could conceive of a change in God. It must remain eternally the same. It is God's published rule of government; and to suppose a change, would be to suppose his whole moral government altered.

The second remark, on this theory is, that we read of no such relaxed or mitigated law in Scripture. Some, indeed, have supposed that Christ added to the moral law, and made it more spiritual and perfect; but this is also a mistake. Christ expounded the law, and inculcated its true nature and spirituality; but every where he recognizes the same law as that given to the people by Moses, and summarily comprehended in the ten commandments. But to suppose that he came to relax the law, so that it might require less love and obedience, is far more revolting. It is, indeed, a refined system of Antinomianism. If the moral law could be relaxed in its demands, it might be removed altogether, and then there would be no need of justification.

But we ask to know precisely, what this new law is? What are its requirements? If we are not bound to love God with all the heart, and mind, and strength, what degree of love and obedience are now required? The answer to such questions has never been given; and cannot be given. It is loosely said, that repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, accompanied with Gospel obedience, are the things required to our justification. But still we ask, must these duties be perfect; or does any man repent as perfectly as he ought, or believe as firmly and constantly as he ought? If not, then we are in the same difficulty as if we were under the moral law; that is, an imperfect obedience to the Gospel is made the ground of our justification. The re laxation of the law, as to this objection, therefore, answers no purpose. We must have a perfect righteousness, to authorize a just judge to pronounce a sentence of justification.

This brings us up to the second method of obviating the objection, which is, to maintain the doctrine of perfection, or pardon from all sin, in this life. This doctrine has not only been maintained by fanatics, but by many others; and, indeed, is essential to this scheme of justification, by obedience to the new law of grace. For if we cannot render a perfect righteousness to this mitigated law, we might as well have remained under the old Adamic law. If an imperfect obedience to the Gospel is sufficient to justify, an imperfect obedience to the law might have done the same. It seems a necessary part of this scheme, therefore, that our obedience, in order to win justification, should be perfect. But though

this inference seems plain enough, there remain some formi dable difficulties in the way. As first, even if perfection be attainable in this life, it is admitted that it is the privilege of few to possess it. How then can the many who remain imperfect be justified, by a law, to which they have not rendered a complete obedience? This is not all. When we stand before God in judgment, we must account for the actions of our whole lives, and even those who are supposed to have arrived at perfection, reached this point, after years of sin and imperfection, by whatever law you judge them. If a saint becomes perfect at the last hour of life, will an hour's perfect obedience answer the demands of the law for a whole life? Surely not. Then, we see that even the doctrine of perfection, if all attained it, would not remove the difficulty. The truth is, it cannot be removed.

Those in New England, who claim for themselves, peculiarly, the denomination of " Hopkinsians," but who are more properly the disciples of Dr. Emmons, maintain a doctrine on the subject of justification, as well as on some other points, which among Protestants, is new and somewhat startling. They hold, if we understand their views, that Christ, as Mediator, did nothing else for our salvation, but by his sufferings make an atonement for our sins. They reject entirely his righteousness as imputed for justification, and teach, that while believing penitents receive the remission of all their sins, through Christ's atonement, they acquire a title to eternal life by their own obedience; which they do not hesitate to say is meritorious; or deserves the reward which is bestowed on them. Still they maintain, that all Christians upon earth are imperfect in holiness; but their notion of this imperfection is, that it does not consist in any deficiency in the particular acts or exercises of holiness; each of which they suppose to be as perfect as it can be, but in the intermixture of sinful acts. Their opinion is, that an act cannot be partly sinful and partly holy, but must be either the one or the other, entirely. Hence it follows, that if all the sinful actions be forgiven through the atonement, the holy acts, which are perfectly conformed to the law, will merit the promised rewards of obedience. This theory is connected with other peculiar and novel opinions, but as it is evidently on the wane, it will be unnecessary to enter into any discussion of the doctrine of justification as held by its abettors. Properly speaking, ac cording to this theory, though believers obtain pardon in this life, they are not justified until their course of obedience is completed. Their title to eternal life is acquired by their own

works; and their obedience must be finished before the title is secured.

If that part of the system, which supposes all holy acts to be perfectly holy, could be sustained, there would be something plausible in the theory. But it is not more a matter of conscious certainty, that we have sinful exercises, than that our holy affections are deficient in their intensity. When we feel reverence for God, is the emotion as deep as it should be? Who among men, ever loved Christ, for one moment, as fervently as he ought? When we feel gratitude for the divine goodness, are we ever as thankful in degree, as we should be? Every one must answer these questions for himself; the appeal can only be made to experience. But the opinion, it is probable, arose out of the theory, and the origin of the error, as we must esteem it, is to be traced to incorrect views of the nature of sin; which they make to consist only in positive acts. But if sin may consist also in defect, and if this be truly the origin and formal nature of sin, as almost all sound divines have held, then, while there is sincere love to God, the affection may not, in intensity, be as strong as it should be. And that this is the real state of the case may be known by an appeal to our own consciousness.

SECTION VII.

JUSTIFICATION DOES NOT CONSIST MERELY IN THE PARDON OF OUR SINS, BUT ALSO IN THE ACCEPTANCE OF OUR PERSONS AS RIGHTEOUS.

This discussion might with propriety have come under the head of the "Nature of Justification," which involved the true meaning of the word; and there, the subject was adverted to; but as this is a main point in our controversy with the Arminians, the consideration of it has been reserved for this place. The object, doubtless is, to get rid of the imputation of Christ's active obedience; for if justification is nothing more than the pardon of sin, then, manifestly, there is no necessity for the righteousness of Christ, properly so called. In defence of their opinion, they allege, that the Scriptures speak of justification and pardon as the same thing; and that the law cannot, at the same time, have a two-fold claim on the sinner both for suffering and obedience. It is their opinion, that, if we obey the law, we are not bound to endure the

penalty; so, if we suffer the penalty there can be no demand for obedience, for the time past. This, therefore, may be considered a cardinal point in this controversy. If we cannot overthrow the Arminian foundation as now exhibited, we shall fail in establishing the doctrine of our standards. But we feel a strong confidence that we have truth on our side, and if it should not be fully vindicated, it should be attributed to the unskilfulness of the advocate who has undertaken its defence.

Deliverance from the guilt of sin is that which the convinced sinner is led most earnestly to seek. There can of course be no justification of the person unless sin is pardoned, for unpardoned sin is a state of condemnation. Justification must, of necessity, therefore, include the forgiveness of sins. And as this is the blessing first sought, and most needed, the whole effect and consequences of Christ's mediatorial work, while under the law, is often expressed by the "remission of sins;" and the blessings procured by the active obedience of Christ are in these cases to be understood as included. Just as in the expiatory sufferings of Christ, in common, nothing but his blood is mentioned; whereas his most bitter and oppressive sufferings were in his soul, without bodily wounds. But though it is very common to comprehend the whole of the blessings purchased by Christ by the remission of sins; yet in other passages other blessings are expressly mentioned. Indeed, every passage in which Christ's mediatorial work is designated by the word righteousness, ought to be considered as inculcating the doctrine that he fulfilled the law for us by his active obedience. But as this point will be fully discussed in the sequel, it is unnecessary to say more in this place.

The pardon of sin alone, can with no propriety be denominated justification. Pardon and justification are not only distinct, but in common cases, utterly incompatible. A. culprit tried and condemned, may among men be pardoned, but it would be a solecism to say, that such a man was justified. Pardon supposes that the law has been broken, and its penalty incurred; justification supposes, that upon trial, the person arraigned is found to have complied with all the demands of the law. The same incompatibility would exist between pardon and justification, in regard to the sinner, under the Gospel, if nothing took place but a mere remission of past sins. The name justification, in that case could not have been properly used. But by the plan of Salvation through Christ, there is not only a ground for pardon, but

there is rendered to the law a RIGHTEOUSNESS, which lays the foundation for an act of justification. By pardon, the sinner is freed from condemnation, by justification, he is entitled to the heavenly inheritance. This, Christ has purchased for him, by his perfect obedience, unto death.

But the dispute is not merely about the propriety or impropriety of a term; there are important principles involved in this controversy. We maintain, that the law when violated has a double claim on the transgressor. It still retains its original demand of obedience, of which he never can di vest himself; and it now binds him over to the endurance of the penalty. To suppose that suffering the penalty, is an equivalent for obedience, and entitles to the same rewards is extremely absurd. It would be to suppose that Jehovah who loveth righteousness and hateth iniquity, would be as well pleased with sin, accompanied with its due punishment, as with perfect obedience to his own most holy law. The enduring a penalty in his own person, or by another, never can entitle any one to any thing else than exemption from that which he has already endured. To illustrate this principle by a familiar case, let us suppose a law enacted in the state, which promises an inheritance to him who shall obey it without one failure, but threatens ten years imprisonment to him who shall transgress its precepts: a person under this law incurs the penalty, and suffers his ten years in prison. When this is suffered, has he the same rights and claims, as if he had rendered an unsinning obedience? Would any man in his sober senses believe, that when he came out of the penitentiary, he had as good a right to the promised inheritance, as the citizen who had perfectly obeyed the law? And if the penalty were endured by a substitute, the effect would be the same. If a surety would secure the inheritance for him, he must obey the law in his stead, as well as suffer its penalty. Hence it appears evident, that justification includes more than merely the remission of sins, or it would be no justification; and although pardon is included in justification; yet the transaction receives this denomination not from the forgiveness of sin, but from the imputation of righteousness, by which the believer is constituted righteous; and by which a title to eternal life is procured for him by the merit of his surety.

Justification, therefore, is not merely the forgiveness of sin, but in addition to this, a declaration that the justified person has a right to the blessings promised. He not only obtains deliverance from the sentence of condemnation, but instantly