CHAPTER VII:
AN INQUIRY CONCERNING
IMPUTATION.
IT has been the opinion of many, that
in order for guilty man to be justified through Christ, it
is necessary that his righteousness should be imputed to
them, so as to be a ground on which they may be considered
righteous in law. For it is added, there must be a perfect
righteousness somewhere, to lay a foundation for
justification; and hence, since mankind have no perfect
righteousness of their own, the righteousness of Christ must
be imputed to them. What is really intended by these things
it is not easy to ascertain. If the sentiment be, that
Christ's righteousness is transferred to the believer so as
to become his righteousness, it is believed to be utterly,
without foundation, Righteousness, as well as sin, must be
entirely a personal thing, in such a sense that it cannot be
transferred. The righteousness of Christ, like that of every
other holy being, consists entirely in his actions,
feelings, and attributes. Essentially it consists in his
love to God and other beings, and is as unalienably his, as
is any attribute of his nature. Is it even possible that the
actions which Christ performed while here on earth, in which
his righteousness in part consists, should be so transferred
from him to believers as to become actions which they have
performed? Could the righteous words which he spake be
transferred from him to saints, so as to become the
righteous words which they have spoken? The bare mention of
the idea must be sufficient to evince that in the very,
nature of the thing it must be impossible. Christ's
exercises of holy love could no more taken from him and
transferred to believers, so as to become their exercises of
holy love, than his miraculous acts of walking upon the
water, or raising the dead, could be transferred: in the
same way; and both, for aught we can perceive, must be at
least as remote from all possibility as the papal notion of
transubstantiation.
If by Christ's righteousness being
imputed to believers for their justification, be not meant
that his righteousness is so transferred to them as to
become their righteousness; but that God views and
represents them as righteous, by virtue of the righteousness
of Christ; then the inquiry which arises is, whether God do
not view and represent things precisely as they are? Can he
view things any otherwise than as they are in reality? If he
can, what evidence have we that he does not view the bread
and wine used in the sacramental supper as being the real
body and blood of Christ? And if he ever represent any thing
different from what it really is, what ground can there be
for confidence in his representations? But if God do both
view and represent things as they really are, he surely
cannot view and represent sinners as being perfectly
righteous; because this certainly is not their character.
God does, indeed, view and represent Jesus Christ as being
perfectly righteous; and the reason is, because he is
perfectly righteous. But saints are not perfectly righteous
On the contrary, they have been totally sinful; and though
now pardoned and justified, in point of strict,justice, they
still deserve eternal punishment, and God will for ever view
and represent them in this light. The Scriptures nowhere
teach either that God does now, or that he will in the day
of judgment, view and represent believers as possessing in
any sense a perfect righteousness. It is true, they lead us
to believe that saints will finally be freed from all sin-,
but they equally lead us to believe that even then it will
appear that they, as well as the finally impenitent, have
sinned and come short of the glory of God, and in Point of
merit really deserve damnation. How else will every mouth be
stopped, and all the world become guilty before God? But if
God will cause all this to appear, how can he with any
propriety be mid to view and represent saints as being
perfectly innocent or righteous, on account of the
righteousness of another? Besides, if God were to view and
represent guilty beings as righteous, only because some
other being is righteous, he would certainly view and
represent things very differently from what they really are,
to suppose which would be blasphemous.
But if by the imputation of Christ's
righteousness to saints for their justification, is not
intended either that his righteousness is transferred to
them and becomes their righteousness, or that God views and
represents them to be righteous on christ's account, the
inquiry must still remain, What does this language mean?
Some have said that saints receive Christ's righteousness by
faith, for their justification. But this assertion is really
no more intelligible than the other. For it is difficult to
see how saints can receive that righteousness of Christ
which consisted in his own personal actions, affections, and
properties.
We read in the Scriptures of
different kinds of faith; as of a faith to remove mountains;
a faith to be healed; faith which Paul preached; and faith
in the blood of Christ. Now why cannot one of these kinds of
faith receive the righteousness of Christ, as well as
another? How can faith in the blood of Christ, any more than
a faith to remove mountains, receive Christ's righteousness?
Each of these kinds of faith, except that which Paul
preached, is a mere exercise of the creature; and how can
one exercise of a creature receive Christ's righteousness,
any more than another? Faith in the blood of Christ, and
repentance for sin, are both exercises of the same heart?
The difference between these exercises consists merely in
their object. Faith is an exercise of a good heart, in view
of the sufferings of Christ as an atonement for sin.
Repentance is an exercise of the same heart, in view of sin
as being against an holy God. How, then, can faith receive
the righteousness of Christ, any more than repentance? Can a
believer's act of faith receive Christ's act of faith? Does
the believer's exercise of faith receive Christ's exercise
of love? Or is it the believer's love which receives that?
How can the believer's faith receive Christ's love, any more
than the believer's love mu receive christ's faith? Or how
can the believer's faith receive Crossest love, any more
than it can receive his walking on the sea?
It is confidently believed that
neither Scripture nor reason affords any more warrant for
the opinion that it is even possible for the believer's
faith to receive Christ's faith, or love, than for the
opinion that a believer's walking in the highway receives
Christ's walking upon the water, If the meaning be, that
saints, by faith, make the righteousness of Christ their
own, the question still is, How can these things be? How is
it possible that the righteousness of one being can become
the righteousness of another being? When Christ mid to his
disciples, "Except your righteousness shall exceed the
righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no
wise enter into the kingdom of heaven," he certainly did not
mean to teach that we must, somehow, obtain the
righteousness of some other being.
Whatever the meaning of the language
under consideration may be, if, indeed, it have any proper
meaning, it must be liable, furthermore, to this capital
objection, that, contrary to the whole tenor of the gospel,
it supposes that the salvation of sinners is altogether upon
the principles of law and justice. For if Christ has
suffered the full penalty of the law, as a legal substitute
for any part of mankind, then justice, in every sense, is
satisfied; it has received its full demand; and, therefore,
can require no further sufferings. Indeed, its demands must
now be heard on the other hand; it must demand their
exemption from all punishment, because the whole, which was
ever due to them, has been inflicted on Christ, their legal
substitute. It is very easy to see that, on this ground, no
forgiveness or grace could be exercised in setting men free
from punishment. This would only be treating them
justly.
So if Christ, as a substitute for
believers, has obeyed the law, so that God. justifies them,
and makes them happy, out of respect to the righteousness of
Christ, considered as theirs, then saints, are really
justified by works in a, law sense; not, indeed, by their
own works, but by the works of their legal substitute. If
saints are justified by the obedience of their substitute,
it is the same thing as if they were justified by their own
obedience, so far as it respects their being justified by
works. It is evidently all on the principles of law and
justice; and there is no grace in the matter. If a man
engage to perform a certain work, for a reward which is
proposed, it makes no difference whether he do the work
himself, or procure another to do it for him. Let the work
be done, according to agreement, and he is entitled to his
reward. So if Christ has done for believers the work which
the law required them to do, God is now bound, on the
principles of strict justice, to bestow the promised reward,
eternal life. There is no grace, but stern, unbending
justice here.
Should it be said that saints are
still unworthy, in themselves, and so do not deserve
happiness, it may be answered, that they are not unworthy,
in the sense in which they are viewed, as possessing
Christ's perfect righteousness. So far from it, that in this
sense they merit eternal happiness, by their substituted
perfect righteousness. However guilty they may be, in
themselves, still, in the sense in which they are considered
as having a perfect righteousness they must be made happy,
according to strict justice. Besides, on this scheme, they
have suffered, in their substitute, All they deserve to
suffer; and, therefore, all their sin is, in a law sense, as
though it had never been. And, since all their ill desert
has been done away, and they now have a perfect
righteousness in their substitute, they can make a legal
demand of happiness. In the day of judgment they may say,
"Jesus Christ has been accepted as our substitute; he has
suffered for us the full demand of the law; and we have a
perfect righteousness in him; we, therefore, demand
deliverance from the curse, and eternal happiness on the
ground of law."
Should it be said that it was grace
in Jesus Christ to take the place of the transgressor, it
may be answered, that this removes no difficulty; for,
still, after Christ has suffered and obeyed, as a legal
substitute, there can be no grace in delivering believers
from punishment, and making them happy. This act of God must
be as strictly an act of justice, as though there had been
no grace in Christ's taking the place of transgressors. Upon
this scheme, that Christ has suffered and obeyed as a legal
substitute for the elect, there can be seen no forgiveness,
grace, nor mercy, in their deliverance from punishment, or
in their admission to happiness. All still proceeds on the
principle of law and justice, contrary to the decided
testimony of the gospel, which certainly is, that the
salvation of sinners, from beginning to end, is all of
grace. Not of works, not of law; but, entirely, by another
dispensation. The law has nothing to do in the affair,
otherwise than by teaching men their guilty and miserable
situation, and thus leading them to embrace the new and
gracious method of salvation made known in the
gospel.
And, besides being contrary to
Scripture, this scheme is absurd in itself. For, in a law
sense, one being cannot suffer or obey for another. The
voice of the law is, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die
not another for him. Nor does the law require or admit of
the obedience of one being in behalf of another; but it
requires perfect obedience of every person for himself. "The
righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him; and the
wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
If the meaning of the language under
consideration be, that Christ's righteousness or active
obedience procures heaven for believers; that, as his
sufferings were necessary to open a consistent way for the p
of their guilt, so his obedience was necessary in order to
open a way in which they might be consistently, admitted
into heaven; it may be answered, that, on this ground, there
would be as much propriety in saying that the sufferings of
Christ are imputed to believers, as in saying that his
righteousness is imputed to them. If the necessity of his
righteousness, in order to procure their admission into
heaven, renders it proper to say that his righteousness must
be imputed to them, must not the same or a similar necessity
of his sufferings, in order to procure their pardon,
evidently render it equally proper to say, that his
sufferings must be imputed to them? But, it is not true that
Christ's righteousness has the same, or a similar influence,
in opening a consistent way for our admission into heaven,
which his sufferings have in opening a consistent way for
our pardon.
If the view which has been given of
the necessity of atonement, in order to the pardon of
sinners be correct, it appears evident that they may be
admitted to heaven, as well as pardoned on account of the
sufferings of Christ. The atonement did not consist in
removing the ill deserts of sinners; nor was it necessary
(had it been possible,) that their ill deserts should be
removed, that they might be consistently pardoned. But if
they might be consistingly pardoned, notwithstanding their
ill desert, unquestionably, after they are pardoned, they
may be consistently admitted to heaven notwithstanding their
want of personal merit. Had atonement been necessary to do
away the ill deserts of sinners, and this had actually been
effected by the sufferings of Christ, it is allowed that it
would have been consistent to suppose that the active
obedience of Christ was necessary to furnish them with
positive merit. But in this way there could have been no
grace in the sinner's pardon, or in his being admitted into
heaven. In this case, Christ would literally have paid his
debt, and purchased his inheritance of glory.
Another consequence must be, that
since Christ has tasted death for every man, every man's
debt is paid, and every man's heaven is purchased. So that
every man may demand both a discharge from evil, and an
inheritance of glory. It is true, probably, that few would
be willing to acknowledge these consequences which fairly
result from such a scheme; yet they seem to be
unavoidable.
Besides, it may be pertinent to
inquire, what reason can be assigned why such an interchange
of persons between Christ and sinners, as some have
supposed, was necessary. What were the obstacles which stood
in the way to prevent infinite goodness from bestowing
pardon and heaven on those who had none to endure the
punishment due to them, or to furnish them with a perfect
righteousness?. Abundant reasons have been given why
atonement was necessary, in order that the guilty might be
pardoned. But none of these reasons apply, in the case
before us. None of these reasons rendered it in the least
degree necessary, that their ill desert should be removed,
or that their blessedness should be purchased. But what
other reasons can be assigned which will apply? It is
confidently believed that no one can tell. Nor will it be
less difficult to show the consistency of such an atonement
with grace in the pardon of sinners. And, besides, either
partial atonement or universal salvation must be the result
of the scheme.
If, to avoid these consequences, it
should be said, that, although atonement was not necessary
to remove personal ill desert in order that sinners might be
consistently pardoned, it does not hence follow that there
is no necessity of an imputation of Christ's personal
righteousness, in order that the believer may be
consistently admitted to heaven; it may be replied, that
this is not the argument. If want of personal merit, or
perfect righteousness is any barrier against a sinner's
gracious admission to heaven, let the objector make it
appear; and, when he has done this, let him have the
goodness to show, that personal ill desert does not present
a barrier against his pardon, which is equally insuperable.
If a sinner, notwithstanding his personal demerit, may be
graciously pardoned, it is believed it cannot be shown why a
believer, notwithstanding his want of a perfect
righteousness, may not be graciously admitted to heaven.
"God commendeth his love towards us in that while we were
yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more, then, being now
justified by his blood we shall be saved from wrath through
him."
Much dependence is placed on certain
passages of Scripture, which speak of Christ as being "our
righteousness," for the support of the scheme in question.
Christ is called "the Lord our righteousness." But how does
it appear that, therefore, his righteousness is imputed to
us? Why would it not be just as natural to infer, from his
being called "our life," that his life is imputed to us?
And, also, when we read that he is made of God unto us
wisdom, sanctification, and redemption, that his wisdom must
be imputed to us, &c.
One passage which is much relied on
to prove that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the
believer, is, Phil. 3:9. "And be found in him; not having on
mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which
is through the faith of Christ; the righteousness which is
of God, by faith." This passage is thus paraphrased by Dr.
Doddridge: "I am happy enough if I may be found in him,
vitally united to him by a true faith and love, and so taken
under his protection and favor; not having on mine own
righteousness, which [is] of the law; such
righteousness as only consists in observing the precepts and
expiations of the Jewish religion which I was once so
solicitous to establish; nor any confidence in any legal
righteousness whatever, as my plea before God; but that I
may be interested in that which [is] by the faith of
Christ, the righteousness which is of God through faith;
that which he has appointed we should obtain and secure, by
believing in his Son, &c. Rom. 3:22, is also quoted,
with much confidence: "Even the righteousness of God, which
is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that
believe; for there is no difference;" which Dr. Doddridge
paraphrases thus: Even the righteousness of God, which he
hath appointed us to seek, by the exercise of a, living
faith in the power and grace of his Son Jesus Christ; to
whom be commands us to commit our souls, with all humble and
obedient regard.
This way of obtaining righteousness
and life is now, I say, made manifest to all, and like a
pure, complete, and glorious robe, is put upon all them that
believe; for there is, in this respect, no difference at all
between one believer and another." All similar passages may
be explained in a similar manner. While it is nowhere
explicitly asserted that the righteousness of Christ must
be, or ever is imputed to believers, or that his active
obedience procures heaven for them, the Scriptures do
plainly teach, that heaven is procured for them by his
sufferings and death; or, in other words, that his
sufferings and death procure heaven for them, in the same
sense in which they procure their pardon. "As Moses lifted
up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of
Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not
perish but have everlasting life." John 3:14,15. This
passage plainly teaches in, that the very object for which
the Son of Man was lifted up [on the cross] was,
that believers might have everlasting life. "For Christ,
also, hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust,
that he might bring us to God." 1 Pet. 3:18. The phrase
"bring us to God" in this passage it is presumed, all will
agree, implies that divine intercourse to which saints, in
heaven, are admitted.
But, surely, this passage cannot be
fairly explained without admitting that the purpose for
which Christ suffered was, that he might open a consistent
way, by his sufferings, for believers to be admitted to this
intercourse. Indeed, if the reasons which have been already
stated, showing why an atonement was necessary to open, a
way for the pardon of sinners are correct, it must appear
evident that no obstacles stood in the way of the admission
of sinners to heaven, which did not stand in the way of
their being pardoned; and, on the other hand, that whatever
opposed their pardon, equally opposed their admission to
heaven. It must follow that the same, and only the same
atonement which was necessary to render their being pardoned
consistent, was necessary to render their admission to
heaven consistent.
Hence we may safely conclude, that if
it became God to "set forth Christ to be a propitiation,
through faith in his blood, that he might be just, and the
justifier of him that believeth in Jesus;" it equally
"became him, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the
Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." Heb.
2:10. Indeed the Scriptures explicitly authorize the belief
that "for this cause he was the Mediator of the new
testament, that, by means of death, they which are called,
might receive the promise of an eternal inheritance." Heb.
9:15. Hence we are taught to anticipate the very song which
will be sung by all the redeemed of the Lord when they
arrive at heaven, and surround the throne of the Lamb with
the four living creatures, and the four-and-twenty elders,
"Thou art worthy, for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us
to God by thy blood." Rev. 5:9.
|