keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him; and hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us." 1 John iii. 24. Here the doctrine of the Witness of the Spirit is set forth, or at least evidently implied, in such forms of expression that we cannot, unless wilfully blind, misunderstand their meaning.

But it is contended by some, who admit that such a thing was experienced in the apostles' times, that it was a privilege confined to that age, and consequently cannot be enjoyed in our day. Nothing can be more unreasonable. There is no cause whatever that we should come to a conclusion of this nature. We have the strongest reason to believe that the doctrine is understood and enjoyed by thousands in the present day. However modern Christians may have degenerated, in some respects, from original simplicity, and that high state of spirituality which characterised many of the first Christians, there are many, at the present time, who know, by means of the indwelling evidence of the Holy Ghost, that they are the children of God. I refer not to the enraptured and visionary enthusiast, but to men of clear discernment and solid piety, who are generally allowed to be prudent and judicious in their judgment on other subjects. Then why should their testimony to the truth in question be discredited, and regarded as a manifestation of mere enthusiasm. I maintain that the spiritual ignorance and inexperience of any man, however learned he may be in science and philosophy, ought not to be urged as an objection against a doctrine which is most clearly and repeatedly taught in the Bible, and enjoyed by many thousands of well-instructed and enlightened Christians. But it may be asked, Whoever does

object to this doctrine on the grounds of the spiritual ignorance and inexperience of others? Ans. All who reject it on account of its being incomprehensible to the human mind, considered apart from divine grace, who are not a few, if they reason sincerely. But why should it be thought a thing impossible to enjoy the inward testimony of the Divine Spirit? What theological inconsistency does it involve? Is it considered impossible for God, who "is a Spirit," to have such access to our minds, which are spiritual, as to assure us of his love and mercy-or is it to be regarded as a matter of such little importance that he is not concerned about it? To these questions we reply: We cannot limit the greatness of his power, or restrict the riches of his grace. But we are told, by others who oppose this doctrine, that uncertainty and doubt are necessary to keep believers in a state of continual humility, in order to render them circumspect, and secure their fidelity and continual attention to duty. Will not the full assurance of faith, the witness of the Spirit, and a glorious prospect of heaven, prove more effectual in these respects? Most certainly: "Every one that hath this hope in him purifieth himself even as he is pure." Inward purity is the source of fidelity and obedience. Love is the noblest and strongest principle of obedience which can possibly actuate the human mind; and this love is the fruit of the Spirit, which dwells in the heart. Fear and condemnation alienate our affections and check all our energies, but confidence and love produce the contrary effect:

""Tis love that makes our willing feet

In swift obedience move."

It may be well to remark that the Witness of the Spirit is inconsistent with the love and practice of sin. God will not give his Spirit to an evil-doer; and consequently those who profess to enjoy the witness of the Spirit, and at the same time live in sin, are either deceived or deceivers. Light has no fellowship with darkness; and where sin reigns the Spirit cannot dwell. Those, therefore, who enjoy the witness of the Spirit, must be careful to maintain holiness of heart, and a conscience void of offence, or the Holy Spirit will withdraw, and the wicked one will re-enter. If the righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity," but still professeth to hold fast his confidence, he deceiveth himself. He is deluded by the wicked one, who causeth him to believe a lie, to hope well of his state, while he is on the brink of ruin. To pretend to have the witness of the Spirit, without circumspectness of life, and holiness of temper and feeling, is either rank fanaticism or downright hypocrisy.

In conclusion, let me exhort the sincere and humble Christian, who may occasionally be in doubt with respect to his acceptance with God, not to be discouraged. This state of mind sometimes rises from a constitutional diffidence, and the many infirmities of our frail nature. There are some "fearful saints," who at times are in doubt for want of this evidence. Such should not be rashly condemned, but comforted and strengthened with God's mercy and precious promises, and earnestly encouraged to trust in God. Even the most illustrious saints may at times be in heaviness through manifold temptations: "Weeping may

endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning. Hope thou in God, for thou shalt yet praise Him." We have now considered the beneficial results of redemption, so far as they relate to pardon, justification, regeneration, and adoption. The doctrine of Imputed Righteousness, Sanctification, and Final Perseverance, will now be treated on. The peculiar relation in which imputed righteousness stands to justification seems to suggest the propriety of it being discussed in connection therewith. This has been partially done, but it is thought advisable, under many considerations, to have a distinct and separate dissertation on the subject.

XXV. IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Imputed righteousness, in relation to the elect. Reference to Watson's Institutes. The Antinomian notion. Dr. Crisp. John Agricola. Finney's Stricture. Calvin's Institutes. Armenius. Wesley's opinion. R. Baxter. Passages of Scripture relative to this doctrine. The opinions and arguments of Matthew Henry and Bishop Beveridge examined and found unsound. The true Scriptural doctrine of Imputed Righteousness. IMPUTED Righteousness, when viewed as importing an idea of the imputation of Christ's active and passive righteousness to the elect, so as to constitute them positively and actually righteous, has been a subject of endless controversy strongly advocated by a certain class of Calvinistic divines, and strenuously opposed by the advocates of sound scriptural theology. We shall not trouble the reader with

a digest of the multifarious arguments which have been adduced for and against this controverted doctrine. Those who wish to be gratified in this respect may consult Mr. Watson's Institutes, (vol. ii. page 416, &c.), where the subject is rather extensively discussed. Our object, in the first place, will be to ascertain whether Christ's righteousness is so imputed to believers as to constitute their righteousness or justification; and if so, in what particular sense it may so be considered. It has been remarked by a living author, that "even Calvin himself has said nothing on this subject but what Arminius, in his declaration before the States of Holland, declares his readiness to sub