Page images
PDF
EPUB

II. Prop. Pardon is the way by which guilt is removed in the bible plan of redemption.

mercy can never take precedence of justice. No; we never suppose obligation can be removed at the pleasure of him that is obligated. He may ful- This our reason could never have fil its demands; but never may nor told us. Had not God revealed himcan release himself from its demands. self merciful and gracious, our reason So that if we suppose Deity inclined could never have said to him, 'there to exercise mercy, not only his moral is forgiveness with thee, that thou perfections would forbid it, but this ob-mayest be feared." But where realigation to punish the transgressor, son fails, God has abundantly supplied would restrain pardon, so long as it ex- light. To the word, therefore, and isted; and it must exist till justice is the testimony, to make out this propsatisfied. Hence "without the shed-osition. And the first thing I shall adding of blood," blood which would duce is God's declaration of himself to satisfy justice," there is no remission." be "the Lord, the Lord God, merciBefore I proceed to the next proposi-ful and gracious, long suffering, and tion, I will remark, that these four || abundant in goodness and truth, keepprinciples, viz. obligation to punish- ing mercy for thousands, forgiving inment, and pardon for its demands-ob-iquity, and transgression, and sin, and ligation to punish, and expiation for that will by no means clear the guilty." its demands, are so closely connected,|| Here God declares that he is a parthat I know of no text which contains doning God; and yet another part of one without another, and frequently this declaration seems to deny this.— all of them. Hence some texts seem Now if God forgives, he must forgive to place that which expiates the obli- the guilty, and if he forgives the guilgation to punish, as the expiation of ty he must [by that act] clear him of the obligation to punishment. Hence the consequences of his guilt, or the the idea which some entertain with re-forgiveness is nothing; therefore this gard to imputed righteousness.[c] act will contradict the literal import of

وو

[c] Having, as they suppose, ascertain- foundation:" And " 2d. a will of dealing ed that the obligation to punishment is not with us, or an actual dealing with us acgiven up only by its demands being satis-cording unto that made ours.' The first fied, they conclude, and believe they find particular is that to which I exclusively texts to substantiate it, that eternal life is refer, and object. It would seem from obtained only upon some just ground of this as if they were unwilling to receive claim. But as man is unrighteous and can- the blessings of immortality, as free gifts not have it in himself, and as the righteous-dispensed by mercy and grace-grace, too, ness of sanctification is not this ground, as it respects the giver as well as receiver; but rather a benefit derived by this claim, they go to that very scheme of salvation which is nothing but grace and mercy from beginning to end, that plan which God most graciously devised for the recovery of fallen, lost man, to find a ground of claim to that eternal life which this plan of redemption brought to light-and this they find in an imputation of such a nature as brings with it a grant of a "right and title unto eternal life." This imputation includes in it, 1st.* a grant or donation of the thing itself, (viz. righteousness) unto us, to be ours on some just ground and

[ocr errors]

that is, to confer which there exists no ob
ligation of any kind, binding the giver to
give-but they must have these blessings
by right and title,' although the right
and title' is a grant-so that the blessings
themselves they obtain by claim-the
claim by grace. Imputation I understand
the bible to represent to be a dealing›
with us, in view of what our Saviour has
done "to declare the righteousness of God,
that he might be just, and the justifier of
him that believeth in Jesus,” as if we were
righteous--& this not on account of a right-
eousness" made ours." It is the same as
is exemplified in the case of Shimei, 2
Sam. xix. chap. 19. v.
Shimei beseeches
David to deal with him as if he had not

* See Owen on Justification, Chap. VII, page 233, from which all the quo-been a traitor. He does not request that tations of this note are taken, Scrip- David would repute him loyal, but not to ture excepted. impute his iniquity, that is, certainly, if it

one part of the declaration he has | Christ. First, the Paschal Lamb. This made of himself. But God cannot was killed, that the angel of the Lord contradict himself; therefore the lit- in his course of destruction, might eral import of both parts of this decla-pass over the houses whose door-posts ration cannot be true-therefore one were sprinkled with its blood-not to of them must be taken in a sense dif- take away the desert of this destrucferent from what it bears on the facetion of the first born. Now if this deof it. I therefore believe the phrase,struction was deserved, the Israelites "that will by no means clear the guil-were deserving also; and if deserving, ty," refers to his regard for his own it is certain there is no intimation that character while he forgives; and means the desert was taken away by this that he does not disregard his right blood; but says God," the blood shall and obligation to punish the offender be a token on the houses where you when he forgives the transgression. 'Iare, and when I see the blood I will forgive you; but I do not do it in such pass over you:" not a token that your a way as to bring a stain on my own desert of judgment is taken away, but most holy name. In such a way I by a sign where were those who believed no means clear the guilty."* The in God, that he would spare those who next proof is taken from the types of owned him a righteous and faithful

66

means any thing, that he would not deal not imputing sin is the imputing rightwith him according to his sin, that is, pun-eousness; that is, the "dealing" with ish him; but deal with him as if he had them as if they had not sinned, is the not sinned; that is, as if he had adhered" dealing " with them as if they were to his cause, and so David understood it, righteous. Paul, as appears from v. 6. for he says, "thou shalt not die," "and he viewed it in this light. To exhibit the sware unto him." For, said David, do I "blessedness of the man to whom God imnot know I am this day king in Israel?"puteth righteousness," he quotes a text in This is the reason why he would not pun-which this blessedness is declared to reish Shimei. And the reason why God will sult from the not imputing sin; and of not punish believers, is the mediation of of course, (the 6th v. more than implies it) his Son-for his sake he will not impute the imputing of righteousness, because their sin. “As David also describeth the the dealing with a man as if he were not blessedness of the man to whom God im- a sinner, is the dealing' with him as if puteth righteousness without works; say- he were righteous; but by no means iming, blessed are they whose iniquities are plies that in this imputation there is incluforgiven, and whose sins are covered; bles-ded the donation of a righteousness, and sed is the man to whom the Lord will not therefore a dealing' with him "accord. impute sin." Cometh this blessedness,' ing unto it." And here is the propriety of according to Dr. Owen, "upon the inter-believing in Jesus in order to justification. veniency" of " a donation "of righteous- If there could be such a thing as a 'doraness unto them who enjoy this blessedness?tion' of righteousness, I do not see why it No such condition mentioned here. The

[ocr errors]

* If this is not correct-then we must give a different meaning to the phrase forgiving iniquity, &c." from our usual idea of pardon. But if it does not mean pardon literally and truly, then it must mean something else; and if it mean something else, then God is not a pardoning God literally and truly. But pardon is not a figurative word; it is not taken from sensible objects, and is one of those words that are seldom or never used in a figurative sense. We hardly ever find it applied out of its proper le gitimate meaning.

Romans iv. 6, 7, and 8 verses.

[ocr errors]

could not be given to one as well as to another, whether he believed in Jesus or not, and thus the greatest despiser of Jesus be justified, while such, as well as his most faithful follower. But it is not so; there is no such absurd doctrine as this in the bible. No one supposes that king David first made a donation of loyalty to Shimei, & then "by virtue of such an imputation" treated him as he did. We instantly sce the absurdity of such a supposition in this case, or in any such transaction among men; but in our salvation from the conse quences of our sins against the king of heaven, it is not absurd, as Deity is one of the parties concerned, to believe him to proceed in this way, according to some expositions of this doctrine.

God; and God passed them over in || of his death, and explained their design. "This," said he, " is my blood

See also
Here we

mercy. Second, The offerings made on ac-of the New Testament, shed for many count of sin under the Lovitical dis- for the remission of sins." pensation. These were of no effect Luke, xxvi. 44, to the 48 v. to remove guilt, but their express de- have the testimony of the Saviour, as sign was, as we are told in the 4th he understood his own sacrifice; and Chap. of Lev. to be a foundation for the disciple differeth not from the masforgiveness; or rather to present to ter. Says Peter, "repent and be bapthe mind a sensible declaration of this tized for the remission of sins," and truth; there is no pardon for sin un-again, " repent and believe, that your til the obligation to punish is removed, sins may be blotted out,' not 'cancelthus directing the mind to the great led; nor does he say, 'for they are propitiatory sacrifice that was to be cancelled." Says Paul to the Ephemade for the removal of this obliga-sians," be ye kind, one to another, tion. All the sacrifices for sin were tender hearted, forgiving one another, of this nature; hence says Paul," with- even as God for Christ's sake hath forout the shedding of blood there was given you;" and in another place, he no remission." They were all of no says to them of Christ," in whom we avail without the promise," it shall be have redemption, even the forgiveness forgiven him." And in this promise of sins;" and to the Colossians he asit is expressly said, forgiveness re-serts the same truth," in whom we moves the guilt; and the converse of have redemption, through his blood, Paul's declaration is, that there was even the forgiveness of sins." And so remission of sin: and this is my prop-constantly is this truth held up in the osition, that remission is the way sin is Bible, that it is wonderful a contrary removed. Again, the brazen serpent. opinion should ever have been advanThe looking upon this, was the medi-ced by any who take the Bible for um of the cure of the bite of the poi-their text book. sonous serpent. Now we know there was no power in the brass or its shape to remove the poison; God destroyed the venom. As to the sinner, guilt is the venom. The power of God destroyed the venom of the bite; he therefore destroys the venom of sin; he removes the guilt, and in the way himself declares, he is a sin-pardoning God; by his pardon he cuts asunder the obligation to punishment. Besides,But what I mean to establish is, that our Saviour compares himself to this in some places it means pardon, and brazen serpent, and says, as Moses not that which it is said to signify in lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, other places. Both instances I shall so must the Son of Man be lifted up, select, are from the mouth of the great that whoever believeth on him might Apostle to the Gentiles. The first is not perish, but have everlasting life." in the conclusion of his discourse to the Here then we have the truth explicit. Jews of Antioch in Pisidia-Acts xiii. As it was not the brazen serpent that||39 verse. And by him all that believe removed the venom, but God; so it are justified from all things, from which is not the offering of Christ that takes ye could not be justified by the law of away guilt, but God, and in that way Moses." Now the law of Moses literby which alone it can be removed, by ally justified no one; but contained a pardon; as the Saviour himself declared, when he instituted the memorials

66

III. Proposition. The word justified, is used to signify pardon in the New Testament.

I shall adduce but two examples of this truth; not because more cannot be found; but because I have not time, and it is not necessary. If the other two propositions are true, this is of course, in every place where the word refers to man's acceptance by God.—

[ocr errors]

*See Note

From this I infer, 1st,

Now guilt is no obstruction to pardon, and it is not because a man is guilty that he cannot be pardoned; for this is the very thing that needs pardon; and pardon can be concerned about nothing else but guilt. [d]

[d] As strange and unlooked for, as it may be, I shall bring Dr. Owen to witness much time to prove that our guilt was imto this position. Although he has spent puted to Christ, put upon him so that he literally underwent the punishment of the sins of the Church, yet in more places than one, he states the true scriptural way by which guilt is removed. I know it is imputing inconsistency to that venerable divine; but his own words compel me to do it, as will appear by a few extracts from his work on Justification. Chap VII. page 288, in adducing proofs that guilt of sin Psalm xxxii. 5. only is imputed to Christ, he says, quoting quity of my sin, that is, the guilt of it, "Thou forgavest the iniwhich is that alone that is taken away by pardon." Guilt he defines in numerous

provision of pardon for certain offences-sins of ignorance--for wilful That the mediation of Christ does. crimes there was no forgiveness-"he not remove the obligation of God to must be stoned without the camp." punish the sinner by taking away his But through the sacrifice of Christ guiit; but by removing the obstruction there is forgivenes for all things, for to pardon. which the law of Moses provided no offering of forgiveness. Here he certainly is speaking of atonement, and not of a righteousness, that would require him to use the term justified.—|| And as pardon comes on account of atonement, justified here must signify pardon. The other place is Romans, v. 9. " Much more then, being justified through his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." Here too, he most assuredly is speaking of that which saves from punishment, and not of any thing which entitles to eternal life; in reference to atonement, and therefore signifying pardon. Besides, its idea is undoubtedly the same he intended to convey to the Colossians, when he said to them, "in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." From which flows the inference, that Paul, when he uses this word in reference to the salvation of a sinner, his accep-places, as I have, and in some uses the same tance by God, the passing from a state of condemnation to that in which there is no comdemnation, uses it always in the same sense. These propositions being thus established; the consequence is, the assembly of Divines gave the true definition of justification; and as this was taken as the meaning of the Apostle, by the words 'being justified, the answer to the inquiry is made out. The Apostle means an act of adjudication by God, by which he pardons the sinnner from all his transgressions, and of course grants him all the privileges a righteous person would receive; for in the perfect government of God, he that is pardoned must be in as good a condition as he that needs no pardon; therefore in acceptance with God, and especially so, as in this case God has been pleased to accompany his offer of pardon with the assurance of great and precious blessings, even the gift of eternal life..

words. Chapter XII. page 379, he says,
"Wherefore the pardon of sin dischargeth
the guilty person from being liable, or ob-
noxious unto anger, wrath or punishment,
due unto his sin." At page 380, speaking
of pardon, he says, "it only removeth
guilt."-Same "the state of innocen-
page,
Cy; which is the height of what can be at-
tained by the complete pardon of sin.".
Again, same page-" the pardon of sin,
which only frees us from the penalty of the
law." Page 383-"by the pardon of sin
we are freed only from the obligation unto
freed from the damnatory sentence of the
punishment." Page 388-"that we be
law, which we are by pardon of sin." These
quotations exhibit clearly Dr. Owen's view
of pardon. I do not quote him, because I
suppose him to believe our guilt is taken
away by pardon, for this his theory of im-
putation will not allow; but to show he a-
grees with me in saying, guilt is that alone
about which pardon is concerned. I know
he believes that substitution takes away
the guilt of the elect, that it was transfer-

with himself; and that his view excludes
pardon from the plan of redemption, the
following part of this note I humbly believe

red to Christ. That he is not consistent

Now if the Mediation of Christ takes and no more room for the exercise of away guilt, there is nothing to pardon, grace than if man had never fallen.— will show. I will here just remark, that if guilt, the obligation to punishment, which pardon frees us from the damnatory sen- is founded upon distributive justice, destroy tence of the law," then something else does this obligation, and the criminal is free; not do it; for it is as impossible that two and that act which does this, is pardon.causes should produce the same identical But if crime could be transferred to anotheffect, as it is that there should be an effect er, so that he should come under the obliwithout a cause: therefore, as pardon re-gation to endure the penalty, no one would moves our guilt, the substitution of Christ say the obligation is given up, destroyed; was not of such a nature and extent as to but that it exists undiminished in its bindbring upon him our gult; but was a sub-ing force. Nothing like pardon has taken stitution to preserve the righteousness of place. And further, if it is given up, it God when he pardons the sinner, and bes- must be given up where it binds; he to tows on him eternal blessedness-when he whom it is transferred must be pardoned; "justifieth the ungodly." To return-com- for pardon removes guilt-and surely it pare the above extracts with the following, cannot be removed from the place where taken from that part of his work on Justifi- it is not. Therefore as Dr. Owen affirms, cation, which treats of the imputation of " that our sins were so transferred on sin unto Christ. Page 281, he says, "There Christ, as that thereby he became guilty, is therefore no imputation of sin, where obnoxious unto punishment," if there has there is no imputation of its guilt." p 287, been, or is any pardon dispensed in the "unless the guilt of sin was imputed to plan of redemption, as the guilt of the Christ, sin was not imputed unto him in any Church, according to his theory, was transsense." Page 281, "That therefore which ferred on Christ, Christ was pardoned. But we affirm herein is, that our sins were so as the supporters of this theory believe that transferred on Christ, as that thereby he be- Christ endured the penalty, exhausted came, Reus responsible unto God, and ob- all of hell," to use the words of Dr. Mason, noxious unto punishment in the justice of he was not pardoned, not "freed from the God for them." This transfer no one will obligation to punishment:" therefore, by say is pardon, any more than he would call this theory there is no such thing as para transfer of a debt from one to another, don in the whole gospel scheme, and the the giving up of the debt, a relinquishment | Lord's prayer is a farce. I cannot help the of the claim to payment. If a creditor say conclusion; Dr. Owen furnished the premito his debtor, here is your note, I give it ses. Should any be so far astray from the up without payment;' this would be an ex-the true idea of pardon, as to say that Dr. act analogy to the pardon of crimes. Debt Owen considered the transfer of guilt and originates the claim to payment-crime o- pardon to be the same, a few words from riginates the obligation to punishment.-the 282 page, Chap. VII. will lead them Debt is connected to payment by a claim back, and show the contrary. He says, founded on commercial justice-destroy speaking of guilt, "if it was not transferthis claim and the debtor is free; transferred on Christ, it remains on believers, or it it upon another, and he that was the debtor is nothing. It will be said that guilt is tais free; but the claim is not destroyed-ken away by the free pardon of sin." To and surely no one could say the creditor this he objects, and maintains the other; conferred any favor, if his debt continued therefore he did not suppose them the same. in just as good a condition as previous; I cannot close this note, already protractand if in the end the payment is made, it ised beyond expectation, without noticing a fact, that the creditor has given up no another inconsistency in which this theory claim. Also, if after the transfer is made, of imputation involves its advocates. I the debt is given up, it cannot be said that shall still select from Dr. Owen. And here it was given up to the first debtor. To this, it may be proper to observe, that I have crime has one analogy, viz. it binds the confined myself to this writer, because he criminal; but this is one of the least im- is a standard author in the Seminary, and portant of its characteristics. In every oth-his works have been declared to be wither respect it is dissimilar. Debts may be out errors by its Principal. At page 281, transferred from one to another, crime can- this author follows up his affirmation alreanot-debts, if paid, produce no injury; dy quoted, by saying, 'He,' Christ,' was crime always produces injury, and if pun-alienæ culpæ reus,' guilty of the crime of ishment follow, still the injury is not undone, punishment can make no restoration; but payment is a complete restoration. Crime is connected with punishment by

another: "Perfectly innocent in himself; but took our guilt on him, or our obnoxiousness to punishment;" and yet on the page immediately preceding, he asserts;

« PreviousContinue »