wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way to save his life, the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand," Ezek. iii. 17-19, &c.; xxxiii. 7-9. In so far as we ourselves possess the truth, in so far are we responsible for its transmission to others. In so far as we know the will of God, are we called upon to make it known; and, as those who have been rescued from the most fearful of deaths, to strain every nerve, and put forth every energy for the rescue of others. We may not alter the word which has gone forth from the mouth of the Lord, by representing the disease as less virulent, the death as less universal, the power of the evil one as less extensive and fatal than he has described it. But we need not therefore bate one jot of our confidence in the success of evangelistic labours, in the ultimate triumph of Gospel principles. Rather, roused by a sense of the magnitude of the evil, the imminence of the danger, the terrible doom of the unregenerate, animated by the promise of Christ, let us realise the responsibility which lies upon us to let our light shine before others; and instead of saying, "Am I my brother's keeper?" feel that we are called upon by the most powerful of all considerations, not to hide that light under a bushel, lest we bring upon us the guilt of a brother's blood, but to set it upon a candlestick, that it may give light to all who are in the house, that others too may be led to glorify our Father which is in heaven,

IMPUTATION.

Under this head we include three distinct subjects, the imputation of Adam's sin to his descendants, of the sin of His people to the Lord Jesus Christ, and of the righteousness of Christ to His people. These subjects are so closely connected that those who hold the doctrine of imputation in one instance, generally hold it in the others as well, while they who reject it in one case reject it in all. The latter is the position of the Quakers. The doctrine of im

putation in all its applications they regard as inconsistent with the character of God, and opposed to the principles of the Gospel. On the subject of the imputation of Adam's sin, Barclay affirms: "This seed is not imputed to infants, until, by transgression, they actually join themselves therewith; for they are by nature the children of wrath, who walk according to the power of the prince of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience, having their conversation in the lusts of the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind."-(Apology, Prop. IV.) Though his words extend only to infants, it may be inferred that he denies in general the imputation of Adam's sin to any of his descendants, those who are reckoned sinners being those only, according to this view, who have committed actual sin, and thus being regarded as answerable for their own offences, but not for the offences of another.

To some this may seem a mere abstract point which Christians might be content to leave alone. But doctrines are so closely connected together, that the form in which one is held, is almost sure to influence in some measure the shaping of others. Now the doctrine of imputation we believe to lie at the very foundation of Gospel truth. An apostle tells us that God "hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." So another, "Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God." In these and numerous other passages, we believe the doctrine of imputation is taught, the imputation of sin to the Saviour, and of righteousness to His people. The sinner is accepted and justified, not for works of righteousness which he has done, but for what Christ has done in his room. Jesus suffered for sins, but not His own. He "bare our sins in His own body on the tree." Scripture is full of this doctrine of imputation, and however difficult it may be for us to reconcile the details of it with the ideas of God which our limited faculties have been able to form, it would be more difficult for us to acknowledge the possibility of salvation apart from

it. The whole practice of the Mosaic economy in regard to sacrifices, proclaims as with a hundred tongues the doctrine of substitution, of suffering transferred from the actual transgressor to another; while the laying on of hands on the part of the priest, in many instances, seems to speak of an imputation of guilt. (See Lev. xvi. 21, 22, &c.)

Not that the blood of bulls and of goats could take away sin. This an apostle expressly declares was impossible, Heb. x. 4. Not that a nature inferior to that which had sinned could answer to the Judge of all the earth for the transgression confessed over its head. But that a symbolical announcement was made in these things that another than the guilty individual was to suffer the punishment due to sin, and to make an atonement for the transgressor. Now, all our ideas of justice would be outraged, unless in some sort the guilt were transferred from the sinning to the suffering and atoning party. Nothing is easier on this subject than to slide into the use of language which gives a false and unworthy view of the Redeemer, and we are free to admit that such has been often employed. But the fact remains that Jesus suffered as if He had been a sinner. And for this there is no rational explanation but that which Scripture gives, that "the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all," that we are saved and justified not by works but by grace, and that this is rendered possible, because in His well-beloved son God is ever well pleased, because "the Lord is well pleased for His righteousness' sake," who hath magnified the law, and made it honourable, Isa. xlii. 21.

Now, if the general principle be admitted, it is vain to cavil at particular applications of it. Barclay argues that there can be no such thing as imputation of sin to children, because an apostle says, "Sin is not imputed when there is no law," Rom. v. 13. On this text he founds a syllogism. "Sin is imputed to none, where there is no law. But, to infants there is no law; therefore, sin is not imputed to them." The fallacy of this reasoning lies in the minor premiss-"To infants there is no law." Here the very thing is assumed which requires to be proved.

Infants are not in a position to be called to account for their individual actions. But the ground taken by those who hold the doctrine of imputation is, that there is a law by which infants, by which every child of Adam, is viewed as represented by our first parent, and involved in the guilt of that act which was committed by him when "sin entered into the world, and death by sin." They conceive that their doctrine is supported by the fact that infants partake of the consequences of sin, that they are subject to death which is "the wages of sin," and that a just God would not inflict the punishment where there was no guilt.

Barclay reasons that death is not in every case a punishment, that it "is not the wages of sin in the saints, but rather a sleep by which they pass from death to life." But, admitting that to the believer the sting of death is taken away, so that he can triumph over it, it still remains true that pain is pain. To the infant death is not always a quiet sleep, but is often accompanied by severe and protracted pain. How, then, is this to be accounted for? If it be unjust to impute sin where sin has not been committed, is it just to inflict punishment where there is no sin either actual or imputed? If infants have not committed sin, and if sin is not reckoned to them, why should the penalty of sin be visited upon them? To our mind this is a greater difficulty than the other. And therefore, without professing to understand all the reasons of God's dealings, we cannot but acquiesce in the doctrine of imputation; but, seeing that death reigns even over them that have not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression," feel ourselves shut up to the explanation of the apostle, that "by one offence death reigned by one," that

66

66

by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,” Rom. v. 17, 19, these many including those who have not been guilty of actual transgression, who are made sinners in the sense of being accounted sinners, having sin imputed to them.

It is further to be considered that temporal death is the least part of the curse. Barclay admits "that a seed of sin is transmitted to all men from Adam (although im

puted to none, until by sinning they actually join with it), in which seed he gave occasion to all to sin; and it is the origin of all evil actions and thoughts in men's hearts, in which death all have sinned," and that "all Adam's posterity is fallen, degenerated, and dead."-(Apology, Prop. IV., Sect. v.) Now, despite his parenthesis, enough is granted to carry the doctrine of imputation along with it. All men suffer in consequence of Adam's sin, and if the suffering be just, the sin must be reckoned as theirs. "The wages of sin is death;" and if all are fallen, degenerated, and dead, all have received of these wages. The fall has deprived them of the power to keep God's law, has left them in a state of depravity, of proneness to sin, the fruit of which is displayed by every child of Adam, and that at a very early age. None of us come into the world in the same state in which our first parent entered it, but with powers enfeebled, wills enslaved, hearts estranged from God, so that it may be truly said that we "go astray as soon as we be born." How is this to be explained, if not on the view we are considering? Sin is not the normal state of humanity. It is a blot on the fair face of creation, a disease in the subject, all the more loathsome that it is moral, and not physical. How comes

it that all inherit this depraved nature? that there is everywhere this proneness to evil? that the lessons of illdoing are so much more easily learned and readily received than the lessons of well-doing? How, but because the

race is under the curse of a broken law, because "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin?" How, but because Adam-the figure of Him that was to come, the representative man-because his sin was counted not to himself merely, but to those who were represented by him-because his sin was imputed to them, and the penalty due to it visited upon them likewise?

Looking again to the case of the Lord Jesus Christ, it is difficult satisfactorily to explain the circumstances of His sufferings and death, without admitting this doctrine of imputation. Personally He was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners." And yet personally He suffered