John Brown
Holiness may be considered either as habitual or actual. Habitual holiness consists in a holy frame and disposition of soul; as a result of it the sanctified individual is reconciled to that holy law against which his carnal mind was enmity. His inclinations habitually fix on objects the law requires, and his aversions on objects it forbids. Thus habitual holiness is represented by the figure of the law written on the heart. Actual holiness is the expression of this inward temper in holy thoughts, words and actions.
If we wish to form accurate views on this important subject, we must
1Taken from Letters on Sanctification by John Brown of Whitburn (1754-1832), son of John Brown of Haddington.
always consider gospel holiness as a great privilege, purchased by Christ’s blood, offered in the Word of grace and promise, secured by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, and conferred on us by means of the efficacious influences of God’s Spirit. Believers must also steadily contemplate it as a most important duty commanded in the law of God – to which they are constrained by His love, and in which they are directed by His pattern and assisted by His grace. It must further be viewed as a most useful business, by which they honour God, profit their neighbours, and obtain for themselves a great and sure reward. How very important then is sanctification! It is the end of all the Redeemer’s work, of His humbled life, His ignominious death, His heavenly glories, the end of all the operations of the Holy Spirit on Christ and His people, the end of all God’s promises and precepts, ordinances of religion and dispensations of providence, the end of electing love, redeeming power, regenerating grace and spiritual consolation.
Many of the most dangerous mistakes about sanctification have originated in ignorance, or inattention to its difference from, and its connection with, justification. An accurate knowledge of these is necessary to prevent us from turning the grace of God into licentiousness on the one hand, and on the other from substituting our own qualities and works in the place of the Redeemer’s righteousness. The lack of this has, it is to be feared, made many stumble and fall to their own destruction, and an imperfect degree of it has in many cases prevented the Christian’s progress both in holiness and comfort, and subjected him to the spirit of bondage and fear.
These two cardinal blessings of Christian salvation differ in a variety of respects. They differ in their matter – the matter of justification is the righteousness of Christ imputed; that of sanctification is the fullness of Christ communicated (Jn 1:16). They differ as to the nature of the change which they effect: justification makes a relative change, sanctification a real one; the first changes a man’s state, the second his heart and life. They differ in how they are conveyed. Justification is made ours by Christ’s righteousness imputed, sanctification by Christ’s grace implanted.
They differ in their properties. Justification is complete and perfect from the first; sanctification, while imperfect in its beginnings, gradually increases till it is perfected in glory. The righteousness of justification is strictly meritorious, being the righteousness of God – by which the law is not only fulfilled but magnified; but the righteousness of sanctification is not meritorious, being only the imperfect righteousness of a sinful creature. All believers are equally justified, but all saints are not equally sanctified. They differ in their subjects. Christ Himself, not the believer, is the subject of justifying righteousness; it is inherently in Him who wrought it out perfectly for the believer,
but the believer is himself the subject of the righteousness of sanctification. Justifying righteousness is on the believer as a robe. Sanctifying righteousness is in him as a nature.
They differ as to their order. They are indeed conferred in the same moment of time; but in the order of nature, justification precedes sanctification, as the cause precedes the effect – as fire precedes light and heat. They differ in their constituents. The main constituent in justification is the grace and love of God to sinners manifested in pardoning and accepting them through Christ; the chief constituent in sanctification is gratitude and love to God, flowing from His love to them, and appearing in their obedience to His holy law. They differ as to their evidence and how they can be discerned. Justification is a most secret act of God’s mind; sanctification is a visible change, proving at once itself and justification.
They differ in their relation to the law of God. Justification has a reference to the law as a covenant and frees the soul from its power (Rom 7:4). Sanctification respects the law as a rule, and makes the soul earnestly desire conformity to it and delight in it after the inward man (Rom 7:22). The one is a judicial sentence, absolving believers from all liability to punishment; the other is a spiritual change, fitting them to discharge their duty. They differ in their relation to the offices of the Redeemer. Justification is directly founded on the sacrificial part of His priesthood; sanctification results from His instructions as a Prophet and His kingly powers of conquest, government and defence. To sum up, they differ in their usefulness. Justification frees from being liable to the punishments of hell and entitles to the joys of heaven; sanctification frees from the slavery and pollution of sin and prepares for the enjoyments of heaven.
Do not say that these are the systematic distinctions of speculative men but are useless for the purposes of practical holiness. To keep the subject from swelling too far, I have been obliged to make use of more systematic terms than I would have wished, but I am persuaded that the more thoroughly you examine the Word of God, you will be the more deeply convinced that these doctrines are strictly scriptural.
The danger of confounding two things so distinct, and the importance of distinguishing them, are well pointed out by the judicious and savoury Trail:1 “I am persuaded that one of the main causes of the disorder that is in the spirits and conversation of most Christians lies in confounding these two great blessings. They do not give them their proper place; they are not rightly exercised about them in their proper sphere. Therefore I shall offer
1Robert Trail (1642-1716) was imprisoned in persecuting times and was later a minister in London.
a word or two of advice to prevent them being confused in this way. When you are seeking justification, let there be no thought of sanctification (I mean as to any merit); but when you are seeking sanctification, think also of justification. To make this matter plain to you: when you are seeking justification, you should have no thought of sanctification; the reason is that justification is an act of pure grace, and we must betake ourselves to God as poor criminals and condemned sinners.
“Let men varnish their doctrines whichever way they will, and cover them with whatever pretences they please, those who pretend to advise others to bring something with them to God, for the grace of justification, only murder souls. Bring thy sins with thee, and bring the curse of the law that is on thy conscience, and lay these before the Lord, saying, Lord, here is an undone sinner; have mercy on me for Christ’s sake. There should be nothing else heard there but that. But when you come for sanctification, you have good reason to remember justification, for the one flows from the other. When you would examine your justification, examine it in God’s name, by your sanctification; that is allowed to you. The reason is: it is trying a tree by its fruits. In short, they who bring sanctification, as a title to their justification, err by the breadth of God’s whole heavens; and they who pretend to have the blessing of justification, and cannot confirm it by the practice of sanctification, only deceive themselves.”