02.04.05. Chapter 5
CHAPTER 5
Contains Answers to the Author’s Objections against the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness to his People; And also to the Objections of Socinus. THE first Objection is contain’d in the latter Part of the third Remark, which the ingenious Author makes, the former Part of which is before considered. It is this,
Object. 1. The Scripture does not as I remember, in express Words assert — that the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to Believers (403.).
Answ. 1. If the Sense is found in Scripture it is sufficient, tho’ the Terms are not expressly mentioned, and that it is, I hope is abundantly evident from what has been before observ’d.
2. But it may be, if it had been said expressly, that the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to Believers, the proper Idea conveyed by that Assertion, would not be admitted; but some figurative Meaning, would be invented, which the Terms of the Proposition do not properly import, and the Thought express’d would be deny’d. This Gentleman is pleas’d to acquaint us very plainly, that this Method would be taken, and I doubt it not. If these Words, says he, were expressly written in the Bible, they could not reasonably be interpreted to any other Sense, than that which I have explained in and by so many Examples, both in the Scripture History and in common Life (404.). I am very sorry that so offensive an Observation, as this is, fell from his Pen.
(1.) The Thing is contested, as it is said, because the Scripture does not in express Terms assert it.
(2.) But what if the Scripture had expressly in these very Terms, and in this very Form asserted it, would the Doctrine have then been believed? No, it seems not: This brings to Mind what Socinus said of the Satisfaction of Christ; that if the Scripture had expressly asserted it, he would not believe it. When once Men arrive to such a Height of Prejudice against any Doctrine, their Conviction is hardly to be hoped for, whatever Evidence is offer’d in Confirmation of divine Truth: And therefore were we not constrain’d by Love to evangelical Truth, to appear in its Defence, as good we might leave them quietly to enjoy, and please themselves with their corrupt Prejudices, and would do so; but that we know, we ought to contend earnestly for the Faith once delivered to the Saints.
(3.) To put a forc’d and unnatural Sense on the Terms of Scripture, is not to interpret it; but is a manifest Corruption of the Word of God, and for which Men, unless I am greatly mistaken, will one Day be accountable.
(4.) If this Gentleman or any other shall be able to prove, that Obedience is Justification and eternal Life, i.e. that Obedience and Reward are the same thing, and not different and distinct Things then how much soever, I am persuaded of the Truth and Importance, of the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness to his People, I will no longer contend about it, but give it up as an Opinion never to be prov’d.
(5.) I promise the same, upon his or any other Person proving, that to make Men righteous by the Obedience of Christ, is intitling them to Justification and Life, without considering them righteous by the Imputation of that Obedience to them, this may be done when it is prov’d that Righteousness is Life or Reward, but not before. And therefore I am in no great Danger of being obliged by this Concession, to part with a Doctrine, which in my Apprehension, is as important and glorious, as any recommended to our Assent and Faith, in the sacred Word of God.
(6.) To assert that Men are made righteous by the Obedience of Christ, is affirming the Imputation of that Obedience to them, with the stronger Evidence imaginable: The Evidence is such, as cannot be resisted; but by denying, that the Terms are used in their proper Sense, without being able to assign one solid Reason, why they must be understood, in an improper one: Nay, which is more, when the very Scope and Design of the holy Writer, requires us to understand him, as speaking, not in a figurative, but strictly proper Manner, as is above observ’d, and I hope fully prov’d.
(7.) The Instances in the Scripture-History, which this Gentleman produces, are by no means parallel: Abraham and his Seed, Phineas and his Seed, Gehazi and his Seed, Achan and his Seed, were not considered as one Person by the Law, and therefore their Actions righteous or unrighteous, could not be imputed to their Posterity. But Christ and his People are one, in the Eye of the divine Law, and in the Repute of God: Hence their Sins were charged on him, and ‘tis hence his Righteousness is imputed to them.
(8.) All Affairs in common Life are at an infinite Remove, from the Nature of those Things, now under our Consideration. Strange indeed! is there no Mystery in the Gospel, and are all divine Procedures towards Sinners, and towards Christ, to be explained by the common Affairs of human Life? Why then is the Gospel represented as a Mystery and the hidden Wisdom of God in a Mystery? For what Reason does the Apostle speak of the Doctrines of the Gospel, particularly that of Redemption; as of the deep things of God: If it is a Matter so very obvious, and may be considered in the same Light, as Things in common Life? Sure this Eastern Writer, uses very strong and exalted Expressions indeed on a Subject, which hath not in the Nature of it, any thing of Sublimity or Depth, suitable to the Pomp and Grandeur of those exalted. Epithets, which he profusely gives it. In Words there is a Shew of Something extraordinary, and far above all Affairs in human Life; but in Fact there is not. See the dangerous Tendency of departing from the known and establish’d Sense of Terms and Expressions used in the holy Scripture, without urgent Necessity for it. This is an intolerably bad Note, and I doubt not, but the good Gentleman will some Time or other, be heartily sorry, that he ever wrote it.
Object. 2 This Satisfaction cannot be imputed to us properly.
Answ. Is there any improper Imputation of Righteousness? To me it seems there is not. To impute an Action righteous or unrighteous, is to place it to the Account of a Person, on which he is reputed righteous or unrighteous, according to the Nature of that Action, which is imputed in him or placed to his Account. Either therefore an Act of Obedience is reckoned to a Man, or it is not; If it is, that is a proper Imputation of it. If it is not, there is no Imputation at all. To say that Imputation is proper or Improper, is at best speaking very improperly. But why may not the Satisfaction of Christ be imputed to us? The Reason he assigns to support this Objection is this, Lest we should be said to have satisfied, and made God a Recompence for our sins. His Merit cannot be imputed to us in a strict Sense, for that would make us Meritors, (407, 408.).
Answ. 1. When the Action of one is imputed to another, that Action is still to be considered, as the personal Act of him who perform’d it, and not the personal Act of him, to whom it is imputed.
2. The Imputation of Christ’s Obedience to his People, supposes not, that they performed it, or were personally concern’d an those righteous Actions, of which it consists: Or that it is accounted their personal Righteousness; This Imputation of it therefore, makes it not their personal Obedience, which, the Objection. evidently, supposes, and since It suggests that which is not supposed to attend, or which in Fact does not, nor can attend the Act of Imputation, it fails of proving the Point, the Objector intends it as a Proof of: The Imputation of Christ’s Merit to Men, does not make them Meritors, as this Author, with the Socinian most untruly affirms. The Author of a meritorious Action alone merits, because that Action is only his personal Act: The Imputation of it to another, makes it not his personal. Act:, and therefore in Consequence of the Imputation of that Action, he can’t be said to merit: But yet he hath a Right to all the Favours merited, by Virtue of the Imputation of that meritorious Action to him.
2. No valuable End, I think, is answered by using Scripture Language, when Men explain away the proper Ideas that Language is expressive of: To what Purpose is it to say, the Obedience of Christ is imputed to Men, and that they are made righteous by that Obedience, when no such Thing is intended; but only that the Result i.e. the Effects of that Obedience are imputed, (which by the Way cannot be, for Favours may be communicated, but cannot be imputed) and made theirs or transferred to them? It is no better than trifling with the Word of God, and it will one Day appear, whether this is not done, with an Intention to impose on the less capable and discerning Part of Christians, who may not be able to discover, that the Doctrine of Scripture is deny’d, when a scriptural Mode of speaking is used, tho’ the proper Ideas of the Language of Scripture are entirely explained away. For my Part, tho’ I am desirous to hold fast the Form of found Words, and would not part with, even Terms and Expressions by which divine Truths are properly express’d, and to use other Words capable of a Construction contrary to, or short of those Truths, in Complaisance to any Man: Yet, I cannot be content with the bare use of such Terms, without the Ideas they properly convey, for what are Letters, Syllables, and Words or Sounds, without those Ideas they are proper Signs of? Let Gentlemen, therefore, if they please, together with a Rejection of scriptural Doctrines, lay aside the Use of scriptural Expressions: How ever if they will not do this, they may be assured of being oppos’d in a Corruption of the Word, of God, tho’ they express themselves in the Language of the Bible. Socinus vehemently opposes the Imputation of the Satisfaction and Righteousness of Christ; he pronounces it impossible, absurd, and pernicious. This is objecting very strongly, indeed, how he succeeds in supporting there Objections we shall presently discover.
Object. 1. Says he, it is impossible; which he endeavours to prove thus; Christ was obliged to obey the Law for himself, as other Men are, and therefore his Obedience, cannot be imputed to others.
Answ. 1. Christ was born and given to the Church of God; or became Man with a View in the Salvation of his People; what therefore he did or suffered in Obedience to the Law, was for the Sake of those, on whose Account he came into the World.
2. He was God, as well as Man: and his human Nature, being personally united with the Son of God, it was exalted to a State above that of mere Men; and he was not obliged to obey the Law, in order in his own Justification and Right to Life, as all mere Men are: For by Vertue of his personal Union with the Son of God, he had a Right to Heaven and Glory; his Title to Happiness did not depend on his Obedience to the Law; but was the proper and necessary Result, of his being ineffably united with the divine Nature. Hence we read of his being made under the Law, i.e. by a special divine Constitution, with a View to the Redemption and Justification of others, as was before observ’d. He indeed denies the Divinity of Christ but this is a Truth, which at present I take for granted, it not being called into Question, by those with whom I have now a more immediate Concern, tho’ they, at least some of them, have borrowed his Reasoning in this Point, without his Principle on which he founds it. ‘Tis this Union that is the Foundation of the infinite Merit, which attended the Obedience of Christ; and ‘tis owing to this, that it is available to the Justification of many. This effectually answers a second Thing, offered by Socinus, to prove the Imputation of it is impossible; which is, that it could not be imputed to more than one single Person. To which we may add Christ was appointed a Representative Head to many, and he and they were considered as one by the Law: His Obedience therefore, may be imputed to every Individual of those Persons, to whom he was constituted such a Head, upon the same Ground, as it is imputed to any one of them. He farther observes, that if the Obedience of Christ is imputed to us, he must have obey’d, for us, at our Will or Desire, which is just as true, as that one who pays the Debt of another, must do it at the Request of him who owes it, if the Payment of the Debt is accepted by the Creditor; every one knows this is not necessary. God’s Appointment and Christ’s voluntary Engagement, were a sufficient Foundation for the Imputation of his Merit, Satisfaction and Obedience to his People. It was not necessary, Christ should suffer or obey the Law at their Motion and Will, in order to the Imputation of his Sufferings and Obedience to them.
Object. 2. It is absurd, says he, because then we blotted out the Sins of Mankind, and satisfied for our Offences. This is sufficiently answered above, to an Objection of the Author’s of Ruin and Recovery, which is much the same with this. We very well know of whom, some other Objections of his to the glorious Truths of the Gospel are borrowed, and whole Language it is he uses. I need only observe now: The Imputation of the Action of one to another, does not make it become the personal Act of him, to whom it is imputed. Christ’s Obedience to the Law, consists of his personal Actions agreeable to it, the Imputation of that Obedience to us, does not make those Acts, our personal Acts, of which that Obedience consists. If the Doctrine of the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness was as absurd, as this Way of arguing is, it would be monstrously so indeed. He adds, its absurd, because it supposes Men are justified, who are ungodly. This the Apostle expressly affirms: But believeth on him, that justifieth the ungodly, in which at present, we think he was not mistaken. But tho’ Men are justified who are ungodly, yet they are not considered as ungodly; but as righteous by the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness to them, in the divine Mind. And Holiness and Grace shall certainly be communicated to them, to dispose them to Acts of Religion and Piety.
Object. 3. Its pernicious, says he, because it dissolves Obligation to Dutyf64.
Answ. 1. It is certain Men will be obliged to all Acts of Holiness, when Justification and Life depend not on the Practice of Duty, viz. when they will be in Heaven. 2. To say that Men are under no Obligation to Holiness, because that is not required in order to their Justification, is the same Objection, which was brought against the Doctrine of the Apostle; it seems therefore, very likely to be the Doctrine, which he so zealously recommended.
3. To affirm that if good Works are not necessary to Justification, they are in other Respects unnecessary, discovers great Ignorance or Perverseness: If a Man is not under the Law, in order to his Justification by the Works of it, ‘tis not to be inferred from hence, that he may cease to observe it as as a Rule of Conduct; for Duty ceases not with this End of it. Thus we see this Doctrine of the Imputation of Christ’s Obedience is not impossible, absurd or pernicious, as Socinus pronounces it.