not include in its nature works of obedience. I need not use many arguments to prove this; the apostle having, in the plainest and strongest terms, declared it. The very scope and design of the apostle's argument, in the fourth chapter to the Romans, is to prove that we are justified without works. This was the argument of the preceding chapter, which is confirmed and illustrated in this, by the examples of Abraham and David, from the second to the sixth verse inclusive. Here the apostle uses a variety of arguments against the doctrine I am now impleading. He argues that if Abraham's faith had included works or obedience in it, he would have had whereof to glory. All works, all acts of obedience whatever, are formally our own, being done by ourselves, and, therefore, may be gloried of as such, but Abraham had not whereof to glory before God; so that Abraham's faith did not include works or obedience in the nature of it, considering it as counted to him for righteous

ness.

He next shows us, that if we had the benefit of justification, as a reward upon the account of any works or obedience whatever, the reward would not be of grace, but of debt; for by whatever law or covenant transaction, a reward becomes due to any sort of works or obedience; it is, however, become due, and may be claimed as a debt upon the performance of such works or obedience. Whence it follows, that no sort of obedience, either legal or evangelical, can be included in the nature of a justifying faith

as such, if we are justified of grace and not of debt.

In the next place, he shows us, that where faith is imputed unto righteousness, it is imputed to him that worketh not, that does no works of righteousness, or in other words depends on none at all of his own doing in order to his justification; and, therefore, it cannot possibly be, that such faith has any sort of works or obedience included in the nature of it, as it is a justifying faith. It justifies only as it receives a divine gift, freely offered, or in the apostle's language, as it believes on him who justifies the ungodly. Here is no room left for any evasion after all the critical distinctions. that can possibly be made, Him that worketh not, is him that worketh not.

He moreover shows us, that the faith, under consideration, is a believing on him who justifies the ungodly, and so cannot include evangelical obedience in the nature of it, unless evangelical obedience, and ungodliness, be the same thing. It is true, that a person, when justified or when exercising that faith, through which he is justified. ceases to be in his state, and habitual course ungodly, for he has a faith, which not only sends him to Christ for justification, but for sanctification, which not only embraces the promise, but the precept too, and is a vital, active principle of all obedience; but then there is no moment of time intervenes between his state of ungodliness and his justification.

He further shows that God imputes righteousness for our justification without works, and

therefore, obedience cannot be included in the nature of justifying faith as such, unless obedience be without works. Here the expressions are strong and plain. There is no room left for shift or cavil. When all the most plausible pretences in the world are made to evade the force of these expressions, without works is without works still.

How astonishing does this pretence appear, when the apo tle does, with his own pen, in as strong and pointed language as can be used, obviate, reject and confute it; and that too, in the very context upon which it is founded; I need, therefore, offer no other arguments to clear this point, since it is effectually done by the apostle himself, and his reasoning ought certainly to settle all objections.

I proceed to prove, that the faith which is imputed to believers unto their justification, is not their own personal righteousness. This will evidently appear, by considering the following arguments:

The righteousness by which a sinner is justified, is the righteousnes of God. The righteousness of God, is revealed from faith to faith, Rom. 1. 17. We are made the righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. 5. 21. The righteousness of God, which is, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe, Rom. 3. 22. Now, it cannot be true, that the righteousness of God and our own inherent personal righteousness are the same thing. If it be pretended that faith is the gift of God, and as such it is the righteousness of God, the answer is easy. FAITH, con

sidered in itself, as a principle, is ours subjectively, and considered in its exercise, it is ours formally or our own personal act, and in that respect, as far as it is any righteousness at all, it is our own personal righteousness. It can, with no more propriety, be said to be the righteousness of God, than our breath can be said to be the breath of God, our words to be the words of God, or our motion to be the motion of God; for our power to breathe, to speak, or to move, is as truly the gift of God, as our power to believe. Besides, all pretences of this kind, are utterly excluded, by the texts now cited. For if faith cannot, with any propriety, be said to be revealed from faith to faith; if we cannot, with any propriety, say, that faith is a righteousness by faith of Jesus Christ, then faith is not the righteousness of God, by which we are justified; and therefore, we cannot be justified by faith, as it is our own inherent personal righteousness, and yet be justified by the righteousness of God.

Again, we are said to be made righteousness by the obedience of Christ, Rom. 5. 19.; and to be justified by the blood of Christ, Rom. 5. 9. But faith, as it is our personal inherent righteousness, is in no respect the obedience of Christ, or the blood of Christ.

Furthermore, FAITH, as it is our personal inherent righteousness, is our own; but the righteousness, by which we are justified, is not our own. Phil. 3. 9. Not having my own righteousness, but the righteousness which is of God.

I shall only add, that if faith, as it is our inher

ent righteousness, cannot answer the demands of the moral law, it cannot justify us consistently with the perfections of the Divine nature; but the former is true, and therefore the latter. If there had been a law given, which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law, Gal. 3. 21; but this was impossible, in the case of fallen man, as being utterly incon sistent with the Divine perfections I think no man will pretend, that our personal inherent righteousnes can answer the demands of the moral law, and if this be granted, it follows of course, that to be justified by it, is disagreeable to the perfections of Deity.

It cannot be agreeable to the justice of God, that we should be justified by any righteousness which will not answer the demands of the moral law. For which reason "God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us." Rom. 8. 3, 4.

It is by " declaring Christ's righteousness (by

which the demands of the moral law are satisfied) that God can be just, and yet the justifier of him which believes in Jesus" Rom. 3. 96. The glorious God justly gave us the law, as the rule of our obedience; justly required our perfect conformity to it, and justly annexed the penalty in case of disobedience. This law was tounded upon, and flowed from the justice of the divine nature: obedience to it was required, and the penalty annexed by the rectoral justice of the Universal Governor; and the justice of God is

D