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.