15.The manners and maxims of the world accord with the inclinations of the human mind, because they spring from them: the dispositions and the pursuits of men are at variance with the laws of God, the doctrines of the gospel, and the practice of the saints, this will appear by comparing them. That the human mind should be brought to submit to the self-denial requisite to the character of a true christian, its bias or bent must be changed. Because men are moral agents, various motives are addressed to them to induce such change, when not attended to, they aggravate their guilt: when they are followed by the change, which they have a tendency to produce, those who yield are said to be “born of the word.†Were it not for the information we derive from the scriptures we should probably look no further than the proximate cause, and give man the glory; but these teach us, that the Spirit of God is always in such change, if it be real, the efficient cause: “God sanctifiesbythe truth,†he “opensthe heart to attend†to the word, and when any havelearnedfrom and beentaughtordrawnby the Father they come unto Christ; they are therefore also in a higher senseborn of the Spirit.This work of God immediately upon the mind, is possible to him, who formed, sustains, and knows the secrets of the heart; if we are unconscious of our creation, support in existence, and the access of the Searcher of hearts to our minds, we may be unconscious of his influence to change them. If this were sensible, it might be a motive incompatible with the safety and moral government of beings, who at best, whilst here, are imperfectly holy.The communication of the knowledge of saving truths immediately is unnecessary: we have the sacred scriptures, which are competent to make us wise unto salvation. The inspiration anciently given, is distinct from the change of bias, or disposition necessary to a preparation for heaven, might exist without, and is therefore inferior to it.It is not the sole effect of moral suasion, it is a work of the spirit not the letter, of power not the word: it is a birth, not by “blood, nor by the will of the flesh, norby the willof man, but of God,†and those only “who are of God, hear,†believe, and obey his word.This influence is sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, riches to the poor, health to the sick, and life to the dead. It is not incompatible with moral agency, for the holy disposition is as free in its operation, as the former sinful inclinations had been in theirs. The necessity of it to salvation, is no excuse for the impenitent; grace is not necessary to the vindication of Divine justice: the preponderancy of inclinations to evil is the essence of, not an apology for sin. It is very strange if, because a man is so intent upon sinning that nothing can change him but the almighty power of the Divine Spirit, he is on this very account innocent.—It does not render the preaching of the word unnecessary, for besides that it is commanded, and important to call men to repentance and faith, when the grace has been given, God also usually accompanies his ordinances with his Spirit’s influences, and seems in most cases, to direct in his providence the blessings of his instructions to those whom he makes the subjects of his grace.
15.The manners and maxims of the world accord with the inclinations of the human mind, because they spring from them: the dispositions and the pursuits of men are at variance with the laws of God, the doctrines of the gospel, and the practice of the saints, this will appear by comparing them. That the human mind should be brought to submit to the self-denial requisite to the character of a true christian, its bias or bent must be changed. Because men are moral agents, various motives are addressed to them to induce such change, when not attended to, they aggravate their guilt: when they are followed by the change, which they have a tendency to produce, those who yield are said to be “born of the word.†Were it not for the information we derive from the scriptures we should probably look no further than the proximate cause, and give man the glory; but these teach us, that the Spirit of God is always in such change, if it be real, the efficient cause: “God sanctifiesbythe truth,†he “opensthe heart to attend†to the word, and when any havelearnedfrom and beentaughtordrawnby the Father they come unto Christ; they are therefore also in a higher senseborn of the Spirit.
This work of God immediately upon the mind, is possible to him, who formed, sustains, and knows the secrets of the heart; if we are unconscious of our creation, support in existence, and the access of the Searcher of hearts to our minds, we may be unconscious of his influence to change them. If this were sensible, it might be a motive incompatible with the safety and moral government of beings, who at best, whilst here, are imperfectly holy.
The communication of the knowledge of saving truths immediately is unnecessary: we have the sacred scriptures, which are competent to make us wise unto salvation. The inspiration anciently given, is distinct from the change of bias, or disposition necessary to a preparation for heaven, might exist without, and is therefore inferior to it.
It is not the sole effect of moral suasion, it is a work of the spirit not the letter, of power not the word: it is a birth, not by “blood, nor by the will of the flesh, norby the willof man, but of God,†and those only “who are of God, hear,†believe, and obey his word.
This influence is sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, riches to the poor, health to the sick, and life to the dead. It is not incompatible with moral agency, for the holy disposition is as free in its operation, as the former sinful inclinations had been in theirs. The necessity of it to salvation, is no excuse for the impenitent; grace is not necessary to the vindication of Divine justice: the preponderancy of inclinations to evil is the essence of, not an apology for sin. It is very strange if, because a man is so intent upon sinning that nothing can change him but the almighty power of the Divine Spirit, he is on this very account innocent.—It does not render the preaching of the word unnecessary, for besides that it is commanded, and important to call men to repentance and faith, when the grace has been given, God also usually accompanies his ordinances with his Spirit’s influences, and seems in most cases, to direct in his providence the blessings of his instructions to those whom he makes the subjects of his grace.
16.“I have seen it objected, that to suppose a change effected in the heart of man, otherwise than by the power of moral means, is palpably absurd; as implying an evident impossibility in the nature of things. It has been said, by a divine of advanced age, and good sense; ‘The moral change of the mind in regeneration, is of an essentially different kind from the mechanical change of the body, when that is raised from the dead; and must be effected by the exertion of a different kind of power. Each effect requires a power suited to its nature: and the power proper for one can never produce the other. To argue from one to the other of these effects, as the apostle has been misunderstood to do, in Eph. i. 20, is therefore idle and impertinent.—The Spirit of God is possessed of these two kinds of power, and exerts the one or the other, accordingly as he wills to produce a change of the moral or physical kind, in moral beings or inanimate matter.’“But to this philosophical objection, however plausible and unanswerable it may appear, I think the reply of our Saviour to the difficulty started by the Sadducees, respecting the resurrection and a future state, is neither idle, nor impertinent: ‘Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power ofGod.’ The Almighty is not limited, as men are, to these two modes of operation, by moral and mechanical means. The Spirit of God is possessed of a power of working in a manner different from either of these; that is, supernaturally. The means by which effects are brought to pass in a natural way, must indeed be different; according to the nature of those effects, and of the subjects on which the operations are performed: but when once we admit the idea of a work properly supernatural—an effect produced not by the power of any means at all, we instantly lose sight of all distinctions in the kind of power, or manner of working, adapted to things of different natures. When God, by his omnipotent word alone, called all nature into being at first, are we to suppose that he exerted different powers, according to the natures of the things designed to be created; and that the power proper to create inanimate matter, could never create a thinking mind! Are we to conceive that angels and the souls of men were persuaded into being, by arguments and motives; and that the material world was forced out of nothing, by the power of attraction! So, in regard to quickening the dead, are we to imagine that God can give new life to a soul dead in sin, only by moral suasion; and that, if he will reanimate bodies which have slept thousands of years in the dust of the earth, he has no other way to do it than by a physical operation! The body of Christ was raised to life, I should suppose, not by any mechanical power, but supernaturally. In this manner God always works, when he quickeneth the dead, and calleth things that are not, as though they were. And what absurdity can there be in supposing Him able to give a new principle of action, as well as to give existence to any thing else, in this immediate manner?“Some sound and sensible divines, it must be granted, in order to guard against the notion of regeneration’s being effected by moral suasion, have called it a physical work, and a physical change; but very needlessly, I apprehend, and with very evident impropriety. The change is moral: the work producing it, neither moral nor physical; but supernatural.â€Dr. Smalley
16.“I have seen it objected, that to suppose a change effected in the heart of man, otherwise than by the power of moral means, is palpably absurd; as implying an evident impossibility in the nature of things. It has been said, by a divine of advanced age, and good sense; ‘The moral change of the mind in regeneration, is of an essentially different kind from the mechanical change of the body, when that is raised from the dead; and must be effected by the exertion of a different kind of power. Each effect requires a power suited to its nature: and the power proper for one can never produce the other. To argue from one to the other of these effects, as the apostle has been misunderstood to do, in Eph. i. 20, is therefore idle and impertinent.—The Spirit of God is possessed of these two kinds of power, and exerts the one or the other, accordingly as he wills to produce a change of the moral or physical kind, in moral beings or inanimate matter.’
“But to this philosophical objection, however plausible and unanswerable it may appear, I think the reply of our Saviour to the difficulty started by the Sadducees, respecting the resurrection and a future state, is neither idle, nor impertinent: ‘Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power ofGod.’ The Almighty is not limited, as men are, to these two modes of operation, by moral and mechanical means. The Spirit of God is possessed of a power of working in a manner different from either of these; that is, supernaturally. The means by which effects are brought to pass in a natural way, must indeed be different; according to the nature of those effects, and of the subjects on which the operations are performed: but when once we admit the idea of a work properly supernatural—an effect produced not by the power of any means at all, we instantly lose sight of all distinctions in the kind of power, or manner of working, adapted to things of different natures. When God, by his omnipotent word alone, called all nature into being at first, are we to suppose that he exerted different powers, according to the natures of the things designed to be created; and that the power proper to create inanimate matter, could never create a thinking mind! Are we to conceive that angels and the souls of men were persuaded into being, by arguments and motives; and that the material world was forced out of nothing, by the power of attraction! So, in regard to quickening the dead, are we to imagine that God can give new life to a soul dead in sin, only by moral suasion; and that, if he will reanimate bodies which have slept thousands of years in the dust of the earth, he has no other way to do it than by a physical operation! The body of Christ was raised to life, I should suppose, not by any mechanical power, but supernaturally. In this manner God always works, when he quickeneth the dead, and calleth things that are not, as though they were. And what absurdity can there be in supposing Him able to give a new principle of action, as well as to give existence to any thing else, in this immediate manner?
“Some sound and sensible divines, it must be granted, in order to guard against the notion of regeneration’s being effected by moral suasion, have called it a physical work, and a physical change; but very needlessly, I apprehend, and with very evident impropriety. The change is moral: the work producing it, neither moral nor physical; but supernatural.â€
Dr. Smalley
17.á½Ï€ÎµÏβαλλον μεγεθος της δυναμεως αυτου—κατα την ενεÏγειαν του κÏατους της ισχυος αυτου.
17.á½Ï€ÎµÏβαλλον μεγεθος της δυναμεως αυτου—κατα την ενεÏγειαν του κÏατους της ισχυος αυτου.
18.The change in regeneration has been often called the communication ofa principle of spiritual life. It is described as life, in the scriptures. Sensible objects make no impressions on dead bodies, because insensible; and those, who receive no impressions from divine truths, but remain unaffected by the charms of holiness, are figuratively denominateddead. Life being the opposite of death, such as are sensible of the Divine excellencies, and receive the impressions which religious truths are calculated to make, may, in the same manner, be termedliving. Such also are calledspiritual, because this holy activity is communicated by the Spirit of God. “You hath he quickened;†and, because it has for its object the things which have been revealed by the Holy Spirit.These terms are derived from the Scriptures, but the wordprincipleis destitute of such support. It is found in the Epistle to the Hebrews: there it is used for those fundamental doctrines, which are thebeginningsof the doctrine of the gospel; but this is not the meaning of the term in the above description. This change is the immediate work of God, and not the communication of some operative axiom of truth. There are natural principles of action; as habit, affection, and passion: and there are moral; as sense of duty, fear of God, and love of holiness. These are all termed principles, because they excite to action, and so are the beginnings, or causes of it. But it is scarcely in this sense, that the term principle is used in the description of regeneration; for it is said to be communicated, and so must mean something distinct from, and the effect of the work of the Spirit. Accordingly it has been called “a fixed impression of some spiritual truth upon the heart.†But there is no truth, or other motive, sufficient to prevail against the obduracy of the unrenewed heart; or to become aprincipleof action to a soul dead in sin. Whatever that is in fallen man, which repels such motives, and prevents their influence until some more worthy motive is thrown into the scale, it is the work of the Spirit to remove it, and to give the soul an activity towards holy things. No intervention of mediate causes seems necessary; the Spirit of God is the agent; the soul of the man is the subject of influence; and He is said toopen the heart, to give a new heart, to create anew, to enlighten the mind in the knowledge of the truth, to work in us to will and to do, orto give sight to the blind, and hearing to the deaf. From such scriptural expressions it may be gathered that sight, knowledge, new dispositions, and a change of inclinations, are theeffectsof regeneration, and not thething itself.This change is more important than all the gifts of providence, if man therefore be the author of it, he is his own greatest benefactor, and must have the highest glory. If the Holy Spirit acts no otherwise on the human soul, than by addressing motives, angelic natures do also this; and no more power is ascribed to the Searcher of hearts, than to them. Then also it will follow, that all professing christians are of the same kind; and that it was improperly said, that they “were not of us,†who afterwards have “departed from us.†Then also the advice to those who are in the visible church “to examine,†and “prove themselves,†whether Christ be “in them,†is without meaning, or utility; because the thing to be inquired for is notorious, that is, their visible profession. And to “be born again,†is but “to see the†visible “kingdom†of Christ: and so the proposition spoken to Nicodemus was merely identical.
18.The change in regeneration has been often called the communication ofa principle of spiritual life. It is described as life, in the scriptures. Sensible objects make no impressions on dead bodies, because insensible; and those, who receive no impressions from divine truths, but remain unaffected by the charms of holiness, are figuratively denominateddead. Life being the opposite of death, such as are sensible of the Divine excellencies, and receive the impressions which religious truths are calculated to make, may, in the same manner, be termedliving. Such also are calledspiritual, because this holy activity is communicated by the Spirit of God. “You hath he quickened;†and, because it has for its object the things which have been revealed by the Holy Spirit.
These terms are derived from the Scriptures, but the wordprincipleis destitute of such support. It is found in the Epistle to the Hebrews: there it is used for those fundamental doctrines, which are thebeginningsof the doctrine of the gospel; but this is not the meaning of the term in the above description. This change is the immediate work of God, and not the communication of some operative axiom of truth. There are natural principles of action; as habit, affection, and passion: and there are moral; as sense of duty, fear of God, and love of holiness. These are all termed principles, because they excite to action, and so are the beginnings, or causes of it. But it is scarcely in this sense, that the term principle is used in the description of regeneration; for it is said to be communicated, and so must mean something distinct from, and the effect of the work of the Spirit. Accordingly it has been called “a fixed impression of some spiritual truth upon the heart.†But there is no truth, or other motive, sufficient to prevail against the obduracy of the unrenewed heart; or to become aprincipleof action to a soul dead in sin. Whatever that is in fallen man, which repels such motives, and prevents their influence until some more worthy motive is thrown into the scale, it is the work of the Spirit to remove it, and to give the soul an activity towards holy things. No intervention of mediate causes seems necessary; the Spirit of God is the agent; the soul of the man is the subject of influence; and He is said toopen the heart, to give a new heart, to create anew, to enlighten the mind in the knowledge of the truth, to work in us to will and to do, orto give sight to the blind, and hearing to the deaf. From such scriptural expressions it may be gathered that sight, knowledge, new dispositions, and a change of inclinations, are theeffectsof regeneration, and not thething itself.
This change is more important than all the gifts of providence, if man therefore be the author of it, he is his own greatest benefactor, and must have the highest glory. If the Holy Spirit acts no otherwise on the human soul, than by addressing motives, angelic natures do also this; and no more power is ascribed to the Searcher of hearts, than to them. Then also it will follow, that all professing christians are of the same kind; and that it was improperly said, that they “were not of us,†who afterwards have “departed from us.†Then also the advice to those who are in the visible church “to examine,†and “prove themselves,†whether Christ be “in them,†is without meaning, or utility; because the thing to be inquired for is notorious, that is, their visible profession. And to “be born again,†is but “to see the†visible “kingdom†of Christ: and so the proposition spoken to Nicodemus was merely identical.
19.See Charnock, Vol. II. page 220, 221, &c. and Cole on Regeneration.
19.See Charnock, Vol. II. page 220, 221, &c. and Cole on Regeneration.
20.See Charnock, Vol. II. page 232, who speaking concerning its being an instrument, appointed by God, for this purpose, says, That God hath made a combination between hearing and believing; so that believing comes not without hearing, and whereas he infers from hence, that the principle of grace is implanted, by hearing and believing the word, he must be supposed to understand it, concerning the principle deduced into act, and not his implanting the principle itself.
20.See Charnock, Vol. II. page 232, who speaking concerning its being an instrument, appointed by God, for this purpose, says, That God hath made a combination between hearing and believing; so that believing comes not without hearing, and whereas he infers from hence, that the principle of grace is implanted, by hearing and believing the word, he must be supposed to understand it, concerning the principle deduced into act, and not his implanting the principle itself.
21.See Charnock on Regeneration, Vol. II. page 70, 71.
21.See Charnock on Regeneration, Vol. II. page 70, 71.
22.See Quest.lxxv.
22.See Quest.lxxv.
23.When it is said “no man can come unto me, except the Father who hath sent me, draw him,†the negation must be understood as expressive ofmoralimpotency, and as if it had been said “ye will not come unto me that ye might have life;†but nevertheless as direct proof of the absolute necessity of divine grace to the salvation of every person who is saved. That the aid is not merely necessary to theunderstandingis evident from the guilt of unregeneracy, and from the supposition of the Saviour whose reproof implies that it was the carnality of theheartwhich created the impotency to come unto or believe on him.The propriety of exhortations to turn, repent, believe, and work out our own salvation, is obvious; because such impotency is chiefly an aversion of heart. When such motives are ineffectual, they prove the inveteracy of the opposition to God, and argue the greater guilt. They are no evidence that grace is unnecessary, because they have an important effect in the change of the man’s views, and pursuits, when the Spirit of God has “opened the heart†to receive the necessary impressions; and because these motives are rendered effectual by the Divine Spirit. He grants us repentance, turns us, helps our unbelief, strengthens our faith, and works in us both to will and to do of his own good pleasure.Because it is charged upon the evil that they “resist†the grace of God, and therefore his Spirit will not always “strive†with men, it by no means follows, that the success of grace depends merely upon our yielding; as often as men yield to the strivings of the Spirit, a victory is obtained; for the carnal heart inclines to evil until subdued by him: we are “made willing in a day of his power.†Were it otherwise the glory of man’s salvation would belong to himself, at least in part; but the language of the believer is “not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name, be the glory given.†Nor is there any need to suppose man’s salvation thus imputable to himself in order that the evil may be charged with the blame of his destruction; for nothing excludes him but his own evil heart, and this is his sin.It does not result that the man, who is thus “made willing,†is in such manner constrained as that his holiness, being the effect of compulsion, possesses no moral beauty; because he acts as freely as the evil man does; and even more so, for the latter is a slave to his preponderating evil inclinations. The believer chooses holiness, and though he has nothing to boast of before God, his good works may well justify him before men.If it be yet objected, that this is a discouraging representation of the way of obtaining happiness; it may be answered, that it can discourage only those, who wish for happiness, at the same time that they more strongly incline to sensuality; and such ought to be discouraged in their vain expectations: but it is highly consolatory to such as prefer holiness and heaven; for it not only discovers to them, that God has wrought in them to will and to do, but that he is engaged for them, and will accomplish their salvation.
23.When it is said “no man can come unto me, except the Father who hath sent me, draw him,†the negation must be understood as expressive ofmoralimpotency, and as if it had been said “ye will not come unto me that ye might have life;†but nevertheless as direct proof of the absolute necessity of divine grace to the salvation of every person who is saved. That the aid is not merely necessary to theunderstandingis evident from the guilt of unregeneracy, and from the supposition of the Saviour whose reproof implies that it was the carnality of theheartwhich created the impotency to come unto or believe on him.
The propriety of exhortations to turn, repent, believe, and work out our own salvation, is obvious; because such impotency is chiefly an aversion of heart. When such motives are ineffectual, they prove the inveteracy of the opposition to God, and argue the greater guilt. They are no evidence that grace is unnecessary, because they have an important effect in the change of the man’s views, and pursuits, when the Spirit of God has “opened the heart†to receive the necessary impressions; and because these motives are rendered effectual by the Divine Spirit. He grants us repentance, turns us, helps our unbelief, strengthens our faith, and works in us both to will and to do of his own good pleasure.
Because it is charged upon the evil that they “resist†the grace of God, and therefore his Spirit will not always “strive†with men, it by no means follows, that the success of grace depends merely upon our yielding; as often as men yield to the strivings of the Spirit, a victory is obtained; for the carnal heart inclines to evil until subdued by him: we are “made willing in a day of his power.†Were it otherwise the glory of man’s salvation would belong to himself, at least in part; but the language of the believer is “not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name, be the glory given.†Nor is there any need to suppose man’s salvation thus imputable to himself in order that the evil may be charged with the blame of his destruction; for nothing excludes him but his own evil heart, and this is his sin.
It does not result that the man, who is thus “made willing,†is in such manner constrained as that his holiness, being the effect of compulsion, possesses no moral beauty; because he acts as freely as the evil man does; and even more so, for the latter is a slave to his preponderating evil inclinations. The believer chooses holiness, and though he has nothing to boast of before God, his good works may well justify him before men.
If it be yet objected, that this is a discouraging representation of the way of obtaining happiness; it may be answered, that it can discourage only those, who wish for happiness, at the same time that they more strongly incline to sensuality; and such ought to be discouraged in their vain expectations: but it is highly consolatory to such as prefer holiness and heaven; for it not only discovers to them, that God has wrought in them to will and to do, but that he is engaged for them, and will accomplish their salvation.
24.See Charnock on Regeneration, Vol. II. page 147, 148, &c.
24.See Charnock on Regeneration, Vol. II. page 147, 148, &c.
25.When we speak of effectual calling’s being the work of the Spirit, the agency of the Father and Son is not excluded, since the divine power, by which all effects are produced, belongs to the divine essence, which is equally predicated of all the persons in the Godhead; but when any work is peculiarly attributed to the Spirit, this implies his personal glory’s being demonstrated thereby, agreeably to what is elsewhere called the oeconomy of the divine persons; which see farther explained in Vol. I. page 292, 293, &c.
25.When we speak of effectual calling’s being the work of the Spirit, the agency of the Father and Son is not excluded, since the divine power, by which all effects are produced, belongs to the divine essence, which is equally predicated of all the persons in the Godhead; but when any work is peculiarly attributed to the Spirit, this implies his personal glory’s being demonstrated thereby, agreeably to what is elsewhere called the oeconomy of the divine persons; which see farther explained in Vol. I. page 292, 293, &c.
26.ΕνεÏγεια.
26.ΕνεÏγεια.
27.Αθετησαι.
27.Αθετησαι.
28.ומצדיק.
28.ומצדיק.
29.The former of these divines callreatus potentialis,the latter, reatus actualis;the former is the immediate consequence of sin, the latter is taken away by justification.
29.The former of these divines callreatus potentialis,the latter, reatus actualis;the former is the immediate consequence of sin, the latter is taken away by justification.
30.Righteousness is taken ordinarily to signify a conformity to laws, or rules of right conduct. Actions, and persons may respectively be denominated righteous. The moral law, which is both distinguishable by the moral sense, and expressly revealed, requires perfect and perpetual rectitude in disposition, purpose, and action. Because none are absolutely conformed to this law, none can fairly claim to be in themselves, simply, and absolutely righteous. Men are said therefore to be righteous comparatively, or because the defects of many of their actions are few, or not discernible by their fellow men.To be made, (or constituted)righteous, or, tobe justified, in the sight of God, in scriptural language cannot mean,to be made inherently righteous. It is God who justifies, he cannot call evil good, and cannot be ignorant of every man’s real demerit. This righteousness of the saint has not consisted, under any dispensation, in his own conformity to the Divine law; “In the Lord have I righteousness;†“That I may win Christ and be found in him, not having my own righteousness.†If it did, there would be no necessity for the aid of God’s Spirit to sanctify the nature of the justified person. To be justified or constituted righteous, is therefore to betreated and accepted as righteous. If Godjustifies the ungodly, his truth and justice must be clear. He cannot be induced to depart from perfect rectitude, and strict propriety. When the ungodly are justified, or treated as if righteous, it is not on their own account, for their righteousness is defective; butby the obedience of one, (that is Christ,)many are made righteous. The termobedienceexcludes the essential righteousness of Christ as God. And his righteousness which he rendered in our nature can neither be transfused into, nor transferred unto his people, so as to be theirs inherently. Nor can an infinitely wise God consider the righteousness of one man to be the personal righteousness of another. But one person may receive advantages from the righteousness of another. Sodom would have been spared if there could have been found ten holy men in it. Millions may be treated kindly, because of favour or respect had for one of their number espousing the cause of the whole. One man may become the surety of, and perform conditions for many, or pay a ransom for them, and purchase them from slavery. If it be said that one may not lay down his life, especially if it be important, for the preservation of another’s; yet Christ was theLord of lifeand possessed what no mere creature can, the right to lay down his life, and power to take it up again. The importance of the satisfaction should be adequate to the honour of the law. But that every objection to such substitution might be removed, it is shewn that, this was the very condition upon which the restoration of the saints was suspended in the purposes of God before man was created; and waspromised us in Christ Jesus before the world began. Justice therefore can neither object to the substitution, nor withhold the rewards.
30.Righteousness is taken ordinarily to signify a conformity to laws, or rules of right conduct. Actions, and persons may respectively be denominated righteous. The moral law, which is both distinguishable by the moral sense, and expressly revealed, requires perfect and perpetual rectitude in disposition, purpose, and action. Because none are absolutely conformed to this law, none can fairly claim to be in themselves, simply, and absolutely righteous. Men are said therefore to be righteous comparatively, or because the defects of many of their actions are few, or not discernible by their fellow men.To be made, (or constituted)righteous, or, tobe justified, in the sight of God, in scriptural language cannot mean,to be made inherently righteous. It is God who justifies, he cannot call evil good, and cannot be ignorant of every man’s real demerit. This righteousness of the saint has not consisted, under any dispensation, in his own conformity to the Divine law; “In the Lord have I righteousness;†“That I may win Christ and be found in him, not having my own righteousness.†If it did, there would be no necessity for the aid of God’s Spirit to sanctify the nature of the justified person. To be justified or constituted righteous, is therefore to betreated and accepted as righteous. If Godjustifies the ungodly, his truth and justice must be clear. He cannot be induced to depart from perfect rectitude, and strict propriety. When the ungodly are justified, or treated as if righteous, it is not on their own account, for their righteousness is defective; butby the obedience of one, (that is Christ,)many are made righteous. The termobedienceexcludes the essential righteousness of Christ as God. And his righteousness which he rendered in our nature can neither be transfused into, nor transferred unto his people, so as to be theirs inherently. Nor can an infinitely wise God consider the righteousness of one man to be the personal righteousness of another. But one person may receive advantages from the righteousness of another. Sodom would have been spared if there could have been found ten holy men in it. Millions may be treated kindly, because of favour or respect had for one of their number espousing the cause of the whole. One man may become the surety of, and perform conditions for many, or pay a ransom for them, and purchase them from slavery. If it be said that one may not lay down his life, especially if it be important, for the preservation of another’s; yet Christ was theLord of lifeand possessed what no mere creature can, the right to lay down his life, and power to take it up again. The importance of the satisfaction should be adequate to the honour of the law. But that every objection to such substitution might be removed, it is shewn that, this was the very condition upon which the restoration of the saints was suspended in the purposes of God before man was created; and waspromised us in Christ Jesus before the world began. Justice therefore can neither object to the substitution, nor withhold the rewards.
31.Splendida peccata.
31.Splendida peccata.
32.See Vol. II. Page 275.
32.See Vol. II. Page 275.
33.The distinction often used in the civil law betweenfide-jussorandexpromissor,or a person’s being bound together with the original debtor, and the creditor’s being left to his liberty to exact the debt of which of the two he pleases, which is calledfide-jussor;and the surety’s taking the debt upon himself, so as that he who contracted it is hereby discharged, which is what we understand byexpromissor,has been considered elsewhere. See Vol. II. Page 174, 186.
33.The distinction often used in the civil law betweenfide-jussorandexpromissor,or a person’s being bound together with the original debtor, and the creditor’s being left to his liberty to exact the debt of which of the two he pleases, which is calledfide-jussor;and the surety’s taking the debt upon himself, so as that he who contracted it is hereby discharged, which is what we understand byexpromissor,has been considered elsewhere. See Vol. II. Page 174, 186.
34.Volenti non fit injuria.
34.Volenti non fit injuria.
35.See Vol. II. Page 281.
35.See Vol. II. Page 281.
36.See Vol. II. page 288.
36.See Vol. II. page 288.
37.See Vol. II. page 280-293.
37.See Vol. II. page 280-293.
38.חשב λογιζω.
38.חשב λογιζω.
39.I am not without painful apprehension, said Peter to John, that the views of our friend James on some of the doctrines of the gospel, are unhappily diverted from the truth. I suspect he does not believe in the properimputationof sin to Christ, or of Christ’s righteousness to us; nor in his being oursubstitute, or representative.John.Those are serious things; but what are the grounds, brother Peter, on which your suspicions rest?Peter.Partly what he has published, which I cannot reconcile with those doctrines; and partly what he has said in my hearing, which I consider as an avowal of what I have stated.John.What say you to this, brother James?James.I cannot tell whether what I have written or spoken accords with brother Peter’s ideas on these subjects: indeed I suspect it does not: but I never thought of calling either of the doctrines in question. Were I to relinquish 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 thathis viewsof 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,[40]signifies in general, tocharge,reckon, orplace to account, according to the different objects to which it is applied. This word, like many others, has aproper, and animproperor figurative meaning.First: It is applied to thecharging,reckoning, orplacing to the accountof persons and things,THAT WHICH PROPERLY BELONGS TO THEM. This I consider as itspropermeaning. In this sense the word is used in the following passages. “Elithoughtshe, (Hannah,) had been drunken—Hanan and Mattaniah, the treasurers werecountedfaithful—Let a man soaccountof us as the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God—Let such an onethinkthis, that such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also indeed when we are present—Ireckonthat the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us.â€[41]Reckoning or accounting, in the above instances, is no other than judging of persons and thingsaccording 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 mightnot be imputed to him; thus the man is pronounced blessed to whom the Lordimputeth not iniquity: and thus Paul prayed that the sin of those who deserted him mightnot be laid to their charge.[42]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 thecharging,reckoning, orplacing to the accountof persons and things,THAT WHICH DOES NOT PROPERLY BELONG TO THEM, AS THOUGH IT DID. This I consider as itsimproperor figurative meaning. In this sense the word is used in the following passages—“And this your heave-offering shall bereckonedunto youas though it werethe corn of the threshing-floor and as the fulness of the wine-press—Wherefore hidest thou thy face, andholdestme for thine enemy—If the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision becountedfor circumcision—If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aught,put that on mine account.â€[43]It is in thislattersense that I understand the term when applied to justification. “Abraham believed God, and it wascountedunto him for righteousness—To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith iscountedfor righteousness.†The counting, or reckoning, in these instances, is not a judging of thingsas they are; butas 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 virtuous exercise of the mind which God consented to accept instead of perfect obedience, butas having respect to the promised Messiah, and so to his righteousness as the ground of acceptance.[44]Justification is ascribed to faith, as healing frequently is in the New Testament; not as that from which thevirtueproceeds, but as that whichreceivesfrom 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’sownrighteousness, and could not be properlycountedby him who judges of things as they are, as being so. It wasreckonedunto himas if it werehis; 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 areaccountedrighteous; because the obedience of Christ is imputed to usAS IF IT WERE OUR OWN.â€[45]It is thus also that I understand the imputation of sin to Christ. He was accounted in the divine administrationas if he were, or had beenthe sinner, that those who believe in him might be accountedas if they were, or had beenrighteous.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 αμαÏτια (sin) as frequently meaning asin-offering. Dr. Owen so interprets it in his answer to Biddle,[46]though it seems he afterwards changed his mind. Considering the opposition 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 wasmade, and that which heknew not, I am inclined to be of the doctor’s last opinion; namely, that the sin which Christ was made, meanssin itself; and the righteousness which we are made, meansrighteousness itself. I doubt not but that the allusion is to the sin-offering under the law; but not to its beingmade 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 transgressions; and which is called “putting them upon it.â€[47]That is, it wascountedin the divine administrationas if the animal had beenthe sinner, and the only sinner of the nation.Secondly: Offering it in sacrifice, or “killing it before the Lord for an atonement.â€[48]Now the phrase,made sin, in 2 Cor. v. 21. appears to refer to thefirststep 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 beingmade righteousnessexpresses what was preparatory to God’s bestowing upon us eternal life. But the termmadeis not to be taken literally; for that would convey the idea of Christ’s being really the subject of moral evil. It is expressive of a divineconstitution, 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.Peter.Do you consider Christ as having beenpunished, really and properlyPUNISHED?James.I should think I do not. But what do you mean by punishment?Peter.An innocent person maysuffer, but, properly speaking, he cannot bepunished. Punishment necessarily supposescriminality.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 oneupon 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 punishmentto him, butsufferingonly, as not being inflicted in displeasure against him. I am aware of what has been said on this subject, that there was a more intimateunionbetween 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 asTHAT 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 neverthelessTHE 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 properlypenal.James.You would not deny eternal life which is promised to believers to be properlya reward; but you would deny its beinga real and proper rewardTO 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 borewaspunishment: 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 punishmentto him, nor the other, properly speaking, a rewardto us.There appears to me great accuracy in the scriptural language on this subject. What our Saviour underwent is almost always expressed by the termsuffering. Once it is called achastisement: yet there he is not said to have been chastised; but “the chastisement of our peace wasupon him.†This is the same as saying he boreourpunishment. 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 displeasedwith him, or that he smote him from any such displeasure.There is a passage in Calvin’sInstitutes, which so fully expresses my mind, 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 waslaid 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.â€Peter.The words of scripture are very express—He hathmade him to be sin for us—He wasmade a curse for us.—You may, by diluting and qualifying interpretations, soften what you consider as intolerableharshness. 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 witha commutation of persons, theimputationof sin and of righteousness, and avicarious punishment, equally pregnant withexecrationas withdeath.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 hadsinned all the sins of men; and we are ‘made righteousness,’as if we hadnot 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 beingmade sinmeans that he was literally rendered wicked, and that his beingmade a curseis the same thing as his being punished for it according to his deserts. Brother Peter, I am sure, does not believe this shocking position: but he seems to think there is a medium between his being treatedas if he werea sinner, and hisbeing one. If such a medium there be, I should be glad to discover it: at present it appears to me to have no existence.Brother Peter will not suspect me, I hope, of wishing to depreciate his judgment, 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 therealandproper punishmentof Christ, he talks of his being “guilty by imputation.†The termguilty, I am aware, is often used by theological writers foran obligation to punishment, and so applies to that voluntary obligation which Christ came under to sustain the punishment of our sins: but strictly speaking, guilt is thedesertof 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 wasreckonedorcountedin the divine administrationas if he werethe sinner, and came under an obligation to endure the curse or punishment due to our sins, is one thing: but to say hedeservedthat curse, is another. Guilt, strictly speaking, is the inseparable attendant of transgression, and could never therefore for one moment occupy the conscience of Christ. If Christ by imputation becamedeservingof punishment, 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 asguiltyandunworthy, 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 hisobedience itselfis imputed to them: for they maintain that the scripture represents believers as receiving only thebenefits, or effects of Christ’s righteousness in justification, or their being pardoned and accepted for Christ’srighteousness sake.—But it is not merelyfor the sakeof Christ, or of what he has done, that believers are accepted of God, and treated as completely righteous; but it isINhim as their Head, Representative, and Substitute; and by the imputation of thatvery obediencewhich 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 aunionwith him; since there is no perceivable fitness in bestowing benefits on onefor another’s sakewhere there is no union or relation subsisting between them. It is not such a union, however, as thatTHE ACTIONS OF EITHER BECOME THOSE OF THE OTHER. That “the scriptures represent believers asreceivingonly 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 areimparted, and consequentlyreceived. 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 imputationconsistsin charging or reckoning them to the account of the party in such a way as toimpartto 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 calleda 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’sSermons? Has he not carried your principles to an extreme?Peter.I cordially agree withWitsius, as to the impropriety of calling Christa sinner, truly a sinner, the greatest of sinners, &c. yet I am far from disapproving of what Dr.Crisp, and some others,meantby those exceptionable expressions.James.If a Christian may be calleda fulfiller of the law, on account of Christ’s obedience being imputed to him, I see not why Christ may not be calleda transgressor of the law, on account of our disobedience being imputed to him. Persons and thingsshould be called what they are. As to themeaningof 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 thingsas they are. (p. 280.) He contends that Christ wasreallythe sinner, or guilt could not have been laid upon him. (p. 272.) Imputation of sin and righteousness, with him, is literally and actuallyA TRANSFER OF CHARACTER; and it is the object of his reasoning to persuade his believing hearers that from henceforward Christ is the sinner, and not they. “Hast thou been an idolater, says he; a blasphemer, a despiser of God’s word, a profaner of his name and ordinances, a thief, a liar, a drunkard—If thou hast part in Christ,all these transgressions of thine become actually the transgressions of Christ, and so cease to be thine; and thou ceasest to be a transgressor from the time they were laid upon Christ, to the last hour of thy life: so that now thou artnotan idolater, a persecutor, a thief, a liar, &c.—thou art not a sinful person. Reckon whatever sin you commit, when as you have part in Christ, you are all that Christ was, and Christ is all that you were.â€If themeaningof this passage be true and good, I see nothing exceptionable in the expressions. All that can be said is, that the writer explicitly states his principle and avows its legitimate consequences. I believe the principle to be false.—(1.) Because neither sin nor righteousness arein themselvestransferable. The act and deed of one person mayaffectanother in many ways, but cannot possibly become his act and deed.—(2.) Because the scriptures uniformly declare Christ to be sinless, and believers to be sinful creatures.—(3.) Because believers themselves have in all agesconfessedtheir sins, and applied to the mercy-seat forforgiveness. They never plead such an union as shall render their sins not theirs, but Christ’s; but merely such a one as affords ground to apply for pardonin his name, orfor his sake; not as worthy claimants, but as unworthy supplicants.Whatever reasonings we may give into, there are certain times in whichconsciencewill bear witness, that notwithstanding the imputation of our sins to Christ,we are actually the sinners; and I should have thought no good man could have gravely gone about to overturn its testimony. Yet this is what Dr. Crisp has done. “Believersthink, says he, that they find their transgressions in their own consciences, and theyimaginethat there is a sting of this poison still behind, wounding them: but, beloved, if this principle be received for a truth, that God hath laid thy iniquities on Christ, how can thy transgressions, belonging to Christ, be found in thy heart and conscience?—Is thy conscience Christ?†p. 269.Perhaps no man has gone further than Dr.Crispin his attempts at consistency; and admitting his principle, that imputation consists in a transfer of character, I do not see who can dispute his conclusions. To have been perfectly consistent, however, he should have proved that all the confessions and lamentations of believers, recorded in scripture, arose from their being under themistakewhich he labours to rectify; that is,thinkingsin did not cease to be theirs, even when under the fullest persuasion that the Lord would not impute it to them, but would graciously cover it by the righteousness of his Son.—— ——John.I think, brother Peter, you expressed at the beginning of our conversation, a strong suspicion that brother James denied thesubstitution of Christ, as well as the proper imputation of sin and righteousness. What has passed on the latter subject would probably tend either to confirm or remove your suspicions respecting the former.Peter.I confess I was mistaken in some of my suspicions. I consider our friend as a good man; but am far from being satisfied with what I still understand to be his views on this important subject.John.It gives me great pleasure to hear the honest concessions of brethren, when they feel themselves in any measure to have gone too far.Peter.I shall be glad to hear brother James’s statement onsubstitution, and to know whether he considers our Lord in his undertaking as having sustained the character of aHead, orRepresentative; and if so, whether the persons for whom he was a substitute were the elect only, or mankind in general.James.I must acknowledge that on this subject I feel considerably at a loss, I have no consciousness of having ever called the doctrine of substitution in question. On the contrary, my hope of salvation rests upon it; and the sum of my delight, as a minister of the gospel, consists in it. If I know any thing of my own heart, I can say of my Saviour as laying down his lifefor, or instead ofsinners, as was said of Jerusalem by the captives—If I forgetTHEE,let my right hand forget: If I do not rememberTHEE,let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!I have always considered the denial of this doctrine as being of the essence of Socinianism. I could not have imagined that any person whose hope of acceptance with God rests not on any goodness in himself but entirely on the righteousness of Christ, imputed to himas if it were his own, would have been accounted to disown his substitution. But perhaps, my dear brother, (for such I feel him to be, notwithstanding our differences,) may include in his ideas of this subject, that Christ was so ourheadandrepresentative, as that what he did and suffered, we did and suffered in him.—If no more were meant by this, resumed James, than that what he did and suffered is graciously accepted on our behalfas if it were ours, I freely, as I have said before, acquiesce in it. But I do not believe, and can hardly persuade myself that brother Peter believes, the obedience and sufferings of Christ to be so ours, as that we can properly be said to have obeyed and suffered.Christ was and is ourhead, and we are his members: the union between him and us, however, is not in all respects the same as that which is between the head and the members of the natural body: for that would go to explain away all distinct consciousness and accountableness on our part.As to the termrepresentative, if no more be meant by it than that Christ so personated us as to die in our stead, that we, believing in him, should not die, I have nothing to object to it. But I do not believe that Christ was so our representative, as that what he did and suffered, we did and suffered; and so became meritorious, or deserving of the divine favour.—But I feel myself in a wide field, and must entreat your indulgence while I take up so much of the conversation.Peter and John.Go on, and state your sentiments without apology.James.I apprehend then that many important mistakes have arisen from considering the interposition of Christ under the notion ofpaying a debt. The blood of Christ is indeed thepriceof our redemption, or that for the sake of which we are delivered from the curse of the law: but this metaphorical language, as well as that ofhead and members, may be carried too far, and may lead us into many errors. In cases of debt and credit among men, where a surety undertakes torepresentthe debtor, from the moment his undertaking is accepted, the debtor is free, and may claim his liberty, not as a matter of favour, at least on the part of the creditor, but of strict justice. Or should the undertaking be unknown to him for a time, yet as soon as he knows it, he may demand his discharge, and, it may be, think himself hardly treated by being kept in bondage so long after his debt had been actually paid. But who in their sober senses will imagine this to be analagous to the redemption of sinners by Jesus Christ? Sin is a debt only in a metaphorical sense: properly speaking, it is acrime, and satisfaction for it requires to be made, not on pecuniary, but on moral principles. If Philemon had accepted of that part of Paul’s offer which respected property, and had placed so much to his account as he considered Onesimus to have “owed†him, he could not have been said to haveremittedhis debt; nor would Onesimus have had to thank him for remitting it. But it is supposed of Onesimus that he might not only be in debt to his master, but have “wronged†him. Perhaps he had embezzled his goods, corrupted his children, or injured his character. Now for Philemon to accept of that part of the offer, were very different from the other. In the one case he would have accepted of a pecuniary representative; in the other of a moral one; that is, of a mediator. The satisfaction in the one case would annihilate the idea of remission; but not in the other. Whatever satisfaction Paul might give to Philemon respecting the wound inflicted upon his character and honour as the head of a family, it would not supersede the necessity of pardon being sought by the offender, and freely bestowed by the offended.The reason of this difference is easily perceived. Debts are transferable; but crimes are not. A third person may cancel the one; but he can only obliterate theeffectsof the other; thedesertof the criminal remains. Thedebtoris accountable to his creditor as aprivateindividual, who has power to accept of a surety, or if he please, to remit the whole, without any satisfaction. In the one case he would be just; in the other merciful: but no place is afforded by either of them for thecombinationof justice and mercy in the same proceeding. Thecriminal, on the other hand, is amenable to the magistrate, or to the head of a family, as apublicperson, and who, especially if the offence be capital, cannot remit the punishment without invading law and justice, nor in the ordinary discharge of his office, admit of a third person to stand in his place. In extraordinary cases, however, extraordinary expedients are resorted to. A satisfaction may be made to law and justice, as to thespiritof them, while theletteris dispensed with. The well-known story of Zaleucus, the Grecian law-giver, who consented to lose one of his eyes to spare one of his son’s eyes, who by transgressing the law had subjected himself to the loss of both, is an example. Here, as far as it went,justice and mercy were combinedin the same act: and had the satisfaction been much fuller than it was, so full that the authority of the law, instead of being weakened, should have been abundantly magnified and honoured, still it had beenperfectly consistent with free forgiveness.Finally: In the case of the debtor, satisfaction being once accepted, justicerequireshis complete discharge: but in that of the criminal, where satisfaction is made to the wounded honour of the law, and the authority of the lawgiver, justice, though itadmitsof his discharge, yet no otherwiserequiresit than as it may have been matter of promise to the substitute.I do not mean to say that cases of this sort afford a competent representation of redemption by Christ. That is a work which not only ranks with extraordinary interpositions, but which has no parallel: it is a work of God, which leaves all the petty concerns of mortals infinitely behind it. All that comparisons can do, is to give us some idea of theprincipleon which it proceeds.If the following passage in our admiredMiltonwere considered as the language of the law of innocence, it would be inaccurate—“——Man disobeying,He with his whole posterity must die:Die he, or justice must; unless for himSome other able, and as willing, payThe rigid satisfaction, death for death.â€Abstractedly considered, this is true; but it is not expressive of what was the revealed law of innocence. The law made no such condition, or provision; nor was it indifferent to the law-giver who should suffer, the sinner, or another on his behalf. The language of the law to the transgressor was notthou shalt die, or some one on thy behalf; but simplythou shalt die: and had it literally taken its course, every child of man must have perished. The sufferings of Christ in our stead, therefore, are not a punishment inflicted in the ordinary course of distributive justice; but an extraordinary interposition of infinite wisdom and love: not contrary to, but rather above the law, deviating from the letter, but more than preserving the spirit of it. Such, brethren, as well as I am able to explain them, are my views of the substitution of Christ.Peter.The objection of our so stating the substitution of Christ, as to leave no room for the free pardon of sin, has been often made by those who avowedly reject his satisfaction; but for any who really consider his death as an atonement for sin, and as essential to the ground of a sinner’s hope, to employ the objection against us, is very extraordinary, and must, I presume, proceed from inadvertency.James.If it be so, I do not perceive it. The grounds of the objection have been stated as clearly and as fully as I am able to state them.Fuller
39.I am not without painful apprehension, said Peter to John, that the views of our friend James on some of the doctrines of the gospel, are unhappily diverted from the truth. I suspect he does not believe in the properimputationof sin to Christ, or of Christ’s righteousness to us; nor in his being oursubstitute, or representative.
John.Those are serious things; but what are the grounds, brother Peter, on which your suspicions rest?
Peter.Partly what he has published, which I cannot reconcile with those doctrines; and partly what he has said in my hearing, which I consider as an avowal of what I have stated.
John.What say you to this, brother James?
James.I cannot tell whether what I have written or spoken accords with brother Peter’s ideas on these subjects: indeed I suspect it does not: but I never thought of calling either of the doctrines in question. Were I to relinquish 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 thathis viewsof 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,[40]signifies in general, tocharge,reckon, orplace to account, according to the different objects to which it is applied. This word, like many others, has aproper, and animproperor figurative meaning.
First: It is applied to thecharging,reckoning, orplacing to the accountof persons and things,THAT WHICH PROPERLY BELONGS TO THEM. This I consider as itspropermeaning. In this sense the word is used in the following passages. “Elithoughtshe, (Hannah,) had been drunken—Hanan and Mattaniah, the treasurers werecountedfaithful—Let a man soaccountof us as the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God—Let such an onethinkthis, that such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also indeed when we are present—Ireckonthat the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us.â€[41]Reckoning or accounting, in the above instances, is no other than judging of persons and thingsaccording 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 mightnot be imputed to him; thus the man is pronounced blessed to whom the Lordimputeth not iniquity: and thus Paul prayed that the sin of those who deserted him mightnot be laid to their charge.[42]
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 thecharging,reckoning, orplacing to the accountof persons and things,THAT WHICH DOES NOT PROPERLY BELONG TO THEM, AS THOUGH IT DID. This I consider as itsimproperor figurative meaning. In this sense the word is used in the following passages—“And this your heave-offering shall bereckonedunto youas though it werethe corn of the threshing-floor and as the fulness of the wine-press—Wherefore hidest thou thy face, andholdestme for thine enemy—If the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision becountedfor circumcision—If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aught,put that on mine account.â€[43]
It is in thislattersense that I understand the term when applied to justification. “Abraham believed God, and it wascountedunto him for righteousness—To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith iscountedfor righteousness.†The counting, or reckoning, in these instances, is not a judging of thingsas they are; butas 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 virtuous exercise of the mind which God consented to accept instead of perfect obedience, butas having respect to the promised Messiah, and so to his righteousness as the ground of acceptance.[44]Justification is ascribed to faith, as healing frequently is in the New Testament; not as that from which thevirtueproceeds, but as that whichreceivesfrom 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’sownrighteousness, and could not be properlycountedby him who judges of things as they are, as being so. It wasreckonedunto himas if it werehis; 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 areaccountedrighteous; because the obedience of Christ is imputed to usAS IF IT WERE OUR OWN.â€[45]
It is thus also that I understand the imputation of sin to Christ. He was accounted in the divine administrationas if he were, or had beenthe sinner, that those who believe in him might be accountedas if they were, or had beenrighteous.
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 αμαÏτια (sin) as frequently meaning asin-offering. Dr. Owen so interprets it in his answer to Biddle,[46]though it seems he afterwards changed his mind. Considering the opposition 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 wasmade, and that which heknew not, I am inclined to be of the doctor’s last opinion; namely, that the sin which Christ was made, meanssin itself; and the righteousness which we are made, meansrighteousness itself. I doubt not but that the allusion is to the sin-offering under the law; but not to its beingmade 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 transgressions; and which is called “putting them upon it.â€[47]That is, it wascountedin the divine administrationas if the animal had beenthe sinner, and the only sinner of the nation.Secondly: Offering it in sacrifice, or “killing it before the Lord for an atonement.â€[48]Now the phrase,made sin, in 2 Cor. v. 21. appears to refer to thefirststep 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 beingmade righteousnessexpresses what was preparatory to God’s bestowing upon us eternal life. But the termmadeis not to be taken literally; for that would convey the idea of Christ’s being really the subject of moral evil. It is expressive of a divineconstitution, 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.
Peter.Do you consider Christ as having beenpunished, really and properlyPUNISHED?
James.I should think I do not. But what do you mean by punishment?
Peter.An innocent person maysuffer, but, properly speaking, he cannot bepunished. Punishment necessarily supposescriminality.
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 oneupon 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 punishmentto him, butsufferingonly, as not being inflicted in displeasure against him. I am aware of what has been said on this subject, that there was a more intimateunionbetween 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 asTHAT 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 neverthelessTHE 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 properlypenal.
James.You would not deny eternal life which is promised to believers to be properlya reward; but you would deny its beinga real and proper rewardTO 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 borewaspunishment: 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 punishmentto him, nor the other, properly speaking, a rewardto us.
There appears to me great accuracy in the scriptural language on this subject. What our Saviour underwent is almost always expressed by the termsuffering. Once it is called achastisement: yet there he is not said to have been chastised; but “the chastisement of our peace wasupon him.†This is the same as saying he boreourpunishment. 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 displeasedwith him, or that he smote him from any such displeasure.
There is a passage in Calvin’sInstitutes, which so fully expresses my mind, 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 waslaid 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.â€
Peter.The words of scripture are very express—He hathmade him to be sin for us—He wasmade a curse for us.—You may, by diluting and qualifying interpretations, soften what you consider as intolerableharshness. 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 witha commutation of persons, theimputationof sin and of righteousness, and avicarious punishment, equally pregnant withexecrationas withdeath.
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 hadsinned all the sins of men; and we are ‘made righteousness,’as if we hadnot 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 beingmade sinmeans that he was literally rendered wicked, and that his beingmade a curseis the same thing as his being punished for it according to his deserts. Brother Peter, I am sure, does not believe this shocking position: but he seems to think there is a medium between his being treatedas if he werea sinner, and hisbeing one. If such a medium there be, I should be glad to discover it: at present it appears to me to have no existence.
Brother Peter will not suspect me, I hope, of wishing to depreciate his judgment, 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 therealandproper punishmentof Christ, he talks of his being “guilty by imputation.†The termguilty, I am aware, is often used by theological writers foran obligation to punishment, and so applies to that voluntary obligation which Christ came under to sustain the punishment of our sins: but strictly speaking, guilt is thedesertof 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 wasreckonedorcountedin the divine administrationas if he werethe sinner, and came under an obligation to endure the curse or punishment due to our sins, is one thing: but to say hedeservedthat curse, is another. Guilt, strictly speaking, is the inseparable attendant of transgression, and could never therefore for one moment occupy the conscience of Christ. If Christ by imputation becamedeservingof punishment, 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 asguiltyandunworthy, 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 hisobedience itselfis imputed to them: for they maintain that the scripture represents believers as receiving only thebenefits, or effects of Christ’s righteousness in justification, or their being pardoned and accepted for Christ’srighteousness sake.—But it is not merelyfor the sakeof Christ, or of what he has done, that believers are accepted of God, and treated as completely righteous; but it isINhim as their Head, Representative, and Substitute; and by the imputation of thatvery obediencewhich 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 aunionwith him; since there is no perceivable fitness in bestowing benefits on onefor another’s sakewhere there is no union or relation subsisting between them. It is not such a union, however, as thatTHE ACTIONS OF EITHER BECOME THOSE OF THE OTHER. That “the scriptures represent believers asreceivingonly 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 areimparted, and consequentlyreceived. 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 imputationconsistsin charging or reckoning them to the account of the party in such a way as toimpartto 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 calleda 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’sSermons? Has he not carried your principles to an extreme?
Peter.I cordially agree withWitsius, as to the impropriety of calling Christa sinner, truly a sinner, the greatest of sinners, &c. yet I am far from disapproving of what Dr.Crisp, and some others,meantby those exceptionable expressions.
James.If a Christian may be calleda fulfiller of the law, on account of Christ’s obedience being imputed to him, I see not why Christ may not be calleda transgressor of the law, on account of our disobedience being imputed to him. Persons and thingsshould be called what they are. As to themeaningof 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 thingsas they are. (p. 280.) He contends that Christ wasreallythe sinner, or guilt could not have been laid upon him. (p. 272.) Imputation of sin and righteousness, with him, is literally and actuallyA TRANSFER OF CHARACTER; and it is the object of his reasoning to persuade his believing hearers that from henceforward Christ is the sinner, and not they. “Hast thou been an idolater, says he; a blasphemer, a despiser of God’s word, a profaner of his name and ordinances, a thief, a liar, a drunkard—If thou hast part in Christ,all these transgressions of thine become actually the transgressions of Christ, and so cease to be thine; and thou ceasest to be a transgressor from the time they were laid upon Christ, to the last hour of thy life: so that now thou artnotan idolater, a persecutor, a thief, a liar, &c.—thou art not a sinful person. Reckon whatever sin you commit, when as you have part in Christ, you are all that Christ was, and Christ is all that you were.â€
If themeaningof this passage be true and good, I see nothing exceptionable in the expressions. All that can be said is, that the writer explicitly states his principle and avows its legitimate consequences. I believe the principle to be false.—(1.) Because neither sin nor righteousness arein themselvestransferable. The act and deed of one person mayaffectanother in many ways, but cannot possibly become his act and deed.—(2.) Because the scriptures uniformly declare Christ to be sinless, and believers to be sinful creatures.—(3.) Because believers themselves have in all agesconfessedtheir sins, and applied to the mercy-seat forforgiveness. They never plead such an union as shall render their sins not theirs, but Christ’s; but merely such a one as affords ground to apply for pardonin his name, orfor his sake; not as worthy claimants, but as unworthy supplicants.
Whatever reasonings we may give into, there are certain times in whichconsciencewill bear witness, that notwithstanding the imputation of our sins to Christ,we are actually the sinners; and I should have thought no good man could have gravely gone about to overturn its testimony. Yet this is what Dr. Crisp has done. “Believersthink, says he, that they find their transgressions in their own consciences, and theyimaginethat there is a sting of this poison still behind, wounding them: but, beloved, if this principle be received for a truth, that God hath laid thy iniquities on Christ, how can thy transgressions, belonging to Christ, be found in thy heart and conscience?—Is thy conscience Christ?†p. 269.
Perhaps no man has gone further than Dr.Crispin his attempts at consistency; and admitting his principle, that imputation consists in a transfer of character, I do not see who can dispute his conclusions. To have been perfectly consistent, however, he should have proved that all the confessions and lamentations of believers, recorded in scripture, arose from their being under themistakewhich he labours to rectify; that is,thinkingsin did not cease to be theirs, even when under the fullest persuasion that the Lord would not impute it to them, but would graciously cover it by the righteousness of his Son.—— ——
John.I think, brother Peter, you expressed at the beginning of our conversation, a strong suspicion that brother James denied thesubstitution of Christ, as well as the proper imputation of sin and righteousness. What has passed on the latter subject would probably tend either to confirm or remove your suspicions respecting the former.
Peter.I confess I was mistaken in some of my suspicions. I consider our friend as a good man; but am far from being satisfied with what I still understand to be his views on this important subject.
John.It gives me great pleasure to hear the honest concessions of brethren, when they feel themselves in any measure to have gone too far.
Peter.I shall be glad to hear brother James’s statement onsubstitution, and to know whether he considers our Lord in his undertaking as having sustained the character of aHead, orRepresentative; and if so, whether the persons for whom he was a substitute were the elect only, or mankind in general.
James.I must acknowledge that on this subject I feel considerably at a loss, I have no consciousness of having ever called the doctrine of substitution in question. On the contrary, my hope of salvation rests upon it; and the sum of my delight, as a minister of the gospel, consists in it. If I know any thing of my own heart, I can say of my Saviour as laying down his lifefor, or instead ofsinners, as was said of Jerusalem by the captives—If I forgetTHEE,let my right hand forget: If I do not rememberTHEE,let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!
I have always considered the denial of this doctrine as being of the essence of Socinianism. I could not have imagined that any person whose hope of acceptance with God rests not on any goodness in himself but entirely on the righteousness of Christ, imputed to himas if it were his own, would have been accounted to disown his substitution. But perhaps, my dear brother, (for such I feel him to be, notwithstanding our differences,) may include in his ideas of this subject, that Christ was so ourheadandrepresentative, as that what he did and suffered, we did and suffered in him.—If no more were meant by this, resumed James, than that what he did and suffered is graciously accepted on our behalfas if it were ours, I freely, as I have said before, acquiesce in it. But I do not believe, and can hardly persuade myself that brother Peter believes, the obedience and sufferings of Christ to be so ours, as that we can properly be said to have obeyed and suffered.
Christ was and is ourhead, and we are his members: the union between him and us, however, is not in all respects the same as that which is between the head and the members of the natural body: for that would go to explain away all distinct consciousness and accountableness on our part.
As to the termrepresentative, if no more be meant by it than that Christ so personated us as to die in our stead, that we, believing in him, should not die, I have nothing to object to it. But I do not believe that Christ was so our representative, as that what he did and suffered, we did and suffered; and so became meritorious, or deserving of the divine favour.—But I feel myself in a wide field, and must entreat your indulgence while I take up so much of the conversation.
Peter and John.Go on, and state your sentiments without apology.
James.I apprehend then that many important mistakes have arisen from considering the interposition of Christ under the notion ofpaying a debt. The blood of Christ is indeed thepriceof our redemption, or that for the sake of which we are delivered from the curse of the law: but this metaphorical language, as well as that ofhead and members, may be carried too far, and may lead us into many errors. In cases of debt and credit among men, where a surety undertakes torepresentthe debtor, from the moment his undertaking is accepted, the debtor is free, and may claim his liberty, not as a matter of favour, at least on the part of the creditor, but of strict justice. Or should the undertaking be unknown to him for a time, yet as soon as he knows it, he may demand his discharge, and, it may be, think himself hardly treated by being kept in bondage so long after his debt had been actually paid. But who in their sober senses will imagine this to be analagous to the redemption of sinners by Jesus Christ? Sin is a debt only in a metaphorical sense: properly speaking, it is acrime, and satisfaction for it requires to be made, not on pecuniary, but on moral principles. If Philemon had accepted of that part of Paul’s offer which respected property, and had placed so much to his account as he considered Onesimus to have “owed†him, he could not have been said to haveremittedhis debt; nor would Onesimus have had to thank him for remitting it. But it is supposed of Onesimus that he might not only be in debt to his master, but have “wronged†him. Perhaps he had embezzled his goods, corrupted his children, or injured his character. Now for Philemon to accept of that part of the offer, were very different from the other. In the one case he would have accepted of a pecuniary representative; in the other of a moral one; that is, of a mediator. The satisfaction in the one case would annihilate the idea of remission; but not in the other. Whatever satisfaction Paul might give to Philemon respecting the wound inflicted upon his character and honour as the head of a family, it would not supersede the necessity of pardon being sought by the offender, and freely bestowed by the offended.
The reason of this difference is easily perceived. Debts are transferable; but crimes are not. A third person may cancel the one; but he can only obliterate theeffectsof the other; thedesertof the criminal remains. Thedebtoris accountable to his creditor as aprivateindividual, who has power to accept of a surety, or if he please, to remit the whole, without any satisfaction. In the one case he would be just; in the other merciful: but no place is afforded by either of them for thecombinationof justice and mercy in the same proceeding. Thecriminal, on the other hand, is amenable to the magistrate, or to the head of a family, as apublicperson, and who, especially if the offence be capital, cannot remit the punishment without invading law and justice, nor in the ordinary discharge of his office, admit of a third person to stand in his place. In extraordinary cases, however, extraordinary expedients are resorted to. A satisfaction may be made to law and justice, as to thespiritof them, while theletteris dispensed with. The well-known story of Zaleucus, the Grecian law-giver, who consented to lose one of his eyes to spare one of his son’s eyes, who by transgressing the law had subjected himself to the loss of both, is an example. Here, as far as it went,justice and mercy were combinedin the same act: and had the satisfaction been much fuller than it was, so full that the authority of the law, instead of being weakened, should have been abundantly magnified and honoured, still it had beenperfectly consistent with free forgiveness.
Finally: In the case of the debtor, satisfaction being once accepted, justicerequireshis complete discharge: but in that of the criminal, where satisfaction is made to the wounded honour of the law, and the authority of the lawgiver, justice, though itadmitsof his discharge, yet no otherwiserequiresit than as it may have been matter of promise to the substitute.
I do not mean to say that cases of this sort afford a competent representation of redemption by Christ. That is a work which not only ranks with extraordinary interpositions, but which has no parallel: it is a work of God, which leaves all the petty concerns of mortals infinitely behind it. All that comparisons can do, is to give us some idea of theprincipleon which it proceeds.
If the following passage in our admiredMiltonwere considered as the language of the law of innocence, it would be inaccurate—
“——Man disobeying,He with his whole posterity must die:Die he, or justice must; unless for himSome other able, and as willing, payThe rigid satisfaction, death for death.â€
“——Man disobeying,He with his whole posterity must die:Die he, or justice must; unless for himSome other able, and as willing, payThe rigid satisfaction, death for death.â€
“——Man disobeying,
“——Man disobeying,
He with his whole posterity must die:Die he, or justice must; unless for himSome other able, and as willing, payThe rigid satisfaction, death for death.â€
He with his whole posterity must die:
Die he, or justice must; unless for him
Some other able, and as willing, pay
The rigid satisfaction, death for death.â€
Abstractedly considered, this is true; but it is not expressive of what was the revealed law of innocence. The law made no such condition, or provision; nor was it indifferent to the law-giver who should suffer, the sinner, or another on his behalf. The language of the law to the transgressor was notthou shalt die, or some one on thy behalf; but simplythou shalt die: and had it literally taken its course, every child of man must have perished. The sufferings of Christ in our stead, therefore, are not a punishment inflicted in the ordinary course of distributive justice; but an extraordinary interposition of infinite wisdom and love: not contrary to, but rather above the law, deviating from the letter, but more than preserving the spirit of it. Such, brethren, as well as I am able to explain them, are my views of the substitution of Christ.
Peter.The objection of our so stating the substitution of Christ, as to leave no room for the free pardon of sin, has been often made by those who avowedly reject his satisfaction; but for any who really consider his death as an atonement for sin, and as essential to the ground of a sinner’s hope, to employ the objection against us, is very extraordinary, and must, I presume, proceed from inadvertency.
James.If it be so, I do not perceive it. The grounds of the objection have been stated as clearly and as fully as I am able to state them.
Fuller