same sense that God forgives sinners, or that God forgives sinners in the same sense in which we are to forgive those who have injured us. Taking this view, who does not see that gospel forgiveness implies the remission of the punishment of sin? Deny this and you involve consequences fatal to religion; you give full license to exact to the utmost the punishment of those who have injured us, and retaliation and revenge are thus let loose unbridled upon society. Could mercy be expected at the hand of those who believe that forgiveness implies no remission of punishment? Do universalists act up to their belief on this point, or are their hearts better than their creeds? That class of texts, which speak of the remission of sin teaches the same sentiment.

Luke xxiv. 46, 47. "Thus it is written and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations." Matt. xxvi. 28. "For this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many, for the remission of sins." Luke i. 77. "To give knowledge of salvation unto his people, by the remission of their sins." Acts ii. 38. "Repent and be baptised every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." x. 43. "Through his name, whosoever believeth on him, should receive the remission of sins." Rom. iii. 25. "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past."

These quotations are sufficient to show that the scriptures teach that Gospel salvation implies remission of sin. What then is remission? Or what does God do for us when he remits our sins? We maintain that he remits the punishment which our sins deserve. To remit an offence is to pardon the offender which we have already shown implies a deliverance from punishment. The Greek word, aphesin, which our translators have rendered remission, is derived from aphiemi, which signifies to send away; hence, when God remits our sins, he in some sense dismisses or sends them away, and it is not possible to conceive in what sense this can be done, unless it is by a pardon, which annuls the guilt of sin, and consequently, dismisses the sinner from the suffering which is its

just punishment. There is not the least ground to maintain that remission of sin implies the preventing of its commission in future, for it is said, in one of the above quoted texts, that Christ is set forth to be a propitiation "for the remission of sins that are past;" hence, it is sins that have been already committed that are remitted.

III. The plain scriptural doctrine of justification, by grace through faith, clearly implies salvation from the punishment which sin deserves. Avoiding all scholastic and technical terms in the statement of the doctrine of justification we will endeavor to give it a scriptural and common sense definition, by saying that the scriptures employ the term justification in opposition to condemnation and to liability to punishment, so that when a man is condemed, in a scriptural sense, he is not justified, but is liable to punishment; and when a man is said to be justified, he is not condemned, or is delivered from condemnation, and consequently, not liable to punishment. Rom. v. 18. "Therefore, as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." In this text condemnation is opposed to justification, and the latter is a deliverance from the former, which fully confirms the above view of justification. If, however, another proof text is necessary on this point, we have it at hand in the 9th verse. "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." This text asserts salvation from wrath, which is but another word for punishment, to be the result of justification; hence, justification must be the opposite of condemnation, and salvation, which follows from justification, must be the opposite of the punishment to which condemnation exposes or consigns us. It is settled, then, that justification is the opposite of condemnation by which we are exposed to punishment. John iii. 18. "He that believeth not is condemned already." Indeed it would be trifling to prove for the satisfaction of universalists, that all sinners are under condemnation and exposed to punishment, for they contend that every man must be punished for all the sin he commits without the possibility of escaping it, which is the very sentiment against which we are contending. While we contend that all sinners are under

condemnation and exposed to punishment, we maintain that the gospel proposes salvation from such punishment on certain conditions. It being agreed on both sides that all sinners are under condemnation and exposed to punishment, it follows that from such condemnation and punishment they must, in some way, be delivered, for nothing is more plain than that they cannot go to heaven under condemnation and a liability to punishment. How then are sinners delivered from the condemnation and punishment to which their sins have exposed them? So far as this controversy is concerned, there can be but two ways of deliverance proposed. Universalists maintain that the offender suffers all that his sin deserves, while we resort to the doctrine of justification, by grace through faith, maintaining that this doctrine, as above stated, is totally irreconcilable with the notion that men are delivered from guilt and condemnation only by suffering all the punishment which sin deserves. It is plain that both of these positions cannot be true. If men can and do suffer the full punishment of sin, in a limited period, at the expiration of which they are exempt from condemnation and punishment, on the ground of having suffered all they deserve, then, they are justified by the law through suffering, and, consequently, cannot be be justified by grace through faith. On the other hand, if sinners are justified by grace through faith, they cannot be condemned and punished, for we have shown that justification is opposed to condemnation. Again punishment does absolve the sinner from guilt, or it does not Now if punishment does absolve the sinner from guilt, he is not and cannot be justified by grace through faith; but if punishment does not absolve the sinner from guilt, the idea of the sinner's suffering all he deserves, as prerequisite to salvation, vanishes forever; for, in such case, let him suffer as long as you please, he will still be just as guilty as at the moment he endured the first pang, and, consequently, just as much deserving of punishment; he must therefore be justified and saved from punishment on some other ground than that of enduring all he deserves, or suffer forever. Taking this view, it only remains to show that sinners are justified by grace through faith and through faith only, and the argument will be conclusive. This point has already been proved by

of

the scriptures quoted to shew that justification is the opposite of condemnation, but we will give the point farther confirmation in this place. We would remark that the grace God, manifested through Jesus Christ, is the ground of our justification or acceptance with him. Rom. iii. 24. "Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." Titus iii. 7. "That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." That faith is the gospel condition of justification, is too plain to need argument, the point having been once argued and established by St. Paul. Gal. ii. 16. “ Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ." iii. 8. "And the scriptures foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham." Rom. iii. 30.

Seeing it is one God which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith." v. 1. "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God." Gal. iii. 11. "That no man is justified by the law, in the sight of God, it is evident, for the just shall live by faith." These pointed declarations from the pen of inspiration, concerning the gospel mode of justification, must determine it to be by grace through faith; and as we have just shown that it is totally irreconcilable with the idea, that the sinner suffers all the penalty he deserves, it follows that the gospel provides for the deliverance of the guilty from the punishment they deserve, and that those who are saved with gospel salvation, do not suffer all the punishment due to their sins.

It will be worse than in vain, to attempt to evade the force of this argument by supposing that justification does not cover the ground of past transgression, but that we are only saved from the commission of sin in future by grace through faith, and that we are thereby justified, i. e. saved from condemnation by being first saved from the commission of sin, for which all must be condemned by whom it is committed. To this exposition of the doctrine of justification we object on the following ground:

1. It destroys the very notion of justification itself. In such case, the sinner is not justified in view of his past sins, for which he suffers a full penalty, and in view of the future

he is not and cannot be justified, and can need no justification, having never been under condemnation. Nothing can be more clear than that justification relates to the sinners's past delinquency, and that it is a deliverance from the guilt and punishment of sin. Acts xiii. 39. " By him all that believe are justified from all things, from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses." Here, men are said to be justified by faith from that from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses. Now, from this it must follow that the Jews, under the law of Moses, could not live without transgression, so as to be justified by the non-commision of sin, or else that the gospel, which justifies from what the law could not, makes provision for saving men from past sins; either of which is fatal to the notion that the gospel justifies only by saving from the commission of sin in future. To suppose that men were not able to live under the law of Moses so as to be justified by the non-commission of sin, and at the same time maintain that there is no justification from sin after it is committed, only by suffering its punishment, would be no better than to assert outright that God punishes his creatures for that which they cannot avoid, and, consequently, for which they are not responsible or in the least to blame; which would be unjust, and, therefore, cannot be allowed. It is certain, then, that it must be possible for men to live under every divine dispensation so as to be justified; or, more properly speaking, to avoid condemnation, provided they improve to the best of their abilities all the means of moral culture which such dispensation affords. From what then are those who believe in Christ justified, from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses? We answer, while the law of Moses prohibited the commission of sin, it made no provision for delivering offenders from the moral guilt of their crimes after the law had been once violated; but this the gospel does, so that he that believeth is justified from all things, from which he could not be justified by the law of Moses. Rom. v. 16. "The judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification of life." This text applies the free gift of God's grace, through Jesus Christ, to the justification of the condemned from the guilt of past offences, in a manner too plain to need farther comment.