this subject, (1 John, iv. 10, 11; John, iii. 16; Rom. v. 8; viii. 32,) must be destitute of every tender sensibility and of every human feeling. The proof that this doctrine does actually excite this feeling and is adapted to the necessity of man, may be seen not only in the joyful reception with which it met from the better part of the Jews at the time of the apostles, but also in the approbation of it in succeeding ages, which | has been, and is still, expressed by so many men of all nations; and also in the astonishing effects which it has produced. God, therefore, as the scriptures represent, (Rom. iii. 25,) has set forth Jesus as a Propitiator, to assure men of his gracious disposition towards them; in order, by this means, both to lead them from a merely external service of him to a spiritual worship, and also to convince them in an affecting manner, as well of his holiness and justice as of his compassionate goodness and grace; and so, by the alarming apprehensions and thankful feelings which flow from such considerations, to influence them to exercise pure virtue, sincere piety, and devotion to God, to cherish and exhibit love to him who first loved them. This representation, which is founded on the holy scriptures, contains nothing irrational, and is entirely suited to the moral nature of man. SECTION CIX. (1) In such as describe the ruinous consequences of sin, and which present the judgments of God in a fearful and terrific light, as severe and intolerable-e. g., Heb. x. 31; Ps. xc. 11; cxxx. 3. To the same purpose are many of the examples given in the scriptures, especially in the history of the Israelites. (2) In such as describe the judgments of heaven upon those who do not fulfil the conditions prescribed, and are destitute of faith in Jesus Christ, as certain and inevitable—e. g., Heb. iii. 12, 13; Rom. ii. 1-3, coll. i. 32. (3) In such as shew that no one can enjoy tranquillity and happiness who has no assurance that his sins are forgiven-e. g., Heb. x. 26, 27. The example of David and other saints, who have been deeply troubled on account of their sins, and anxious for the consequences of them, contain much instruction upon this subject, Psalm li., cxxx., &c. II. Scriptural Terms and Phrases denoting Forgiveness. The pardon or forgiveness of sin which men obtain from God is expressly mentioned in the New Testament as the effect and consequence of the atonement or redemption (ároλútpwois) of Christ. In Eph. i. 7, the apɛσis лapanTwμáτων is represented as belonging to the ἀπολύτρωσις διὰ αἵματος Χριστοῦ, and as a consequence of it. Cf. Col. i. 14; Heb. ix. 15; "Christ died εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτη διαθήκη SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE RESPECTING THE NECESаpaßásewv." Romans, iii. 24, "We are par- THEY ARE DESIGNATED. doned, δικαιούμενοι διὰ ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Xplot," &c. The principal terms are the following-viz., (1) Karanhayn, reconciliation, (Germ. Versöhnung,) and xaraλλáooqμai. Cf. Morus, pages 113-166, s. 9-11. This phraseology was primarily used with respect to enemies who were reconciled, or who became friends again; 1 Cor. vii. 11; Matt. v. 24. Then it was transferred to God. The first origin of this phraseo The Necessity and Indispensableness of Forgiveness. As sin is justly represented in the holy scriptures as a very great evil, from which no one is free, so, on the other hand, the forgiveness of sins is described as one of the greatest benefits, which no one can do without. It is very im-logy with respect to him is to be found in the portant for the religious teacher to lead those fact that men had gross conceptions of the subcommitted to his charge to consider this subject ject, and supposed the manner of the divine as it is exhibited in the scriptures; for almost conduct to be like that of men. Whoever transinnumerable mistakes are made respecting it by gressed the law of God provoked him to angermen in every rank and of every character, the i. e., to displeasure and to a strong expression high and the low, the enlightened and the igno- of it. (Hence the judgments of God are called rant, Many make but little account of sin, pyn, ixdíxnois Orov.) God must now be apand, through levity or erroneous speculation, peased, and the transgressor must endeavour to overlook its consequences, and of course make make God again his friend. Such was the light of forgiveness. Others believe that they common and popular language on this subjectcan easily obtain forgiveness, and rely on the language which was universally intelligible, mercy of God, or on the merits of Christ, with- and which is always used in the holy scriptures out on their part performing the conditions upon in a sense worthy of God. Vide s. 86. Thus which their trust in these merits and their ex- when it is said in the New Testament, còs perience of them must depend. ἡμῖν καταλλάττεται, the meaning is, that through These injurious mistakes are opposed in Christ he withholds the expression of his dismany passages of the Bible. pleasure, the punishment of sin. Thus Paul uses this phraseology, 2 Cor. v. 19, and ex-| when he has paid his debt, or when it is remit plains it by the addition μὴ λογιζόμενος παραπτώς ted to him. Mara like the Hebrew yan, Psalm xxxii. 1, The phrases, καθαρίζεσθαι ἀφ' ἁμαρτιῶν, ραντ 2. In Rom. v. 11, he uses the phrase xaraλ- risɛodai, x. 7. 2., to be purified, washed, to purify λay áßoμer, in the same sense-i. e., we ob- oneself, occur very frequently. They were detain from God the forgiveness of sin. The lat- rived from the very common comparison of sin ter passage shews clearly that xara22ay does with stains and impurities. Hence Moses ornot denote the moral improvement of men, as dained purifications and washings as significant Eberhard, Gruner, and others explain it. On or symbolical rites. These phrases were used, the contrary, the term always implies the idea first, in respect to men, and denoted self-purifiof the mutual reconciliation of two parties, by cation (xas' ¿avróv,)—i. e., moral reformation, which two or more who were not previously on 1 John, iii. 3; 2 Cor. vii. 1; Heb. x. 22; which good terms become friends again. Kara22ay, however could not be done independently of then, as Morus remarks, (p. 165, ad finem,) God, but by his assistance; secondly, in respect means, the restoration of friendship, and the to God. He is said to purify men from sin—i. means of effecting this, through Christ; and xa-e., to consider them as pure, innocent-not to Ta22a66ew is, to bring about, or restore harmony and friendship. This harmony does not subsist between God and men as long as men are considered as transgressors, and God is compelled to punish them as such. They do not love God as their father, and he cannot love them as his children. That they learn how to love him, and that he is able to love them, they owe to Christ. He therefore is the peace-maker, the restorer of friendship, ὁ καταλλάσσων. (2) "Apeois áμaptiv, apiévai, and the similar phrases καθαρίζειν, χαρίζεσθαι ἁμαρτίας, πάρεσις, x. T. X. (a) Explanation of these terms and of the sentiment contained in them. "Apois and apíɛva are used literally to denote release, as from captivity, Luke, iv. 18; also remission of debt (debiti), Matt. vi. 12. Now sin was very frequently compared both with captivity and with debt; and hence, probably, this term was first used by the LXX. as correspondent with N. This phrase was always opposed to the inflicting of punishment, or the wrath of God, and denotes remission, forbearing to inflict pnnishment; Ex. xxxiv. 7. In Mark, iii. 29, exɛw äpeow is contrasted with evoxós koτw xpioews. To take away sin, and take away punishment, were thus one and the same thing with the Hebrews, Is. liii. And so it comes to pass that the words which stand for sin also stand for punishment. Thus to forgive sin, and to heal sickness (pœna peccati), were frequently the same, Matt. ix. 2, 5, 6, coll. Ps. ciii. 3. Similar to these are the other popular terms: as, pots, which is, the act of overlooking, Rom. iii. 25. God does not look upon sins, he forgets them, does not think of them; in opposition to thinking of them, placing them before his countenance (Psalm xc. 8)—i. e., punishing them, &c. Also, zapisosαι яаρаятwμata, Col. ii. 13, spoken of the remission of guilt; aλeipsiv ȧμaprias, Acts, iii. 19, answering to the Hebrew , Is. xliii. 25; used also by Lysias. The figure in this case is taken from an account book, in which the name of the debtor is obliterated | punish them. So Ps. li. 4, "Wash me from mine iniquities;" 1 John, i. 9; 2 Pet. i. 9, καθαρισμὸς τῶν πάλαι ἁμαρτιῶν. (b) Some are not content with making the forgiveness of sins to consist in the removal of the punishment of sin, but would have it extend to the removal both of the guilt (culpa) and punishment of sin, since both belong to the impu tution of sin. This statement, understood in a popular sense, is not objectionable; but strictly understood, it is. The established theory respecting the remission of sin has been transmitted from the time of Anselmus (s. 101, ad fin.), who brought the whole doctrine of justification into a judicial form, and arranged it like a legal process. Thus, when a thief has stolen, he must both restore the property stolen and suffer punishment. The guilt, in this case, is not removed by the punishment. The advocates of this opinion, therefore, comprehended under justification a special acquittal of guilt, different from the acquittal of punishment. This acquittal of guilt they considered as the imputation of the righteousness of Christ imputed to men by God, in the same way as if it had been wrought by them. In this way, as they thought, was the guilt of sin removed. Vide s. 115. But, First. This distinction between the guilt and punishment of sin is never distinctly made in the Bible when the forgiveness of sins is spoken of. Some have considered this distinction as implied in the passages which speak of the purification or washing away of sins, or in which sins are compared with debts; but without sufficient reason. The Bible makes justification the mere forgiveness of sins-i. e., removal of the punishment of them; without any special acquittal of guilt connected with it; as Rom. vi. 7, seq. Vide s. 110, "De obedientia Christi activa," from which the doctrine "De obedientia Christi passiva" must not be separated. The obedience of Christ shewn in acting and suffering is one and the same. The fruits of this obedience we enjoy, as will be seen from the texts cited below. The Bible does not se parate one kind of obedience from the other; | faction, and by those of the Romish church who neither should we. Vide s. 115. Secondly. The remission of the guilt of sin is not essential, and does not contribute to the real tranquillity of the sinner. The guilt of a sin once committed cannot be effaced. The conscience of the transgressor can never be made to pronounce him innocent, but will always regard him as having sinned. It is enongh to compose his mind, to know and be convinced that the punishment of sin has been remitted. But how can he be made to believe, and be happy in believing, that he is innocent, when, according to the testimony of his own conscience, he is guilty. Thirdly. The theory which teaches that the guilt of sin is removed is founded upon a comparison of the conduct of God towards men with the conduct of men among themselves, which is here entirely inapplicable. A criminal (e. g., a thief) who sins against his fellow men does them an injury. He must therefore make good their loss, besides suffering punishment. But men, by sinning, do not injure or rob God. They wrong only themselves. Now if men fulfil the prescribed conditions of obtaining pardon, God remits the punishment of sin; but God himself cannot remove the guilt of sin, in its proper sense. For God cannot err, and consider an action which is actually wrong, and consequently involves guilt, as right in itself. He, however, can forgive us, or remit the punishment which we deserve. He can regard and treat us, on certain conditions, as if we were in nocent. advocate good works as the procuring cause of salvation. But this interpretation does the greatest violence to the words in this passage. In connexion with this meaning, dixacov sometimes signifies emendare, probum reddere, Psalm lxxiii. 13 (in the Septuagint), and Rev. xxii. 11, seq. Some of the schoolmen call this justificatio physica. (b) One who is guilty is said to be justified when he is declared and treated as exempt from punishment, or innocent, or when the punishment of his sins is remitted to him. This is called justificatio externa. The terms justification, pardon, accounting righteous, occur in the Bible much more frequently in this sense than in any other, and so are synonymous with forgiveness of sin. This sense is founded on the judicial meaning of the word p737, to pardon, acquit, pronounce innocent, spoken of the Judge (py innocens); and of the opposite, y, damnere, pro reo declarere (vvy, reus)-e. g., Ex. xxiii. 7; Prov. xvii. 15, seq. This is transferred to God, who is conceived as the judge of the actions of men. Here, however, we must be careful not to carry the comparison too far, and must abstract from our conceptions all the imperfections which belong to human conduct. He condemns, or judges,―i. e., he punishes;—antecedens (the part of human judges)—pro consequente. The opposite of this, to acquit, pardon (Sıxaïovr), is then to remove punishment. This is done, however, as the Bible everywhere teaches, not propter justitiam internam hominis, as at human tribunals; for no one is innocent and pure from (3) Aixaíwois, dixaioovvy and dixaivosa, 20- sin; Rom. iii. 19, seq. According to the gosγίζεσθαι εἰς δικαιοσύνην, κ. τ. λ. These terms of the Grecian Jews can be explained only from the Hebrew usage. 3, in Hebrew and Arabic, in its primary and physical sense, means, rectus, firmus, rigidus fuit; then, in a moral sense, rectus fuit, in various modifications, degrees, and relations-e. g., verus et verax fuit, bonus, sc. benignus fuit; severus, æquus, JUSTUS, INNOCENS fuil, right, such as one should be; Ps. cxliii. 2, “No man is right in the sight of God." Hence we can explain the significations of prasa, dixaiovv, facere justum; and of dixaiovodai, fieri justum. A man may be justified in two ways-viz., pel, God bestows favour upon men gratuitously, on account of faith in Christ, on condition of holiness and of persevering in Christian confidence. The principal texts which support this doctrine, and in which dixaiwots and dixawoźn stand in this sense, are Rom. iii., iv., v., in opposition to the Jewish doctrine of the desert of works. These passages will be examined in the following sections. In Romans, iv., the term dixalour is used ver. 5; 20yirodai dixaioovvny, (to pardon, the opposite of 20ɣišɛodai ȧuapríav, to punish,) ver. 6; and åpíɛvai àμapriav, ver. 7. In Rom. v. 9, 11, dixaiovosai and xaraλháttɛodα are interchanged in the same way; and dixacoon is explained by ivdɛpía ἀπὸ ἁμαρτίας καὶ ῥανάτου. The words δικαιούν, dixaloon, are also opposed to opyǹ ☺ɛoù, Rom. i. 17, 18; to xaráxpiois, Rom. v. 16, 18; to yxaλɛiv, Rom. viii. 33. Cf. Storr, "De significatione vocis δικαιός in Nov. Test.” Opusc. Academica, t. i. (a) By perfect holiness, virtue, or uprightness of conduct; by being actually just, or such as one should be. Hence the phrase to justify, or to consider, pronounce, treat, reward one, as right, according to the above-mentioned sense. In this sense it is used by the LXX., Ps. cxliii. 2, οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐνώπιόν σου πᾶς ζῶν, and Ezek. xvi. 51, 52. This is called justificatio interna. | In this sense it is understood, in the important Note. The writings of theologians present passage respecting justification, Rom. v., both great diversity and difficulty in determining the by Socinians, who reject the doctrine of satis-idea of dixaíwors and dixαiovv. Most of the an cient Lutheran theologians, with whom Döder- | the divine purposes, we must guard against the lein and Seiler agree, consider justification as being merely the removal of punishment; while Koppe, Zacharia, Less, Danov, and others, comprise in this idea the whole purpose of God to bless and save men, of which the removal of punishment is only the commencement. These theologians maintain that justification is the same as predestination, only that justification is the less definite word of the two. Vide Zachariä, Bibl. Theol. iv. s. 548, seq., and especially Danov, Drey Abhandlungen von der Rechtfertigung; Jena, 1777; in answer to which Seiler wrote," Ueber den Unterschied der Rechtfertigung und Prädestination;" Erlangen, 1777, 8vo. Those who hold the former opinion consider the conferring of good as a consequence of justification, and appeal to the obvious texts, Rom. v. 1, 18, 21; Gal. iii. 11. They remark, that exemption from punishment and bestowment of blessing are not one and the same thing, since one who is acquitted in court is not, of course, promoted and rewarded. Those who hold the latter opinion mention the fact that p frequently means, benefit, blessing, recompence, and construe the phrase, oyisɛodai ɛis Sixaloovvny, which is first spoken of the faith of Abraham, Gen. xv. 6, to mean, to reckon as a merit, to reward; in the same way, Psalm cvi. 31, and Romans, iv. 4, where Paul himself explains pry by mosós. The declaring Abraham righteous did not consist in the simple forgiveness of his sins, but in the bestowment of blessing and reward. Cf. James, ii. 21. The following considerations may help to settle the controversy : (1) The purposes of God to forgive the transgressor his sins, and to make him happy, are one and the same; but they may be distinguished in our conceptions of them, and then his bestowing reward is the immediate consequence of his granting forgiveness. For when God forgives one his sins, the bestowment of the promised good immediately succeeds. And when God sees one incapable of this good, he does not forgive his sins. (2) The sacred writers do not, in their terms, so carefully distinguish and so logically divide these two ideas, which are so nearly related, as we do in scientific discussion. This is the less strange, as the words dixaιovv and dixaiwoię have very many and various senses, one of which frequently runs into the other. The words are sometimes used in the Bible exclusive, beyond a doubt, of the idea of blessing, and sometimes also inclusive of it. (3) But this should not hinder us from distinguishing these ideas, and considering them separately, for the sake of clearness in scientific discussion. Here, however, as in respect to all idea of succession; and also against mistake from a comparison with human tribunals, where one may be entirely acquitted, without, however, receiving reward, or any further provision for his welfare. The accused is absolved, and then left to seek his fortune where he pleases. But this is not the manner of God. Upon every one whom he forgives, or whom he counts righteous, God immediately bestows, on the ground of faith in Jesus Christ, all the good and blessing which the subject of his grace is capable of enjoying. This is the reason why the sacred writers frequently connect these two ideas in the same word. Cf. Noesselt, Pfingstprogramm, De eo quid sit, Deum condonnare hominibus peccata, panasque remittere? Halæ, 1792, (in his Exercitt.) Morus (p. 151, s. 5) has therefore well defined and explained the scriptural idea of the forgiveness of sins in the wide sense in which it frequently occurs in the Bible, as including (1) exemption by God from the fatal consequences of sin-i. e., from fear of the suffering or punishment consequent upon sin, and from this suffering and punishment itself, (un drónsodai, John, iii.;) (2) the bestowment of blessings, (Swǹv exɛev,) instead of this deserved punishment. For both we are indebted to Christ. The ground and motive, however, of the forgiveness of sin on the part of God is his unmerited goodness and benevolence. This is the uniform representation of the holy scriptures, John, iii. 16, seq. Morus, p. 152, s. 6. SECTION CX. ILLUSTRATION OF THE SCRIPTURAL STATEMENT THAT MEN OWE IT TO CHRIST ALONE THAT GOD JUSTIFIES THEM, OR FORGIVES THEIR SINS. SINCE Sin consists in transgression of the divine law, it is the prerogative of God alone to forgive sin. So the Bible everywhere teaches; Ps. li.; James, iv. 12, coll. Luke, v. 21. The gospel teaches that we are indebted for this forgiveness to Christ alone,—that God forgives on account of Christ. It everywhere magnifies this as one of the greatest divine favours, and as the foundation of all our blessedness; John, iii. 16; vi.; Heb. ix. 15; Rom. v. 1. Accordingly, the doctrine of forgiveness through Christ is always enumerated by the apostles among the principal doctrines and elementary principles of Christianity, which were never to be withheld in religious instruction. Vide 1 Thess. i. 10, 'Inøovs vóμɛvos žμàs åñò tès ópyès épxoμévns, et alibi. The Acts of the apostles and their epistles shew that they always commenced with this doctrine, and referred everything to it, both with Jews and Gentiles, enlightened and ignorant; because it is equally essential to all. The following classes comprise the principal | never sinned, as a sinner, in our stead, that we proof-texts relating to this point:— might be forgiven by God; γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ (i. e., δίκαιοι ἐνώπιον Θεοῦ) ἐν αὐτῷ,” on his account, ver. 19. (1) The texts which declare that Christ has atoned for us; and that to procure the remission of sins was the great object of his advent to the world; and that he accomplished this object; 1 John, ii. 1, 2; Heb. i. 3, A' favτov xasapioμòv noinsausvos tŵv åμaptiv jμv. Heb. ix. 26, “He has appeared before God (ɲɛpavéporal, ver. 24) with his offering, (dià Svoías avrov,) to take away sin, (sis áðétnow áμaptías,)”-i. e., he sacrificed himself for us, he died for us, to free us from the punishment of sin, (vide ver. 14.) (2) The texts which require from us an unlimited confidence (xíovis) in Christ, for the reason that we are indebted to him and to his person for our spiritual welfare and our acceptance with God. Acts, xxvi. 18, 2ɑßeir àpεow åμapTIWV-HÍOTEL TY εis èμé. ii. 38; Rom. v. 1, Δικαιωθέντες ἐκ πίστεως, εἰρήνην ἔχομεν πρὸς Oɛóv (the favour of God and peace of mind) dia Xptorov, (which we owe to Christ.) Eph. i. 7, Ἐν ᾧ (Χριστῷ) ἔχομεν ἀπολύτρωσιν διὰ αἵματος αὐτοῦ—i. e., τὴν ἄφεσιν παραπτωμάτων. (3) The texts which teach that there is no other way besides this in which the forgiveness of sin can be obtained. Heb. x. 26, "For those who apostatize, contrary to their better convictions respecting Christ (ixovoíws àμaptavóvtor, ver. 23; iii. 12, 13), there remains no atoning sacrifice (Svola reρi áμaρtiwv)”—i. e., there is no way for them to obtain the forgiveness of their sins, since this is the only way, and this way they despise. Cf. Heb. vi. 4, seq. The discourse of Peter, Acts, iv. 12, Oix kotu iv äλaq owτnpía, x. t. 2. Zwrŋpía, in this passage, is good, happiness, here and hereafter. This happiness can be obtained through no other person. The name (person) of no other man under heaven is given to us for this object. Όνομα here is connected ἐν ἀνθρώποις, no name among men. The meaning is, "We are directed by God to no other man, however holy, through whom to obtain safety and happiness, besides Jesus Christ." (4) The texts which teach clearly and expressly that God forgives men their sins, or justifies them, and frees them from the punishment of sin, solely on account of Christ. Acts, x. 43, "To him gave all the prophets witness, that whoever believes in him should through him (διὰ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ) receive remission of sins." (Cf. Ps. xxii., xl., cx.; Is. liii.) Acts, xiii. 38, “ Διὰ Τούτου ὑμῖν ἀφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν καταγγέλλεται, even of those from which you could not be justified according to the law of Moses." 1 John, ii. 12, 'Apéwvrau iμiv ai àμapriai dià tò övoua avrov, propter Christum. Rom. v. 10, Karyλháynμev tŸ Oɛ dià toi SaváTOU TOV Tiov avrov, coll. ver. 18, and 1 Thess. i. 10; 2 Cor. v. 21, "God treated him, who had But the passage which exhibits the mind of Christ and the apostles most fully and clearly is Romans, iii. 21-28. Cf. Noesselt, Abhandlung, Opusc. t. ii. Paul here opposes the prevailing mistake respecting the merit of good | works, and of the observance of the law, and the opinion that God loved the Jews alone, and comparatively disregarded every other people. Paul shews that, on the contrary, God feels a paternal interest in all men, and is willing to forgive all, since all, as sinners, need forgiveness; but that men can never obtain a title to this forgiveness by their own imperfect obedience to the law, but only by faith in Christ, to whom they are indebted for this favour, and in a way exclusive of all personal desert. "Now (in the times of the New Testament) we are made acquainted, by the Christian doctrine, with the purpose of God to forgive us (δικαιοouvy Oɛov, ver. 22, 24,) without respect to the observance of the law as anything meritorious, (xwpis vóuov;) of which purpose frequent indications appear even in the Old Testament. This is God's purpose to forgive men, on account of their faith in Jesus Christ, without their own desert. This forgiveness is extended to all (Jews and Gentiles) who believe in Christ. All are sinners, unworthy of the divine favour, and deserving of punishment. But God, in the exercise of his impartial, paternal love, desires to make all men happy, and accordingly intends this to be the means of the happiness of all. But this forgiveness is bestowed upon them without their deserving it, (dwpɛáv,) from the mere mercy (zápis) of God, through the atonement of Christ. God hath appointed Christ to be an atoning sacrifice, (inastŕpiov,) or a propitiator through faith in his blood, (i. e., God forgives us on his account, if we place our whole reliance upon his death, endured for our good.) He now indulgently forgives us our past sins, (committed before our conversion to Christ; cf. Heb. ix. 15.) He now shews (in these times of the New Testament) how merciful he is to all men, by forgiving (dixaovvra) every one (Jew or Gentile) who believes in Jesus Christ, (tòv ix níotews.)” The question arises, how and by what means has Christ procured for us pardon from God, or the forgiveness of sins ? We find many clear declarations upon this point in the discourses of Jesus himself, especially in the Gospel of John, where he frequently speaks of his death, and of the worth and advantages of it; John, iii. 14; Matt. xxvi. We find passages of the same kind even in the discourses of John the Baptist, John, i. 29; and in |