Ghost. If righteousness, or justification, be by the law, then Christ died in vain. Men cannot here betake themselves to their wonted refuge, to say, that by the law is to be understood the works of the law as performed by a man's self in person. For, if by the word law in this place, we understand the works of the law as performed by Christ, the consequence will rise up with the greater strength against them. If righteousness were by the works of the law, as performed by Christ, that is, if the imputation of them were our complete righteousness, the death of Christ for us had been in vain, because the righteousness of his life imputed had been a sufficient and complete righteousness for us."

The same writer also powerfully argues against the same doctrine, from its confounding the two covenants of works and grace. "It is true, many that hold the way of imputation are nothing ashamed of this consequent, the confounding the two covenants of God with men, that of works with that of grace. These conceive that God never made more covenants than one with man; and that the Gospel is nothing else but a gracious aid from God to help man to perform the covenant of works; so that the life and salvation which are said to come by Christ, in no other sense come by him, but as he fulfilled that law of works for man which men themselves were not able to fulfil: and by imputation, as by a deed of gift, he makes over his perfect obedience and fulfilling of the law to those that believe; so that they, in right of this perfect obedience, made theirs by imputation, come to inherit life and salvation, according to the strict tenor of the covenant of works-Do this and live.'

law. Therefore, imputation makes no difference in this respect. Imputation can be no part of that righteousness by which we are justified, because it is no conformity with any law, nor with any part or branch of any law, that man was ever bound to keep. Therefore, it can be no part of that righteousness by which he is justified. So that the condition of both covenants will be found the same (and consequently both covenants the same), if justification be maintained by the righteousness of Christ imputed."

To the work last quoted the reader may be referred as a complete treatise on the subject, and a most masterly refutation of a notion, which he and other Calvinistic divines, in different ages, could not fail to perceive was most delusive to the souls of men, directly destructive of moral obedience, and not less so of the Christian doctrine of the atonement of Christ, and justification by "faith in his blood." It is on this ground that men who turn the grace of God into licentiousness, contend that, being invested with the perfect righteousness of Christ, God cannot see any sin in them; and, indeed, upon their own principles, they reason conclusively. Justice has not to do with them, but with Christ; it demands perfect obedience, and Christ has rendered that perfect obedience for them, and what he did is always accounted as done by them. They are, therefore, under no real obligation of obedience; they can fear no penal consequences from disobedience; and a course of the most flagrant vice may consist with an entire confidence in the indefeisible favour of God, with the profession of sonship and discipleship, and the hope of heaven. These notions many shamelessly avow; and they have been too much encouraged in their fatal creed, by those who have held the same system substantially, though they abhor the bold conclusions which the open Antinomian would draw from it.

But men may as well say there was no second Adam, really differing from the first; or that the spirit of bondage is the same with the spirit of adoption. If the second covenant of grace were implicitly contained in the first, then the meaning of the first cove-made is the first of the three opinions which have been nant, conceived in those words, 'Do this and live,' must be, do this, either by thyself, or by another, and live. There is no other way to reduce them to the same Covenant.

The doctrine on which the above remarks have been held on the subject of the imputation of righteousness in our justification. The second is the opinion of Calvin himself, and those of his followers, who have not refined so much upon the scheme of their master as others, and with them many Arminians have also, in some respects, agreed; not that they have approved the terms in which this opinion is usually expressed, but because they have thought it, under a certain interpretatation, right, and one which would allow them, for the sake of peace, to use either the phrase, "the imputation of the righteousness of Christ," or "the imputation of faith for righteousness," which latter they consider more scriptural, and therefore interpret the former so as to be consistent with it.

Again, if the first and second covenant were in substance the same, then must the conditions in both be the same. For the conditions in a covenant are as essential a part of it as any other belonging to it. Though there be the same parties covenanting, and the same things covenanted for, yet if there be new articles of agreement, it is really another covenant. Now if the conditions be the same in both those covenants, then to do this, and to believe, faith and works, are the same; whereas the Scripture, from place to place, makes the - most irreconcilable opposition between them. But The sentiments of Calvin on this subject may be colsome, being shy of this consequence, hold the imputa-lected from the following passages in the third book of tion of Christ's righteousness (in the sense opposed) his Institutes : and yet demur upon an identity of the two covenants. Wherefore, to prove it, I thus reason: Where the parties covenanting are the same, and the things covenanted for the same, and the conditions the same, there the covenants are the same. But if the righteousness of the law imputed to us be the condition of the new covenant, all the three, persons, things, conditions, are the same. Therefore, the two covenants, first and second, the old and the new, are the same; because as to the parties covenanting and the things covenanted for, it is agreed, on both sides, they are the same.

"If it be objected that the righteousness of the law imputed from another, and wrought by a man's self, are two different conditions; and that, therefore, it doth not follow, that the covenants are the same; to this I answer, the substance of the agreement will be found the same notwithstanding; the works or righteousness of the law are the same, by whomsoever wrought. If Adam had fulfilled the law, as Christ did, he had been justified by the same righteousness wherewith Christ himself was righteous. If it be said, that imputation in the second covenant, which was not in the first, makes a difference in the condition; I answer, 1. Imputation of works, or of righteousness, is not the condition of the new covenant, but believing. If imputatation were the condition, then the whole covenant would lie upon God, and nothing be required on the creature's part; for imputation is an act of God, not of men. 2. If it were granted, that the righteousness, or the works of the law imputed from Christ, were that whereby we are justified, yet they must justify, not as imputed, but as righteousness, or works of the

"We simply explain justification to be an acceptance, by which GOD receives us into his favour and esteems us as righteous persons, and we say it consists in the remission of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ." "He must certainly be destitute of a righteousness of his own, who is taught to seek it out of himself. This is most clearly asserted by the apostle when he says, 'He hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.' We see that our righteousness is not in ourselves but in Christ. 'As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience or one shall many be made righteous.' What is placing our righteousness in the obedience of Christ, but asserting that we are accounted righteous only because his obedience is accepted for us as if it were our Own?

In these passages, the wording of which seems at first sight to favour the opinion above refuted, there is, however, this marked difference, that there is no separation made between the active and passive righteousness of Christ, his obedience to the precepts of the moral law, and his obedience to its penalty; so that one is imputed in our justification for one purpose and the other for another, one to take the place of our obligation to obey, the other of our obligation to suffer; but the obedience of Christ is considered as one, as his holy life and sacrificial death considered together, and forming that righteousness of Christ, which being imputed to us, we are "reputed righteous before God, and not of ourselves." This is farther confirmed by the strenuous manner in which Calvin proves, that justifi

cation is simply the remission, or non-imputation of sin, | Christ to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood. "Whom, therefore, the Lord receives into fellowship Whatever interpretation may be put upon these exwith him, him he is said to justify, because he cannot pressions, none of our divines blame Calvin, or conreceive any one into fellowship with himself without sider him to be heterodox on this point; yet my opinion making him from a sinner to be a righteous person. is not so widely different from his, as to prevent me This is accomplished by the remission of sins. For if employing the signature of my own hand, in subscribthey whom the Lord hath reconciled to himself being to those things which he has delivered on this subjudged according to their works, they will still be ject, in the third book of his Institutes."(2) found actually sinners, who, not withstanding, must be absolved and free from sin. It appears, then, that those whom God receives are made righteous no otherwise than as they are purified by being cleansed from all their defilements by the remission of sins; so that such righteousness may, in one word, be denominated a remission of sins. Both these points are fully established by the language of Paul, which I have already cited. 'God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed to us the word of reconciliation.' Then he adds, 'He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.' The terms righteousness and reconciliation are here used by St. Paul indiscriminately to teach us, that they are mutually comprehended in each other. And he states the manner of obtaining this righteousness to consist in our transgressions not being imputed to us; wherefore we can no longer doubt how God justifies, when we hear that he reconciles us to himself by not imputing our sins to us." "So Paul, in preaching at Antioch, says, Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins, and by him all that believe are justified.' The apostle thus connects forgiveness of sins,' with 'justification,' to show that they are identically the same."(9)

This simple notion of justification as the remission of sins, could not have been maintained by Calvin had he held the notion of a distinct imputation of Christ's active righteousness; for it has always followed from that notion, that they who have held it represent justification as consisting of two parts, first, the forgiveness of sins, and then the imputation of Christ's moral obedience, so that he who is forgiven may be considered personally righteous, and thus, when both meet, he is Justified.(1)

The view taken by Calvin of the imputation of Christ's righteousness in justification is obviously, that the righteousness of Christ, that is, his entire obedience to the will of his Father, both in doing and suffering, is, as he says, "accepted for us, as though it were our own;" so that, in virtue of it upon our believing we are accounted righteous, not personally, but by the remission or non-imputation of our sins. Thus, he observes on Acts xiii. 38, 39, "The justification which we have by Christ in the Gospel is not a justification with righteousness, properly so called, but a justification from sin, and from the guilt of sin and condemnation due to it. So when Christ said to men and women in the Gospel, 'thy sins are forgiven thee,' then he justified them the forgiveness of their sins was their justification."

Calvin, however, like many of his followers, who adopt no views on this subject substantially different from their master, uses figurative terms and phrases which somewhat obscure his real meaning, and give much countenance to the Antinomian doctrine; but then, so little, it has been thought, can be objected to the opinion of Calvin, in the article of imputed righteousness, in the main, that many divines, opposed to the Calvinian theory generally, have not hesitated, in substance, to assent to it, reserving to themselves some liberty in the use of the terms in which it is often enveloped, either to modify, explain, or reject them.

Thus Arminius: "I believe that sinners are accounted righteous solely by the obedience of Christ; and that the righteousness of Christ is the only meritorious cause on account of which God pardons the sins of believers, and reckons them as righteous as if they had perfectly fulfilled the law. But since God imputes the righeousness of Christ to none except believers, I conclude that, in this sense, it may be well and properly said, to a man who believes, faith is imputed for righteousness, through grace, because God hath set forth his son Jesus

(9) Institutes, lib. 3, cap. xi.

(1) "To be released from the damnatory sentence is one thing, to be treated as a righteous person is evidently another."--HERVEY'S Theron and Aspasio.

So also Mr. Wesley, in his sermon entitled "The Lord our Righteousness," almost repeats Arminius's words; but though these eminent divines seem to agree substantially with Calvin, it is clear that, in their interpretation of the phrase, the "imputed righteousness of Christ," he would not entirely follow them. "As the active and passive righteousness of Christ were never in fact separated from each other, so we never need separate them at all. It is with regard to both these conjointly, that Jesus is called 'the Lord our righteousness.' But when is this righteousness imputed? When they believe. In that very hour the righteousness of Christ is theirs. It is imputed to every one that believes, as soon as he believes. But in what sense is this righteousness imputed to believers? In this ; all believers are forgiven and accepted, not for the sake of any thing in them, or of any thing that ever was, that is, or ever can be done by them, but wholly for the sake of what Christ hath done and suffered for them. But perhaps some will affirm, that faith is imputed to us for righteousness. St. Paul affirms this, therefore I affirm it too. Faith is imputed for righteousness to every believer, namely, faith in the righteousness of Christ; but this is exactly the same thing which has been said before; for by that expression I mean neither more nor less than that we are justified by faith, not by works, that every believer is forgiven and accepted, merely for the sake of what Christ had done and suffered."(3)

or

In this sermon, which is one of peace, one in which he shows how near he was willing to approach those who held the doctrine of Calvin on this subject, the author justly observes, that the terms themselves, in which it is often expressed, are liable to abuse, and intimates that they had better be dispensed with. This every one must feel; for it is clear that such figurative expressions, as being clothed with the righteousness of Christ, and appearing before God as invested in it, so that no fault can be laid to our charge, are modes of speech, which, though used by Calvin and his followers of the moderate school, and by some evangelical Arminians, who mainly agree with them on the subject of man's justification, are much more appropriate to the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's active righteousness, as held by the higher Calvinists, and by Antinomians, than to any other. The truth of the case is, that the imputation of Christ's righteousness is held by such Calvinists in a proper sense, by evangelical Arminians in an improper or accommodated sense; and that Calvin and his real followers, though nearer to the latter than the former, do not fully agree with either. If the same phrases, therefore, be used, they are certainly understood in different senses, or, by one party, at least, with limitations; and if it can be shown, thai neither is the "imputation of Christ's righteousness," in any good sense expressed nor implied in Scripture, and that the phrases, being clothed and invested with his righteousness, are not used with any reference to justification, it seems preferable, at least when we are investigating truth, to discard them at once, and fully to bring out the testimony of Scripture on the doctrine of imputation.

The question then will be, not whether the imputation of Christ's righteousness is to be taken in the sense of the Antinomians, which has been sufficiently refuted; but whether there is any Scripture authority for the imputation of Christ's righteousness as it is understood by Calvin, and admitted, though with some hesitancy, and with explanations, by Arminius and some others.

With Calvin, the notion of imputation seems to be, that the righteousness of Christ, that is, his entire obedience to the will of his Father, both in doing and suffering, is, upon our believing, imputed, or accounted to us, or accepted for us, "as though it were OUR OWN." From which we may conclude, that he admitted some kind of transfer of the righteousness of Christ to our ac(3) Sermons.

(2) NICHOL'S Arminius.

Psalm xxxii. 1. "Blessed is the man whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered." The covering of sin here spoken of, is by some considered to be the investment of the sinner with the righteousness or obedience of Christ. But this is entirely gratuitous, Rom. iii. 21, 22. "But now the righteousness of God, for the forgiveness of sin, even by the legal atonements, without the law, is manifested, being witnessed by the is called, according to the Hebrew idiom (though ano- law and the prophets, even the righteousness of God ther verb is used), to cover sin; and the latter part of which is by the faith of Jesus Christ." The righteousness the sentence is clearly a parallelism to the former. This of God here is, by some, taken to signify the righteous. is the interpretation of Luther and of Calvin himself.-ness of Christ imputed to them that believe. But the To forgive sin, to cover sin, and not to impute sin, are very text makes it evident, that by "the righteousness in this psalm all phrases obviously of the same import, of God" the righteousness of the Father is meant, for and no other kind of imputation but the non-imputation he is distinguished from "Jesus Christ," mentioned of sin is mentioned in it. And, indeed, the passage will immediately afterward; and by the righteousness of not serve the purpose of the advocates of the doctrine God, it is also plain, that his rectoral justice in the adof the imputation of Christ's active righteousness, on ministration of pardon is meant, which, of course, is their own principles; for sin cannot be covered by the not thought capable of imputation. This is made induimputation of Christ's active righteousness, since they bitable by the verse which follows, "to declare at this hold that it is taken away by the imputation of his death, time his righteousness, that he might be just, and the and that the office of Christ's active righteousness justifier of him that believeth on Jesus." is not to take away sin, but to render us personally and positively holy by imputation and the fiction of a

and which obedience was impossible, and therefore hopeless; he can yet, in perfect consistency with his justice and righteous administration, offer pardon to the guilty. No wonder, therefore, that the apostle, who discourses professedly ou this subject, should lay so great a stress upon it, and that his mind, always full of a subject so great and glorious, should so often advert to it incidentally, as well as in his regular discourses on the justification of man in the sight of God. Thus he gives it as a reason why he was not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, that "therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, the just shall live by faith," Rom. i. 17. Thus, again, in contrast-subject. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I ing God's method of justifying the ungodly with the error of the Jews, by whom justification was held to be the acquittal of the righteous or obedient, he says, "for they, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of Gon," Romans x. 3. The same contrast we have in Philippians iii. 9, "Not having mine own righteousness which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Jesus Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." In all these passages the righteousness of God manifestly signifies his righteous method of justifying them that believe in Christ. No reference at all is made to the imputation of Christ's righteousness to such persons, and much less is any distinction set up between his active and passive righteousness.

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, also, to say that Christ is "made unto us righteousness" by imputation, is to invent and not to interpret. This is clear, that he is made unto us righteousness only as he is made unto us "redemption," so that if we are not redeemed by imputation, we are not justified by imputation. The meaning of the apostle is, that Christ is made to us, by the appointment of God, the sole means of instruction, justification, sanctification, and eternal life.

"that we are justified through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth a propitiation, through faith in his blood" (a thing which the doctrine under examination supposes to be impossible), there is reason to conclude that he speaks here of his passive, rather than of his active obedience. "If, indeed, his willingness to suffer for our sins were never spoken of as an act of obedience, such an observation might have the appearance of a mere expedient to get rid of a difficulty. But if, on the other hand, this should prove to be the very spirit and letter of Scripture, the justness of it will be obvious. Hear, then, our Lord himself on this lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself: I have power to lay it down, apd I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.' John x. 17, 18. This, then, was the commandment to which he rendered willing obedience, when he said, Oh, my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.' Matt. xxvi. 42. The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" John xviii. 11. In conformity with this, the apostle applies to him the following words: 'Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me. Then said I, Lo, I come to do thy will, oh God. By (his performance of) which will we are sanctified; through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Heb. x. 5, 10. Being found in fashion as a man (says St. Paul), he became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.' Phil. ii. 8. Such was his obedience, an obedience unto the death of the cross. And by this his obedience unto the death of the cross, shall many be constituted righteous, or be justified. Where, then, is the imputation of his active obedience for justification?”(6)

It proves nothing in favour of the imputation of Christ's righteousness considered as one, and including what he did and suffered, in the sense of its being reputed our righteousness, by transfer or by fiction of posterity is supposed to be taught in this chapter, and the imputation of Christ's obedience in one or other of the senses above given is argued from this particular text, the examination of the subject will show that the right understanding of the imputation of Adam's sin wholly overthrows both the Antinomian and Calvinistic view of the imputation of Christ's righteousness. This argument is very ably developed by Goodwin.(7)

2 Cor. v. 21," For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteous-law. For, though the imputation of Adam's sin to his ness of God in him." To be made sin, we have already shown, signifies to be made an offering for sin; consequently, as no imputation of our sins to Christ is here mentioned, there is no foundation for the notion, that there is a reciprocal imputation of Christ's righteousness to us. The text is wholly silent on this subject, for it is wholly gratuitous to say, that we are made the righteousness of God in or through Christ, by imputation or reckoning to us what he did or suffered as our acts or sufferings. This passages we have already adduced will explain the phrase," the righteousness of God," in this place. This righteousness, with respect to our pardon, is God's righteous method of justifying, through the atonement of Christ, and our being made or becoming this righteousness of God in or by Christ, is our becoming righteous persons through the pardon of our sins in this peculiar method, by renouncing our own righteousness and by "submitting to this righteousness of GOD."

Rom. v. 18, 19, "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 righteous." That this passage, though generally depended upon in this controversy, as the most decisive in its evidence in favour of the doctrine of imputation, proves nothing to the purpose, may be thus demonstrated. It proves nothing in favour of the imputation of Christ's active righteousness. For,

1. Here is nothing said of the active obedience of Christ, as distinguished from his obedient suffering, and which might lead us to attribute the free gift of justification to the former, rather than to the latter.

2. If the apostle is supposed to speak here of the active obedience of Christ, as distinguished from his sufferings, his death is of course excluded from the work of justification. But this cannot be allowed, because the apostle has intimated in the same chapter, that we are "justified by his blood," Rom. v. 9, and, therefore, it cannot be allowed that he is speaking of the active obedience of Christ, as distinguished from his passive.

3. As the apostle has unequivocally decided, that we are justified by the blood of Christ, or, in other words,

"Because the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity is frequently produced to prove the imputation of Christ's righteousness, I shall lay down, with as much plainness as I can, in what sense the Scriptures countenance that imputation. The Scriptures own no other imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, than of Christ's righteousness to those that believe. The righteousness of Christ is imputed, or given to those that believe, not in the letter or formality of it, but in blessings, privileges, and benefits, purchased of God by the merit of it. So the sin of Adam is imputed to his posterity, not in the letter and formality of it (which is the imputation commonly urged), but in the demerit of it, that is, in the curse or punishment due to it. Therefore, as concerning this imputation of Adam's sin, I answer,

"First, the Scripture nowhere affirms, either the im putation of Adam's sin to his posterity, or of the righteousness of Christ to those that believe; neither is such a manner of speaking any wise agreeable to the language of the Holy Ghost; for, in the Scriptures, wheresoever the term IMPUTING is used, it is only applied to, or spoken of, something of the same persons, to whom the imputation is said to be made, and never, to my remembrance, to or of any thing of another's. So, Rom. iv. 3, 'Abraham believed God, and it was IMPUTED to him for righteousness,' that is, his own believing was imputed to him, not another man's. So, verse 5, but to him that worketh not, but believeth, his faith is IMPUTED to him for righteousness.' So, Psalm cvi. 30, 31, 'Phineas stood up and executed judgment, and that' (act of his) was IMPUTED to him for righteousness,' that is, received a testimony from God of being a righteous act. So again, 2 Cor. v. 19, not

(6) HARE on Justification.
(7) Treatise on Justification.

IMPUTING their trespasses' (their own trespasses), 'unto | meaning be the same with the Holy Ghost's, when he them.'

saith, that by the disobedience 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 born, and whereby they are made truly 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 imputation all his posterity are made formally sinners: this is an imputation which the Scripture will never justify."

"Secondly, 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 imputa-original defilement wherein they are all conceived and tion 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. Thus, Rom. v. 13, sin is said not to be IMPUTED where there is no law.' The meaning cannot be, that the act which a man doth, whether there be a law or no law, should not be imputed to him. The law doth not make any act to be imputed, or ascribed to a man, which might not as well have been imputed without it." But the meaning is, that there is no guilt charged by God upon men, nor any punishment inflicted for any thing done by them, but only by virtue of the law prohibiting. In which respect the law is said to be the strength of sin, because it gives a condemning power against the doer, to that which otherwise would have had none. 1 Cor. xv. 56. So again, Job xxiv. 12, when it is said, 'God doth not lay folly to the charge of them (i. e. impute folly to them), that make the souls of the slain to cry out,' the meaning is not that God doth not repute them to have committed the acts of oppression or murder. For supposing they did such things, it is imposside but God should repute them to have done them: but that God doth not visibly charge the guilt of these sins upon them, or inflict punishment for them. So, 2 Sam. xix. 19, When Shimei prayeth David not to IMPUTE wickedness unto him, his meaning is, not to desire David not to think he had done wickedly in railing upon him (for himself confesseth this in the very next words), but not to inflict the punishment which that wickedness deserved. So when David himself pronounceth the man blessed to whom the Lord IMPUTETH not sin, his meaning is, not that there is any man whom the Lord would not repute to have committed those acts of sin which he has committed, but that such are blessed on whom God will not charge the demerit of their sins in the punishment due to them. So, yet again (to forbear farther citations), 2 Cor. v. 19, when God is said 'not to IMPUTE their sins unto men,' the meaning is, not that God should not repute men to have committed such and such sins against him, but that he freely discharges them from the punishment due to them. By all which testimonies from Scripture, concerning the constant use of the term imputing, or imputation, it is evident, that proposition, that the transgression of the law is imputable from one person to another,' hath no foundation in Scripture.

"And, therefore, thirdly and lastly, 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 exceptions against words, farther 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 of 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,' Rom. v. 19. 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

The last text necessary to mention is Rom. iv. 6, "Even as David declareth the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works." Here again the expositors of this class assume, even against the letter of the text and context, that the righteousness which God is said to impute is the righteousness of Christ. But Calvin himself may here be sufficient to answer them. "In the fourth chapter of the Romans the apostle first mentions an imputation of righteousness, and immediately represents it as consisting in remission of sins. David, says he, describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom GoD imputeth righteousness without works, saying, 'Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven,' &c. He there argues, not concerning a branch, but the whole of justification; he also adduces the definition of it given by David, when he pronounces those to be blessed who receive the free forgiveness of their sins, whence it appears that this righteousness is simply opposed to guilt."(8) The imputation of righteousness in this passage is, in Calvin's view, therefore, the simple non-imputation of sin, or in other words, the remission of sins.

In none of these passages is there, then, any thing found to countenance even that second view of imputation which consists in the accounting the righteousness of Christ in justification to be our righteousness. It is only imputed in the benefit and effect of it, that is, in the blessings and privileges purchased by it; and though we may use the phrase, the imputed righteousness of Christ, in this latter sense, qualifying our meaning like Parcus, who says, "In this sense imputed righteousness is called the righteousness of Christ, by way of merit or effect, because it is procured for us by the merit of Christ, not because it is subjectively or inherently in Christ;" yet since this manner of speaking has no foundation in Scripture, and must generally lead to misapprehensions, it will be found more conducive to the cause of truth to confine ourselves to the language of the Scriptures. According to them, there is no ficti tious accounting either of what Christ did or suffered, or of both united, to us, as being done and suffered by us, through our union with him, or through his becoming our legal representative; but his active and passive righteousness, advanced in dignity by the union of the Divine nature and perfection, is the true meritorious cause of our justification. It is that great whole which constitutes his "merits;" that is, the consideration, in view of which the offended but merciful Governor of the world has determined it to be a just and righteous, as well as a merciful act, to justify the ungodly; and, for the sake of this perfect obedience of our Lord to the will of the Father, an obedience extending unto "death, even the death of the cross," to every penitent sinner who believes in him, but considered still in his own person as "ungodly," and meriting nothing but punishment, "his faith is imputed for righteousness;" it is followed by the remission of his sins and all the benefits of the evangelical covenant.

This imputation of FAITH for righteousness is the third opinion which we proposed to examine.

That this is the doctrine taught by the express letter of Scripture no one can deny, and, as one well observes, "what that is which is imputed for righteousness in

(8) Institut. lib. iii. cap. II.