tion, in the hope that, under the Divine | blessing, they may operate both to inform and to correct. The term justification* appears to have been used first by the Romans, and to have been afterwards adopted for ecclesiastical purposes. According to the laws of etymology, it describes an affair of jurisdiction, the making of a person just, and is thus a forensic term. In the Old Testament there is a corresponding word, and we first find it familiarly used in courts of law. The radical idea of this term + is rigidity, or stiffness, and from this arises the moral sense of equity. To take one or two examples. We read, "If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked," Deut. xxv. 1. Now there is a form of the Hebrew verb, perfectly familiar to a student of the language, which conveys the idea, which we intimate by our word justifying; it is the judicial act of pronouncing a person righteous. In the case before us this form of the verb is used; and thus it is commanded, that while the wicked is condemned, the righteous is to be pronounced just. In another passage it is stated, that he that justifies the wicked, that is, he who pronounces such a man just, or acquits him in judgment, is like one who condemneth the just, an abomination to the Lord, Prov. xvii. 15. Other passages, in which the same term is used, having manifestly the same meaning, might be easily quoted. and who is he that will contend with me?" Isaiah 1. 8. The only meaning which a devout mind can apply in such circumstances is, that of a declaration of righteousness: he who was "a lamb without blemish, and without spot," who knew no sin, could in no sense be made righteous. We may now proceed from the Hebrew language on this subject to the Greek, in which tongue there was, as is well known, a version of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. It is desirable to recall this fact, as the writers of the New Testament employ what may be styled the language of the Septuagint; and the adoption of this version by the apostles shows the way in which they would translate many Hebrew texts. Thus the passages already given, to show the sense of the Hebrew word, are so rendered by the seventy, as to prove that the apostles had the idea of a judicial decision in their minds, when they used the Greek word.§ The Septuagint says, in Deut. xxv. 1, "The judges should justify that which is just.' In Prov. xvii. 15, they use the same phrase: “He that judgeth the unjust just, and the just unjust, is impure and abominable with God." Thus they use the word,|| to judge, as before they had employed the word used by the apostles for "to justify." The light cast on the subject by the New Testament is, therefore, precisely the same as that in which it has been already beheld. When, for instance, "Wisdom is" said to be "justified of her children," Matt. xi. 19, the meaning is, that she is vindicated from the aspersions of her enemies, exhibited in her true character, and declared to be perfect. To the Pharisees Christ said, "Ye are they which justify yourselves before men," Luke xvi. 15; for as the man who desires to justify himself, is one eager to prove that there is no defect in his obedience, so this sect, which affirmed that men were accepted by God on the ground of their good works, made a show of It may be well to observe here, that one of the alarming errors of the present day involves the assertion that justification means, not only the counting righteous, to which reference has been made, but making righteous. To this view, however, we think that the Scriptures are directly opposed, restricting, as we believe they do, the term now under consideration, to a change in the person's state, in relation to the law, and not using it for a change in his dispositions. It may suffice to remark, in proof of this, that our Lord was holy, harmless, un-righteousness before the world. The pubdefiled, separate from sinners,' and yet this very term is employed in reference to him. Alluding to the sentence of the Eternal Father, by which he was freed from the claims of the law, which he had fully satisfied, and acquitted from every false allegation of his enemies, he exclaims, "He is near that justifieth me, lican is said to have gone down to his house justified, that is, acquitted and pardoned by that God whose mercy he had humbly and fervently implored. It is needless to add other similar instances; but it may be stated, as worthy of special notice, that the forensic sense of justification is also manifest, from its being § δικαιόω. κρίνει. opposed to condemnation. "Judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification." "It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth?" Rom. viii. 33, 34. Nor is it less clear, that the term in question is used alike in reference to the eternal Father, and to the coequal Son; and that as injustice is with them impossible, so all that can be intended is the declaration of their integrity, the assertion of their absolute perfection. Here, then, the question recurs, How can man become just? And to this it is sometimes replied, "By merit." But to such an answer there are serious, and, we think, fatal objections. If, for instance, one human being merits of another, some action must be performed to which there was no prior obligation, and from which advantage accrues to him for whom it is done. Merit cannot possibly arise in any other circumstances; freedom from duty, and actual profit, are indispensably necessary to constitute it; for if, on the one hand, there is some claim, or, on the other, nothing is gained, merit is impossible. It were enough, therefore, to demolish the pretension to merit, to show that man cannot be profitable to God, and that any contrary idea is a wilful and guilty assault on the Divine independence. But, only remarking that God would have been infinitely and eternally blessed, had no creatures ever existed, it will suffice to dwell on the truth, that an action cannot be meritorious, unless there is no duty to claim its performance. The law of God requires entire obedience, from the earliest moments of our rational being, to the close of our mortal career; it follows, therefore, that something must be done beyond this, or the pretension to merit is vain, and the impossibility of the one shows that the other is groundless. If, for example, Adam had maintained, undeviatingly, his fidelity to God, for any period, however lengthened, he would not, at its close, have merited anything; because his Creator and Benefactor required most justly, a constant and invariable obedience to his will. And if, in such circumstances, there could be nothing meritorious, the condition of his descendants is still more unfavourable. God has a paramount right to claim every thing from man: this, at the outset, wholly annuls all claim upon God on the part of man, under any circumstances. Let it be granted, that there is in the bosom a spirit of integrity, or kindness, or patriotism; and then it may be contended that it was God by whom this spirit was inspired, and without him no disposition of the kind could ever have been exercised. If at the hands of the individual, the poor have long and largely been the recipients of bounty; still the voice of the Lord of hosts may be heard saying, "The silver and the gold are mine." The gifts of God are thus every where manifest, and as the abuse of them is wickedness, so it is only duty to use them aright; and until debt is donation, and a matter of right is one of favour, duty cannot be merit. It may still further be observed, that the sinfulness of man is equally demonstrative of the fact, that he can have nothing meritorious. As a transgressor of the law of God, though his present conduct were dutiful, it could not compensate for his past disobedience. Supposing obedience now performed, it could not cancel the debt which he had formerly contracted, as if he offered a free gift, or gratuitous service. And hence, on various grounds, it is manifest, that justification by works is absolutely impossible; a fact clearly stated by the apostle, when he said, "By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified;" and manifestly accordant with his statements that believers are "justified freely," and saved by "grace.” See Rom. iii. 20, 24. Various parts of the word of God fully coincide with this inspired testimony. Christ is called "The Lord our righteousness," Jer. xxiii. 6. He is said to bring in everlasting righteousness, Dan. ix. 24. He is described as made of God unto us righteousness, 1 Cor. i. 30. The sinner who appears before the tribunal of God, might be equitably condemned: he is destitute of the righteousness which the law requires, and he has also incurred its penalty; but by an act of free favour, God gives him this righteousness which his law demands, and on this ground declares him to be just. In other words, this righteousness is "imputed." Paul says to Philemon concerning Onesimus, "If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account;" that is, impute it to me, hold me responsible for it, as if it were my own deed; so the moral Governor of the world reckons to the believer the righteousness of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. As "Now to him that worketh," says the apostle, "is the reward not reckoned of | grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also 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. iv. 4-8. Should it be objected, that faith is the righteousness here declared to be imputed, it may be replied, that as faith is an act of an individual mind, it cannot be said, with any propriety, that what is his own is imputed to him. Faith receives the testimony of God, in which the righteousness of Christ is revealed; it becomes, therefore, the instrument of imputation, but it is not the thing imputed. That which is imputed is, we conceive, the personal obedience of the Redeemer. His sacrifice, as an atonement for sin, was of infinite value, in consequence of its union with his Deity. It would, indeed, have lost its worth, had Jesus been disobedient; but the value of the offering he presented once for all, could not be enhanced by his obedience. Why, then, was there a long course of obedience? Admitting that the righteousness of Christ was designed for the justification of his people, the reason of his dwelling in the world for thirty years prior to the offering of his sacrifice, is manifest; but rejecting it, no reason for his previous course can be assigned. It cannot be said that his obedience during that period was to furnish us with an example, for he lived in obscurity, and no history of his career at that time has ever been penned. But viewing the righteousness of Christ as the property of his people, to secure their justification before God, all difficulty is at an end, and the previous course of the Redeemer exhibits an entire subserviency to the grand design of his coming-the salvation of all who believe. THE opinion that eclipses of the moon are occasioned by the earth's shadow, is founded on careful calculation and profound reflection; there are, however, African sages who entertain a very different opinion. The following extract from a work on Africa, will show the ridiculous notions entertained by some of its natives: "About ten o'clock at night, when we were sleeping on our mats, we were suddenly awoke by a great cry of distress. Before we had time to recover from our surprise, old Pascoe, our native servant, rushed breathless into our hut, and informed us with a trembling voice that the sun was dragging the moon across the heavens. We learned that the Mohammedan priest, residing in the city, had told the king and the people that the eclipse was occasioned through the obstinacy and disobedience of the latter luminary. They said for a long time previously, the moon had been displeased with the path she had been compelled to take through the heavens, because it was filled with thorns and briers, and, therefore, that, having watched for a favourable opportunity, she had this evening deserted her usual track, and entered into that of the sun. She had not, however, travelled far up the sky on the forbidden road, before the circumstance was discovered by the sun, who immediately hastened to her in his anger, and punished her dereliction, by clothing her in darkness; forcing her back to her own territories, and forbidding her to shed her light upon the earth." DISCONTENT. DISCONTENT casts a cloud over the mind, and renders it more occupied about the evil which disquiets it, than about the means of removing it.-Feltham. Reader, here is the only basis for your hope: give it your most serious and devout regard. Neglect not the slightest impression or conviction of a religious nature. Do not for the world treat it with indifference: it may be the Spirit's rising beam, the dawn of a day of glory and of bliss. Our Lord, when desired by As a needle in a compass trembles till the Gergasenes to depart out of their it settles in the north point, so the heart coasts, complied with their request, and of a sinner can have no rest but in Christ. visited them no more. May there then-Dingley. CHRIST THE GIVER OF PEACE. The Great Hall of a nobleman's house in the time of James I. ENGLISH HISTORY. JAMES I. THE Romanists were not less disappointed than the Puritans at the course pursued by James, on his accession to the throne of England. They had expected a repeal of some of the laws affecting them, if not a toleration, for James certainly was more favourably disposed towards Papists than to the Puritans; but the measures he pursued, relative to the latter, compelled him to assume an appearance of impartiality, by causing the penal laws against the Papists to be enforced, in some instances, at least. They especially suffered by fines; the poverty of the king, and the rapacity of many of his Scottish dependents, often led to grants of these fines to those who pressed for his bounty, the penalty of twenty pounds being incurred for every month a Papist absented himself from church. The Papists were also divided among themselves, and those denominated the English party, who were more willing than their fellows to live quietly, were goaded to discontent by the immediate agents of the pope, especially the Jesuits. There is full reason to believe that these men not only urged their more quiet brethren to disloyalty; but that they also, at times, by secret informations against them, actually caused the laws to be enforced more severely, that discontent might thereby be increased. That James had expressed himself favourably towards them, there FEBRUARY, 1842. can be no doubt. The earl of Northumberland communicated with him, while queen Elizabeth was in her last illness, and declared that he was authorized to give the Romanists hopes that they should be well dealt withal. It is stated, that James not only wrote to this effect, but even added, "It were a pity to lose so good a kingdom for not tolerating mass in a corner, if upon that it resteth.' In this state of things, some active Papists formed that atrocious conspiracy, commonly called the Gunpowder Plot, which will never be forgotten, though the Romanists make every effort to extenuate the deed, and to prevent its being duly remembered. Protestants, also, when considering the details of this plot, are too apt to forget that the more important features which distinguish it are, the undeniable and complete exposure of two of the atrocious principles maintained by the church of Rome, namely, that the end sanctifies the means, so that any proceedings may be adopted to crush heresy; and that a priest is not to take measures to prevent any purposed crime, which has been communicated to him by way of confession, while it rests with himself, in a great measure, to determine whether anything told him is a communication of that nature. Upon these points rest the only excuses which the advocates of the church of Rome can offer to extenuate this atrocious design. That they are invalid, and contrary to Scripture, need hardly be E said; but we must also remember that these excuses, which, in reality, only aggravate the crime, are not applicable in this instance. Even these subterfuges are not left for the Papist in this matter. The history of the Gunpowder Plot is shortly as follows. Robert Catesby was a gentleman of Northamptonshire, whose family had suffered in the cause of the pope, during the last reign. Catesby himself also was heavily fined for taking part in the last lawless attempt of the earl of Essex. He afterwards had much intercourse with the Jesuits, and formed the atrocious design of destroying the king, and both houses of parliament, by an explosion of gunpowder. It may be well to observe, that among the rumoured plots against Elizabeth, noticed by the writers of her day, was one of a plan to destroy the queen and her court by the very same means. In August, 1604, the peace between England and Spain was finally settled ; but no mention was made in the treaty of any relief to the Romanists. Catesby and his companions then set about their design in earnest. A house adjoining the building in which the House of Lords met was taken; and during the month of December considerable progress was made in excavating a mine beneath the wall which separated the buildings, the conspirators intending to complete their preparations against the next meeting of parliament, when that meeting was deferred to October 3. The long interval, thus unexpectedly afforded, caused the conspirators to suspend their proceedings. Some of them began to doubt whether it was lawful to destroy the whole parliament, as some of their own faith would be there among the Protestants; but respecting the destruction of the latter they did not hesitate. In this dilemma, Catesby inquired of father Garnet, the provincial or chief of the Jesuits in England, "Whether it were lawful, in a just and good cause, to adopt measures which, though framed only for the guilty, would sometimes include the innocent?" The Jesuit priest, without hesitation, declared that such a proceeding was lawful; and Catesby, thus strengthened, overcame the scruples of his associates. Let the Protestant remark that this cause, "just and good" in the eyes of Papists, was the total destruction, or wholesale murder of the king, lords, and commons, and their attendants! If Garnet was not then acquainted with the design, he soon afterwards was apprized of it, through Greenway, another Jesuit, to whom it was made known. Doubtless he was a participator in the conspiracy, and if, as the Papists assert, it was revealed to him in confession, that circumstance in truth God gives the word, the preachers throng around, only makes his participation in the guilt Catesby communicated his design to others, who were induced to join him in the plot: the earliest of these were Winter, and Guido Vaux, or Guy Fawkes, Wright, and Percy, a relation of the earl of Northumberland, to whom he was steward. These five bound themselves together, by privately communicating at mass; receiving the sacrament from a priest named Gerard, who, if he was not exactly aware of the nature of the plot, must have known that the parties had formed some dark design; but it was the special business of these missionaries of the pope to foment disturbances against the state, as well as to oppose the established faith. How different from the course pursued by Protestant missionaries, who go forth as the heralds of peace, bearing only the glad tidings of salvation! Now The sacred book no longer suffers wrong, Live from his lips, and spread the glorious sound; And since these lines were written, the the more atrocious. After Christmas, the conspirators re- They encourage themselves in an evil matter: |