SERMON VI.

ROMANS iii. 24, 25.

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption, that is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.

FEW subjects have afforded more scope for controversy, or produced a greater variety of distinctions without a difference, of definitions sometimes inaccurately conceived on one side, and often totally misrepresented on the other, than the plain doctrine of faith in the propitiatory blood of a Redeemer. Human ingenuity has been exhausted to prove, what, at the time it was stated, human intellect cannot comprehend the appeal has been made to feeling rather than to argument; to certain internal persuasions and convincing experiences, as they have been called, which mock the powers of language to describe, and elude all rational investigation. While

the judgment has been restrained, the imagination has received an unlimited indulgence; and the love of mystery frequently superseded the sober enquiry after truth. But to questions of this description, as the spurious productions of a more recent period, the topic, which comes next to be discussed, is in no respect allied. Averting therefore from more modern and of course irrelevant disquisitions upon this subject, brought forward by a class of theological disputants, who had in view a new object, and consequently gave a new turn to the question, I shall endeavour simply to consider it, as it was originally contested between the Lutherans and the Church of Rome.

But here, to avoid a misconception of the argument, it seems necessary previously to state in what sense the word Justification, which comprehends the sole ground of contention, was used by the opposing parties. Upon both sides it was supposed entirely to consist in the remission of sin (1).

The Scholastics on this head were remarkably distinct in their ideas, and express in their language. They represented it as an effect produced by the infusion of

divine grace into a mind properly disposed; not as consequent to a well spent life, but as preceding all remunerable obedience, as the intervening point between night and day, the gloom of a guilty and the light of a self-approving conscience; or in other words, and to adopt their own phraseology, as the exact boundary where merit of congruity ends, and merit of condignity begins, the infallible result of a previous disposition on our part, which never fails of alluring from on high that supernatural quality, which, being itself love, renders the soul beloved (2).

While the Lutherans however adhered to the general import of the term, as understood in the Schools, they waged an incessant warfare upon another point; while they allowed, that justification consists in the remission of sin, they denied, that this remission is to be acquired by the merit of the individual. Their opponents maintained, that man is justified in the sight of God in consequence of his own preparation, and on account of his personal qualities. They on the other hand argued, with an inflexibility, which admitted of no compromise, that, possessing not merits of his own to plead, he freely received for

giveness through the mercy of God solely on account of the merits of Christ. The effective principle, therefore, or meritorious cause of justification, it should be observed, was the great point contested.

But before I particularize the doctrine of the Lutherans upon this subject, it will be requisite more at large to explain that of their adversaries.

To investigate it however minutely, to trace it through its circuitous channels, and mark its progress, winding in all the fantastical curves of metaphysical vanity, would prove a tedious as well as unnecessary task. The principle of it still remains the same, and constantly recurs to the eye how much soever varied.

When the sinner, conscious of his past transgressions, enquired where he was to seek the expiation of his crime, and deliverance from the dreadful consequences of it, their general answer was in the merit of penitence, a merit capable of annihilating guilt, and appeasing the anger of incensed Omnipotence. He, they argued, who, having disobeyed the laws of heaven, is desirous of returning into that state of acceptance, from which he has fallen, must not expect free forgiveness; but previously

by unfeigned sorrow of heart deserve the restoration of grace, and with it the obliteration of his offences. To effect this desirable purpose he is bound strictly to survey and detest his former conduct, accurately to enumerate his transgressions, and deeply feel them, and, impressed with a due sense of their magnitude, impurity, and consequences, to condemn his folly, and deplore his fault, which have made him an outcast of heaven, and exposed him to eternal misery. So far he can proceed by that operation of the mind, which they denominated Attrition, and which being within the sphere of his natural powers they regarded as congruous piety meritorious of justification, as a preparation of the soul more or less necessary to receive and merit justifying grace. When he is arrived therefore at this point, attrition ceases, and contrition commences; the habit of sin is expelled, while that of holiness is superinduced in its stead, and with the infusion of charity, the plastic principle of a new obedience, justification becomes complete. But even here it was not conceived, that a total deliverance takes place; a liberation from guilt and eternal punishment is effected; but not from temporal, which is