Why the atoning sufferings of Christ were necessary in the gospel.

THE atoning sufferings of Christ, were necessary in the gospel scheme, for the same reason, as the eternal misery of the sinner was under the law; to make a display of God's moral character-of his righteousness as king of the universe-of his sense of the turpitude of the sinners principles and practice-and also the nature of benevolence, in its high and infinite source, Godhead himself. If God had been governed by revenge or personal resentment against the sinner, there would have been no possibility of a gospel; and the transgressor must have borne the necessary misery himself. But as the divine motive, in this matter, was > solely the public benefit; and as the sinner's misery was solely to answer a public and governmental end, God might accept as a substitute, whatever would answer the same purposes in government, and equally conduce to the blessedness of the universe. Whatever would make an equal display of the same truths might be accepted in the stead of the sinner's eternal misery. The sufferings of Christ, who was both God and man, would in a limited time make this display in a higher degree than the eternal sufferings of the whole universe; and therefore his sufferings might be accepted by God in justice to his government, in the stead of so many sinners, as infinite wisdom saw it would be best to sanctify and forgive. By the suffering of Christ, all those truths which relate to the divine character, the support of his government, and the unchangeable obligation of the law, are seen in a brighter manner, than they could be by any suffering of the sinner under the law. It is thus that the gospel opens a greater view of God and the holy system, and prepares the way for higher happiness.

THREE CONVERSATIONS,

ON

Imputation, Substitution, and Particular
Redemption,

BY ANDREW FULLER.

CONVERSATION THE FIRST.

ON IMPUTATION.

PETER and James considered each other as good

men, and had for several years been in the habit of corresponding on divine subjects. Their respect was mutual. Their sentiments, however, though alike in the main, were not exactly the same; and some circumstances had lately occurred, which tended rather to magnify the difference than to lessen it. Being both at the house of John, their common friend, they in his company fell into the following conversation.

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 relinguish 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,* signifies in general, to charge, reckon, or place to account, according to the different objects to which it is applied. This word, like many

ɔwn; Logizomai.

others, has a proper, and an improper or figurative meaning.

First: It is applied to the charging, reckoning, or filacing 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 in deed 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. 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 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.t

kim;

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

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

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

Y

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 círcumcision-If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, put that on mine account.'

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.† 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

Num. xviii. 27-30. Job. xiii. 24. Rom. ii. 26. Philem. 18. Expository Discourses on Gen. xv. 1-6. Also Calvin's Inst. bk. iii. ch. xi. § 7.