THREE CONVERSATIONS,

ON

IMPUTATION, SUBSTITUTION, AND PAR

TICULAR REDEMPTION.

CONVERSATION I.

ON IMPUTATION.

PETER and JAMES considered each other as good men, and had for several years been in the habit of corresponding on divine subjects. Their respect was mutual. Their sentiments, however, though alike in the main, were not exactly the same; and some circumstances had lately occurred, which tended rather to magnify the difference than to lessen it. Being both at the house of JOHN, their common friend, in his company they fell into the following conversation.

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 sus

pect 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, and 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, (n; λoyisopas.) 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.

THEM.

First: It is applied to the charging, reckoning, or placing to the account of persons and things, THAT WHICH PROperly belongs TO This I consider as its proper meaning. In this sense the word is used in the following passages: Eli THOUGHT she (Hannah) had been drunken.-Hanan and Mattaniah, the treasurers, were COUNTED faithful.-Let a man so ACCOUNT of us as the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.-Let such an one THINK this, that such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also indeed when we are present.—I RECKON that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us. Reckoning, or 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.

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 this with a view to his being punished.

Secondly: It is applied to the charging, reckoning, or placing tò the account of persons and things, THAT WHICH DOES NOT PROPERLY BELONG TO THEM, AS THOUGH IT DID. This I consider as its im proper, or figurative meaning. In this sense the word is used in the following passages: And this your heave-offerings shall be RECKONED unto you AS THOUGH IT WERE the corn of the threshingfloor, 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 ought, PUT THAT on mine account.

It is in this latter sense that I understand the term when applied to justification. Abraham believed God, and it was cOUNTED unto him for righteousness.-To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is COUNTED for righteousness. The counting, or reckoning, in these instances, is not a judging of things as they are; but as they are not as though they were. I do not think that faith here means the righteousness of the Messiah: for it is expressly called believing. It means believing, however, not as a virtuous exercise of the mind which God consented to accept instead of perfect obedience; but as haping respect to the promised Messiah, and so to his righteousness as the ground of acceptance.* Justification is ascribed to faith, as healing frequently is in the New Testament; not as that from

See Calvin's Institutes, Book III. Chap. XI. 7. Also my Expository Discourses on Genesis, Chap. xv. 1-6.

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."*

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 apapsia (sin,) as frequently meaning a sin-offering. Dr. Owen so interprets it in his answer to Biddle, (p. 510.) though it seems he afterwards changed his mind. Considering the opposi tion between the sin which Christ was made, and the righteousness which we are made, together with the same word being used for that which he was made, and that which he knew not, I am inclined to be of the Doctor's last 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

Institutes, Book, III. Chap. XI. § 23.

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:" that is, it was counted, in the divine administration, as if the animal had been the sinner, and the only sinner of the nation. Secondly: Offering it in sacrifice, or "killing it before the Lord for an atonement." Now the phrase made sin, in 2 Cor. v. 21. appears to refer to the first step in this process in order to the last. It is expressive of what was preparatory to Christ's suffering death rather than of the thing itself, just as our being made righteousness expresses what was preparatory to God's bestowing upon us eternal life. But the term made is not to be taken literally; for that would convey the idea of Christ's being really the subject of moral evil. It is 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 puaishment?

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.