the scriptural appellation of righteousness by faith; and still further by that judicial act of the supreme Arbiter of our fates, who declares us righteous, or, as the apostle says, "the righteousness of God in Christ."

Is this unreal? It is God, the Sovereign of the universe, really declaring our sins forgiven, and our persons accepted as righteous. If this is not real, the last judgment will be no reality. It is enough for us that it is the act of "God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth things that are not as though they were,” as the apostle observes, on this very argument.

The writer, who is shocked at others' impiety, shocks us by talking irreverently of God's declaration of righteousness, as if it had neither authority, nor force, nor effect, nor reality. Yet we are glad to see him fly to something that is not his own righteousness, any more than it is that of Christ, which, we hope, he may at last see to be the only refuge. For we would ask him, whether the Holy Ghost is ever called our righteousness, as Christ is? Whether the Holy Ghost ever took our nature and our place, and was made under the law to redeem us; became obedient unto death; bore the sin of many, that "by his knowledge he should justify many;" and "died for our offences, and was raised for our Justification ?" All this is said of Christ, yet he must not be our righteousness: it is not said of the Spirit, yet his dwelling in us is our righteousness!! To prop up this, however, and to seem to make obeisance to the Saviour, Christ is introduced at last, saying, page 167:

"Christ then is our Righteousness by dwelling in us by the Spirit; He justifies us by entering into us, He continues to justify us by remaining in us. This is really and truly our Justification, not faith, not holiness, not (much less) a mere imputation; but through God's mercy, the very Presence of Christ."

This is a most unreasonable school, that will neither have Christ, nor let him alone.

He that has rejected, verbally, our own holiness and other things, as our righteousness, closes with, "much less a mere imputation." This is one of the numerous instances in which monkish piety betrays its real impiety. "Much less a mere imputation !" Now, Christian reader, it so happens, that this, which is much less than all other false notions to be admitted as the true Justification, is the very thing taught by an apostle, from whom alone we learned that which we should no more have invented, than we should have created the world, that righteousness is imputed without works. That to Abraham righteousness was thus imputed, "was written, not for his sake alone, but for ours also, to whom it shall be imputed if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; who was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our Justification."

Is there no profaneness in speaking thus of a mere imputation as the last thing that should be thought of in discussing the question of our Justification? This is the more inexcusable; because it had been admitted that forgiveness was, at least, some part of our Justification; and Paul says, "David

describeth the blessedness of the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed is the man whose transgression is forgiven, to whom the Lord will not impute sin." If a mere imputation is nothing, a mere non-imputation cannot be something; yet an inspired psalmist and apostle make it almost every thing.

But is the indwelling of the Holy Ghost any part of forgiveness? Is it any righteousness in the sense of fulfilling the law? Does it make us as holy as the law requires? Is it fit to be made a successful rival to Christ's righteousness? Has it "magnified the law and made it honourable," as Christ has done, so that the Lord should be well pleased for this inherent righteousness' sake, as he is for that of Christ, and in us, viewed as one with him?

What madness has seized men, that they prefer a righteousness imperfect, merely because it is supposed to be inherent, to that which is infinitely perfect, and which is imputed to us by Him who accepted it when performed for us, and whose supreme authority gives efficiency to his own acts? But this is the stumblingstone, over which nominal Christians, as well as those "who say they are Jews and are not, but are of the synagogue of Satan," of Satan," "stumble and fall, and are broken and snared and taken." Isaiah viii. 11--15.

T

138

CHAPTER V.

Of Sanctification, and its relation to Justification.

As Sanctification belongs not properly to our theme, it may fairly be asked, why introduce it here? We reply; because others have compelled us, by mingling it with that of which it forms no part, and by so confounding things that differ as to substitute one for the other; and call for some skilful, or powerful hand, to disentangle the perplexity. Besides, the truth for which we contend has been charged with hostility to holiness; and as we accuse others of substituting their holiness for Christ's righteousness; we are accused, in our turn, of making Justification to supersede the necessity for Sanctification.

Moreover, this latter blessing follows so closely upon the former, that we can no more contemplate the antecedent without taking some notice of the consequent, than we can survey a mountain, without looking at the vale in which it terminates.

That two things have an essential relation cannot, however, invalidate the reality, or diminish the importance of their distinction; though, by the long established and universally admitted phrase, a body of divinity, we express the connexion of all theolo

gical truths. Diverging from one centre of wisdom, sanctity, and grace, and converging to one point, the glory of God, in the salvation of man; they can be neither discordant nor unrelated.

As, however, some revealed truths hold special relation to others, (the atonement, for instance, with the forgiveness of sins, and the resurrection with judgment and retribution,) so, the more immediate connexion of Justification with Sanctification, though it has afforded plausible arguments to those who labour to confound them, leaves us not at liberty, practically to create a separation, by neglecting Sanctification in a treatise on Justification. Distinct as husband and wife, "God has joined them together; let not man put them asunder."

The relation of the two blessings, and their distinction also, is taught by the manner in which the Spirit of inspiration has placed them side by side, in the Divine records. "Christ is made to us righteousness and sanctification;" "but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified;" said the apostle to the Corinthians. He who confounds or identifies these two, charges the apostle with senseless tautology; as if he had said, 66 But ye are justified, but ye are justified;" or had said, "Christ is made unto us sanctification and sanctification;" when, in both texts, he is enumerating various things, which are confessedly distinct. equally true, however, that the juxtaposition intimates these are twin blessings, who love each other's society.

It is

Their intimate connexion is shown, also, by the

6