the reckoning to a person of what really is his own. Thus, Shimei prayed that David would not "impute iniquity" to him; that is, would not lay the sin which he had committed to his charge, and punish him for it. In like manner, it is said concerning a summary act of justice, which Phinehas had performed, that "it was counted unto him for righteousness." The meaning plainly is, that it was esteemed a righteous act, for which he was commended and rewarded with "the covenant of an everlasting priesthood." But the word also signifies to reckon something to a person which he has not done, as if he had done it. Thus, Paul says to Philemon concerning Onesimus, “If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought," que "put that on mine account;" impute it to me; hold me responsible for it, as if it were my own deed. It is in this sense that the word is used in reference to the justifi

cation of a sinner.

It is certain, from the passages formerly quoted, that the righteousness of Christ is placed to the account of the believing sinner, so that he is pardoned and accepted. Now, it is evident, that it is only by imputation that his righteousness can become ours. No such thing is possible, as the transference of moral qualities from one person to another, or the communication of holiness from one who is pure to one who is impure. We cannot be made honest by the honesty of another, or benevolent by the benevolence of another, or patient by the patience of another. These are personal qualities; and unless they be formed in our own minds, unless they have their root and growth there, we must remain dishonest, selfish, and fretful. The virtues which an individual possesses can have no influence upon those around him except by the force of example. But we may be freed from a debt by the payment of a surety, and entitled to a reward for the meritorious services which a friend has performed for us; and when a discharge is granted in the one case, and a recompense is bestowed in the other, it may be said that the deed of the surety, or of the friend, is imputed to us. The acts are theirs; but as they were performed on our account, we enjoy the benefits of them.

From these remarks, you will perceive how Jesus Christ is "made of God unto us righteousness." It is not by the transfusion of his holiness into our souls, for we have already shown that justification does not change our nature, but our state; but by such an assignation of his merit to us as avails to procure the pardon of our sins, and our restoration to the favour of God. In speaking upon this subject, it is common to say that his righteousness is reckoned to us as if it were our own; that it as truly accounted ours as if we ourselves had perforined it; that we are as righteous as if we had fulfilled the whole law. These are popular expressions, which require to be properly explained, or there is a danger that we shall be led into error. They are apt to suggest the idea of an actual transference of the righteousness of Christ to believers, in consequence of which it becomes literally theirs, as the garment of one man becomes, by his gift, the property of another. They may suggest the idea that his righteousness passes from himself to the sinner; and hence the inference seems to be, that he has parted with it, as a man does not retain what he has given away. But a little attention will convince us that this is not an accurate notion of imputation; and the reflection, that we are speaking of a spiritual transaction, will be a preservative from gross and material conceptions. The righteousness of Christ must ever be inherent in himself, and it can be imparted to others only in a legal sense. Imputation is the act of God, whose judgment is according to truth; and who cannot, therefore, account those to be personally righteous whom he knows to be personally guilty. But he may treat them as if they were righteous, in consideration of the righteousness of § 1 Cor. i. 30.

* 2 Sam. xix. 19.

+ Ps. cvi. 31.

+ Philem. 18.

another. He may pardon their sins, and receive them into favour, and give them a title to eternal life; and in these things justification consists. This is all that can be distinctly understood to be implied in imputation; if you patiently and attentively meditate on the subject, you will find that this is the only sense in which the righteousness of the Redeemer becomes ours. It is ours, because, on account of it, God deals with us as if we were righteous in ourselves; but he cannot look upon us as really righteous, because the contrary is true, any more than we can look on a person as really meritorious, who is rewarded for the merit of another. When a surety pays a debt, the debtor is discharged, but he is not rendered personally solvent. The sole effect of the deed of his surety is to place him in the same situation, in respect of his creditor, in which he would have stood if he had been able with his own property to fulfil his obligations. Considered in himself, and in the eyes of all around him, he is a bankrupt. To be really righteous, and to be righteous by imputation, or, in the language of our church, to be accepted as righteous, are, I presume, two things exceedingly different. Jesus Christ himself is truly, and in the strictest sense, righteous; but those who believe in him are only accounted righteous.

I believe, indeed, that this distinction has not been always attended to; and that, by many, something more is understood to be implied in imputation, although they are unable to give a satisfactory explanation of their meaning. An idea seems to be entertained, that the righteousness of Christ is so attached to the persons of believers, that it is as truly their own property as is a man's personal righteousness. Justification is a legal act, and must be conceived as analogous to other legal acts of a similar nature. But there is no imputation in law of the deed of one man to another, except in the sense already explained. Having been performed for him, it is so accounted to him, that he enjoys all the advantages which would have accrued to him if it had been performed by himself. The law never supposes that he actually performed it, but accepts the performance by another, as equivalent to his own. Now, apply these things to the subject before us, and you will perceive that the impu tation of the righteousness of Christ does not consist in accounting us in any sense righteous in ourselves, but in treating us, for his sake, as if we were righteous. What he did and suffered, he did and suffered for his people; and when they claim an interest by faith in his vicarious acts, they are dealt with, from respect to those acts, as if they had themselves obeyed the precepts and satisfied the penalty. In this sense they are righteous, that their surety has fulfilled all the demands of the law, and left nothing to be demanded from them. It has received from him every thing which it might have exacted from them.

I have endeavoured to prove, that the meritorious cause of our justification before God is not our own righteousness, but the righteousness of Christ. Works are excluded in every form. No qualification is sought for or regarded in the sinner; God looks upon him as utterly unworthy in himself, and shows favour to him solely for the sake of Christ, in whom he believes. Thus his design is accomplished, that "no flesh should glory in his presence." There is not left to the justified person the shadow of a ground on which he might claim any honour to himself, or pretence that he had acted a subordinate part in his salvation, as we shall see more fully in the next lecture, when we consider faith as the appointed means of obtaining this privilege.

The scripture declares, that we are "justified freely by grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ." It would be granted, it might be said, that we are justified by grace, if God pardoned our sins upon our repentance without an atonement, and accepted our imperfect instead of perfect obedience.

But how does grace appear according to the doctrine which has now been de livered? The blessing is strictly due to us; the full price has been paid for it; and, properly, justification should be considered as an act of justice. But to this objection the answer is easy. In one view, God is just when he justifies the ungodly man who believes in Jesus; for every deniand upon him has been satisfied, and, consequently, the privilege could no more be withheld from him, than a discharge can be withheld from a debtor after his surety has made full payment of his debt. But, let it be remembered, that those who are justified possess in themselves no claim to the blessing. They have made no atonement for their sins, and performed no obedience to entitle them to the reward. They did not even provide a surety to do for them what they could not do for themselves; but God called him to the office. In every view, they are utterly unworthy of his favour; and hence, although their justification may be an act of justice in respect of the Saviour, it is an act of pure grace in respect of them. They are merely recipients of a privilege, which was obtained for them without their concurrence, and for which they give nothing in exchange. They are freely forgiven and accepted, and are thus laid under eternal obligations. Of this they are deeply sensible; and, accordingly, say with the Psalmist, "Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us; but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth's sake."*

A question has been proposed, which is of no practical use, and has been dictated by idle speculation and vain curiosity, Whether the whole righteousness of Christ is imputed to every believer, or only so much of it as will answer all the demands of the law upon him? If we must answer this question, we may do so by asking another: Whether, when a surety pays the debt of twenty persons at the same time, the whole sum is reckoned to each individual, or only that part of it which corresponds to the sum which he owed to his creditor? It is possible that this question might be perplexed with a variety of refinements and subtile distinctions; but it would not be worth while to be stow a moment's attention upon them. It is of no consequence what sentiments men adopt upon a point of this nature. It is not in such niceties that true wisdom consists. The inquiry will appear exceedingly uninteresting to a sinner who is anxious to learn how he may obtain peace with his offended Creator; and he will be content to know in general, that, if he believe in Jesus Christ, he shall enjoy the full benefit of his mediation.

I conclude with two quotations from the fathers. The first is taken from the writings of Justin Martyr; and in the following words, from his epistle to Diognetus, the doctrine of justification through the righteousness of Christ is concisely and perspicuously delivered: "God gave his own Son a ransom for us, the holy one for the transgressors, the innocent for the wicked, the righteous for the unrighteous, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. For what else could cover our sins but his righteousness? In whom could we transgressors and ungodly be justified, but only in the Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable contrivance! that the transgressions of many should be hidden in one righteous person, and the righteousness of one should justify many transgressors!"

I shall add a quotation from Chrysostom on the fifth chapter of the second epistle to the Corinthians. "He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." "What mind can represent these things? He made the righteous one a sinner, that he might make the sinners righteous. Rather this is not what he says, but something much greater. He does not say he made him a sinner, but sin; not only him who had not sinned, but who did not know sin, that we might

Ps. cxv. 1.

be made, not righteous, but righteousness, and the righteousness of God. For this is the righteousness of God, when we are justified not by works, for in this case it is necessary that there should be no spot in them, but by grace, in the blotting out of all sin. This does not permit us to be lifted up, because God freely gives us all, and teaches us the greatness of the gift; for the former righteousness is that of the law and of works, but this is the righteousness of God." From these passages it appears, that, although the fathers do not always express themselves with the same accuracy as modern theologians, whom controversial discussion has led to a more careful selection of language, yet the scriptural trine of justification was understood and taught, long before the days of er and Calvin.

Office of Faith in Justification-Whether it precedes or follows Justification-Definition of it-Faith not the Ground or Condition of Justification, but the Instrument of Partaking of it-The Relation of Repentance and Good Works to Justification.

ALTHOUGH Jesus Christ fulfilled the righteousness of the law during his abode upon earth, yet those for whom he acted as a surety, are not immediately delivered from the guilt of their sins, and restored to the favour of God. They are born children of wrath as well as others, and they sometimes continue for many years in a state of condemnation. The righteousness of the Redeemer is not of avail to them till it is applied. I proceed to speak of its application, and remark that, while it is revealed and brought near to us in the Gospel, faith is the means by which it is received, or by which we obtain such an interest in it as to be accepted in the sight of God. God "justifieth the ungodly that believeth in Jesus."

But before I consider the office of faith in justification, it is necessary to attend to the question, whether we are justified before faith or after it; or, "whether the act of God imputing the righteousness of Christ to us, or our receiving it by faith, be first in the order of nature." The question will probably astonish you; but it has actually engaged the attention of some theologians, and given rise to much discussion and metaphysical argumentation. Those who aim at being exceedingly accurate and consummately orthodox, maintain, "that justification, as it is the act of God, is, in the order of nature, antecedent to our faith; and, that our faith is antecedent to it, as it is passively received into, and terminated on, our conscience." The last words I do not well understand; but, if they have any meaning it must be, that the assurance of our justification, and the peace of conscience which flows from it, are posterior to faith. But surely, if men would allow themselves to think, they would see that this assurance is not justification, but a fruit or consequence of it. It follows from this theory, that what has been always understood by justification is not that which is spoken of in the Scriptures when we are said to be justified by faith, but a certain state of mind closely connected with it. It is not the sentence of God pronounced upon the sinner, but his knowledge and experience of the sentence. It would seem, then, that we have been all along in an error; and that, while we supposed that we became righteous by faith, and gave credit to the Scriptures, which told us that righteousness would

S

be imputed to us if we believed, the matter is transacted in a different manner. We become righteous without faith; righteousness is imputed to us before we believe.

The principal argument by which this opinion is supported, is, that faith is a fruit of the Spirit, and that the Spirit cannot be given to men while they are under the curse of the law, which is not repealed till they are actually justified. The curse is an impenetrable barrier in the way of all gracious communications. But although this seems to be logical reasoning, there are two reasons why I deem it inconclusive. The first is, that, notwithstanding their subjection to the curse, God did love men, and bestow upon them the unspeakable gift of his Son. I should wish to know what there is peculiar in the gift of the Spirit, which should hinder God from giving him till the curse is removed; or how it comes to pass that, while men were under the guilt of sin, God might send his Son to die for them, but cannot send his Spirit to infuse life into their souls. The second reason is, that no reasoning, however plausible, can support any theory in opposition to Scripture. If the Scripture declares, that we are "justified by faith;" that righteousness is imputed to those who believe; and calls the righteousness of Christ, "the righteousness which is by faith," plainly signifying that faith is antecedent; what right has any man to come forward and tell me, that I should beware of being misled by this language, for that this is not the true order of things? God stands in no need of the counsels of men to direct him how to proceed. He knows what he may do consistently with his own character, and the moral constitution of the universe. If he has said, that he justifies a sinner by faith, what signify all the minute reasonings of puny mortals, which go to prove that this is impossible, because there is a sentence against the sinner which must be reversed before the Spirit is given? Did not God know of this difficulty? or, knowing it, did he express himself as if it did not exist? It were well if, in such matters, the interpreters of Scripture would lay aside their logic, and exercise a humble faith, assenting to what is revealed without obtruding their corrections and twisting every thing into an agreement with their systems. And let us all learn to derive our sentiments in religion, not from the subtilties of scholastic divines and their imitators in modern times, but from the writings of the prophets and apostles, whose language, if it should appear to some men not properly guarded, is, however, such as they were directed to use by the Spirit of inspiration.

66

The opinion which I have endeavoured to expose, is hyperorthodoxy. As it is contrary to the uniform language of the Scriptures, so it is at variance with the doctrine of our church, which teaches us, that the righteousness of Christ is received by faith; that faith is the instrument of justification ;"* and that, although "God did, from all eternity, decree to justify the elect; and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification; nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth in due time actually apply Christ unto them."+

Of the faith by which we are justified, such a definition has been sometimes given as entirely overthrows the doctrine which we have laboured to establish. It is represented not only as a living faith which works by love, but as formally comprehending good works. It justifies us not as faith, or a reliance upon Christ, but as operative in the performance of our duty, and is another name for believing obedience. As this definition is inconsistent with the known and established use of the term, so it confounds faith and works, which the Scriptures most carefully distinguish and oppose to each other in justification, and it renders some of their declarations on the subject unmeaning and absurd. If