A Fresh Antidote Against Neonomian Bane, Chapter 4
CHAP. IV. Of Imputation.
Sect. 1. What Imputation imports. §. 2. How it differs from Juſtification. §. 3. Not to impute is to acquit. §. 4. To attribute or aſcribe, what. §. 5. Legal Imputation. §. 6. The Second Sort. §. 7. Imputation by Attainder. §. 8. Neonomians deny Imputation of Adam's Sin. §. 9. Imputation by way of Suretiſhip. §. 10. A Surety a Repreſentative. §. 11. The difference of Imputation by way of Attainder, and by way of Suretiſhip. §. 12. Neonomians deny Imputation of Sin to Chriſt.
Sect. 1. IMputation for the moſt part in Scripture is a Forinſick or Law Term, as Juſtification is; the Greek Word foreign, the Hebrew foreign and it is the accounting things or actions to Perſons which they did not do, or plead they did not do; when a man's action comes to be lis coram Judice, the firſt Enquiry is de facto, whether he he guilty of it or not guilty? the Judgment of the Court by the Jury is the Imputation or laying Guilt upon him, or the acquitting him, which is not only non-imputation of Fault to him, but imputing righteouſneſs unto him: The Sentence of the Judge on the Verdict of Guilty, is Condemnation; on the Verdict of Not Guilty, is Juſtification. I find the word ſo uſed, 1 Sam. 22.15. when Abimelek is accuſed by Doeg to Saul, for enquiring of the Lord concerning David, he ſaith, Let not the King impute any thing unto his ſervant: foreign Let not the King lay it upon, or aſcribe it to his ſervant as a fault. LXX foreign, Let not the King lay any thing to the charge of his ſervant. This is rendred impute by our Tranſlators, ſo 2 Sam. 19.19. Shimei pleading with David for his Pardon, ſaith, foreign, let not my lord impute ſin to me. Likewiſe in the Plea of a righteous action, Lev. 7.18. If the Prieſt ſhall eat the fleſh of the ſacrifice on the third day, God ſaith, it ſhall not be accepted, neither ſhall it be imputed to him that offers it; the Word is foreign LXX is foreign: So in offering any where but at the Door of the Tabernacle, blood ſhall be imputed *To impute is to lay any thing to the charge, ſo Minſt. Lat. Imputare aliquid alicui. Plin. Caedem alicui imputare. So Quint.to that man that doth it, Lev. 17.4. foreign, LXX. foreign; now theſe are the words uſed for imputing in the Old Teſtament, and as the Sept. renders foreign by foreign, in the forequoted places, in the ſame ſenſe the Apoſtles uſe it in the New Teſtament, whence it appears that Imputation is a Law Term, and its uſed when it comes to be argued in Law, whether this thing or action, whether righteouſneſs or unrighteouſneſs is to be aſcribed to a perſon, whereby he ſtands juſt or unjuſt in the eye of the Law, and what the Judgment of the Court is, is Imputation. Such Trials do eſpecially concern two things, Right or Actions, in matters of Right, or Claim, the Judgment of the Court imputes it to the Plaintiff or Defendant; in matters of Fact the Judgment of the Court determines it, or imputes it, as righteouſneſs or unrighteouſneſs.
§. 2. Hence 1. Imputation differs from Juſtification, becauſe its of right or fact. Its a Judgment concerning things or actions according to law, Juſtification in this legal ſenſe, or Condemnation is, of Perſons according to Imputation. 2. Guilt is the imputation of fault to the charged perſon in the moſt proper ſenſe, reatus culpae, and the acquitting a perſon from Guilt when charged, is the making him righteous, by removal of unrighteouſneſs from him, ſo far as the Law hath to do with him. 3. A Man is not charged by one Law, and acquitted by another, but his imputation is always according to that law where he was charged, and therefore his Juſtification or Condemnation by the ſame; if a Man be found guilty by one Law, he cannot be acquitted by another, tho requiring milder Terms.
§. 3. Not to impute a fault is to acquit, and of the ſame import as to impute righteouſneſs, and therefore where the Spirit of God ſpeaks of non imputation of ſin, Pſalm 32.2. Rom. 4.8. 1 Cor. 5.19. it always therein aſſerts imputation of righteouſneſs; for he that is a ſinner and hath no ſin imputed to him, or charged upon him by the Law, is righteous, and found ſo by the Law, and indeed all proper imputation is by the Law, for Sin is not imputed where there is no law; therefore its properly the voice of the Law that imputes Sin or Righteouſneſs, where Actions or Claims of Right come to be queſtioned and tried; what the law ſaith, is ſaith to them that are under it for judgment and condemns therefore all tranſgreſſors, and makes them guilty before God, Rom. 3.19.
§. 4. To attribute, or aſcribe, are larger Terms than to impute; when any thing is imputed to a perſon, its attributed and aſcribed, but every thing attributed or aſcribed, is not ſaid to be imputed, becauſe its ſpoken of in a Law-ſenſe, e. gr. we attribute Holineſs. Juſtice, Power, &c. to God, but do not ſay we impute them to God; we attribute Heat to Fire, hardneſs to Iron, but do not ſay, we impute Heat to Fire, or hardneſs to Iron, becauſe its naturally in them.
§. 5. Legal Imputation of Sin or Righteouſneſs is either of that which is a Man's own, unto himſelf, or of that which primarily is his own and imputed unto another. The firſt is, when a Man bears his own Sin, or ſtands legally in his own righteouſneſs; upon the firſt the law condemns him, upon the other it juſtifies him; he is upon the firſt Judgment of the Law, found guilty or not, to have right to the Claim that he makes, or to have no right to his Claim to the Promiſe in a Law-Covenant. Hence imputation of righteouſneſs fixeth his right to the promiſed reward. Imputation of ſin cuts off his right to the ſaid reward, and brings him under the curſe of the Law.
§. 6. The ſecond ſort of legal Imputation is of a Man's own Sin or Righteouſneſs unto another. Its by way of tranſlation, and its either of Sin or of Righteouſneſs. Imputation of Sin by tranſlation, is when the Law imputes Sin to any other than the Sinner, ſo that by that Imputation thoſe others are legally made Sinners. And this Imputation is twofold by way of Attainder, or by way of Suretiſhip.
§. 7. Imputation by way of Attainder is, when the whole Blood is charged with, and ſtained by the Sin of the actual tranſgreſſor. Such was Achan's Sin, ſuch alſo Adam's Firſt Sin; his ſin was imputed to himſelf and all his Poſterity; he being not only a ſingle perſon, but a Publick Perſon. 1. Naturally, containing all Mankind in him. 2. Foederally, Becauſe God when he covenanted with him, covenanted with a Kind; he covenanted but with individuals when he covenanted with Angels. As Adam was when he ſtood, in reſpect of Mankind, ſohe was when he fell; Hence it was that all the Kind muſt needs fall in him, when Angels fell, each one fell but for himſelf, as each ſtood for himſelf; but it was not, it could not be ſo with Man; Adam therefore was the greateſt Repreſentative in reſpect of the number repreſented by him, that ever was, and all Mankind ſinned in him; Sin did not come upon us by Propagation only (tho a ſinner can propagate none but a ſinner) but by imputing Adam's Firſt Sin to all his Poſterity, for judgment of imputation came upon all to condemnation of the whole kind; elſe Adam's Firſt Sin ſhould affect us no more than any other of his ſins, and Adam's ſins no more than the ſins of any other of our Progenitors; Hence Adam's ſin came upon us federally, and by way of Imputation as well as by Propagation and ſeminal Deſcent; for the Privation of the Image of God by Adam's Sin, which was his moral Death, was a Publick Loſs, never to be regained by any that have their ſtanding only in him. Hence every Natural Man is in him, ſtands under that firſt Privation, and therefore under that firſt Guilt; and as every Man by Nature ſtands under that Guilt, he alſo is under the condemnation. Wrath and Curſe of the Law, Death paſſed upon all men, in that all have ſinned; the Apoſtle ſpeaks but of Adam's ſin. Rom. 5.12, 16. and of death paſſing upon all by that ſin imputed by the law, as appears by the following word, that all died in Adam, the Apoſtle is expreſs, 1 Cor. 15.22. Undeſtand it of which Death you pleaſe ſpiritual or corporal that in Adam all died, it infers neceſſarily that Adam was a Publick Perſon; for we cannot be ſaid to live or dy in another's life or death, but as he is a Publick Perſon, verſ. 49. we are ſaid to bear the image of the earthly, i. e. in his Fallen State, which ſhews that his Image was of a Publick Nature to all his Poſterity, and his loſs of God's Image, a Sin imputed to the whole kind.
§. 8. I cannot ſtay to inſiſt largely on the proof of the Imputation of Adam's Sin, but is a Point of ſo great concern, that the denial of it overthrows the Goſpel in the true ſtate thereof; I ſhall only acquaint the Reader, That the Neonomians, together with the Socinians and Quakers, lay this denial in the foundation of their rotten Doctrine.
Neonomian. We were not in Adam as a Publick Perſon, or Repreſentative by a Covenant ſtanding, nor his ſin imputed to us further than we are guilty by a natural in being or derivation, Scr. G. D. p. 86, 87. 112, 113. End of Controv. 95.
See his daring confidence. We were not in Adam as a publick Covenanter, I would ask whether God covenanted with Adam as the comprehender of all the Kind; if he did, then Adam was a Publick Covenantee inſtead of the whole Kind; and it appears in that the Covenant reached Eve then in him, when the covenant was made, Gen. 2, and if the covenant was made with her in him, then why not, by the ſame reaſon, with all Mankind in him? He ſaith Adam's ſin is imputed no further than we are guilty; we ſay, we are not guilty any further than his ſin is imputed; its imputation of Sin makes us guilty, not guilt that makes imputation: He ſaith alſo, no further than by a natural in-being; what then, doth not a natural in-being in Adam at the time of his Covenant, make him a publick Covenanter, when the whole Nature was in him? and ſo we were federally in him, becauſe naturally; but ſee how the Socinians concur, Socin. They are greatly deceived who gather that all the poſterity of Adam ſinned in Adam the Parent, and truly to have deſerved the puniſhment of death— for ſins and merits, ſuch as are meerly perſonal, go not out of the perſon which hath ſinned, neither do Parents repreſent their Children. Altho there may be ſome hurt, and that not a little, to Children by their Parents ſin, as indeed it fell out in Adam's ſin; but the very Sin and Merit of Adam was not communicated in, nor imputed to Adam's Poſterity, and hence the Posterity of Adam was not truly puniſhed for Adam's ſin, unleſs they imitated their Parents, Schlicting on Heb. 7.10. Whereas it appears plainly, by Rom. 5.12. that the merit paſſed upon all by Adam's ſin, for death paſſed upon all and the merit of Death cannot be without imputation of ſin, and it paſſed upon all that have not finned actually, even Infants, before they are capable of imitation of their Parents. Quakers, We do not aſcribe any whit of Adam's guilt to men, till they make it theirs by the like acts of diſobedience. Barchl. This is alſo Pelagian Doctrine, That Adam's ſin is not imputed to his Poſterity.
§. 9. Imputation is alſo by way of Suretiſhip, and it is when the Sins or Debts of one perſon, are by law charged upon, or imputed to another in order to the Salvation of the Principal or perſonal tranſgreſſor. Here it is always underſtood that the payment of a Surety is as good and acceptable to the Law as that of the Principal. 2. That the Surety cannot become Pay-maſter in Law, unleſs he take the Debt or Sin upon him inſtead of the proper tranſgreſſor he muſt be charged as tranſgreſſor, elſe the Law can make no demand upon him. 3. He muſt freely offer himſelf to be a Surety, no perſon can be forced in any caſe to be Surety for another. 4. When he hath engaged himſelf in Suretiſhip, the law takes him perſon for perſon, the principal Debt becomes his, and his righteouſneſs and payment becomes the Principals in a real legal commutation, here is no natural or moral Change, but ſponſorial and legal, nay, no logical change, i. e. one relation is not changed into another, the Surety into the Principal, nor Principal into the Surety; but in the Judgment of the Law the Principal Debt becomes the Surety's, and the Surety's Payment is the Principals. whereupon the Principal in reſpect of that Sin or Debt for which Satisfaction is made, hath the diſcharge in full, and is as perfectly righteous as to that, as the Surety himſelf; he is not it may be ſo rich and honourable as his Surety, but in reſpect of the Debt ſatisfied, the Law hath no more to ſay to him than to the Surety, An Alderman fetcheth a Priſoner, and with him many more out of Ludgate, owing Five or Ten Pounds a piece, this little money being all that's owing in the World by the poor Man, when diſcharged the Law hath no more to ſay to him than to the Alderman, and he is as righteous in the eye of the Law, tho he will not pretend to be ſo great and ſo rich, or a ranſomer of others out of Priſon, as the Alderman himſelf is.
§. 10. He that bears the ſins of others muſt be a Repreſentative and Publick Perſon, that muſt perſonate or bear the perſons of them whoſe ſins he bears, and muſt be either ſubſtituted by the Court, or if by ſome other, he muſt be allowed to be capable and able to make Payment, muſt be accepted and dealt with in the name and upon the account of the other, and becomes a Debtor or Tranſgreſſor in and for the perſon he doth repreſent in Court, and becomes a Delinquent in the eye of the Law, the Law imputing ſin to him makes him ſin, becauſe he is ſuppoſed to owe nothing on his own account; he that doth in foro repreſent one or more, and ſtands not, nor acts for himſelf, but others, is a publick Perſon and Repreſentative, as a Burgeſs or Citizen in Parliament, and they that he repreſents are ſaid to act in and by him. Its a contradiction to common ſenſe and reaſon, to ſay, that he that ſtands legally or civilly in the place of another, to act his part, and in his name, ſhould not be a publick Perſon, but men will throw down common ſenſe and reaſon to eſtabliſh their own fond Conceits and Errors.
§. 11. The difference between Imputation by way of Attainder, and by way of Suretiſhip is, that this Imputation is in order to the Salvation of the Sinner, but that is as to legal ſingle effects only to the Sinners Deſtruction. 2. That in this Imputation in the way of Suretiſhip, as there is Imputation of the ſinners ſin to the Surety, ſo there is a re-imputation of the Surety's righteouſneſs to the ſinner, but in Imputation of Sin by way of Attainder, there's no re-imputation of righteouſneſs to the firſt ſinner. 3. The Imputation doth differ in the manner of tranſaction. In Imputation of ſin by way of Attainder, ſin is transferred from the Repreſentative to the Repreſented; but in Imputation by way of Suretiſhip, ſin is transferred from the Repreſented to the Repreſentative, and that's the reaſon, that tho we are fitly ſaid to ſin in Adam becauſe he was our Repreſentative; yet its not ſo fitly ſaid that Chriſt ſinned in us, becauſe that we were never Repreſentatives to Chriſt; but its fitly ſaid, we are righteous in Chriſt, becauſe he is our Repreſentative, and that we ſatisfied in Chriſt, which ſaying doth not rob Chriſt of his Glory of Satisfaction, but gives it him, affirming that Chriſt ſatisfied, and for us, and that God is well pleaſed with us through him; If a man that hath owed Money to A. and paid him by his Surety B. be charged that he owes A. ſo much Money; he denys it, and ſaith, I paid you by B. doth he ſpeak true or falſe? doth he not ſpeak properly? doth he hereby ſay, I paid you by my own Money? No, he only ſaith, that B. paid for me my Debt with his Money: But we ſee how Neonomians will pick quarrel with common ſenſe and reaſon, as they do in their denial of this high and fundamental Point Of Imputation of Sin to Chriſt, and charge it for an Error to ſay, we ſatisfied in Chriſt.
§. 12. Neonom. Chriſt neither was a Sinner, nor reputed a Sinner by God. R. B. End of Contr. p. 122. Chriſt took not reatum facti, nor reatum culpae [as if there were any difference between them] He took reatum poenae, the guilt of puniſhment [that's always in the fault, for nothing deſerves puniſhment but faults] Scr. G. d. p. 89. They dangerouſly affirm [meaning thoſe he calls Antinomians] that Chriſt took not only the puniſhment of our Sins, and that guilt and reatum paenae, which is an aſſumed obligation to ſuffer the puniſhment deſerved by us, but all our very ſins themſelves, the very eſſence of the ſins of all the elect [a ſlander, and impoſed expreſſion that none ever ſaid] the reatum culpae, or guilt of fault and ſo he bore the ſins of all the Elect by real imputation [this is truth, which Mr. B. chargeth as one of his hundred Antinomian Errors, Er. 18. p. 10. Again being made ſin for us, is meant a ſacrifice for ſin [ſo Mr H.] and uſed as a ſinner [why ſhould he be uſed as a ſinner, if ſin was not charged upon him? ſure very unjuſtly] If God imputed ſin to Chriſt, or accounted Chriſt a ſinner, he muſt be by ſin hateful to God, &c. and Chriſt ſuffered for his own ſins, &c. Scr. G. d. p. 30, 31. If Chriſt had bin a ſinner, in his individual perſon, theſe conſequences might have held, but Chriſt being by Law-imputation made ſin in order to the Salvation of Sinners, its otherwiſe, therefore doth my Father love me, becauſe I lay down my life for my ſheep. Is a rich perſon and honourable, hated in the Court, and deteſted, becauſe he enters himſelf Debtor for ſome Ludgate Priſoners?
Socin. The meaning of theſe words, 2 Cor. 5.21. is not that he was made ſin for us by God's imputation, but that he was made a ſacrifice for ſin, the word made is a word of Election and Ordination, Pinct. Dial. to which Mr. Norton anſwers thus, He was made ſin for us as we are made righteouſneſs, i. e. by judicial imputation, without the violation, yea with eſtabliſhing of Juſtice, as he was made curſe, Gal. 3.13. becauſe he was the ſin-offering in truth, therefore be was made ſin by real imputation. Nort. againſt Pinch.
Quak. We deſerved thoſe things that Chriſt endured, and much more for our ſins, but that God ever reputed him a ſinner is denied, neither did he ever dy that we ſhould be reputed righteous; by his being made ſin for us muſt be underſtood his ſuffering for our ſins, that we might be made partakers of the grace purchaſed by him, by the working whereof we are made the righteouſneſs of God in him. Barch. Apol. of Juſt. p. 376. Thus you ſee how Siſter Sects run hand in hand together.
Thus far of Imputation here, which ſhould have bin continued to imputation of Righteouſneſs, The Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs being the main Point which the Neonomians oppoſe; but becauſe it will be the main ſubject of our enſuing Diſcourſe, we paſs it over in this Chapter.