vision of his mercy to be a mere speculation, but revealed the righteousness of his Son to be an answer to the burning question, How shall I escape the wrath to come?

A creature like man, who has fallen from a state of virtuous obedience and contracted guilt, must need a double blessing, to render his recovery complete. Standing convicted at God's bar of breaking his law, we are in danger of eternal death, and can have no title to life; and having lost our virtuous character and state of mind, we could not, even if allowed, really enjoy and serve God, among holy beings, without a radical change of disposition. That the reversal of our condemnation may be called Justification, and our restoration to a holy character may, with equal propriety, be termed Sanctification, is at present assumed; for the scriptural propriety both of the nomenclature, and of the order in which the terms are here placed, are the questions that are now to be proved.

The importance of this discussion can be denied, only by those who, not having applied their minds seriously to the most momentous of all themes, have suffered themselves to remain ignorant of the way in which this subject is treated in the volume that reveals Divine mercy. That both terms, Justification and Sanctification, are there employed, is obvious to every attentive reader. The question of Justification is discussed at great length, as an affair of pure revelation, which we can know, only by being taught of God; while Sanctification is treated less systematically, as a correlate and consequence, understood,

perhaps, more readily than the former, especially by those who have obtained Justification.

These remarks are peculiarly applicable to the New Testament, which, as the second volume, is designed to perfect the revelation of our salvation; but its references to the Old, on the subject of Justification, are so numerous, and so important, as to demonstrate that the same mode of conferring the blessing has been adopted under every religious dispensation, as essential to the display of those attributes of God that were designed to have their appropriate exercise in our salvation. It is, therefore, not only to be regretted, but severely censured, that professed theologians have rushed into this arena, without informing themselves of the language of the Old Testament on the important subject. If ignorance of the Hebrew has been the cause, it is far from furnishing any apology; for who can deny that the careful examination of the original languages of revelation, is essential to the thorough discussion of its doctrines? On the question of Justification, this is especially demonstrable; for it is taught by the writers of the New Testament, not as a novelty, but as the doctrine of the ancient church, on which Christianity pours, not, so much, new, as more abundant light. If the same radical idea were not intended to be maintained in the Christian as in the Jewish church, the apostle's argument from the cases of Abraham and David would be vitiated, by a paralogism unworthy of honest teachers, and utterly inconsistent with inspiration from the God of truth. To treat the New Testament

as independent of the Old, betrays either ignorance or evil design. Our first duty, therefore, is to examine the language of the first volume of Revelation on the doctrine of Justification. This is happily an easy task; for the term is there used in a way that frees it from the embarrassment too often created by theological subtilties. It is in courts of law that we first find the familiar use of the term. The Hebrew py * like the Latin jus, is employed as the radix, whence branches out every term expressive of that justice, for the administration of which, courts of judicature were appointed by the supreme Governor "who sits upon the throne, judging righteously.'

צדק

That form of the Hebrew verb which is termed by Jewish grammarians Hiphil, or more philosophically the causative form, conveys the idea of making righteous judicially, that is pronouncing righteous, or as we express it, "justifying." In the judicial code of Moses, Deut. xxv. 1, we read, "If there be a con

* The school of Schultens maintains, that rigidity, or stiffness, and thence straightness, is the radical idea of py which gives rise to the moral sense of equity. This accords with the decision of Maimonides, in his 1, who opposes it to D, making the latter to signify benevolence overflowing; and thus the two contain the great principles of Dr. Edward Williams in his Essay on Equity and Sovereignty as the exponents of the government of God.

Parkhurst's notion of the equal poise of a pair of scales as the radical idea of p, is too artificial, and the text he pleads contradicts as much as it supports his opinion. For if scales of p seem to justify it, what shall we say of the ephah which follows? His allusion to the figure of Justice over the courts of law, poising her scales, is, however, instructive.

והצדיקר

troversy between men, and they come to judgment, that the judges may judge them, they shall justify the righteous and condemn the wicked." Here "then they shall justify the righteous,' manifestly expresses a judicial act, justifying as a judge does, who has nothing to do with altering the character of the parties on whom he passes sentence, and who no more makes just efficiently him whom he justifies, than he makes unjust, or wicked, the man he condemns. The justification of the judge merely pronounces a man rectus in curia. This is confirmed by Prov. xvii. 15, "He that justifies the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, they both are abomination to the Lord."

the Hiphil participle clearly מצדיק

expresses no efficient operation upon the wicked, to make him righteous in character, or disposition; for this could not be an abomination to the Lord; but for a judge to pronounce him just who was unjust, that is, to justify him when he was guilty, is an abomination. But in both these texts we should mark how justification is opposed to condemnation; for this will throw light on other texts. The general rule of justice is thus laid down for Israel, Exod. xxiii. 7, "Thou shalt not turn aside the judgment of thy poor in his suit; keep thee far from a false sentence, and the innocent and the just thou shalt not slay; for I will not justify the wicked." But who will pretend to say that God will not alter a wicked man, to make him possess a righteous character? The whole charge is manifestly forensic, and commands the judges to imitate God, the supreme Judge, to pronounce a just

sentence in courts of law.

When Absalom said,

2 Sam. xv. 4, "O that I were made judge in the land, that every man who has a suit might come to me; and I would justify him :" the young rebel was far enough from engaging to make every man righteous in character, though he flattered all with the hopes of a favourable sentence, if they would make him sovereign judge; referring, perhaps, to pleas of the crown. When Solomon prayed, at the dedication of the Temple, that God would hear and judge his servants, condemning the wicked, to bring his way upon his head; and justifying the righteous, to give him according to his righteousness, 1 Kings viii. 32, there was evidently no idea entertained of making the one righteous, any more than of making the other wicked; but justifying was opposed to condemning, and both were judicial declarations; sentences, not operations, on the persons.

It is, now, of the utmost importance to observe that the Old Testament uses this language concerning the promised Messiah, of whom we shall have to speak, when we examine the language of the apostles, who teach more fully the doctrine of our justification by Christ. The evangelical prophet says of him, Isa. lv. 25, "In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified and shall glory;" and in that 53rd chapter, which the New Testament expressly applies to Christ, we are assured that, after the Lord had laid on Christ the iniquity of us all, and he had borne our sins and carried our sorrows, and the chastisement that was to procure our peace

C