Christ is instated upon tl1e helieve1·., * * *

1

Indeed this union is a high and illSCrutable mystery, yet plain

it is that there
. is such a clos,e, · spiri .tttal, ,and real union .

between Christ and a believer. ~~ * *· So Faith is the

way and means of our Justification. By Faith we are united
to Cl1rist. · By that union we truly have a righteousness ,. And
upon that righteousness tl1e justice as well ·as merey of God
is engag·ed t,o j·u ,stify ,and acqt1it us.'~* •
•
•

*'E , , Hopkins, ''The D0ct,ri11eof the Cove,nants.'' 1 .

• •
• • •
• •

•
• •
• •

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
. "

• •
•
•

• •
• •• •
•
... •

• •
• •
•
.- •
• •

• •
•
•
• •
• •

• • • •• •
•
•
•• • • • • •
•
\.
t • • • •
•
•
• •
• • • • • •
• • • ••
•
• •
•
• •
• • • •
•
•
• • •
•
•

• • •
• •
• •

• •
• •
' • •

~· •
•
••
• • I •
•
•
•
•
•
• I
• • .. .
• • •
• •
•
• • • •

- •
• •
•

'
•
•

•
•