17, &c. &c. ; compare Job 19: 11. 33: 10, in the Hebrew. 3. It is used in the more general sense of purposing, devising, considering, think- ing, &c. 4. In strict connexion with its primary meaning, it signifies to impute, to set to one''s account ,- that is, to number among the things be- longing to a man, or chargeable upon him. It generally implies the accessory idea, ' of treating one according to the nature of the thing im- puted.' Thus, in the frequent phrase to impute sin, as 2 Sam. 19 : 19, " Let not my Lord impute iniquity unto me," i. e. ' Let him not lay it to my charge, and treat me accordingly;' compare 1 Sam. 22: 15, in the Hebrew and Septuagint; Ps. 32: 2 (Septuagint 31), "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity," &c. &c. And in the New Testament, 2 Cor. 5 : 19, " Not imputing unto nien their trespasses ;" 2 Tim. 4 : 16, " I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge," &c, &c. These, and numerous similar passages, render the scriptural idea of imputation perfectly clear. It is laying any thing to one's charge, and treating him accordingly. It produces no change in the individual to whom the imputation is made ; it simply alters his relation to the law. As far as the meaning of the word is concerned, it is a matter of indiffer- ence whether the thing imputed belonged antecedently to the person to whom the imputation is made or not. Compare Lev. 17: 4, and vs. 6, 11 of this chapter, in which Paul speaks of righteousness being imputed to those to whom it does not personally belong.
The expression " faith was counted to him for righteousness" is va- riously explained. Some understand the word faith as including its ob- ject, i. e. the righteousness of Christ, so that it is not faith considered as an act that is imputed, but faith considered as including the merit which it apprehends and appropriates. But this interpretation is incon- sistent with the connexion in which the passage occurs, both in the Old and New Testament.
Besides this view of the passage, there are three others founded on the different senses of the word righteousness. It may mean all that the law demands, complete obedience. If this sense of the word be adopted, then the passage means that faith was laid to his account as though it were complete obedience ; it was taken for righteousness. This inter- pretation is perfectly natural and consistent with the constructure of the passage and the usage of the terms ; it however is inconsistent with the apostle's doctrine. 1. It contradicts all those passages in which the sacred writers teach that men cannot be justified by any of their own works. Faith is as much a work as prayer, repentance, almsgiving, or any other act of obedience to God; and therefore, if we are justified on the ground of our faith, or if faith is taken in place of complete obe- dience to the law, we are justified by works. 2. It contradicts all those passages in which the merit of Christ, in any form, is said to be the ground of our acceptance. 3. It is inconsistent with the oflSce assigned to faith. We are said to be justified by or through faith, but never on account of faith. The expression by " faith in his blood" admits of no