Part 11

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]