me home again to our matter :—the doctrine is this:

First. That the fall did not anger God in intent; for the fall did not go before the intent, but followed it.

Secondly. Neither was God tempted, for God cannot be tempted with evil, James i. 13, either to an intent, or alter his love to its subjects, except the object (Christ) be removed. The premises considered, the doctrine therefore appears to be

this,

to God, but as to enjoyment and participation of his favor, which made him utter that sore complaint, Matt. xxvii. 46, And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? which is being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken? The sun being - darkened, the veil of the temple rending in twain, the earth quaking, the rocks rending, and the graves opening, were all indications of the greatness of his sufferings.

That he did suffer, while we have the divine testimony in our hands, we cannot call in question, for the word of God in the evidence it bears, is strong and satisfactory. Isaiah liii. 5, But he was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities. Rom. iv. 25, Who was delivered for our offences. 1 Cor. xv. 3, How that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.

1 Thess,

this, that God wanted no reconciliation to purchase his love, though he wanted a lawful reconciliation.

Now in order to this, the offence of Adam, which is sin, the punishment for sin, which is all our actual sin, and the punishment of sin which is guilt, was all laid on Jesus Christ at once; but you may ask, How was Jesus Christ clear of original sin, being he was a man? Truly there are many reasons given to little purpose, however to

me.

1 Thess. v. 9, 10, For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by Jesus Christ, zuho died for us. Isaiah liii. 8, For the transgresions of my people was he stricken: or, as it is in the margin, was the stroke upon him.

Though Christ suffered for our sins, yet it was impossible that his holy nature should be polluted, for imputation is not transfusion, as transfusion is the communication of the same nature from one to another, and makes an internal change in the object, when imputation is only accounting or reckoning another's act, as though it was our own; in this light the Apostle explains it, Rom. v. 19, For by one man's disobedience, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Christ is said to bear our sins, and not his own: such a transaction is common in all acts of surety

me. Some will say, he was not begot by man, and so not tainted with sin. This answer is but little to me, for it is impossible that man can beget more than nature, and sin is more than nature, therefore cannot be begotten: others say he was begot by the Holy Ghost, and sanctified in the Virgin's womb: I answer, sanctification is but an effect of the non-imputation of sin; therefore if he was sanctified, it rather proves that the sin of Adam was imputed than not im

puted,

ship, the surety is not looked upon by the law or any other, as the contractor of the debt, but one that becomes debtor for, and instead of the principal, he taking the debt upon him, and set down paymaster, is called a surety, and such is Christ a mediator by way of suretyship; Heb. vii. 22, By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better. testament. He also obeyed and suffered as a public person, a prince of peace, a second Adam, in our room and stead, and there became a lawful change of persons and condition between him and us upon this very account. Matt. xx. 28, Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but tɔ minister, and to give his life a ransom for many, Eph. v. 2, And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savor. Heb. ix. 13, 15, 15, For if the blood of bulls and

puted, therefore no answer for all this that is said.

First. I cannot see but that if Christ had been in Adam, or counted of his federal seed, but he must have been under the sentence of death, or have had the disobedience of Adam imputed to him, and so consequently guilty of Adam's disobedience, from a federal relation he had to Adam, so must with the other priests, have offered first for his own sin, and then for the people, Heb. vii. 27.

Secondly.

of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit, offered himself without_spot to God, purge your consciences from dead works to serve the living God. And for this cause he is the me'diator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgression that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Christ was made sin in the same manner as we are made the righteousness of God in him, that is, imputatively, blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works. Imputation is reckoning, accounting, or placing to account, and esteeming thereupon. The act of imputation therefore, whether of sin or of righte

ousness

Secondly. I ask, whether he stood in need of sanctification or no? I know he was a Nazarene from his mother's womb, and seperated or set apart to his offices; but that is not this sanctification, for this is an inherent sanctification we speak of here. I say he stood in need of none, neither as being the federal or natural seed of Adam.

First. He was not in federal relation to Adam, for if he had, he must have been personally guilty

of

ousness, makes no internal change in the object of the act, for it is not a transient act, but it is an inward act of the mind, which cannot produce a physical change in the object upon whom it passes, and consequently the imputation of sin to Christ, was not, nor could be productive of any internal change in him, notwithstanding the placing to his account in the divine mind, our guilt, our criminal actions, he remained innocent, pure, and spotless in himself.

This one thing being duly attended to, will enable us to answer various trifling objections, which are raised against the doctrine of the imputation of our sins to him, beyond any solid reply. Some have objected that if sin itself be imputed to Christ, he must be defiled by it, but that must be a great mistake; for sin as imputed defiles not, if it did, the imputation would be im