02.04.02. Chapter 2
CHAPTER 2
Contains Arguments to Prove the real Imputation of Sin to Christ, and Answers to the Author’s Objections to it. Also Replies to some Answers which he gives to such Arguments for it, as he is pleased to mention: And the Objections of Socinus, are answered. THE Socinians, who deny the Satisfaction of Christ, and that he was punished for Sin, consistently with their own Principles utterly disown the Imputation of Sin to him. But such, who profess to embrace and maintain the important Doctrine of the real and proper Satisfaction of Christ, are greatly inconsistent in a Denial of the Imputation of Sin to him, in order to his suffering Punishment. The Arguments in Favour of a Charge of Sin on Christ our Surety are these,
1. Sin is not Punishment: No two Ideas are more distinct and different, than those of a Crime, and the Penalty it demerits. And therefore without urgent Necessity, when the sacred Scriptures speak of Sin, we ought not to interpret those Places of Punishment, in Distinction from Sin itself. If it is denied that Sin was imputed to Christ, it will be difficult to demonstrate what of Sin he bore.
2. If Christ had not Sin imputed to him, his Sufferings were not of a penal Nature, for as we have before observed, proper Punishment is the Infliction of the Evil of suffering for the Evil of Action: An innocent Person therefore, as so considered, cannot be the Subject of Penalty. And if Christ did not sustain the Punishment, which we deserve, he made no Satisfaction for our Offences; then, if Punishment is at all inflicted for Sin, it must be on our selves, which would sink us to the lowest Hell.
3. Our Saviour had that charged on him, which he bore away for his People: He took away Sin in its Guilt; for he removed our Transgressions from us, as far as the East is from the West: And put away Sin by the Sacrifice of himself, he purged our Sins. Which Scriptures with many others, intend our Discharge from Guilt, in Consequence of the Imputation of it to Christ, and of his making a proper, real and plenary Satisfaction for it: And therefore Sin it self or our criminal Actions were laid on Christ, in order to the Removal of them, at the greatest Distance from us.
4. Christ might be made Sin or guilty, by the Imputation of Sin to him; but in suffering he could not be made Punishment. An innocent Person may be made or constituted guilty, by a Charge of the Crimes of others on him; but by the Infliction of Sufferings, he cannot be made Punishment, for two very evident Reasons
(1.) No Penalty may justly be inflicted on him, without the Imputation of Guilt, i.e. the Sins of others for whom he is supposed to suffer.
(2.) No Man suffering Punishment, can with the least Propriety be accounted Penalty: He is not what he endures; but a Man may be made Sin or guilty, by an Imputation of Guilt to him. Thus, he who knew no Sin, was made Sin for us: i.e. according to the Opinion of some, he was made Punishment: That we might be made the Righteousness of God in him, i.e. say they, that we might be made or constituted divine Favours and Benefits. There are no Ideas so different and distinct, but some Persons, out of Opposition to evangelical Truths, will confound them, and dare to make the blessed God the Author of such Confusion.
5. Remission of Sin is a Fruit of Christ’s Death, in the Discharge from Guilt, as well as Freedom from Punishment. His Sufferings could not be the procuring Cause of our Acquittance from a Charge of Sin, without the Imputation of our Guilt to him, and therefore Sin itself or our criminal Actions, were placed to his Account, as our Surety.
6. No innocent Person, as so consider’d, in suffering can be made a Curse, however great his Sufferings may be; for a Curse necessarily supposes a Charge of Sin, as the Cause of that Curse, which he. is made: Christ in his Death was made a Curse, and therefore he did not suffer consider’d as innocent, tho’ in himself he was absolutely so; but he was accounted guilty, which he only could be, by the Imputation of our Sins to him.
7. This was typically represented, by the great Anniversary Sacrifice under the Law. A real Charge of Guilt could not indeed have Place, in any of the Mosaical Sacrifices: Nor could proper Punishment, be inflicted on any of the Beasts, which were slain and offered to God as Sacrifices, according to the ceremonial Law: But if any infer from thence, that Sin was not really imputed to Christ, as the Author of the Ruin and Recovery of Mankind does, they may also conclude, that our Saviour did not, properly speaking, suffer Punishment for us, which to conceive entirely enervates his Satisfaction, leaves us under the Imputation of our Guilt, and obnoxious to all the Penalty it demerits. These are Consequences greatly to be dreaded by every one, who has the least Concern for his eternal Welfare and Deliverance from the infernal Pit.
8. Without a proper Imputation of Sin to Christ, he cannot be said to die in our Room, as we are Sinners. It is as Persons guilty, that we become obnoxious to Death; an innocent Person could not die in our Stead, without a Charge of our Sin on him, the Reason is evident, he who dies for, or in the Place of a Criminal, suffers for him that Penalty, to which his Crimes expos’d him; but this cannot be without the Imputation of his Sin, because the Infliction of penal Evil, where there is no Charge of Offence, is a Violation of all Right and Justice. Christ was our Substitute, and died in our Room, and therefore our Sins or criminal Actions were really imputed to him. The Author of the Ruin and Recovery of Mankind, objects several Things to this evangelical Truth.
Object. 1. The particular sinful Actions of David, Mary Magdalen and Rahab, could not minutely be imputed, that is to say, that every particular lustful Thought of theft Persons could not be charged on Christf58.
Answ. 1. When this Gentleman makes a Difficulty, of allowing such a minute and particular Imputation of Sin to Christ, his Intention is to entirely overthrow the Doctrine of the Charge of Sin on Christ, in order to his making Satisfaction for it. We understand, Sir, your Drift and Scope, but shall never be shaken in our Faith relating to this great Doctrine, by any such trifling Objection, as this is, it contains nothing of Difficulty in it, as will appear by observing.
2. It is God, who charges Sin on Offenders themselves, or on his Son our Surety. Now, as God is able in his all-comprehending Mind, to impute every sinful and lustful Thought to Sinners themselves, so he is certainly able to charge every sinful and lustful Thought of theirs on Christ, who suffered for them. His Knowledge of Sin is absolutely perfect, he knows it in all its various Springs and Motions in the Hearts of Men, and therefore, he is able to impute it either to Men in their own Persons, or to charge it on Christ, as a Surety for them, as his sovereign, Pleasure is, to act in this great Affair.
Object. 2. The Author fears it would border upon the Language of Blasphemy, to say that sin itself was imputed to Christf59.
Answ. 1. This stale and groundless Objection, the Author could not but know, has been many Times answered, it might therefore be expected, that he should have shewn, wherein the Answers given to it over and over are defective, if he think them so. The Omission of it I can’t but apprehend, will be thought highly unfair and disingenuous, by more Persons than myself.
2. The Imputation of Sin to an innocent Person, does not formally make him a Sinner: It is only a Conveyance of sinful Habits does this, which is absolutely denied in this Care, and is not supposed in the Nature of the Thing, nor doth attend it, and therefore, there is not any Thing of a blasphemous Nature in the Doctrine. The blessed Jesus on the Charge of the Guilt of others to him, was accounted and reputed what he was not in himself, and could not be made viz. Sin or guilty.
3. The Imputation of the Action of one Person to another, does not make that Action, the personal Act of him, to whom it is imputed, whether the Action is righteous or unrighteous: So that our sinful Actions became not the personal Acts of Christ, by the Imputation of them to him, neither do his Acts of Obedience to the Law of God, become our personal Acts, by the Imputation of them to us. This Objection supposes that sinful Actions, upon Imputation, became the personal Acts of Christ, or else there can be no Foundation for this dreadful and horrible Charge of Blasphemy, the Consequence therefore, is inferr’d from what is not supposed or found in the Nature of the Thing, and is as certainly false, as it would be shocking, and destructive of all our spiritual Hopes if true. The ingenious Author undertakes to answer some of the Arguments, used to support the Doctrine of the real Imputation of Adam’s Sin to his Posterity, and of the proper Imputation of Sin to Christ, which Answers of his I shall now consider and reply to.
Arg. 1. The first Argument, as he ought to have stated it, is, how can Punishment be inflicted on an innocent Person, without the Imputation of the Crimes of others to him for whom he suffers Penalty? Or how can the Reward that is due to Righteousness, be confessed without the Imputation of that Righteousness to him, on whom the Reward is bestow’d? To which Enquiries he answers thus, The very same just Constitution, whether human or divine, by which the Actions themselves, whether good or evil, could be supposed to be imputed, is sufficient for the Imputation of the legal Result of those Actions, and that with as much Justice (Page 399.).
I reply,
1. No human Law can impure the good or evil Actions of one Man to another, for the Reasons before assign’d in the preceding Chapter.
2. The Imputation of the legal Result of an Action, whether good or bad seems to me, a most odd and improper Idea: The legal Result of a good Action i.e. the Reward may be conferred, and the legal Result of an evil Action, i.e. Punishment may be inflicted. But of the Imputation of Reward or Penalty, I cannot frame any Idea: If I mistake not, the true Nature of Imputation is entirely lost. in this Supposition.
3. Its unjust to inflict Punishment on an innocent Person, as so consider’d, and suffering without an Imputation of Offence is not Penalty. If Sin therefore, was not imputed to Christ, his Sufferings could not be of a penal Nature, which if they were not, no proper Satisfaction for Sin arises from his Death: At most, it was only a Condition of Pardon, and this the Socinians themselves freely grant us, who are avow’d Adversaries to the glorious and important: Doctrine of real Atonement and Satisfaction.
4. To justify a Person, who is not righteous, as so considered, is as contrary to Truth and Equity, as it is to condemn and punish the innocent. If therefore, Men are not righteous in themselves, nor made so by the Imputation of another’s Obedience, their Justification mull: be an illegal Act, and plainly contrary to all the known Rules of Equity and Justice: And without Justification, a Man can have no Title to the Reward, which the Law promises only in Case of Obedience to its Precepts, to be perform’d either by Men themselves, or by a Surety for them.
Arg. 2. May not the sinful Actions of the Father be imputed to the Posterity, since the Children were in the Father naturally, when he committed those sins? Is not Levi said to pay Tithes in Abraham, in Hebrews 7:9. because he was yet in the Loins of his great Grandfather, when be paid Tythes to Melchisedec? The Author answers to this Argument thus,
1. The Apostle expresses it, not as Matter of strict reasoning, because he adds the Words, as I may so say, to intimate, ‘tis rather an Allusion or Emblem, than strict reasoning.
2. If there could be supposed any Advantage by this natural In-being of all Men in Adam to support the Imputation of his sin to them, yet there can he no Necessity of it, for Christ was not naturally in us, tho’ our Sins were imputed to him. This Imputation of Sin therefore, to the one or the other, signifies only the transferring of Guilt, Condemnation or Punishment, and not the Imputation of the same evil Actions, or the transferring them from Adam to, us or from us to our blessed Saviour (Pages 399, 400.).
I reply,
1. ‘Tis not suppos’d, that Abraham and Levi were consider’d as one Person, by which Abraham’s Act of paying Tithes might become his, or be accounted the Act of Levi, as well as the Act of Abraham, for tho’ Abraham was Levi’s Progenitor, he was not his Representative. But as Adam was the common Parent and Root of Mankind, he also was constituted the Head and Representative of all his natural Descendants; he and they were considered as one Person by the Law, which he violated, hence his Act of Disobedience became theirs, or chargeable on them, as well as on him, and they were reckon’d to sin in him, and fall with him in his first Transgression.
2. Therefore, the Imputation of Adam’s Offence, does not merely follow upon the natural In-being of all Men in him; but it arises from his being their Representative: He indeed was the only proper Person to be constituted such a Head, to the whole of the human Race, because he alone is the common Parent and Root of all Men.
3. Christ was not naturally in us; but yet he might be, and actually was constituted the Representative Head of his Seed. He and they were considered as one in the divine Mind, hence our Sins became his, and his Righteousness becomes ours or is imputed to us.
4. From what has been before observ’d, ‘tis evident, that unless Adam’s Sin is imputed to us or reckoned ours, as well as his, we are unjustly subjected to Condemnation, Misery and Punishment on Account of that Sin: For, to deny the Imputation of that Offence, and yet grant that we suffer in Consequence of it, necessarily supposes, that we are condemned and punished, consider’d as innocent, than which there is nothing more unjust: And it is equally apparent, that unless our Sins were imputed to Christ, he could not suffer the Punishment due to them, for no innocent Person as so considered, can be made the Subject of Condemnation and Penalty, without a manifest Violation of Justice, in the highest Degree imaginable.
Arg. 3. There is a particular comparison, between our being made or constituted Sinners by the Disobedience of Adam, and our being made or constituted righteous by the Obedience of Christ. The Author’s Answer to this Argument is a very observable one, ‘tis this. The Jewish and all the Eastern Writers deal in very strong Figures and Expressions, to signify plain and obvious Things. And therefore there is some Allowance to be made in the Explication of them, or when we reduce them to plain Language (401.).
I reply,
1. That the inspired Writers many Times use elegant and strong Figures on various Subjects, is evident enough, and this must be allow’d a peculiar Grace and Beauty in their Stile, which is far above the Imitation of some, who pretend to discover Defects and Blemishes in it, as much for Loftiness and Majesty, instructive Allusions and beautiful Metaphors, as it is for Conciseness, Ease and Simplicity.
2. But we must not imagine, that the unspired Pen-men make Use of figurative Modes of Speech without any Evidence, that they so do, and take the Liberty to interpret their Words, in a Sense quite different from and far below the proper and natural Import of them, without a solid and substantial Reason for it, taken either from the Nature of the Subject concerning which they speak; or from the Scope and Design of the Writer, for if we may indulge to such an Imagination, no evangelical Truth will be capable of Defence from Scripture, nor will it be found possible to detect and refute any Error, however great, by the Help of the sacred Pages.
3. The Truth in the Case is really this: The Subjects of which the Apostle in this Place discourses, are mysterious, and of the Number of the deep Things of God; but the Language in which they are expressed, is easy, plain and natural, yea too plain and striking, for any Person whatever to interpret it in a Consistency with a Denial of the important Truths of the Imputation of Adam’s first Offence to his Posterity, and of the Imputation of Christ’s Obedience to his People.
4. The Scope of the divine Writer requires us to understand his Words, in their obvious and natural Import, and will not allow us to explain them, as if they were figurative, and more elevated and strong, than the Nature of the Things about which he writes required. It is his general Design in this Discourse to prove two Things. First that Adam’s Sin, is the Cause of Condemnation and Death to all his Seed. Secondly, That Christ’s Obedience is the Cause of Justification and Life to all his Seed. (1.) He asserts Sin and the Sin of one Man to be the Cause of Death. (2.) That Sin is not imputed where there is no Law. (3.) That Death had reigned from the Time of Adam to Moses, even over such a Part of Mankind, as had not sinned, in the Manner Adam did, i.e. personally, whereby it is not to be doubted Infants are intended. And therefore Mankind were under a Law, before the Delivery of the Law on Mount Sinai, by the Hand of Moses, and this Law threatened Death in Care of Disobedience, and since many suffered Death, who had not actually sinn’d, they must be under an Imputation of Guilt contracted by another: For the Apostle plainly supposes an Imputation of Sin to all who are subject to Death, and concludes, that by the Offence or Disobedience of one Man, we are made or constituted Sinners. farther he supposes throughout his Discourse, that it is Sin imputed, which subjects Men to Condemnation and Death, and that it is Righteousness imputed, which intitles Men to Justification and Life. And therefore, there is a manifest Necessity to interpret his Words, in their plain and obvious Sense, his Scope and Drift will by no Means allow us to think, he here uses figurative Expressions or Language stronger than the Nature of the Subjects, about which he treats will bear, as this Author falsely imagines he does. In the remaining Part of the Author’s Answer to this Argument, ‘tis observed, that a Conveyance of sin from Adam, and a Communication of Grace and Holiness from Christ may be intended in this Discourse. To this I reply, (1.) In this Place there is no Mention of our natural Depravity and Corruption, in Consequence of Adam’s Sin. (2.) Nor is any Mention made of our Sanctification by Christ. His whole Discourse is of the Imputation of Sin, of one Sin, and of the Sin of one Man to Condemnation and Death: And of the Imputation of the Obedience of one, i.e. Christ, in order to Justification and Life. Sanctification enters not into his Discourse in this Place. The Author argues, that there was not a real Imputation of Sin to the Scape-goat or a real Infliction of Punishment.
Both there Things are freely allow’d, because that was not a Subject capable of either: But still both are true of Christ the Antitype, if he made a real and proper Atonement for Sin, which glorious and important Point is not now to be prov’d, I hope it has been already done.
Arg. 4. It cannot properly be called imputed Righteousness, if the righteous Actions themselves are not imputed, for in proper Speech, the Result of Christ’s Righteousness, i.e. the Right to Impunity and eternal Life, which he procured for us, is given to us rather than imputed. To this says he, I answer and grant, this is the very Language of Scripture, it is called, the Gift of Righteousness, Romans 5:17. Eternal Life which is the Result of Christ’s Righteousness, is the Gift of God through Jesus Christ.Romans 6:23. And the Forgiveness of Sins is given to Israel. Acts 5:31. Yet let it be observed, that the very Reward itself, is sometimes said to be reckoned or imputed in Scripture Romans 4:4. The Word is logizetai, which our Translators have constru’d imputed in the next Verse (P. 493.).
I reply,
1. Conferring of Benefits, it is certain, cannot properly be called an Imputation of them. Imputation is an Act in the divine Mind towards Men: A Communication of Favours to Men, is a gracious Act of God upon them, which are very different and distinct Ideas: The latter is not the same with the former, nor may be put for it.
2. The Word signifies to reckon, account, esteem or repute, as well as to impute or place to Account: Thus in these Words, I reckon, logizomai, that the Sufferings of this present Time, not I impute (Romans 8:18.). So in this Text, We are accounted elogisqhmen, as Sheep for the Slaughter not we are imputed as Sheep (Romans 8:36.), etc. And this must be the Sense in which the Word is used in this Scripture: are counted logizetai eiv sperma for the Seed, i.e. are reckoned or reputed, not imputed for the Seed (Romans 8:8). More Instances might be produced, where the Term is taken for Account, Esteem or Reckoning; but these, as I suppose, are sufficient. The Sense of Romans 4:4. is plainly this: To him that worketh, i.e. who obeys the Law, the Reward is reckoned, or accounted a due Debt. It is the Judgment formed of his Right and Title to Life, upon the Foundation of his Obedience to the Law, which is design’d, and not the Imputation of the Reward to him, that is intended.
3. The Word signifies to impute, or place to the Account of a Person, an Action righteous or unrighteous: Thus in these Words: I pray God it may not be laid to their Charge, mh autoiv logisqeiou (2 Timothy 4:16.) and also in this Scripture: Unto whom God imputeth logizetai Righteousness without Works (Romans 4:6).
4. When a righteous Action is imputed, a Man is accounted or reckoned just, upon the Imputation of that righteous Action and when a sinful Action is imputed or plac’d to the Account of a Person, he is thereupon reputed or esteem’d Unrighteous. But without the Imputation of Righteousness or of Sin, Men cannot be esteem’d Just or Unjust. Socinus objects several Things to the Imputation of our Sins to Christ; but they are such as will be found very easy of Dispatch.
Object. 1. It obscures the Glory of the Grace of God, which is discovered in delivering Christ to Death for us, for if our Sins were imputed to Christ, then in that Act he prosecuted his own Right.
Answ. 1. God maintain’d and vindicated the Honour of his Justice, in the Imputation of our Sins to his Son, and in the Infliction of that Punishment on him, which they demerit.
2. Herein also the Glory of his Grace shines with the brightest Lustre: His Blood being a proper Price or valuable Consideration for our Discharge from Guilt, is no Diminution or lessening of the Glory of divine Grace in our Forgiveness: Since the Provision of Christ as a Redeemer, is wholly and solely to be attributed to the Riches of that Grace.
Object. 2. Christ could not then be an Example to us, in his Death, for the Sins of others cannot be imputed to us.
Answ. 1. Christ was an Example to us, in what he suffered from the Hands of Men, and we ought to imitate him, in Patience, Meekness, and Gentleness, when we are rudely treated for his Sake, and the Good of his People and Church.
2. But he was not an Example to us, in what, and as he suffered from the Hand of God, who commanded the Sword of Justice to awake against him, and to smite him, in order to the Redemption of his Body the Church.
Object. 3. How can our Sins be imputed to us, if they were to Christ?
Answ. Adored be divine Favour for it, they are not imputed to us: For, God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself, not imputing their Trespasses unto them.
Object. 4. Two Things are required to the Imputation of another’s sins.
(1.) There must be a personal Conjunction or Union between him, to whom they are imputed, and the Person, whose sins they are. (2.) The other is, he must have sinned, and imitated his Wickedness, on whom they are charg’df60.
Answ. 1. Christ was absolutely free from all sinful Pollution in himself, for he did no Sin, neither was Guile found in his Mouth.
2. But there is a most near Union between Christ and his People, a nearer Union than can subsist between one Man and another: He is the Head and they are his Members: They are Bone of his Bone, and Flesh of his Flesh: And ‘tis this close and intimate Union which is the Foundation of the Charge, of their Sins on Christ, and of the Imputation of his Righteousness and Obedience to them. And therefore Socinus had no just Cause, as his Manner was, to insult, triumph, and pronounce the Doctrine of the Imputation of Sin to Christ, false, absurd, and impious, which he insolently and rudely does. I am very sorry that the Author of the Ruin and Recovery of Mankind, has in any Degree imitated him, in suggesting it to is a blasphemous Doctrine: Such I am well assured it will never be prov’d.