THE

BIBLICAL REPOSITORY

AND

Quarterly Observer.

No. XXII.

APRIL, 1836.

ARTICLE I.

HAVE THE SACRED WRITERS ANY WHERE ASSERTED THAT THE SIN OR RIGHTEOUSNESS OF ONE IS IMPUTED TO ANOTHER?

By M. Stuart, Prof. of Sacred Lit. Theol. Sem. Andover.

1. Introduction.

THE question above suggested is itself adapted to excite no little interest in the breast of every serious and attentive reader of the Scriptures. If it be indeed a matter of fact, that God ever counts or imputes the sin or righteousness of any one individual to another or others, it is a circumstance deserving of peculiar and careful attention on the part of all his rational creatures who are the subjects of divine moral government. How far such a method of God's dealing with his creatures extends; what are its real and appropriate characteristics; in what manner it is propounded or set forth in the Scriptures; and what grounds, reasons, or explanations of it are given by the sacred writers, if indeed any are assigned; are all questions of high practical importance, in respect to our state of religious conviction and to our actual knowledge of the ways of God in dealing with his creatures. No one, therefore, will accuse me, VOL. VII. No. 22.

31

I trust, of having chosen a theme for the present discussion, which is destitute of interest.

I have, indeed, no fears in regard to this. But there is another attitude in which the subject I have chosen may be regarded, that fills me with a kind of instinctive reluctance to approach it. The topic in question-which has long been a matter of controversy and difference of opinion among theorists in the science of theology-has recently become one of earnest dispute and even of contention among a part of the churches of our country; of dispute among not a few men of highly esti mable character and deserving of great respect from the public. It has even been represented by some, at least it would seem to have been practically regarded, as a kind of articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae Differing views concerning it have been recently declared, with great earnestness and undoubted sincerity, to be no longer lawful or to be tolerated. The time is believed to have come, by such as think thus, in which men must take sides, and either declare in favour of such views of the doctrine of imputation as Turretin defended, or else be regarded, by all those who do cherish such views, as no longer entitled to their Christian confidence and cooperation. Not only Christians in different communities and called by different names are to be excluded from an outward manifestation and fraternal reciprocation of love and confidence, but the Christians of our country can no longer even form one great Society for propagat ing the gospel to the heathen world. If the doctrine of imputation is not to be preached in full, and if a missionary society is to uphold and support those labourers in the vineyard who in any degree doubt or deny it, then all fellowship with such men must be relinquished. In the estimation of some, they are not to be, and cannot be, received into the household of the churches, nor are they to have God speed! at all addressed to them.

Besides all this, and the coldness and mistrust and disaffection and alienation which inevitably flow from it and affect the different denominations of the churches of Christ in our country, there is a yet more earnest controversy going on in the bosom of perhaps the most numerous, certainly the most wealthy and influential, portion of the churches among us, and one hitherto fairly entitled to a high degree of universal respect, af fection, and confidence. Here, as is always the case with familydisputes, the fire of controversy burns with more intense heat,

and threatens to devour, or at least to mar, that goodly vine which has so long adorned the vineyard of the Lord, and produced an abundance of excellent fruit. Deep-seated feeling, and a disregard to any and all of the final consequences which may proceed from exasperated discussion and open rupture, seem to be gradually stealing in upon the hearts of many of our highly respected Presbyterian brethren, and to shew that whatever light and unthinking men may suppose or believe concerning the zeal of some on the subject of imputation, there are those who are indeed in earnest, and are willing to do or to suffer (as the case may call for) any thing in their power, in order to maintain and exhibit the strength of their convictions with regard to the truth and the importance of the doctrine before

us.

In such a state of things as this, how can one venture to take up his pen in order to write upon the very nucleus of the controversy, which divides so many excellent brethren and churches, and is gradually alienating them from each other throughout our common country? I feel the difficulty, not to say the hazard, of the undertaking; if not adequately, yet in such a degree that I can truly say, that I approach it with not a little of real dread, and with a lively sense of the great responsibility that devolves upon any one, who undertakes any kind of interposition in a controversy which is felt to be of so great moment, and which enlists on different sides of it men who can never be well known by the virtuous and enlightened part of the community, without being highly esteemed and reverenced. Can any one individual's voice be heard, at such a time as this? And in particular, can I have the presumption to suppose that my feeble voice will be listened to, amid (I might almost say) the din of arms and the sounding of the trumpets for battle? These are questions which I feel constrained to ask myself; and which, when I do ask them, almost determine me to lay down my pen in despair, and keep a mournful silence.

But appalling and discouraging as the task of discussing the question, proposed at the head of the present Essay, seems at first view and under present circumstances to be, and averse as I am to controversial writing, on subjects that seem to be incapable perhaps of such an exhibition as will not after all leave room for question and doubt, I have still come to the conclusion to make the attempt to lay before my much respected brethren and the world, the result of my scriptural investigations on the

subject of imputed sin and righteousness. I leel bound to state some reasons for so doing; and I will exhibit them in the briefest manner in which I can do it with any justice to myself, and then submit them without reserve to the judgment of the reader. The subject, as I have remarked at the outset, is in itself one of deep interest to all who make enquiry and seek for knowledge, respecting the methods of God's dealing in his moral government of the world.

The only legitimate way of composing doctrinal controversies that arise in the church, is to investigate the Scriptures, and carefully and candidly to aduce from them all the light that we can obtain respecting the subjects in dispute. Protestants profess to make the Scriptures the supreme arbiter in all controver sies of such a nature; and these professions should be carried out in practice. No other judge of such strife among brethren, can be final and supreme. Councils may decide; ecclesiastical authority may command or prohibit; but God's word only can at the last satisfy the minds and consciences of Chris tians.

Such being the case, it is evident that where difficulties and disputes of a doctrinal nature arise, and parties are not, and cannot be, satisfied with the present state of arrangement or light, new efforts on the part of some must be made, in order to see if some progress may not be attained toward the peaceable adjustment of controversy.

Is it not proper, moreover, and becoming for me, casting myself on the generous feelings of those who differ in opinion from me and who may think that I have no good claim to interference in the controversy about imputation, to say, that I have a personal interest in it, and that I have sympathy for the great body of my fellow-ministers and Christians in New England, and for a majority, as I from my present information must think, of the Presbyterian ministers and churches in this country, which do not agree with Turretin's views of imputation, and think that the dispute about them has no claim to be considered as having respect to a fundamental doctrine. Myself and all these ministers and churches are in essential and fatal error, if the advocates of high and exclusive views of imputation are in the right. Nay, we are virtually and to all practical intents and purposes excommunicated by them, and are regarded at least as wandering, if not as obstinate heretics. Is it proper then that we should silently acquiesce in such a condemnation as

this on the part of brethren whom we so much love and respect, and hold in so high estimation? Can we consent thus to lose their confidence and good opinion, on the ground of doctrines which we hold, and not make an effort to regain it by showing them our reasons why we believe as we do, and think differently from them? For my part I can truly say, that I set too much by their good opinion to be willing to sacrifice it without an attempt to offer them reasons for the views which I entertain. The right to do so, the expediency of doing so, I trust no ingenuous and kind-hearted man among them will be disposed to call in question.

Whether it is not temerity in me individually, to venture upon an effort of this nature, may indeed be made a question. I have made it one to myself; and others may very probably be disposed to decide differently from what I have done. Should they do so, my fear and apprehension at least will coincide with their views; but on the whole a sense of duty has prevented me from listening to my fears so as to be persuaded by them. If I can promise to add nothing new to the common stock of argument, I may perchance present some of the things already known, in an attitude that differs in some measure from the one in which they have usually stood. If I even fail in this, there is at least some hope that my failure may excite others to do what I have left unaccomplished.

"The

The reader must not expect from me simple polemic theology. To examine the doctrine of the schools of theology, to exhibit the arguments of systems of divinity at length and to comment on them, is no part of my present purpose. Bible--the whole Bible-and nothing but the Bible," is my present motto. If the reader finds any thing more than this, it is either what pertains to the practical results of my investigation, or else what is essential to a right understanding of my aim and object. I could not examine whether the Bible teaches the doctrine of imputed sin and righteousness, in any intelligible and instructive way, without shewing how that doctrine has been held and estimated. We must know what a thing is, before we can decide whether the Scriptures declare in its faAnd in shewing what imputation has been held to be, by such as maintain the highest type of it, I must unavoidably exhibit and examine the doctrine as held by them.

vour.

If there is any thing not biblical in my piece, beyond what