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.

This opinion, however ill grounded, produced an effect, 1. in preventing the Jews from receiving Christianity and 2. in corrupting the opinions of those who embraced it.

That the opinion is ill grounded, may easily be made to appear. That a partial compliance with the demands of God's moral law has nothing of merit, and makes no compensation for sin, has, we have just observed, been shown on other occasions. But if it be true of compliances with moral law, how much more obviously so of ceremonial observances. Can any person, who contemplates the nature of God, and the relation, existing between him and his intelligent offspring;-can any one, who contemplates the broad foundation of reason, which supports the law of the Almighty, imagine for a moment, that the violation of these is paid for, because a lamb is slaughtered, his blood sprinkled and poured out, part of his flesh eaten by the priests, and the rest consumed on the altar? How dishonourable such opinions are to Jehovah, may be learned from his own words: I will take no bullock out of thy house, or he goat out of thy fold. For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains, and the wild beasts of the field are mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?

Expiatory sacrifices were designed, as expressions of guilt, and appeals to mercy. The language of those, who had correct views on the subject, was this: For the violation of God's law I am now condemned; nor is it possible, that the guilt, thus contracted, should be annihilated. But God has appointed sacrifices, as expressions of mercy on his part; and to resort to them will be an acknowledgement of demerit on mine. Knowing myself condemned by justice, I will appeal to mercy in that manner, which has been divinely prescribed.

Widely different from these were the views of many, probably of most, in the Jewish nation. There is an essential, a radical distinction between the use of sacrifices, as an appeal to

mercy; and that by which debts are cancelled, and mercy rendered unnecessary. The latter opinion tended strongly to prevent the Jews from receiving Christianity. For, if the sacrifices, which were offered under the Mosaic establishment, were an equivalent for sin; if the good desert, attached to them, were equal to the demerit of the moral delinquencies of those concerned, what need could there be of the sacrifice of Messiah? Why should the Son of God be slain to take away the sins of the world, if this effect could be produced by the slaughter of a common victim? If the blood of bulls and goats could take away sin, it would appear highly incredible, that Jesus Christ should have died for such a purpose. To all Jews, who embraced the opinion, which we have noticed, the doctrine of Christ, crucified for sin, must, according to the apostle's assertion, have appeared a stumbling block.

So likewise must have appeared the doctrine of gratuitous justification. If the Jew had been in the habit of supposing that he could, by prescribed sacrifices, balance accounts with his Maker, he would doubtless be disinclined to a religion, which declares in the plainest terms, "That by the deeds of the law no flesh living can be justified;" a religion, which represents the sinner's freedom from punishment, as the result of sovereign grace; to the prudent exercise of which grace, the sufferings of Messiah were requisite. This latter opinion would be highly offensive to that pride, to which the former would give disturbance. It will readily occur to you, that the same opinion, if retained even partially by those who embraced Christianity, would tend to produce inadequate and corrupt sentiments. It would prevent just ideas, as to the subserviency of Judaism to Christianity attributing to the one that value, honour, and efficacy, which are exclusively claimed by the other. If the Mosaic Institution did not derive its value from its relation to Christ, and yet procured justification to the sinner, thus answering the highest purpose, which can be accomplished by any religion, it was extremely natural, and not irrational for the Jewish Christian to adhere pertinaciously to the rites and sacrifices of Moses. Nor

4