ART. II.-Imputation. * PART I. Nothing can be plainer even from the discussions to which we have referred in the margin, than that the interests of theology and religion require in this age a thorough reinvestigation of the whole subject of Imputation; for while the truth of the doctrine appears to be most cheerfully conceded, there seems to be but little agreement as to what the doctrine really is; or what are the principles involved in its maintenance. In the early ages of the Christian Church, and before any specific error on the subject had developed itself into form and efficiency, the simple and obvious facts involved in the doctrine were received and acknowledged by her members-just as all the other distinguishing doctrines of the Gospel had been-without any attempt at logical refinement, or scientific precision of statement. But when various forms of error had sought to obscure and even to ignore the truths asserted in the doctrine; and the attention of the Church of Christ was thus specifically called to the subject; it was not long ere the teachings of the Word of God in relation to this doctrine, as also in relation to the kindred doctrine of Justification by Faith alone, were fully evolved and received a clear and definite statement. In what we propose now to offer, our wish is, if possible, to prepare the way for a thorough reinvestigation of the subject; regarding the necessity which calls for it as imperative, from the fact that grave misapprehensions are still entertained concerning it. The facts connected with the history of the doctrine itself, or its development and maintenance as * Published with some reference to the following tractates: Articles on Imputation and Original Sin, in the Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review for 1830 and 1838. Republished in Princeton Essays, vol. 1. 1846. Articles on Imputation in the Quarterly Christian Spectator (New Haven) for 1830, 1831. 1860. The Elohim Revealed, by Rev. Samuel J. Baird, D. D. Reviews of the Elohim Revealed in Princeton Review for April, 1860; and in the Southern Presbyterian Review for April, 1860. Dr. Baird's Rejoinder to the Princeton Review. 1860. Rejoinder of the Princeton Review, Oct. 1860. presented in the theology of the Reformed or Calvinistic Church, are clearly not understood, even by many whose utterances on the subject are most dogmatic and decided. The opening of the grand drama of the Reformation evinced that nearly all of its prominent actors on the side of the Protestants were not only imbued with the spirit of deep and earnest piety, but of learning likewise; and that they had evinced their high and just appreciation of its importance, by a thorough literary training. They studied with intense interest the original languages of the Holy Scriptures; were thoroughly conversant with the different schools of philosophy and theology which divided the Latin Church; and, of course, their views of mental philosophy and of ethics, and their modes of thought, of investigation, and of argument, had been, at least to a very considerable extent, directed and shaped by the masters of those schools. Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Hales, and other renowned doctors still retained all their honors and authority; and were often referred to as authoritative in Philosophy and Ethics, and (until Luther dissolved the charm,) even in matters of faith, as is evinced, more or less, even by the earlier writings of the Reformers themselves. They could not, and did not, nor was it to be expected that they should succeed at the outset to free themselves wholly from the shackles thus imposed. And their glory was not so much in defining and adjusting the principles of speculative theology (though even here they have borne away the palm from all competitors) as in unfolding and exhibiting the long-concealed treasures of the Word of God. Nor is any thing hazarded by the assertion that as interpreters of the heavenly oracles they *The professed theologian who affects to speak slightingly of the leading minds of the first generation of the Reformers, evinces only his own ignorance or incapacity. Among the men whom God then raised up (to speak only of the theologians,) may be named Luther, Capito, Melancthon, Jonas, Calvin, Carlostadt, Zuinglius, Farell, Bucer, Fagius or Reuchlin, Martyr, Bullinger, Hyperius, Musculus, Pellicanus, Stapulensis, Knox, Ridley, Beza, Bertram of Geneva, T. Bibliander, Borrhaus, Charpentier, A. Durer, Myconius, Ecolampadius, Stancarus, Viret, Xylander, Grynæus, Brentius, the learned but abused Pistorius, the erratic Osiander, J. Agricola, &c., either of whom might have given character to a later age. Nor was the second age much inferior, including such men as Ursinus, Zanchius, F. Junius, Gomarus, Polanus, S. Grynæus, Keckerman, Kuchlin, Pareus, Piscator, and others. were not only immeasurably in advance of all that preceded them, but that they have had few equals and no superiors since; as is now admitted in the intelligent schools of criticism. It was to the cultivation of this great province that their main attention was directed. Such being the state of the case, it were unreasonable to expect that there should be no diversity or disagreement amongst them, in the terms wherein they expressed their views of those doctrines which from diverse stand-points they were called upon to assert and to defend. But they practically recognized the principle that substantial agreement may exist under diversity of statement: and we owe it to them and to ourselves to recognize the same principle in interpreting their writings. They, for example, agreed fully and entirely on the doctrine of justification by faith alone; that is, as distinct from all personal or subjective merit or desert on the part of the justified; and held that this justification was by, through, or on account of the imputation of the merits or righteousness of Christ: though there may be found slight and unimportant variations in the forms of their statement of this truth, (as in the celebrated passage in Bucer, over which Grotius and Rivetus had their foolish controversy.) But the great fact itself was avowed; and none doubted it of all the early reformed Church. But when the later among them, along with their successors, attempted in more peaceful times to define the exact import of some of the terms employed in stating the doctrine, they differed somewhat; and the result was, a multitude of questions were started in relation to them: as for example, Does faith pertain to the intellect or to the will? Is the passive or active righteousness of Christ, or both, imputed in justification? (a question started by Karg of Wittemberg, about 1564.) And in laboring after a punctilious exactness of definition, the influence of their early mental training was manifested. But the question, whether Adam's guilt was imputed for condemnation; and whether Christ's righteousness was imputed for justification; was never litigated by them. The man who would have denied or disputed either the one or the other, would have been regarded as an enemy to the reformed faith. In all their presentations of Christian doctrine these great truths are found in their length and breadth and fullness; and nothing but ignorance would venture to call it in question. But with all their efforts to free themselves from the barbarous technicology of scholasticism, both in philosophy and theology, they could not change at once their modes of thought and forms of expression; as may be seen abundantly exemplified in all their attempted refinements on the great and admitted facts of their own recognized theology. The sovereignty of God in the whole matter of human salvation was asserted fully and universally, just as it had been asserted by Augustine; but when they attempted to refine thereon the diverse philosophies of the contending sects of Scholasticism were at length called in to assist. They indeed quoted Plato and Aristotle; but often reasoned and refined with Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Ockham, &c. The Will of God as the foundation of moral obligation, was made the key-note of some; while the Immutable Justice of God became the key-note of others: the former reasoning themselves into what has since been called Supralapsarianism; and the latter into Infralapsarianism. And hereupon an embittered controversy began; which continued until the speculations of the Socinian and Remonstrant schools apprized them. of the fact that matters of direct practical importance demanded their attention. A large volume might be properly devoted to the consideration of several points here referred to. * The fact of Adam's headship of the human family; and that all the race were federally represented by him; to the extent, too, that had he obeyed the Divine mandate all his descendants would have been as a consequence or certain result made partakers with him of the happy effects of his obedience; as all have been made partakers of the unhappy effects of his disobedience; is a fact which was universally regarded by them as fundamental in theology; and the pretense of the Socinians, and of some of the earlier Remonstrants, that they also recognized the whole of the truth involved therein, by the admission that Adam represented his natural descendants as a parent represents his children; and that Christ is truly the head of his redeemed inasmuch as he prepared the way for their salvation and acceptance with God; was uni * Sublapsarian as the antithesis of supralapsarian, is inaccurate and contrary to the best usage. versally denounced by the Reformed Church as an utter denial of the Headship both of Adam and of Christ. Their uniform doctrine on the subject is thus briefly and correctly stated by Wendeline : Ut secundi Adami, hoc est Christi, justitia nobis imputatur ad vitam sic primi Adami injustitia nobis imputata ad mortem est. Hinc Theologi monent, Adamum non peccasse ut personam singularem: sed genus humanum tanquam in stirpe et origine representasse: ideoque peccatum ejus imputari universo generi humano. * Assuming the truth of the great scriptural doctrine of Divine predestination, as all both Lutheran and reformed substantially did at the outset, the difficulty arose to Reconcile the doctrine with the equally admitted truth of the responsibility of the creature; and of his conceded accountability to God for his thoughts, words and actions. And the grand nodus was (as in the time of Augustine,) how to explain the fall of our first parents, or the introduction of sin into the world, so as to maintain predestination without either making God the author of sin, or destroying the accountability of man. Luther, in his treatise De Servo Arbitrio, took the highest ground, denying utterly that the creature had freedom of will; and Melancthon accepted and endorsed his statements hereon. Both, subsequently, modified their views; though others who had become convinced by the argument still retained the doctrine which it defended. In the discussions on Election and Reprobation, the same question, so to speak, became intensified, (as we shall have occasion to remark more fully hereafter;) and it was boldly asserted that the reprobate were created in order that they might be damned, and to show forth the power and severity of God. By far the greater part of the Church discarded and denounced this doctrine as soon as a thorough discussion of the subject had evinced its true character. Others, however, retained it; and some who admitted the premises sought to shelter themselves against the consequences of an open avowal of the conclusion, by taking refuge in the distinction between the revealed and secret purposes of God. And it was in immediate connection with these speculations on the accountability of man Christ. Theologia. p. 243. Anno 1633. |