THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES.

if it has, we are justified by works and faith united, | danger; desire of deliverance; abhorrence of the evils
which has just been disproved; if it has not, then we of the heart and the life; strong efforts for freedom, re-
and innate corruptions; and a still deeper sense, in
are justified by faith alone, in the manner before ex-sisted, however, by the bondage of established habits
plained.
consequence of the need not only of pardon, but of that
almighty and renewing influence which alone can effect
the desired change. It is in this state of mind, that
the prayer becomes at once heartfelt and appropriate,
right spirit within me."
create in me a clean heart, oh God, and renew a

4. The last error referred to is that which represents
faith as, per se, the necessary root of obedience: so that
justification by faith alone may be allowed; but then
the guard against abuse is said to lie in this, that true
faith is itself so eminent a virtue, that it naturally"
produces good works.

The objection to this statement lies not indeed so much to the substantial truth of the doctrine taught by it, or to what is perhaps intended by most of those who so speak, for similar modes of expression we find in the writings of many of the elder divines of the reformation, who most strenuously advocated justification by faith alone; but to the view under which it is presented. Faith, when genuine, is necessarily the "root and mother of obedience;" good works of every kind, without exception, do also necessarily spring from it; but though we say necessarily, yet we do not say naturally. The error lies in considering faith in Christ as so eminently a virtue, so great an act of obedience, that it must always argue a converted and renewed state of mind wherever it exists, from which, therefore, obedience must flow. We have, however, seen that regeneration does not precede justification; that till justification man is under bondage, and that he does not "walk after the Spirit," until he is so "in Christ Jesus;" that to him "there is now no condemnation;" yet faith, all acknowledge, must precede justification, and it cannot, therefore, presuppose a regenerate state of mind. The truth, then, is, that faith does not produce obedience by any virtue there is in it, per se; nor as it supposes a previous renewal of heart; but as it unites to Christ, gives us a personal interest in the covenant of God's mercy, and obtains for us, as an accomplished condition, our justification, from which flow the gift of the Holy Spirit and the regeneration of our nature. The strength of faith lies not, then, in what it is in itself, but in what it interests us in; it necessarily leads to good works, because it necessarily leads to justification, on which immediately follows our" new creation in Christ Jesus to good works, that we may walk in them."

There are yet a few theories on the subject of justification to be stated and examined, which, however, the principles already established will enable us briefly to dismiss.

That of the Romish church, which confounds sanc-
tification with justification, has been already noticed.
The influence of this theory may be traced in the writ-
ings of some leading divines of the English church,
who were not fully imbued with the doctrines of the
reformers on this great point, such as Bishop Taylor,
Archbishop Tillotson, and others, who make regene-
ration necessary to justification; and also in many di-
vines of the Calvinistic Nonconformist class, who make
regeneration also to precede justification, though not,
like the former, as a condition of it.

The source of this error appears to be twofold.
It arises, first, from a loose and general notion of the
scriptural doctrine of regeneration; and, secondly, from
confounding that change which true evangelical repen-
tance doubtless implies, with regeneration itself. A
few observations will dissipate these erroneous impres-
sions.

As to those previous changes of mind and conduct,
which they often argue from, as proving a new state
of mind and character, they are far from marking that
defined and unequivocal state of renovation, which our
Lord expresses by the phrases" born again," and
"born of the Spirit," and which St. Paul evidently ex-
"" a new creation;"
plains by being "created anew,"
living after the Spirit," and "walking in the Spirit."
In the established order in which God effects this
mighty renovation of a nature previously corrupt, in
answer to prayers directed to him, with confidence in
his promises to that effect in Christ Jesus, there must
be a previous process, which divines have called by the
expressive names of awakening," and " conviction;"
that is, the sleep of indifference to spiritual concerns is
removed, and conviction of the sad facts of the case of
a man who has hitherto lived in sin, and under the sole
dominion of a carnal and earthly mind, is fixed in the
judgment and the conscience. From this arises an
altered and a corrected view of things; apprehension of

But all this is not regeneration; it is rather the effect of the full and painful discovery of the want of it; nor will "fruits meet for repentance," the effects of an alarmed conscience, and of a corrected judgment; the efforts to be right, however imperfect; which are the signs, we also grant, of sincerity, prove more than that the preparatory process is going on under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Others may endeavour to persuade a person in this state of mind that he is regenerate, but the absence of love to God as his reconciled Father; the evils which he detests having still, in many respects, the dominion over him; the resistance of his heart to the unaccustomed yoke, when the sharp pangs of his convictions do not, for the moment, arm him with new powers of contest; his pride; his remaining self-righteousness; his reluctance to be saved wholly as a sinner, whose repentance and all its fruits, however exact and copious, merit nothing; all assure him, that even should he often feel that he is "not far from the kingdom of God," he has not entered it; that his burden is not removed; that his bonds are not broken; that he is not "walking in the spirit;" that he is at best but a struggling slave, "not the Lord's free man." scene. He believes wholly in Christ; he is justified But there is a point which, when passed, changes the by faith; he is comforted by the Spirit's "witnessing with his spirit," that he is now a child of God; he serves God from filial love; he has received new powers; the chain of his bondage is broken, and he is delivered; he walks not after the flesh, but after the Spirit; he is "dead to sin, and cannot continue longer therein;" and the fruits of the Spirit are in him-"love, joy, peace, gentleness, goodness, meekness, faith, temperance." as that state is described in the Scriptures. Before he He is now, and not till now, in a REGENERATE STATE, was a seeker, now he has obtained what he sought; Still indeed it may be said, that, call this previous and he obtains it concomitantly with justification. state what you will, either regeneration or repentance, it is necessary to justification; and, therefore, justification is not by faith alone. We answer, that we cannot call it a regenerated state, a being "born of the Spirit," for the Scriptures do not so designate it; and it is clear, that the fruits of the Spirit do not belong to it; and, therefore, there is an absence, not of the work of the Spirit, for all has its origin there, but of that work of the Spirit by which we are" born again" strictly and properly. Nor is the connexion of this preparatory faith with justification. It is necessary, it is true, as process with justification of the same nature as that of hearing the word is necessary, for "faith cometh by hearing," and it is necessary, as leading to prayer, and to faith, for prayer is the language of discovered want, and faith in another, in the sense of trust, is the result of self-diffidence, and self despair; but it is necessary and accurately expressed by Mr. Wesley.(6) "And remotely, not immediately. This distinction is clearly yet I allow you this, that although both repentance and the fruits thereof are, in some sense, necessary before justification, yet neither the one nor the other is necessary in the same sense, nor in the same degree moment a man believes, in the Christian sense of the with faith. Not in the same degree; for in whatever word, he is justified; his sins are blotted out; his faith is counted to him for righteousness. But it is not so at whatever moment he repents, or brings forth any or all the fruits of repentance. Faith alone, therefore, justifies, which repentance alone does not; much less any outward work: and consequently none of these are Nor in the same sense; for none of these has so direct necessary to justification in the same degree as faith. and immediate relation to justification as faith. This is proximately necessary thereto; repentance and its fruits, remotely, as these are necessary to the increase and continuance of faith. And even in this sense, these

are only necessary on supposition that there is time destitute of a real change in the moral frame and conand opportunity for them; for in many instances there stitution of their minds, and give no evidence of this in is not; but God cuts short his work, and faith pre-a holy life, it became necessary for him to plead the vents the fruits of repentance. So that the general pro- renovation of man's nature and evangelical obedience, position is not overthrown, but clearly established by as the necessary fruits of real or living faith. The these concessions, and we conclude still, both on the question discussed by St. Paul is, whether works authority of Scripture and the church, that faith alone would justify; that by St. James is, whether a dead is the proximate condition of justification."(7) faith, the mere faith of assent, would save. 3. St. Paul and St. James do not use the term justi

have seen, for the pardon of sin, the accepting and treating as righteous one who is guilty, but penitent. But, that St. James does not speak of this kind of justification is most evident, from his reference to the case of Abradam. "Was not Abraham, our father, justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" Does St. James mean, that Abraham was then justified in the sense of being forgiven? Certamly not; for St. Paul, when speaking of the justification of Abraham, in the sense of his forgiveness before God, by the imputation of his faith for righteousness, fixes that event many years previously, even before Isaac was born, and when the promise of a seed was made to him; for it is added by Moses, when he gives an account of this transaction, Gen. xv. 6," And he believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness." If, then, St. James speaks of the same kind of justification, he contradicts St. Paul and Moses, by implying that Abraham was not pardoned and received into God's favour, until the offering of Isaac. If no one will maintain this, then the justification of Abraham, mentioned by St. James, it is plain, does not mean the forgiveness of his sins, and he uses the term in a different sense to St. Paul.

If regeneration, in the sense in which it is used in Scripture, and not loosely and vaguely, as by many di-fication in the same sense. The former uses it, as we vines, both ancient and modern, is then a concomitant of justification, it cannot be a condition of it; and as we have shown, that all the changes which repentance implies fall short of regeneration, repentance is not an evidence of a regenerate state; and thus the theory of justification by regeneration is untenable. A second theory, not indeed substantially different from the former, but put into different phrase, and more formally laboured, is that of Bishop Bull, which gave rise to the celebrated controversy of his day, upon the publication of his Harmonia Apostolica; and it is one which has left the deepest impress upon the views of the clergy of the English church, and contributed more than any thing else to obscure her true doctrine, as contained in her articles and homilies, on this leading point of experimental theology. This theory is professedly that of justification by works, with these qualifications, that the works are evangelical, or such as proceed from faith; that they are done by the assistance of the Spirit of God; and that such works are not meritorious, but a necessary condition of justification. To establish this hypothesis, it was necessary to avoid the force of the words of St. Paul; and the learned prelate just mentioned, therefore, reverses the usual practice of commentators, which is to reconcile St. James to St. Paul on the doctrine of justification; and assuming that St. James speaks clearly and explicitly, and St. Paul, on this point things" hard to be understood;" he interprets the latter by the former, and reconciles St. Paul to St. James. According then to this opinion, St. James explicitly asserts the doctrine of justification of sinful men before God by the works which proceed from faith in Christ: St. Paul, therefore, when he denies that man can be justified by works, refers simply to works of obedience to the Mosaic law; and by the faith which justifies, he means the works which spring from faith. Thus the two apostles are harmonized by Bishop Bull. The main pillar of this scheme is, that St. James teaches the doctrine of justification before God by works springing from faith in Christ; and as it is necessary in a discourse on justification, to ascertain the meaning of this apostle in the passages referred to, both be-thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works cause his words may appear to form an objection to the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which we have established; and, also, on account of the misleading statements which are found in many of the attempts which have been made to reconcile the two apostles, this may be a proper place for that inquiry; the result of which will show, that Bishop Bull and the divines of that school, have as greatly mistaken St. James as they have mistaken St. Paul.

4. The only sense, then, in which St. James can take the term justification, when he says that Abraham was "justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar," is, that his works manifested or proved that he was justified, proved that he was really justified by faith, or, in other words, that the faith by which he was justified, was not dead and inoperative, but living and active. This is abundantly confirmed by what follows. So far is St. James from denying that Abraham was justified by the imputation of his faith for righteousness, long before he offered up his son Isaac, that he expressly allows it by quoting the passage, Gen. xv. 6, in which this is said to have taken place at least twenty-five years before; and he makes use of his subsequent works in the argument, expressly to illustrate the vital and obedient nature of the faith by which he was at first justified. "Seest

was his faith made perfect, and the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, Abraham believed God' (in a transaction twenty-five years previous), and it was imputed to him for righteousness, and he was called the Friend of God." This quotation of James, from Gen. xv. 6, demands special notice. "And the Scripture," he says, "was fulfilled, which saith," &c. Whitby paraphrases, "was again fulfilled;" some other commentators say it " was twice fulfilled," in the transaction We observe, then, 1, that to interpret St. Paul by St. of Isaac, and at the previous period to which the quoJames involves this manifest absurdity, that it is inter-tation refers. These comments are, however, hasty, preting a writer who treats professedly, in a set dis- darken the argument of St. James, and have indeed course, on the subject in question, the justification of no discernible meaning at all. For, do they mean a sinful man before God, by a writer who, if he could that Abraham was twice justified, in the sense of be allowed to treat of that subject with the same de- being twice pardoned; or that his justification sign, does it but incidentally. This itself makes it was begun at one of the periods referred to, and clear, that the great axiomata, the principles of this doc-finished twenty-five years afterward? These are abtrine, must be first sought for in the writer who enters surdities; and if they will not maintain them, in what professedly, and by copious argument, into the inquiry. sense do they understand St. James to use the phrase But, 2, the two apostles do not engage in the same "and the Scripture was fulfilled?" The Scripture argument, and for this reason, that they are not ad-alluded to by St. James, is that given above, "and he dressing themselves to persons in the same circum- believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for stances. St. Paul addresses the unbelieving Jews, righteousness." When was the first fulfilment of who sought justification by obedience to the law of this Scripture, of which they speak? It could not be Moses, moral and ceremonial; proves, that all men are in the transaction of Abraham's proper justification, guilty, and that neither Jew nor Gentile can be justified through his faith in the promise respecting "his seed" by works of obedience to any law, and that therefore as mentioned, Gen. xv. 6, for that Scripture is an hisjustification must be by faith alone. On the other hand, torical narration of the fact of that, his justification. St. James, having to do, in his epistle, with such as The fact, then, was not a fulfilment of that part of professed the Christian faith and justification by it, but Scripture, but that part of Scripture a subsequent narerring dangerously about the nature of faith, allirming ration of the fact. The only fulfilment, consequently, that faith, in the sense of opinion or mere belief of doc- that it had, was in the transaction adduced by St. trine, would save them, though they should remain James, the offering of Isaac; but if Abraham had. been, in the proper sense, justified, then that event could be no fulfilment, in their sense, of a Scripture,

(7) Sermons.

which is a narrative of what was done twenty-five |
years before, and which relates only to what God then
did, namely," count the faith of Abraham to him for
righteousness." The only senses in which the term
"fulfil" can be taken in this passage are, that of accom-
plishment, or that of illustration and establishment.
The first cannot apply here, for the passage is neither
typical nor prophetic, and we are left, therefore, to the
second; "and the Scripture was fulfilled," illustrated,
and confirmed, which saith, "Abraham believed in
God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness."
It was established and confirmed that he was, in truth,
a man truly justified of God, and that the faith by
which he was justified was living and operative.

tinguished as evangelical, though with many it is also much mingled with the scheme of Bishop Bull. "Faith and belief," says Bishop Tomline, "strictly speaking, mean the same thing." If, then, a penitent Heathen or Jew, convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, the promised Saviour of the world, "having understood that baptism was essential to the blessings of the new and merciful dispensation, of the Divine authority of which he was fully persuaded, would eagerly apply to some one of those who were commissioned to baptize; his baptism, administered according to the appointed form to a true believer, would convey justification; or, in other words, the baptized person would receive remission of his past sins, would be reconciled to God, and be accounted just and righteous in his sight."(8) Faith, therefore, including repentance for former offences, was, as far as the person himself was concerned, the sole requisite for justification; no previous work was enjoined; but baptism was invariably the instrument, or external form, by which justification was conveyed."(9)

The confusedness and contrariety of this scheme will be obvious to the reader.

5. As St. James does not use the term justification in the sense of the forgiveness of sin, when he speaks of the justification of Abraham by works, so neither can he use it in this sense in the general conclusion which he draws from it; "Ye see, then, how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." The ground on which he rests this general inference is the declarative justification of Abraham, which resulted from his lofty act of obedience in the case of Isaac, and which was eminently itself an act of obedient faith; and the justification of which he speaks in the generai conclusion of the argument, must, therefore, be taken in the same sense. He speaks not of the act of being justified before God, and the means by which it is effected; but of being proved to be in a manifest and scripturally approved state of justification. "Ye see, that, then, by works a man is" shown to be in a "justi-Christ, by an act of confidence, the power to do which fied" state; or how his profession of being in the Divine favour is justified and confirmed "by works, and not by faith only," or mere doctrinal faith; not by the faith of mere intellectual assent, not by the faith which is dead, and unproductive of good works.

It will not be denied to Dr. Whitby, that the apostles baptized upon the profession of a belief in the Messiahship and Sonship of our Lord; nor is it denied to Bishop Tomline, that when baptism, in the case of true penitents, was not only an outward expression of the faith of assent; but, accompanied by a solemn committal of the spiritual interests of the baptized to was, no doubt, often given as a part of the grace of baptism, justification would follow ;-the real question is, whether justification follows mere assent. This is wholly contradicted by the argument of St. James; for if dead faith, by which he means mere assent to Lastly, so far are the two apostles from being in op- dectrine, is no evidence of a justified state, it cannot position to each other, that, as to faith, as well as be justifying; which I take to be as conclusive an arworks, they most perfectly agree. St. James declares, gument as possible. For St. James does not deny that no man can be saved by mere faith. But, thon, faith to him who has faith without works; if then by faith he means, not the same faith to which St. he has faith, the apostle can mean by faith nothing Paul attributes a saving efficacy. His argument suffi- else certainly than assent or belief: "Thou believest ciently shows this. He speaks of a faith which is there is one God, thou doest well;" and as this faith, "alone" and "dead," St. Paul of the faith which is according to him is "alone," by faith he means mere never alone, though it alone justifieth; which is not assent of the intellect. This argument shows, that solitaria, though it is sola in this work, as our old those theologians are unquestionably in error, who divines speak; the faith of a penitent, humbled man, make justification the result of mere assent to the eviwho not only yields speculative assent to the scheme dence of the truth of the Gospel, or doctrinal belief. of Gospel doctrine, but flies with confidence to Christ, And neither Dr. Whitby nor Bishop Tomline is able to as his sacrifice and Redeemer, for pardon of sin and de- carry this doctrine throughout. The former contends liverance from it; the faith, in a word, which is a fruit that this assent, when firin and sincere, must produce of the Spirit, and that by which a true believer enters obedience; but St. James denies neither firmness of into and lives the spiritual life, because it vitally conviction, nor sincerity to his inoperative faith, and unites him to Christ, the fountain of that life-"the yet, he tells us, that it remained alone," and was life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith"dead." Besides, if faith justifies only as it produces of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself obedience, it does not justify alone, and the justifying efficacy lies in the virtual or actual obedience proceeding from it, which gives up Whitby's main position, and goes into the scheme of Bishop Bull. Equally inconsistent is Bishop Tomline. He acknowledges that "belief, or faith, may exist, unaccompanied by any of the Christian graces;" and that "this faith does not justify." How then will he maintain that justification A third theory has, also, had great influence in the is by faith alone, in the sense of belief? Again, he Church of England, and is to this day explicitly astells us, that the faith which is the means of salvation, serted by some of its leading divines and prelates. It "is that belief of the truth of the Gospel which proacknowledges that, provided faith be understood to be duces obedience to its precepts, and is accompanied by sincere and genuine, men are justified by faith only, a firm reliance upon the merits of Christ." Still farand in this they reject the opinion just examined; but ther, that "baptism is the instrument invariably by then they take faith to be mere belief, assent to the which justification is conveyed."(1) Thus, then, we truth of the Gospel, and nothing more. This is largely are first told, that justifying faith is belief or assent;. defended by Whitby, in his preface to the Galatians, then that various other things are connected with it to which, in other respects, ably shows that justification render it justifying, such as previous repentance, the is in no sense by works, either natural, Mosaic, or power of producing obedience, reliance on the merits evangelical. The faith by which we are justified, he of Christ, and baptism! All this confusion and contradescribes to be "a full assent to, or firm persuasion of diction shows, that the doctrine of justification by faith mind concerning the truth of what is testified by God alone, in the sense of belief or intellectual assent only, himself respecting our Lord Jesus Christ," and in par- cannot be maintained, and that, in order to avoid the ticular, "that he was Christ the Son of GOD." "This worse than Antinomian consequence, which would was the faith which the apostles required in order to follow from the doctrine, its advocates are obliged so to baptism;" "by this faith men were put into the way explain, and qualify, and add, as to make many apof salvation, and if they persevered in it would ob-proaches to that true doctrine against which they hurl both censure and ridicule.

for me."

There is, then, no foundation in the Epistle of St. James for the doctrine of justification by works, according to Bishop Bull's theory. The other arguments by which this notion has been supported are refuted by the principles which have been already laid down, and confirmed from the word of God.

tain it."

Nearly the same view is taught by the present Bishop of Winchester, in his Refutation of Calvinism, and his Elements of Theology, and it is, probably, the opinion of the great body of the national clergy, not dis

The error of this whole scheme lies in not consider-
(9) Ibid.

(8) Refutation of Calvinism, chap. iii.
(1) Ibid.

THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTES.

ing the essence of justifying faith to be trust or confidence in Christ as our sacrifice for sin, which, though Whitby and others of his school have attempted to ridicule, by calling it "a leaning or rolling of ourselves upon him for salvation," availing themselves of the coarse terms used by scoffers, is yet most manifestly, as we have indeed already seen, the only sense in which faith can be rationally taken, when a sacrifice for sin, a means of reconciliation with God, is its object, and indeed when any promise of God is made to us. It is not surely that we may merely believe that the death of Christ is a sacrifice for sin, that he is "set forth as a propitiation," but that we may trust in its efficacy; it is not that we may merely believe that God has made promises to us, that his merciful engagements in our favour are recorded; but that we may have confidence in them, and thus be supported by them. This was the faith of the saints of the Old Testament. "By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed, and he went out, not knowing whither he went." His faith was confidence. "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him." you that feareth the Lord? let him trust in the name "Who is among of the Lord, and stay upon his God." "Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is." It is under this notion of trust that faith is continually represented to us also in the New Testament. "In his name shall the Gentiles trust." therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because "For we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, and especially of them that believe." "For I know whom I have believed (trusted), and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day." "If we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end."

[PART II,

fences, their penal character, and become parts of a
merciful discipline, "working together for good."

is but one general judgment, there can be no acts of
The second argument assumes, that because there
is in no sense contrary to the other. Justification may,
judgment which are private and personal. But the one
a merciful constitution, as before explained, and yet
therefore, be allowed to be a judicial proceeding under
offer no obstruction to a general, public, and final
judgment. The latter indeed grows out of the former;
for since this offer of mercy is made to all men by the
Gospel, they are accountable for the acceptance or re-
fusal of it, which it is a part of the general judgment to
exhibit, that the righteousness of God, in the punish-
demonstrated and the ground of the salvation of those
ment of them "that believe not the Gospel," may be
who have been sinners, as well as the rest of man-
kind, may be declared. We may also farther observe,
from interfering with acts of judgment in the proceed.
that so far is the appointment of one general judgment
ings of the Most High as the governor of men, that he is
constantly judging men, both as individuals and nations,
and distributing to them both rewards and punishments.

last day, proceeds, also, upon a false assumption. It
takes justification then and now for the same act; and
The argument from the justification of men at the
it supposes it to proceed upon the same principle; nei-
ther of which is true.
cation of believers in this life is the remission of sins;
1. It is not true that it is the same act.
but where are we taught that remission of sins is to be
attained in the day of judgment? Plainly nowhere,
The justifi-
and the whole doctrine of Scripture is in opposition to
to the present life only. When our Lord says, " by thy
this notion, for it confines our preparation for judgment
thy words thy sins shall be forgiven;" and if this is not
words thou shalt be justified," he does not mean "by
maintained, the passage is of no force in the argument.

"Who

The fourth theory which we may notice, is that which rejects justification in the present life, and defers its administration to the last day. This has had a few, and but a few abettors, and the principal argu- the same principle, and, therefore, is not to be concluded 2. Justification at the last day does not proceed upon ments for it are, 1. That all the consequences of sin to be the continuance of the same act, commenced on are not removed from even believers in the present earth. Justification at the last day is, on all hands, life, whereas a full remission of sin necessarily implies allowed to be by works; but, if that justification mean the full and immediate remission of punishment. 2. the pardon of sin, then the pardon of sin is by works That if believers are justified, that is, judged in the and not by faith, a doctrine we have already refuted present life, they must be judged twice, whereas from the clear evidence of Scripture itself. The justthere is but one judgment, which is to take place atification of the last day is, therefore, not the parChrist's second coming. 3. That the Scriptures speak don of sins; for if our sins are previously pardoned, of justification at the last day, as when our Lord de- we then need no pardon; if they are not pardoned, no clares that every idle word that men shall speak they provision for their remission then remains. And as shall give an account thereof in the day of judgment," and adds, "by thy words thou shalt (then) be justi- for, as to those sins of which the wicked have not been fied, and by thy words shalt thou be condemned." this justification is not pardon, neither is it acquittal; have not been guilty, and there can be no acquittal as to guilty, they will not be acquitted of them, because an allthose they have committed. Believers will not be acquitwise God will not charge them with those of which they ted of the sins for which they have obtained forgiveness, because they will not be charged upon them. shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect, it is God that justifieth." So far from their being arraigned as sinners, that their justification on earth may be forthe very circumstances of the judgment, will be a public recognition, from its very commencement, of their parmally pleaded for their acquittal at the last day, that don and acceptance upon earth. shall rise first." their bodies being made like unto Christ's "glorious "The dead in Christ body." Those that sleep in Christ shall "God bring "They rise to glory, not to shame," with him" in his train of triumph; they shall be set on his "right hand," in token of acceptance and fa"the book of life," in which their names have been prevour; and of the books which shall be opened, one is tion at the last day, if we must still use that phrase, which has little to support it in Scripture, and might viously recorded. It follows, then, that our justificabe well substituted for others less equivocal, can only be declarative, approbatory, and remunerative. Declarative, as recognising, in the manner just stated, the justification of believers on earth; approbatory, of them, as made graciously rewardable, in their different their works of faith and love; and remunerative of measures, by the evangelical constitution.

To all these arguments, which a few words will refute, the general, and indeed sufficient answer is, that justification in the sense of the forgiveness of sins, the only import of the term in question, is constantly and explicitly spoken of as a present attainment. This is declared to be the case with Abraham and with David, by St. Paul; it was surely the case with those to whom our Lord said, "Thy sins be forgiven thee; and with her of whom he declared, that having "much forgiven she loved much." "We have," says St. Paul, writing to the Colossians, "redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins." So plain a point needs no confirmation by more numerous quotations; and the only means which the advocates of the theory have resorted to for explaining such passages consistently with their own views, is absurdly, and we may add audaciously, to resolve them into a figure of speech which speaks of a future thing when certain, as present; a mode of interpretation which sets all criticism at defiance.

As to the first argument, we may observe, that it assumes, that it is essential to the pardon of sin, that all its consequences should be immediately removed, or otherwise they assert it is no pardon at all. This is to aflirm, that to be freed from punishment in another life, and finally, and indeed in a short time, to be freed from the afflictions of this, is not a pardon; which no one can surely deliberately affirin. This notion, also, loses sight entirely of the obviously wise ends which are answered by postponing the removal of affliction and diseases from those who are admitted into the Divine favour, till another life; and of the sanctification of all these to their benefit, so that they entirely lose, when they are not the consequence of new of

against the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and
And here it may not be amiss to notice an argument
drawn from the proceedings of the last day" If
in favour of justification by faith and works, which is
works wrought through faith are the ground of the sen- *

F

The last theory of justification to which it is necessary to advert, is that comprised in the scheme of Dr. The observations which have been made on the subTaylor, of Norwich, in his Key to the Apostolic Writ-ject, in the preceding chapter, will render it the less ings. It is, that all such phrases as to elect, call, adopt, necessary to dwell here at length upon the nature and extent of Regeneration.