There is a rule in philology by which we can readily determine the etymological meaning of words like those at the head of this article. These words are the nouns formed from the verbs justify and sanctify, and the rule by which to determine their meaning may be thus stated: Words ending in fy the making of the thing or state denoted by the root of that part of the word preceding the syllable fy. Hence, the meaning of justify would be to make just, and the meaning of sanctify would be to make sacred. Making just has a twofold sense, viz.: To cause to appear just, and to make the unjust just. The latter is its meaning when applied to the sinner. It is not used of the sinner in a forensic sense, i. e., to clear from a charge of guilt, or cause to appear just; but in its real sense, i. e., to make just.

      Applying this rule to the word sanctify, and we determine its meaning to be to make sacred. But sacredness being a relation and not a state, it is evident that a man is sanctified, made sacred or brought into a sacred relation when he is born again. It is then that he becomes a child of God, enters into communion with God, and becomes a vessel of honor in the spiritual temple of God. Sanctification, then, is not a work that takes place subsequently to regeneration, justification and conversion, but simultaneously therewith.

      This is the view that, in substance, we have always held. The recent discussions of the subject of sanctification have led some of the brethren to modify their views, and to adopt, to some extent the Methodistic theory. However, since the fervor and fire of this controversy have somewhat died out, we are glad to see that sounder views are again prevailing, so that even the voice of dissenting Methodists can again be heard. The New York Christian Advocate, one of the official papers of the Methodist Church recently said:

      "Among these things a flagrant and obvious mistake is the presenting the essentially diverse forms of the religious state known as justification and sanctification as different stages in the same spiritual plane. Any tyro in theology can define these terms, and show that they relate to entirely different things. So that by no possibility can the one pass into the other, any more than in material objects form can pass into color, or extension into hardness. Justification is the soul's judicial relation to God as his lawgiver and judge; sanctification is its ethical condition under the renewing power of the Holy Ghost. The two estates co-exist in every believer, and must remain to all eternity. It is, therefore, simply absurd to classify believers as the justified and the sanctified, since everyone of them is both the one and the other. The free justification of the penitent sinner who exercises faith in the atonement is the initial article in Christian experience; but it is inseparable in point of time from the work of the divine Spirit which we designate, in Scriptural language, the new birth. The two, conjoined and inseparable, constitute the work of conversion. And this absurd misuse of language is also misleading as to the nature of the Christian life, and, of course, is of a highly pernicious tendency. The feeblest child of grace has received the sanctifying power of the Holy Ghost; and should he live and grow in that grace till he should rise above angels and seraphs, and stand nearest to the throne of God, he would never outgrow his justification. We would earnestly ask, therefore, that this absurd and pernicious form of classification may be abandoned."

      This paragraph receives also the "most heart endorsement" of the Evangelical Messenger, the organ of the Evangelical Church. Some of the ministers and members of this Church had been carried away with the "holiness" excitement, but we think the prospects are fair for their return to a sounder faith.

      But is there no progress in the Christian life? Is there no going "on to perfection?" Should we not "perfect holiness in the fear of the Lord?" Most assuredly we should. We are to perfect holiness; but that very fact implies its previous existence. We are to make progress as Christians; but progress follows beginning. We are to "go on to perfection;" but he who goes on to perfection has already that in a measure which is to be perfected. Besides, the progress, the perfection, etc., relate to states and not so much to relations. There is great room for improvement, for advancement; and it is our duty to make the highest possible attainments in all spiritual things.

[The Church Advocate 40 (July 14, 1875): 4.]

      Christian H. Forney's "Justification and Sanctification" was first published in The Church Advocate, Vol. 40, No. 11 (July 14, 1875), p. 4. The electronic version has been transcribed from a copy of the article printed from a microfilmed edition of the newspaper held by the State Library of Pennsylvania. Thanks to Adams Memorial Library for arranging for the interlibrary loan, and to St. Vincent College Library for the use of its microfilm reader/printer.

      In the printed text, an extended quotation is set off by the absence of leading between lines; in the printed text, it is set off as a block quotation. Inconsistencies in spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and typography have been retained.

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
Derry, PA

Created 11 June 1999.
Updated 13 July 2003.