صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

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 transgresspr 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."*

I

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. 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 mercyseat 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 * p. 270.

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 hope, my brethren, that what has been said in this free conversation will be reconsidered with candour; and that you will neither of you impute designs or consequences to the other which are not avowed.

CONVERSATION THE SECOND.

ON SUBSTITUTION.

JOHN. I think, brother Peter, you expressed at the beginning of our last 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 Iforget THEE, let my right hand forget: If I do not remember THEE, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!

[James here paused, and wept; and both John and Peter wept with him. After recovering himself a little, he proceeded as follows-]

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. [To this Peter assented.] 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. of Christ is indeed the price of our redemption, or that

The blood

for the sake of which we are delivered from the curse of the law: but this metaporical 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 analo, gous 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

« السابقةمتابعة »