not, in justice, have been inflicted on him. Το inflict the curse or penalty of a law upon one in no way chargeable with the violation of it, is contrary to the justice both of God and man. It remains, therefore, that our blessed Saviour, could, in no other way be chargeable with the violation of the law of God, and thereby be obnoxious to the curse of it, but through the imputation of our sin and guilt to him. If our blessed Saviour bare our sins in his own body, and was punished for our sins upon the cross, according to 1 Peter 2. our sins must then have been laid to his charge, and punished upon him, either by imputation or some other way; here then let the objector speak sense, and tell us what other way this could possibly be done. Indeed the evasion is too trifling, to urge that the word imputation is not used in this case in scripture, when so many expressions are used in scripture, which fully and necessarily imply it, and are of the same significancy. True we do not read in express words, that our sins were imputed to Christ, but we do read in express words, that our iniquities were laid upon him, that he bare them. That he was made sin or legally reputed a sinner on the account of them; that he bare them in his own body, or was punished for them upon the cross, and bare the curse of the law which we had violated; and if all this does not amount to the same thing as the imputation of our sins to Christ, I must for ever despair of understanding the meaning of the most plain and familiar expressions.

I now proceed to consider the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us as substantiated from the word of God. Here willingly concede that the words Christ's righteousness is imputed to believers, are not to be found in the scriptures in express terms But then we have so many full and clear testimonies in scripture, to the doctrine contained in that proposition, that there can be no reason to call the tru h of it into question. Thus Jer 23. 6. This is the name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Rom. 3. 25, 26. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins; to declare at this time his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. Rom. 5 18, 19. Therefore as by the offence of one judgement, came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous. Rom. 8. 3, 4. God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us. Rom. 10. 4. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. 1 Cor. 1. 30. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. 2 Cor. 5. 21. That we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

I

might add many more texts of scripture, to the same purpose, but how can more be needful to satisfy any person, respecting the truth of our justification, by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, who attentively reads and impartially weighs these cited texts, without prejudice to the doctrine, or a bias to some favourite scheme.

Here let it be considered, we are expressly assured, that Christ is the Lord our righteousness; that it is by his righteousness we obtain remission of sins; that by his righteousness God is the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus; that by his righteousness we have justification of life, and by his obedience we are made righteous; that by his being sent for sin and condemning sin, the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us; that he is the end of the law for righteousness to the believer; that he is of God made unto us righteousness, and we are made the righteousness of God in him.

It it possible that the doctrine I am pleading for, should be expressed in plainer or stronger terms? The word impute or imputation, is not, indeed, found in these texts; but the thing intended by it, is plainly contained in them; let that be granted, and the use of a word will not justify a controversy; let it be allowed that Christ has fulfilled the righteousness of the law · for believers; that his righteousness is become theirs; that they have, thereby, remission of sins; are justified before God and made righteous; let these things be owned, and it will be unimportant, whether the word imputation be

used in this case or not. Now, these things must either be granted, or the very language of the scriptures I have mentioned, is denied; and by allowing these things, the objector will acknowledge all that is intended by those who plead for the imputation of Christ's righteousness. But why must the word impute or imputation be found fault with; let those who object to it, read the fourth chapter of Paul's espistle to the Romans, and observe how often righteousness is there said to be imputed to those who believe. Though the righteousness there said to be impu ted, is not expressly called the righteousness of Christ, yet that is fully implied. For it was a righteousness whereby Abraham was justified; a righteousness without works; a righteousness by which our sins are covered, so that the Lord will not impute them; a righteousness by which God is the Father of all those who believe; and a righteousness through which Abraham had the promise that he should be the heir of the world. Now can any man pretend to a personal righteousness. to which all these characters are fairly applicable? Or, can these characters be justly applied to any other righteousness, but that of Christ alone?

Objection 2. "If faith be imputed unto the justification of a sinner, then Christ's obedience cannot be imputed to that end, unless our faith and Christ's righteousness are supposed to be the same thing; there is nothing more evident than that faith which is so often said to be imputed for righteousness, Rom. 4, is properly our

own personal righteousness. The word faith, signifies faithfulness, as well as believing, and includes evangelical obedience in the nature of it. God deals with us as moral agents, and imputes to us the righteousness which we personally have, rather than that which we personally have not."

Answer I take this to be the most plausible objection that has ever been made against the doctrine under consideration; it, therefore, deserves to be distinctly answered. I shall, accordingly, endeavour to show, that the faith which is imputed UNTO righteousness, (for so I think the word should be translated,) does not include obedience in the nature of it. 1 shall also prove that the faith which is imputed to believers unto their justification, is not their own personal righteousness; and then attempt to make it evident that if the objector's construction of those passages in Rom. 4, were granted, it would make nothing against the doctrine of our justification, by the imputed righteousness of hrist.

I am first to show, that the faith which is imputed unto righteousness, does not include obe. dience in the nature of it, considering faith in its reference to justification, or in its office of justifying; for though a true and lively faith, has its influence in purifying the hears and lives of men and producing obedience; yet it is of the very nature of faith to exclude all opinion of merit in ourselves; to respect the promise of God's mercy, and directly send us to Christ for justification and acceptance with God, through his merits and righteousness; so that justifying faith as such, does