Lecture 1 History of the Doctrine in the Old Testament

By Justification we mean—man’s acceptance with God, or his being regarded and treated as righteous in His sight—as the object of His favour, and not of His wrath; of His blessing, and not of His curse. This is the formal definition, or generic description of it, whether it be considered as an act on the part of God, or as a privilege on the part of man. Many have taken a partial and defective view of it, as if it consisted merely in the pardon of sin; but in the case of a moral and responsible agent, placed in a state of probation, with a view to reward or punishment, there might, and there would, have been justification, had there been no sin to be forgiven, as is evident from that of the angels who ‘kept their first estate.’

When Justification is thus defined or described, it may seem to be possible only in the case of innocent and unfallen beings, and to be utterly beyond the reach of such as are guilty and depraved. And so it is on the footing of mere law, and on the ground of personal obedience to it. For that law is the rule of God’s righteous judgment; and, His judgment being ever according to truth, He cannot justify the wicked, any more than He can condemn the righteous, when respect is had solely to their personal character and conduct. The law which proclaims the punishment of sin can contain no provision for the pardon of it; and if it be the sole rule by which we are to be justified or condemned, our justification is impossible; for ‘our own hearts condemn us, and God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all things.’ Had we been left, therefore, to the mere light of nature, and without a supernatural revelation of ‘the will of God for our salvation,’ we could never have answered the question—‘How shall a man be just with God?’

This is the great problem which the Gospel of Christ, and that only, has undertaken to solve; and it is the history of that problem, and of its divine solution, as contrasted with the devices and inventions of men, which we propose to trace through its successive stages, from the beginning down to the present day. But we cannot understand the relation which subsists between the Law and the Gospel, in so far as they bear respectively on the question at issue, without some knowledge of the fundamental principles which are common to both; and, for this reason, we must consider, in the first instance, the Justification of the Righteous, and thereafter proceed, in the second, to the Justification of Sinners.

I. The Justification of the Righteous comes first. The doctrine of Justification had its origin in the earliest revelations which were made to the first parents of our race in primæval times. It cannot be ranked among the truths of, what is commonly called, Natural Religion; for, although there is a valid natural evidence for the being and attributes of God, for His providential and moral government, for the responsibility of man and the immortality of his soul, such as might suggest the idea of retribution, and awaken a foreboding of future judgment; yet the tenure on which life should be held, and the terms on which the favour of God should continue to be enjoyed, could only be determined by a free act, and announced by an authoritative revelation, of His sovereign will. Viewed in the mere light of reason and conscience, the punishment of sin is far more certain than the reward of obedience; for while it is evident that, under a scheme of moral government, sin deserves punishment, it is not so clear that any obedience which man might render could, strictly speaking, merit a reward, or constitute a claim in justice to anything more than exemption from penal suffering in a state of innocence. Yet this was a subject which could hardly fail to engage the thoughtful inquiry of a rational, responsible, and immortal being, and it deeply concerned him to know what was the will of God in regard to it.

We find, accordingly, that after God had revealed Himself in the first instance, as the Creator of the world, and instituted the Sabbath as a weekly day of religious rest and worship, the next revelation which was addressed to the common father and representative of the race, was directed to this precise point, and made known the terms on which ‘eternal life,’—not the continuance merely of a state of conscious personal existence, but the continuance of that holy and happy life which was enjoyed in a state of original righteousness, and which consisted essentially in the divine favour and image,—should be infallibly secured, to him, and to all his posterity, by the express promise, and the unchangeable faithfulness, of God. In that primæval revelation He made Himself known to our first parents, not only as their Creator and Benefactor, but also as their Lawgiver, Governor, and Judge; and, founding upon that Moral Law which He had already written on the fleshly tablets of their hearts, and which bound them equally to believe whatever God might say, and to do whatever God might command, He imposed upon them a single positive precept as the test of their obedience,—connecting this precept, on the one hand, with the penalty of death, and, on the other, with the promise of eternal life. The precept, the penalty, and the promise, were associated with a visible sign or symbol in the tree of life, which was the sacrament of this dispensation; and the real import of each of these must be distinctly apprehended if we would form a correct conception of the method of Justification which was thus revealed.

The precept required perfect obedience; for although it was restricted to one duty in the shape of a positive observance, that duty was enjoined as a test of man’s submission to God’s authority—of his faith in God’s word, and his obedience to God’s will—of his love to God, and his desire for the continued enjoyment of His favour and fellowship; and such a test was evidently framed on the principle that ‘every sin deserves God’s wrath and curse,’ and that ‘whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.’ The penalty denounced ‘death’ as the wages or desert of sin; not, as some have said, mere temporal death, or the dissolution of the union between body and soul; nor the annihilation of the soul, and the destruction of conscious existence, at the close of the present life,—nor even the mere natural effect of sin itself as it is a subjective evil, or as it is in its essential nature, a loathsome and mortal disease of the soul, which is destructive of spiritual life,—but the death denounced was primarily, and principally, the loss of God’s ‘favour, which is life, and of His loving-kindness, which is better than life,’ and the infliction of penal suffering, as at once the effect and the manifestation of God’s ‘wrath’ and ‘curse’ on account of sin.2 The promise,—which was implied in death being threatened only in the event of transgression, and which was visibly embodied and symbolized in the ‘tree of life,’—secured, not merely the continuance of temporal life, nor even a state of immortal existence, but the perpetuity of that holy blessedness which consisted in the favour and fellowship of God; for the life, which was promised, was the counterpart of the death, which was threatened; and these are identified with God’s blessing, and God’s curse: ‘Behold! I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; a blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God, …. and a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God.’ God’s ‘blessing,’ and God’s ‘curse,’—the one as comprehending all the good, and the other as comprehending all the evil, which flow from them respectively,—these were the sanctions of God’s law. The benefits bestowed, and the penalties inflicted, are only effects or manifestations of God’s favour, which is life, or of God’s curse, which is death.

The Law, thus promulgated, became a divine covenant, in which God was pleased to bind Himself by His promise, and to become, as Boston says, ‘debtor to His own faithfulness’ for its fulfilment,—while He bound the father of the human family, as the divinely appointed Representative and Federal Head of his posterity, by the obligation of the precept, on peril of penal condemnation in the event of disobedience. There was much grace in this covenant; for eternal life could never have been earned, or claimed as due, on the ground of merit at the hand of justice, however perfect man’s obedience might be to the precept of the Law, while now, in virtue of the free and unchangeable promise, it might be claimed on the ground of God’s faithfulness and truth; and further, the precept itself, connected as it was with a solemn penalty, was yet of a ‘protective character;’ for while it did not exclude the possibility of sin, which seems to be necessarily involved in a state of probation and trial, it narrowed the range of man’s danger by summing up his duty in one positive precept as the test of his obedience to the whole Law, and making him invulnerable at all other points as long as he remained stedfast in submitting to the only restriction which had been imposed on his freedom.3 Yet while it had much grace in it, this Law is properly called a Covenant of Works; for it established a certain relation between obedience and reward, such as that which subsists between work and wages. Eternal life was promised on condition of obedience, and, on that condition being fulfilled, the reward might have been claimed, not as a ‘reward of grace,’ but ‘of debt.’ Even then it could not have been claimed on the ground of merit, as if it were due in justice to our obedience, but it might have been claimed on the plea of covenant faithfulness, and that, too, on the ground of personal obedience.4

Such was the first method of Justification. The Law, in its covenant form, was ‘ordained unto life;’ and its terms were simply these, ‘This do, and thou shalt live,’ but ‘the soul that sinneth, it shall die.’ The Law provided for the justification of the righteous, and of the righteous only. It was evidently adapted to the case of man while he was yet, not only innocent and sinless, but possessed of original righteousness, enjoying the ‘favour of God, which is life,’ and retaining that divine ‘image’ in which he was created. But the favour of God was forfeited, and the death of the soul incurred, by sin. There was something now which ‘the Law could not do,(1) in that it was weak,’ not in itself, but ‘through the flesh,’ or the fallen state of man: it could no longer give life, simply because righteousness could not come by a law which had been broken,—and although it still remains in force, it is only as ‘a ministration of death,’ a ‘ministration of condemnation.’(2) For this reason, no sooner had man transgressed the precept, than he was solemnly debarred from the sacrament, of this covenant;—he was shut out from Eden, and God fenced it round with ‘cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.’(3)

The Law, as it was promulgated in a state of holy innocence, while man still retained the ‘image and likeness’ of God, was adapted to his powers as an unfallen being, and related only to the justification of the righteous. It made no provision, and, from its very nature, it could make none, for the acceptance of sinners. It is a method of justification by Law; and Law, as such, when it is applied in judgment, must either justify or condemn. But there are many reasons why the Law, which justifies the righteous only, and condemns every sinner, should be carefully studied, in the first instance, in order that we may be prepared to understand and appreciate that other method of justification which the Gospel reveals. The Law and the Gospel are so related, that the one presupposes the other, and is founded upon it; and, by a marvellous device of divine wisdom, the justification of sinners is brought into intimate connection with that same Law, by which they are convicted and condemned. The Law worketh ‘wrath,’ the Gospel proclaims ‘reconciliation;’ but the two are connected by means of a ‘redemption,’ wrought out by One who ‘redeemed us from the curse of the Law, by being made a curse for us.’ The penalty of the Law takes effect, not on the sinner, but on a Divine Substitute; and the end of punishment being thus secured, pardon is proclaimed on the ground of a propitiation. But this method of justification for sinners, although it be ‘without the Law,’[THERE IS A SUPERSCRIPT 1 HERE!!] as being above and beyond what the mere Law could provide, is so closely related both to its preceptive and penal requirements, that we can form no scriptural views of the one without some suitable conception of the other. Hence the careful study of the Law, as a covenant of works, is necessary at all times to the right understanding of the Gospel, as a covenant of grace: and it is peculiarly seasonable in the present age, when the eternal Law of God is supposed, by some, to have been abrogated, and, by others, to have been modified or relaxed. We must believe that the Law of God, in all its spirituality and extent, is still binding, if we are to feel our need of the Gospel of Christ; and we must be brought to tremble under ‘the revelation of wrath,’ if we are ever to obtain relief and comfort from ‘the revelation of righteousness.’5

  1. The doctrine of the Justification of Sinners had its origin immediately after the Fall. Having broken the condition of the covenant, by an act of wilful transgression, our first parents had incurred the double guilt, of disbelieving God’s word, and of disobeying God’s will. They had thereby forfeited the promise of life, and incurred the penalty of death. They had listened to the tempter, first, when he suggested a doubt as to the divine prohibition, and again, when he denied the certain execution of the divine penalty; but now they were undeceived by their own conscious experience; for, no sooner had they committed sin, than immediately conscience awoke as God’s vicegerent in their own breasts, and they were self-convicted and self-condemned. That one act had changed their whole relation to God, and reversed, at the same time, all their feelings towards Him; they had forfeited His favour, and incurred His wrath; and instead of being, as He once was, the object of their supreme love and confidence, He had become the object of their jealousy, suspicion, and distrust. A sense of His displeasure produced, through fear, a feeling of enmity; and that enmity could never have been subdued, without some token of His continued interest in their welfare, and of His disposition to receive them again into His favour. So sudden and so great had been the change which sin had wrought in all their relations and feelings towards Him, that they were ashamed, and afraid, and would have hid themselves, if they could, ‘from the presence of the Lord God.’ They now dreaded the penalty, because they felt it to be deserved; and they dreaded it, not merely on account of the sufferings which it might entail, but also, and chiefly, as it was an expression of God’s displeasure, and a manifestation of His wrath.

When they were summoned to appear before Him as their Judge, they must have been prepared to hear—what alone the Law could have led them to expect—a sentence of condemnation. But He was pleased to interpose at this critical moment for their immediate and effectual relief. He pronounced, in their hearing, a curse on ‘the serpent and his seed,’ and conveyed, in the very bosom of that curse, an intimation of His sovereign purpose of grace and mercy towards themselves. There was a profound significance in this brief and simple, but most comprehensive, statement of God’s purpose, when viewed in connection with the circumstances in which they were then placed, and the convictions which had been already awakened in their minds. It implied that God, instead of appearing against them as their enemy, was to interpose for them as their friend; that He had formed a purpose of grace and mercy towards them, and had devised a plan for their relief and restoration. It implied that, with a view to their ultimate deliverance, they were to be spared, and placed under a dispensation of forbearance, during which the execution of His penal sentence should be suspended; for their ‘seed’ is distinctly mentioned, intimating that their lives were to be prolonged. It implied that, in the exercise of His sovereignty, He had taken their case entirely into His own hands, as if He, and He only, had the right, and the power, to deal with it: ‘I WILL PUT enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed;’—words which clearly intimate that the whole plan of their deliverance originated in His sovereign purpose, and that it was to be accomplished by His own agency. It implied that His purpose of mercy towards them should be effected, not immediately and directly, by a mere act of indemnity as an expression of His sovereign will, or by the direct exertion of His almighty power, but through the mediation of ‘the Seed of the woman,’ who should be born into the world, and enter into conflict with Satan, so as to be himself a sufferer, yet to come off victorious. It implied that, through this human deliverer, God would break up the unholy league which had been formed betwixt them and that evil spirit,—emancipating them from his usurped dominion, crushing his power, frustrating his schemes, and destroying his works. It implied that their salvation was secured by a purpose of grace which was absolute, as it depended on the mere ‘good pleasure of His will,’ and by a promise which was unconditional, since no terms are imposed, and no works required, and no mention made of any human agency, excepting only the sufferings and work of the ‘woman’s Seed.’ It implied that the ‘woman’s Seed’—the promised deliverer—was now to be the Hope of the world, and the Head of a redeemed people, who should be rescued from the curse of the Law, and restored to the favour and friendship of God; for Adam, the head of the old covenant, is superseded under the new, by One who is predicted and promised as ‘the Seed of the woman.’ It implied an ‘election according to grace,’ for distinct mention is made of ‘the woman’s seed,’ and ‘the serpent’s seed;’ and the serpent’s seed are left under the curse, while the woman’s seed are delivered from it. And it points forward to a mysterious conflict between Satan and the promised Saviour, in which there should be mutual ‘enmity’ and ‘bruising,’—opposition and suffering on both sides,—but resulting in victory over the Wicked One.

The announcement of God’s purpose of mercy was made in general terms, and it gave no definite information on many points which are now more fully and clearly revealed; but it contained enough to lay a solid foundation for faith and hope towards God, and it was the first beam of Gospel light which dawned on our fallen world. For what is the Gospel, if it be not the revelation of God as ‘the just God and the Saviour,’—reconciling sinners to Himself by a Redeemer,—not imputing their trespasses unto them, but accepting them as righteous, admitting them to His favour and fellowship, and giving them peace of conscience here, and the hope of eternal life hereafter, by faith in His gracious promise? God had already revealed Himself as the Lawgiver, Governor, and Judge; He now reveals Himself as the ‘just God and the Saviour;’—as the just God, for He pronounces a curse on the serpent, and predicts the sufferings also of the woman’s Seed, thus manifesting His holy displeasure against sin; and yet as ‘the Saviour,’ for He promises a Deliverer, who should suffer indeed on account of sin, but, by suffering, accomplish the salvation of sinners. Looking to God in this character, our first parents might believe, as Abraham afterwards believed, in ‘Him that justifieth the ungodly;’ and looking to the promised ‘Seed,’ they might believe, as Abraham afterwards believed, that in this Seed should ‘all the families of the earth be blessed.’ The object of faith in these primitive times was, in substance, the same as now: God in His revealed character as ‘just, and the justifier of him that believeth;’—with this difference, that the Saviour was then promised as ‘coming,’ but is now proclaimed as ‘having come.’6

Such are some of the truths which are expressed or implied in the first promise of a Saviour, as it was conveyed in a curse pronounced against the serpent. They were fitted to produce a feeling of reverence for the justice of God, as the supreme Lawgiver, Governor, and Judge, both of men and of higher orders of invisible beings; and yet also a feeling of hope and trust in His mercy, through that Saviour whom He had promised to raise up for their deliverance.7 And these mingled feelings of fear and hope towards God were fitly expressed, and could scarcely fail to be deepened and confirmed, by the rite of sacrifice, which formed the most solemn part of their religious worship. For that rite, as habitually practised by them, was as significant as the first promise; and its meaning was in manifest correspondence with the truths which that promise revealed. Sacrifice was offered to God in His revealed character as ‘the just God,’ and yet the ‘Saviour of sinners;’ it consisted in the slaying of an innocent animal, which was substituted in the room of the sinner, and devoted to God as an atonement for his soul, by the shedding of its blood; it implied that his sin was laid upon the head of the victim, and that his life, forfeited by sin, was redeemed by the victim’s death; it expressed, on the part of every sincere worshipper, a confession of personal guilt, and a sense of penal desert, but a hope also of divine forgiveness and acceptance, for it was employed with a view to deprecate and avert God’s wrath, and to implore and propitiate His favour; and the habitual observance of this rite, as the most solemn act of religious worship, had a tendency to strengthen all those feelings, both of fear and hope, of reverence and trust, of repentance and faith, which the revelation of God’s justice in the curse, and of His mercy in the promise, was fitted to produce. It served also to familiarize the mind of every believer, even in primitive times, with those great principles of substitution, imputation, and vicarious satisfaction, which were involved in the divine scheme of grace and redemption, and which were only to be more fully developed, and more clearly exhibited, in connection with the person and work of the promised Seed, in ‘the fulness of times.’

It has been made a question, indeed, whether the rite of sacrifice, in connection with religious worship, was an invention of man, or an institution of God. The only pretext for raising such a question arises from there being no statement in Scripture ascribing it, in express terms, to divine appointment. But apart from any categorical announcement, there may be sufficient scriptural evidence to prove that it could not have originated from the will of man, and that it must be ascribed to the revealed will of God. It is highly improbable, on the one hand, that the thought of propitiating God’s favour by the slaying of His innocent animals could have suggested itself, in any circumstances, as an acceptable part of religious worship; it is still more improbable that it could have suggested itself at a time when man was not allowed to use them even for food; and it is most improbable of all that he would have ventured to introduce an act of mere will-worship into the divine service, at a time when God was revealing His mind and will, or that it would have been accepted by Him, who acted then, as He acts now, on the great principle declared in His Word,—‘In vain do ye worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.’ It is certain, on the other hand, that God accepted the animal sacrifice of Abel, and testified His acceptance of it, probably by fire from heaven consuming the victim on the altar,—that He accepted it in preference to the mere thank-offering of Cain, which consisted in the fruits of the ground, and had no relation to atonement by blood,—that when Cain was wroth because God had no respect to his offering, the Lord said to him, ‘If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth,’ or a sin-offering coucheth, ‘at the door,’—that Abel is expressly said to have offered his sacrifice in faith,‘2 and faith invariably implies, according to Scripture, a divine testimony or a divine authority as its ground and warrant; and that the distinction between animals as clean and unclean,—which could have reference at that time only to sacrifice, not to food, and which depended entirely on divine appointment,—existed in the earliest times, and is repeatedly referred to in the sacred narrative. These arguments appear to me to be conclusive in favour of the divine institution of animal sacrifice as a part of solemn religious worship; but they derive additional strength from the manifest correspondence of that rite, in its spiritual significance, with the truths which had been previously revealed, and also with the method of redemption as it was subsequently more fully unfolded in the Ritual of Moses and the Gospel of Christ. For it was evidently fitted, by its radical meaning and the lessons which it taught, to be the sacrament and symbol of the first promise of a Saviour, and, as such, a type of ’the Lamb of God who should take away the sin of the world,’—a sacrament which then prefigured to the eye of faith that same sacrifice of the Cross which is now commemorated at the Lord’s table. By offering that sacrifice ‘in faith’—by believing the great truth which it symbolized and typified as it was revealed in the first Gospel promise,—the worshipper was justified then, as he is justified now: he obtained forgiveness and acceptance with God; and not only so, but he might enjoy the assurance of both, when, as in the case of Abel, he ‘obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts.’8

The first promise of a Saviour, commemorated and illustrated by sacrificial observances as a permanent part of divine worship, was the primæval Gospel. Both were transmitted by tradition from one generation to another, at a time when, from the longevity of men during that early age, they might long be preserved in a state of purity. That they were sufficient, under the teaching of God’s Spirit, to form the characters of true believers, and to embue them with an enlightened and exalted piety, appears from the case of Abel, the first martyr for the truth, of whom it is said, that ‘by faith he offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous,’ or accepted as righteous in the sight of God; from the case of Enoch, of whom we read, that ‘Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him,’ and that before his translation ‘he had this testimony, that he pleased God,’ or was accepted as a justified man. We have also the case of Noah, of whom it is written, that ‘he found grace in the eyes of the Lord,’—that he was ‘a just man, and perfect, or upright, in his generation, and walked with God,’—that he was ‘a preacher of righteousness,’—and that ‘he became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.’2 These cases are only specimens of primæval believers, who were justified freely by grace through faith in a promised Saviour, and who testified their faith by worshipping God, as the Holy One and the just, yet as the justifier of the ungodly,—worshipping Him in the way of His own appointment, by offering bloody sacrifices on His altar. How many they may have been, or how few, we cannot tell; but if the primæval Gospel was sufficient for the justification of all believers who worshipped God in spirit and in truth, then as long as God continued to be known in His revealed character as the just God and the Saviour, and as long as His promise—transmitted by tradition and symbolized by sacrifice—was the object of faith and hope anywhere among the children of Adam or his children’s children, so long might it be, then as it now is, the ’power of God unto salvation.’ For it was addressed to men universally, while as yet there was no distinction between Jew and Gentile, and no other difference betwixt man and man except the radical and permanent one, which was recognised in the first promise itself, betwixt the ‘woman’s seed’ and ‘the serpent’s seed.’ There was the same limit to its efficacy then as there is still, but there was no other;—all believers were justified, and none else. Unbelief was early manifested in the mere will-worship of Cain, and it gradually spread so as to become all but universal; and when ‘God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually,’ He resolved to manifest, by one stupendous act of supernatural power, at once the ‘curse’ which He had pronounced against ‘the serpent’s seed,’—and the ‘grace’ which He had promised through ‘the Seed of the woman,’—by bringing in ‘the flood on the world of the ungodly,’2 and ’saving Noah and his family by a great deliverance,’ that this small but precious remnant might transmit His promise, and maintain His worship, as they had received them from their believing fathers.

After the flood, the revelation of God’s purpose of redeeming mercy was progressive, and became at once more copious, and more precise. In the first promise, the future Saviour had been revealed simply as ‘the Seed of the woman’ who should ‘bruise the serpent’s head;’ but, as the Church advanced on her course, additional information was vouchsafed, in regard to the constitution of His person,—the line of His human descent,—the nature of the offices which He should sustain,—the work which He should accomplish,—the blessings which He should procure for His people,—and the time of His advent. That He was to be a Man, was implied in His being promised as ‘the Seed of the woman;’ but He was afterwards revealed to Abraham as ‘the mighty God,’ and at a still later period to Moses as ‘Jehovah;’ for it was the ‘Angel of the Lord’ that appeared to Moses in the bush,—who revealed Himself as ‘the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,’—and said, ‘I appeared unto Abraham, and unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah I was not known unto them:’ ‘Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.’9

In the Patriarchal age after the flood, the first and, in many respects, the most memorable case of Justification, is that of Abraham, who was to be ‘the father of many nations,’ and the pattern or model of all true believers till the end of time. It is frequently referred to in Scripture, not as an isolated or singular instance, having no resemblance to the justification of sinners now, but as an example or specimen which exhibits the same principles, and illustrates the same truths, that are only more clearly and fully revealed in the Gospel of the New Testament. For this reason, he is called ‘the father of all them that believe;’ and all believers, Christian as well as Jewish, are called ‘the children of Abraham.’ For the same reason, the Apostles derived some of their strongest proofs of the doctrine of Justification by grace, through faith, from that part of Scripture which records God’s gracious dispensations towards him, and his experience as a sinner, who had been freely forgiven, and accepted as righteous. He was chosen and called by sovereign mercy while he was yet an idolater in the land of Chaldea. God entered into covenant with him, and called him His ‘friend.’2 ’The Gospel’ was preached unto Abraham,—the same Gospel in substance which is now preached unto us,—even that ‘in him and his seed should all the families of the earth be blessed.’ By faith in that Gospel he was justified; for it is expressly recorded ‘that he believed in the Lord, and He counted it to him for righteousness.’4 He believed in God, not merely as a Lawgiver, Governor, and Judge, but as ’Him who justifieth the ungodly;’ and he believed in Christ as the promised ‘Seed in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed,’—for, says our Lord Himself, ’Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad.’2

The Apostles made use of the case of Abraham to prove all the most important points of the doctrine of Justification. They assume that it was a case of real justification before God, declared and attested by God Himself in His inspired Word; and that it was not singular, but similar, in all essential respects, to the justification of every other sinner. They apply it to prove especially, in opposition to the prevailing opinion of the Jews, these five positions: First, that he was justified, not by works, but by faith; for ‘to him that worketh, is the reward reckoned, not of grace, but of debt; but to him that worketh not, but believeth in Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness:’ Secondly, that having been justified by faith, he was consequently justified by grace; for ‘therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace;’—neither faith itself, nor any of the fruits of faith, being the ground, or the meritorious cause, of his acceptance with God: Thirdly, that having been justified by grace through faith, justification came to him, not through the Law, but through the Promise; ‘for if the inheritance be of the Law, it is no more of promise, but God gave it to Abraham by promise;’ but ‘if they which are of the Law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:’ Fourthly, that having been justified by faith in God’s free promise, he was not justified by circumcision or any other outward privilege: ‘Cometh this blessedness, then, upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised:’ and, Fifthly, that having been justified by grace through faith in God’s promise, he had no ground of boasting, or of glorying, or of self-righteous confidence; for ‘if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but (he had nothing whereof to glory) before God.’ ‘Where is boasting, then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.’ These positions, deduced from the scriptural account of Abraham, will be found to exclude almost all the errors which prevailed among the Jews in the apostolic age, or which have since arisen in the Christian Church, on the subject of Justification.10

The Patriarchs who succeeded Abraham had the same promise renewed to them, and were also justified by faith. They had peculiar privileges and hopes, as being in the direct line of the promised Seed: but there were true believers who did not belong to the family of Abraham, such as Melchizedek, ‘the priest of the most high God,’ and, as such, an eminent type of Christ; and ‘just Lot,’ ‘a righteous man,’ to whom ‘the Lord was merciful;’4 and Abimelech, to whom the Lord revealed Himself, and acknowledged the ’integrity of his heart;’ and Job, who ‘was perfect and upright, one that feared God, and eschewed evil,’—who ‘offered burnt-offerings’ continually for his children, saying, ’It may be my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts.’6 These were true believers, and, as such, accepted of God, although they were not of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, nor directly interested in the peculiar promises of God’s covenant with him; but they shared, in common with him, the first promise of a Saviour, and testified their faith in it by worshipping Jehovah in His revealed character, and offering sacrifices on His altar. Such believers were not disfranchised of their privileges or hopes by that new dispensation which first established the distinction betwixt Jews and Gentiles.11

The next great era in the History of Justification under the Old Testament was that of Moses, and the proclamation of the Law at Sinai. A new economy was now introduced, which differed in many respects from the Patriarchal system, and yet was designed and fitted, in various ways, to develop God’s purpose of mercy, and to carry it on to its accomplishment in the fulness of times. That economy cannot be understood, as it is described and commented on in various parts of Scripture, unless it be contemplated in two distinct aspects: first, as a system of religion and government, designed for the immediate use of the Jews during the term of its continuance; and secondly, as a scheme of preparation for another and better economy, by which it was to be superseded when its temporary purpose had been fulfilled.

It was designed, in the first instance, for the instruction of the Jews, now formed into a nation, and about to be established in the land which the Lord had promised to give to Abraham and his seed; and, in the second instance, to prepare them, by a course of discipline and education, for the coming of Him ‘in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed.’ They were put ‘under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the Father,’—and ‘the Law was their schoolmaster to bring them unto Christ, that they might be justified by faith.’ For this reason it had a mixed character,—the ‘Law’ which came by Moses being ‘added’ to the ‘Promise’ which had been given to Abraham. It was neither purely Evangelical, nor purely Legal; it contained the Gospel, but ‘the Law was added to it because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made.’2 The addition of the Law was not intended to alter either the ground, or the method, of a sinner’s justification, by substituting obedience to the Law for faith in the Promise; for the Law which was originally ’ordained unto life’ was now found, by reason of sin, ‘to be unto death;’ but it was now ‘added,’ and promulgated anew with awful sanctions amidst the thunderings and lightnings of Sinai, to impress the Jews, and through them the Church at large, with a sense of the holiness and justice of Him with whom they had to do,—of the spirituality and extent of that obedience which they owed to Him,—of the number and heinousness of their sins,—and of their utter inability to escape the wrath and curse of God, otherwise than by taking refuge in the free promise of His grace. Believers were justified, therefore, under the Law, not by works, but by faith: by faith, they were ‘the children of Abraham,’ and ‘heirs with him of the same promise.’ The Law—considered as a national covenant, by which their continued possession of the land of Canaan, and of all their privileges under the Theocracy, was left to depend on their external obedience to it,—might be called a national Covenant of Works, since their temporal welfare was suspended on the condition of their continued adherence to it; but, in that aspect of it, it had no relation to the spiritual salvation of individuals, otherwise than as this might be affected by their retaining, or forfeiting, their outward privileges and means of grace. It may be considered, however, in another light, as a re-exhibition of the original Covenant of Works, for the instruction of individual Jews in the principles of divine truth; for in some such light it is evidently presented in the writings of Paul.12 In this aspect, it was designed, not for the justification of sinners, but for the conviction of sin. In that form, it was afterwards employed even by the Apostles of Christ, to prove the impossibility of justification by the deeds of the Law, and the necessity of another righteousness, the righteousness of faith; and for the same end, it is still applied to the conscience by every faithful preacher of the Gospel. Thus considered,—as a re-exhibition of the Covenant of Works,—it had a tendency to produce ‘a spirit of bondage unto fear;’ and this would have been its only effect, had it not been associated with a revelation of God’s purpose and promise of grace. But when the Gospel, which had been preached beforehand to Abraham, was known and believed, so as to impart a lively apprehension of ‘the forgiveness which is with God,’ then conviction of sin might become genuine contrition,—remorse might be turned into repentance,—and the more thoroughly the Law had done its work in the conscience, the more gladly would the promise of a Saviour be received into the heart.

The economy of Moses, whatever prominence it gave to the Law, was unquestionably a dispensation of the Covenant of Grace. So far from superseding the promise given to Abraham, or ‘making it void’ and ‘of none effect,’ it was expressly founded upon it, and designed to carry it on to its accomplishment. That economy gathered up into itself all prior revelations of divine truth. It adopted also the Primæval and Patriarchal institutions—the Sabbath, Sacrifice, and Circumcision,—while it added to these a multitude of ordinances which were peculiar to itself—ceremonial and ritual observances, which were in themselves ‘weak and beggarly elements,’ and were felt to be ‘a heavy yoke,’—yet they were all significant symbols, and typical prefigurations, of spiritual blessings. The believer, therefore, who could look beyond the sign to the thing signified, and see in the shadow the figure of the substance, might find Christ in every ordinance of the Old Testament Church, and obtain through Him, as revealed in the promise, forgiveness and acceptance with God. The devout Israelite, therefore, was justified by grace through faith, not less than the Christian believer. The divine Law, spiritually understood, awakened a deep conviction of sin; the divine promises, embodied and exhibited in the divine ordinances,—in those especially which related to the expiation of sin and the removal of ceremonial defilement,—pointed to a divine method of deliverance based on the principles of substitution and atonement, and produced trust in God’s mercy and hope of His gracious acceptance; while the prospective character of these ordinances, as types of better things to come, and their utter insufficiency in themselves to ‘take away sin,’ or ‘to make the comers thereunto perfect as pertaining to the conscience,’ directed their thoughts forward to the time when the work of redemption should be actually accomplished by the promised Seed.13

Provision was made, also, under the Law, for a growing knowledge of God’s purpose and plan of redeeming mercy, by a series of Prophets, who were raised up to instruct the people in the Law, but especially to expound the promise of a Saviour, and to explain the spiritual import of the types by which He was then prefigured. Their successive announcements gave greater definiteness and precision to the meaning of both.

As Prophecy advanced, it became at once more full, and more definite, in its delineation of the person and work of the promised Saviour. It had a sudden and signal expansion in the age of David and Samuel, when the typical offices under the Law were fully established and brought into regular order. Then David began to speak of Him as ‘the Christ,’—the Anointed One,—in whose person the typical offices of Prophet, Priest, and King should be combined. Afterwards Isaiah described Him as ‘a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief,’—who was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities,‘—who should ’make His soul a sacrifice for sin,’ for ‘the Lord hath laid upon Him the iniquities of us all,’—and then, connecting His redeeming work with the justification of His people, he adds, ‘By His knowledge shall my righteous Servant justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities;’ ‘Surely, shall one say, In the Lord have I righteousness,’—‘in the Lord shall all the house of Israel be justified and shall glory.’2 Jeremiah spoke of Him, when he said,’ This is the name whereby He shall be called, The Lord our righteousness.’ Zechariah spoke of Him as ‘the man whose name is the Branch’—the man who is ‘Jehovah’s fellow,’—the ‘Shepherd,’—‘a Priest upon His throne;’4 and Daniel spoke of Him as ’Messiah the Prince,’ who should come when the time arrived to ‘anoint the Most Holy,’—‘to finish the transgressions, and to make an end of sins, and to bring in everlasting righteousness.’ Thus was the Gospel method of Justification ‘witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,’6 for ’the testimony of Jesus was the spirit of prophecy;’ and ‘to Him gave all the prophets witness, that, through His name, whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins.’ When He came, Moses, representing the Law, and Elijah, representing the Prophets, descended from heaven, and spake with Him ‘of the decease which He should accomplish at Jerusalem;’2 and after His resurrection, ’beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.’

These truths, thus gradually revealed, were the life-blood of faith and piety in the Jewish Church; and after the time of Moses and David, when they were more fully unfolded, in connection with the office and work of the promised Seed in His character as the Messiah or the Christ, the Priesthood and the Sacrifices of the Law were regarded by every believing Israelite as ‘figures’ and ‘types’ of Him ‘who should come to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.’14 But they did not relate only to the future,—they supplied evangelical instruction to every believing Israelite; and how rich and precious that instruction was, appears from the spiritual worship which it maintained in the Church, and especially from that most marvellous record of their experience,—the Book of PSALMS. It may be safely affirmed, that every point in the Gospel doctrine of Justification is there brought out by anticipation, and strikingly exhibited in connection with the faith and worship of Old Testament believers. There is the same confession of sin: ‘There is none righteous, no, not one;’—there is the same conviction of guilt and demerit: ‘If Thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquity, O Lord, who shall stand?’5—there is the same fear of God’s righteous judgment: ’Visit me not in Thy wrath, chasten me not in Thy hot displeasure;’—there is the same sense of inevitable condemnation on the ground of God’s Law: ‘Enter not into judgment with Thy servant, for in Thy sight shall no flesh living be justified;’—there is the same earnest cry for undeserved mercy: ‘Have mercy upon me, O Lord, according to Thy loving-kindness; according to the multitude of Thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions;’2—there is the same faith in His revealed character as the just God and the Saviour: ’Good and upright is the Lord; therefore will He teach sinners in the way;’—there is the same hope of pardon, resting on a propitiation; for ‘with the Lord there is mercy, and with Him is plenteous redemption;’4—there is the same pleading of God’s name, or the glory of all His perfections: ’For Thy name’s sake, O Lord, pardon mine iniquity, for it is great;—there is the same joy and peace in believing; for ’blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk, O Lord, in the light of Thy countenance; in Thy name shall they rejoice all the day;’6—there is the same trust in God and the faithfulness of His promises: ’I will sing of the mercies of the Lord for ever; with my mouth will I make known Thy faithfulness to all generations; for mercy shall be built up for ever, Thy faithfulness shalt Thou establish in the very heavens;’—there is the same trust in the Saviour of sinners: ‘Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and ye perish from the way: blessed are all they that put their trust in Him;’8—there is the same confidence in another righteousness than their own: ’Behold, O God, our shield, and look on the face of Thine Anointed;’—there is the same patient, persevering, hopeful waiting upon God: ‘My soul, wait thou only upon God, for my expectation is from Him; He only is my rock and my salvation: He is my defence; I shall not be moved. In God is my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. Trust in Him at all times; ye people, pour out your heart before Him: God is a refuge for us.’

Every one must feel that the Old Testament, considered simply as a record of man’s spiritual life and experience, stands ALONE among all the extant remains of ancient thought, and has no parallel with which it can even be compared. What is it but the Gospel, and faith in that Gospel, that gives it a character so unique, a spirit so unearthly and divine? What is it but the Gospel, pervading every page, and breathing in every utterance of contrition, or faith, or hope, that makes the book of Psalms a fit expression for the highest worship even of the Christian Church? And why, if not because the Gospel was known and believed in the Old Testament Church, and felt then, as it is felt now, to be ‘the power of God unto salvation,’ did the Apostles themselves seek to establish the doctrine of a free justification by grace, through faith, by making mention of the long roll of ‘the elders who by faith obtained a good report,’ and why did they found so much of their teaching on the recorded experience of Abraham and of David?3

Provision was thus made for the justification of sinners, by grace, through faith in the promised Saviour, throughout the whole course of the Jewish dispensation; and at its very close we find some true believers who understood its spiritual meaning,—who looked for redemption ‘in Jerusalem,’—and ‘waited for the consolation of Israel.’ Zacharias and Elisabeth, Mary the mother of Jesus, Simeon and Anna, were ready to welcome their long-expected Saviour when He came, and gave joyful utterance to their faith in heartfelt songs of praise. It is remarkable, too, that they connected His advent with God’s covenant ‘promise,’ and with ‘the oath which He sware to their father Abraham;’ for Mary, in her sublime ‘Magnificat,’ exclaims, ‘He hath holpen His servant Israel in remembrance of His mercy, as He spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever:’ and Zacharias celebrates the Lord’s faithfulness in fulfilling His word, ‘as He spake by the mouth of His holy prophets, which have been since the world began.’ These songs of faith fall on our ears like a chorus of sweet music, as the Jewish Church was ready to vanish away; and they give touching evidence of the living piety which the Old Testament still nourished within her bosom, while they form a fit introduction to the new and better dispensation of ‘the fulness of times.’ The Spirit of Prophecy, withdrawn since the age of Malachi, is now restored; and the Jewish Church, like an organ long silent, is once more touched by a divine hand, and its last notes resound in honour of Christ the Lord.

  1. These various opinions are represented respectively by the following writers:—The first by Dr. Taylor of Norwich, in his ‘Scripture Doctrine of Original Sin,’ and his ‘Key to the Apostolic Writings,’ which are answered by President Edwards in his ‘Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin,’ Works, vol. ii. pt. ii. sec. ii. The second by Henry Dodwell, in his ‘Epistolary Discourse, proving that the Soul is naturally Mortal, but immortalized by its union with the Divine Baptismal Spirit, imparted only by the Bishops;’ which was answered by Dr. S. Clarke in his ‘Letter to Mr. Dodwell.’ It has been recently revived, in a different form, by Mr. Edward White, in his work entitled, ‘Life in Christ’ (1846)—which is directed to prove that ‘Immortality is the peculiar privilege of the regenerate.’ The third by many modern writers, who make spiritual death to consist entirely in sin, as a subjective moral evil, and overlook the wrath and curse of God on account of past transgressions. On this subject, see the profound treatise of Dr. Thomas Goodwin, ‘An Unregenerate Man’s Guiltiness before God in respect of Sin and Punishment,’ Works, vol. x. pp. 1–56, Nichol’s Edition.↩︎

  2. Professor M’Laggan’s Lectures, pp. 307–367.↩︎

  3. Rom. 4:4: ‘μισθος κατὰ χάριν,—μισθὸς κατὰ τὸ ὀφείλημα.’ ‘Meritum ex condigno’ is distinguished, even by Popish writers, from ‘Meritum ex pacto’ or ‘ex promissione;’ but in treating of the latter, in connection with the rewards which are promised to believers under the New Covenant, they overlook the fact that these are promised on account of the merits of Christ. There is still a wide difference between ‘rewards of debt,’ and ‘rewards of grace;’ for while both were promised,—the one under the first, the other under the second, covenant,—yet the former were to be bestowed on the ground of personal obedience, while the latter are bestowed on account of the obedience of Him with whom the covenant was made on behalf of His people; that is, on the ground of His vicarious and imputed righteousness. ‘The whole tenor of Revelation shows, that there are but two methods whereby any of the human race can be justified: either by a perfect obedience to the law in their own persons, and then “the reward is of debt,” i.e. pactional debt, founded on the obligation of the covenant, not springing from any worth in the obedience. Or else, because the Surety of a better covenant has satisfied all demands in their stead; and then “the reward is of grace,” Rom. 4:4.’—Hervey’s Works, vol. ii. p. 296.↩︎

  4. On the first covenant of life, see Witsius, ‘De Œconomia Fœderum Dei,’ lib. i. c. ii.–viii. pp. 8–99; Burmann, ‘Synopsis,’ vol. i. lib. ii. c. ii. pp. 389–475; Bishop Hopkins on ‘The Two Covenants;’ Boston on ‘The Covenant of Works;’ Dr. Russel (of Dundee) on ‘The Adamic and Mediatorial Dispensations’; Dr. Meikle (of Beith) on ‘The Edenic Dispensation;’ Mr. Strong on ‘The Covenants;’ Mr. Barrett on ‘The Covenants,’ pp. 38–75; and many more. As some have denied the literal truth of the Mosaic narrative on this subject, see also Holden’s ‘Dissertation on the Fall of Man, in which the literal sense of the Mosaic Account of that event is Asserted and Vindicated,’ 1823; also Jo. Witty, ‘Vindication of the History of the Fall of Adam,’ 1705.

    ‘I begin with the first revelation which God made of Himself, and of His will, to man in the beginning of time; and from thence ’I would descend to later revelations, both before, and in, Gospel times. The holy, all-wise God, having created reasonable creatures, gave to them a Law, the rule of that obedience and duty which is the natural result of the relation between God the Creator, and such creatures. This Law required perfect sinless obedience. No less could God call for; no less was suited to the state of innocence and perfection, wherein man was created. This Law, given at first, was written on the heart, and needed not to be externally proposed. That positive prohibition, Not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was but for the trial of obedience; and the tree itself, a sacrament or symbol of death, in case of disobedience, as the tree of life was a symbol or sacrament of life, in case of obedience. These symbols clearly show that the Law was established into a covenant. And a covenant it was, truly and properly; for Adam had no right to deny his consent to the terms which God proposed; and, being yet sinless and holy, he had no will thereto, but agreed both to the preceptive part, and to the sanction, as “holy, just, and good.” ’—Beart, Vindication of the Eternal Law and Everlasting Gospel, p. 2. London, 1753. This work is recommended by Hervey (‘Theron and Aspasio,’ vol. ii. p. 20) as a ‘most excellent treatise,’ which has ‘the very sinews of the argument, and, the very marrow of the doctrine.’ It consists of two parts, and has been frequently reprinted.↩︎

  5. The first promise, or primeval Gospel. ‘De Evangelio; Quid sit. Evangelium est doctrina à Deo immediatè patefacta, de gratuita reconciliatione hominum lapsorum, et remissione peccatorum per Messiam, quæ fide accipienda est, adferens atque impertiens justitiam coram Deo, Messiæ passions acquisitam, pacem conscientiæ, et vitam eternam. Hæc definitio ex suavissimis dictis Scripturæ sacræ—Gen. 3:22, et aliis sumpta est.’—Wigandus and Judex, Syntagma, p. 944.

    The effect of this revelation of God’s purpose of mercy in changing the whole state and experience of our first parents, is stated, with a grand simplicity, by John Knox, when, speaking of the three cardinal points,—our sin and misery,—God’s promise of grace,—and the effect of faith in it,—he says, ‘All this plainly may be perceived in the life of our first parent Adam, who, by transgression of God’s commandment, fell in great trouble and affliction,—from which he should never have been released, without the goodness of God had first called him. And, secondly, made unto him the promise of his salvation, the which Adam believing, before ever he wrought good works, was reputed just. After, during all his life, he continued in good works, striving contrary to Satan, the world, and his own flesh.’—Knox’s Works, vol. iii. p. 439,—the admirable edition, for which the Church is indebted to David Laing, Esq., of the Library of the Writers to the Signet, Edinburgh.

    ‘Had Adam felt,’ says Zuingle, ‘that he had anything remaining after his fall which might gain the favour of his Maker, he would not have fled “to hide himself;” but his case appeared to himself so desperate, that we do not read even of his having recourse to supplication. He dared not at all to appear before God. But here the mercy and kindness of the Most High are displayed, who recalls the fugitive, even when, with a traitor’s mind, he is passing over to the camp of the enemy, and not even offering a prayer for pardon; receives him to His mercy; and, as far as His justice would permit, restores him to a happy state. Here the Almighty exhibited a splendid example of what He would do for the whole race of Adam, sparing them, and treating them with kindness, even when they deserved only punishment. Here, then, Religion took its rise, when God recalled despairing, fugitive man to Himself.’—Zuingle, De Vera et Falsâ Religione, p. 169.

    ‘All the promises,’ says Luther, ‘are to be referred to that first promise concerning Christ, “The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head,” Gen. 3:15. So did all the prophets both understand it, and teach it. By this we may see that the faith of our fathers in the Old Testament, and ours now in the New, is all one, although they differ as touching their outward object. Which thing Peter witnesseth in the Acts (15:11): “We believe that, through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved, even as they.” … The faith of the fathers was grounded on Christ which was to come, as ours is on Christ which is now come. Abraham in his time was justified by faith in Christ to come; but if he lived at this day, he would be justified by faith in Christ now revealed and present. Like as I have said before of Cornelius, who at the first believed in Christ to come, but, being instructed by Peter, he believed that Christ was already come. Therefore the diversity of times never changeth faith, nor the Holy Ghost, nor the gifts thereof. For there hath been, is, and ever shall be, one mind, one judgment and understanding, concerning Christ, as well in the ancient fathers, as in the faithful which are at this day, and shall come hereafter. So we also have a Christ to come; and to believe in Him, as the fathers in the Old Testament had. For we look for Him to come again in the last day with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead, whom now we believe to be come already for our salvation.’—On the Galatians, pp. 187, 188. ‘All the faithful have had alway one and the self-same Gospel from the beginning of the world, and by that they were saved.’ … ’Christ came in spirit to the fathers of the Old Testament, before He came in the flesh. They had Christ in spirit. They believed in Christ which should be revealed, as we believe in Christ which is now revealed, and were saved by Him as we are, according to that saying, “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever.” “Yesterday,” before the time of His coming in the flesh; “to-day,” when He was revealed “in the time before appointed.” Now and “for ever” He is one and the same Christ: for even by Him only, and alone, all the faithful which either have been, be, or shall be, are delivered from the law, justified, and saved,—Ibid. pp. 258, 295.↩︎

  6. In the question respecting the Justification of Old Testament believers, the principal points are these,—the fact that they were justified,—the reason or ground of their pardon and acceptance,—and the means by which they were made partakers of this privilege.

    The fact that they were justified, in the full Gospel sense of that expression, can scarcely be questioned; since they are expressly declared to have been freely forgiven, and restored to the favour and friendship of God. The fact was even divinely attested: Abel ‘obtained witness that he was righteous;’ Enoch, ‘before his translation, had this testimony, that he pleased God’ (Heb. 11:4, 5). They not only possessed, but they enjoyed, this Gospel privilege; for ‘David describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin’ (Rom. 4:6, 7; Ps. 32). ‘I acknowledged my sin unto Thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin’ (Ps. 32:5). ‘Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all His benefits; who forgiveth all thins iniquities’ (Ps. 103:2, 3). The fact, then, is undeniable that they were justified, in the full sense of that expression,—that they were freely forgiven, and graciously accepted as righteous, so as to be restored to the favour, friendship, and fellowship of God.

    The reason or ground of their Justification was not their own personal righteousness,—for they were ‘guilty,’ ‘ungodly,’ unclean,’ unable to ‘stand in judgment,’—but the work of Christ, the promised Seed. For that work, although postponed till ‘the fulness of times,’ had a retrospective efficacy; it was accomplished for ‘the redemption of the transgressions which were under the first testament’ (Heb. 9:15), and Old Testament believers could say, ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was laid upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed’ (Isa. 53:5). ‘The covenant (of grace) was differently administered in the time of the Law, and the time of the Gospel: under the Law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come, which were, for that time, sufficient, and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation.’—‘Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after His incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof, were communicated unto the elect in all ages successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices, wherein He was revealed and signified to be “the Seed of the woman which should bruise the serpent’s head,”—and “the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world,” being “yesterday and to-day the same, and for ever.” ’—Westminster Confession of Faith, c. vii. s. 5, viii. s. 6. See Bishop Barlow, ‘Remains,’ pp. 584–593; Bishop O’Brien, ‘Nature and Effects of Faith,’ p. 439; H. Witsius, ‘Animadversiones Irenicæ,’ Mis. Sac. ii. p. 780; Bishop Downham ‘on Justification,’ p. 180.

    The means of their Justification was faith. This follows necessarily from its being left to depend on the work of Christ, for that work was still future; it was a matter of promise, and a promise can only be embraced by faith. But it is expressly declared to have been by faith; for it is written, ‘The just shall live by faith’ (Gal. 3:11), and ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness’ (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6). Whether faith was itself their righteousness, and in what sense it was imputed to them, will be considered in the sequel.↩︎

  7. The question whether Sacrifice was a divine institution, or a human invention, has given rise to much discussion. On the one side, see Davison, ‘Inquiry into the Origin and Intent of Primitive Sacrifice,’ also a note in his ‘Discourses on Prophecy;’ ‘Correspondence between Bishop Jebb and Mr. Knox,’ vol. i. pp. 455–462; Dr. Sykes, ‘Essay on Sacrifice.’ On the other, Archbishop M’Gee ‘On the Atonement;’ Shuckford’s ‘Connection of Sacred and Profane History,’ vol. i. p. 177, i. 370–385, i. 439–495, iv. pp. 48–60,—American Edition in 4 vols.; James Richie, M.D., ‘Criticism on Modern Notions of Sacrifice,’ particularly recommended by Dr. M’Gee on the ‘Origin of Sacrifice,’ also his ‘Peculiar Doctrines of Revelation,’ p. 137; Dr. John Edwards, ‘Survey of Divine Dispensations,’ vol. i. 91–99; Dr. R. Gordon, ‘Christ as made known to the Ancient Church,’ vol. i. pp. 46–66; Dr. Outram on ‘Sacrifices,’ passim.

    The moral meaning, and typical reference, of sacrifice, are well stated by Mr. Beart. ‘The sacrifices of old were offered in the room of the offender, whose “laying his hand thereon” (Lev. 1:4, 3:2) signified the transferring of his sin and guilt unto his victim. As if he should say, “I freely own I have deserved to die for such and such sins; but, Lord, by Thine appointment, I bring here a sacrifice, a poor animal, to die for me: accept it in my stead.” It is true, these sacrifices could not do away sins (Heb. 10:1), but were referred, in their whole typical nature and use, to Christ’s sacrifice, through which there is a real and eternal forgiveness, whereof that ceremonial forgiveness, which was by these sacrifices, was only a type.’—Beart’s Vindication, p. 55. See Hervey’s Works, ii. pp. 60, 88, 97–100, 264; P. Allinga, ‘The Satisfaction of Christ,’ translated by Rev. T. Bell, Glasgow, 1790, pp. 73–90; Dr. John Prideaux, ‘Lectiones Decem,’ pp. 138, 163.↩︎

  8. ‘The Divine Person who was so often seen by Abraham, when God was said to appear unto him, was our blessed Saviour, then in being ages before He “took upon Him the seed of Abraham.” Abraham, therefore, literally speaking, saw Him; and our Saviour might very justly conclude from Abraham’s thus seeing Him, that He was really in being before Abraham. Abraham built his altars, not unto God, whom “no man hath seen at any time,” but unto “the Lord who appeared unto him;” and in all the accounts we have of his prayers, we find that they were offered up in the name of this Lord.’—Dr. S. Shuckford’s Connection, vol. i. p. 177.↩︎

  9. On the Justification of Abraham, see Witsius, ‘De Mente Pauli circa Justificationem,’ Mis. Sac. vol. ii. p. 740; Bishop Downham, ‘Treatise on Justification,’ pp. 317–319, 432, 486; Brown (of Wamphray), ‘The Life of Justification Opened,’ pp. 116, 117; Dr. John Prideaux, ‘Lectiones Decem,’ p. 159; Buddeus, Misc. Sacr. vol. ii. p. 250.↩︎

  10. On the Theology of the Patriarchs, see J. H. Heidegger of Zurich, ‘De Historia Sacra Patriarcharum, Exercitationes Selectæ,’ 1667; Jurieu, ‘Critical History of the Doctrines and Worship of the Church from Adam to our Saviour,’ 2 vols. 8vo, translated and published at London in 1705, vol. i. c. 1; J. T. Biddulph, ‘The Theology of the early Patriarchs,’ 2 vols. 8vo, 1825; and Dr. Harris, ‘Patriarchy,’ a sequel to his ‘Man Primeval.’↩︎

  11. On the external National Covenant of the Jews, see H. Venema, ‘De Fœdere Externo Veteris Testamenti,’ 1771, p. 250,—being Book ii. of his Dissertations; Dr. John Erskine (of Edinburgh), Theological Dissertations, No. 1, 1765,—‘The Nature of the Sinaitic Covenant,’ pp. 1–66; Bishop Warburton’s ‘Divine Legation of Moses,’ vol. ii. Book v. p. 235, Book vi. sec. vi. 329; Rev. T. Bell (of Glasgow, 1814), ‘View of the Covenants of Works and Grace,’ Part iv. ‘The Covenant at Sinai,’ p. 253; Adam Gib (of Edinburgh), ‘Divine Contemplations,’ c. i.↩︎

  12. On the Justification of Old Testament believers, see Bishop O’Brien’s ‘Sermons on the Nature and Effects of Faith,’ p. 439, 2d Edition; Witsius, ‘Mis. Sac.’ ii. 744, 780; Bishop Downham, ‘Treatise on Justification,’ p. 412; Bishop Barlow, ‘Genuine Remains,’ pp. 583–593; Brown (of Wamphray), ‘Life of Justification,’ p. 247; Dr. John Prideaux, ‘Lectiones Decem,’ p. 162; Dickinson, ‘Familiar Letters,’ p. 191; and the precious work of Dr. Owen on the 130th Psalm, ‘works,’ vol. xiv., Russell’s Edition.↩︎

  13. On the typical import of these rites, see Dr. Fairbairn’s ‘Typology of Scripture,’ 2 vols. 8vo; J. Mather on the ‘Types,’ as recast in ‘The Gospel of the Old Testament,’ 2 vols.; and Becanus, ‘Analogia Veteris ac Novi Testamenti, in qua primum status Veteris, deinde Consensus, Proportio, et Conspiratio illius, cum Novo, explicatur.’↩︎