perfection to his law: they know its declarations, as to the fall and recovery of man. If there be not a moral disagreement between themselves and such a religion, why is it not embraced? If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God.

There is tremendous import in our Saviour's words, who said, that the inhabitants of Sodom, all covered as they were with more than brutal pollutions, should experience less severity at his tribunal, than those who rejected his ministry.

2

LECTURE XLIII.

JUSTIFICATION.

In the state to which we are advancing, all will appear in the character either of those who are justified or of those who are not justified. It must, therefore, be highly important to ascertain both the meaning of the term, and the conditions, on which may be obtained those blessings which it implies.

The subject will be treated agreeably to the following arrangement.

I. We are to inquire, What is justification.

II. How the Jews expected to obtain this by their law. III. On what conditions Justification is obtained; in connexion with which will be noticed the seeming discrepance between the doctrine of the Apostles Paul and James. As to the first; we inquire what is meant by justification. This term, it is conceived, is never used with propriety, but in relation to persons, against whom some crime is alleged. Whenever a person, who is accused, proves either that he did not perform the action, or that the action was no crime, he justifies himself; and this justification, the judge before whom he is tried, is bound to declare.

There is, therefore, as it respects human tribunals, an obvious difference between justification and pardon. When the judge justifies, or pronounces the justification of an accused person, he declares, we have said, either, that the latter never performed the action, of which he is accused; or if he did, that it was no crime. But, when a person is pardoned, it is implied, that he has committed a crime. In human judicatories, he who is justified, cannot be pardoned, because he is innocent; nor is it

less obvious, that he, who is pardoned, cannot be pronounced innocent or be justified. But as it respects legal punishment, pardon and justification are even in civil society, precisely the same he, who is justified, and he, who is pardoned, being equally secure against receiving any punishment from the law.

Were the term justification in a religious view, used to sig nify precisely the same thing, as when applied to civil transactions, it is obvious that no flesh living could be justified. No person on earth can prove, that he is not guilty: nor can God, the righteous judge, make such a declaration concerning any one. What then, you may ask, is Christian justification? And what is meant by St. Paul, when he said, It is God that justifieth! I answer, that Christian justification is the same as pardon, a complete absolution from all punishment in the future world.

As it respects what is past, there is a difference between justification in common use, and justification, as the term is used in scripture; but as it respects the future the signification in both is precisely the same. As the person, who is justified before a human tribunal, can receive no punishment from law; so neither can he, who is justified in the Christian sense of the term. The apostle's words, It is God that justifieth, must therefore mean, It is God, who absolveth from obligation to future punishment. The same idea is conveyed in figurative language when the Almighty says, Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more forever. It is evident that sins, once committed, will never be erased from the mind of God. It will never appear to him uncertain, whether glorified saints were once transgressors. Literal oblivion in regard to Deity is therefore impossible. But the sins of those who are justified, will not, in the approaching world be brought against them, by way either of punishment or reproach. No one will in this sense lay any thing to the charge of God's elect. They who are justified, let them die when they may, shall receive no condemnation.

That pardon and justification are the same, appears from the language of scripture. Paul in the fourth chapter of the epistle

to the Romans, treats particularly of justification; and he represents it, as being the same thing, as to have iniquities forgiven and sins covered. In using such language, David describes, saith the apostle, the blessedness of the man, to whom God imputeth righteousness without works. Justification and pardon are both procured in the same manner; we have redemption, even the remission of sins through the blood of Christ: we are likewise said to be justified through the redemption, which is in Christ Jesus.

It is the opinion of some, that justification has a more extensive meaning, than pardon. Pardon, they rightly observe, does nothing more, than to secure the sinner from punishment: it implies no reward. Whereas reward as well as exoneration from punishment, they believe to be comprehended in justification.

But on what does this latter opinion rest? How does it appear, that justification implies a reward? In human affairs, it certainly does not. A man is accused, and tried; the accusation is not supported. This is made public; i. e. the judge publicly declares, that the charge is not supported. The accused is acquitted. He takes the same rank in society, which he held before but he is not rewarded.

Persons who think highly of the distinction, which we are now considering, may perhaps allow that justification has, in civil society, no greater influence than to restore the accused to the standing, which he previously held. But, that this is not the extent of its meaning in scripture, when applied to the Christian, they would prove by this argument. In various passages of the Gospel, justification is connected with positive happiness and honour: Being justified freely by his grace, we have peace with God. Again whom he justified, them he also glorified. In the former of these passages, present peace with God; in the latter, the permanent enjoyment of celestial glory is connected with justification.

I am very far from denying, that in the divine establishment, Justification is conncted with eternal honor and eternal happiBut to say, that two things are connected and always

ness.

proceed together, is very different from saying, that the one is comprehended in the other. Besides, pardon is as certainly connected with eternal life, as justification: and therefore the argument is wholly insufficient to prove any distinction between them. It is true, both of justified and pardoned persons, that they will inherit eternal rewards; but this is not implied in the terms justified and pardoned. Pardon places a man where he was before he sinned; and justification does no more. If, when pardoned, or justified, he receives a reward, it results from that benevolent constitution, under which he is placed: a constitution, which makes all those heirs of eternal life, whose iniquities are forgiven; whose sins are covered, and to whom the Lord imputeth not transgression.

All, which is essential to justification, is freedom from punishment; acquittance at the last day with which acquittance, God has been pleased to connect the enjoyment of eternal life.

We are secondly to inquire, how the Jews, whose opinion on the subject, St. Paul takes much pains to confute, expected acquittance at the tribunal of God.

That they could believe themselves morally pure, such, as in strictness of speech, had no need of repentance, inveterate and numerous as their prejudices were, we can by no means believe. Their calculation must therefore have been either that their punctuality in discharging some moral obligations, would compensate for their neglect of others; or, what is still more probable, that their sacrifices and offerings and positive merit, were a credit, which counterbalanced, or exceeded the debt.

The impossibility, that compliance with moral law in certain instances, even if such compliance has its foundation in the heart, should exonerate the soul from the guilt of sin, has so of ten been shown on former occasions, as to render any present arguments unnecessary. To the other opinion, viz. that sacrifices and offerings had positive merit; and were a credit, which counterbalanced or exceeded the debt, some attention may be required.