Quest. LXX., LXXI.

QUEST. LXX. What is justification?

ANSW. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.

QUEST. LXXI. How is justification an act of God’s free grace?

ANSW. Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God’s justice, in the behalf of them that are justified; yet, inasmuch as God accepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them, did provide this surety, his own only Son, imputing his righteousness to them, and requiring nothing of them for their justification, but faith; which also is his gift; their justification is, to them, of free grace.

Hitherto we have been led to consider that change of heart and life which is begun in effectual calling; whereby a dead sinner is made alive, and one that was wholly indisposed for, and averse to the performance of good works, is enabled to perform them by the power of divine grace: and now we are to speak concerning that change of state which accompanies it; whereby one, who being guilty before God, was liable to the condemning sentence of the law, and expected no other than an eternal banishment from his presence, is pardoned, received into favour, and has a right to all the blessings which Christ has, by his obedience and sufferings, purchased for him. This is what we call justification; and it is placed immediately after the head of effectual calling, as being agreeable to the method in which it is insisted on in that golden chain of salvation, as the apostle says, Whom he called, them he also justified, Rom. viii. 30.

This is certainly a doctrine of the highest importance, inasmuch as it contains in it the way of peace, the foundation of all our hope, of the acceptance both of our persons and services, and beholding the face of God, at last, with joy. Some have styled it the very basis of Christianity; and our forefathers thought it so necessary to be insisted on and maintained, according to the scripture-account thereof, that they reckoned it one of the principal doctrines of the reformation. And, indeed, the apostle Paul speaks of it as so necessary to be believed, that he concluded that the denying or perverting of it was the ground and reason of the Jews being rejected; who being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish a righteousness of their own, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God: and when they shall be called, if their call be intended, in that account which we have, of the marriage of the Lamb, and his wife having made herself ready, Rev. xix. 7. as many suppose, it is worth observing, that she is described as arrayed in fine linen, which is the righteousness of saints, or Christ’s righteousness, by which they are justified: this is that in which they glory; and therefore are represented as being convinced of the importance of that doctrine which, before, they were ignorant of. This we have an account of in these two answers, which we are now to explain, and shall endeavour to do it in the following method.

I. We shall consider what we are to understand by the word justify.

II. What are the privileges contained therein, as reduced to two heads, to wit, pardon of sin; and God’s accounting them who are justified, righteous in his sight? And,

III. What is the foundation of our justification? namely, a righteousness wrought out for us.

IV. The utter inability of fallen man to perform any righteousness, that can be the matter of his justification in the sight of God.

V. That our Lord Jesus Christ has wrought out this righteousness for us, as our surety, by performing active and passive obedience; which is imputed to us for our justification.

VI. We shall consider it as an act of God’s free grace. And,

VII. Shew the use of faith in justification, or in what respects faith is said to justify.

I. We shall consider in what sense we are to understand the word justify. As there are many disputes about the method of explaining the doctrines of justification; so there is a contest between us and the Papists, about the sense of the word; they generally supposing, that to justify, is to make inherently righteous and holy; because righteousness and holiness sometimes import the same thing; and both of them denote an internal change in the person who is so denominated; and accordingly they argue, that as to magnify signifies to make great; to fortify, to make strong; so to justify is to make just or holy: and they suppose, that whatever we do to make ourselves so, or whatever good works are the ingredients of our sanctification, these must be considered as the matter of our justification. And some Protestant divines have supposed, that the difference between them and us, is principally about the sense of a word; which favourable and charitable construction of their doctrine, would have been less exceptionable, if the Papists had asserted no more than that justification might have been taken in this sense, when considered, not as giving us a right to eternal life, or being the foundation of that sentence of absolution, which God passes upon us: but since this is the sense they give of it, when they say that we are justified by our inherent holiness, we are bound to conclude, that it is very remote from the scripture sense of the word.

We do not deny that justification is sometimes taken in a sense different from that which is intended by it, when used to signify the doctrine we are explaining. Sometimes nothing more is intended hereby, than our vindicating the divine perfections from any charge which is pretended to be brought against them. Thus the Psalmist says, That thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest, Psal. li. 4. And our Saviour is said to be justified, that is, his person or character vindicated or defended from the reproaches that were cast on him; as it is said, Wisdom is justified of her children, Matt. xi. 19. Luke vii. 35. Also we frequently read of the justification of the actions or conduct of persons, in scripture; in which sense their own works may be said to justify or vindicate them from the charge of hypocrisy or unregeneracy. Again, to justify is sometimes taken, in scripture, for using endeavours to turn many to righteousness: and therefore our translators have rendered the words, in the prophecy of Daniel, which signify, they who justify many, they who turn many to righteousness, shall shine as the stars, Dan. xii. 3.[28]

There are various other senses which are given of this word, which we pass over as not applicable to the doctrine we are maintaining, and therefore shall proceed to consider the sense in which it is used, when importing a sinner’s justification in the sight of God; wherein it is to be taken only in a forensick sense, and accordingly signifies a person’s being acquitted or discharged from guilt, or a liableness to condemnation, in such a way as is done in courts of judicature: thus we read in the judicial law, that if there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them, then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked, Deut. xxv. 1. where to justify the righteous, is to be understood for acquitting or discharging one that appears to be righteous, or not guilty, from condemnation; whereas the wicked, that is, they who appear to be guilty, are to be condemned: and in this sense the word is used, when applied to the doctrine of justification, in the New Testament, and particularly in Paul’s epistles; who largely insists on this subject.

Now that we may understand how a sinner may expect to be discharged at God’s tribunal, let us consider the methods of proceeding used in human courts of judicature: herein, it is supposed, that there is a law that forbids some actions which are deemed criminal; and also, that a punishment is annexed to this law, which renders the person that violated it, guilty; and then persons are supposed to be charged with the violation thereof; which charge, if it be not made good, they are said to be justified, that is, cleared from presumptive, not real guilt: but if the charge be made good, and he that fell under it, liable to punishment; if he suffer the punishment he is justified, as in crimes that are not of a capital nature; or if he be any otherwise cleared from the charge, so that his guilt be removed, then he is deemed a justified person: and so the law has nothing to lay to his charge, with respect to that which he was before accused of. Thus when a sinner, who had been charged with the violation of the divine law, found guilty before God, and exposed to a sentence of condemnation, is freed from it, then he is said to be justified; which leads us to consider,

II. The privileges contained in justification; which are forgiveness of sin and a right and title to eternal life. These are sufficiently distinguished, though never separated; so that when we find but one of them mentioned in a particular scripture, which treats on this subject, the other is not excluded. Forgiveness of sin is sometimes expressed in scripture, by a not imputing sin; and a right to life, includes in it our being made partakers of the adoption of children, and a right to the inheritance prepared for them. The apostle mentions both these together, when he speaks of our having redemption through the blood of Christ, even the forgiveness of sins; and being made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light, Col. i. 12, 14. And elsewhere he speaks of Christ’s redeeming them that were under the law; which includes the former branch of justification, and of their receiving the adoption of children, which includes the latter. And again he considers a justified person as having peace with God, which more especially respects pardon of sin, and of their having access to the grace wherein they stand, and their rejoicing in hope of the glory of God, Rom. v. 1, 2. which is what we are to understand by, or includes in it, their right to life.

That justification consists of both these branches, we maintain against the Papists, who suppose that it includes nothing else but forgiveness of sin, which is founded on the blood of Christ; whereas, according to them, our right to life depends on our internal qualifications, or sincere obedience. And besides these, there are some Protestant divines, who suppose that it consists only in pardon of sin; and this is asserted, by them, with different views; some do it as most consistent with the doctrine of justification by works, which they plead for; whereas, others do it as being most agreeable to another notion which they advance, namely, that we are justified only by Christ’s passive obedience; which will be considered under a following head. Again, there are others, whose sentiments of the doctrine of justification are agreeable to scripture, who maintain, that it includes both forgiveness of sins, and a right to life; but yet they add, that the former is founded on Christ’s passive obedience, and the latter on his active: whereas, we cannot but think, that the whole of Christ’s obedience, both active and passive, is the foundation of each of these; which will also be considered, when we come to speak concerning the procuring cause of our justification.

All that we shall observe at present, is, that these two privileges are inseparably connected; therefore, as no one can have a right to life, but he whose sins are pardoned; so no one can obtain forgiveness of sin, but he must, as the consequence hereof, have a right to life. As by the fall, man first became guilty, and then lost that right to life which was promised in case he had stood; so it is agreeable to the divine perfections, provided the guilt be removed, that he should be put in the same state as though it had not been contracted, and consequently, that he should not only have forgiveness of sins, but a right to life. Forgiveness of sin, without a right to eternal life, would render our justification incomplete; therefore, when any one is pardoned by an act of grace, he is put in possession of that which, by his rebellion, he had forfeited, he is considered, not only as released out of prison, but as one who has the privileges of a subject, such as those which he had before he committed the crime. Without this he would be like Absalom, when, upon Joab’s intercession with David, the guilt of murder, which he had contracted, was remitted so far, as that he had liberty to return from Geshur, whither he was fled: nevertheless, he reckons himself not fully discharged from the guilt he had contracted, and concludes his return to Jerusalem, as it were, an insignificant privilege; unless, by being admitted to see the king’s face, and enjoy the privileges which he was possessed of before, he might be dealt with as one who was taken into favour, as well as forgiven, 2 Sam. xiv. 2. which was accordingly granted. This leads us to consider these two branches of justification in particular. And,

1. Forgiveness of sin. Sin is sometimes represented as containing in it moral impurity, as opposed to holiness of heart and life; and accordingly is said, to defile a man, Matt. xv. 19, 20. and is set forth by several metaphorical expressions in scripture, which tend to beget an abhorrence of it as of things impure; in which sense it is removed in sanctification rather, than in justification; not but that divines sometimes speak of Christ’s redeeming us from the filth and dominion of sin, and our deliverance from it in justification: but these are to be understood as rendering us guilty; inasmuch as all moral pollutions are criminal, as contrary to the law of God; otherwise our deliverance from them would not be a branch of justification; and therefore, in speaking to this head, we shall consider sin as that which renders men guilty before God, and so shew what we are to understand by guilt.

This supposes a person to be under a law, and to have violated it; accordingly sin is described as the transgression of the law, 1 John iii. 4. The law of God, in common with all other laws, is primarily designed to be the rule of obedience; and in order thereunto, it is a declaration of the divine will, which, as creatures and subjects, we are under a natural obligation to comply with; and God, as a God of infinite holiness and sovereignty, cannot but signify his displeasure in case of disobedience; and therefore he has annexed a threatening to his law, or past a condemning sentence, as that which is due for every transgression: this divines sometimes call the sanction of the law, or a fence, with which it is guarded, that so, through the corruption of our nature, we may not conclude, that we may rebel against him with impunity: this the scripture styles, The curse of the law, Gal. iii. 10. So that guilt is a liableness to the curse or condemning sentence of the law, for our violation of it: this is sometimes called a debt of punishment, which we owe to the justice of God, for not paying that debt of obedience which was due from us to his law. Thus, when our Saviour advises us to pray, that our sins may be forgiven; he expresses it by forgiving us our debts, Luke xi. 4. Matt. vi. 12. so that forgiveness, as it is a freeing us from guilt, discharges us from the guilt of punishment which we were liable to.

There is a twofold debt which man owes to God; one he owes to him as a creature under a law; this is that debt of obedience, which he cannot be discharged from; and therefore, a justified person is, in this sense, as much a debtor as any other. There is also a debt which man contracts as a criminal, whereby he is liable to suffer punishment; this alone is removed in justification.

Moreover, we must carefully distinguish between the demerit of sin, or its desert of punishment; and the sinner’s obligation to suffer punishment for it. The former of these is inseparable from sin, and not removed, or, in the least lessened, by pardoning mercy; for sin is no less the object of the divine detestation; nor is its intrinsic evil, or demerit, abated by its being forgiven; and therefore, a justified person, remaining still a sinner, as transgressing the law of God, has as much reason to condemn himself, in this respect, as though he had not been forgiven. The Psalmist speaking concerning a person that is actually forgiven or justified, says, notwithstanding, that if thou Lord, shouldst mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? Psal. cxxx. 3. He was, at the same time, in a justified state; but yet he concludes, that there is a demerit of punishment in every sin that he committed; though, when it is pardoned, the obligation to suffer punishment is taken away:[29] and therefore, the apostle speaking of such, says, There is no condemnation to them, Rom. viii. 1. We must farther distinguish between our having matter of condemnation in us; this a justified person has; and there being no condemnation to us; that is, the immediate result of being pardoned.

There are several expressions in scripture, whereby forgiveness is set forth, namely, God’s covering sin: thus the Psalmist says, Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered, Psal. xxxii. 1. or, his hiding his face from it, and blotting it out; or, when it is sought for, Psal. li. 9. its not being found, Jer. l. 20. and, casting our sins into the depths of the sea, Micah vii. 19. And elsewhere it is said, That when God had pardoned the sins of his people, he did not behold iniquity in Jacob, nor see perverseness in Israel, Numb, xxiii. 21. which amounts to the same thing as the foregoing expressions of its being covered, hid, blotted out, &c.

I am sensible there have been many contests about the sense of this scripture; which might, without much difficulty, have been compromised, had the contending parties been desirous to know each others sense, without prejudice or partiality. It is not to be thought, that when God forgives sin, he does not know, or suppose that the person forgiven, had, before this, contracted guilt by sins committed; for without this, he could not be the object of forgiveness. When God is said not to look upon, or hide his face from their sins, it is not to be supposed, that he knows not what they have done, or what iniquities they daily commit against him; for that would be subversive of his omniscience: and when he is said not to mark our iniquities, we are not to understand it, as though he did not look upon the sins we commit, though in a justified state, with abhorrence; for the sinner may be pardoned, and yet the crime forgiven be detested. But God’s not seeing sin in his people, is to be taken in a forensic sense; and accordingly, when an atonement is made for sin, and the guilt thereof taken away, the criminal, in the eye of the law, is as though he had not sinned; he is as fully discharged from the indictment, that was brought in against him, as though he had been innocent, not liable to any charge founded upon it; and therefore the apostle says, Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth, Rom. viii. 33. and it is the same, as for God not to enter into judgment, as the Psalmist elsewhere expresses it; or to punish us less than our iniquities have deserved, Psal. cxliii. 2. In this sense the indictment that was brought against him, is cancelled, the sentence reversed, and prosecution stopped; so that whatever evils are endured as the consequence of sin, or with a design to humble him for it, as bringing sin to his remembrance, with all its aggravating circumstances, he is, nevertheless, encouraged to hope, that these are not inflicted in a judicial way, by the vindictive justice of God demanding satisfaction; but to display and set forth the holiness of his nature, as infinitely opposite to all sin, and the dispensations of his providence agreeably thereunto; and that with a design to bring him to repentance for it.

And, that this privilege may appear to be most conducive to our happiness and comfort, let it be considered; that wherever God forgives sin, he forgives all sin, cancels every debt that rendered him liable to punishment, otherwise our condition would be very miserable, and our salvation impossible; our condition would be like that of a person who has several indictments brought in against him, every one of which contain an intimation that his life is forfeited; it would avail him very little for one indictment to be superseded, and the sentence due to him for the others, executed: thus the apostle speaks of the free gift, being of many, that is, of the multitude of our offences unto justification, Rom. v. 16. And elsewhere he speaks of God’s forgiving his people all trespasses, Col. ii. 13. And as he forgives all past sins, so he gives them ground to conclude, that iniquity shall not be their ruin; and therefore, the same grace that now abounds towards them herein, together with the virtue of the atonement made for sin, shall prevent future crimes being charged upon them to their condemnation. Thus concerning forgiveness of sin.

2. The other privilege, which they who are justified are made partakers of, is the acceptation of their persons, as righteous in the sight of God: thus they are said to be made accepted in the Beloved, Eph. i. 6. and as their persons are accepted, so are their performances, notwithstanding the many defects that adhere to them. Thus God is said to have had respect unto Abel, and to his offering, Gen. iv. 4. And, together with this, they have a right and title to eternal life; which is that inheritance which Christ has purchased for, and God, in his covenant of grace, has promised to them. This is a very comprehensive blessing; for it contains in it a right to all those great and precious promises, which God has made, respecting their happiness both here and hereafter. But since we shall have occasion to insist on this in a following answer, under the head of adoption, which some divines, not without good reason, conclude to be a branch of justification, or, at least, to contain in it those positive privileges, which they, who are justified, partake of, either here of hereafter, we shall proceed to consider,

III. What is the foundation of our justification; and that must be either some righteousness wrought out by us; or for us. Since justification is a person’s being made righteous, as the apostle styles it, Rom. v. 29. we must consider what we are to understand hereby; and accordingly a person is said to be righteous who never violated the law of God, nor exposed himself to the condemning sentence thereof: in this respect man, while in a state of innocency, was righteous; his perfect obedience was the righteousness which, according to the tenor of the covenant he was under, gave him a right to eternal life; especially it would have done so, had it been persisted in, till he was possessed of that life; but such a righteousness as this, cannot be the foundation of our justification, as the apostle says, By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified, Gal. ii. 16. Therefore, the righteousness we are now speaking of, must be something wrought out for us, by one who stood in our room and stead, and was able to pay that debt of obedience, and endure those sufferings that were due for sin, which the law of God might have exacted of us, and insisted on the payment of, in our own persons, which, when paid by Christ for us, is that, (as will be considered under a following head,) which we generally call Christ’s righteousness, or what he did and suffered in our stead, in conformity to the law of God; whereby its honour was secured and vindicated, and justice satisfied; so that God hereby appears to be, as the apostle says, Just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus, Rom. iii. 26.[30]

IV. We are now to consider the utter inability of fallen man to perform any righteousness that can be the matter of his justification in the sight of God; whereby it will appear, as it is observed in this answer, that we are not accounted righteous in his sight, for any thing wrought in us, or done by us. That we cannot be justified by suffering the punishment that was due for sin, appears from the infinite evil thereof; and the eternal duration of the punishment that it deserves; as our Saviour observes in the parable concerning the debtor, who did not agree with his adversary while in the way, but was delivered to the officer, and cast into prison; from whence he was not to come out till he had paid the uttermost farthing, Matt. v. 25, 26. that is to say, he shall never be discharged. A criminal who is sentenced to endure some punishments short of death, or which are to continue but for a term of years, when he has suffered them, is, upon the account hereof, discharged, or justified: but it is far otherwise with man, when fallen into the hands of the vindictive justice of God; therefore the Psalmist says, enter not into judgment with thy servant, or do not punish me according to the demerit of sin; for in thy sight shall no flesh living be justified.

Neither can any one be justified by performing active obedience to the law of God; for nothing is sufficient to answer that end, but what is perfect in all respects; it must be sinless obedience, and that not only as to what concerns the time to come, but as respecting the time past; and that is impossible, from the nature of the thing, to be said of a sinner; for it implies a contradiction in terms. This farther appears from the holiness of God, which cannot but detest the least defect; and therefore will not deal with a sinful creature, as though he had been innocent: and as for sins that are past, they render us equally liable to a debt of punishment, with those which are committed at present, or shall be hereafter, in the sight of God. Moreover, the honour of the law cannot be secured, unless it be perfectly fulfilled; which cannot be done if there be any defect of obedience.

As for those works which are done by us, without the assistance of the Spirit of God, these proceed from a wrong principle, and have many other blemishes attending them, upon the account whereof, they have only a partial goodness; and for that reason Augustine gives them no better a character than shining sins[31]: but whatever terms we give them, they are certainly very far from coming up to a conformity to the divine law. And as for those good works which are said to be wrought in us, and are the effect of the power and grace of God, and the consequence of our being regenerated and converted, these fall far short of perfection; there is a great deal of sin attending them, which, if God should mark, none could stand. This is expressed by Job, in a very humble manner; How should man be just with God? if he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand. And, if I wash myself with snow water, and make my hands never so clean, yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch, and mine own clothes shall abhor me: for he is not a man as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment, Job ix. 2, 3, 30-32. when God is said to work in us that which is well pleasing in his sight, Heb. xiii. 21. we are not to understand, that the grace which he works in us, renders us accepted in his sight, in a forensic sense, or, that it justifies us; for in this respect we are only made accepted in the Beloved, that is, in Christ, Eph. i. 3.

Moreover, as what is wrought in us, has many defects attending it; so it is not from ourselves, and therefore cannot be accepted as a payment of that debt of obedience which we owe to the justice of God; and consequently we cannot be justified thereby. Some, indeed, make the terms of acceptance, or justification in the sight of God, so very low, as though nothing were demanded of us but our sincere endeavours to yield obedience, whatever imperfections it be chargeable with. And others pretend, that our confessing our sins will be conducive hereunto; and assert, that our tears are sufficient to wash away the guilt of sin. The Papists add, that some penances, of acts of self-denial, will satisfy his justice, and procure a pardon for us; yea, they go farther than this, and maintain, that persons may perform works of supererogation, or pay more than the debt that is owing from them, or than what the law of God requires, and thereby not only satisfy his justice, but render him a debtor to them; and putting them into a capacity of transferring these arrears of debt, to those that stand in need of them, and thereby lay an obligation on them, in gratitude, to pay them honours next to divine. Such absurdities do men run into, who plead for human satisfactions, and the merit of good works, as the matter of our justification: and, indeed, there is nothing can tend more to depreciate Christ’s satisfaction, on the one hand, and stupify the conscience on the other; and therefore, it is so far from being an expedient for justification, that it is destructive to the souls of men.

As for our sincere endeavours, or imperfect obedience, these cannot be placed by the justice of God, in the room of perfect; for that is contrary to the nature of justice: We cannot suppose, that he who pays a pepper-corn, or a few mites, instead of a large sum, really pays the debt that was due from him; justice cannot account this to be a payment; therefore, a discharge from condemnation, upon these terms, cannot be styled a justification. And if it be said that it is esteemed so by an act of grace: this is to advance the glory of one divine perfection, and, at the same time, detract from that of another; nothing therefore can be our righteousness, but that which the justice of God may, in honour, accept of for our justification: and our own righteousness is so small and inconsiderable a thing, that it is a dishonour for him to accept of it in this respect; and therefore we cannot be justified by works done by us, or wrought in us.

This will farther appear, if we consider the properties of this righteousness; and in particular, that it must not only be perfect, and therefore, such as a sinful creature cannot perform; but it must also be of infinite value, otherwise it could not give satisfaction to the infinite justice of God; and consequently cannot be performed by any other than a divine person. And it must also bear some resemblance to that debt which was due from us, inasmuch as it was designed to satisfy for the debt which he had contracted; and therefore must be performed by one who is really man. But this having been insisted on elsewhere, under the head of Christ’s Priestly office[32], we shall not farther enlarge on it; but proceed to consider,

V. That our Lord Jesus Christ has wrought out this righteousness for us, as our Surety, by performing active and passive obedience; which is imputed to us for our justification. We have before considered that it is impossible that such a righteousness, as is sufficient to be the matter of our justification, should be wrought out by us in our own persons; it therefore follows; that it must be wrought out for us, by one who bears the character of a surety, and performs every thing that is necessary to our justification; such an one is our Lord Jesus Christ. In considering this head, we must,

1. Shew what we are to understand by a surety, since it is the righteousness of Christ, under this relation to us, which is the matter of our justification. A surety is one who submits to be charged with, and undertakes to pay a debt contracted by another, to the end that the debtor may hereby be discharged: thus the apostle Paul engages to be surety to Philemon, for Onesimus, who had fled from him, whom he had wronged or injured, and was hereby indebted to him; concerning whom, he says, If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account; I, Paul, have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it, Philem. ver. 18. And elsewhere, we read of Judah’s overture to be surety for his brother Benjamin, that he should return to his father, as a motive to induce him to give his consent that he should go with him into Egypt: I will be surety for him; of my hand shalt thou require him: if I bring him not unto thee, and set him before thee, then let me bear the blame for ever, Gen. xliii. 9. This is so commonly known in civil transactions of the like nature, between man and man, that it needs no farther explication; however, it may be observed,

(1.) That a person’s becoming surety for another, must be a free and voluntary act: for to force any one to bind himself to pay a debt, which he has not contracted, is as much an act of injustice, as it is in any other instance to exact a debt where it is not due.

(2.) He that engages to be surety for another must be in a capacity to pay the debt, otherwise he is unjust to the creditor, as well as brings ruin upon himself: therefore it is said, Be not thou one of them that strike hands, or of them that are sureties for debts, if thou hast nothing to pay; why should he take away the bed from under thee? Prov. xxiii. 26, 27.

(3.) He who engages to be surety for another, is supposed not to have contracted the debt himself; and therefore the creditor must have no demands upon him, as being involved together with the debtor, and so becoming engaged antecedent to his being surety: nevertheless, he is deemed, in the eye of the law, consequent thereunto, to stand in the debtor’s room, and to be charged with his debt, and equally obliged to the payment thereof, as though he had contracted it, especially if the creditor be resolved to exact the payment of him, rather than of the original debtor[33].

(4.) As debts are of different kinds, so the obligation of a surety agreeably thereunto admits of different circumstances: thus there are pecuniary debts resulting from those dealings or contracts which pass between man and man in civil affairs; and there are debts of service or obedience; as also debts of punishment, as has been before observed, for crimes committed; in all which cases, as the nature of the debt differs, so there are some things peculiar in the nature of suretyship for it. In pecuniary debts the creditor is obliged to accept of payment at the hand of any one, who at the request of the debtor is willing to discharge the debt which he has contracted, especially, if what he pays be his own; but in debts of service or punishment, when the surety offers himself to perform of suffer what was due from another, the creditor is at his liberty to accept of, or refuse satisfaction from him, but might insist on the payment of the debt by him in his own person, from whom it was due.

2. Christ was such a surety for us, or substituted in our room, with a design to pay the debt which was due to the justice of God from us. Here, that we may assume the ideas of a surety but now-mentioned, and apply them to Christ, as our surety, let it be considered;

(1.) That what he did and suffered for us was free and voluntary; this appears from his readiness to engage therein, expressed by his saying, Lo, I come to do thy will, Heb. x. 9. And therefore whatever he suffered for us did not infer the least injustice in God that inflicted it[34].

(2.) He was able to pay the debt, so that there was not the least injury offered to the justice of God by his undertaking. This is evident, from his being God incarnate; and therefore in one nature he was able to do and suffer whatever was demanded of us, and in the other nature to add an infinite value to what he performed therein.

(3.) He was not rendered incapable of paying our debt, or answering for the guilt which we had contracted by any debt of his own, which involved him in the same guilt, and rendered him liable to the same punishment with us, as is evident from what the prophet says concerning him, who speaks of him, as charged with our guilt, though he had done no violence, neither was any deceit found in his mouth, Isa. liii. 9. That which the prophet calls doing no violence, the apostle Peter referring to, and explaining it, styles doing, or committing no sin of any kind. He was not involved in the guilt of Adam’s sin, which would have rendered him incapable of being a surety to pay that debt for us; neither had he the least degree of the corruption of nature, being conceived in an extraordinary way, and sanctified from the womb[35]. Nor did he ever commit actual sin, for he was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.

(4.) Another thing observed in the character of a surety, which is very agreeable to Christ, is; that what he engaged to pay was his own, or at his own disposal, he did not offer any injury to justice, by paying a debt that was before due to it, or by performing any service which he had no warrant to do. It is true, he gave his life a ransom, but consider him as a divine Person, and he had an undoubted right to dispose or of, lay down that life which he had as man. Did he consent, in the eternal transaction between the Father and him, to be incarnate, and in our nature to perform the work of a Surety? this was an act of his sovereign will; and therefore whatever he paid as a ransom for us, was, in the highest sense, his own. The case was not the same as though one man should offer to lay down his life for another, who has no power to dispose of his life at pleasure. We are not lords of our own lives; as we do not come into the world by our own wills, we are not to go out of it when we please; but Christ was as God, if I may so express myself, lord of himself, of all that he did and suffered as man; by which I understand that he had a right as God to consent or determine to do, and suffer whatever he did and suffered as man; therefore the debt which he paid in the human nature was his own.

(5.) As it has been before observed, that in some cases he that is willing to substitute himself as a surety in the room of the debtor, must be accepted, and approved by him to whom it was due; and in this respect our Saviour’s substitution as our surety in our room, had a sanction from God the Father; who gave many undeniable evidences that what he did and suffered for us, was accepted by him as really as though it had been done by us in our own persons, which, as was before observed, might have been refused by him, it being the payment of a debt of obedience and sufferings. Now that God the Father testified his acceptance of Christ as our surety, appears,

1. From his well-pleasedness with him, both before and after his incarnation; before he came into the world, God seems to speak with pleasure in the fore-thought of what he would be, and do, as Mediator, when he says, Behold my servant whom I uphold, mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth, Isa. xlii. 1. And he is also said to be well pleased for his righteousness sake, ver. 21. or in his determining before hand that he should, as Mediator, bring in that righteousness which would tend to magnify the law, and make it honourable.

Moreover, his having anointed him by a previous designation to this work, as the prophet intimates, speaking of him before his incarnation, Isa. lxi. 1, 2. is certainly an evidence of his being approved to be our surety. And when he was incarnate, God approved of him, when engaged in the work which he came into the world about: thus, when he was solemnly set apart, by baptism to the discharge of his public ministry, we read of a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, Matt. iii. 17. And to this we may add, that there was the most undeniable proof of God’s well pleasedness with him, as having accomplished this work, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand, in heavenly places.

2. This may be farther argued from his justifying and saving those for whom he undertook to be a surety, before the debt was actually paid; and his applying the same blessings to his people, since the work of redemption was finished. The application of what Christ undertook to purchase, is an evidence of the acceptableness of the price. And this may be considered, either as respecting those that were saved before his incarnation and death; or those who are, from that time, in all succeeding ages, made partakers of the saving benefits procured thereby. Before the actual accomplishment of what he undertook to do and suffer, as our surety, God the Father trusted him, and, by virtue of his promising to pay the debt, discharged the Old Testament saints from condemnation, as effectually as though it had been actually paid. There are some cases in which a surety’s undertaking to pay a debt, is reckoned equivalent to the actual payment of it; namely, when it is impossible that he should make a failure in the payment thereof, either though mutability, or a fickelness of temper, inducing him to change his purpose; or from unfaithfulness, which might render him regardless of his engagement to pay it: or from some change in his circumstances whereby, though he once was able to pay it, he afterwards becomes unable: I say, if none of these things can take place, and especially, if the creditor, by not demanding present payment, receives some advantage, which is an argument that he does not stand in need thereof: in these cases the promise to pay a debt is equivalent to the payment of it.

Now these things may well be applied to Christ’s undertaking to pay our debt: it was impossible that he should fail in the accomplishment of what he had undertaken; or change his purpose, and so, though he designed to do it, enter into other measures; or, though he had promised to do it, be unfaithful in the accomplishment thereof, these things being all inconsistent with the character of his person who undertook it; and, though he suffered for us in the human nature, it was his divine nature that undertook to do it therein, which is infinitely free from the least imputation of weakness, mutability, or unfaithfulness: and, whereas the present payment was not immediately demanded, nor designed to be made till the fulness of time was come, his forbearance hereof was compensated by that revenue of glory which accrued to the divine name, and that honour that redounded to the Mediator, by the salvation of the elect, before his incarnation; and this was certainly an undeniable evidence of God’s approving his undertaking.

And since the work of redemption has been completed, all those who are, or shall be brought to glory, have, in themselves, a convincing proof of God’s being well pleased with Christ, as substituted in their room and stead, to pay the debt that was due from them to his justice, as the foundation of their justification. From hence it plainly appears, that Christ was substituted as a surety in our room and stead, to do that for us which was necessary for our justification; and we have sufficient ground to conclude, that he was so from scripture, from whence alone it can be proved, it being a matter of pure revelation. Thus he is said, in express terms, to have been made a surety of a better testament, Heb. vii. 22. and that as our surety, he has paid that debt of sufferings which was due from us, is evident, in that he is said to offer himself a sacrifice for our sins, ver. 27. and to have been once offered to bear the sins of many, chap. ix. 28. and from his being holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, the apostle argues, that he had no occasion to offer a sacrifice for himself, or that he had no sin of his own to be charged with, therefore, herein he bore or answered for our sins: thus the apostle Peter says, He bare our sins in his own body, on the tree, by whose stripes we are healed, 1 Pet. ii. 24. And elsewhere, we read of his being made sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. v. 21. that is, he, who had no guilt of his own to answer for, submitted to be charged with our guilt, to stand in our room and stead, and accordingly to be made a sacrifice for sin; all this implies as much as his being made a surety for us. But this having been particularly insisted on elsewhere in speaking concerning Christ’s satisfaction, which could not be explained without taking occasion to mention his being substituted in the room and stead of those for whom he paid a price of redemption; and, having also considered the meaning of those scriptures that speak of his bearing our sins, we shall proceed to consider[36],

3. What Christ did, pursuant to this character, namely, as our surety, as he paid all that debt which the justice of God demanded from us, which consisted in active and passive obedience. There was a debt of active obedience demanded from man as a creature; and upon his failure of paying it, when he sinned, it became an out-standing debt, due from us; but such as could never be paid by us. God determines not to justify any, unless this out-standing debt be paid; Christ, as our surety, engages to take the payment of it on himself: and, whereas this defect of obedience, together with all actual transgressions, which proceeded from the corruption of our nature, render us guilty or liable to the stroke of vindictive justice, Christ, as our surety, undertakes to bear that also: this we generally call the imputation of our sin to Christ, the placing our debt to his account, and the transferring the debt of punishment, which was due from us to him, upon which account he is said to yield obedience, and suffer in our room and stead, or to perform active and passive obedience for us; which two ideas the apostle joins in one expression, when he says, that he became obedient unto death, Phil. ii. 8. But this having been been insisted on elsewhere, under the head of Christ’s satisfaction[37], where we shewed, not only that Christ performed active as well as passive obedience for us, but endeavoured to answer the objections that are generally brought against Christ’s active obedience, being part of that debt which he engaged to pay for us; we shall pass it by at present.

But that which may farther be added, to prove that our sin and guilt were imputed to him, may be argued from his being said to be made a curse for us, in order to his redeeming us from the curse of the law, Gal. iii. 13. and also from his being made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. v. 21. And also from other scriptures, that speak of him as suffering, though innocent; punished for sin, though he was at the same time the Lamb of God, without spot or blemish; dealt with as guilty, though he had never contracted any guilt, and being made a sacrifice for sin, though sinless, which could not have been done consistently with the justice of God, had not our sins been placed to his account, or imputed to him.

It is indeed a very difficult thing to convince some persons, how Christ could be charged with sin, or have sin imputed to him, in consistency with the sinless purity of his nature, which some think to be no better than a contradiction, though it be agreeable to the scripture mode of speaking, viz. He was made sin for us, and yet knew no sin, 2 Cor. v. 21. However, when we speak of sin’s being imputed to him, we are far from insinuating, that he committed any acts of sin; or, that his human nature was, in the least, inclined to, or defiled thereby; we choose therefore to use the scripture phrase, in which he is said to have borne our sins, rather than to say, that he was a sinner; much less would I give countenance to that expression which some make use of, that he was the greatest sinner in the world; since I do not desire to apply a word to him, which is often taken in a sense not in the least applicable to the holy Jesus. We cannot be too cautious in our expressions, lest the most common sense in which we understand the greatest sinner, when applied to men, should give any one a wrong idea of him, as though he had committed, or were defiled with sin. All that we assert is, that he was charged with our sins, when he suffered for them, not with having committed them; but with the guilt of them, which, by his own consent, was imputed to him; otherwise his sufferings could not have been a punishment for sin; and if they had not been so, our sin could not have been expiated, nor would his sufferings have been the ground of our justification. This leads us to consider,

4. The reference that Christ’s suretyship-righteousness has to our justification. This is generally styled its being imputed; which is a word very much used by those who plead for the scripture-sense of the doctrine of justification, and as much opposed by them that deny it; and we are obliged to defend the use of it; otherwise Christ’s righteousness, how glorious soever it be in itself, would not avail for our justification. Here it is necessary for us to explain what we mean by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

There are some who oppose this doctrine, by calling it a putative righteousness, the shadow or appearance of that which has in it no reality, or our being accounted what we are not, whereby a wrong judgment is passed on persons and things. However, we are not to deny it because it is thus misrepresented, and thereby unfairly opposed: it is certain, that there are such words used in scripture, and often applied to this doctrine, which, without any ambiguity or strain on the sense thereof, may be translated, to reckon, to account, or to place a thing done by another to our account; or, as we express it, to impute.[38] And that, either respects what is done by us; or something done by another for us. The former of these senses our adversaries do not oppose; as when it is said, that Phinehas executed judgment, and it was counted unto him for righteousness, Psal. cvi. 31. that is, it was approved by God as a righteous action; which expression seems to obviate an objection that some might make against it; supposing, that Phinehas herein did that which more properly belonged to the civil magistrate; or, that this judicial act in him, was done without a formal trial, and, it may be, too hastily; but God owns the action, and, in a way of approbation, places it to his account for righteousness, that it should be reckoned a righteous action throughout all generations.

Again, sometimes that which is done by a person, is imputed to him, or charged upon him, so that he must answer for it, or suffer the punishment due to it: thus Shimei says to David, Let not my Lord impute iniquity unto me, 2 Sam. xix. 19. that is, do not charge that sin, which I committed, upon me, so as to put me to death for it, which thou mightest justly do. And Stephen prays, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge, Acts vii. 60. impute it not to them, or inflict not the punishment on them that it deserves. No one can deny that what is done by a person himself, may be placed to his own account; so that he may be rewarded or punished for it; or it may be approved or disapproved: but this is not the sense in which we understand it when speaking concerning the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us; for this supposes that which is done by another, to be placed to our account. This is the main thing which is denied by those who have other sentiments of the doctrine we are maintaining; and, they pretend, that for God to account Christ’s righteousness ours, is to take a wrong estimate of things, to reckon that done by us which was not; which is contrary to the wisdom of God, who can, by no means, entertain any false ideas of things; and if the action be reckoned ours, then the character of the person performing it, must also be applied to us; which is to make us sharers in Christ’s Mediatorial office and glory.

But this is the most perverse sense which can be put on words, or a setting this doctrine in such a light as no one takes it in, who pleads for it: we do not suppose, that God looks upon man with his all-seeing eye, as having done that which Christ did, or to sustain the character which belongs to him in doing it; we are always reckoned, by him, as offenders, or contracting guilt, and unable to do any thing that can make an atonement for it. Therefore, what interest soever we have in what Christ did, it is not reputed our action; but God’s imputing Christ’s righteousness to us, is to be taken in a forensic sense, which is agreeable to the idea of a debt being paid by a surety: it is not supposed that the debtor paid the debt which the surety paid; but yet it is placed to his account, or imputed to him as really as though he had paid it himself. Thus what Christ did and suffered in our room and stead, is as much placed to our account, as though we had done and suffered it ourselves; so that by virtue hereof we are discharged from condemnation.[39]

This is the sense in which we understand the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us; and it is agreeable to the account we have thereof in scripture: thus we are said to be made the righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. v. 21. the abstract being put for the concrete; that is, we are denominated and dealt with as righteous persons, acquitted and discharged from condemnation in the virtue of what was done by him, who is elsewhere styled, The Lord our righteousness; and the apostle speaks of his having Christ’s righteousness, Phil. iii. 9. that is, having it imputed to him, or having an interest in it, or being dealt with according to the tenor thereof; in this respect he opposes it to that righteousness which was in him, as the result of his own performances: and elsewhere Christ is said to be made of God unto us righteousness; that is, his fulfilling the law is placed to our account; and the apostle speaks of Christ’s being the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth, Rom. x. 4. which is the same with what he asserts in other words elsewhere concerning the righteousness of the law’s being fulfilled in us, chap. viii. 3, 4. who could not be justified by our own obedience to it, in that it was weak through the flesh, or by reason of our fallen state; therefore Christ did this for us; and accordingly God deals with us as though we had fulfilled the law in our own persons, inasmuch as it was fulfilled by him as our surety.

This may farther be illustrated, by what we generally understand by Adam’s sin being imputed to us, as one contrary may illustrate another; therefore, as sin and death entered into the world by the offence of one, to wit, the first Adam, in whom all have sinned; so by the righteousness of one the free gift, Rom. v. 18. that is, eternal life came upon all men, to wit, those who shall be saved unto justification of life; and for this reason the apostle speaks of Adam as the figure of him that was to come, ver. 14. Now as Adam’s sin was imputed to us, as our public head and representative, so that we are involved in the guilt thereof, or fall in him; so Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us, as he was our public head and surety: and accordingly, in the eye of the law, that which was done by him, was the same as though it had been done by us; and therefore, as the effect and consequence hereof, we are justified thereby. This is what we call Christ’s righteousness being imputed to us, or placed to our account; and it is very agreeable to the common acceptation of the word, in dealings between man and man. When one has contracted a debt, and desires that it may be placed to the account of his surety, who undertakes for the payment of it, it is said to be imputed to him; and his discharge hereupon is as valid as though the debtor has paid it in his own person. This leads us,

VI. To consider justification as it is an act of God’s free grace, which is particularly insisted on in one of the answers we are explaining; for the understanding of which, let it be observed, that we are not to suppose, that when we are justified by an act of grace, this is opposed to our being justified upon the account of a full satisfaction made by our surety to the justice of God; in which respect we consider our discharge from condemnation, as an act of justice. The debtor is, indeed, beholden to the grace of God for this privilege, but the surety that paid the debt, had not the least abatement thereof made, but was obliged to glorify the justice of God to the utmost, which accordingly he did. However, there are several things in which the grace of God is eminently displayed, more particularly,

1. In that God should be willing to accept of satisfaction from the hands of our surety, which he might have demanded of us. This appears from what has been before observed, namely, that the debt which we had contracted was not of the same nature with pecuniary debts, in which case the creditor is obliged to accept of payment, though the overture hereof be made by another, and not by him that contracted the debt: whereas the case is different in debts of obedience to be performed, or punishment to be endured; in which instances, he, to whom satisfaction is to be given, must accept of one to be substituted in the room of him from whom the obedience or sufferings were originally due; otherwise, the overture made, or what is done and suffered by him, pursuant thereunto, is not regarded, or available to procure a discharge for him, in whose room he substituted himself. God might have exacted the debt of us, in our own persons, and then our condition had been equally miserable with that of fallen angels, for whom no mediator was accepted, no more than provided.

2. The grace of God farther appears, in that he provided a surety for us, which we could not have done for ourselves; nor have engaged him to perform this work for us, who was the only person that could bring about the great work of redemption.

The only creatures who are capable of performing perfect obedience, are the holy angels; but these could not do it, for, as has been before observed, whoever performs it must be incarnate, that they may be capable of paying the debt, in some respects, in kind, which was due from us; therefore they must suffer death, and consequently have a nature which is capable of dying; but this the angels had not, nor could have, but by the divine will.

Besides, if God should have dispensed with that part of satisfaction, which consists in a subjection to death, and have declared, that active obedience should be sufficient to procure our justification; the angels, though capable of performing active obedience, would, notwithstanding, have been defective therein; so that justice could not, in honour, have accepted of it, any more than it could have dispensed with the obligation to perform obedience in general; because it would not have been of infinite value; and it is the value of things that justice regards, and not barely the matter of perfection thereof in other respects: so that it must be an obedience that had in it something infinitely valuable, or else it could not have been accepted by God, as a price of redemption, in order to the procuring our justification: and this could be performed by none but our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious author and procurer of this privilege.

It was impossible for man to have found out this Mediator or Surety; so that it had its first rise from God, and not from us; it is he that found a ransom, and laid help upon one that is mighty; this was the result of his will: therefore our Saviour is represented as saying, Lo I come to do thy will, Heb. x. 7. as the apostle expresses it. That we could not, by any means, have found out this surety, or engaged him to have done that for us which was necessary for our justification, will evidently appear, if we consider,

(1.) That when man fell, the Son of God was not incarnate; and provided we allow that fallen man had some idea of a Trinity of persons, in the unity of the divine Essence, which is not unreasonable to suppose; since it was necessary that that should be revealed to him before he fell, in order to his performing acceptable worship; yet, can any one suppose that man could have asked such a favour of a divine person, as to take his nature, and put himself in his room and stead, and expose himself to the curse of that law which he had violated; this could never have entered into his heart; yea, the very thought, if it had taken its rise first from him, would have savoured of more presumption than had he entreated that God would pardon his sin without a satisfaction. But,

(2.) If he had supposed it impossible for the Son of God to be incarnate, or had conjectured that there had been the least probability of his being willing to express this instance of condescending goodness, how could he have known that God would have accepted the payment of our debt, at the hands of another, or have commended his love to us, who were such enemies to him, in not sparing him, but delivering him up for us? if God’s accepting of a satisfaction be necessary, in order to its taking effect, as well as the perfection or infinite value of it; it is certain, man could not have known that he would have done it; for that was a matter of pure revelation. Moreover,

(3.) Should we suppose even this possible, or that man might have expected that God would have been moved to have done it by intreaty; yet such was the corruption, perverseness, and rebellion of his nature, as fallen; and so great was his inability to perform any act of worship, that he could not have addressed himself to God, in a right manner, that he would admit of a surety; and God cannot hear any prayer but that which is put up to him by faith, which supposes a Mediator, whose purchase and gift it is; and therefore, since the sinful creature could not plead with God by faith, that he would send his Son to be a Mediator, how could he hope to obtain this blessing? it therefore evidently follows, that as a man could not give satisfaction for himself; so he could not find out any one that could or would give it for him. And therefore, the grace of God, in the provision that he has made of such a surety as his own Son, unasked for, unthought of, as well as undeserved, is very illustrious.

3. It was a very great instance of grace in our Saviour, that he was pleased to consent to perform this work for us, without which the justice of God could not have exacted the debt of him; and he being perfectly innocent, could not be obliged to suffer punishment, which it would have been unjust in God to have inflicted, had he not been willing to be charged with our guilt, and to stand in our room and stead. And his grace herein more eminently appears, in that though he knew before-hand all the difficulties, sorrows, and temptations, which he was to meet with in the discharge of this work; yet this did not discourage him from undertaking it; neither was he unapprised of the character of those for whom he undertook it: he knew the rebellion, and guilt contracted thereby, that rendered this necessary, in order to their salvation; and he knew before-hand, that they would, notwithstanding all the engagements he might lay on them to the contrary, discover the greatest ingratitude towards him; and, instead of improving so great an instance of condescending goodness, that they would neglect this great salvation, when purchased by him, and thereby appear to be his greatest enemies, notwithstanding this act of friendship to them, unless he not only engaged to purchase redemption for, but apply it to them, and work those graces in them whereby they might be enabled to give him the glory which is due to him for this great undertaking. And this leads us,

VII. To consider the use of faith in justification, and how, notwithstanding what has been said concerning our being justified by Christ’s righteousness, we may, in other respects, be said to be justified by faith; and also shew what this faith is, whereby we are justified: which being particularly insisted on in the two following answers, we shall proceed to consider them.

Footnote 28:

ומצדיק.

Footnote 29:

The former of these divines call reatus potentialis, the latter, reatus actualis; the former is the immediate consequence of sin, the latter is taken away by justification.

Footnote 30:

Righteousness is taken ordinarily to signify a conformity to laws, or rules of right conduct. Actions, and persons may respectively be denominated righteous. The moral law, which is both distinguishable by the moral sense, and expressly revealed, requires perfect and perpetual rectitude in disposition, purpose, and action. Because none are absolutely conformed to this law, none can fairly claim to be in themselves, simply, and absolutely righteous. Men are said therefore to be righteous comparatively, or because the defects of many of their actions are few, or not discernible by their fellow men. To be made, (or constituted) righteous, or, to be justified, in the sight of God, in scriptural language cannot mean, to be made inherently righteous. It is God who justifies, he cannot call evil good, and cannot be ignorant of every man’s real demerit. This righteousness of the saint has not consisted, under any dispensation, in his own conformity to the Divine law; “In the Lord have I righteousness;” “That I may win Christ and be found in him, not having my own righteousness.” If it did, there would be no necessity for the aid of God’s Spirit to sanctify the nature of the justified person. To be justified or constituted righteous, is therefore to be treated and accepted as righteous. If God justifies the ungodly, his truth and justice must be clear. He cannot be induced to depart from perfect rectitude, and strict propriety. When the ungodly are justified, or treated as if righteous, it is not on their own account, for their righteousness is defective; but by the obedience of one, (that is Christ,) many are made righteous. The term obedience excludes the essential righteousness of Christ as God. And his righteousness which he rendered in our nature can neither be transfused into, nor transferred unto his people, so as to be theirs inherently. Nor can an infinitely wise God consider the righteousness of one man to be the personal righteousness of another. But one person may receive advantages from the righteousness of another. Sodom would have been spared if there could have been found ten holy men in it. Millions may be treated kindly, because of favour or respect had for one of their number espousing the cause of the whole. One man may become the surety of, and perform conditions for many, or pay a ransom for them, and purchase them from slavery. If it be said that one may not lay down his life, especially if it be important, for the preservation of another’s; yet Christ was the Lord of life and possessed what no mere creature can, the right to lay down his life, and power to take it up again. The importance of the satisfaction should be adequate to the honour of the law. But that every objection to such substitution might be removed, it is shewn that, this was the very condition upon which the restoration of the saints was suspended in the purposes of God before man was created; and was promised us in Christ Jesus before the world began. Justice therefore can neither object to the substitution, nor withhold the rewards.

Footnote 31:

Splendida peccata.

Footnote 32:

See Vol. II. Page 275.

Footnote 33:

The distinction often used in the civil law between fide-jussor and expromissor, or a person’s being bound together with the original debtor, and the creditor’s being left to his liberty to exact the debt of which of the two he pleases, which is called fide-jussor; and the surety’s taking the debt upon himself, so as that he who contracted it is hereby discharged, which is what we understand by expromissor, has been considered elsewhere. See Vol. II. Page 174, 186.

Footnote 34:

Volenti non fit injuria.

Footnote 35:

See Vol. II. Page 281.

Footnote 36:

See Vol. II. page 288.

Footnote 37:

See Vol. II. page 280-293.

Footnote 38:

חשב λογιζω.

Footnote 39:

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 suspect 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, or 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,[40] 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.

First: It is applied to the charging, reckoning, or placing to the account of persons and things, THAT WHICH PROPERLY BELONGS TO THEM. 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.”[41] 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.[42]

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 with a view to his being punished.

Secondly: It is applied to the charging, reckoning, or placing to the account of persons and things, THAT WHICH DOES NOT PROPERLY BELONG TO THEM, AS THOUGH IT DID. This I consider as its improper or figurative meaning. In this sense the word is used in the following passages—“And this your heave-offering shall be reckoned unto you as though it were the corn of the threshing-floor 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 aught, put that on mine account.”[43]

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 having respect to the promised Messiah, and so to his righteousness as the ground of acceptance.[44] Justification is ascribed to faith, as healing frequently is in the New Testament; not as that from 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.”[45]

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 αμαρτια (sin) as frequently meaning a sin-offering. Dr. Owen so interprets it in his answer to Biddle,[46] though it seems he afterwards changed his mind. Considering the opposition 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 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.”[47] 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.”[48] 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 punishment?

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.

James. This I cannot admit. Real and proper punishment, if I understand the terms, is not only the infliction of natural evil for the commission of moral evil; but the infliction of the one upon the person who committed the other, and in displeasure against him. It not only supposes criminality, but that the party punished was literally the criminal. Criminality committed by one party, and imputed to another, is not a ground for real and proper punishment. If Paul had sustained the punishment due to Onesimus for having wronged his master, yet it would not have been real and proper punishment to him, but suffering only, as not being inflicted in displeasure against him. I am aware of what has been said on this subject, that there was a more intimate union between Christ and those for whom he died, than could ever exist between creatures. But be it so, it is enough for me that the union was not such as THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE ONE BECAME THOSE OF THE OTHER. Christ, even in the act of offering himself a sacrifice, when, to speak in the language of the Jewish law, the sins of the people were put or laid upon him, gave himself nevertheless THE JUST FOR THE UNJUST.

Peter. And thus it is that you understand the words of Isaiah, The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all?

James. Yes, he bore the punishment due to our sins, or that which, considering the dignity of his person, was equivalent to it. The phrase “He shall bear his iniquity,” which so frequently occurs in the Old Testament, means, he shall bear the punishment due to his iniquity.

Peter. And yet you deny that Christ’s sufferings were properly penal.

James. You would not deny eternal life which is promised to believers to be properly a reward; but you would deny its being a real and proper reward TO THEM.

Peter. And what then?

James. If eternal life, though it be a reward, and we partake of it, yet is really and properly the reward of Christ’s obedience, and not our’s; then the sufferings of Christ, though they were a punishment, and he sustained it, yet were really and properly the punishment of our sins, and not his. What he bore was punishment: that is, it was the expression of divine displeasure against transgressors. So what we enjoy is reward: that is, it is the expression of God’s well-pleasedness in the obedience and death of his Son. But neither is the one a punishment to him, nor the other, properly speaking, a reward to us.

There appears to me great accuracy in the scriptural language on this subject. What our Saviour underwent is almost always expressed by the term suffering. Once it is called a chastisement: yet there he is not said to have been chastised; but “the chastisement of our peace was upon him.” This is the same as saying he bore our punishment. He was made a curse for us: that is, having been reckoned, or accounted the sinner, as though he had actually been so, he was treated accordingly, as one that had deserved to be an outcast from heaven and earth. I believe the wrath of God that was due to us was poured upon him, but I do not believe that God for one moment was angry or displeased with him, or that he smote him from any such displeasure.

There is a passage in Calvin’s Institutes, which so fully expresses my mind, that I hope you will excuse me if I read it. You will find it in Bk. ii. chap. xvi. § 10, 11. “It behoved him that he should, as it were, hand to hand, wrestle with the armies of hell, and the horror of eternal death. The chastisement of our peace was laid upon him. He was smitten of his Father for our crimes, and bruised for our iniquities: whereby is meant that he was put in the stead of the wicked, as surety and pledge, yea, and as the very guilty person himself, to sustain and bear away all the punishments that should have been laid upon them, save only that he could not be holden of death. Yet do we not mean that God was at any time either his enemy, or angry with him. For how could he be angry with his beloved Son, upon whom his mind rested? Or how could Christ by his intercession appease his Father’s wrath towards others, if, full of hatred, he had been incensed against himself? But this is our meaning—that he sustained the weight of the divine displeasure; inasmuch as he, being stricken and tormented by the hand of God, DID FEEL ALL THE TOKENS OF GOD WHEN HE IS ANGRY AND PUNISHETH.”

Peter. The words of scripture are very express—He hath made him to be sin for us—He was made a curse for us.—You may, by diluting and qualifying interpretations, soften what you consider as intolerable harshness. In other words, you may choose to correct the language and sentiments of inspiration, and teach the apostle to speak of his Lord with more decorum, lest his personal purity should be impeached, and lest the odium of the cross, annexed by divine law, remain attached to his death: but if you abide by the obvious meaning of the passages, you must hold with a commutation of persons, the imputation of sin and of righteousness, and a vicarious punishment, equally pregnant with execration as with death.

John. I wish brother Peter would forbear the use of language which tends not to convince, but to irritate.

James. If there be any thing convincing in it, I confess I do not perceive it. I admit with Mr. Charnock, “That Christ was ‘made sin’ as if he had sinned all the sins of men; and we are ‘made righteousness,’ as if we had not sinned at all.” What more is necessary to abide by the obvious meaning of the words? To go further must be to maintain that Christ’s being made sin means that he was literally rendered wicked, and that his being made a curse is the same thing as his being punished for it according to his deserts. Brother Peter, I am sure, does not believe this shocking position: but he seems to think there is a medium between his being treated as if he were a sinner, and his being one. If such a medium there be, I should be glad to discover it: at present it appears to me to have no existence.

Brother Peter will not suspect me, I hope, of wishing to depreciate his judgment, when I say, that he appears to me to be attached to certain terms without having sufficiently weighed their import. In most cases I should think it a privilege to learn of him: but in some things I cannot agree with him. In order to maintain the real and proper punishment of Christ, he talks of his being “guilty by imputation.” The term guilty, I am aware, is often used by theological writers for an obligation to punishment, and so applies to that voluntary obligation which Christ came under to sustain the punishment of our sins: but strictly speaking, guilt is the desert of punishment; and this can never apply but to the offender. It is the opposite of innocence. A voluntary obligation to endure the punishment of another is not guilt, any more than a consequent exemption from obligation in the offender, is innocence. Both guilt and innocence are transferable in their effects, but in themselves they are untransferable. To say that Christ was reckoned or counted in the divine administration as if he were the sinner, and came under an obligation to endure the curse or punishment due to our sins, is one thing: but to say he deserved that curse, is another. Guilt, strictly speaking, is the inseparable attendant of transgression, and could never therefore for one moment occupy the conscience of Christ. If Christ by imputation became deserving of punishment, we by non-imputation cease to deserve it; and if our demerits be literally transferred to him, his merits must of course be the same to us: and then, instead of approaching God as guilty and unworthy, we might take consequence to ourselves before him, as not only guiltless, but meritorious beings.

Peter. Some who profess to hold that believers are justified by the righteousness of Christ, deny, nevertheless, that his obedience itself is imputed to them: for they maintain that the scripture represents believers as receiving only the benefits, or effects of Christ’s righteousness in justification, or their being pardoned and accepted for Christ’s righteousness sake.—But it is not merely for the sake of Christ, or of what he has done, that believers are accepted of God, and treated as completely righteous; but it is IN him as their Head, Representative, and Substitute; and by the imputation of that very obedience which as such he performed to the divine law, that they are justified.

James. I have no doubt but that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness presupposes a union with him; since there is no perceivable fitness in bestowing benefits on one for another’s sake where there is no union or relation subsisting between them. It is not such a union, however, as that THE ACTIONS OF EITHER BECOME THOSE OF THE OTHER. That “the scriptures represent believers as receiving only the benefits or the effects of Christ’s righteousness in justification,” is a remark of which I am not able to perceive the fallacy: nor does it follow that his obedience itself is not imputed to them. Obedience itself may be and is imputed, while its effects only are imparted, and consequently received. I never met with a person who held the absurd notion of imputed benefits, or imputed punishments; and am inclined to think there never was such a person. Be that however as it may, sin on the one hand and righteousness on the other, are the proper objects of imputation; but that imputation consists in charging or reckoning them to the account of the party in such a way as to impart to him their evil or beneficial effects.

Peter. The doctrine for which I contend as taught by the apostle Paul, is neither novel, nor more strongly expressed than it has formerly been by authors of eminence.

James. It may be so. We have been told of an old protestant writer who says, that “In Christ, and by him, every true Christian may be called a fulfiller of the law:” but I see not why he might not as well have added, Every true Christian may be said to have been slain, and, if not to have redeemed himself by his own blood, yet to be worthy of all that blessing, and honour, and glory, that shall be conferred upon him in the world to come.—What do you think of Dr. CRISP’S Sermons? Has he not carried your principles to an extreme?

Peter. I cordially agree with WITSIUS, as to the impropriety of calling Christ a sinner, truly a sinner, the greatest of sinners, &c. yet I am far from disapproving of what Dr. CRISP, and some others, meant by those exceptionable expressions.

James. If a Christian may be called a fulfiller of the law, on account of Christ’s obedience being imputed to him, I see not why Christ may not be called a transgressor of the law, on account of our disobedience being imputed to him. Persons and things should be called what they are. As to the meaning of Dr. CRISP, I am very willing to think he had no ill design: but my concern is with the meaning which his words convey to his readers. He considers God in charging our sins on Christ, and accounting his righteousness to us, as reckoning of things as they are. (p. 280.) He contends that Christ was really the sinner, or guilt could not have been laid upon him. (p. 272.) Imputation of sin and righteousness, with him, is literally and actually A TRANSFER OF CHARACTER; and it is the object of his reasoning to persuade his believing hearers that from henceforward Christ is the sinner, and not they. “Hast thou been an idolater, says he; a blasphemer, a despiser of God’s word, a profaner of his name and ordinances, a thief, a liar, a drunkard—If thou hast part in Christ, all these transgressions of thine become actually the transgressions of Christ, and so cease to be thine; and thou ceasest to be a transgressor from the time they were laid upon Christ, to the last hour of thy life: so that now thou art not an idolater, a persecutor, a thief, a liar, &c.—thou art not a sinful person. Reckon whatever sin you commit, when as you have part in Christ, you are all that Christ was, and Christ is all that you were.”

If the meaning of this passage be true and good, I see nothing exceptionable in the expressions. All that can be said is, that the writer explicitly states his principle and avows its legitimate consequences. I believe the principle to be false.—(1.) Because neither sin nor righteousness are in themselves transferable. The act and deed of one person may affect another in many ways, but cannot possibly become his act and deed.—(2.) Because the scriptures uniformly declare Christ to be sinless, and believers to be sinful creatures.—(3.) Because believers themselves have in all ages confessed their sins, and applied to the mercy-seat for forgiveness. They never plead such an union as shall render their sins not theirs, but Christ’s; but merely such a one as affords ground to apply for pardon in his name, or for his sake; not as worthy claimants, but as unworthy supplicants.

Whatever reasonings we may give into, there are certain times in which conscience will bear witness, that notwithstanding the imputation of our sins to Christ, we are actually the sinners; and I should have thought no good man could have gravely gone about to overturn its testimony. Yet this is what Dr. Crisp has done. “Believers think, says he, that they find their transgressions in their own consciences, and they imagine that there is a sting of this poison still behind, wounding them: but, beloved, if this principle be received for a truth, that God hath laid thy iniquities on Christ, how can thy transgressions, belonging to Christ, be found in thy heart and conscience?—Is thy conscience Christ?” p. 269.

Perhaps no man has gone further than Dr. CRISP in his attempts at consistency; and admitting his principle, that imputation consists in a transfer of character, I do not see who can dispute his conclusions. To have been perfectly consistent, however, he should have proved that all the confessions and lamentations of believers, recorded in scripture, arose from their being under the mistake which he labours to rectify; that is, thinking sin did not cease to be theirs, even when under the fullest persuasion that the Lord would not impute it to them, but would graciously cover it by the righteousness of his Son.—— ——

John. I think, brother Peter, you expressed at the beginning of our conversation, a strong suspicion that brother James denied the substitution of Christ, as well as the proper imputation of sin and righteousness. What has passed on the latter subject would probably tend either to confirm or remove your suspicions respecting the former.

Peter. I confess I was mistaken in some of my suspicions. I consider our friend as a good man; but am far from being satisfied with what I still understand to be his views on this important subject.

John. It gives me great pleasure to hear the honest concessions of brethren, when they feel themselves in any measure to have gone too far.

Peter. I shall be glad to hear brother James’s statement on substitution, and to know whether he considers our Lord in his undertaking as having sustained the character of a Head, or Representative; and if so, whether the persons for whom he was a substitute were the elect only, or mankind in general.

James. I must acknowledge that on this subject I feel considerably at a loss, I have no consciousness of having ever called the doctrine of substitution in question. On the contrary, my hope of salvation rests upon it; and the sum of my delight, as a minister of the gospel, consists in it. If I know any thing of my own heart, I can say of my Saviour as laying down his life for, or instead of sinners, as was said of Jerusalem by the captives—If I forget THEE, let my right hand forget: If I do not remember THEE, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!

I have always considered the denial of this doctrine as being of the essence of Socinianism. I could not have imagined that any person whose hope of acceptance with God rests not on any goodness in himself but entirely on the righteousness of Christ, imputed to him as if it were his own, would have been accounted to disown his substitution. But perhaps, my dear brother, (for such I feel him to be, notwithstanding our differences,) may include in his ideas of this subject, that Christ was so our head and representative, as that what he did and suffered, we did and suffered in him.—If no more were meant by this, resumed James, than that what he did and suffered is graciously accepted on our behalf as if it were ours, I freely, as I have said before, acquiesce in it. But I do not believe, and can hardly persuade myself that brother Peter believes, the obedience and sufferings of Christ to be so ours, as that we can properly be said to have obeyed and suffered.

Christ was and is our head, and we are his members: the union between him and us, however, is not in all respects the same as that which is between the head and the members of the natural body: for that would go to explain away all distinct consciousness and accountableness on our part.

As to the term representative, if no more be meant by it than that Christ so personated us as to die in our stead, that we, believing in him, should not die, I have nothing to object to it. But I do not believe that Christ was so our representative, as that what he did and suffered, we did and suffered; and so became meritorious, or deserving of the divine favour.—But I feel myself in a wide field, and must entreat your indulgence while I take up so much of the conversation.

Peter and John. Go on, and state your sentiments without apology.

James. I apprehend then that many important mistakes have arisen from considering the interposition of Christ under the notion of paying a debt. The blood of Christ is indeed the price of our redemption, or that for the sake of which we are delivered from the curse of the law: but this metaphorical language, as well as that of head and members, may be carried too far, and may lead us into many errors. In cases of debt and credit among men, where a surety undertakes to represent the debtor, from the moment his undertaking is accepted, the debtor is free, and may claim his liberty, not as a matter of favour, at least on the part of the creditor, but of strict justice. Or should the undertaking be unknown to him for a time, yet as soon as he knows it, he may demand his discharge, and, it may be, think himself hardly treated by being kept in bondage so long after his debt had been actually paid. But who in their sober senses will imagine this to be analagous to the redemption of sinners by Jesus Christ? Sin is a debt only in a metaphorical sense: properly speaking, it is a crime, and satisfaction for it requires to be made, not on pecuniary, but on moral principles. If Philemon had accepted of that part of Paul’s offer which respected property, and had placed so much to his account as he considered Onesimus to have “owed” him, he could not have been said to have remitted his debt; nor would Onesimus have had to thank him for remitting it. But it is supposed of Onesimus that he might not only be in debt to his master, but have “wronged” him. Perhaps he had embezzled his goods, corrupted his children, or injured his character. Now for Philemon to accept of that part of the offer, were very different from the other. In the one case he would have accepted of a pecuniary representative; in the other of a moral one; that is, of a mediator. The satisfaction in the one case would annihilate the idea of remission; but not in the other. Whatever satisfaction Paul might give to Philemon respecting the wound inflicted upon his character and honour as the head of a family, it would not supersede the necessity of pardon being sought by the offender, and freely bestowed by the offended.

The reason of this difference is easily perceived. Debts are transferable; but crimes are not. A third person may cancel the one; but he can only obliterate the effects of the other; the desert of the criminal remains. The debtor is accountable to his creditor as a private individual, who has power to accept of a surety, or if he please, to remit the whole, without any satisfaction. In the one case he would be just; in the other merciful: but no place is afforded by either of them for the combination of justice and mercy in the same proceeding. The criminal, on the other hand, is amenable to the magistrate, or to the head of a family, as a public person, and who, especially if the offence be capital, cannot remit the punishment without invading law and justice, nor in the ordinary discharge of his office, admit of a third person to stand in his place. In extraordinary cases, however, extraordinary expedients are resorted to. A satisfaction may be made to law and justice, as to the spirit of them, while the letter is dispensed with. The well-known story of Zaleucus, the Grecian law-giver, who consented to lose one of his eyes to spare one of his son’s eyes, who by transgressing the law had subjected himself to the loss of both, is an example. Here, as far as it went, justice and mercy were combined in the same act: and had the satisfaction been much fuller than it was, so full that the authority of the law, instead of being weakened, should have been abundantly magnified and honoured, still it had been perfectly consistent with free forgiveness.

Finally: In the case of the debtor, satisfaction being once accepted, justice requires his complete discharge: but in that of the criminal, where satisfaction is made to the wounded honour of the law, and the authority of the lawgiver, justice, though it admits of his discharge, yet no otherwise requires it than as it may have been matter of promise to the substitute.

I do not mean to say that cases of this sort afford a competent representation of redemption by Christ. That is a work which not only ranks with extraordinary interpositions, but which has no parallel: it is a work of God, which leaves all the petty concerns of mortals infinitely behind it. All that comparisons can do, is to give us some idea of the principle on which it proceeds.

If the following passage in our admired Milton were considered as the language of the law of innocence, it would be inaccurate—

“——Man disobeying,

He with his whole posterity must die: Die he, or justice must; unless for him Some other able, and as willing, pay The rigid satisfaction, death for death.”

Abstractedly considered, this is true; but it is not expressive of what was the revealed law of innocence. The law made no such condition, or provision; nor was it indifferent to the law-giver who should suffer, the sinner, or another on his behalf. The language of the law to the transgressor was not thou shalt die, or some one on thy behalf; but simply thou shalt die: and had it literally taken its course, every child of man must have perished. The sufferings of Christ in our stead, therefore, are not a punishment inflicted in the ordinary course of distributive justice; but an extraordinary interposition of infinite wisdom and love: not contrary to, but rather above the law, deviating from the letter, but more than preserving the spirit of it. Such, brethren, as well as I am able to explain them, are my views of the substitution of Christ.

Peter. The objection of our so stating the substitution of Christ, as to leave no room for the free pardon of sin, has been often made by those who avowedly reject his satisfaction; but for any who really consider his death as an atonement for sin, and as essential to the ground of a sinner’s hope, to employ the objection against us, is very extraordinary, and must, I presume, proceed from inadvertency.

James. If it be so, I do not perceive it. The grounds of the objection have been stated as clearly and as fully as I am able to state them.

FULLER

Footnote 40:

חשב; λογιζομαι.

Footnote 41:

1 Sam. i. 13. Neh. xiii. 13. 1 Cor. iv. 1. 2 Cor. x. 11. Rom. viii. 18.

Footnote 42:

2 Sam. xix. 19. Ps. xxxii. 2. 2 Tim. iv. 16.

Footnote 43:

Num. xviii. 27-30. Job xiii. 24. Rom. ii. 26. Philem. 18.

Footnote 44:

Expository Discourses on Gen. xv. 1-6. Also Calvin’s Inst. bk. iii. ch. xi. § 7.

Footnote 45:

Inst. bk. iii. ch. xi. § 2.

Footnote 46:

p. 510.

Footnote 47:

Lev. xvi. 21.

Footnote 48:

Lev. i. 4, 5.