feed in whom all the families of the earth were to be blessed; and thereby fupporting their faith and hope in God as their God, and those eternal blessings fecured to them in that feed.

14. Imputation of Sin and Righteousness.

G

how"

66

Reat things we find faid of Abraham's faith, by the Apostle Paul' especially; being strong in faith, he ftaggered not at the promise of God through unbelief," when all rational probabilities were against him: "He confidered not his own body already dead, neither the dead"nefs of Sarah's womb:" but even

66

66

a

gainst hope, he believed in hope, that he "fhould be the father of many nations." But there is one circumftance taken notice of by the Apostle which has occafioned no fmall controverfy in the Chriftian church: "He believed God, and it was imputed to "him for righteousness." Some have taken fuch an averfion to the word, that they cannot bear the mention of it; while others fhow fuch an extraordinary fondness for the term, that no other form of words VOL. I.

can

can please them where this is left out. There must certainly be fome mistake at bottom; efpecially as moft on both fides appear perfectly agreed in the thing meant by it; and the difputes, it would feem, might be fairly compromifed, could the· parties be brought to agree in the true and precise meaning of the word.

As the word is fo frequently used, not only by the Apostle, but likewise in the OldTeftament writings, to which he refers, there can be no good reason given why it should not be used by Chriftian divines writing or fpeaking on the fame fubject. For if the authority of the facred writers is admitted, we must acknowledge, that the imputing fin, and the imputing righteoufnefs, are both proper expreffions. And as there is not any difference about the first, the agreed meaning of imputation, when applied to fin, will, if I am not much miftaken, go a great way to fixing the fenfe of the expreffion, when applied to righteoufnefs.

Imputing of fin, then, will readily be allowed to infer no more than inflicting the punishment which fin deferves; on whatever ground that judgement may be fuppofed to ftand, or whether the perfon

be

be really guilty or not. Thus we find Shimei at once confeffing his fin to David, and praying him not to impute it to him. And thus we find David defcribing the bleffednefs of the man whofe fin is pardoned, that God imputeth not his fin to him; while Saul moft unjustly imputed fin to Ahimelech and the priests at Nob, who were guilty of no crime. They appear therefore to be two very different questions, Whether or not the person be a finner, or guilty of the crime? and, Whether or not his fin fhall be imputed to him? or, which is the fame thing, Whether his fin shall be pardoned, or not?

If the imputation of righteousness be confidered in this light, the question will not be, Whether the perfon to whom it is imputed be really a finner? for that is out of difpute; nor can the judge of all the earth reckon or judge him to be a righteous perfon: but the question is, Whether he shall be treated as a finner, or have the reward affigned him by the mere grace of the fovereign? And fo far, I believe, all fides will agree. But there is fomething of an ambiguity in the word righteousness, which, I believe, runs through all languages; as it denotes either doing what is right, or having

66

having (however the perfon comes by it) a right to the privileges of one who does fo. And thefe, it is evident, are very different; for a pardoned criminal has, in all respects, as good a right to the privileges of a free fubject, as another who never offended. But the Apoftle John has warned us not to deceive ourselves; for he only "is righteous who doth righteousness," or what is right. And in fact these two always go together. But as righteousness, or doing what is right, refers to fome rule or standard, the adjusting of this hath run the parties into very warm difputes. All are agreed, that the divine law is the undoubted rule of righteousness; but of that law as many different forms have been invented, as men had different views and purpofcs to ferve.

As the law of God is, and certainly muft be, abfolutely perfect, it cannot poffibly be answered but by abfolute perfection. Those who make this the rule of righteoufnefs are greatly embarraffed. For as "all have finned, and come fhort of the

glory of God," excepting only the Son of God, who was fent to be the faviour of thè world; him therefore they have been forced

to

to transform from the furety of God's covenant, into a furety for elect sinners, to give for them, and in their stead, that perfect obedience which the law requires. And this they fay is that righteousness by the imputation of which finners are justified, and have the reward of eternal life affigned them.

But the man who forms his fentiments on the record which God has been graciously pleased to leave in our hands, will find himself greatly straitened to reconcile this plan to what we are there taught. I mention only two points, though many more might be infifted on. The first of them is, that the law requires not only perfect, but perfonal obedience; and cannot admit of the obedience of a furety, however perfect, without altering, or, which is the fame thing, dispensing with the rigour of the law framed by the perfect wisdom of the unchangeable God. The other is, that it makes the finner to be justified by the law in a strict and proper sense, and leaves nothing to the gift of grace, fo much extolled in the gofpel, but admitting and providing a furety; which it will be found very hard, if not impoffible, to reconcile with the doctrine