closely the object professed by that religion was interwoven with the thoughts and imprinted on the language of its teachers. To embrace Christianity, was to be saved. A confidence in the truth of what they preached is implied in this, which could scarcely be assumed where it was not felt, and scarcely be felt without strong grounds for conviction.

4. The word translated RIGHTEOUSNESS, also bears an entirely new sense in the Christian Scriptures. Its original meaning is justice, integrity; sometimes, goodness, benignity. In the Gospel it often carries a distinct meaning, acquittal or acceptance with God.

We read of "the righteousness of God which is by faith in Jesus Christ:" we read, that "the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith; but Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness."1 These, and many other sentences of the same import, are absolutely unintelligible without an acquaintance with the religion to which they refer. But when the principles of the Christian doctrine are explained, we perceive what is meant, namely, that the heathens, who, being ignorant of their Creator, sought no acquaintance with him, have obtained acquittal through faith in Christ; but that the Jews, who did seek acceptance with him

1 Rom. iii. 22; ix. 30, 31.

through observance of the Mosaic law, have not obtained acquittal. So the Christian faith is called the "way of righteousness;" its doctrine, "the word of righteousness;" its ministers, "the ministers of righteousness;" its profession, "the righteousness of God." When these phrases are examined, they are found to imply, that righteousness, i. e. justification in the sight of God, as a moral Governor, and acquittal before him as our Judge, is to be obtained in no other way than through reliance on the atonement made by Jesus on the cross. And this usage of the word is only warranted by the fact which is the groundwork of the Gospel: that God has covenanted to accept those as righteous, i. e. as justified in his sight, who embrace the way of salvation offered in the Gospel. The belief is strongly impressed upon our natural feelings, that, "if there is a God, he must delight in virtue." But experience universally declares, that no human virtue will bear examination according to the law of perfect holiness. Tried, therefore, by that law, no man is righteous, acquitted, or justified in the sight of God. This opens the way for "the righteousness of faith;" for that justification or acceptance with God which follows a trust in Jesus. And such is the new sense which is attached to the word righteousness by the Apostles.1

1 Alkaloσvvn, Justitia, est doctrina Christi, Matt. v. 10: vi. 33; xxi. 32. 2 Pet. ii. 21; et in Epistolâ ad Romanos passim. Wetstein.

Now, we know that it is a long process by which a word comes to bear a particular sense, especially if that sense be complex, and includes more than one idea. The process is more difficult when the word is of common use, and is wrested from its natural or conventional meaning. So that we may reasonably be surprised to find that a word so familiar as that which expresses justice or goodness, should, within the short space of fifteen or twenty years, be habitually employed to signify acquittal before God, or all that is contained in the theological term justification. The idea that justification is to be sought through Jesus, must have been familiar to the mind of the writers, in a degree which can scarcely be imagined without supposing personal conviction.

The employment of this ordinary word in an extraordinary signification, proves also the novelty

The title, "the Lord our righteousness," Jer. xxiii. 6, is easily explained from the New Testament; but without it, would not have established any such doctrine. It is scarcely necessary, in the present day, to allude to Taylor's bold substitution of the words deliverance or salvation for righteousness. If St. Paul, in the first chapters of his Epistle to the Romans, is not inquiring how mankind may be justified, in a forensic sense, at the bar of God, he cannot be said to argue at all. Neither does he argue, according to Taylor's translation. As in the passage, "that he might be gracious, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." Where is the antithesis of the original, eis to εἶναι αὐτον ΔΙΚΑΙΟΝ και ΔΙΚΑΙΟΥΝΤΑ τον ἐκ πιστεως Ιησου ? And what would be the purpose of the succeeding question, "where is boasting then?" So again, Taylor translates, Rom. iv. 3 :-Abraham believed, and it was counted to him for a grant of favour; and, v. 5, his faith is counted for salvation. Paraph. on Rom. ch. 16, in his "Key to the Apostolic Writings."

of the doctrine conveyed by it. Had there been nothing original in that doctrine, it would not have required an original term. Had the Christian religion been nothing more than a modification of the Jewish faith, the phrases which had been employed in the one would not have been changed, or have extended their signification, in the other.

5. The corruption of human nature, and the necessity of regeneration, as it was the professed cause of his appearance in the world, so it forms a prominent part of the teaching of Jesus and his Apostles. This leads to the usage of the word FLESH and its derivatives, for corrupt nature, in a sense altogether original. 1 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." "The natural (or animal) man cannot receive the things of God." 2 What a volume of doctrine is concentrated in these short sentences! To "live in the flesh," to "walk after the flesh," are phrases familiarly used in Scripture for a life led after the natural desires and propensities of the heart. But what meaning have they, till the difference between the spiritual and carnal life is first established? till it is understood to be the object of a religion divinely instituted, to take men out of a state of nature, in which they are enemies of God through the corruption that is in them, and to renew their hearts after

1 The existence of the term in the Septuagint, Gen. vi. 3, will hardly be thought to invalidate this assertion.

The natural or animal

John iii. 6. Yuxikos. 1 Cor. ii. 14. contrasted with the spiritual man. See Schleusner.

the divine image, which bears the stamp of "righteousness and true holiness?" 1 These do not

sound like the inventions of human teachers. It could hardly be a self-instructed or unauthorized reformer who first laid down the distinction, "That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit." "

6. The word FAITH affords a similar instance. For by the terms faith, or believing, in the New Testament, that is not generally meant which is required, as of course, in the case of any divine revelation, a belief of its truth, and a patient expectation of its promises. The sense which the word often bears in the Apostle's language is as peculiar as the doctrine on which its meaning depends is original. Faith is represented as the channel through which the benefits of the death of Jesus are conveyed to the believer. For as the doctrine of Christianity is, that he has undertaken to deliver from divine wrath all who trust in him, and to bestow on them eternal happiness: the characteristic of the religion is faith; and those who are invited to receive the religion, are invited to rely upon Jesus; to put their confidence in him; to depend upon him.

To see the force of this argument, consider the phrases: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."

have peace with God."

Being justified by faith, we "Do we then make void

1 See Col. iii. 10. Eph. iv. 24.

2 John iii. 6.