VII. Shew the use of faith in justification, or in what respects faith
is said to justify.
I. We shall consider in what sense we are to understand the word
_justify_. As there are many disputes about the method of explaining the
doctrines of justification; so there is a contest between us and the
Papists, about the sense of the word; they generally supposing, that _to
justify_, is to make inherently righteous and holy; because
righteousness and holiness sometimes import the same thing; and both of
them denote an internal change in the person who is so denominated; and
accordingly they argue, that as to _magnify_ signifies to make great; to
_fortify_, to make strong; so to _justify_ is to make just or holy: and
they suppose, that whatever we do to make ourselves so, or whatever good
works are the ingredients of our sanctification, these must be
considered as the matter of our justification. And some Protestant
divines have supposed, that the difference between them and us, is
principally about the sense of a word; which favourable and charitable
construction of their doctrine, would have been less exceptionable, if
the Papists had asserted no more than that justification might have been
taken in this sense, when considered, not as giving us a right to
eternal life, or being the foundation of that sentence of absolution,
which God passes upon us: but since this is the sense they give of it,
when they say that we are justified by our inherent holiness, we are
bound to conclude, that it is very remote from the scripture sense of
the word.
We do not deny that justification is sometimes taken in a sense
different from that which is intended by it, when used to signify the
doctrine we are explaining. Sometimes nothing more is intended hereby,
than our vindicating the divine perfections from any charge which is
pretended to be brought against them. Thus the Psalmist says, _That thou
mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou
judgest_, Psal. li. 4. And our Saviour is said to be justified, that is,
his person or character vindicated or defended from the reproaches that
were cast on him; as it is said, _Wisdom is justified of her children_,
Matt. xi. 19. Luke vii. 35. Also we frequently read of the justification
of the actions or conduct of persons, in scripture; in which sense their
own works may be said to justify or vindicate them from the charge of
hypocrisy or unregeneracy. Again, to justify is sometimes taken, in
scripture, for using endeavours to turn many to righteousness: and
therefore our translators have rendered the words, in the prophecy of
Daniel, which signify, _they who justify many, they who turn many to
righteousness, shall shine as the stars_, Dan. xii. 3.[28]
There are various other senses which are given of this word, which we
pass over as not applicable to the doctrine we are maintaining, and
therefore shall proceed to consider the sense in which it is used, when
importing a sinner’s justification in the sight of God; wherein it is to
be taken only in a forensick sense, and accordingly signifies a person’s
being acquitted or discharged from guilt, or a liableness to
condemnation, in such a way as is done in courts of judicature: thus we
read in the judicial law, that _if there be a controversy between men,
and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them, then they
shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked_, Deut. xxv. 1.
where _to justify the righteous_, is to be understood for acquitting or
discharging one that appears to be righteous, or not guilty, from
condemnation; whereas _the wicked_, that is, they who appear to be
guilty, are to be _condemned_: and in this sense the word is used, when
applied to the doctrine of justification, in the New Testament, and
particularly in Paul’s epistles; who largely insists on this subject.
Now that we may understand how a sinner may expect to be discharged at
God’s tribunal, let us consider the methods of proceeding used in human
courts of judicature: herein, it is supposed, that there is a law that
forbids some actions which are deemed criminal; and also, that a
punishment is annexed to this law, which renders the person that
violated it, guilty; and then persons are supposed to be charged with
the violation thereof; which charge, if it be not made good, they are
said to be justified, that is, cleared from presumptive, not real guilt:
but if the charge be made good, and he that fell under it, liable to
punishment; if he suffer the punishment he is justified, as in crimes
that are not of a capital nature; or if he be any otherwise cleared from
the charge, so that his guilt be removed, then he is deemed a justified
person: and so the law has nothing to lay to his charge, with respect to
that which he was before accused of. Thus when a sinner, who had been
charged with the violation of the divine law, found guilty before God,
and exposed to a sentence of condemnation, is freed from it, then he is
said to be justified; which leads us to consider,
II. The privileges contained in justification; which are forgiveness of
sin and a right and title to eternal life. These are sufficiently
distinguished, though never separated; so that when we find but one of
them mentioned in a particular scripture, which treats on this subject,
the other is not excluded. Forgiveness of sin is sometimes expressed in
scripture, by a not imputing sin; and a right to life, includes in it
our being made partakers of the adoption of children, and a right to the
inheritance prepared for them. The apostle mentions both these together,
when he speaks of our having _redemption through the blood of Christ,
even the forgiveness of sins_; and being _made meet to be partakers of
the inheritance of the saints in light_, Col. i. 12, 14. And elsewhere
he speaks of Christ’s _redeeming them that were under the law_; which
includes the former branch of justification, and of their _receiving the
adoption of children_, which includes the latter. And again he considers
a justified person as _having peace with God_, which more especially
respects pardon of sin, and of their _having access to the grace wherein
they stand_, and their _rejoicing in hope of the glory of God_, Rom. v.
1, 2. which is what we are to understand by, or includes in it, their
right to life.
That justification consists of both these branches, we maintain against
the Papists, who suppose that it includes nothing else but forgiveness
of sin, which is founded on the blood of Christ; whereas, according to
them, our right to life depends on our internal qualifications, or
sincere obedience. And besides these, there are some Protestant divines,
who suppose that it consists only in pardon of sin; and this is
asserted, by them, with different views; some do it as most consistent
with the doctrine of justification by works, which they plead for;
whereas, others do it as being most agreeable to another notion which
they advance, namely, that we are justified only by Christ’s passive
obedience; which will be considered under a following head. Again, there
are others, whose sentiments of the doctrine of justification are
agreeable to scripture, who maintain, that it includes both forgiveness
of sins, and a right to life; but yet they add, that the former is
founded on Christ’s passive obedience, and the latter on his active:
whereas, we cannot but think, that the whole of Christ’s obedience, both
active and passive, is the foundation of each of these; which will also
be considered, when we come to speak concerning the procuring cause of
our justification.
All that we shall observe at present, is, that these two privileges are
inseparably connected; therefore, as no one can have a right to life,
but he whose sins are pardoned; so no one can obtain forgiveness of sin,
but he must, as the consequence hereof, have a right to life. As by the
fall, man first became guilty, and then lost that right to life which
was promised in case he had stood; so it is agreeable to the divine
perfections, provided the guilt be removed, that he should be put in the
same state as though it had not been contracted, and consequently, that
he should not only have forgiveness of sins, but a right to life.
Forgiveness of sin, without a right to eternal life, would render our
justification incomplete; therefore, when any one is pardoned by an act
of grace, he is put in possession of that which, by his rebellion, he
had forfeited, he is considered, not only as released out of prison, but
as one who has the privileges of a subject, such as those which he had
before he committed the crime. Without this he would be like Absalom,
when, upon Joab’s intercession with David, the guilt of murder, which he
had contracted, was remitted so far, as that he had liberty to return
from Geshur, whither he was fled: nevertheless, he reckons himself not
fully discharged from the guilt he had contracted, and concludes his
return to Jerusalem, as it were, an insignificant privilege; unless, by
being admitted to see the king’s face, and enjoy the privileges which he
was possessed of before, he might be dealt with as one who was taken
into favour, as well as forgiven, 2 Sam. xiv. 2. which was accordingly
granted. This leads us to consider these two branches of justification
in particular. And,
1. Forgiveness of sin. Sin is sometimes represented as containing in it
moral impurity, as opposed to holiness of heart and life; and
accordingly is said, _to defile a man_, Matt. xv. 19, 20. and is set
forth by several metaphorical expressions in scripture, which tend to
beget an abhorrence of it as of things impure; in which sense it is
removed in sanctification rather, than in justification; not but that
divines sometimes speak of Christ’s redeeming us from the filth and
dominion of sin, and our deliverance from it in justification: but these
are to be understood as rendering us guilty; inasmuch as all moral
pollutions are criminal, as contrary to the law of God; otherwise our
deliverance from them would not be a branch of justification; and
therefore, in speaking to this head, we shall consider sin as that which
renders men guilty before God, and so shew what we are to understand by
guilt.
This supposes a person to be under a law, and to have violated it;
accordingly sin is described as the _transgression of the law_, 1 John
iii. 4. The law of God, in common with all other laws, is primarily
designed to be the rule of obedience; and in order thereunto, it is a
declaration of the divine will, which, as creatures and subjects, we are
under a natural obligation to comply with; and God, as a God of infinite
holiness and sovereignty, cannot but signify his displeasure in case of
disobedience; and therefore he has annexed a threatening to his law, or
past a condemning sentence, as that which is due for every
transgression: this divines sometimes call the sanction of the law, or a
fence, with which it is guarded, that so, through the corruption of our
nature, we may not conclude, that we may rebel against him with
impunity: this the scripture styles, _The curse of the law_, Gal. iii.
10. So that guilt is a liableness to the curse or condemning sentence of
the law, for our violation of it: this is sometimes called a debt of
punishment, which we owe to the justice of God, for not paying that debt
of obedience which was due from us to his law. Thus, when our Saviour
advises us to pray, that our sins may be forgiven; he expresses it by
_forgiving us our debts_, Luke xi. 4. Matt. vi. 12. so that forgiveness,
as it is a freeing us from guilt, discharges us from the guilt of
punishment which we were liable to.
There is a twofold debt which man owes to God; one he owes to him as a
creature under a law; this is that debt of obedience, which he cannot be
discharged from; and therefore, a justified person is, in this sense, as
much a debtor as any other. There is also a debt which man contracts as
a criminal, whereby he is liable to suffer punishment; this alone is
removed in justification.
Moreover, we must carefully distinguish between the demerit of sin, or
its desert of punishment; and the sinner’s obligation to suffer
punishment for it. The former of these is inseparable from sin, and not
removed, or, in the least lessened, by pardoning mercy; for sin is no
less the object of the divine detestation; nor is its intrinsic evil, or
demerit, abated by its being forgiven; and therefore, a justified
person, remaining still a sinner, as transgressing the law of God, has
as much reason to condemn himself, in this respect, as though he had not
been forgiven. The Psalmist speaking concerning a person that is
actually forgiven or justified, says, notwithstanding, that _if thou
Lord, shouldst mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?_ Psal. cxxx. 3.
He was, at the same time, in a justified state; but yet he concludes,
that there is a demerit of punishment in every sin that he committed;
though, when it is pardoned, the obligation to suffer punishment is
taken away:[29] and therefore, the apostle speaking of such, says,
_There is no condemnation to them_, Rom. viii. 1. We must farther
distinguish between our having matter of condemnation in us; this a
justified person has; and there being no condemnation to us; that is,
the immediate result of being pardoned.
There are several expressions in scripture, whereby forgiveness is set
forth, namely, God’s covering sin: thus the Psalmist says, _Blessed is
he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered_, Psal. xxxii.
1. or, his hiding his face from it, and blotting it out; or, _when it is
sought for_, Psal. li. 9. its _not being found_, Jer. l. 20. and,
_casting our sins into the depths of the sea_, Micah vii. 19. And
elsewhere it is said, That when God had pardoned the sins of his people,
_he did not behold iniquity in Jacob, nor see perverseness in Israel_,
Numb, xxiii. 21. which amounts to the same thing as the foregoing
expressions of its being covered, hid, blotted out, _&c._
I am sensible there have been many contests about the sense of this
scripture; which might, without much difficulty, have been compromised,
had the contending parties been desirous to know each others sense,
without prejudice or partiality. It is not to be thought, that when God
forgives sin, he does not know, or suppose that the person forgiven,
had, before this, contracted guilt by sins committed; for without this,
he could not be the object of forgiveness. When God is said not to look
upon, or hide his face from their sins, it is not to be supposed, that
he knows not what they have done, or what iniquities they daily commit
against him; for that would be subversive of his omniscience: and when
he is said not to mark our iniquities, we are not to understand it, as
though he did not look upon the sins we commit, though in a justified
state, with abhorrence; for the sinner may be pardoned, and yet the
crime forgiven be detested. But God’s not seeing sin in his people, is
to be taken in a forensic sense; and accordingly, when an atonement is
made for sin, and the guilt thereof taken away, the criminal, in the eye
of the law, is as though he had not sinned; he is as fully discharged
from the indictment, that was brought in against him, as though he had
been innocent, not liable to any charge founded upon it; and therefore
the apostle says, _Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect?
It is God that justifieth_, Rom. viii. 33. and it is the same, as for
God _not to enter into judgment_, as the Psalmist elsewhere expresses
it; or to _punish us less than our iniquities have deserved_, Psal.
cxliii. 2. In this sense the indictment that was brought against him, is
cancelled, the sentence reversed, and prosecution stopped; so that
whatever evils are endured as the consequence of sin, or with a design
to humble him for it, as bringing sin to his remembrance, with all its
aggravating circumstances, he is, nevertheless, encouraged to hope, that
these are not inflicted in a judicial way, by the vindictive justice of
God demanding satisfaction; but to display and set forth the holiness of
his nature, as infinitely opposite to all sin, and the dispensations of
his providence agreeably thereunto; and that with a design to bring him
to repentance for it.
And, that this privilege may appear to be most conducive to our
happiness and comfort, let it be considered; that wherever God forgives
sin, he forgives all sin, cancels every debt that rendered him liable to
punishment, otherwise our condition would be very miserable, and our
salvation impossible; our condition would be like that of a person who
has several indictments brought in against him, every one of which
contain an intimation that his life is forfeited; it would avail him
very little for one indictment to be superseded, and the sentence due to
him for the others, executed: thus the apostle speaks of the _free
gift_, being _of many_, that is, of the multitude of our _offences unto
justification_, Rom. v. 16. And elsewhere he speaks of God’s forgiving
his people _all trespasses_, Col. ii. 13. And as he forgives all past
sins, so he gives them ground to conclude, that iniquity shall not be
their ruin; and therefore, the same grace that now abounds towards them
herein, together with the virtue of the atonement made for sin, shall
prevent future crimes being charged upon them to their condemnation.
Thus concerning forgiveness of sin.
2. The other privilege, which they who are justified are made partakers
of, is the acceptation of their persons, as righteous in the sight of
God: thus they are said to be _made accepted in the Beloved_, Eph. i. 6.
and as their persons are accepted, so are their performances,
notwithstanding the many defects that adhere to them. Thus God is said
to have _had respect unto Abel, and to his offering_, Gen. iv. 4. And,
together with this, they have a right and title to eternal life; which
is that inheritance which Christ has purchased for, and God, in his
covenant of grace, has promised to them. This is a very comprehensive
blessing; for it contains in it a right to all those great and precious
promises, which God has made, respecting their happiness both here and
hereafter. But since we shall have occasion to insist on this in a
following answer, under the head of adoption, which some divines, not
without good reason, conclude to be a branch of justification, or, at
least, to contain in it those positive privileges, which they, who are
justified, partake of, either here of hereafter, we shall proceed to
consider,
III. What is the foundation of our justification; and that must be
either some righteousness wrought out by us; or for us. Since
justification is a person’s being _made righteous_, as the apostle
styles it, Rom. v. 29. we must consider what we are to understand
hereby; and accordingly a person is said to be righteous who never
violated the law of God, nor exposed himself to the condemning sentence
thereof: in this respect man, while in a state of innocency, was
righteous; his perfect obedience was the righteousness which, according
to the tenor of the covenant he was under, gave him a right to eternal
life; especially it would have done so, had it been persisted in, till
he was possessed of that life; but such a righteousness as this, cannot
be the foundation of our justification, as the apostle says, _By the
works of the law shall no flesh be justified_, Gal. ii. 16. Therefore,
the righteousness we are now speaking of, must be something wrought out
for us, by one who stood in our room and stead, and was able to pay that
debt of obedience, and endure those sufferings that were due for sin,
which the law of God might have exacted of us, and insisted on the
payment of, in our own persons, which, when paid by Christ for us, is
that, (as will be considered under a following head,) which we generally
call Christ’s righteousness, or what he did and suffered in our stead,
in conformity to the law of God; whereby its honour was secured and
vindicated, and justice satisfied; so that God hereby appears to be, as
the apostle says, _Just, and the justifier of him which believeth in
Jesus_, Rom. iii. 26.[30]
IV. We are now to consider the utter inability of fallen man to perform
any righteousness that can be the matter of his justification in the
sight of God; whereby it will appear, as it is observed in this answer,
that we are not accounted righteous in his sight, for any thing wrought
in us, or done by us. That we cannot be justified by suffering the
punishment that was due for sin, appears from the infinite evil thereof;
and the eternal duration of the punishment that it deserves; as our
Saviour observes in the parable concerning the debtor, who did not
_agree with his adversary while in the way_, but was _delivered to the
officer_, and _cast into prison_; from whence he was not to come out
_till he had paid the uttermost farthing_, Matt. v. 25, 26. that is to
say, he shall never be discharged. A criminal who is sentenced to endure
some punishments short of death, or which are to continue but for a term
of years, when he has suffered them, is, upon the account hereof,
discharged, or justified: but it is far otherwise with man, when fallen
into the hands of the vindictive justice of God; therefore the Psalmist
says, _enter not into judgment with thy servant_, or do not punish me
according to the demerit of sin; _for in thy sight shall no flesh living
be justified_.
Neither can any one be justified by performing active obedience to the
law of God; for nothing is sufficient to answer that end, but what is
perfect in all respects; it must be sinless obedience, and that not only
as to what concerns the time to come, but as respecting the time past;
and that is impossible, from the nature of the thing, to be said of a
sinner; for it implies a contradiction in terms. This farther appears
from the holiness of God, which cannot but detest the least defect; and
therefore will not deal with a sinful creature, as though he had been
innocent: and as for sins that are past, they render us equally liable
to a debt of punishment, with those which are committed at present, or
shall be hereafter, in the sight of God. Moreover, the honour of the law
cannot be secured, unless it be perfectly fulfilled; which cannot be
done if there be any defect of obedience.
As for those works which are done by us, without the assistance of the
Spirit of God, these proceed from a wrong principle, and have many other
blemishes attending them, upon the account whereof, they have only a
partial goodness; and for that reason Augustine gives them no better a
character than shining sins[31]: but whatever terms we give them, they
are certainly very far from coming up to a conformity to the divine law.
And as for those good works which are said to be wrought in us, and are
the effect of the power and grace of God, and the consequence of our
being regenerated and converted, these fall far short of perfection;
there is a great deal of sin attending them, which, if God should mark,
none could stand. This is expressed by Job, in a very humble manner;
_How should man be just with God? if he will contend with him, he cannot
answer him one of a thousand_. And, _if I wash myself with snow water,
and make my hands never so clean, yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch,
and mine own clothes shall abhor me: for he is not a man as I am, that I
should answer him, and we should come together in judgment_, Job ix. 2,
3, 30-32. when God is said to _work in us that which is well pleasing in
his sight_, Heb. xiii. 21. we are not to understand, that the grace
which he works in us, renders us accepted in his sight, in a forensic
sense, or, that it justifies us; for in this respect we are only _made
accepted in the Beloved_, that is, in Christ, Eph. i. 3.
Moreover, as what is wrought in us, has many defects attending it; so it
is not from ourselves, and therefore cannot be accepted as a payment of
that debt of obedience which we owe to the justice of God; and
consequently we cannot be justified thereby. Some, indeed, make the
terms of acceptance, or justification in the sight of God, so very low,
as though nothing were demanded of us but our sincere endeavours to
yield obedience, whatever imperfections it be chargeable with. And
others pretend, that our confessing our sins will be conducive hereunto;
and assert, that our tears are sufficient to wash away the guilt of sin.
The Papists add, that some penances, of acts of self-denial, will
satisfy his justice, and procure a pardon for us; yea, they go farther
than this, and maintain, that persons may perform works of
supererogation, or pay more than the debt that is owing from them, or
than what the law of God requires, and thereby not only satisfy his
justice, but render him a debtor to them; and putting them into a
capacity of transferring these arrears of debt, to those that stand in
need of them, and thereby lay an obligation on them, in gratitude, to
pay them honours next to divine. Such absurdities do men run into, who
plead for human satisfactions, and the merit of good works, as the
matter of our justification: and, indeed, there is nothing can tend more
to depreciate Christ’s satisfaction, on the one hand, and stupify the
conscience on the other; and therefore, it is so far from being an
expedient for justification, that it is destructive to the souls of men.
As for our sincere endeavours, or imperfect obedience, these cannot be
placed by the justice of God, in the room of perfect; for that is
contrary to the nature of justice: We cannot suppose, that he who pays a
pepper-corn, or a few mites, instead of a large sum, really pays the
debt that was due from him; justice cannot account this to be a payment;
therefore, a discharge from condemnation, upon these terms, cannot be
styled a justification. And if it be said that it is esteemed so by an
act of grace: this is to advance the glory of one divine perfection,
and, at the same time, detract from that of another; nothing therefore
can be our righteousness, but that which the justice of God may, in
honour, accept of for our justification: and our own righteousness is so
small and inconsiderable a thing, that it is a dishonour for him to
accept of it in this respect; and therefore we cannot be justified by
works done by us, or wrought in us.
This will farther appear, if we consider the properties of this
righteousness; and in particular, that it must not only be perfect, and
therefore, such as a sinful creature cannot perform; but it must also be
of infinite value, otherwise it could not give satisfaction to the
infinite justice of God; and consequently cannot be performed by any
other than a divine person. And it must also bear some resemblance to
that debt which was due from us, inasmuch as it was designed to satisfy
for the debt which he had contracted; and therefore must be performed by
one who is really man. But this having been insisted on elsewhere, under
the head of Christ’s Priestly office[32], we shall not farther enlarge
on it; but proceed to consider,
V. That our Lord Jesus Christ has wrought out this righteousness for us,
as our Surety, by performing active and passive obedience; which is
imputed to us for our justification. We have before considered that it
is impossible that such a righteousness, as is sufficient to be the
matter of our justification, should be wrought out by us in our own
persons; it therefore follows; that it must be wrought out for us, by
one who bears the character of a surety, and performs every thing that
is necessary to our justification; such an one is our Lord Jesus Christ.
In considering this head, we must,
1. Shew what we are to understand by a _surety_, since it is the
righteousness of Christ, under this relation to us, which is the matter
of our justification. A surety is one who submits to be charged with,
and undertakes to pay a debt contracted by another, to the end that the
debtor may hereby be discharged: thus the apostle Paul engages to be
surety to Philemon, for Onesimus, who had fled from him, whom he had
wronged or injured, and was hereby indebted to him; concerning whom, he
says, _If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine
account; I, Paul, have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it_,
Philem. ver. 18. And elsewhere, we read of Judah’s overture to be surety
for his brother Benjamin, that he should return to his father, as a
motive to induce him to give his consent that he should go with him into
Egypt: _I will be surety for him; of my hand shalt thou require him: if
I bring him not unto thee, and set him before thee, then let me bear the
blame for ever_, Gen. xliii. 9. This is so commonly known in civil
transactions of the like nature, between man and man, that it needs no
farther explication; however, it may be observed,
(1.) That a person’s becoming surety for another, must be a free and
voluntary act: for to force any one to bind himself to pay a debt, which
he has not contracted, is as much an act of injustice, as it is in any
other instance to exact a debt where it is not due.
(2.) He that engages to be surety for another must be in a capacity to
pay the debt, otherwise he is unjust to the creditor, as well as brings
ruin upon himself: therefore it is said, _Be not thou one of them that
strike hands, or of them that are sureties for debts, if thou hast
nothing to pay; why should he take away the bed from under thee?_ Prov.
xxiii. 26, 27.
(3.) He who engages to be surety for another, is supposed not to have
contracted the debt himself; and therefore the creditor must have no
demands upon him, as being involved together with the debtor, and so
becoming engaged antecedent to his being surety: nevertheless, he is
deemed, in the eye of the law, consequent thereunto, to stand in the
debtor’s room, and to be charged with his debt, and equally obliged to
the payment thereof, as though he had contracted it, especially if the
creditor be resolved to exact the payment of him, rather than of the
original debtor[33].
(4.) As debts are of different kinds, so the obligation of a surety
agreeably thereunto admits of different circumstances: thus there are
pecuniary debts resulting from those dealings or contracts which pass
between man and man in civil affairs; and there are debts of service or
obedience; as also debts of punishment, as has been before observed, for
crimes committed; in all which cases, as the nature of the debt differs,
so there are some things peculiar in the nature of suretyship for it. In
pecuniary debts the creditor is obliged to accept of payment at the hand
of any one, who at the request of the debtor is willing to discharge the
debt which he has contracted, especially, if what he pays be his own;
but in debts of service or punishment, when the surety offers himself to
perform of suffer what was due from another, the creditor is at his
liberty to accept of, or refuse satisfaction from him, but might insist
on the payment of the debt by him in his own person, from whom it was
due.
2. Christ was such a surety for us, or substituted in our room, with a
design to pay the debt which was due to the justice of God from us.
Here, that we may assume the ideas of a surety but now-mentioned, and
apply them to Christ, as our surety, let it be considered;
(1.) That what he did and suffered for us was free and voluntary; this
appears from his readiness to engage therein, expressed by his saying,
_Lo, I come to do thy will_, Heb. x. 9. And therefore whatever he
suffered for us did not infer the least injustice in God that inflicted
it[34].
(2.) He was able to pay the debt, so that there was not the least injury
offered to the justice of God by his undertaking. This is evident, from
his being God incarnate; and therefore in one nature he was able to do
and suffer whatever was demanded of us, and in the other nature to add
an infinite value to what he performed therein.
(3.) He was not rendered incapable of paying our debt, or answering for
the guilt which we had contracted by any debt of his own, which involved
him in the same guilt, and rendered him liable to the same punishment
with us, as is evident from what the prophet says concerning him, who
speaks of him, as charged with our guilt, though _he had done no
violence, neither was any deceit found in his mouth_, Isa. liii. 9. That
which the prophet calls _doing no violence_, the apostle Peter referring
to, and explaining it, styles _doing_, or committing _no sin_ of any
kind. He was not involved in the guilt of Adam’s sin, which would have
rendered him incapable of being a surety to pay that debt for us;
neither had he the least degree of the corruption of nature, being
conceived in an extraordinary way, and sanctified from the womb[35]. Nor
did he ever commit actual sin, for he was holy, harmless, undefiled, and
separate from sinners.
(4.) Another thing observed in the character of a surety, which is very
agreeable to Christ, is; that what he engaged to pay was his own, or at
his own disposal, he did not offer any injury to justice, by paying a
debt that was before due to it, or by performing any service which he
had no warrant to do. It is true, he gave his life a ransom, but
consider him as a divine Person, and he had an undoubted right to
dispose or of, lay down that life which he had as man. Did he consent,
in the eternal transaction between the Father and him, to be incarnate,
and in our nature to perform the work of a Surety? this was an act of
his sovereign will; and therefore whatever he paid as a ransom for us,
was, in the highest sense, his own. The case was not the same as though
one man should offer to lay down his life for another, who has no power
to dispose of his life at pleasure. We are not lords of our own lives;
as we do not come into the world by our own wills, we are not to go out
of it when we please; but Christ was as God, if I may so express myself,
lord of himself, of all that he did and suffered as man; by which I
understand that he had a right as God to consent or determine to do, and
suffer whatever he did and suffered as man; therefore the debt which he
paid in the human nature was his own.
(5.) As it has been before observed, that in some cases he that is
willing to substitute himself as a surety in the room of the debtor,
must be accepted, and approved by him to whom it was due; and in this
respect our Saviour’s substitution as our surety in our room, had a
sanction from God the Father; who gave many undeniable evidences that
what he did and suffered for us, was accepted by him as really as though
it had been done by us in our own persons, which, as was before
observed, might have been refused by him, it being the payment of a debt
of obedience and sufferings. Now that God the Father testified his
acceptance of Christ as our surety, appears,
1. From his well-pleasedness with him, both before and after his
incarnation; before he came into the world, God seems to speak with
pleasure in the fore-thought of what he would be, and do, as Mediator,
when he says, _Behold my servant whom I uphold, mine elect, in whom my
soul delighteth_, Isa. xlii. 1. And he is also said to be _well pleased
for his righteousness sake_, ver. 21. or in his determining before hand
that he should, as Mediator, bring in that righteousness which would
tend to magnify the law, and make it honourable.
Moreover, his having anointed him by a previous designation to this
work, as the prophet intimates, speaking of him before his incarnation,
Isa. lxi. 1, 2. is certainly an evidence of his being approved to be our
surety. And when he was incarnate, God approved of him, when engaged in
the work which he came into the world about: thus, when he was solemnly
set apart, by baptism to the discharge of his public ministry, we read
of a voice from heaven, saying, _This is my beloved Son, in whom I am
well pleased_, Matt. iii. 17. And to this we may add, that there was the
most undeniable proof of God’s well pleasedness with him, as having
accomplished this work, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at
his own right hand, in heavenly places.
2. This may be farther argued from his justifying and saving those for
whom he undertook to be a surety, before the debt was actually paid; and
his applying the same blessings to his people, since the work of
redemption was finished. The application of what Christ undertook to
purchase, is an evidence of the acceptableness of the price. And this
may be considered, either as respecting those that were saved before his
incarnation and death; or those who are, from that time, in all
succeeding ages, made partakers of the saving benefits procured thereby.
Before the actual accomplishment of what he undertook to do and suffer,
as our surety, God the Father trusted him, and, by virtue of his
promising to pay the debt, discharged the Old Testament saints from
condemnation, as effectually as though it had been actually paid. There
are some cases in which a surety’s undertaking to pay a debt, is
reckoned equivalent to the actual payment of it; namely, when it is
impossible that he should make a failure in the payment thereof, either
though mutability, or a fickelness of temper, inducing him to change his
purpose; or from unfaithfulness, which might render him regardless of
his engagement to pay it: or from some change in his circumstances
whereby, though he once was able to pay it, he afterwards becomes
unable: I say, if none of these things can take place, and especially,
if the creditor, by not demanding present payment, receives some
advantage, which is an argument that he does not stand in need thereof:
in these cases the promise to pay a debt is equivalent to the payment of
it.
Now these things may well be applied to Christ’s undertaking to pay our
debt: it was impossible that he should fail in the accomplishment of
what he had undertaken; or change his purpose, and so, though he
designed to do it, enter into other measures; or, though he had promised
to do it, be unfaithful in the accomplishment thereof, these things
being all inconsistent with the character of his person who undertook
it; and, though he suffered for us in the human nature, it was his
divine nature that undertook to do it therein, which is infinitely free
from the least imputation of weakness, mutability, or unfaithfulness:
and, whereas the present payment was not immediately demanded, nor
designed to be made till the fulness of time was come, his forbearance
hereof was compensated by that revenue of glory which accrued to the
divine name, and that honour that redounded to the Mediator, by the
salvation of the elect, before his incarnation; and this was certainly
an undeniable evidence of God’s approving his undertaking.
And since the work of redemption has been completed, all those who are,
or shall be brought to glory, have, in themselves, a convincing proof of
God’s being well pleased with Christ, as substituted in their room and
stead, to pay the debt that was due from them to his justice, as the
foundation of their justification. From hence it plainly appears, that
Christ was substituted as a surety in our room and stead, to do that for
us which was necessary for our justification; and we have sufficient
ground to conclude, that he was so from scripture, from whence alone it
can be proved, it being a matter of pure revelation. Thus he is said, in
express terms, to have been _made a surety of a better testament_, Heb.
vii. 22. and that as our surety, he has paid that debt of sufferings
which was due from us, is evident, in that he is said to _offer himself
a sacrifice for our sins_, ver. 27. and to have been _once offered to
bear the sins of many_, chap. ix. 28. and from his being holy, harmless,
undefiled, and separate from sinners, the apostle argues, that he had no
occasion to offer a sacrifice for himself, or that he had no sin of his
own to be charged with, therefore, herein he bore or answered for our
sins: thus the apostle Peter says, _He bare our sins in his own body, on
the tree, by whose stripes we are healed_, 1 Pet. ii. 24. And elsewhere,
we read of _his being made sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be
made the righteousness of God in him_, 2 Cor. v. 21. that is, he, who
had no guilt of his own to answer for, submitted to be charged with our
guilt, to stand in our room and stead, and accordingly to be made a
sacrifice for sin; all this implies as much as his being made a surety
for us. But this having been particularly insisted on elsewhere in
speaking concerning Christ’s satisfaction, which could not be explained
without taking occasion to mention his being substituted in the room and
stead of those for whom he paid a price of redemption; and, having also
considered the meaning of those scriptures that speak of his bearing our
sins, we shall proceed to consider[36],
3. What Christ did, pursuant to this character, namely, as our surety,
as he paid all that debt which the justice of God demanded from us,
which consisted in active and passive obedience. There was a debt of
active obedience demanded from man as a creature; and upon his failure
of paying it, when he sinned, it became an out-standing debt, due from
us; but such as could never be paid by us. God determines not to justify
any, unless this out-standing debt be paid; Christ, as our surety,
engages to take the payment of it on himself: and, whereas this defect
of obedience, together with all actual transgressions, which proceeded
from the corruption of our nature, render us guilty or liable to the
stroke of vindictive justice, Christ, as our surety, undertakes to bear
that also: this we generally call the imputation of our sin to Christ,
the placing our debt to his account, and the transferring the debt of
punishment, which was due from us to him, upon which account he is said
to yield obedience, and suffer in our room and stead, or to perform
active and passive obedience for us; which two ideas the apostle joins
in one expression, when he says, that he _became obedient unto death_,
Phil. ii. 8. But this having been been insisted on elsewhere, under the
head of Christ’s satisfaction[37], where we shewed, not only that Christ
performed active as well as passive obedience for us, but endeavoured to
answer the objections that are generally brought against Christ’s active
obedience, being part of that debt which he engaged to pay for us; we
shall pass it by at present.
But that which may farther be added, to prove that our sin and guilt
were imputed to him, may be argued from his being said to be _made a
curse for us_, in order to his redeeming us from the curse of the law,
Gal. iii. 13. and also from his _being made sin for us, that we might be
made the righteousness of God in him_, 2 Cor. v. 21. And also from other
scriptures, that speak of him as suffering, though innocent; punished
for sin, though he was at the same time the Lamb of God, without spot or
blemish; dealt with as guilty, though he had never contracted any guilt,
and being made a sacrifice for sin, though sinless, which could not have
been done consistently with the justice of God, had not our sins been
placed to his account, or imputed to him.
It is indeed a very difficult thing to convince some persons, how Christ
could be charged with sin, or have sin imputed to him, in consistency
with the sinless purity of his nature, which some think to be no better
than a contradiction, though it be agreeable to the scripture mode of
speaking, _viz._ _He was made sin for us_, and yet _knew no sin_, 2 Cor.
v. 21. However, when we speak of sin’s being imputed to him, we are far
from insinuating, that he committed any acts of sin; or, that his human
nature was, in the least, inclined to, or defiled thereby; we choose
therefore to use the scripture phrase, in which he is said to have
_borne our sins_, rather than to say, that he was a sinner; much less
would I give countenance to that expression which some make use of, that
he was the greatest sinner in the world; since I do not desire to apply
a word to him, which is often taken in a sense not in the least
applicable to the holy Jesus. We cannot be too cautious in our
expressions, lest the most common sense in which we understand the
greatest sinner, when applied to men, should give any one a wrong idea
of him, as though he had committed, or were defiled with sin. All that
we assert is, that he was charged with our sins, when he suffered for
them, not with having committed them; but with the guilt of them, which,
by his own consent, was imputed to him; otherwise his sufferings could
not have been a punishment for sin; and if they had not been so, our sin
could not have been expiated, nor would his sufferings have been the
ground of our justification. This leads us to consider,
4. The reference that Christ’s suretyship-righteousness has to our
justification. This is generally styled its being imputed; which is a
word very much used by those who plead for the scripture-sense of the
doctrine of justification, and as much opposed by them that deny it; and
we are obliged to defend the use of it; otherwise Christ’s
righteousness, how glorious soever it be in itself, would not avail for
our justification. Here it is necessary for us to explain what we mean
by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.
There are some who oppose this doctrine, by calling it a putative
righteousness, the shadow or appearance of that which has in it no
reality, or our being accounted what we are not, whereby a wrong
judgment is passed on persons and things. However, we are not to deny it
because it is thus misrepresented, and thereby unfairly opposed: it is
certain, that there are such words used in scripture, and often applied
to this doctrine, which, without any ambiguity or strain on the sense
thereof, may be translated, to reckon, to account, or to place a thing
done by another to our account; or, as we express it, to impute.[38] And
that, either respects what is done by us; or something done by another
for us. The former of these senses our adversaries do not oppose; as
when it is said, that Phinehas _executed judgment, and it was counted
unto him for righteousness_, Psal. cvi. 31. that is, it was approved by
God as a righteous action; which expression seems to obviate an
objection that some might make against it; supposing, that Phinehas
herein did that which more properly belonged to the civil magistrate;
or, that this judicial act in him, was done without a formal trial, and,
it may be, too hastily; but God owns the action, and, in a way of
approbation, places it to his account for righteousness, that it should
be reckoned a righteous action throughout all generations.
Again, sometimes that which is done by a person, is imputed to him, or
charged upon him, so that he must answer for it, or suffer the
punishment due to it: thus Shimei says to David, _Let not my Lord impute
iniquity unto me_, 2 Sam. xix. 19. that is, do not charge that sin,
which I committed, upon me, so as to put me to death for it, which thou
mightest justly do. And Stephen prays, _Lord, lay not this sin to their
charge_, Acts vii. 60. impute it not to them, or inflict not the
punishment on them that it deserves. No one can deny that what is done
by a person himself, may be placed to his own account; so that he may be
rewarded or punished for it; or it may be approved or disapproved: but
this is not the sense in which we understand it when speaking concerning
the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us; for this supposes that
which is done by another, to be placed to our account. This is the main
thing which is denied by those who have other sentiments of the doctrine
we are maintaining; and, they pretend, that for God to account Christ’s
righteousness ours, is to take a wrong estimate of things, to reckon
that done by us which was not; which is contrary to the wisdom of God,
who can, by no means, entertain any false ideas of things; and if the
action be reckoned ours, then the character of the person performing it,
must also be applied to us; which is to make us sharers in Christ’s
Mediatorial office and glory.
But this is the most perverse sense which can be put on words, or a
setting this doctrine in such a light as no one takes it in, who pleads
for it: we do not suppose, that God looks upon man with his all-seeing
eye, as having done that which Christ did, or to sustain the character
which belongs to him in doing it; we are always reckoned, by him, as
offenders, or contracting guilt, and unable to do any thing that can
make an atonement for it. Therefore, what interest soever we have in
what Christ did, it is not reputed our action; but God’s imputing
Christ’s righteousness to us, is to be taken in a forensic sense, which
is agreeable to the idea of a debt being paid by a surety: it is not
supposed that the debtor paid the debt which the surety paid; but yet it
is placed to his account, or imputed to him as really as though he had
paid it himself. Thus what Christ did and suffered in our room and
stead, is as much placed to our account, as though we had done and
suffered it ourselves; so that by virtue hereof we are discharged from
condemnation.[39]
This is the sense in which we understand the imputation of Christ’s
righteousness to us; and it is agreeable to the account we have thereof
in scripture: thus we are said to be _made the righteousness of God in
him_, 2 Cor. v. 21. the abstract being put for the concrete; that is, we
are denominated and dealt with as righteous persons, acquitted and
discharged from condemnation in the virtue of what was done by him, who
is elsewhere styled, _The Lord our righteousness_; and the apostle
speaks of his _having Christ’s righteousness_, Phil. iii. 9. that is,
having it imputed to him, or having an interest in it, or being dealt
with according to the tenor thereof; in this respect he opposes it to
that righteousness which was in him, as the result of his own
performances: and elsewhere Christ is said to be _made of God unto us
righteousness_; that is, his fulfilling the law is placed to our
account; and the apostle speaks of _Christ’s being the end of the law
for righteousness to every one that believeth_, Rom. x. 4. which is the
same with what he asserts in other words elsewhere concerning the
_righteousness of the law’s being fulfilled in us_, chap. viii. 3, 4.
who could not be justified by our own obedience to it, in _that it was
weak through the flesh_, or by reason of our fallen state; therefore
Christ did this for us; and accordingly God deals with us as though we
had fulfilled the law in our own persons, inasmuch as it was fulfilled
by him as our surety.
This may farther be illustrated, by what we generally understand by
Adam’s sin being imputed to us, as one contrary may illustrate another;
therefore, as sin and death entered into the world by the _offence of
one_, to wit, the first Adam, _in whom all have sinned; so by the
righteousness of one the free gift_, Rom. v. 18. that is, eternal life
_came upon all men_, to wit, those who shall be saved _unto
justification of life_; and for this reason the apostle speaks of Adam
as the _figure of him that was to come_, ver. 14. Now as Adam’s sin was
imputed to us, as our public head and representative, so that we are
involved in the guilt thereof, or fall in him; so Christ’s righteousness
is imputed to us, as he was our public head and surety: and accordingly,
in the eye of the law, that which was done by him, was the same as
though it had been done by us; and therefore, as the effect and
consequence hereof, we are justified thereby. This is what we call
Christ’s righteousness being imputed to us, or placed to our account;
and it is very agreeable to the common acceptation of the word, in
dealings between man and man. When one has contracted a debt, and
desires that it may be placed to the account of his surety, who
undertakes for the payment of it, it is said to be imputed to him; and
his discharge hereupon is as valid as though the debtor has paid it in
his own person. This leads us,
VI. To consider justification as it is an act of God’s free grace, which
is particularly insisted on in one of the answers we are explaining; for
the understanding of which, let it be observed, that we are not to
suppose, that when we are justified by an act of grace, this is opposed
to our being justified upon the account of a full satisfaction made by
our surety to the justice of God; in which respect we consider our
discharge from condemnation, as an act of justice. The debtor is,
indeed, beholden to the grace of God for this privilege, but the surety
that paid the debt, had not the least abatement thereof made, but was
obliged to glorify the justice of God to the utmost, which accordingly
he did. However, there are several things in which the grace of God is
eminently displayed, more particularly,
1. In that God should be willing to accept of satisfaction from the
hands of our surety, which he might have demanded of us. This appears
from what has been before observed, namely, that the debt which we had
contracted was not of the same nature with pecuniary debts, in which
case the creditor is obliged to accept of payment, though the overture
hereof be made by another, and not by him that contracted the debt:
whereas the case is different in debts of obedience to be performed, or
punishment to be endured; in which instances, he, to whom satisfaction
is to be given, must accept of one to be substituted in the room of him
from whom the obedience or sufferings were originally due; otherwise,
the overture made, or what is done and suffered by him, pursuant
thereunto, is not regarded, or available to procure a discharge for him,
in whose room he substituted himself. God might have exacted the debt of
us, in our own persons, and then our condition had been equally
miserable with that of fallen angels, for whom no mediator was accepted,
no more than provided.
2. The grace of God farther appears, in that he provided a surety for
us, which we could not have done for ourselves; nor have engaged him to
perform this work for us, who was the only person that could bring about
the great work of redemption.
The only creatures who are capable of performing perfect obedience, are
the holy angels; but these could not do it, for, as has been before
observed, whoever performs it must be incarnate, that they may be
capable of paying the debt, in some respects, in kind, which was due
from us; therefore they must suffer death, and consequently have a
nature which is capable of dying; but this the angels had not, nor could
have, but by the divine will.
Besides, if God should have dispensed with that part of satisfaction,
which consists in a subjection to death, and have declared, that active
obedience should be sufficient to procure our justification; the angels,
though capable of performing active obedience, would, notwithstanding,
have been defective therein; so that justice could not, in honour, have
accepted of it, any more than it could have dispensed with the
obligation to perform obedience in general; because it would not have
been of infinite value; and it is the value of things that justice
regards, and not barely the matter of perfection thereof in other
respects: so that it must be an obedience that had in it something
infinitely valuable, or else it could not have been accepted by God, as
a price of redemption, in order to the procuring our justification: and
this could be performed by none but our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious
author and procurer of this privilege.
It was impossible for man to have found out this Mediator or Surety; so
that it had its first rise from God, and not from us; it is he that
found a ransom, and laid help upon one that is mighty; this was the
result of his will: therefore our Saviour is represented as saying, _Lo
I come to do thy will_, Heb. x. 7. as the apostle expresses it. That we
could not, by any means, have found out this surety, or engaged him to
have done that for us which was necessary for our justification, will
evidently appear, if we consider,
(1.) That when man fell, the Son of God was not incarnate; and provided
we allow that fallen man had some idea of a Trinity of persons, in the
unity of the divine Essence, which is not unreasonable to suppose; since
it was necessary that that should be revealed to him before he fell, in
order to his performing acceptable worship; yet, can any one suppose
that man could have asked such a favour of a divine person, as to take
his nature, and put himself in his room and stead, and expose himself to
the curse of that law which he had violated; this could never have
entered into his heart; yea, the very thought, if it had taken its rise
first from him, would have savoured of more presumption than had he
entreated that God would pardon his sin without a satisfaction. But,
(2.) If he had supposed it impossible for the Son of God to be
incarnate, or had conjectured that there had been the least probability
of his being willing to express this instance of condescending goodness,
how could he have known that God would have accepted the payment of our
debt, at the hands of another, or have commended his love to us, who
were such enemies to him, in not sparing him, but delivering him up for
us? if God’s accepting of a satisfaction be necessary, in order to its
taking effect, as well as the perfection or infinite value of it; it is
certain, man could not have known that he would have done it; for that
was a matter of pure revelation. Moreover,
(3.) Should we suppose even this possible, or that man might have
expected that God would have been moved to have done it by intreaty; yet
such was the corruption, perverseness, and rebellion of his nature, as
fallen; and so great was his inability to perform any act of worship,
that he could not have addressed himself to God, in a right manner, that
he would admit of a surety; and God cannot hear any prayer but that
which is put up to him by faith, which supposes a Mediator, whose
purchase and gift it is; and therefore, since the sinful creature could
not plead with God by faith, that he would send his Son to be a
Mediator, how could he hope to obtain this blessing? it therefore
evidently follows, that as a man could not give satisfaction for
himself; so he could not find out any one that could or would give it
for him. And therefore, the grace of God, in the provision that he has
made of such a surety as his own Son, unasked for, unthought of, as well
as undeserved, is very illustrious.
3. It was a very great instance of grace in our Saviour, that he was
pleased to consent to perform this work for us, without which the
justice of God could not have exacted the debt of him; and he being
perfectly innocent, could not be obliged to suffer punishment, which it
would have been unjust in God to have inflicted, had he not been willing
to be charged with our guilt, and to stand in our room and stead. And
his grace herein more eminently appears, in that though he knew
before-hand all the difficulties, sorrows, and temptations, which he was
to meet with in the discharge of this work; yet this did not discourage
him from undertaking it; neither was he unapprised of the character of
those for whom he undertook it: he knew the rebellion, and guilt
contracted thereby, that rendered this necessary, in order to their
salvation; and he knew before-hand, that they would, notwithstanding all
the engagements he might lay on them to the contrary, discover the
greatest ingratitude towards him; and, instead of improving so great an
instance of condescending goodness, that they would neglect this great
salvation, when purchased by him, and thereby appear to be his greatest
enemies, notwithstanding this act of friendship to them, unless he not
only engaged to purchase redemption for, but apply it to them, and work
those graces in them whereby they might be enabled to give him the glory
which is due to him for this great undertaking. And this leads us,
VII. To consider the use of faith in justification, and how,
notwithstanding what has been said concerning our being justified by
Christ’s righteousness, we may, in other respects, be said to be
justified by faith; and also shew what this faith is, whereby we are
justified: which being particularly insisted on in the two following
answers, we shall proceed to consider them.
Footnote 28:
ומצדיק.
Footnote 29:
_The former of these divines call_ reatus potentialis, _the latter_,
reatus actualis; _the former is the immediate consequence of sin, the
latter is taken away by justification._
Footnote 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, to _be 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 be _treated and
accepted as righteous_. If God _justifies 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; but _by the obedience of one_, (that is
Christ,) _many are made righteous_. The term _obedience_ excludes 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 the _Lord of life_ and 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 was _promised us in Christ Jesus
before the world began_. Justice therefore can neither object to the
substitution, nor withhold the rewards.
Footnote 31:
_Splendida peccata._
Footnote 32:
_See Vol. II. Page 275._
Footnote 33:
_The distinction often used in the civil law between_ fide-jussor
_and_ expromissor, _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 called_ fide-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 by_
expromissor, _has been considered elsewhere. See Vol. II. Page 174,
186._
Footnote 34:
_Volenti non fit injuria._
Footnote 35:
_See Vol. II. Page 281._
Footnote 36:
_See Vol. II. page 288._
Footnote 37:
_See Vol. II. page 280-293._
Footnote 38:
חשב λογιζω.
Footnote 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 proper _imputation_ of sin to Christ, or of Christ’s righteousness
to us; nor in his being our _substitute_, 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 that _his views_ of
imputation and substitution were unscriptural; but had no intention of
disowning the doctrines themselves.
_Peter._ Brother James, I have no desire to assume any dominion over
your faith; but should be glad to know what are your ideas on these
important subjects. Do you hold that sin was properly imputed to
Christ, or that Christ’s righteousness is properly imputed to us, or
not?
_James._ You are quite at liberty, brother Peter, to ask me any
questions on these subjects; and if you will hear me patiently, I will
answer you as explicitly as I am able.
_John._ Do so, brother James; and we shall hear you not only
patiently, but, I trust, with pleasure.
_James._ To impute,[40] signifies in general, to _charge_, _reckon_,
or _place to account_, according to the different objects to which it
is applied. This word, like many others, has a _proper_, and an
_improper_ or figurative meaning.
First: It is applied to the _charging_, _reckoning_, or _placing to
the account_ of persons and things, THAT WHICH PROPERLY BELONGS TO
THEM. This I consider as its _proper_ meaning. In this sense the word
is used in the following passages. “Eli _thought_ she, (Hannah,) had
been drunken—Hanan and Mattaniah, the treasurers were _counted_
faithful—Let a man so _account_ of us as the ministers of Christ, and
stewards of the mysteries of God—Let such an one _think_ this, that
such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be
also indeed when we are present—I _reckon_ that the sufferings of this
present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall
be revealed in us.”[41] Reckoning or accounting, in the above
instances, is no other than judging of persons and things _according
to what they are, or appear to be_. To impute sin in this sense is to
charge guilt upon the guilty in a judicial way, or with a view to
punishment. Thus Shimei besought David that his iniquity might _not be
imputed to him_; thus the man is pronounced blessed to whom the Lord
_imputeth not iniquity_: and thus Paul prayed that the sin of those
who deserted him might _not be laid to their 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 the _charging_, _reckoning_, or _placing to
the account_ of persons and things, THAT WHICH DOES NOT PROPERLY
BELONG TO THEM, AS THOUGH IT DID. This I consider as its _improper_ or
figurative meaning. In this sense the word is used in the following
passages—“And this your heave-offering shall be _reckoned_ unto you
_as though it were_ the corn of the threshing-floor and as the fulness
of the wine-press—Wherefore hidest thou thy face, and _holdest_ me for
thine enemy—If the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law,
shall not his uncircumcision be _counted_ for circumcision—If he hath
wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, _put that on mine account_.”[43]
It is in this _latter_ sense that I understand the term when applied
to justification. “Abraham believed God, and it was _counted_ unto him
for righteousness—To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that
justifieth the ungodly, his faith is _counted_ for righteousness.” The
counting, or reckoning, in these instances, is not a judging of things
_as they are_; but _as they are not, as though they were_. I do not
think that faith here means the righteousness of the Messiah: for it
is expressly called “believing.” It means believing, however, not as a
virtuous exercise of the mind which God consented to accept instead of
perfect obedience, but _as having respect to the promised Messiah_,
and so to his righteousness as the ground of acceptance.[44]
Justification is ascribed to faith, as healing frequently is in the
New Testament; not as that from which the _virtue_ proceeds, but as
that which _receives_ from the Saviour’s fulness.
But if it were allowed that faith in these passages really means the
object believed in, still this was not Abraham’s _own_ righteousness,
and could not be properly _counted_ by him who judges of things as
they are, as being so. It was _reckoned_ unto him _as if it were_ his;
and the effects, or benefits of it were actually imparted to him: but
this was all. Abraham did not become meritorious, or cease to be
unworthy.
“What is it to place our righteousness in the obedience of Christ,
(says Calvin,) but to affirm that hereby only we are _accounted_
righteous; because the obedience of Christ is imputed to us AS IF IT
WERE OUR OWN.”[45]
It is thus also that I understand the imputation of sin to Christ. He
was accounted in the divine administration _as if he were, or had
been_ the sinner, that those who believe in him might be accounted _as
if they were, or had been_ righteous.
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
αμαρτια (_sin_) as frequently meaning a _sin-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 was _made_,
and that which he _knew not_, I am inclined to be of the doctor’s last
opinion; namely, that the sin which Christ was made, means _sin
itself_; and the righteousness which we are made, means _righteousness
itself_. I doubt not but that the allusion is to the sin-offering
under the law; but not to its being _made a sacrifice_. Let me be a
little more particular. There were two things belonging to the
sin-offering. _First_: The imputation of the sins of the people,
signified by the priest’s laying his hands upon the head of the
animal, and confessing over it their transgressions; and which is
called “putting them upon it.”[47] That is, it was _counted_ in the
divine administration _as if the animal had been_ the sinner, and the
only sinner of the nation. _Secondly_: Offering it in sacrifice, or
“killing it before the Lord for an atonement.”[48] Now the phrase,
_made sin_, in 2 Cor. v. 21. appears to refer to the _first_ step in
this process in order to the last. It is expressive of what was
preparatory to Christ’s suffering death rather than of the thing
itself, just as our being _made righteousness_ expresses what was
preparatory to God’s bestowing upon us eternal life. But the term
_made_ is not to be taken literally; for that would convey the idea of
Christ’s being really the subject of moral evil. It is expressive of a
divine _constitution_, by which our Redeemer with his own consent,
stood in the sinner’s place, as though he had been himself the
transgressor; just as the sin-offering under the law was, in mercy to
Israel, reckoned or accounted to have the sins of the people “put upon
its head,” with this difference; that was only a shadow, but this went
really to take away sin.
_Peter._ Do you consider Christ as having been _punished, really and
properly_ PUNISHED?
_James._ I should think I do not. But what do you mean by punishment?
_Peter._ An innocent person may _suffer_, but, properly speaking, he
cannot be _punished_. Punishment necessarily supposes _criminality_.
_James._ Just so; and therefore as I do not believe that Jesus was in
any sense criminal, I cannot say he was really and properly punished.
_Peter._ Punishment is the infliction of natural evil for the
commission of moral evil. It is not necessary, however, that the
latter should have been committed by the party—Criminality is
supposed: but it may be either personal or imputed.
_James._ This I cannot admit. Real and proper punishment, if I
understand the terms, is not only the infliction of natural evil for
the commission of moral evil; but the infliction of the one _upon the
person who committed the other, and in displeasure against him_. It
not only supposes criminality, but that the party punished was
literally the criminal. Criminality committed by one party, and
imputed to another, is not a ground for real and proper punishment. If
Paul had sustained the punishment due to Onesimus for having wronged
his master, yet it would not have been real and proper punishment _to
him_, but _suffering_ only, as not being inflicted in displeasure
against him. I am aware of what has been said on this subject, that
there was a more intimate _union_ between Christ and those for whom he
died, than could ever exist between creatures. But be it so, it is
enough for me that the union was not such as THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE
ONE BECAME THOSE OF THE OTHER. Christ, even in the act of offering
himself a sacrifice, when, to speak in the language of the Jewish law,
the sins of the people were put or laid upon him, gave himself
nevertheless THE JUST FOR THE UNJUST.
_Peter._ And thus it is that you understand the words of Isaiah, _The
Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all_?
_James._ Yes, he bore the punishment due to our sins, or that which,
considering the dignity of his person, was equivalent to it. The
phrase “He shall bear his iniquity,” which so frequently occurs in the
Old Testament, means, he shall bear the punishment due to his
iniquity.
_Peter._ And yet you deny that Christ’s sufferings were properly
_penal_.
_James._ You would not deny eternal life which is promised to
believers to be properly _a reward_; but you would deny its being _a
real and proper reward_ TO THEM.
_Peter._ And what then?
_James._ If eternal life, though it be a reward, and we partake of it,
yet is really and properly the reward of Christ’s obedience, and not
our’s; then the sufferings of Christ, though they were a punishment,
and he sustained it, yet were really and properly the punishment of
our sins, and not his. What he bore _was_ punishment: that is, it was
the expression of divine displeasure against transgressors. So what we
enjoy is reward: that is, it is the expression of God’s
well-pleasedness in the obedience and death of his Son. But neither is
the one a punishment _to him_, nor the other, properly speaking, a
reward _to us_.
There appears to me great accuracy in the scriptural language on this
subject. What our Saviour underwent is almost always expressed by the
term _suffering_. Once it is called a _chastisement_: yet there he is
not said to have been chastised; but “the chastisement of our peace
was _upon him_.” This is the same as saying he bore _our_ punishment.
He was made a curse for us: that is, having been reckoned, or
accounted the sinner, as though he had actually been so, he was
treated accordingly, as one that had deserved to be an outcast from
heaven and earth. I believe the wrath of God that was due to us was
poured upon him, but I do not believe that God for one moment was
angry or displeased _with him_, or that he smote him from any such
displeasure.
There is a passage in Calvin’s _Institutes_, 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 was _laid upon him_. He
was smitten of his Father for our crimes, and bruised for our
iniquities: whereby is meant that he was put in the stead of the
wicked, as surety and pledge, yea, and as the very guilty person
himself, to sustain and bear away all the punishments that should have
been laid upon them, save only that he could not be holden of death.
Yet do we not mean that God was at any time either his enemy, or angry
with him. For how could he be angry with his beloved Son, upon whom
his mind rested? Or how could Christ by his intercession appease his
Father’s wrath towards others, if, full of hatred, he had been
incensed against himself? But this is our meaning—that he sustained
the weight of the divine displeasure; inasmuch as he, being stricken
and tormented by the hand of God, DID FEEL ALL THE TOKENS OF GOD WHEN
HE IS ANGRY AND PUNISHETH.”
_Peter._ The words of scripture are very express—He hath _made him to
be sin for us_—He was _made a curse for us_.—You may, by diluting and
qualifying interpretations, soften what you consider as intolerable
_harshness_. In other words, you may choose to correct the language
and sentiments of inspiration, and teach the apostle to speak of his
Lord with more decorum, lest his personal purity should be impeached,
and lest the odium of the cross, annexed by divine law, remain
attached to his death: but if you abide by the obvious meaning of the
passages, you must hold with _a commutation of persons_, the
_imputation_ of sin and of righteousness, and a _vicarious
punishment_, equally pregnant with _execration_ as with _death_.
_John._ I wish brother Peter would forbear the use of language which
tends not to convince, but to irritate.
_James._ If there be any thing convincing in it, I confess I do not
perceive it. I admit with Mr. _Charnock_, “That Christ was ‘made sin’
_as if he had_ sinned all the sins of men; and we are ‘made
righteousness,’ _as if we had_ not sinned at all.” What more is
necessary to abide by the obvious meaning of the words? To go further
must be to maintain that Christ’s being _made sin_ means that he was
literally rendered wicked, and that his being _made a curse_ is 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 treated _as if
he were_ a sinner, and his _being one_. If such a medium there be, I
should be glad to discover it: at present it appears to me to have 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 the _real_ and
_proper punishment_ of Christ, he talks of his being “guilty by
imputation.” The term _guilty_, I am aware, is often used by
theological writers for _an obligation to punishment_, and so applies
to that voluntary obligation which Christ came under to sustain the
punishment of our sins: but strictly speaking, guilt is the _desert_
of punishment; and this can never apply but to the offender. It is the
opposite of innocence. A voluntary obligation to endure the punishment
of another is not guilt, any more than a consequent exemption from
obligation in the offender, is innocence. Both guilt and innocence are
transferable in their effects, but in themselves they are
untransferable. To say that Christ was _reckoned_ or _counted_ in the
divine administration _as if he were_ the sinner, and came under an
obligation to endure the curse or punishment due to our sins, is one
thing: but to say he _deserved_ that curse, is another. Guilt,
strictly speaking, is the inseparable attendant of transgression, and
could never therefore for one moment occupy the conscience of Christ.
If Christ by imputation became _deserving_ of 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 as _guilty_ and _unworthy_, we might
take consequence to ourselves before him, as not only guiltless, but
meritorious beings.
_Peter._ Some who profess to hold that believers are justified by the
righteousness of Christ, deny, nevertheless, that his _obedience
itself_ is imputed to them: for they maintain that the scripture
represents believers as receiving only the _benefits_, or effects of
Christ’s righteousness in justification, or their being pardoned and
accepted for Christ’s _righteousness sake_.—But it is not merely _for
the sake_ of Christ, or of what he has done, that believers are
accepted of God, and treated as completely righteous; but it is IN him
as their Head, Representative, and Substitute; and by the imputation
of that _very obedience_ which as such he performed to the divine law,
that they are justified.
_James._ I have no doubt but that the imputation of Christ’s
righteousness presupposes a _union_ with him; since there is no
perceivable fitness in bestowing benefits on one _for another’s sake_
where there is no union or relation subsisting between them. It is not
such a union, however, as that THE ACTIONS OF EITHER BECOME THOSE OF
THE OTHER. That “the scriptures represent believers as _receiving_
only the benefits or the effects of Christ’s righteousness in
justification,” is a remark of which I am not able to perceive the
fallacy: nor does it follow that his obedience itself is not imputed
to them. Obedience itself may be and is imputed, while its effects
only are _imparted_, and consequently _received_. I never met with a
person who held the absurd notion of imputed benefits, or imputed
punishments; and am inclined to think there never was such a person.
Be that however as it may, sin on the one hand and righteousness on
the other, are the proper objects of imputation; but that imputation
_consists_ in charging or reckoning them to the account of the party
in such a way as to _impart_ to him their evil or beneficial effects.
_Peter._ The doctrine for which I contend as taught by the apostle
Paul, is neither novel, nor more strongly expressed than it has
formerly been by authors of eminence.
_James._ It may be so. We have been told of an old protestant writer
who says, that “In Christ, and by him, every true Christian may be
called _a fulfiller of the law_:” but I see not why he might not as
well have added, Every true Christian may be said to have been slain,
and, if not to have redeemed himself by his own blood, yet to be
worthy of all that blessing, and honour, and glory, that shall be
conferred upon him in the world to come.—What do you think of Dr.
CRISP’S Sermons? Has he not carried your principles to an extreme?
_Peter._ I cordially agree with WITSIUS, as to the impropriety of
calling Christ _a sinner, truly a sinner, the greatest of sinners_,
&c. yet I am far from disapproving of what Dr. CRISP, and some others,
_meant_ by those exceptionable expressions.
_James._ If a Christian may be called _a fulfiller of the law_, on
account of Christ’s obedience being imputed to him, I see not why
Christ may not be called _a transgressor of the law_, on account of
our disobedience being imputed to him. Persons and things _should be
called what they are_. As to the _meaning_ of Dr. CRISP, I am very
willing to think he had no ill design: but my concern is with the
meaning which his words convey to his readers. He considers God in
charging our sins on Christ, and accounting his righteousness to us,
as reckoning of things _as they are_. (p. 280.) He contends that
Christ was _really_ the sinner, or guilt could not have been laid upon
him. (p. 272.) Imputation of sin and righteousness, with him, is
literally and actually A TRANSFER OF CHARACTER; and it is the object
of his reasoning to persuade his believing hearers that from
henceforward Christ is 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 art _not_ an 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.”
If the _meaning_ of 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 are _in themselves_ transferable. The
act and deed of one person may _affect_ another 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 ages
_confessed_ their sins, and applied to the mercy-seat for
_forgiveness_. 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 pardon _in his name_, or _for his sake_; not as worthy
claimants, but as unworthy supplicants.
Whatever reasonings we may give into, there are certain times in which
_conscience_ will 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. “Believers _think_,
says he, that they find their transgressions in their own consciences,
and they _imagine_ that 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. CRISP in 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 the _mistake_ which he labours
to rectify; that is, _thinking_ sin 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 the
_substitution 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 on
_substitution_, and to know whether he considers our Lord in his
undertaking as having sustained the character of a _Head_, or
_Representative_; 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 life _for, or instead of_ sinners, as was
said of Jerusalem by the captives—_If I forget_ THEE, _let my right
hand forget: If I do not remember_ THEE, _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 him _as 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 our _head_ and _representative_, 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 behalf _as 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 our _head_, 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 term _representative_, 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 of
_paying a debt_. The blood of Christ is indeed the _price_ of 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 of
_head 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 to _represent_ the 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 a _crime_, 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 have _remitted_ his 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 the _effects_ of the other; the _desert_ of
the criminal remains. The _debtor_ is accountable to his creditor as a
_private_ individual, 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 the _combination_ of justice and mercy in the same
proceeding. The _criminal_, on the other hand, is amenable to the
magistrate, or to the head of a family, as a _public_ person, 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 the _spirit_
of them, while the _letter_ is 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 combined_ in 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 been _perfectly
consistent with free forgiveness_.
Finally: In the case of the debtor, satisfaction being once accepted,
justice _requires_ his 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 it _admits_ of his
discharge, yet no otherwise _requires_ it 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 the _principle_ on which it proceeds.
If the following passage in our admired _Milton_ were 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 him
Some other able, and as willing, pay
The rigid satisfaction, death for death.”
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 not _thou shalt die, or some one on
thy behalf_; but simply _thou 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.