Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

This is the sense in which we understand the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us; and it is agreeable to the account we have thereof in scripture: thus we are said to be made the

one or the other, I should be at a loss for ground on which to rest my salvation. What he says of my avowing my disbelief of them in his hearing must be a misunderstanding. I did say, I suspected that his views of imputation and substitution were unscriptural; but had no intention of disowning the doctrines themselves.

Peter. Brother James, I have no desire to assume any dominion over your faith; but should be glad to know what are your ideas on these important subjects. Do you hold that sin was properly imputed to Christ, or that Christ's righteousness is properly imputed to us, or not?

James. You are quite at liberty, brother Peter, to ask me any questions on these subjects; and if you will hear me patiently, I will answer you as explicitly as I am able.

John. Do so, brother James; and we shall hear you not only patiently, but, I trust, with pleasure.

James. To impute,* signifies in general, to charge, reckon, or place to account, according to the different objects to which it is applied. This word, like many others, has a proper, and an improper or figurative meaning.

First: It is applied to the charging, reckoning, or placing to the account of persons and things, THAT WHICH PROPERLY BELONGS TO THEM. This I consider as its proper meaning. In this sense the word is used in the following passages. “Eli thought she, (Hannah,) had been drunken-Hanan and Mattaniah, the treasurers were counted faithful-Let a man so account of us as the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God-Let such an one think this, that such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also indeed when we are present-I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us." Reckoning or ac counting, in the above instances, is no other than judging of persons and things according to what they are, or appear to be. To impute sin in this sense is to charge guilt upon the guilty in a judicial way, or with a view to punishment. Thus Shimei besought David that his iniquity might not be imputed to him; thus the man is pronounced blessed to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity: and thus Paul prayed that the sin of those who deserted him might not be laid to their charges In this sense the term is ordinarily used in common life. To impute treason or any other crime to a man, is the same thing as charging him with having committed it, and with a view to his being punished.

Secondly: It is applied to the charging, reckoning, or placing to the account of persons and things, THAT WHICH DOES NOT PROPERLY BELONG TO THEM, AS THOUGH IT DID. This I consider as its improper or figurative meaning. In this sense the word is used in the following passages-" And this your heave-offering shall be reckoned unto you as though it were the corn of the threshing-floor and as the fulness of the wine-press-Wherefore hidest thou thy face, and holdest me for thine enemy-If the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision-If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, put that on mine account."§

It is in this latter sense that I understand the term when applied to justification. "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness-To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." The counting, or reckoning, in these instances, is not a judging of things as they are; but as they are not, as though they were. I do not think that faith here means the righteousness of the Messiah: for it is expressly called "believing." It means believing, however, not as a virtu

[ocr errors]

+1 Sam. i. 13, Neh. xiii. 13. 1 Cor. iv. 1. 2 Cor. x. 11, Rom. viii. 18.

2 Sam. xix. 19. Ps. xxxii. 2. 2 Tim. iv. 16.

Num. xviii. 27-30. Job xiii. 24. Rom. ii, 26, Philem. 18.

righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. v. 21. the abstract being put for the concrete; that is, we are denominated and dealt with as righteous persons, acquitted and discharged from con

ous exercise of the mind which God consented to accept instead of perfect obedience, but as having respect to the promised Messiah, and so to his righteousness as the ground of acceptance.* Justification is ascribed to faith, as healing frequently is in the New Testament; not as that from which the virtue proceeds, but as that which receives from the Saviour's fulness.

But if it were allowed that faith in these passages really means the object believed in, still this was not Abraham's own righteousness, and could not be properly counted by him who judges of things as they are, as being so. It was reckoned unto him as if it were his; and the effects, or benefits of it were actually imparted to him: but this was all. Abraham did not become meritorious, or cease to be unworthy.

"What is it to place our righteousness in the obedience of Christ, (says Calvin) but to affirm that hereby only we are accounted righteous; because the obe dience of Christ is imputed to us AS IF IT WERE OUR OWN."

It is thus also that I understand the imputation of sin to Christ. He was accounted in the divine administration as if he were, or had been the sinner, that those who believe in him might be accounted as if they were, or had been righ

teous.

Brethren, I have done. Whether my statement be just or not, I hope it will be allowed to be explicit.

John. That it certainly is; and we thank you. Have you any other questions, brother Peter, to ask upon the subject?

Peter. How do you understand the apostle in 2 Cor. v. 21. He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him?

James. Till lately I cannot say that I have thought closely upon it. I have understood that several of our best writers consider the word apprix (sin) as frequently meaning a sin-offering. Dr. Owen so interprets it in his answer to Biddle, though it seems he afterwards changed his mind. Considering the opposi tion between the sin which Christ was made, and the righteousness which we are made, together with the same word being used for that which he was made, and that which he knew not, I am inclined to be of the doctor's last opin1; namely, that the sin which Christ was made, means sin itself; and the righteousness which we are made, means righteousness itself I doubt not but that the allusion is to the sin-offering under the law; but not to its being made a sacrifice. Let me be a little more particular. There were two things belonging to the sin-offering. First: The imputation of the sins of the people, signified by the priest's laying his hands upon the head of the animal, and confessing over it their transgres sions; and which is called " putting them upon it."§ That is, it was counted in the divine administration as if the animal had been the sinner, and the only sinner of the nation. Secondly: Offering it in sacrifice, or "killing it before the Lord for an atonement." Now the phrase, made sin, in 2 Cor. v. 21. appears to refer to the first step in this process in order to the last. It is expressive of what was preparatory to Christ's suffering death rather than of the thing itself, just as our being made righteousness expresses what was preparatory to God's bestowing upon us eternal life. But the term made is not to be taken literally; for that would convey the idea of Christ's being really the subject of moral evil. It is es pressive of a divine constitution, by which our Redeemer with his own consent, stood in the sinner's place, as though he had been himself the transgressor; just as the sin-offering under the law was, in mercy to Israel, reckoned or accounted to have the sins of the people "put upon its head," with this difference; that was only a shadow, but this went really to take away sin.

Expository Discourses on Gen. xv. 1-6. Also Calvin's Inst. bk. iii, ch. xi, § 7. b. iii, ch. xi. 2. p. 510. Lev, xvi. 21. Lev. 1, 4, 5.

Inst.

demnation in the virtue of what was done by him, who is else where styled, The Lord our righteousness; and the apostle speaks of his having Christ's righteousness, Phil. iii. 9. that is,

Peter, Do you consider Christ as having been punished, really and properly PUNISHED?

James. I should think I do not. But what do you mean by punishment? Peter. An innocent person may suffer, but, properly speaking, he cannot be punished. Punishment necessarily supposes criminality.

James. Just so; and therefore as I do not believe that Jesus was in any sense criminal, I cannot say he was really and properly punished.

Peter. Punishment is the infliction of natural evil for the commission of moral evil. It is not necessary, however, that the latter should have been committed by the party-Criminality is supposed: but it may be either personal or imputed. James. This I cannot admit. Real and proper punishment, if I understand the terms, is not only the infliction of natural evil for the commission of moral evil; but the infliction of the one upon the person who committed the other, and in displeasure against him. It not only supposes criminality, but that the party punished was literally the criminal. Criminality committed by one party, and imputed to another, is not a ground for real and proper punishment. If Paul had sustained the punishment due to Onesimus for having wronged his master, yet it would not have been real and proper punishment to him, but suffering only, as not being inflicted in displeasure against him. I am aware of what has been said on this subject, that there was a more intimate union between Christ and those for whom he died, than could ever exist between creatures. But be it so, it is enough for me that the union was not such as THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE ONE BECAME THOSE OF THE OTHER. Christ, even in the act of offering himself a sacrifice, when, to speak in the language of the Jewish law, the sins of the people were put or laid upon him, gave himself nevertheless THE JUST FOR THE UNJUST.

Peter. And thus it is that you understand the words of Isaiah, The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all?

James. Yes, he bore the punishment due to our sins, or that which, considering the dignity of his person, was equivalent to it. The phrase " He shall bear his iniquity," which so frequently occurs in the Old Testament, means, he shall bear the punishment due to his iniquity.

Peter. And yet you deny that Christ's sufferings were properly penal.

James. u would not deny eternal life which is promised to believers to be properly a reward; but you would deny its being a real and proper reward ro

THEM.

Peter. And what then?

James. If eternal life, though it be a reward, and we partake of it, yet is really and properly the reward of Christ's obedience, and not our's; then the sufferings of Christ, though they were a punishment, and he sustained it, yet were really and properly the punishment of our sins, and not his. What he bore was punishinent: that is, it was the expression of divine displeasure against transgressors. So what we enjoy is reward: that is, it is the expression of God's well-pleasedness in the obedience and death of his Son. But neither is the one a punishment to him, nor the other, properly speaking, a reward to us.

There appears to me great accuracy in the scriptural language on this subject. What our Saviour underwent is almost always expressed by the term suf fering. Once it is called a chastisement: yet there he is not said to have been chastised; but "the chastisement of our peace was upon him." This is the same as saying he bore our punishment. He was made a curse for us: that is, having been reckoned, or accounted the sinner, as though he had actually been so, he was treated accordingly, as one that had deserved to be an outcast from heaven and earth. I believe the wrath of God that was due to us was poured upon him: but I do not believe that God for one moment was angry or displeased with him, or that he smote him from any such displeasure.

There is a passage in Calvip's Institutes, which so fully expresses my mind,

having it imputed to him, or having an interest in it, or being dealt with according to the tenor thereof; in this respect he opposes it to that righteousness which was in him, as the result

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

that I hope you will excuse me if I read it. You will find it in Bk. ii. chap. xvi. $ 10, 11. It behoved him that he should, as it were, hand to hand, wrestle with "the armies of hell, and the horror of eternal death. The chastisement of our peace was laid upon him. He was smitten of his Father for our crimes, and "bruised for our iniquities: whereby is meant that he was put in the stead of the wicked, as surety and pledge, yea, and as the very guilty person himself, to "sustain and bear away all the punishments that should have been laid upon them, save only that he could not be holden of death. Yet do we not mean that "God was at any time either his enemy, or angry with him. For how could he "be angry with his beloved Son, upon whom his mind rested? Or how could "Christ by his intercession appease his Father's wrath towards others, if, full of hatred, he had been incensed against himself? But this is our meaning-that "he sustained the weight of the divine displeasure; inasmuch as he, being "stricken and tormented by the hand of God, DID FEEL ALL THE TOKENS OF GOD WHEN HE IS ANGRY AND PUNISHETH.”

Peter. The words of scripture are very express-He hath made him to be sin for us-He was made a curse for us.-You may, by diluting and qualifying interpretations, soften what you consider as intolerable harshness. In other words, you may choose to correct the language and sentiments of inspiration, and teach the apostle to speak of his Lord with more decorum, lest his personal purity should be impeached, and lest the odium of the cross, annexed by divine law, remain attached to his death: but if you abide by the obvious meaning of the passages, you must hold with a commutation of persons, the imputation of sin and of righteousness, and a vicarious punishment, equally pregnant with exécration as with death.

John. I wish brother Peter would forbear the use of language which tends not to convince, but to irritate.

James. If there be any thing convincing in it, I confess I do not perceive it. I admit with Mr. Charnock, " That Christ was "made sin" as if he had sinned all the sins of men; and we are "made righteousness," as if we had not sinned at all." What more is necessary to abide by the obvious meaning of the words? To go further must be to maintain that Christ's being made sin means that he was fiterally rendered wicked, and that his being made a curse is the see thing as his being punished for it according to his deserts. Brother Peter, I am sure, does hot believe this shocking position: but he seems to think there is a medium between his being treated as if he were a sinner, and his being one. If such a medium there be, I should be glad to discover it: at present it appears to me to have Do existence.

Brother Peter will not suspect me, I hope, of wishing to depreciate his judg ment, when I say, that he appears to me to be attached to certain terms without having sufficiently weighed their import. In most cases I should think it a privilege to learn of him: but in some things I cannot agree with him. In order to maintain the real and proper punishment of Christ, he talks of his being " guilty by imputation." The term guilty, I am aware, is often used by theological writers for an obligation to punishment, and so applies to that voluntary obligation which Christ came under to sustain the pimishment of our sins: but strictly speaking, guilt is the desert of punishment; and this can never apply but to the offender. It is the opposite of innocence. A voluntary obligation to endure the punishment of another is not guilt, any more than a consequent exemption from obligation in the offender, is innocence. Both guilt and innocence are transferable In their effects, but in themselves they are untransferable. To say that Christ was reckoned or counted in the divine administration as if he were the sinner, and came under an obligation to endure the curse or punishment due to our sins, is one thing: but to say he deserved that curse, is another. Guilt, strictly speaking, is the inseparable attendant of transgression, and could never therefore for Vol. III M

of his own performances: and elsewhere Christ is said to be made of God unto us righteousness; that is, his fulfilling the law is placed to our account; and the apostle speaks of Christ's

one moment occupy the conscience of Christ. If Christ by imputation became deserving of punishinent, we by non-imputation cease to deserve it; and if our demerits be literally transferred to him, his merits must of course be the same to us: and then, instead of approaching God as guilty and unworthy, we might take consequence to ourselves before him, as not only guiltless, but meritorious beings.

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 par doned 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 Ix 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 novels or 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 expres

sions.

James. If a Christian may be called a fulfiller of the law, on account of Christ's obedience being imputed to him, I see not why Christ may not be called a transgressor of the law, on account of our disobedience being imputed to him. Persons and things should be called what they are. As to the meaning of Dr. CRISP, I am very willing to think he had no ill design: but my concern is with the meaning which his words convey to his readers. He considers God in charging our sins on Christ, and accounting his righteousness to us, as reckoning of things as they are. (p. 280.) He contends that Christ was really the sinner, or guilt could not have been laid upon him. (p. 272.) Imputation of sin and righteousness, with him, is literally and actually A TRANSFER OF CHARACTER; and it is the object of his reasoning to persuade his believing hearers that from henceforward Christ is

« AnteriorContinuar »