To a Clergyman of _Bucks_.
I AM much surprised, my friend, that you should still want more to be said about the doctrine of _imputation_, whether of _Adam_’s sin, or the _righteousness_ of Christ to his followers. _Cain_ could not possibly have any other natural life, than that which was in _Adam_; and therefore so sure as _Adam_ in soul, spirit, and body, was all sin and corruption, so sure is it, that all his offspring must come from him in the same depravity of soul, spirit and body. And to talk of their having this disordered fallen nature not from their natural birth, but by an outward imputation, is only as absurd as to say, that they have their _hands_ and feet, or the whole form of their body, not from their natural birth, but by an outward imputation of such a form, and members to them.
As in _Adam all die_, says the text: Is not this the same, as saying, that all men have their fallen nature, because born of _Adam_?
Take now the other part of the text, so _in Christ shall all be made alive_. Is it not a flat denial of all this, to say, they are not made alive by a real new birth, but are accounted as if they were alive, by the imputation of Christ’s _life_ to them? Could dead _Lazarus_ have been said to have been made alive again, if still lying in the grave, he had only been _accounted_ as alive, by having the nature of a living man, imputed to him?
*Our Lord said to a leper, whom he had cleansed, _Go, shew thyself to the priest_, &c. But if instead of _cleansing_ him, he had bid him go to the priest, to be _accounted_ as a clean man, had he not still been under all the evil of his own leprosy? Now this is strictly the case of the righteousness of Christ, only outwardly imputed to us. A fiction, that runs counter to all that Christ and his apostles, have said of the nature of our salvation. We want Christ’s righteousness, because by our natural birth, we are inwardly full of evil; therefore saith Christ, _except a man be born again, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. I am the vine_, saith Christ, _ye are the branches_. Now if this be a true representation of the matter, then these two plain doctrines of Christ, affirming, 1. The absolute necessity of a new birth, and 2. That this birth is as really brought forth in us, as the life of the vine is really in the branches, entirely reject the notion of a righteousness imputed from without.
If Christ’s holy nature, be not formed in us, but only outwardly imputed to us, then no virtue, or power of an holy life, can have any more real existence in us, than in the devils, but are only called ours, and not theirs, though we have no more of them within us, than they have. Thus, be ye _holy, for I am holy; be ye perfect, as your Father, which is in heaven, is perfect; thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart_, &c. all these are but vain exhortations. For these virtues are, in their whole nature, nothing else but the very righteousness of Christ, therefore if that can be only outwardly imputed to us, the same must be said of all these virtues. And indeed, unless Christ be truly born in us, we can have no more of any Christian virtue, but the empty name. For neither man, nor angel ever did, or can thus love God with all his heart, be holy because God is holy, be perfect as he is perfect, but because there is a spirit living in them, which is of God, from God, and partakes of the divine nature.
Further say, that the holy Spirit is not living in us, that his operation is not inwardly in us, but only outwardly imputed to us, as if he was in us, though he be not: what a blasphemy would this be! And yet full as well, as to say the same of Christ, and his righteousness. For if Christ was only outwardly imputed to us, the same must, of all necessity be said of the holy Spirit; for where Christ is, there is the holy Spirit.
Take notice, Sir, that if Christ’s righteousness, is only imputed to Christians, then all of them, whether they are called good, or bad, are without any difference as to their inward man, and all under the same unaltered fallen nature, as much after, as they were before Christ’s righteousness was imputed.
_To him that overcometh_, saith Christ, _will I grant to sit with me on my throne_, ♦[N. B.] _even as I overcame, and am set down with my Father on his throne_. What becomes now of the vain fiction of an outward imputation? Is Christ’s victory here imputed to us? Is not the contrary as strongly taught us, as words can do it? _To him that overcometh, even as I also overcame._
♦ N. B. This, with several of the particulars that follow are probable, but not supported by scripture. This is the theory of _Jacob Behme_, ingenious, but quite incapable of proof. (From Volume 6, page 159.)