02.04.01. Chapter 1
CHAPTER 1
Treats of Imputation. An Enquiry whether the Fault of a Criminal may be imputed to an innocent Person, among Men; This is disallowed, and the Reasons of it are assigned; An Argument to prove it may be, is answered. IN this fourth Part 1 propose to consider what the learned Author delivers, in his Essays on imputed Sin, and imputed Righteousness; And on the Guilt and Defilement of Sin. I humbly apprehend the Method he takes to explain the Doctrine of the Imputation of Adam’s Sin to his Posterity, and of the Imputation of our Sins to Christ, is very unhappy and improper, or rather, that in. reality he denies the Imputation of either.
I. The Hebrew Word bçj is frequently used to express Imputation, as in these Instances, And it was counted unto him for Righteousness (Leviticus 17:4.). Blood shall be imputed to him (Genesis 15:6.). And that was counted unto him for Righteousness (Psalms 106:31.). Blessed is the Man to whom the Lord imputeth not Iniquity (Psalms 106:31-32). In each of these Scriptures that Word is used, which the Septuagint render by logibomai, as the Apostle also does. 1. It imports to place to the Account of a Person, an Action, righteous or unrighteous. 2. Upon so doing, to reckon and esteem him righteous or unrighteous, according to the Nature of the Action imputed to him. The Greek Word logizomai, is used in the New Testament, in both there Senses. In the first: of there, it is used in these Words: That it may not be laid to his Charge (1 Timothy 4:16.). And in this Text: Not imputing their Trespasses to them (2 Corinthians 5:19.). Also, in this Scripture:
Blessed is the Man to whom the Lord will not impute Sin (Romans 4:6.). The contrary of this is, the Imputation of Righteousness: Even as David also describeth the Blessedness of the Man, unto whom God imputeth Righteousness without Works (Romans 5:8.). It is taken in the second Sense in several Places. Thus, in there Words: The Temple of the great Goddess Diana should be despised, or esteem’d as nothing, eiv ouden logiv qennai (Acts 19:27.). And in this Text: Brethren, I count not logizomai myself to have apprehended (Php 3:13.). And this its Import in there Words: To him that worketh, the Reward is not reckon’d of Grace, but of Debt (Romans 4:4.). It is not the Imputation of the Reward, but the Estimation, or reckoning it a due Debt, that is plainly intended. Imputation of Sin or righteousness, is the Foundation of reputing a Man, a Sinner or Just; nor can a Man, consistent with Justice, be accounted a Sinner, without a Charge or Imputation of Offence: Neither can a Person be reckon’d righteous, without the Imputation of Righteousness, but by Mistake; for he is not what he is esteem’d to be. The Imputation or Charge of a Crime, renders the Person, who is the Subject of that Charge, liable to Punishment, according to the Sanction and Threatning of the Law, by which, the Crime is imputed. Suffering without the Imputation of Offence is not Punishment: Says Grotius, Punishment in its general signification, is the Evil of Suffering which is inflicted for the Evil orationf53. The same Account Selden gives of Penaltyf54. And therefore Punishment cannot be inflicted on an innocent Person, as so consider’d, without manifest Injustice.
Query. May the Fault of a Criminal be imputed to an innocent Person, and he be made to suffer the Punishment due to that Offence, among Men?
Answ. 1. No such Union subsists among Men, as can make them one Person in the Eye of the Law; and therefore the Righteousness of one Man, cannot be imputed to another; nor can one Man’s Guilt be charged on another. All human Laws respect Men personally. Hence they are, and must: be justified and condemn’d, either as they obey, or disobey the Law in their own Persons.
2. Pecuniary Punishments may be inflicted on an innocent Person, in the Room of the Guilty, who is fined for any Offence. The Ground of which must always be his voluntary Agreement, for without that, it would be Oppression and Robbery under a Pretence of the Execution of Justice: But his Payment of the Mulct or Fine, is not properly a Punishment to him, because it is not required of him with Respect to the Perpetration or Charge of the Crime, which is the formalis Ratio of Penalty. He takes it upon him as a Debt, and as such merely it is demanded of him. This it Man may do, because he has Power over his Property, and may dispose of it at his Pleasure.
3. But capital Punishment may not be sustain’d by an innocent Person, in the Room of a Criminal.
(1.) Because the Law cannot make the Crime deserving that Punishment his, the Reason is very evident, the Law only deals with Men in their own Persons, and justifies or condemns them, as they are or are not conformable to it.
(2.) The Law or Legislature have no Power, to require an innocent Person, to suffer in Stead of the Guilty: All just Laws, and every just Legislature, protect the Lives of guiltless Subjects, and therefore may not require such to suffer capitally for Offenders.
(3.) An innocent Person may not agree to suffer capital Punishment for a Trangressor, the Reason is, he hath not Power over his own Life, as Grotius observesf55. And should the Legislature accept of such an Engagement, and proceed to Execution upon it, this would be a manifest Violation of Right; for Justice necessarily obliges the Legislature to protect, and by no means allows of taking away the Life of any innocent Subject.
(4.) Mutilation or the Loss of an Eye, or of any Member of the Body, may not be inflicted on an innocent Person, instead of the guilty; because it may not be done, without the Consent of the innocent Party: And the Law of Nature (which human Laws never ought to contradict) obliges all Men not only to preserve Life itself; but also to preserve themselves entire and free from Maimingf56. A Man has no more Power over his Eye, than over his Head, and therefore I think the Conduct of Zaleucus, is incapable of Defence, who submitted to the Loss of one of his Eyes, for a Crime of his Son’s, which required the Loss of both his, that he might be deprived but of one: Nor can I conceive how this was any Way satisfactory to the Law, since he and his Son could not legally be considered as one Person.
Object. Treason is frequently imputed to the Children of a Traytor, and they suffer Poverty and Disgrace for their Father’s Sinf57.
Answ. 1. ‘Tis evident, that the Law does not consider the Children of a Traytor, as guilty of his Treason, if it did, the same Punishment would be inflicted on them, as is inflicted on their traiterous Parent.
2. Children inheriting Honours, from their Parents, they cannot be suppos’d to be intitled to those Honours; but by Virtue of their Father’s Right. And as a Traytor forfeits all his Dignity, which was originally derived from the Crown; his Descendants can have no Claim to it, for he cannot convey that Honour to his Posterity, which by Overt Acts of Treason he has forfeited. This may be considered as suffering in his Children; but properly speaking it is not Punishment: Nor are they reputed as guilty with him, of that Rebellion he stands charged with.
3. As by Virtue of the mutual Contract, between the King and the Subjects, the King holds his Power and Prerogative: So by Virtue of that Contract, the Subject holds his Right to Life, Dignity, Liberty, and his Estate, on Condition of Loyalty and Subjection to his Prince; in Care therefore of Treason, against his lawful Sovereign, he forfeits his Life, Dignity and Liberty, and also his Estate; his Descendants having no other Title to his Estate, than what was sounded in his Right, they are justly deprived of it in Consequence of their Father’s Crime, and yet they are not to be considered as criminal: Nor Is this a Punishment to them, strictly speaking, to their Father it is; but not to them. There Things are a sufficient Answer to what this Author advances on this Subject in the 387th Page of his Book. As to what he supposes of an innocent Person being permitted by the Laws of a State, to suffer Imprisonment, Banishment, or scourging in the Room of an Offender (Page 388.), such a Conduct could not be justified by the Word of God or right Reason, so far as I am able to conceive, because the Crime could not be made his, by any Act of his own, nor Act of the State: His Imprisonment, Banishment or Scourging, therefore would not be Punishment, but merely Suffering. Nor hath any Man, nor have any Sett of Men a legal Power to inflict Sufferings on any Person; but in Case of Offence: For no Man becomes subject to the Evil of Suffering from a Fellow-Creature, but upon the Supposition of the Evil of Offence; and since no such Union does, or can subsist between one Man and another, as lays a proper Foundation for the Law to consider them as one Person, the Offence or Righteousness of one, may not be imputed to another, and the other suffer for his Crime; and if a Government will reward others, for the serviceable Actions of some one particular Man, ‘tis Matter of mere Bounty, they can have no Claim to the Reward, because the serviceable Actions of that Man cannot be made their’s by the State, any more than criminal Actions may. But what have all there Things to do with the Subject under our present Consideration, which infinitely differs from any supposable Case among Men. The learned Author makes three Remarks in order to support his Observations of this Kind:
Rem 1. That there are several such Histories in the Bible, wherein the Instances of the like Kinds among the Transactions of Men are delivered down to us in such Sort of Expressions or Words of the same Import. Abraham’s eminent Obedience to God in bringing his Son Isaac to the Altar, was rewarded not only in Blessings to Abraham himself, but to his Seed, Genesis 22:16, Here it may be said, that Abraham’s Obedience, at least in the Result and Consequence of it is imputed to his Seed. The same Promise is repeated again to Isaac, and assign’d to his Seed, Genesis 26:4-5. Abraham’s Righteousness was thus imputed to Isaac and his Seed. The eminent Act of Righteousness of Phineas was so far imputed to his Children, as that they received the Reward of it as well as himself, Numbers 25:11. The Crime of Achan by the Appointment of God, was so far imputed to his Children, that they were all stoned for the Sake of his Crime. The Guilt or Punishment of it, was imputed to the Children together with the Father, Joshua 7:24. The Falsehood and Covetousness of Gehazi were imputed to his Posterity, 2 Kings 5:25. When God by the Mouth of his Prophet pronounced that Leprosy should cleave unto him, and to his Seed for ever (Pages 394, 395, 396.).
Answ. 1. The Scripture saith nothing of the Imputation of Abraham’s Obedience to his Seed, or of their being made righteous thereby, or of the Imputation of it to Isaac and his Seed. Nor is any Thing said of the Imputation of the eminent Act of Righteousness of Phineas to his Seed. Neither is any Thing declared of the Charge of Achan’s Sin on his Children, tho’ they perished with him. Nor are we told that Gehazi’s Crimes were imputed to his Descendants.
2. God may of his sovereign Goodness confer temporal Benefits on Men, without the Imputation of any Righteousness to them: That of Christ’s, or the Obedience of pious Parents. Thus he did on the Seed of Abraham, the Posterity of Isaac, and on the Descendants of Phineas: His so doing may be considered as an Approbation of their Piety and holy Conversations; but affords no Argument at all, in Favour of the Imputation of their Obedience to them.
3. God may take away the Lives of Children with their ungodly Parents, without the Imputation of their Parents Sin to them, for they are born under a Sentence of Death: The Execution of that Sentence, at such a Time and in such a Manner, as it was executed on the Children of Achan, may justly be considered, as an Instance of God’s great Displeasure with his Sin; but it is no Proof of the Charge of his Guilt on them.
4. No Instance that I know of, is to be produced, where a Communication of Benefits or the Infliction of Punishment, is called Imputation of Righteousness, and the Imputation of Sin; this is such a Sense of Imputation, as is most foreign to the Scripture, the former and the latter follow upon Imputation, and cannot with the least Propriety be taken for the Thing itself. It destroys all proper Imputation, which implies these two Things and nothing more.
(1.). Placing to the Account of a Man, Actions righteous or sinful.
(2). Accounting that Man just or unjust as those Actions are just or unjust, which are imputed to him. To confer Reward or inflict Punishment, is a third Thing that results from the Imputation of Righteousness or of Sin, and is not included in it.
Rem. 2. The Words sin and Iniquity afj or hafj ˆw[ and Amartia both in the Hebrew and Greek Languages, signify, sometimes, Liableness to Punishment, or Punishment itself (396, 397.).
Ans. 1. It cannot be denied, that there Terms are frequently put for sinful Actions themselves, as in there Words. Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, ygz[m i.e. from my Guilt, and cleanse me from my sin, ytafhm i.e. from my Sinful Actions (Psalms 51:2.); Thus also in this Text of Scripture, Thou hast not dealt with us after our sins, nor rewarded us according to our Iniquities (Psalms 103:10.). It is manifestly our criminal Conduct, that is intended in there Words. It would be almost an endless Labour, to instance in the numerous Places, where sinful Actions or Guilt is designed by there Terms. The Greek Word, Amartia, i.e. Sin, is I think, used more than a hundred and sixty times in the new Testament, and it is not in any one Place put for Obligation to Punishment or Penalty itself; but always deflates, either sinful Actions, or the corrupt Habits of the Mind from which criminal Actions proceed, and it is evidently distinguish’d from Punishment in these Words, come out of her my People, that ye be not Partakers of her taiv Amartiaiv i.e. Sins, or evil Conduct, and that ye receive not of her Plagues (Revelation 18:4.). The plain Sense of the Text is, that ye may not involve yourselves in her Guilt, and share in her Punishment.
2. The Hebrew Word hafH is sometimes taken for Punishment, or the Evil which Sin demerits; but it includes a Charge of the Offence, and is nor understood in an abstract Consideration from it: So in there Words, if thou dost well thou shalt be accepted, and if thou doest not well, Sin lieth at the Door (Genesis 4:7.), i.e. Guilt will be charged on thee, and the Penalty it deserves shall be executed, which are the contrary of Acceptance, that supposes Justification or the Non-imputation of Sin and a Reward: This Charge of Guilt, and a Subjection to Punishment on that Account. In same Places it may be put for a Sacrifice for Sin; but in those Places the Guilt is included, which the legal Sacrifices typically bore, and Christ: who made his Soul an Offering for Sin, bore it really, as the Antitype of the legal Sacrifices.
3. The Hebrew Word ˆz[i.e. Iniquity, may sometimes signify the Punishment of Sin, as in the Instance this Gentleman produces, Hosea 10:13. which by Mistake is quoted Hosea 12:1-14. Ye have plowed Wickedness and reaped Iniquity, i.e. the Consequence of your Crimes or dreadful Punishment; but this was not without the Imputation of their Sin itself. The thing to be prov’d in this Point is, that Punishment may be inflicted without any Charge of Offence. If therefore a thousand Places could be produced, where the Word is put for the Penalty of Sin, as taken in a strict Connection, with the Imputation of Sin itself, as the Cause of Punishment; they must have a great degree of Discernment indeed, who shall be able to discover, that Penalty may be inflicted on any Subject, to whom Guilt or Sin is not imputed, as the Cause of suffering that Punishment. It may design Penal Evil in there Words: God layeth up his Iniquity for his Children (Job 21:19.), and in these: In the Iniquities of their Fathers shall they pine away with them (Leviticus 26:39.). Thus also in this Text, Our Fathers have sinned, and we have born their Iniquities (Lamentations 5:9.), i.e. the Consequences of their Sins and of our own; but surely not without a Charge of Guilt. These are all the Places, that I know of, where Iniquity I put for Punishment, and in neither of them, Penalty is intended in an abstract Consideration from a Charge of Guilt or Sin. To produce Instance, where it is taken for Punishment, in strict Connection with, and as following upon the Imputation of Crimes, fails entirely of proving that Punishment, may be inflicted on any Subject considered as innocent, to say the belt of it, it is no other than impertinent Cavilling.
Rem. 3. The Scripture does not, as I remember, any where in express Words assert, that the Sin of Adam is imputed to his Children, or that the Sins of Mankind or of Believers were imputed to Christ, or that the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to Believers (Page 403.).
Answ. 1. If the Ideas conveyed by there Phrases are found in Scripture, it is triffling to object to the Truth of those things, because these very Words, and in such a Form, are not therein express’d.
2. The Imputation of Adam’s Sin to his Descendants, is asserted with peculiar Strength and Evidence, when it is affirmed, that by the Disobedience of One, many were made Sinners.
3. And thus also when the Apostle says, by the Obedience of One many were made righteous, the Words are a full Assertion of the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness to his People. Men are not made Punishment by Adam’s Sin, nor are Believers made Reward by Christ’s Obedience. Besides, it is very improper to speak of the Imputation of Penalty, for Punishment is not imputed, but inflicted; or of the Imputation of Reward, for the legal Result of Obedience, is not, it cannot be imputed to Believers, but it is communicated to them. Imputation of Sin or of Righteousness, is an Act in the divine Mind, to inflict Punishment or confer Reward, are transient Acts of God upon Sinners and Saints, and are most improperly called Imputation. This Remark I shall have Occasion to consider hereafter, and therefore add no more concerning it in this Chapter.