Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

tation to a mere nonentity. His words are, "Dr. W. affirms that justifying righteousness becomes the sinner's property before impu. tation, and that imputation is nothing more than a reckoning this righteousness to the sinner's account, after he has secured it in another way." Thus, then,my doc. trine reduces imputation to a mere nonentity! Let us examine this, and see how it will work. Such is the parallelism between the federal representation in the covevant of works, and that in the covenant of grace, it is immaterial which of them we take for illustration. We shall begin with the covenant of works. Now, let us see what this doctrine of mine is, which thus reduces imputation to a mere nonentity. I maintain that God charges us with sin-sets it to our accountreckons it to us, or imputes it to us, because we are guilty, i. e. because we are sinners. Mr. P. on the other hand maintains that we become guilty in consequence of God's imputing Adam's personal sin to us. It must be admitted that this imputation is indeed no nonentity. It gives an awful efficiency to imputationthe rendering guilty those who were not guilty before. My doc. trine is, that all are sinners in Adam. So say the Westminster divines: "all mankind sinned in him, and fell with him." But how they sinned in him, and yet were not guilty; or how they sinned, and yet were not sinners, until God made them so by imputing it to them, I cannot so easily comprehend. But we have higher authority than the Westmin

ster divines. The apostle Paul informs us by the Holy Ghost, that "by one man's disobedience many (i. e. all) were made sin

ners.

Here, that which makes and constitutes mankind sinners, that is, renders them guilty before God, is the federal act, in which all participated by repre. sentative identification. The guilt here, by the apostle, is referred to a human act, and not to the act of an infinitely holy God. Is there iniquity with God? God forbid! Our sin and guilt are our own. God justly charges us with it, which he could not do if we were not guilty.

But if Mr. P. infers the nonentity of my doctrine of imputa. tion because I maintain that the individual must be chargeable be fore an infinitely just God can charge him with sin or guilt, I would wish to know whether he will admit that God imputed to Adam his own personal sin, i. e. charged him with it, or set it to his account. Would God's im. putation, I say, of his own sin to Adam, render the imputation a nullity because he surely had it ere God charged him with it? Does imputation in this lose all its efficiency? How differently did David believe on this point when he says, "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sin." But if imputation of guilt previously attaching be a mere nullity, I can see no blessedness in non-imputation of sin, above its imputation. Equally unmeaning would be the apos. tle's prayer, that the sin of his brethren in abandoning him on his first examination at Rome

"might not be laid to their charge," i. e. be imputed unto them.

As Mr. P. and I are agreed about federal representation, we must also unite in admitting that the same process of reasoning will apply to the imputation of Christ's righteousness in the mo. ment of regeneration. Permit me here to remark, that, although the elect are chosen in Christ from all eternity, yet they come into existence under the curse" by nature children of wrath, even as others;" yet to this federal union, constituted in eternity, are attached blessings beyond all calculation. It secures their future existence, guaranties their safety, and ultimately their complete redemption and eternal felicity. Our blessed Lord himself lay under the arrest of justice, endured the curse of the law, and was made sin for us. Is it strange, then, if those he came to redeem, and with whom from eternity he was federally identified, should begin to exist, and continue some time under the curse? It is their union to Jesus in regeneration by the bond of the Spirit that consummates their title to all the privileges of their legal identity with him, and con. sequently their interest in all he did and suffered in their room and stead. Here is the ground of imputation, and consequently justification of the sinner before God. These remarks are designed to obviate any apprehen. sions which might arise that I advocate the doctrine of eternal justification. This I never be. lieved, but did, since I ever un

derstood the expression, most unequivocally reject.

But let us now more particu. larly apply this same principle of reasoning to the federal representation in the covenant of grace. I maintain that it would be equally unjust in God to impute righteousness to a person who in no sense has it, as to im. pute sin to one who is not guilty who is in no sense a sinner. I say in no sense a sinner. For surely Mr. P. could not suppose that I, or any person in his senses, could believe that Adam's pos terity could be personally guilty of any thing before they existed. But I did believe, and say, that they, being federally in Adam, sinned in him and fell with him in his first transgression. In what sense, then, were they guilty? I say they were legally chargeable. Suppose Mr. P. should send to London a suffi. ciently accredited agent or commissioner, to purchase goods in his name on twelve months' credit, and order his agent to insure them. He neglects this part of his instructions. The vessel is lost. Would Mr. P. be liable to pay at the expiration of the period stipulated? In other words, would he be chargeable? It may be said here, that as Mr. P. appointed the agent, this one personal act covers the whole transaction. Although this could never make any act of the agent personally his, yet let that pass at present, and let us suppose another case, in which the legal guardian of a child yet unborn, with a view to improve the estate for his ward, goes through a si.

their

milar transaction with similar results is the said child liable? In other words, is he a sufferer by the transaction? Still the notion of legal or constitutional iden. tity pervades all these negotiations. So, all who are united to the Lord Jesus Christ by the bond of the Holy Ghost, legally identify with him, and thus his federal righteousness, as surety, becomes theirs, and is available for imputation and justification. Thus "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." Now it is a matter of no consequence in the argument what explanation be given of this faith, which was imputed to Abraham for right. eousness, (though I believe that faith is here put figuratively for the object of faith, i. e. Christ, as made of God, righteousness, or in other words, the righteous. ness of Christ,) because it results not from God's imputation of it to Abraham, but God imputes it be. cause it previously existed. He believed God, and it was imputed, &c. Surely brother P. would not say that in this case the previous existence of the thing imputed nullified the imputation. But in a word, on this point, had not Jesus a most perfect right. eousness wrought out by him as our surety? And did not God give him credit for it, impute it to him when he was justified in the spirit and raised from the dead?

The third observation is, that I am not able to see how the ap. peal of Mr. P. to the Shorter Catechism makes any thing to

his purpose. The venerable monuments of the Reformation I

have ever regarded with no ordi nary attachment. Yet a Greater than a Solomon is here, and must decide this question. To the sacred oracles we must implicitly bow, and with regard to all human authority, bring it to this test. But I have not yet learned that there is any discrepancy between my sentiments and those contained in the Shorter Catechism. There is in that instrument no definition of imputation. But when speaking of covenant representation, in the answer to the sixteenth question, it asserts unqualifiedly, that "The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for all his posterity, all mankind

sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression." Here it is expressly asserted, that all mankind sinned in him, (Adam,) and fell with him. Now I must confess it requires more metaphysics than I possess to comprehend how one can sin in any sense of the word, and yet not be guilty of sin in that same sense. That the scripture authorizes this phraseology and the sentiment it covers is clear from the fifth chapter of the epistle to the Romans: "By one man's" disobedience "sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned -even upon infants--"even those who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's trans. gression." Here the scripture ascribes sin and guilt to man; "all have sinned," even the youngest child-surely not personally but federally. Thus they become guilty in the sight of

[ocr errors]

God; and being guilty, i. e. being sinners, God justly charges them with sin, that is, imputes it to them.

A fourth observation is sug, gested by Mr. P.'s scheme of federal representation. He says "all men were by the ordination of God so federally connected with Adam, that his personal sin was justly accounted to them so as to render them guilty before God." My view of this transaction is, that in virtue of the federal connection, they "sinned in him," (Adam.) Mr. P., if I understand him, denies that they sinned in Adam, or were sinners until God made them so by imputing it to them, or charging them with it, although not previously guilty. For it is undeniable that they either were guilty, that is were sinners, previously to God's imputation of sin to them, or they were not. If they were guilty previously, that is what I maintain. But if they were not previously guilty, then it follows of necessity, that God's act of imputation renders them, although previously innocent, guilty sinners. How dif ferent the language and doctrine of the apostle! He ascribes the act whereby they become guilty to man. By one man's disobe dience many (i. e. all) were made sinners." There is something in this expression of Mr. P.'s, "so federally connected that God might justly charge them, so as to render them guilty," that is not quite clear and intelligible to my apprehenHow a connection involv. ing no guilt, originating no sin, no liability to punishment, that is,

sion.

66

a perfectly sinless connection with Adam, could nevertheless justify God "to charge mankind with sin, so as to render them guilty," is to me somewhat mysterious. According to my view of the sub. ject, all is plain: "All mankind sinned in Adam, and fell with him." And God accordingly charges them as sinners, that is, imputes to them their guilt, federally contracted in the first of

men.

A fifth remark is suggested by Mr. P.'s cautionary hints, which I duly appreciate, and for which I thank him: "We should be cautious in our expressions when considering the deep things of God." To this I heartily accede. It refers to a remark of mine on his view of the manner in which we become sinners. His words are, "To hold that we become sinners in this way, by imputation, Dr. Wylie considers as savoring of rank impiety, inasmuch as it makes God the author of sin." And again, "I would ask Dr. W. if God is not as chargeable with originating sin, on his own scheme? Has he not established the federal connection between Adam and his posterity, in consequence of which they have become sinners?" Now it is obvious, that any retorts of this nature, as predicated on my scheme, must of course be on the presumption of its truth. But supposing my scheme to be true, which identi. fies all with Adam in federal representation, and makes all his posterity, the first moment of their existence, legally as guilty as he was the moment he fell, and all this antecedently to God's

imputation of guilt; and as the constitution of the covenant of works, through which this representative identification was established, was perfectly just; God could, on the footing of that scheme, be no more chargeable with originating sin in Adam's posterity, than he can be chargea. ble with Adam's personal sin, or that of the fallen angels, in consequence of his having created them free and mutable. The federal constitution was just and equitable; it was even gracious. It conferred additional, unmerited favors on our federal head. Had all the posterity of Adam been present, in equal per. fection with himself, they would have most cordially agreed to the terms of the covenant. infinitely just and holy God could not propose any plan to which perfect men would not have instantly acceded. The constitution, therefore, being perfectly just, the representation entirely such as perfect men must have approved, the sinful results must of necessity be referred to themselves. So says Paul, "by one man's disobedience many (i. e. all) were made sinners.'

[ocr errors]

An

Finally-In the course of penning these observations, it more than once occurred to me, that accurate definitions of regenera. tion, imputation, &c., would perhaps remove considerably the difference between Mr. P. and me on this subject. How much does Mr. P. attach to the idea of union to Christ Jesus?-the being

in him, so as to be a new creature? What is it to be legally one with him, so as to be freed from the obligation of the law as a covenant? It does occur to me, that if Mr. P. would enlarge a little his idea of what regeneration implies, the attitude in which union to the Redeemer places us in relation to the law as a covenant, in all its demands, whether of precept or penaltyremembering that there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus: And if, in addition to this, Mr. P. would ascribe a little less to imputation, confining it to the crediting of the sinner with what he has really gotten already in the very act of union to his Savior, our difference would vanish. We both equally believe that we are sinners through our connection with Adam, and can be justified only through the im puted righteousness of the LORD JESUS. We agree on the subject taken complexly; we differ in analytical details. I ascribe more to union to Christ than he does. He ascribes more to im. putation than I do. Their con

tents united unite our sentiments. At all events, let us not fall out by the way, for we are brethren. If in the mean time any expression has escaped my pen which may seem of unkind or unbrotherly aspect, I shall truly regret it, and am ready, in the promptest manner, to make the amende honorable. Farewell.

Yours most respectfully,
S. B. WYLIE.

[blocks in formation]
« PoprzedniaDalej »