tion and dignity to the character suffering, that thereby his sufferings might have power to satisfy. Hence, properly speaking, the moral obedience of Christ was only essential in making satisfaction to justice, as it was necessary that the character suffering should be possessed of every perfection, in order to render his sufferings available. The Divinity of Christ was just as essential, and essential in the same sense, in rendering an adequate satisfaction to law and justice, as his active obedience; but will any one say that the Divine nature of our blessed Lord was imputed to us as our own, or that God accounted us as actually possessing the infinite attributes of the Godhead? And yet, it is quite clear that the Divinity and moral obedience of Christ sustain the same relation to his atonement. They give dignity and value to that "obedience unto death" which satisfied for sin; but they constituted no part of the penal infliction of justice. In the Scriptures, Christ is said to have suffered "for us;" that is, in our stead: but he is nowhere said to have possessed proper Divinity, or to have obeyed the moral law "for us," or in our stead. The truth is, he possessed Divinity, and obeyed the moral law, for himself; this was essential to his character as Mediator: but he suffered "for us;" and to say that the moral obedience of Christ is to be imputed to us as our own, and that it, in the same sense with his sufferings, constitutes that satisfaction to justice in view of which we are pardoned, is a confounding of the active and the passive obedience of Christ, implied in the Calvinistic scheme, which the Scriptures do not sanction.

2. This scheme of imputation implies the same absurd fiction embraced in the former one; that is, that the all-wise and infinite Being should consider the acts and sufferings of another as formally and de facto our own. All that was said on this subject in reference to the Antinomian scheme, applies with equal force against the theory of Calvin; hence, we add no more here upon that point.

3. Lastly, we remark that this, as well as the former scheme, is perfectly gratuitous; there being no Scripture which by any fair interpretation affords it the least countenance. Although we have admitted that the phrase "imputed righteousness of Christ" might, with proper explanations, be used in a good sense, yet it may be worth while here plainly to assert that there is in Scripture no authority either for the expression or for the Calvinistic interpretation on the subject; and therefore it were better that both be discarded. In those Scriptures

mainly relied upon as teaching the Calvinistic notion of imputation, such terms are used as "impute," or "imputed," "the righteousness of God," "clothed with garments of salvation," "robes of righteousness," "white linen, the righteousness of the saints," "putting on Christ,"

But in every case a fair exegesis of the text, in consistency with the context, will clearly show that nothing like the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us as our own for justification is taught.

And (1.) We remark, in reference to impute and imputation, that these terms are never used as implying the imputation of something possessed by, or done by, one person to another as his own. But, on the contrary, these words are always spoken in reference to something possessed or performed by the person to whom the imputation is made. Thus it is said, "Abraham believed God, and it (the faith of Abraham) was imputed to him for righteousness." Again; "But to him that worketh not, but believeth, his faith is imputed to him for righteousness." That is, his own faith, and not the faith of another man.

(2.) "When a thing is said simply to be imputed, as sin, folly, and so, righteousness, the phrase is not to be taken concerning the bare acts of the things, as if (for example) to impute sin to a man signified this, to repute the man (to whom sin is imputed) to have committed a sinful act, or as if to impute folly were simply to charge a man to have done foolishly; but when it is applied to things that are evil, and attributed to persons that have power over those to whom the imputation is made, it signifieth the charging the guilt of what is imputed upon the head of the person to whom the imputation is made, with an intent of inflicting some condign punishment upon him. So that to impute sin (in Scripture phrase) is to charge the guilt of sin upon a man with a purpose to punish him for it."— (Goodwin on Justification.)

Thus, when Shimei (2 Sam. xix. 19) prayeth David not to impute wickedness unto him, he means merely to ask exemption from the punishment which his wickedness deserved; and when the apostle says, "Sin is not imputed where there is no law," he does not mean that sin is not sin wherever it may exist, for that would be a contradiction in terms; but merely that sin is not so imputed as that punishment is inflicted on the sinner.

(3.) In those passages which refer to "the righteousness of God," &c., as connected with justification, the allusion is not to the active and passive righteousness of Christ, but to God's method of justifying sinners under the gospel; this is evident from these words: Rom. x. 3, 4.

46

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." And Rom. iii. 21, 22. "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe; for

there is no difference." Here it is undeniable that" the righteousness of God" spoken of is God's method of justifying sinners under the gospel by faith in Christ.

(4.) In those Scriptures referring to "robes of righteousness," "putting on Christ," &c., it is very evident from the context, that they relate either to temporal blessings, habitual holiness, or to the future rewards. of the saints; and in no case is there the least evidence that they refer to the obedience of Christ imputed to the saints as their own.

There are other passages that might be named as having been quoted by Calvinists to sustain their favorite dogma of imputation; but we have presented what appear to be the most pointed, except it be one more which, as being a peculiarly favorite text with them on this point, we have reserved to the last. It is Rom. v. 19. "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." Here it has been argued that the obedience of Christ is imputed to believers in the same sense as the disobedience of Adam is imputed to his posterity; and assuming that Adam's sin is so imputed to his posterity as to be considered formally their own, Calvinists have rallied around this passage as a triumphant proof of their notion of imputation. To this, we shall reply in the language of the learned Goodwin

"To come home to the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, I answer, first, that either to say that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to his posterity, (of believers,) or the sin of Adam to his, are both expressions at least unknown to the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures. There is neither word, nor syllable, nor letter, nor tittle, of any such thing to be found there. But that the faith of him that believeth is imputed for righteousness, are words which the Holy Ghost useth. But, secondly, because I would make no exception against words, further than necessity enforceth, I grant there are expressions in Scripture concerning both the communication of Adam's sin with his posterity, and the righteousness of Christ with those that believe, that will fairly enough bear the term imputation, if it be rightly understood, and according to the use of it in Scripture upon other occasions. But as it is commonly taken and understood by many, it occasions much error and mistake. Concerning Adam's sin or disobedience, many are said to be 'made sinners by it,' and so 'by the obedience of Christ,' it is said (in the same place) that many shall be made righteous;' but if men will exchange language with the Holy Ghost, they must see that they make him no loser. If, when they say 'Adam's sin is imputed to all unto condemnation,' their meaning be the same with the Holy Ghost, when he saith, that by the obedience of one many were made sinners,' there is

no harm done; but it is evident, by what many speak, that the Holy Ghost and they are not of one mind touching the imputation or communication of Adam's sin with his posterity, but that they differ as much in meaning as in words. If, when they say Adam's sin is imputed to all unto condemnation,' their meaning be this, that the guilt of Adam's sin is charged upon his whole posterity, or that the punishment of Adam's sin redounded from his person to his whole posterity, a main part of which punishment lieth in that original defilement wherein they are all conceived and born, and whereby they are truly made sinners before God; if this be the meaning of the term imputation when applied to Adam's sin, let it pass. But if the meaning be that that sinful act wherein Adam transgressed when he ate the forbidden fruit is in the letter and formality of it imputed to his posterity, so that by this impu tation all his posterity are made formally sinners; this is an imputation which the Scriptures will never justify."-(Treatise on Justification.)

So, in the same manner, the righteousness or obedience of Christ is imputed to us, not by considering it ours in the letter and formality thereof, but by admitting us to share in its merits, blessings, and privileges. From what has been said, we think it will appear evident that the Calvinistic scheme of justification by the imputation of Christ's active and passive obedience to us as our own, must be abandoned as inconsistent with the Scriptures. And as we have seen that neither the doctrine nor the phraseology employed is sanctioned by the Bible; and as the latter is so liable to abuse, sliding so easily into all the absurdities of Antinomianism, it deserves to be at once and forever abandoned. III. The third method of justification which we proposed to examine is that which teaches that it is by works alone.

Justification by works alone may be understood in several different

senses.

1. It may mean justification by perfect obedience to the original law of God. This, as we have already shown, is absolutely impossible to a fallen sinner. The condition of the first covenant being "Do this," (in your own person,)" and live," and "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them," it will hence follow, that, as the apostle declares that "all have sinned," and "all the world are guilty before God," to be justified by works of perfect obedience to the first covenant or original law of God, is absolutely impossible.

2. Justification by works alone may mean a perfect conformity to that moral code or law given to the Jews in their own Scriptures, and to the Gentiles by the influence of the Holy Spirit given unto them, to "show the work of the law written in their hearts." This is substan

tially the same law that was given to Adam, and in reference to its subject matter, is identical with the covenant of works, which is still in force, not as a principle of justification, but as a rule of life, by which to estimate the moral standing of man, and exhibit the magnitude of his delinquencies in the sight of God; for, as the apostle says, " By the law is the knowledge of sin." In reference to this law, it was that the Jews, in St. Paul's day, set up a claim to justification by works. The great argument in the Epistle to the Romans is to show the utter impracticability of this scheme of justification. We need only in this place quote the words in which the apostle sums up his grand conclusion, or sets forth his main position;-thus, "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin." This one passage, to such as are willing to abide by the teachings of inspiration, must forever explode the old Jewish scheme of justification by the works of the moral law; and as we know not that any respectable authority in the Christian church since the apostle's days has pleaded for justification in professedly the same way, we may pass this scheme without further notice.

3. Justification by works alone may be understood as implying justification by works of evangelical obedience under the gospel, or those works which proceed from faith, and are performed by the assistance of the Holy Spirit. This scheme has had some advocates in different ages of the church, and in modern times has found an able patron in Bishop Bull, the impress of whose views upon this subject is still perceptible upon many of the clergy of the Church of England. The grand argument in support of this scheme has been founded upon the language of St. James, who, it is contended, expressly teaches justification by works; and the effort has been made to reconcile St. Paul to St. James, by alleging that the former, when he denies the possibility of "justification by works," refers only to works of obedience to the Mosaic law; and that, when he teaches justification "by faith," he means the works which spring from faith. We reserve the refutation of this and every other scheme of justification by works, till we come to examine the doctrine of justification by faith only; since the establishment of the latter will disprove the former. They cannot stand together.

IV. The fourth scheme of justification to be considered is that which teaches that we are justified by faith and works taken together.

This scheme has had a respectable number of advocates, but they have differed considerably among themselves in reference to the kind of works which are united with faith in justification, and the degree of importance which should be attached to particular works. Dr. Macknight, perhaps one of the ablest defenders the scheme has ever had, presents a