To inflict the curse, or penalty of a law, upon one nowise chargeable with the violation of it, is contrary to the justice both of God and man. And I can imagine no other way by which our blessed Saviour could 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 Pet. ii. our sins, then, must be laid to his charge, and punished upon him, either by imputation or some other way. Here, then, let our adversaries speak sense, and tell us, if they can, what other way this could be done.

Pardon me, Sir, if I am forced to tell you, that it is too trifling an evasion to be adopted by men of learning and sense, to urge against us, 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 bore 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.

Dear Sir, allow me the freedom to observe to you, that you have been guilty of innumerable sins: if these have not been imputed to Christ, if he hath not borne your sins, if he hath not satisfied the divine justice on account of them, they must yet be imputed to you, and you must bear your iniquity yourself: you must yet be under the guilt of all your sins, and under all the curses of the broken lawa thought which will administer but little comfort here, and less at the tribunal of Christ, if this should then be found to be your case: a thought big with horror!

6

I now proceed to consider, whether the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us is nowhere mentioned in the word of God. I must here again acknowledge, that this proposition, Christ's righteousness is imputed to believers,' is nowhere 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 truth of it into question. Thus, "This is the name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our righteousness." "Whom God hath set forth 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 which believeth in Jesus." "Therefore, as by the offence of one, judgment 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 righ

teous." "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." "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness, to every one that believeth." "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom and righteousness, and sanctification and redemption." "That we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”

I might have added very many more texts of Scripture to the same purpose; but how can more be needful to satisfy any man in the truth of our justification by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, who attentively reads, and impartially weighs, these cited texts, without prejudice against the doctrine, or a bias to some favourite scheme? Let it be considered, here 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 which believeth on 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. Is it possible that the doctrine I am pleading for should be expressed in plainer and stronger terms? The word impute, or imputation, is not indeed found in these texts; but the thing intended by it is plainly found there. Let that be allowed, and I shall maintain no contro

or not.

versy with you about the meaning or use of a word. 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 not be of so great importance whether you consent to the propriety of the word imputation, in this case, Now these things you must allow, or deny the very language of the quoted texts; and by allowing these things, you will allow 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? Be pleased to read the fourth chapter to the Romans, and observe how often righteousness is there said to be imputed to them that believe. Though the righteousness, there said to be imputed, is not expressly called the righteousness of Christ, yet that is fully implied. For it was a righteousness whereby Abraham was justified, ver. 2. A righteousness without works, ver. 6. A righteousness by which our sins are covered, that the Lord will not impute them, ver. 6, 7. A righteousness by which God is the Father of all them that believe, ver. 11. And a righteousness through which Abraham had "the promise that he should be heir of the world," ver. 13. Now, can' any man pretend to a personal righteousness which all these characters are fairly applicable to? Or can these characters justly be applied to any other save the righteousness of Jesus Christ only?

I hope, by this time, you are convinced that the Scripture is not a stranger to the doctrine of justi

I

fication by the imputed righteousness of Christ. would, therefore, Sir, entreat you to consider it is of infinite consequence, that you yourself be not a stranger to that faith by which you may receive this righteousness, may have this imputed to you, and may, in virtue of this, be accepted (your person and your sincere performances) as righteous before God.

But I have been too tedious in my answer to your first objection. I therefore hasten to consider what you have further to object against this important truth.

"Your author (you tell me) argues, that if faith be imputed for righteousness unto the justification of a sinner, then Christ's obedience cannot be imputed to that end, unless our faith and Christ's righteousness be supposed to be the same thing; that there is nothing more evident than that faith (which is so often said to be imputed for righteousness, Rom. iv.) is properly our own personal righteousness: that the word faith, signifies faithfulness, as well as believing; and includes evangelical obedience in the nature of it: that God deals with us as moral agents; and imputes to us the righteousness which we personally have, and not that which we personally have not."

I take this to be the most plausible, and the most weighty objection against the doctrine under consideration that has ever been made; and it therefore deserves to be distinctly taken notice of. I shall accordingly endeavour to show, that the faith which is imputed unto righteousness (for so, I think, should the words be rendered) does not include obedience in the nature of it. I shall proceed to prove,