JITSTIFICATION (Heb.
tsaw-duk', to make or declare; Gr. aucauLina, dik ah-yo'nee-ah), judicial sentence, declaration of right; thus, judicial acquittal, the opposite of con demnation.
1. Theological Statement. Justification may be defined, in its theological sense, as the non imputation of sin, and the inmutation of righteous ness. That there is a reciprocation between Christ and believers, i.e. in the intfiutation of their sins unto him, and of his righteousness unto them; and that this forms the ground of the sinner's jus tification and acceptance with God, it will be the object of the following remarks to demonstrate.
(1) Vicarious Atonements. Thevicarfous na ture of the Redeemer's sufferings was set forth under the Mosaic dispensation by very signifi cant types, one of the most expressive of which was the offering of the scapcgoat : 'And Aaron shall lay his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the chil dren of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniqui ties' (Lev. xvi :2r, 22). Abarbanel, in the intro duction to his commentary on Leviticus (De Viel. p. 3o1), represents this ceremony as a symbolical translation of the sins of the offender upon the head of the sacrifice, and as a way by which the evil due to his transgression was to be depre cated.
Nachmanides also, commenting on Lev. i, ob serves, respecting the burnt-offerings and sacri fices for sin : 'It was right the offerer's own blood should be shed, and his body burnt, but that the Creator, in his mercy, hath accepted this victim from him as a vicarious substitute and atonement, that its blood should be poured out instead of his blood, and its life stand in place of his life.' We are informed by Herodotus (ii :39) that the practice of imprecating on the head of the victim the evils which the sacrificer wished to avert from himself was usual also amongst the heathen. The Egyptians, lie adds, would not taste the head of any animal, but flung it into the river as an abominataion.
(2) Prophecy and Exposition of Atonement. If this type foreshadowed the vicarious naturc of the sufferings and death of Christ—and who with the inspired comment of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews before him can doubt this ?—we may with confidence appeal also to the voice of prophecy, and the expositions of apostles, for the further illustration and enforcement of the same truth.
The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah is so full upon this point that Bishop Lowth says: 'This chapter declares the circumstances of our Savior's suf ferings so exactly that it seems rather a history of his passion than a prophecy.' In verses 5 and 6 we are told that God 'laid upon him the iniqui ties of us all.' that by 'his stripes we might be healed'—that our sin was laid on him, and he bare it (ver. r). St. Paul, re-echoing the same truth, says, 'He was made sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him' (2 Cor. v :2t). This is the recipro
cation spoken of above.
Again, in Rom. yin :3, 4, the Apostle informs us that God sent his own Son in the likeness of sin ful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be ful filled in us; that sin was made his, and he bore its penalty ; his righteousness is forensically trans ferred to the believer, and the latter becomes a happy participator of its benefits. This, then, is the change in relation to God from which the soul of a convicted sinner can find peace. Before we notice the objections which have been, and still are, urged against this view of the question, we may inquire how for it is confirmed by the earli est and most eminently pious Fathers of the Chris tian church.
(3) Faith of the Fathers. Amongst these Fa thers none could have been better acquainted with the mind of St. Paul than the venerable Clement of Rome, inasmuch as he is honorably recorded by the Apostle as one of his fellow-la borers in the Gospel whose names are written in the book of life (Phil. iv :3). Nothing can be more explicit than this writer is on the point of forensic justifying righteousness, and of intrinsic solidifying rzghteousness (see Clem. Rom. Epist. od Corinth. i. sec. 32, 33). Chrysostom's commen tary on 2 Corinthians (ch. v. Hon:. ii) is also very expressive on this subject : 'What word, what speech is this, what mind can comprehend or speak it? for he (Paul) saith, he made him who was righteous to be made a sinner, that he might make sinners righteous; nor yet doth he (Paul) say so neither, but that which is far more sublime and excellent. For he speaks not of an inclination or affection, but expresseth the quality itself. For he says not he made him a sinner, but sin, that we might be made not merely righteous, but right eousness, and that the righteousness of God, when we are justified not by works (for if we should, there must be no spot found in them), but by grace, whereby all sin is blotted out.' (4) Roman Catholic View. It was this doc trine of justification which constituted the great ground of controversy between the reformers and the church of Rome (see Luther to Geo. Spen lein, Epist. Ann. 1516, tom. i.). That the reader may be able to see in a contrasted form the es sential differences upon this head between the two churches, we subjoin what the Tridentine Fathers have stated. In sess. vi. c. xvi. p. 54, they an nounce the views of their church on justification in the following language: 'Jesus Christ, as the head into the members, and as the vine into the branches, perpetually causes his virtue to flow into the justified. This virtue always precedes, accompanies, and follows their good works ; so that without it such good works could in nowise be acceptable to God, and bear the character of meritoriousness.