and to whom, he says, ' (humanly speaking) I almost owe my soul,' was Thomas Scott, the commentator,—that he admired the writings of Romaine, and 'hung upon the lips of Daniel Wilson;' yet all this Evangelical, and even Calvinistic, teaching has resulted in his renouncing the Protestant, and preferring the Romish, doctrine of a sinner's acceptance in the sight of God. (3)

This is only one specimen, selected from among many which might be mentioned, of a process which has been going on extensively for years past, in certain circles of society, and which, whether it results in avowed Romanism, or stops short at some intermediate stage, indicates, with sufficient clearness, an uneasy restlessness of mind, arising partly from some sense of sin, but also from superficial views of men's guilt and helplessness as sinners, and partly from inadequate apprehensions of the nature, value, and efficacy of the remedy which is provided for them in the Gospel. Hence the necessity of expounding anew, in these critical times, and that, too, for the benefit of Evangelical Protestants themselves, the full meaning, and the scriptural proofs, of the cardinal doctrine of the Gospel,—the doctrine of a full and free Justification, by grace, through faith in Christ alone. It is true that the writings to which I have referred, may be confined, in the first instance, to the educated classes, and may not directly affect the great body of the Protestant community; but, not to speak of the inevitable influence which, in this age of general literature, minds of high culture will ever exercise on popular opinion, it must never be forgotten that there is a deeper and more fertile source of error on this subject than false teaching from without,-it has an ally and an accomplice within; for there is profound truth in the memorable saying of Robert Trail: There is not a minister that dealeth seriously with the souls of men,

but he finds an Arminian scheme of justification in every unrenewed heart.' (4)

That these Lectures may be adapted to the exigencies of the present times, it is necessary to keep steadily in view the theories and speculations which have recently appeared, and to suggest such considerations as may serve to neutralize or counteract their injurious influence. But they are designed to be didactic, rather than controversial. For it has long been my firm conviction, that the only effective refutation of error is the establishment of truth. Truth is one, error is multiform; and truth, once firmly established, overthrows all the errors that either have been, or may yet be, opposed to it. He who exposes and expels an error, does well; but it will only return in another form, unless the truth has been so lodged in the heart as to shut it out for ever. The great object, therefore, should be, to expound the doctrine of Justification in its full meaning, as it is revealed in Scripture,—to illustrate the great principles which are involved or implied in it, to adduce and apply the scriptural proofs on which it rests, and to contrast it with such other methods of obtaining pardon and acceptance with God as men have devised for themselves; and this, with a view to two practical results: first, to direct some, whose consciences have been awakened but not appeased, to a sure ground of immediate pardon and acceptance; and secondly, to direct believers, who are still burdened with doubts and fears, to such views of the nature, grounds, and evidences of this great Gospel privilege, as may serve, under the divine blessing, to raise them to a more comfortable enjoyment of it, by adding the 'assurance of faith' and 'hope' to 'the assurance of understanding.'

PART I.

HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. (1)

LECTURE I.

HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.

BY

Y Justification we mean-man's acceptance with God, or his being regarded and treated as righteous in His sight-as the object of His favour, and not of His wrath; of His blessing, and not of His curse. This is the formal definition, or generic description of it, whether it be considered as an act on the part of God, or as a privilege on the part of man. Many have taken a partial and defective view of it, as if it consisted merely in the pardon of sin; but in the case of a moral and responsible agent, placed in a state of probation, with a view to reward or punishment, there might, and there would, have been justification, had there been no sin to be forgiven, as is evident from that of the angels who 'kept their first estate.'

When Justification is thus defined or described, it may seem to be possible only in the case of innocent and unfallen beings, and to be utterly beyond the reach of such as are guilty and depraved. And so it is on the footing of mere law, and on the ground of personal obedience to it. For that law is the rule of God's righteous judgment;

B

and, His judgment being ever according to truth, He cannot justify the wicked, any more than He can condemn the righteous, when respect is had solely to their personal character and conduct. The law which proclaims the punishment of sin can contain no provision for the pardon of it; and if it be the sole rule by which we are to be justified or condemned, our justification is impossible; for our own hearts condemn us, and God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all things.' Had we been left, therefore, to the mere light of nature, and without a supernatural revelation of 'the will of God for our salvation,' we could never have answered the question-'How shall a man be just with God?'

This is the great problem which the Gospel of Christ, and that only, has undertaken to solve; and it is the history of that problem, and of its divine solution, as contrasted with the devices and inventions of men, which we propose to trace through its successive stages, from the beginning down to the present day. But we cannot understand the relation which subsists between the Law and the Gospel, in so far as they bear respectively on the question at issue, without some knowledge of the fundamental principles which are common to both; and, for this reason, we must consider, in the first instance, the Justification of the Righteous, and thereafter proceed, in the second, to the Justification of Sinners.

I. The Justification of the Righteous comes first. The doctrine of Justification had its origin in the earliest revelations which were made to the first parents of our race in primæval times. It cannot be ranked among the truths of, what is commonly called, Natural Religion; for, although there is a valid natural evidence for the being and attributes of God, for His providential and