_Peter._ Some who profess to hold that believers are justified by the righteousness of Christ, deny, nevertheless, that his _obedience itself_ is imputed to them: for they maintain that the scripture represents believers as receiving only the _benefits_, or effects of Christ’s righteousness in justification, or their being pardoned and accepted for Christ’s _righteousness sake_.—But it is not merely _for the sake_ of Christ, or of what he has done, that believers are accepted of God, and treated as completely righteous; but it is IN him as their Head, Representative, and Substitute; and by the imputation of that _very obedience_ which as such he performed to the divine law, that they are justified. _James._ I have no doubt but that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness presupposes a _union_ with him; since there is no perceivable fitness in bestowing benefits on one _for another’s sake_ where there is no union or relation subsisting between them. It is not such a union, however, as that THE ACTIONS OF EITHER BECOME THOSE OF THE OTHER. That “the scriptures represent believers as _receiving_ only the benefits or the effects of Christ’s righteousness in justification,” is a remark of which I am not able to perceive the fallacy: nor does it follow that his obedience itself is not imputed to them. Obedience itself may be and is imputed, while its effects only are _imparted_, and consequently _received_. I never met with a person who held the absurd notion of imputed benefits, or imputed punishments; and am inclined to think there never was such a person. Be that however as it may, sin on the one hand and righteousness on the other, are the proper objects of imputation; but that imputation _consists_ in charging or reckoning them to the account of the party in such a way as to _impart_ to him their evil or beneficial effects. _Peter._ The doctrine for which I contend as taught by the apostle Paul, is neither novel, nor more strongly expressed than it has formerly been by authors of eminence. _James._ It may be so. We have been told of an old protestant writer who says, that “In Christ, and by him, every true Christian may be called _a fulfiller of the law_:” but I see not why he might not as well have added, Every true Christian may be said to have been slain, and, if not to have redeemed himself by his own blood, yet to be worthy of all that blessing, and honour, and glory, that shall be conferred upon him in the world to come.—What do you think of Dr. CRISP’S Sermons? Has he not carried your principles to an extreme? _Peter._ I cordially agree with WITSIUS, as to the impropriety of calling Christ _a sinner, truly a sinner, the greatest of sinners_, &c. yet I am far from disapproving of what Dr. CRISP, and some others, _meant_ by those exceptionable expressions.