N03467:131
Discourses on various important subjects, nearly concerning the great affair of the soul's eternal…
Discourses on various important subjects, nearly concerning the great affair of the soul's eternal salvation, viz. I. Justification by faith alone. II. Pressing into the Kingdom of God. III. Ruth's resolution. IV. The justice of God in the damnation of sinners. V. The excellency of Jesus Christ. : Delivered at Northampton, chiefly at the time of the late wonderful pouring out of the spirit of God there. / By Jonathan Edwards, A.M. Pastor of the Church of Christ in Northampton. ; [Three lines from Deuteronomy]
Boston: printed by S. Kneeland and T. Green, 1738
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
The opposers of this Doctrine suppose that there is an absurdity in it: They say that to suppose that God imputes Christ's Obedience to us, is to suppose that God is mistaken, and thinks that we performed that Obedience that Christ performed. But why can't that Righteousness be reckoned to our Account, and be accepted for us, without any such absurdity? Why is there any more absurdity in it, then in a Merchant's transferring Debt or Credit from one Man's Account to another, when one Man pays a Price for another, so that it shall be accepted as if that other had paid it? Why is there any more absurdity in supposing that Christ's Obedience is imputed to us, than that his Satisfaction is imputed? If Christ has suffered the Penalty of the Law for us, and in our stead, then it will follow, that his suffering that Penalty is imputed to us, i. e. That it is accepted for us, and in our stead, and is reckoned to our Account, as tho' we had suffered it. But why mayn't his obeying the Law of God be as rationally reckoned to our Account, as his suffering the Penalty of the Law? Why may not a Price to bring into Debt, be as rationally transferred from one Person's Account to another, as a Price to pay a Debt—Having thus explained what we mean by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, I proceed,
The opposers of this Doctrine suppose that there is an absurdity in it: They say that to suppose that God imputes Christ's Obedience to us, is to suppose that God is mistaken, and thinks that we perform'd that Obedience that Christ performed. But why can't that Righteousness be reckoned to our Account, and be accepted for us, without any such absurdity? Why is there any more absurdity in it, then in a Merchant's transferring Debt or Credit from one Man's Account to another, when one Man pays a Price for another, so that it shall be accepted as if that other had paid it? Why is there any more absurdity in supposing that Christ's Obedience is imputed to us, than that his Satisfaction is imputed? If Christ has suffered the Penalty of the Law for us, and in our stead, then it will follow, that his suffering that Penalty is imputed to us, i. e. That it is accepted for us, and in our stead, and is reckon'd to our Account, as tho' we had suffered it. But why mayn't his obeying the Law of God be as rationally reckon'd to our Account, as his suffering the Penalty of the Law? Why may not a Price to bring into Debt, be as rationally transferr'd from one Person's Account to another, as a Price to pay a Debt—Having thus explain'd what we mean by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, I proceed,