nonour upon his own law. Every sentence of justification Again, the penalty of a holy, violated law, was the only thing which stood in the way. Mere sufferings of any one are of no value, except in relation to some end. The suf ferings of Christ could no otherwise open a way of pardon but by removing the penalty of the law; but they could have no tendency to remove the penalty, but by his enduring it. Sufferings not required by law and justice must have been unjust sufferings, and never could effect any good, Such an exhibition could not have the effect of demonstrating God's hatred of sin, for it was not the punishment of sin; nor could it make the impression on the world, that the Ruler of the Universe would hereafter punish sin; for, according to this theory, sin goes unpunished, and dreadful sufferings are inflicted on the innocent to whom no sin is imputed. This scheme as really subverts the true doctrine of atonement, as that of Socinus; and no reason appears, why it was necessary that the person making this exhibition should be a divine person. But if the righteousness of Christ, consisting of his perfect obedience to the law and of his meritorious sufferings, be the only foundation of a sinner's justification, why do we not find it clearly and repeatedly inculcated in the Scriptures? In answer to this question, we say, that this doctrine is taught in the Bible with abundant perspicuity. As it relates to the vicarious sufferings of the Redeemer, every one who reads the Scriptures will find the doctrine inculcated, every where, and in every form; not merely in words, but by expressive emblematical ceremonies; especially by the bloody sacrifices ! of the law. No ingenuity nor sophistry can ever obscure this prominent doctrine of divine revelation. It would seem to be the centre of the whole system; and is equally conspicuous in the Old and the New Testament. Take this doctrine from the Bible, and you have destroyed the whole plan of redemption. It But the difficulty with many does not relate to the expiatory sufferings of Christ for the redemption of his people, but only to the necessity of his active obedience to the law in their behalf. Let us hear, therefore, the testimony of Scripture on this point. Christ says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets; I am not come to destroy but to fulfil," (Matt. v. 17.) In Rom. v. 18. 19, we have this doctrine taught with great clearness, 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 the disobedience of one many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." Nothing can be more express than this testimony. The righteousness which is here made the ground of justification is explained to be Christ's obedience; and that this is his active obedience is evident, because nothing else can properly be called righteousness and obedience. All obedience is active. Mere suffering cannot properly be denominated "obedience." deserves also to be remarked, that this righteousness and obedience are contrasted with the offence and disobedience of Adam, which shows that as by the latter we must understand the breach of the law, by the former we must understand the fulfilment of the law. Another strong proof of our doctrine is contained in Phil. iii. 9, "And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." To the same purpose is that in 1 Cor. i. 30. "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." Here righteousness being distinguished from sanctification, must relate to our justification; and thus the enumeration of the blessings received through Christ will be complete. He affords his people instruction, furnishes a righteousness for their justification; obtains their sanctification, and finally, their complete and eternal redemption. And in the twenty first verse of the fifth chapter of the second Epistle to the Corinthians, it is written "For he made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." And in Rom. x. 3, 4. "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." What in one place is termed God's righteousness,' in the latter verse is described as being produced by Christ's becoming" the end of the law," that is the accomplishment, or fulfilment of the law. And by the prophet Jeremiah the Messiah is emphatically called "JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS," Jer. xxiii. 6. SECTION IX. THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST CAN NO OTHERWISE JUSTIFY THE BELIEVER BUT BY BEING IMPUTED TO HIM. Whatever Christ has done or suffered for our salvation, in order that it may be available to us, must in some way become ours, or be set down to our account. That act of God by which this is done, has long been called imputation; which is, simply reckoning to us what Christ as Mediator has done, and treating us as though we had done or suffered the same. It is only upon the principle of substitution, that salvation by a Mediator is conceivable or possible. What obstacles stand in the way of the salvation of a sinner? They are twofold, the penalty of the law which denounces a curse upon every one who transgresses, and depravity of nature which incapacitates the creature for enjoying the heavenly inheritance. He who undertakes to save a single soul, must remove both these obstacles. The latter can be removed by divine efficiency alone; but the former requires something more than the mere exertion of power. No exertion of power has any tendency to satisfy the demands of a broken law. The Mediator can remove this obstacle in no other way, as appears to us, but by placing himself under the law, and rendering such an obedience, and enduring such sufferings, as will be satisfactory to divine justice. The lawgiver might, indeed, have insisted on the punishment of the transgressor, and the execution of the law upon him in person The acceptance of satisfaction from a substitute, is a matter of sovereign grace. No creature could, therefore, have known, that such a plan of mercy was practicable, until God revealed the mystery. But since he has made known his divine counsel, in regard to this matter, we can see a wisdom in the plan, which is truly astonishing. The Son of God becomes incarnate, obeys the law perfectly in our nature, and to furnish a justifying righteousness for the sinner, &c. subjects himself to the penalty of the law, as an expiation for our sins. The law having thus been fulfilled and honoured God can be just and justify the ungodly who believeth in Je sus. This righteousness is complete, and God is well pleased with the work of the Redeemer; but it can answer no purpose to him, unless it is some how made over to him. The law still charges him with innumerable transgressions, and his legal standing is no how altered by the mere fact that the law has been satisfied by another. That satisfaction must by some means be so connected with him, that his relation to the law shall be changed. If such an appropriation of Christ's work to his benefit cannot be made, as some tell us, then salvation is impossible, and Christ has died in vain. But God has told us that this righteousness may become ours; that he may become our righteousness; and we the righteousness of God in him. He does become the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. But how can his righteousness become ours? How can we be justified by his obedience? In no conceivable way, but by the imputation of his righteousness to us. No part of evangelical doctrine has met with a more determined opposition, than the doctrine of imputation. It has been loaded with reproaches, as a doctrine the most unreasonable, the most dangerous, and the most impious. It is a remarkable circumstance, however, that all the objections which have been made to it are founded on a misapprehension, or a misrepresentation of the true nature of imputation. It has been objected, that it implies the transfer of personal acts, and the communication of the moral character of one to another, which things are manifestly impossible. But this is an entire mistake. Imputation implies no change, whatever, in the inherent character of the person to whom righteousness is imputed; or to speak more correctly, though there is a renovation of nature effected at the same time, this is not by the act of imputation. By this act, the legal relations of the sinner are changed. Whereas, before righteousness was imputed, he was condemned, he is now justified. His guilt, or liableness to punishment, is taken away, and the Judge views him as standing fair in the eye of law; not considered in his own righteousness, but as clothed with the righteousness of the SURETY. His debt is cancelled, because another has paid it, and has caused it to be set to his credit. We might, indeed, express the same idea without employing the word impute. No doubt, some, through prejudice against this word, do so; and firmly hold the doctrine, while they reject the language in which it has commonly been expressed. And some are disposed to ask, why be tenacious of a word? Why not avoid its use, since so many are offended by it? To which we answer, 1. Because the term is Scriptural. 2. It is convenient and expressive; we do not know any single word which so exactly expresses the truth, in this matter. 3. Because the opposition to the phrase is not all; there is an aversion to the doctrine itself; and history teaches that errorists and heretics are accustomed to make the first attack on the established language of orthodoxy; but this is but a cover for their design to subvert the doctrine itself. Again, it has been objected to the doctrine of imputed righteousness, that it is nothing else than to ascribe to God a false judgment, esteeming those to be righteous whom he knows to be not really so. They have represented the word imputed to be synonymous with putative, and have so far mistaken the whole thing as to assert, that a putative righteousness, was a mere suppositious thing; an erroneous judg ment or estimation, which cannot be attributed to God without blasphemy. Now, we are surprized at such misrepresentations of our views. There is nothing false or suppositious in the case. When God imputes the righteousness of Christ to a sinner, he actually bestows it upon him for all the purposes of his complete justification. The sinner owes a righteousness to the law, which he cannot pay; but God in mercy reckons to him the perfect righteousness of another. For the sake then of Christ's satisfaction to the precept and penalty of the law he is pardoned and accepted as having a perfect righteousness in his Surety. The Psalmist says "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity." The non-imputation of sin is not a false judgment, but a gracious act by which no charge is made against the transgressor on account of his iniquities: they are remitted. So when God imputeth righteousness, the guilty sinner has his legal re sponsibilities changed. These are transferred to another who has borne the curse in his stead, and the righteousness of another is so charged to his account, that by it he is accepted as fully as if he had in his own person rendered a complete righteousness. The idea of imputation is well understood in the transactions of men. As when one owes a debt for the payment of |