Neonomianism Unmasked, Part 2 · Debate 2
DEBATE II. Of God's laying Sin on Chriſt.
Neonôm.
YOƲ know at laſt Conference our Subject we diſcourſed upon was The State of the Elect before Effectual Calling. If you pleaſe let us diſcourſe the Point Of Laying Sins on Chriſt, I ſhall here charge conſiderable Errours on Mr. Antinomian.
Calviniſt.
I pray Sir proceed, I perceive Mr. Antinomian is very willing to hear you with patience.
Neonom.
I charge him with this Errour, that he ſaith,D. W. p. 8, 9. That God did not only Impute the Guilt, and lay the Puniſhment of the Sins of the Elect upon Chriſt, but he laid all the very Sins of the Elect upon Chriſt, and that as to their real filth and loathſomneſs; yea ſo that Chriſt was really the Blaſphemer, Murderer, and Sinner, and ſo accounted by the Father.
Calvin.
Mr. Antinom. Did you lay down this Poſition?
Antinom.
Sir it's bad enough if it be as he ſaith, and in his ſence and meaning: I find his way is to put firſt a wild Beaſts Skin upon me, and then fall a Hunting of me. I pray Mr. Neonom. how do you prove this Charge?
Neonom.
You tell us, It's Iniquity it ſelf that the Lord laid upon Chriſt; D. Cr. p. 312.not only our Puniſhment but our very Sin, &c. The Tranſaction of our Sins to Chriſt is a real Act; our Sins ſo became Chriſts that he ſtood the Sinner in our ſtead, and we diſcharged, D. Cr. p. 270.[and he is not contented to mean only the Puniſhment, but ſaith it's Iniquity it ſelf] I mean, ſaith he, the fault of the Tranſgreſſion it ſelf, &c. To ſpeak more plainly, Haſt thou been an Idolater? Haſt thou been a Blaſphemer, Murderer, Drunkard, &c? If thou haſt part in the Lord, all theſe Tranſgreſſions of thine become Actually the Tranſgreſſions of Chriſt: D. Cr. p. 26.Nor are we ſo compleatly ſinful, but Chriſt being made Sin, was as compleatly ſinful as we, &c. And God himſelf did account him among the Number of Tranſgreſſors.
Calvin.
You ſhould firſt have told us, Mr. Neonomian, what you mean by Guilt and Puniſhment of Sin, how you diſtinguiſh reatus from culpa, and how you underſtand the filth of Sin; and ſhould have alledged ſome Expreſſion of his whereby it might have been evinced that he held Chriſt to be the very Perpetrator of the Sins of the Elect; that he had ſaid, Chriſt was Actually Drunk when Noah was; that Chriſt kill'd Ʋriah and lay with his Wife, and made the Golden Calf in the Wilderneſs, that he denied himſelf when Peter did, yea that he Slew and Murdered himſelf. You ſhould have told us what you mean by Imputation, &c.
Antinom.
I ſhall ſhew you by comparing his Charge and Proof together, how fallaciouſly he deals with you, and Invidiouſly with Dr. C. He ſaith, I ſaid God laid all the very Sins of the Elect upon Chriſt, he ſhould have added, by Imputation, for his Proof runs thus, Our Sins ſo became Chriſts, that he ſtood the Sinner in our ſtead, and we diſcharged: Now I pray is it to become the very Perſon and Actor, when I ſtand in the ſtead of another Perſon that did it. The Proof makes his Charge falſe, the very Evidence he brings is enough for my Defence againſt his Charge; and when he brings theſe words of mine [to prove, that I hold Chriſt became the real Murderer, &c.] if thou beeſt a Thief, Murderer, Lyar, &c. all theſe Tranſgreſſions (if thou haſt part in the Lord) become Actually the Tranſgreſſions of Chriſt, he ſhould have told you how I explain'd my ſelf; and he knows I mean no otherwiſe than what can be Chriſts by Actual Imputation. Here's a Great Sputter of Real and Actual, and very Sins, &c. He might as well if he had dealt candidly, told you all my meaning, and not perverted it to ſerve his own Reproachful Tongue. I ſay thus in handling this Text, Iſa. 53.6.
This Iniquity was really laid upon Chriſt; Chriſt was as really the Bearer of the Sins of Gods People,D. C. p. 373. as a Surety is really the Debtor when he willingly puts himſelf into the Room of the principal Debtor. Inſomuch that God cannot expect the Debt any where but of Chriſt. Chriſt gives the Bond, and by giving the Bond makes himſelf the Debtor. God accepts of this, and upon it diſchargeth the poor Sinners themſelves, and if he will have payment he muſt have it where himſelf hath laid the Debt. God was in Chriſt Reconciling the World unto himſelf, not Imputing their Treſpaſſes to them, 2 Cor. 5.3. verſ.
Now Sir you have the great prodigious Errour that Mr. Neonomian chargeth me to be guilty of. As the Surety gives Bond for the very Debt of the Principal to a Farthing, the very Debt of this or that Party by Name, Living in ſuch a Place, of ſuch a Calling, for a Debt contracted at ſuch a time. So that it's that Debt, not another that he contracted at another time, or the Debt of another Man, but the Debt ſo and ſo circumſtantiated, deſcribed and ſubſcribed by the Debtors own Hand. A Surety enters into the ſame Bond, changing only the Names.D. C. p. 330. Sin is called our Debts by Chriſt himſelf who is our Surety. Did he not bear our very Debts? He that bare our very Debts, bare our very Sins; but Chriſt bare our very Debts; and now for me to pay the very Debts of a Debtor that is become Bankrupt, and ſpent his Eſtate upon Luxury, is it to become the Luxurious Contracter of the Debt.
Neonom.
You may think, Gentlemen, that this Man means only Puniſhment that was laid on Chriſt.
Antinom.
No, no, I do not mean only Puniſhment, as you mean; I know, whatever you ſay, you mean not Puniſhment in a right ſence, but only Suffering. But you muſt blot out, for Sin, then it's not Puniſhment; for if the Law inflict Suffering it's for Sin; and if for Sin, it's Puniſhment; and if a Puniſhment, Sin was in ſome ſenſe or other ſound upon him, or elſe the Law wronged him in inflicting Sufferings on him. Now when I ſay it is Iniquity it ſelf that the Lord hath laid on Chriſt,D. C. p. 270. I mean as the Prophet doth, it is the fault of the Tranſgreſſion it ſelf; and to ſpeak more fully, that erring and ſtraying like Sheep, that very erring, ſtraying and tranſgreſſing, is paſſed off from them, and is laid upon Chriſt, [viz. by Imputation.] To ſpeak it more plainly, Haſt thou been an Idolater, Blaſphemer, Murderer, &c. If thou haſt a part in Chriſt, they become Actually the Tranſgreſſions of Chriſt,D. C. p. 268. [by Imputation,] and ſo ceaſe to be thine, —for he was numbred with Tranſgreſſors. God himſelf did account him among the number of Tranſgreſſors, for he himſelf made him a Tranſgreſſor at that time; bear with the Expreſſion, for the Apoſtle hath a higher than this, though it may ſeem harſh to you, 2 Cor. 5. c. He was made Sin for us; there's a great deal of difference between being made Sin and a Sinner, the Expreſſion in the Abſtract going beyond the Concrete. I know the word may be ſpoke Hyperbolically; not that Chriſt ſimply could be made Sin, not that his Eſſence could be turned into Sin, but the Apoſtles meaning was, that no Tranſgreſſor in the World was ſuch a Tranſgreſſor as Chriſt was. But ſtill he was a Tranſgreſſor, as our Tranſgreſſions were laid upon him; not that he was the Actor of any Tranſgreſſions. Now Sir you hearing me ſay this, that Chriſt was a Tranſgreſſor by way of Suretiſhip only; not as the Actor of any Sin in his own Perſon, do not you traduce me ſlanderouſly, charge me with ſaying, that Chriſt was really the Blaſphemer and Murderer, and Idolater? And that becauſe I ſay, If thou be a Thief, Murderer or Drunkard, if thou haſt part in the Lord, all theſe Tranſgreſſions of thine become Actually the Tranſgreſſions of Chriſt, i. e. by Actual Imputation, as the Debts of a Bankrupt becomes a Surety, that undertakes them. Was not Noah's Drunkenneſs, David's Murder and Adultery, Rachel's Theft and Idolatry Imputed to Chriſt? How would you have theſe great foul Sins forgiven? I ſuppoſe you are not for the taking away ſo great Sins by the Blood of Chriſt; with you it would redound to the diſparagement of Chriſt.
Neonom.
Yes, if he ſhould bear the filthineſs and loathſomeneſs of Sin, as you ſay, D. C. p. 436.he bears the loathſomneſs, abominableneſs, and hatefulneſs of Rebellion, which is laid on Chriſts Back; he bears the Sin as well as the Shame and Blame.
Antinom.
I was opening, Pſal. 68.18. Thou haſt received Gifts from Men, yea, for the Rebellious alſo; an Eminent Propheſie of Chriſt. The Text ſaith alſo that thou mighteſt dwell among them; who is that them? The Rebellious: Beloved, you muſt know that no Evil dwells with God; the Lord ſtands fully off and ſeparated from all Iniquity. —Therefore ſeeing God can't dwell with Iniquity, there muſt be a taking away of Iniquity, before there be a receiving graciouſly, Hoſ. 14.2, 3. As long as there is Iniquity to be charged upon any Perſon, there's no receiving graciouſly; therefore ſeeing God cannot dwell with Men where Iniquity is, Chriſt he received Gifts for Men that the Lord might dwell among the Rebellious, and inlarging here I ſpake what he rehearſeth by way of Reproach unto me. It is eaſie to miſrepreſent any Mans words, and make them look very odiouſly, if you hang, draw and quarter them, pluck a Sentence limb from limb. But the thing in Diſpute betwen us is, Whether Chriſt did not bear the very Sins of the Elect in ſome ſence or other?
Neonom.
Yes, it is ſo, for you ſay it's Sin oppoſed to Guilt, and to ſay that God laid the Guilt of Sin, D. W. p. 9.and not Sin it ſelf upon Chriſt is contrary to Scripture.
Antinom.
For the Objection about Guilt, that the Lord lays the Guilt and Puniſhment,D. Cr. p. 271. but not ſimply the Sin it ſelf; for ought that I ſee it is a ſimple Objection. For firſt, you ſhall never find there is diſtinction in all the Scriptures, That God laid the Guilt of Sin upon Chriſt, and not Sin it ſelf;Dr. C. 272. nay to affirm that God laid the Guilt of Sin upon Chriſt, and not Sin it ſelf, is contrary to Scripture. [i. e. to deny that God laid Sin it ſelf, by ſaying he laid Guilt and not Sin, muſt needs be ſo, becauſe the Scriptures affirm poſitively God laid Sin, yea Iniquity upon him, and that he bore our Sins &c.] What preſumption then is it for Man to ſay, God laid the Guilt and not the Sin, [i. e. to aſſert the laying of Guilt on Chriſt, with a denial of laying Sin.] 2. That you may have a little Light concerning the Word Guilt, for I know many Spirits are troubled at it, for my part I do not think as ſome do, that Guilt differs from Sin, as that which is an Obligation or Binding over to the Puniſhment of Sin, rather than Sin it ſelf being paſt and gone, [for when Sin is committed it leaves behind the Conſcience of Sin committed, which is the Sin lying upon us.] But that you may have the true Nature of Guilt, Gen. 42.21, When Joſeph's Brethren were accuſed for Spies, there it is ſaid they ſpake one to another, We are guilty concerning our Brother. foreign. Buxtorf renders it Delinquentes, and it's applyed to, being under Levitical Ʋncleanneſs actually, Levit. 5.2. the Chald. renders it foreign Debitores, we are Debtors to the Law in breaking of it. We have contracted the Debt of Sin, an foreign. And its not a little remarkable how the LXXII.LXX. Iſa. 53.6. foreign. Interpret the forementioned word, Gen. 42.21. foreign. We are in our Sins, or the Sins are upon us, which we committed about our Brother.] What is the meaning of Guilty here?D. C. ibid. Reuben Expounds that Ver. 22. Did not I ſay to you, Sin not againſt the Lad, but you would not hearken unto me, and therefore behold we are guilty: What is that? We did Sin againſt the Child: to be guilty then, and to commit Sin, is all one; they are but two words expreſſing the ſame thing; for further underſtanding: A Malefactor is asked Guilty or Not Guilty? He anſwers Not Guilty; he means he hath not done that Fact which was laid to his Chage; when the Jury ſay Guilty, what do they mean? Do they mean any thing of the Puniſhment, [no, they enquire only of the Juſtneſs of the Charge concerning matter of Fact,] the Jury have nothing to do with the Puniſhment, but only matter of Fact, whether done or not done, ſo that Guilt and Sin are all one: And to ſay Guilt is laid upon Chriſt, but Sin is not laid upon Chriſt is a contradiction; and whereas ſome ſay the Puniſhment of Sin, and not the Sin: I ſay, that Scripture that warrants the laying Puniſhment on Chriſt, he was wounded for our Tranſgreſſions, warrants the laying Sin upon Chriſt, in ſpeaking it thrice plainly in the ſame Chapter. P. 383. 281, 288, 290. —I ſay here is a real Act, and not ſuppoſed only, God doth really paſs over Sin upon him, ſtill keeping this faſt, That Chriſt Acted no Sin; ſo that in reſpect of the Act, not one Sin of the Believers is Chriſts: But in reſpect of Tranſgreſſion, [i. e. the foreign, the relation that Sin hath to the Law as a fault,] in reſpect of conveyance, as to paſſing Accounts from one Head to another, in reſpect of that, there is a reality of making Chriſt to be Sin; when one Man becomes a Debtor in another Man's Room, Legally and by Conſent, this Surety that doth become the Debtor, is not barely ſuppoſed to be the Debtor, but by undertaking it, and legally having it paſs'd upon him, he is as really and truely the Debtor, [yea hath the ſame Debt upon him] as he was who was the principal before; I ſay as really and truely the Debtor: So that there is an abſolute truth and reality in God's Act of paſſing over Sins to Chriſt, and laying Sins upon him. —There muſt be [in Criminal Caſes] of neceſſity a preſent deſert upon a Perſon on whom he inflicts Puniſhment; he muſt not inflict Puniſhment upon a meer Suppoſition.
Mr. Calvin.
I do not ſee but that he hath given a very clear and diſtinct account of his Notion, but I find you will condemn whatever Mr. Antinom. ſaith, right or wrong.
Neonom.
No, no, I will lay open his miſtakes more plainly before you, I will aſſure you he knows not what he ſaith, I will convince you both immediately. The Ground of his Miſtakes are theſe. 1. He ſeems to ſpeak of Sin as a poſitive material thing, and doth not diſtinguiſh between God's laying our Sins on Chriſt as a Phyſical Act, and as a Moral Act, and thinks God took our Sins as a material Burden, and laid them upon Chriſt. D. W. p. 13.
Calvin.
Sir, I muſt tell you then, that you miſtake him, I doubt wilfully, for he no where ſpeaks of Sin as a Phyſical Act, but as a Moral Tranſgreſſion; Doth he not ſay as plainly as may be the contrary to what you ſuggeſt, viz. Here is a real Act of God, God doth really paſs over Sin upon him, ſtill keeping this faſt, that Chriſt Acted no Sin. [Doth he not plainly here deny the Phyſical Act to Chriſt?] And doth he ſpeak of Sin as a material Burden, when he ſaith Chriſt bore it as a Fault, Debt, Law-Breach, &c. D. C. p. 283. He ſpeaks of it as a Moral and Judicial Burden, and ſo doth the Spirit of God ſpeak of it, Pſal. 38.4. Mine Iniquiquities are gone over mine Head, as an heavy Burden they are too heavy for me. And Chriſt bore them as a Burden in his Body on the Tree; it was not ſweet and pleaſant naturally to him.
Neonom.
He ſeems not to Apprehend what the true Notion is of Imputing a thing to another in Law in Criminal Caſes.
Calvin.
Nor do you underſtand that of Mr. Antinomian, I ſuppoſe he means you were never uſed to the Crown Bar, you only have been exerciſed at the Niſi Prius ſide.
Antinom.
I am no Lawyer, but yet am fain to uſe ſome Law terms (that the Scripture uſeth, and moſt Men are acquainted with) in this matter, and moſt Divines hold neceſſary to explain theſe Myſteries by; though Mr. Neonomian will not underſtand them, nor allow them any otherwiſe than in his own Senſe, contrary to all received meanings of them. Do not I talk of Sin as a Criminal Caſe, when I ſay David's Murder and Adultery was Imputed to Chriſt, and the Sin of thoſe and ſuch like Actions? Imputation is of the ſame Nature, whether the Default be Debt, or Criminal nature, both Debts of Money and Fellonies are Moral Tranſgreſſions; nay, both are the breach of one Law, Theft; and not paying anothers, or his own Money due upon Bond, or Rent-Charge, or the like, is breaking the Eighth Commandment, Thou ſhalt not Steal, and is not Theft a Criminal Caſe? See Dr. Cr. p. 288, 289.
Neonom.
God's laying Sin on Chriſt is a Moral Act of God as a Rector, i. e. he Agreed and Appointed that Chriſt ſhould in his Perſon ſtand obliged to bear the Puniſhment of our Sins, that we might obtain pardon, and that Puniſhment was Actually laid upon him, and ſuffered by him.
Antinom.
What do you mean by a Rector? do you mean as a Rector under a Law for the Rule of his Moral Obedience? or was God Bound by his Moral Law to appoint Chriſt to bear Sin? What do we with this diminutive word Rector; methinks you might Entitle God, our Great King, Soveraign Lawgiver, who is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and doth whatever he pleaſeth in Heaven and Earth, and you make him little Moral Rector, and as ſuch he Covenanted with his Son to bear Sin: Did God Act in a way of Government and Dominion over his Son as his Rector, when he ſaid, If thou ſhalt make thy Soul an Offering for Sin, &c? Iſa. 53. Or as with one that counted it no Robbery to be equal with God, Phil. 2.6. Was it not when he was with him, one brought up with him, his Delight, his Delight, his Fellow? And was agreeing with Chriſt to bear Sin, and Actually laying it upon him, the ſame Act? whereas one was Immanent, and the other Tranſient; God in laying Sin or charging Sin upon Chriſt, or executing the Puniſhment upon him, freely ſubmitting himſelf to be dealt with in a way of Juſtice, did Act as a Great Judge, the Judge of all the World, in foro Juſtitiae Divinae. Why muſt we have this mean Title for God, Rector? God did not Covenant with his Son in a way of Judicial proceeding, though that Covenant was executed in a way of Vindictive and Remunerative Juſtice. And you ſay the Puniſhment of Sin was laid on Chriſt, but not Sin it ſelf. What Juſtice is it in a Judge, or as a Rector, as you call him, to puniſh him for Sin, that is not juſtly charged with Sin, its Tranſgreſſion charged is the only Meritorious Cauſe of Puniſhment; where there is no Law, there's no Tranſgreſſion; and where there's no Tranſgreſſion, there can be no Puniſhment, though there may be Sufferings they cannot be Penal. Sin and Puniſhment are Relata in Logick as well as Law. And you ſay he was obliged to bear the Puniſhment, that we might obtain pardon, cunningly worded indeed; this is an anſwer to a Bill, ſaving all Advantages that hereafter may be taken: You mean Chriſt hath bore the Puniſhment of our Sins, that we may hereafter by the Righteouſneſs of another Law obtain pardon.
Neonom.
Again, alſo becauſe a Man that is Bound in a Bond of Money becomes a Debtor; therefore he thinks becauſe Chriſt ſuffered to ſave the Idolater or Blaſphemer, therefore Chriſt muſt be the Idolater and Blaſphemer. D. W. p. 14.
Antinom.
But pray Sir ſhew firſt,foreign ſignifies propter, Rom. 4.25. foreign, for theſe things comes the Wrath, &c. Eph. 56. And foreign hath the ſame force, 1 Cor. 15 3. Pro peccatis noſtris, Gal. 1.9. Et foreign, for Sins, 1 Pet. 3.18. foreign and foreign uſe to ſignifie no leſs the Impulſive Cauſe than the Final Cauſe. See Rom. 15.9. 2 Cor. 1.11. Eph. 1.16. 2 Cor. 5.21. Grot. de ſatisfact. Ʋlciſcipio Injuriis. Sceleris poenas perſolveré ſuppliciis & maleficiis metuere. Cicero. Caſtigare pro commerita noxia. Plaut. Pro dictis & factis ulſciſci. Terrent. Pro peccatis Paſſus aut Mortuus. Grot. de ſat. that he thinks Chriſt became the very Idolater and Blaſphemer; you heard him again and again deny that he thought ſo, but he ſaid that Chriſt was charged with, and bore the Sins of the Idolater and Blaſphemer; and I ſtand to it, and I muſt tell you, if a Man Bound for Money becomes a Debtor, it's for that Debt which is owing. And if Idolatry be a Sin whereby a Sinner is a Debtor to the Law, Chriſt becomes a Debtor in the ſame ſence for Idolatry. And I told you, a Debtor is a Moral Tranſgreſſor, if he make not due payment as well as a Thief, both Sinners againſt one Command.
Neonom.
Chriſt paying our Debts was a ſatisfaction for Criminals, not a payment of Money.
Antinom.
Not Silver and Gold, but a better ſort of Money. 1 Pet. 1.18, 19. You know the Spirit of God alludes to that Metaphor; he calls our Redemption, Our being bought with a Price, or a Ranſom, &c. 1 Cor. 6.20. therefore I think you ſhould not pretend to be wiſer than the Spirit of God; and Chriſts paying our Debts was making ſatiſfaction for Criminals, and he was a reputed Criminal, he was numbred among Tranſgreſſors not only by Man [as you ſay] but by God.
Neonom.
And yet it is plain, that if I were bound for Money for one, that by Drunkenneſs waſtes his Eſtate, my being Bound to pay the Money, doth not argue that I was, or muſt by the Creditors be ſo accounted when I make payment.
Antinom.
It is very true, Mr. Moderator, I think it's time for us to break up our Club at this time, for if the Conſtable ſhould happen to look in, and hear ſuch high-flown Reaſoning as this is, I do not know but we may be in danger of being laid by the Heels, the beſt of it is, that we ſhall not be reckoned Conſtables for being laid by the Heels.
Neonom.
Once more, to clinch the laſt Conviction a little cloſer, becauſe Chriſt was made Sin, i. e. an Offering or Sacrifice for Sin; therefore he thinks our very Sins was laid upon him, and he made filthy.
Antinom.
Becauſe he was made a Sacrifice for Sin, therefore I ſay he was made Sin, the Sacrifices were made Sin, and bore the Sins of the People Typically as Shadows, Chriſt really, and as the Subſtance; and as the Sacrifices became Levitically Unclean by the bearing of Sin, ſo Chriſt the true Sacrifice was Judicially Unclean when he bore our Sins in his Body on the Tree.
Neonom.
To add no more, becauſe men wickedly arraigned him as a Blaſphemer, therefore …he Doctor thinks he was ſo indeed, and in God's account.
Calvin.
What blundering Doctor is this to have ſo many groſs Miſtakes in ſuch a plain point of Divinity, and of ſo great concern; that ever any Man's Skull ſhould be ſo thick, as to think that Chriſt Actually Blaſphemed God, becauſe he bore the Sins upon the Croſs of thoſe that reproached him for a Blaſphemer, and Arraigned him as ſuch.
Antinom.
I pray Sir let me ask him one Queſtion for Information, now he talks of Blaſphemers, and he is ſo good at rectifying Miſtakes: Tell me the meaning of that place, Pſal. 69.3. applyed to Chriſt, Rom. 15.3. Some take it to mean that the Blaſphemies of Blaſphemers were charged upon and imputed to Chriſt; and I think the Apoſtle Paul quotes the place in that ſence, but it may be the Apoſtle Paul and I may be both miſtaken; I pray Sir make it ſo, and add it to the other miſtakes.
Calvin.
You have been a great while ſhewing what laying of Sin upon Chriſt is not, and convincing this Dr. of Antinomianiſm, and want of Brains; I pray Sir now let us be the better for yours, and let us know the Truth in this great matter, and that we may not be liable to be led aſide by ſuch dark Larthorn Doctors as you make this to be.
Neonom.
I came on purpoſe to be a Guide to you, I know you are all at a loſs in theſe Points.
Truth. Though our Sins were Imputed to Chriſt with reſpect to the Guilt thereof, ſo that he by the Fathers appointment, and his own conſent, became obliged, as a Mediator, to bear the Puniſhment of our Iniquities; and he did bear thoſe Puniſhments to the full ſatisfaction of Juſtice, and to our Actual Remiſſion when we believe; nevertheleſs the filth of our Sins was not laid on Chriſt; nor can he be called the Tranſgreſſor, or was he in God's account the Blaſphemer, Murderer, &c. D. W. p. 7.
That you may not be miſtaken, I will tell you in ſeveral particulars what I hold. 1. Chriſt bare the Puniſhment of our Sins. D. W. p. 9.
Antinom.
Sir, I deſire to remark upon your Conceſſions as you Name them.
Neonom.
I pray take your liberty as to that.
Antinom.
Puniſhment is ſuch no otherwiſe than as the Wages of Sin, and where Sin is not charged there's no Wages due, and therefore if Puniſhment be taken only as Suffering for Sin, it's no Puniſhment but bare Sufferings. An Innocent Perſon may ſuffer, but none can be puniſhed by juſtice but a nocent Perſon, that is ſo in the Eye of the Law that inflicts the Suffering.
Neonom.
2. Chriſt bare the Guilt of our Sins, which is that reſpect of Sin to the threatning of the Law, whereby there is an Obligation to bear the Puniſhment.
Antinom.
We have told you the Scripture every where ſays Chriſt bore our Sin. You ſay before, that our Sins were Imputed to Chriſt with reſpect to Guilt, as if they were not layed on the guilty. 2. We find God's People for whom Chriſt bore Sin, do often labour under Guilt of Sin. 3. Guilt of Sin is a reſult of Sin, belongs to the Committer, and all the World is found Guilty before God; or elſe it is the Judicial Charge, or Accuſation by the Law, whereby the Sinner is made to deſerve Puniſhment; thus it is with Thouſands that have no ſenſe of Guilt in Conſcience. 4. Guilt in Conſcience is taken off at the application of the ſatiſfaction of Chriſt to the Soul, by the ſence of his bearing Sin. 5. Guilt in Judgment is upon proof of the Charge or Confeſſion of it, either from Conſcience of the Fact in the Perſon that committed it, or from a ſubmitting to the Charge in the place and ſtead of another, whereupon the Perſon becomes Guilty, i. e. blame-worthy, and faulty in the Eye of the Law. 6. You miſtake in ſaying Guilt is that reſpect of Sin to the Threatnings of the Law, whereby there is an obligation to bear Puniſhment. Guilt is the juſt Charge of Sin, which is foreign, a Tranſgreſſion of the Preceptive part; it's Extrinſick to Sin, to ſuffer Puniſhment for Sin, and though they are relata by God's Conſtitution that where-ever there is Sin there muſt be Puniſhment, yet it's not ſo by neceſſity of Nature. 7. Hence obligation to Puniſhment is from the Will of the Law-giver, and the Nature of the Law; not from the Sinner; the Law hath tyed Sin and Puniſhment together, and it's not Sin to be obliged to Puniſhment, but it is for Sin; obligation to Puniſhment is part of the Wages of Sin, and not Sin in it ſelf, nor the guilt of Sin; a Murderer that is caſt, he is guilty before Sentence or Execution, not becauſe the Law will Sentence him, but becauſe he hath committed the Fact which the Law hath forbid, and therefore hath annexed a Penalty to it. There's a Privative Nature in Sin, which is a contrariety to the Goodneſs of the Law, which is the Fault, therefore the Law to avenge it ſelf makes it worthy, or deſerving ſuch a Puniſhment, and upon Tryal binds over the Sinner to it; there's hardly to be found a difference between reatus culpae & poenae, as Dr. O. ſaith; but Sin committed or juſtly charged upon ſome account or other, is in it ſelf by vertue of the Conſtitution of the Law an obligation to Puniſhment, being the Meritorious Cauſe thereof.
Neonom.
I own Chriſt was eſteemed by Men a Tranſgreſſor, and Arraigned as ſuch.
Antinom.
If it were only ſo, he bore Sin no otherwiſe than the Saints and Martyrs, who alſo were accounted Tranſgreſſors by Men, Arraigned and Condemned as ſuch, but it ſeems you will not own him accounted a Tranſgreſſor by God, and therefore no Sin was laid upon him, nor any Puniſhment, and here you fall in roundly with the Socinians.
Neonom.
We grant alſo that Chriſt's Sufferings were as Effectual to put away Sin, as if our very Sins had been tranſacted on him.
Antinom.
I doubt not but you will aſcribe as much to your Goſpel, as Paul did to his; there was never any Coyners of new Doctrine, (Papiſt, Quaker, Socinian or Arminian, all Well-wiſhers to your Divinity, in ſome part or other of it) but will ſtill each of them cry up your Doctrine, and decry the Truth for Error; and this Truth of laying Sin on Chriſt, as vehemently as you, eſpecially in the Sence that you do.
Neonom.
But I ſay he became obliged as Mediator to bear the Puniſhment of our Iniquities.
Antinom.
If as Mediator, then to take up the difference between God and us, for it's Sin makes the difference and not puniſhment; this is but the effect of the difference, the High-prieſt, the Typical Mediator, was to bear the Iniquities of the People, and offer a Sacrifice on which they were charged.
Neonom.
He did bear thoſe Puniſhments to the full ſatisfaction of Juſtice.
Antinom.
Unleſs Sin be taken away in a Law ſence, Juſtice is not ſatisfied, bearing Puniſhment only doth not ſatisfie for Sin, the Law will have the Sinner, or the Sin taken away; therefore the Damned muſt ſuffer to Eternity becauſe they cannot take away Sin by Suffering, but Chriſt did more than ſuffer, he put an end to Sin by the Sacrifice of himſelf.
Neonom.
Yea, and to our Actual Remiſſion when we believe.
Antinom.
It ſeems there's Fundamental Potential Remiſſion before; and I doubt you will not ſuffer this Remiſſion to take place without a new Law and the Righteouſneſs thereof.
Neonom.
The Real difference lyes in theſe things.
1. Whether Sin it ſelf as to its filth and fault was tranſacted on Chriſt? This you affirm, and I deny.
2. Whether Chriſt was made and accounted by the Father the very Tranſgreſſor, the Adulterer, the Blaſphemer? This you affirm, and I deny. D. W. p. 10.
Antinom.
You might have put the Queſtions into one, and ſtated it as it lyes between the Apoſtle Paul and you.
Whether God Imputed Sin to Chriſt at all?
Neonom.
I go on to confirm my Poſitions.
1. To tranſact our Sins on Chriſt as oppoſed to Guilt, is impoſſible, for it would argue either a miſtake in the Divine Mind to account him the Committer of our Sins, or a Propagater of our corrupt Qualities to him, which is impoſſible; and any other way beſides Imputing the guilt there is none.
Antinom.
This Argument, I judge, is to prove both Poſitions. As to the Firſt, it runs thus: That which is impoſſible cannot be done; but to tranſact Sin as to it's Fault, is impoſſible, Ergo. As to the Major, I judge the Impoſſibility is meant in reſpect of the Nature of God, or the Conſtitution of God, otherwiſe I know not why a Fault may not be taken away, as well as Obligation to Puniſhment; when as Fault is that for which a Man is obliged to bear Puniſhment: For if the Fault remain, the Puniſhment is ſtill due.
The Minor you prove thus: It would argue a miſtake in God, or ſuppoſe him a Propagator of Sin.
1. It doth argue a Miſtake in you to ſay, that's transferred from us which was never in us. For the Obligation to Puniſhment in it's active conſideration is ſubjectively in the Law, and that cannot be taken from it; it's the Debt which the Law owes to the Sinner, by reaſon of it's Sanction, and the Puniſhment is the Payment;1 Joh. 3.3, 4. foreign. the Wages of Sin is Death. For Puniſhment is not the Sinners Debt, but the Law's Debt, and the Sinner's Due. The Sinner's Debt is, doing the Duty the Law requires. His Diſobedience is an Offence to the Law, a Fault blamed by the Preceptive part of the Law; and this is Guilt, Reatus culpae, to which Meritum poenae doth by vertue of the Conſtitution belong. There's two reſpects in Sin. 1. To the preceptive part of the Law, and that is Fault. 2. To the Penal part, and that is Meritum. Now theſe by reaſon of the Juſtice of the Law, and the Connexion made by it's Inſtitution between the Accuſing and condemning part, are inſeparable before God; and being but two different reſpects of the ſame individual Act, it is a Fault and a Merit, and a Merit becauſe it is a Fault; the Merit is a Reſult from the Fault, and are ſuch relata, that they cannot be parted in Judgment. Now then, will not your Argument rebound upon your ſelf? Would it not argue a Miſtake in God, to lay the Merit of Puniſhment upon a Perſon that hath not any meritorious Cauſe of it in no reſpect? If the Fault be not imputed, how can the Merit? There can be no Merit without a meritorious Cauſe, and this is our Sins, and not Chriſt's, by way of Perpretation. In laying Sin on Chriſt, there are theſe things. 1. The Spirit of God ſays it's Sin, and doth not confound Sin and Puniſhment: And it's abſurd if it ſhould, for Puniſhment is not Sin. 2. It ſaith, It's our Sins, not Chriſt's. 3. That theſe Sins are Juridically imputed and accounted to Chriſt: The Payments by Chriſt's Sufferings is his own Money, not ours; the Debt is imputed, not the Payment: A Surety is charged with, and takes upon him the principal Debt, but doth not take Money from him to pay it; the Money is his own; the Debt is the Principal's transferred to him, but the Payment is the Surety's ſubjectively and properly: Therefore to ſay the Payment is imputed to the Surety is Nonſence. The Spirit of God ſpeaks expreſly, that our Sins were laid on Chriſt, no leſs than Three times in Iſa. 53. and expreſſed by three different Words, foreign, ver. 6. foreign, ver. 11. foreign, ver. 12. It's expreſs, 1 Pet. 2.24. the Apoſtle plainly there ſpeaking after the Prophet, ſays, He bore it as a Sin-offering, Heb. 9.28. Was made Sin, 1 Cor. 5.21. Therefore we neeed not fear to ſay, Chriſt bore our Sins, let the Sence be what it will which the Spirit means; it was certainly ſo, as to take away the Charge of Sin, which is Fault and Blame, from before God, 1 John 3.3, 4. To take it away as foreign, which is ſo to take it away, as to ſet a Man right in the Eye of Juſtice.
Your next Branch of Proof to the Minor, is, That to impute Sin to Chriſt, would argue him a Propagator of Corrupt Qualities. What could be done or ſaid more by a Socinian, to load the great Truths of the Goſpel with reproachful Conſequences. 1. Sin is no poſitive Quality as ſuch, but only privative. 2. All Qualities of a pernicious Nature to the Sinner, conſiſting of Natural Cauſes, are Subjecta peccati, not Peccatum it ſelf, and they are ſeparable from Sin in it's Moral Conſideration: There were in Chriſt himſelf Effects of our Sins, in Infirmity, Sorrow, Reproach, &c. They were very uneaſie Qualities, though not corrupt. 3. God himſelf tells us. He laid Iniquity upon him, and made him Sin, and yet ſaith Poſitively, He was no Committer of Sin. And you charge the Spirit of God with Nonſence and Contradiction. For you ſay, it's impoſſible to impute Sin to Chriſt any other way than puniſhing of him, it's to miſtake, and make Chriſt the Committer, which Puniſhment is not ſin; therefore what the Spirit ſaith is falſe, Sin was not laid on Chriſt at all, and yet the Spirit ſpeaks it expreſly. 4. You will inferr theſe Abſurdities. 1. That Sin cannot be laid on Chriſt but by Transfuſion, wherein you deny Imputation. 2. That Chriſt muſt be corrupted thereby: Whereas the Spirit of God tells us, he bears Sin as a Lamb without Spot: You will have it, that he had the Macula fixed on him by bearing it. 3. You will have God, by laying Sin on Chriſt, to become a Propagator of Sin. The Spirit of God ſays, he appeared to take away our Sins, and in him is no Sin, 1 John 3.5. How audacious is our Carnal Reaſon, to ſet upon Divine Myſteries.
Neonom.
It was needleſs to the Ends for which our Sins were laid on Chriſt.
Antinom.
You ſhould have ſaid, what's needleſs. Your Argument ſhould have run thus, Laying Sins on Chriſt is needleſs to the ends for which they were laid on Chriſt; and therefore thoſe Scriptures that ſay ſo, are needleſs.
Neonom.
Sins were laid on Chriſt, that he might make Atonement by ſuffering for them; and ſo releaſe us who had tranſgreſſed.
Antinom.
Now, Sir, you ſay ſomething, you ſpeak like a Divine, if you can hold there. Now you own ſomething laid on Chriſt beſides Puniſhment; for the Atonement was made by being puniſhed, and ſay well now, that Sin was laid on him, that he might make Atonement for them, viz. by being puniſhed. For bearing Sin is one thing, and making Atonement is another, but are inſeparable relata, and therein contraria affirmantiae.
Neonom.
Now Chriſt, by ſubmitting to the Guilt as an Obligation to Puniſhment, according to the Terms of the Covenant of Redemption, was ſufficient to this End, and all that was needful.
Antinom.
That Chriſt bore the Deſert or Demerit of our Sin, which is done only by a Judicial Charge and Accuſation in our ſtead, is ſufficient. What is Sin after the Fact is committed, but reatus culpae? Guilt is the Fault declared and applyed ſomewhere in a way of Judicial Proceeding: And this is often the Conſcience of Sin, and is not removed but by Faith on Chriſt crucify'd, who bore our Sins before God.
Neonom.
All that endangered us, was the Threatning of the Law, and the Puniſhment included in the Threat.
Antinom.
Where there is true Godly Sorrow, it's more upon this Account, that he hath ſinned againſt a Holy God, and broke his holy, juſt and good Law, than for fear of the Threats of Wrath. I thought I had better underſtood the Nature of Sorrow for Sin, that it had been the nature of Sin in Contrariety to God, had more grieved than the Fear of Puniſhment.
Neonom.
The Obliquity of the Fact, as againſt the Precept, ſhall not hurt, where the Sanction of the Law is anſwer'd.
Antinom.
I think this is that you call Antinomianiſm with a Witneſs; you ſhall hear of it again e're long; only obſerve, That this is as much a Doctrine of Licentiouſneſs, as any you charge on me: Secure but your ſelf from Hell, and you need not regard the preceptive part of the Law, you may live as you liſt. See how you'l clear your ſelf, when you charge it for a great Crime upon me, in ſaying, Sin will do no hurt in ſome Sence, &c.
Neonom.
And he that ſuffers as Sponſor for another, need not ſuſtain in himſelf the filthineſs of the Crime, to make him capable of giving Satisfaction, Gen. 44.13. Phil. 18.
Antinom.
No, that's true upon your Hypotheſis, there's no need of a Sponſor; for the Filthineſs of Sin is too foul for Chriſt to bear, the Sinner muſt be his own Expiator, and carry away his Filth himſelf; or if he keep it, it will not hurt. See 1 John 7.9.
Neonom.
This tranſacting of the Filthineſs of our Sins on Chriſt is blaſphemous.
Antinom.
Friend, that's a cruel Bomb to ſhoot at a good Man, to charge him with Blaſphemy. But where's the Blaſphemy, to ſay, Chriſt bore the Filth of Sin in a Sence. Is not Sin filthy under all Conſiderations? Doth not the Spirit of God call it filthy and abominable in all reſpects? 1. Is not the Guilt of Sin Filth and abominable in God's Sight? And is it not ſo, when it lies upon the Conſcience? I think the Spirit of God repreſents it always as the greateſt Foulneſs and Uncleanneſs. I ſay, a Conſcience polluted with Sin, to thoſe that are defiled and unbelieving, and can't by Faith fetch and derive cleanſing Vertue from the Blood of Chriſt into their Conſciences, to ſuch nothing is clean, foreign, Tit. 1.15. Now this is the very Rooot and Foundation of a Defilement: And what is it that takes it off, but Faith in the Sin-cleanſing Vertue of Jeſus Chriſt? The great Contrariety of Sin to the Holy Law, is the Filthineſs of Sin. And the Apoſtle tells, Heb. 9.14. How our Conſciences come to be purged from dead Works; it's no other way, than by the offering of Chriſt without Spot to God. This ſpotleſs Sacrifice, whereon he bore Sin, and was not defiled: And hereby the Conſcience of Sin, i. e. the Guilt of Sin, (which is no other than Sin charged upon the Conſcience) is taken away; and thence the Levitical Services could not make any perfect, as pertaining to Conſcience, but it's the Blood of Chriſt that ſprinkles from an evil Conſcience, Heb. 10.22. 2. A condemning Conſcience, without which we ſtand but loathſomly before God; yea, while for want of Faith we apprehend God deals with us out of Chriſt, we are very loathſom, and all our Works and Services dead, God loaths and abhors them. Is not the Vertue of Chriſt's Blood compared to a Fountain to waſh us in, and intended eſpecially of Juſtification and Pardon, and the Saints to betake themſelves to it under the Notion of it's cleanſing Vertue in that Sence? 1 John 1.7. Rev. 1.5. Guilt of Sin then is as great a Pollution as belongs to Sin: It's no other than Sin lying upon the Conſcience with an Accuſation, 1 John 3.20, 21. Greg. Nyſſon ſaith, He bore foreign, the Filth of our Sin. Dr. O. p. 42.
Again, Wherever Sin is to be purged out by Sanctification, it is to be rid away by Juſtification, but all Filth is to be rid by Sanctification, that indwells. Now it is manifeſt, that the cleanſing Vertue of the Blood of Chriſt applyed by Faith, is the firſt Goſpel-effectual Means of Sanctification; and it muſt be the great Cauſe of Mortification; wherein we are planted together in the likeneſs of his Death, Rom. 6. And what did Chriſt in his Death, but deſtroy the Body of Sin by carrying it away? 2 Tim. 1.10. He hath by carrying away ſin, aboliſhed Sin and Death, ſlain the Enmity that lay in Hatred of God, Pravity and Dominion of ſin. Whence was it that David was cleanſed from Blood-guiltineſs? Was it not from it's being laid on Chriſt? Was it not that very Filthineſs of his Sin? Pſal. 51.14. Doth he not pray to God to be waſhed throughly from his ſin, and to be cleanſed from it? Was not that by the Application of the Blood of Chriſt? Doth he not mention all his Pravity, Original as well as Actual, from which he would be purged as with Hyſſop, and made whiter than Snow? And wherein lies this Waſhing? Is it not in reſpect of ſin? (not in reſpect of Puniſhment, he mentioneth not) he explains what he means, it is that radical Waſhing, ver. 9. Hide thy Face from my Sins, and blot out mine Iniquity, i. e. From the Face of God's Juſtice. Then follows the Creation of a clean Heart; He gave himſelf for us to redeem us from all Iniquity, Tit. 2.14. There is no Pravity, Defilement, Pollution of Sin what-ever, that is ſo but becauſe of it's contrariety to the preceptive part of the Law, muſt firſt have it's Foundation of cleanſing from Chriſt's bearing of it away, and this Faith applying purifies the Heart from the indwelling Macula in us. Whence that Promiſe, Ezek. 36.25. The clean Water there is the Spirit working in Application of the Blood of Chriſt; and therefore Goſpel-cleanſing lies chiefly in Application of Promiſes, 2 Cor. 7.1.
Neonom.
He took care his Body ſhould not ſee Corruption, Acts 2.3. he would much more abhor to take in our Pollution: He was holy, harmleſs, undefiled, &c.
Antinom.
All this we ſay over and over, that he bare Sin, but was not defiled with Sin, nor corrupted in his Nature; but the Spirit of God is not to be believed. See Chriſt's taking away of Sin by Atonement, is called foreign, Heb. 1.3.
Neonom.
It was Condeſcenſion enough, that he agreed to be treated as a Sinner: But how odious is it to load him with Sin it felf! To ſpit that in his Face that the worſt of Men abuſed him with; and it would juſtifie his Perſecutors who puniſhed him, if he was really the Perſon your Principles renders him to be.
Antinom.
The Spirit of God renders him to be the Perſon that my Principles renders him to be. It ſaith he bore our Sins in his Body on the Tree, the Lord laid Iniquities on him, he was made Sin for us, and yet how dare you reproach the Spirit of God in ſuch a manner! To ſay, that it's an odious thing: To ſay, be bore the Load and Weight of all the Sins of the Elect; that it is ſpitting in the Face of Chriſt, doing that which the worſt of Men did to him, and juſtifying his Murderers: I am ſurprized with great horrour to hear ſuch things out of the Mouth of a Man that is called a Goſpel Miniſter. I pray God give you Repentance, and lay not theſe things to your Charge.
But Sir, you have here declared your defiance of the Date of the Imputation of our Sins to Chriſt, and yet would pretend you hold that Doctrine by ſaying God laid the Puniſhment of Sin only upon Chriſt. The meer Puniſhment of Chriſt (I muſt tell you) was not the bearing our Sin; for the bearing the Puniſhment was the payment of the Debt, and was his Righteouſneſs which is Imputed unto us: if Imputation of our Sins to Chriſt lay in nothing elſe, they were not Imputed at all to him; Puniſhment was laid upon him, and he bore it by way of Suffering in his Humane Nature, and was that Righteouſneſs that is Imputed to us in Juſtification, the Argument againſt you is this:
That which is Imputed to us was not Imputed to Chriſt, but Puniſhment of Chriſt to Satisfaction for our Sins, is his Righteouſneſs Imputed to us. Ergo, not the Imputation of our Sins unto him. If your rooted prejudices will ſuffer you to conſider, I pray weigh well that Argument, you will have more by and by.
But you ſtill ſay if Chriſt bore Sin he muſt be polluted with Sin. Anſ. It argues not that Sin was his by perpetration or Infuſion, but only by Imputation, they were our Sins by Perpetration and Inheſion, which he bore by Imputation: The Spirit of God tells us he was a Sinner in one reſpect, and no Sinner in another; as the Church of Smyrna was Poor in one reſpect, and Rich in another. Omnia diverſa natura ſua abſtractâ ſunt oppoſita; as Poverty and Riches, Sin and no Sin; tamen eidem attributa ratione tantum diſſentiunt; as a Man may be Rich and Poor, Wiſe and Fooliſh in divers reſpects.
And as to the filthineſs of Sin it could not ſtain him, he remained untouched in his Holy Nature, but yet I muſt tell you, as bearing Sin by the Sacrifices cauſed a Typical Uncleanneſs, inſomuch as the Bodies were Burnt without the Camp, and they that Burnt them and gathered up the Aſhes became Unclean; ſuch a Judicial uncleanneſs was Jeſus Chriſt our Sacrifice under, wherein he anſwered thoſe great Types, and we are not without ample proof of it, eſpecially from Heb. 13.11.
Neonom.
Arg. 2. Had he been Eſteemed the very Tranſgreſſor, his Atonement had been unavailable, for he could not Atone for himſelf. D. W. p. 11.
Antinom.
You ſhould have ſaid, had he been the very Tranſgreſſor; he was a reputed Tranſgreſſor, and ſtood inſtead of the actual Tranſgreſſor; he therefore was a becoming High-prieſt, becauſe he needed not to Offer for his own Sins, but did at once Offer for us when he Offered up himſelf, Heb. 7.25, 27. All the places you mention are againſt you, that eſpecially, 1 Pet. 3.18. and that of Heb. 9.14. above all as we have ſhewed before.
Neonom.
Chriſt then ſuffered for his own Sins.
Antinom.
So far as they became his own by Imputation.
To conclude, becauſe you will have it, that in pleading for the Imputation of our Sins to Chriſt, I muſt hold that Chriſt was the very Tranſgreſſor. See what I ſaid: There is a certain tranſacting of Sin on Chriſt, ſo real, that indeed a Believer though an Actual Tranſgreſſor is as abſolutely and truely diſcharged of his Sins as if he himſelf had not committed them. As a Debtor when a Surety hath taken the Debt on him, and the Debtor receives an Acquittance and Diſcharge, he is as free of the Debt now as if he never run into the Debt: So I ſay it is with a Believer, Chriſt being made a Surety of a better Teſtament, and thereby becoming really and truely the Debtor, inſtead of the Believer, he ſo bears all the Debts himſelf, that they are altogether releaſed and diſcharged, as if they had never been in Debt. Still I ſay, this hinders not, but there is an Acting of Sin, and Committing of Sin every day by a Believer, but ſtill the vertue of Chriſt's Suretiſhip takes off the Sin as ſoon as it is committed; nay he hath a Proviſo, or Stock in Bank to ſatisfie it as ſoon as it is Committed. Dr. Cr. p. 289.
Calviniſt.
If this be Mr. Antinomians Judgment, I ſee not but it is ſound, and according to the Scriptures; and you have little reaſon to make ſuch a noiſe as you have done, and load him ſo invidiouſly with your loathſom Conſequences, and miſrepreſent him ſo hideouſly to the World, as if he were a Perſon of no Divinity, Logick, Religion, Brains, or common Senſe; I muſt confeſs, I think you have given a great deal of Ground of juſt offence, in wreſting the words and ſence of ſo good a Man; beſides your taking advantage to inſinuate to us Errours; for I apprehend your Spleen is moſt eſpecially vented at the Doctrine of Imputation, it's that which you principally aim at to Wound and caſt to the Ground.
Laying Sin on Chriſt no other than that whereby Chriſt becomes accountable to God for our Sins, and there is in it theſe things very eaſie and plain to be underſtood.
1. Chriſt's Offering himſelf freely to be accountable to God for our Sins; becauſe none can be forced to be accountable for the defaults of another. 2. His anſwering the Will and Pleaſure of the Law-giver, the Judge of all therein, being called thereunto and accepted in ſo doing, in the room and ſtead of the Delinquents. 3. Hence it is for our Sins and not his own, that he is accountable. 4. Our Sins are the Material and Meritorious Cauſe of his Sufferings, which he takes upon him; our very Faults in non-conformity to the Law; our Sins in the delinquency, our very Sins in oppoſition to Puniſhment, our Sins in their greateſt foulneſs, under the greateſt Aggravations, they are the very offending, meritorious Cauſes; and whereas when we are without Chriſt they are accounted the offending and the meritorious Cauſe of Suffering to us; ſo Chriſt being ſubſtituted in our room, they are the very offending meritorious Cauſes of Suffering to him; Sin hath a double reſp…ct as a Fault and Demerit, but as a fault is a demerit. To be accountable is to ſtand under the demerits of Sin; and indeed that is Guilt; or reatus culpae, which the Orthodox mean when they ſay Chriſt bare the guilt of Sin, and it's no other than the charge of Delinquency. Dignitas poenae & obligatio ad poenam is the ſame thing, and there's little weight in the diſtinction between Reatus Culpae and Reatus Poenae; for Reatus Culpae is nothing elſe but Dignitas Poenae propter Culpam. D. O. 280. And hence they ſay there's no difference between Guilt and the Sin it ſelf; for Sin is no poſitive thing but privative, and that which is remaining beſides the Phyſical Act of that which is a Moral Guilt, or juſt Charge of Abberration from the Rectitude and Duty required in the Law, for which Men muſt be accountable to God, and according to the ſanction of the Law give ſatisfaction; and that is in this caſe by receiving the Wages of Sin, and in ſo doing the Payment is made.
And I ſhall now prove by many Arguments that it's our Sins, and our Sins in the higheſt degrees and aggravations that Chriſt was accountable to God for, and that he bore them in this ſence, by way of Imputation, though none of the macula or ſtain by way of Inherent pollution or defilement fell upon him, nor could cleave unto him. And we defend the Poſition as the Spirit of God every where ſtates. it. That it was Sin as foreign that Chriſt bore, and in bearing took away from before God, it's ſaid to be laid on Chriſt as foreign and foreign.
1. That which is the Radical Cauſe of God's diſpleaſure againſt a Sinner was laid upon Chriſt to take away, but Sin was the Radical Cauſe of God's diſpleaſure, Ergo, Sin in the radical Nature of it as it's a Fault, and blamed of God as ſuch. Now obligation to Puniſhment is not the Cauſe of God's diſpleaſure, but the effect of it; that which renders a Perſon abominable in the ſight of God is Sin, as it's againſt the preceptive part of the Law: as to the Major it's plain, unleſs the Radical Cauſe of God's manifeſting diſpleaſure be taken away, God cannot be reconciled to us; it's called the Enmity, Eph. 2. even on God's part, which is upon the default of Sin, and it's Enmity on ours.
2. That which Chriſt bore in his Body on the Tree, was Sin it ſelf, our Blame as well as Demerit; for there's no demerit where there's no blame: He that ſuffers for a fault bears the fault; the fault ſtands and claims the Meritoriouſneſs of Sufferings. The Apoſtle is expreſs in it, That he bore our Sins on the Croſs, foreign, 1 Pet. 2.24. This is the Puniſhment only you will ſay; but the Holy Ghoſt will tell you he bore foreign in the Nature of it; foreign is not the Puniſhment of Sin, but Sin it ſelf, 1 John 3.4. foreign, and mark what follows, ver. 5. and ye know that he was manifeſt, foreign, that he might bare away Sin in bearing it; and notwithſtanding this, (ſaith he) there was no Sin in him; this doth plainly evince that the Anomy of Sin was accounted to him.
3. That the fault of Sin is ſeparable from the Perſon of the Sinner, but can never be ſeparated from the demerit without payment. David's Perſon is freed from the fault of Murder, but his Murder cannot be freed from the deſert of Death: Now that which Chriſt did eſpecially, was to make the Elect without fault before God, to take off that relation which they had to the Law, lying as to the blame of it. God's Reconciliation to the Perſons of Sinners is by taking away the fault of Sin before God, and this is done by the Perſon of Chriſt bearing Sin.
4. That in a Sinner which is to be pardoned whenever he receives Chriſt, was …aid on Chriſt; but the fault of Sin is to be pardoned whenever he receives Chriſt; there's the leaſt part of pardon that frees only from Puniſhment, but forgives not the Fault or Offence; juſt as a King's Reprieving a Felon, but not Pardoning him. To ſave him from the Gallows, but charge him never to ſee his Face.
5. That without the taking away of which the Conſcience of a Sinner can never be purified from Guilt, was certainly laid upon, and taken away by Jeſus Chriſt, Heb. 9, 14. But the Fault of Sin is ſuch without the taking away of which before God, the Conſcience can never be purified from Guilt; Ergo, the fault of Sin was laid upon Jeſus Chriſt to take it away: let a Man be ſure he ſhould never ſee Death, yet if the fault lye upon him, there will ſtill be Guilt; his Conſcience will accuſe, he cannot have Peace towards God.
6. If the Wages of Sin be in the very Nature of Sin, viz. Spiritual Death and it be inſeparable from foreign, or Sin it ſelf; then that Death cannot be removed without taking away the Sin before God; but the Wages of Sin, which is Death, is inſeparable from the Nature of Sin in the Fault before God; &c. Ergo, he that by Death ſlays our Death, ſlays and carries away the Sin which is this Death. The Apoſtle to the Rom. 7. calls the Body of Sin the Body of Death, 2 Tim. 1.10.
7. That which Eſſentially belongs unto Chriſt's Office as Mediator, muſt be performed by Chriſt, but bearing our Sins ſo as to take them away before God, is Eſſentially belonging to Chriſt's Office as Mediator. It's not the Eſſential part of a Mediator to bear the Puniſhment of the wronged Party, but to reconcile the Parties at variance; he may ſave one Party from utter Ruine by bearing Puniſhment, yet cannot reconcile them without taking away all matter of offence; but it is the fault of Sin that is the cauſe of variance; God hates it, and the Sinner loves it. God is not offended at the Creature becauſe he muſt be puniſhed, but becauſe it's he who hath broke his Law, therefore he puniſheth him.
8. If the Creature will never be Reconciled to God till it hath ſome proſpect of God's being reconciled firſt, by Chriſt taking away the fault of Sin before God, then Chriſt bore it away; but the Creature will never be reconciled to God without this proſpect; Ergo: for the Miniſtry of Reconciliation as to its Efficacy is founded upon this, 2 Cor. 5. And it's there deſcribed to be God being in Chriſt firſt Reconciling the World to himſelf; and how is he ſaid to be ſo, but by making Chriſt Sin for us who knew no Sin.
9. All the Sin-offerings of the Law hold forth Chriſt's bearing Sin; if you conſider their Names, the proper Sin-offering was called foreign, Levit. 4.3. It was called a Sin becauſe made Sin for us Typically, as Chriſt Really, by Imputation, the foreign, the Treſpaſs or Guilt-offering was for Sin, that for the whole Congregation was ſuch, Lev. 4.15. So the Burnt-offering was deſigned to the taking away of Sin by bearing it, that Called foreign, and the Peace-offering, foreign, was in order to the making Peace and Reconciliation for the Sinner; therefore in the Conſecration of all theſe, there was the charging them with Sin by the laying on of the hands of them that brought them, to be Offered up for them, Levit. 1.3. The Hebrew Doctors ſay, all Oblations of Beaſts which particular Perſons Offer of Debt, or voluntarily, they lay hands on them, and ſo it was on the daily Sacrifice, as Mr. A. on Numb. 28.2. ſaith, ſignifying that it was conſtituted inſtead of the Sinner, and the Sacrifice placed in the Sinners Room, thus charged with his Sins, the Prieſt was to offer to make Atonement by, to Expiate and make Reconciliation in regard of Man's Sin, and God's Wrath for the ſame. That theſe Sacrifices were Types of Chriſt, our Sacrifice in beating Sin, appears abundantly, Heb. 9.28.
Neither do we ſay, that this bearing of Sin by Chriſt doth free a Perſon from being formally a Sinner, but becauſe we are formally Sinners, therefore our Sins are thus born to bring us to God, 1 Pet. 3.18. The Phyſical Subſtratum of Sin remains, and in us; yea, the Moral macula in pravity and obliquity to be gradually removed in the Application of Chriſt's Blood, by the Spirit of Holineſs; but yet the foreign before God muſt be taken away, which is the fault blamed by the Law, foreign and foreign.
Dr. O. of Juſtification, p. 287. proves Sin was laid on Chriſt as to the Guilt, which we have ſhewed, and is either the Sin it ſelf, or is ſo conjoined with it, that it cannot be ſeparated; where there is a demerit there is a fault; if Chriſt had a demerit to Sufferings it was for Sin, though ours, and ſubjective in us, which his bearing Sin by Imputation always ſuppoſeth. His Arguments are theſe.
1. If Guilt of Sin was not Imputed to Chriſt, Sin was not Imputed to him in any ſence, for the Puniſhment is not Sin.
2. There can be no Puniſhment but with reſpect of the Guilt of Sin, perſonally Contracted or Imputed; Guilt alone gives what's materially evil and afflictive, the formal Nature of Puniſhment; and what is Guilt but Sin manifeſt by Conviction, whereof the Sinner is charged in foro Dei, or in foro Conſcientiae. The firſt kind Chriſt took off by bearing it, immediately the other is removed by Application in Believing.
3. Chriſt was made a Curſe for us, Gal. 3.13, 14. but the Curſe of the Law reſpects the Guilt of Sin only, [i. e. a Perſon manifeſtly faulty, and a Delinquent to the Law.]
4. The Expreſs Teſtimonies of Scripture unto this purpoſe cannot be avoided, Iſa. 53.6. Pſal. 32.5, &c.
5. This was repreſented in all the Sacrifices of old, eſpecially in the Great Aniverſary Expiation with the Ordinance of the Scape-Goat.
6. Without ſuppoſition of this, it cannot be underſtood how Chriſt ſhould be our foreign, or ſuffer foreign.
He likewiſe vindicates the Imputation of Sin to Chriſt in the ſenſe of Guilt oppoſed to Puniſhment; from all theſe odious Conſequences that you would lay upon it; ſuch as this: That if our Sins be Imputed to Chriſt, then Chriſt is a Sinner and Child of the Devil. A. That which the Scripture affirms is, that he was made Sin for us; this the Greek Expoſitors, Chriſoſtom, Theophyl, Oecumen. and many others take for a Sinner, but all affirm that denomination to be taken from Imputation only, he had Sin Imputed to him, and underwent the Puniſhment. 2. This Imputation did not carry with it any thing of Pollution and Filth of Sin to be communicated by Transfuſion. 3. The Denomination of an Idolater, Drunkard belongs not to him upon this account, &c.
In Sin there are three things. 1. The Offence of God, which is the fault. 2. Obligation unto Eternal Puniſhment, which is the Guilt. 3. The Stain or Pollution of the Soul, the Inherent Vicious Inclination of the Soul. Sin doth not remain in thoſe that are Juſtified in the two firſt reſpects, of Fault and Guilt, both which are taken away by the Death of Chriſt. But Sin doth remain in the Regenerate according to the third reſpect; viz. the Vitious Quality and Corruption thereof, inherent in the Soul. Pemble of Juſt. p. 183. fol.
Pinch. ſaith, 2 Cor. 5.21. The meaning of theſe words, is not that he was made Sin for us but as a ſacrifice for ſin, &c. Norton againſt Pinch. p. 53.
Anſw. He was made ſin for us, as we are made Righteouſneſs, i. e. by Judicial Imputation, without the Violation, yea, with the Eſtabliſhing of Juſtice; he was made ſin as he was made a Curſe, Gal. 3.13. the Greek word uſed here and there are the ſame: But he was made a Curſe by Judicial Imputation, becauſe he was the ſin-offering in truth; therefore he was made ſin by real Imputation, as the Legal Sin-Offering was made ſin by Typical Imputation. Likewiſe in Vindication of Iſa. 53.6. from Pinchon's falſe Gloſſes, who uſed this Argument againſt Imputation; Chriſt's ſacrifice was Effectual to procure Atonement, therefore ſin was not imputed to him. p. 4. § 46.
Here is a meer non-ſequitur; nay the contrary conſequence is true Chriſt appeared to put away Sin, Heb. 9.26, 28. was once Offered to bear the Sins of many, ver. 28. The Greek word uſed here by Paul, and elſewhere by Peter, 1 Pet. 2.24. ſignifieth to take, carry, bear up on high, and that ſo as to bear away; and in Alluſion to the whole Burnt-offering, —the Perſon that brought the Sacrifice was to put his Hand upon the Head thereof — The Apoſtle whilſt he was ſpeaking of the Antitype, chuſeth out ſuch a word to expreſs Chriſt's bearing of ſin, to teach us thereby that Chriſt did both carry up and bear the load of our ſins, Imputed to him on the Croſs, and alſo bear them clear away: And thus Iſaiah, Paul and Peter ſweetly agree together, and Interpret one another, as concerning Chriſt's bearing the Imputation of Guilt and Puniſhment of ſin. See more in his Refutation of that Socinian.
I do not ſee how he could be ſaid to bear the Puniſhment of ſin, (that being ſtrictly taken) if firſt he ſhould not take its Guilt: We all grant Chriſt's ſufferings to be Penal, but how could they have been ſo without Guilt? Therefore having no Guilt of his own, he muſt be lookt upon as aſſuming ours, upon which he might be ſaid properly to undergo Puniſhment: And he alſo vindicates, 2 Cor. 5.21. ſhewing that his being made ſin, is his voluntary ſuſception of the ſinners Guilt. Dr. Jacomb on Rom. 8. p. 490.
Etſi Peccatum interdum vocatur Victima ex Hebreor. Idiotiſſimo, &c. yet the reaſon of the Antitheſis here requires that Chriſt ſhould rather be ſaid to be made Sin for us, i. e. the ſinner, not in himſelf, but from the Guilt of all our ſins Imputed to him, of which thing that pair of Goats was a Figure, Levit. 16. Beza on 2 Cor. 5.21.
Quemadmodum Chriſtus foreign, coram Deo peccatum noſtrum & Execrationem ſuſtinuit, non fictè ſed reverà; ita fidelis fiunt Juſtitia Dei, i. e. Juſti in conſpectu Dei, &c. i. e. As Chriſt being Righteouſneſs and Holineſs himſelf, bore our Sin and Curſe before God, not feignedly but really; ſo the Faithful are made the Righteouſneſs of God. Camerar. upon the ſame place.
It is of ſingular Conſolation ſo to Cloath Chriſt with our ſins, and to wrap him in my ſins, thy ſins, and the ſins of the whole World. And ſo to behold him bearing our Iniquities; for the beholding him after this manner, ſhall eaſily vanquiſh all the Fantaſtical Opinions of the Papiſts concerning Juſtification by Works; for they do imagine by a certain Faith formed and adorned with Charity, ſins are taken away, and Men are juſtified before God; and what is this but to unwrap Chriſt, and ſtrip him quite out of our ſins, to make him Innocent, and to charge and overwhelm our ſelves with our own ſins, and to look upon them not in Chriſt but in our ſelves? yea, what is this but to take Chriſt clean away, and to make him unprofitable to us? Luth. on Gal. 3.13.
— Let us receive this moſt ſweet Doctrine, and full of Comfort, with Thankſgiving and aſſured Faith, which teacheth, that Chriſt being made a Curſe for us, (i. e. a ſinner ſubject to the Wrath of God,) did put upon him our Perſon, and laid our ſins upon his own ſhoulders, ſaying, I have committed the ſins which all Men have committed; therefore he was made a Curſe indeed according to the Law, not for himſelf, but for us; for unleſs he had taken upon himſelf my ſins, and thine, and of the whole World, the Law had had no right over him; which condemneth none but ſinners only, and holdeth them under the Curſe; but becauſe he had taken upon him our ſins, not by conſtraint, but of his own good will, it behoveth him to bear the Puniſhment and Wrath of God; not for his own Perſon, which was Juſt, but for our Perſon. Fol. 140.
Spanhem. ſaith, Culpam & Poenam eſſe foreign, adeo que ſe mutuo ponere & tollere, nec illam dari ſine abnoxitate ad iſtam, nec iſtam ſine retentione illius, abſurdum eſt eſſe hominum culpae omnis & propriae & Imputatae expertem poenae ulli addici. The ſum whereof is, It is abſurd to ſay, that a Man can be void of his own ſin, or the ſin of another, and yet Condemned to any Puniſhment. Spanhem. Dub. Evang. pars tert. p. 117.