Page images
PDF
EPUB

this righteousness would not be capable of being imputed to them. And truly, if I believed the assumption, I could not get free from the conclusion. And then I must either give up the bible as a poor delusion; or hold it, without being able to see its consistency with any one moral attribute of the Deity. Mr. M.C. does not draw his conclusions too strong, he does not speak too loud; human language has not thunders loud enough to anathematise the idea, that Christ's righteousness is not imputable to every soul of man; that every soul of man, who hears the joyful sound, has not a right, nay, is not bound in duty, bound under everlasting penalties, to accept the proffered life-And that every soul who doth embrace the proffered life, shall enjoy it, so surely as it is true, that God, who cannot lie, hath said it. I therefore go on to demonstrate.

SECTION VI.

That the imputability of Christ's righteousness does not depend in any manner, nor in any degree, on his representative character.

But what! my reader will say, did you not tell me, at the beginning, that the imputability of Adam's guilt depended on his representative character? I did. And

[ocr errors]

did you not admit that the imputation of merit and demerit, in human societies, depended on the representation of those societies by their rulers? I did. And do you assert that the imputability of Christ's merit does not depend on his representative character? I do. I assert, that it does not at all depend on such representation. Will you not then involve yourself in a difficulty by assigning representation as the ground of imputation in the one case, and not in the other? But what if I should get into a difficulty, since I cannot avoid it? At least you had better remove the difficulty before you go farther. No, Sir, I am not fond of difficulties, and keep out of them as long as I can. And I shall tell you how I mean to manage this one. I shall try to demonstrate my doctrine; If I fail in my proof I shall never meet the difficulty-should I succeed in proving that this is the very truth, then I shall hold it in spite of ten thousand difficulties. And whenever I meet a difficulty which I cannot remove, or jump over, I shall plant my standard, and let the commander in chief call a better soldier to carry it farther.

I do not here urge the proof which has been offered, that the assumptiom of the truth of the principle in question, has always corrupted the faith of the gospel; and I should have spared myself the trouble of stating the subject with so much formality: but I thought it a fair occasion to pay an old debt, long due to old foes. We never have met without a battle; and we never shall meet without a battle. They have had their day, and I shall have mine; for the feud is sworn and deadly on both sides. I have showed to all, the very spot on which those who have hitherto corrupted the church's faith, have stumbled. It was by assuming that the im

this publication. I do not believe that his error has yet essentially affected his faith, and perhaps he might continue to hold his otherwise salutary creed. But when I consider that this single mistake has, in all instances, issued in fearful consequence, I must not be slack.

By the righteousness of Jesus Christ, I understand his complete fulfilment of the law of works, both by obeying its precept, and paying the penalty incurred by human transgression. But if you ask why it is meritorious? I ask again, what makes light to be light? what makes truth to be truth? Because it is their nature, you will reply-right! And let me add, that it is the glorious nature of righteousness to be meritorious, according to the nature of the law. Now the law of works was of such a nature, that its righteousness, whenever wrought out, was capable of being imputed to all the subjects of that law. If Adam had fulfilled the law, this righteousness would have been imputable to all mankind. This law Jesus Christ actually fulfilled, and produced its perfect righteousness. But the righteousness which the law required, was a righteousness capable of being imputed to every human being; consequently the righteousness of Jesus Christ is ca pable of being imputed to every man. If he had not produced a righteousness capable of saving every man under the law, he would not have produced the righte ousness of the law. Of consequence, the imputability

Christ's righteousness, springs entirely from the nature of the covenant of works. I call this demonstration unassailable!

The provisions of the covenant of grace have nothing to do with this subject. To whom God will eventually bestow this righteousness-how many he will give to his Son, as the travail of his soul, are questions for them to settle among themselves. They may do what they will with their own. Let no man presume to question them! But the righteousness of the law of works is capable of saving all mankind. If Jesus Christ had not represented a single human creature, still his righteousness would have been what it is, the righteousness of the law. If he had represented the whole, still his righteousness would not have been any thing else than what it is, the righteousness of the law. Should all men reject it, it would still be the righteousness of the law that they rejected; and should all men accept it, it would be nothing more than the righteousness of the law. It was not the representative character of Jesus in the covenant of grace, but the representative character of Adam in the covenant of works, that rendered the righteousness of that law capable of being imputed to mankind.

And now, reader, I have finished my demonstration, and do honestly believe, that I have proved that the imputability of Christ's righteousness does not depend in any manner, nor in any degree, on his representative character in the covenant. And it would, perhaps, be doing thee no disservice to leave thy difficulty to be solved by thy own ingenuity. Yet I shall just touch it with the wand of truth, to enfeeble it a little; it is not with the trouble of dissection.

The reason why Adam's merit or demerit was im

[merged small][ocr errors]

putable, by reason of his representative characterand why the imputability of Christ's righteousness does not depend on his representative character, is this: the former was an original institute-the latter a remedial law.

Mr. M'C. will understand me. He once studied law; and has enriched our ecclesiastical vocabulary with (what it could well have spared) a new word from that source. He can turn to his Blackstone, or any other elementary legal philosopher, on the nature of remedial statutes. He will find the following to be the amount of the doctrine. An original law establishes its own principle: and the covenant of works establishes its principle, that the righteousness of Adam, or his guilt, should be transmissible to all mankind. I say this representative principle was established by the covenant of works, and by it alone. I have already discussed that covenant, and shall not repeat my observations. Mr. M'C. thinks otherwise.-Page 26.

"And, now, in what column of this array do you find any other connecting principle than the one which I avowed? We were told, indeed, by Mr. Craig, when this matter was discussed, that the covenant itself is the bond of union.That is, in plain English, the covenant of works is the bond of the covenant of works. Now I should have supposed that the covenant of works was the bond which united together the Creator and the creature in a covenant relation; and I should have imagined, that to say so, however orthodox the sentiment, would have been to assert a mere truism which nobody need repeat. But the question is not, what binds humanity in a covenant relation with God? But, what binds all the human race together? What is it that identifies them with Adam, their common

« PreviousContinue »