SERMON XII.

JUSTIFICATION.

HEB. XI. 8-19.

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. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable. These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such

things, declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city. By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only-begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

THE importance uniformly attached in scripture to the name of Abraham, furnished us with a reason for entering, in our last discourse, into a more minute examination of his general character than had hitherto been attempted; the same reason will account for our proposing to wind up the whole of our observations respecting him, by a few brief remarks on the great doctrine, which his history is so frequently employed to illustrate. Paul, more than once, refers to some analogy between the case of the patriarch and that of every sinful man who is justified by faith. In the particular exercise of mind and feeling, which Jehovah demanded of Abraham; in the personal blessing with which it was succeeded; and in the practical manifestations to which it led; we are said to have a

picture of what God requires of men under the gospel; of the way in which he will absolve them from all iniquity; and of the proofs which they are to afford of the moral power of the process by which the Divine mercy accomplishes their salvation. "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now, it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him, but for ours also, to whom it will be imputed if we believe on him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead." "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness."

The manner in which I conceive the proposed observations may be made the most intelligible to a general auditory, and which, therefore, I shall forthwith adopt, will be, first, to exhibit what justification is, and how it may be obtained among men, together with a description of the feelings occasioned by the different kinds of it, and the natural effects of these on subsequent conduct: next, to show how the mode and the results of a sinner's justification with God, tally with these; and then, to endeavour to detect the

point of coincidence, between this New Testament view of the matter, and that involved in the account of the "father of the faithful." Permit me to premise, that you are not to draw your conclusions from any one part of our illustration exclusively; you are to notice, as we advance, the separate and specific importance of each particular; to observe, also, its relative bearing upon the rest; and then, in the end, to mark the general result to which we shall be led; towards which result, each consideration will contribute something, and which, therefore, will require, for its just apprehension, a regard to all the considerations in their combined character.

I.

Justification is a term taken from judicial proceedings. It supposes an examination into conduct by comparing it with the requirements of some law. It is of two kinds, proper and improper, or primary and secondary. The first is, when the examination terminates in favour of the individual. He is proved and pronounced to be, literally and in fact, all that the law requires. This is justification-proper. The second sense of the term, refers to the delivery from punishment of a convicted offender. In

this case the examination terminates against the individual. He is proved and pronounced not to be what the law requires. A pardon, however, being granted, destroys the connexion between his conduct and its consequences. This is justification-improper, or secondary.

In both these cases the fact of justification would be the same, but the feeling of the supposed individuals would be very different. In justification-proper, the character of the man whose conduct is submitted to a comparison with the law, presents to the eye of the examiner a perfect counterpart of the law itself. Hence, the law, seeing this reflection of itself in the individual, pronounces that it has nothing against him, either as to accusation or penalty. He is declared free both from sin and guiltthat is, both from the actual violation of the law, which is sin; and from the relation to the law of one who has violated it, which is, exposure to punishment, or guilt.* The law looks upon him

*This term has two senses. It is sometimes employed to express personal culpability-the character of one who has committed offence. At others, it is employed to express answerableness to law, or exposure to punishment--the condition of one who is convicted of offence. The first may be termed its moral, the second its legal signification. An offender is guilty in the first sense before trial, and would continue so after it, were he, for want of evidence legally to convict him, to be acquitted. In the second sense he is not