The Glory of Free Grace Displayed, Chapter 4
CHAP. IV.
The difficulty propoſed in the laſt Chapter ſpoken unto. Sin with reference unto its FILTH, GUILT and PUNISHMENT diſtinctly conſidered, and Explained. The puniſhment and Guilt of Sin laid on Chriſt aſſerted. Concerning the Filth of Sin. The ſenſe of ſome Antonomians, reduced to three particulars, propoſed. Their firſt Error in ſaying the Filth of Sin was laid on Chriſt, detected, and confuted. That the Filth of Sin be laid on Chriſt impoſſible. The conſequences of this Error dreadful and unſcriptural. The Purity and Holineſs of Chriſt aſſerted and vindicated. The Antinomians abuſe of the Grace of God hinted.
IN giving a truely Scriptural, a full, and ſatisfying anſwer unto this difficulty, we ſhall have a fair occaſion of ſhewing, How, and after what manner, Free-Grace is, in its Excellencies, diſplayed. But, that we may entertain right conceptions concerning this thing, we muſt carefully diſtinguiſh between the Filth, the Guilt and Puniſhment of ſin.
1. There is the Sin it ſelf formally conſideredwhich is a tranſgreſſion of a holy, good, and juſt Law; and accordingly, regarding ſin as it is either contrary to, or different from this Law, tis ſomewhat impure, unclean, and polluting. In Sin there is a diſſonancy, or diſconformity to the preceptive part of the Law, an irregularity, or a want of conformity unto it, an obliquity, which is, filth, pollution, a blot or ſtain, the fault it ſelf. In whomſoever there is this fault, or this irregularity, or obliquity, there is a deformity, there is filth and defilement, and that perſon is truly faulty for he hath tranſgreſſed the Law; there is ſo much in him, either contrary unto, or diſſonant from the Law, which is ſin, whence he may be ſaid to be formally, or in a proper, and ſtrict ſenſe a ſinner*[More expreſly to declare what is this Filth, is ſomewhat difficult; although Maeratius the Jeſuite (diſp. in ſum. Th. tract. de pec. diſ. 13. Sect. 5. &c.) aſſerts that the Macula peccati formaliter eſt ipſa malitia peccati actualis; to which he adds, quatenus moraliter durat, & perſeverat, etium tranſacto Phyſice actu peccati, &c. This he gives, as the general ſentiment of the Modern Schoolmen, concluding, that the actual ſin, though as Phyſically conſidered, immediately paſſeth away; yet as morally, it remains; called actual, as you reſpect the moment, in which 'tis committed; called the Macula, as it remains until by Repentance or the infuſion of grace it be blotted out: But I cannot comprehend How the Filth of ſin, which remains, ſhould be the ſame Numerically with the Act, which ſo ſuddenly ceaſeth to be, it ſeeming to be little leſs than an Implication to aſſert, that the ſame Numerical act, is, and is not, in one and the ſame instant. I ſhould therefore rather humbly conclude it to be thus. Actual ſins being contrary to the Pure Law of God are Filthy and Impure, which Filthy and Impure Acts, leave behind them much Filth, which conſiſts in vitious habits, which habits are ſtrengthned, by a frequency of ſinful, filthy Acts, and conſequently the ſoul thereby the more filthy and polluted; whence the remaining Filth is the continued blindneſs and habitual averſion of the heart from God.]
2. There is Guilt, which doth immediately attend this ſin where ever it is, ſo that whoever ſinneth, contracts Guilt, which Guilt is a liableneſs to puniſhment, an Obnoxiouſneſs thereunto for ſome fault. Guilt, as tis diſtinguiſhed from the fault it ſelf, is the immediate effect of the Fault, or of the ſin, and is not properly or in a ſtrict ſenſe ſin; but only Metonymically, and Improperly ſo. In which ſenſe, as I ſhall hereafter ſhew, 'tis frequently in Scripture called ſin. It being ſins reſpect unto the threatning part of the Law. For as the inclinations, thoughts, words, and actions, as diſſonant from, or diſconform unto the Precept of the Law, are formally ſins; even ſo, as ſin regards the threatning part of the ſame Law, 'tis guilt; Guilt then is ſin's extrinſecal reſpect unto the threatning, the ſanction of the Law. To be liable to the threatningis to be Guilty. To be judged liable unto it, is to be judged Guilty, or to be judged a ſinner: I think not my ſelf obliged to inſiſt on the diſtinction, inter Reatum culpae & poenae. For where-ever there is the dignitas poenae, there is the obligatio ad poenam; (Whatever Maeratius and others ſay to the contrary) and there can be no obligatio ad poenam, where there is not Dignitas poenae propter culpam.
3. The puniſhment is the evil threatned for ſin; 'tis an evil or ſomewhat painful, and grievous, inflicted for ſin. 'Tis malum paſſionis propter malum actionis, or malum naturale propter malum morale, which is alſo an effect of ſin, and frequently beareth the name of ſin, it's cauſe. And ſo the word that ſignifies Sin is uſed in the ſacred writing to denote puniſhment, as in Gen. 4.13*Note Gen. 47. Where Cain ſaid, my puniſhment is greater than I can bear, that is, in the Hebrew, foreign mine Iniquity or my ſin, the like alſo in Gen. 19.15. Leſt thou be conſumed in the Iniquity of the City (is) ſaith Ainſworth in loc. "The Puniſhment for Iniquity, Hereupon is that uſual Phraſe of bearing Iniquity, for ſuffering Puniſhment," Lev. 28.17,19,20. Numb. 14.34. To Puniſh is to inflict evil on the Guilty, as ſuch; for evils inflicted on the Innocent as Innocent, are not puniſhments. Whence obſerve, that when 'tisſaid, our Iniquities were laid on the Lord Chriſt, we may ſafely underſtand it of the puniſhment and guilt of ſin.
1. That the puniſhment of our ſin was laid on Chriſt, is moſt evident, in that the Lord Chriſt, was made a Sacrifice for ſin. All his fufferings being Penal, he being wounded, and bruiſed for our ſins, our griefs laid on him, and he made a curſe for us.
2. That the Guilt of Sin, was alſo laid on Chriſt, is a truth moſt agreable unto the Scriptures.
In order to the confirming which I ſhall attempt to ſhew (1) That this is Poſſible; the Guilt may be laid on Chriſt without the laying any ſtain on his moſt pure nature (2) that this was really ſo.
1. That this may be, viz. That the Guilt of ſin may be laid on Chriſt, and the Lord Chriſt remain pure and free from the leaſt blemiſh, appears from this, that the Guilt of ſin doth not contain in it, the formal nature of ſin that is ſo Polluting, it being ſomewhat extrinſecal thereunto, and conſequently ſeparable from ſin, yea, and from the actual ſinner: I know that Bellarmine, who, denies the Guilt of ſin to have been laid on Chriſt, doth aſſert, Guilt to be inſeparable from the ſin it ſelf, for, ſaith he, ſpeaking of the Reatus culpae. "Reatus, ut rectè docet Philippus, eſt Relatio, cujus proximum fundamentum eſt actus malus, ſive iniquitas. Non poteſt autem Relatio à fundamento proximo ſeparari, quia ex ipſo fundamento naturaliter & neceſſario ſequitur." Bell. de amiſſ. Grat. & Stat. peccat. l. 5. c. 7. But what more evident, than that, although, ſin ever contracts Guilt, and Guilt ever attends ſin; Which is the whole Bellarmine proves in ſaying that Relatio ex ipſo fundamento, &c. yet Guilt is not an Inſeparable Conſequent of ſin, even according to the ſenſe of the Schoolmen, yea, and of Bellarmine himſelf. Do not the Schoolmen generally diſtinguiſh between the Guilt and Filth of ſin? Malderus in 12 ae. Thomae, q. 85. art. 1.2. mentions eight different ſentiments that the Learned entertain concerning the Macula, the Filth of ſin, and 'tis the opinion of but a few, that the Macula and the Reatus is the ſame; Theſe Schoolmen commonly diſcourſing of the Fault it ſelf, the Macula, and the Reatus culpae, and Reatus poenae as diſtinct; ſo Maeratius the Jeſuite diſp. in ſum. tract. de pec. diſp. 13. ſect. 5. and Bellarmine: They moſtly agreeing in this, That the Reatus culpae, or the Dignitas poenae is not the ſame with the filth of ſin, neither doth this Guilt contain within it the formal nature of ſin. For ſaith Maeratius, ubi ſupra. "Quare cum ex omni peccato ſequatur poenae Dignitas, & dignitatem obligatio; ſi Dignitas haec, & obligatio, ſit formaliter peccatum, ex iis altera dignitas, & obligatio ſequetur, quae vel erit peccatum, vel non; ſi ſecundum, habemus intentum; ſi primum, dabitur proceſſus in infinitum;" yea, and they farther conclude, That the guilt is ſeparable from the fault it ſelf. Dignitas & obligatio luendae poenae poſſunt in eo eſſe, qui caret peccato; yea, and Bellarmine ubi ſupra c. 19. aſſerts that "Reatus culpae non est propriè peccatum, ſed effectus neceſſario conſequens, & aliquid manens post actum peccati, non enim homo est dignus odio praeciſè, quia peccavit, alioqui nunquam talis dignitas auferri poſſet, & peccatum eſſet Irremiſſibile; ſicut fieri non poteſt, ut qui peccavit, non peccaverit; praeterea talis dignitas &c.—non eſt aliquid recedens à lege—non deformat, vel occidit ſpiritualiter animam, non est privatio boni, neque habet aliquid aliud eorum, quae propriè peccato conveniunt." So plain 'tis, that Guilt, the Guilt of the Fault, is not properly, or formally ſin, 'tis ſomewhat diſtinct from the Fault, for it doth not pollute, or deform the ſoul; yea, Guilt is ſeparable from the fault it ſelf, otherwiſe, the Guilt of Adam's actual ſin, could not be made ours, for if his actual ſin, and the guilt thereof, had been inſeparable, there could have been no paſſing of the guilt of his ſin to us, unleſs his actual ſin had been removed alſo from him unto us. Again the pardon of ſin, which conſiſts in the removing the guilt of ſin, would alſo become an Impoſſibility to the unſpeakable horrour of all the Children of fallen Adam. But that the Guilt is ſeparable from the filth of ſin, is eaſily illuſtrated, by the Metaphor of a Debtor, Creditor, and Surety, according to the Rules of Law. A Debtor is liable to pay one thouſand pounds unto his Creditor. This liableneſs is Guilt. Inde Reus conſtitutus dicitur, qui ſe obligavit. Which Guilt may be the product of his own extravagancy or Fault: But this debtor becoming Inſolvent, another who voluntarily undertaking the payment, thereby becomes liable to pay the debt, i.e. He becomes Guilty: [For, Interdum Reus Expromiſſorem ſignificat, i.e. eum, qui alienam in ſe obligationem, vel novatione, vel delegatione ſuſcepit. Schard. in verb.] but Guilty of anothers Fault, [Venia namque digni ſunt, qui alienâ tenentur Culpâ, cujusmodi ſunt Fide-juſſores pro alieno debito obligati. Schard. in verb. Fidejuſſ.] So plain it is, That the Fault, and Guilt are ſo ſeparable, that the Fault may remain on the one, when the Guilt paſſeth to the other.
2. But ſecondly, That the Guilt of our ſins paſſed from us unto Chriſt, is now to be conſidered. But before I proceed to do ſo, it muſt be duly remembred, That, what hath been already ſaid, doth with the greateſt clearneſs ſhew, That the laying the Guilt of ſin on Chriſt, may be withoutthe caſting any Filth on the face of this our bleſſed Lord.
But to the Proof.
1. This may be evinced from the conſideration, that Jeſus Chriſt ſuffered for our ſins as a ſurety. The Lord Jeſus voluntarily offered up himſelf, and moſt freely undertook to pay what ſinful man, the Debtor, could not: On which account He was immediately liable to pay the Debt, or undergo the puniſhment (i.e.) He was Guilty, as has been already intimated: Man was faulty in contracting ſo great a debt, but Chriſt was innocently merciful in taking it on himſelf to ſatisfy the Father whereby Chriſt became Guilty of anothers Fault. But,
2. God the Father's inflicting evil on Chriſt as Penal moſt righteouſly, doth neceſſarily infer this truth; It being unjuſt to puniſh any, but the Guilty: to which add thoſe Scriptures, that make mention of the Lords bearing our iniquities, his being wounded for our tranſgreſſions, his being made ſin, and a curſe, Iſa. 53.4,5,6. 2 Cor. 5.21. Gal. 3.13.
That which will give light unto theſe texts, and ſtrength unto my arguments is a truth of great importance concerning the guilt, and puniſhment of ſin, viz. That although the Faul, and the Guilt are ſeparable yet the Guilt and Puniſhment are not; Whence whoſoever is found Guilty at the Bar, muſt be ſentenced, yea, and puniſhed as ſuch. If Guilt and Puniſhment had not been by the unalterable determination of God, as he is a Righteous Lawgiver, ſo fixedly united unto each other, as never to admit of the leaſt ſeparation, the Juſtice and Righteouſneſs of God might have been ſufficiently glorified in the pardoning ſin without any regard unto a ſacrifice, yea, it might have been poſſible, for that bitter cup, to have paſſed, according unto the Lord Jeſus his deſire; and man, notwithſtanding might have been moſt happy. But ſince Laws would appear to be but ludicrous and feeble things, without a due execution of the threatned evil, caſting the worſt of reflections upon the Lawgiver, God, who is Infinitely Wiſe, Holy, Juſt, and Righteous giveth moſt illuſtrious inſtances of the Excellency of his Laws, in that there is a day, in which ſearch ſhall be made after the tranſgreſſour, and when all ſuch, as are found guilty ſhall be condemned to the threatned puniſhment; for God will by no means clear the guilty, Exod. 34.7. They that ſhall preſume to Juſtifie the wicked, or, condemn the Righteous, even they both are an abomination unto the Lord, Prov. 17.15. Whence 'tis a thing moſt unjuſt to puniſh the Innocent, and permit the Guilty to go free:which being ſo, it follows, that whoever is juſtly puniſhed, muſt be really guilty of his own or of anothers fault; to puniſh any as not guilty, or as innocent, is as great an act of injuſtice, as 'tis, not to puniſh thoſe who at the Judgment-Seat are found Guilty. Theſe truths carry their own evidence with them, proclaiming this other, namely, That if the Lord Jeſus Chriſt did bear the Puniſhment of our iniquities; it was, becauſe antecedently thereunto, the Guilt of our iniquities was laid on him; And that the Lord did undergo the puniſhment of our ſins can never be denied by any, that believe the fore-mentioned texts, it being ſo expreſs, That he hath born our griefs, and carryed our ſorrows; he was wounded for our tranſgreſſions, he was bruiſed for our iniquities, yea, the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all, he was made ſin, and a Curſe. But in what ſenſe, if not in this, That at leaſt the puniſhment of our iniquity was laid on Chriſt? Is not this ſo plain that neither Arminian, nor Papiſt do preſume to deny it? Bellarmine, I am ſure, aſſerts it, and if the Puniſhment of ſin be laid on Chriſt, ſince 'tis done by the Lord who is Juſt, it muſt be becauſe antecedently to the infliction of puniſhment; Guilt was laid on him, for otherwiſe not only the Innocent would be puniſhed, but moreover as Innocent, which is injuſtice; for, although an Innocent Perſon may juſtly undergo ſevere puniſhments; yet not as Innocent, but as guilty of another's Faults.
For the fuller clearing this Truth I'le only attempt to prove, that the bearing ſin, or Iniquity, or the being made ſin, and a Curſe doth ſignify both the being Guilty and as ſuch the being puniſhed.
That Puniſhment by a Metonymy, bears the name of ſin, I have proved out of Gen. 4.13. ch. 19.15. and which may be further confirmed, from that in 1 Sam. 28.10. Where Saul ſware to the Witch, that there ſhall no Puniſhment happen unto her: In the Hebrew 'tis foreign there ſhall no Sin, or Iniquity happen. So alſo in Zechar. 14.19. This ſhall be the Puniſhment of Aegypt and the Puniſhment of all nations. In the Hebrew 'tis foreign the ſin of Aegypt, &c. In like manner to bear ſin, is to bear the Guilt or Puniſhment of ſin, Ezek. 18.20. The Son ſhall not bear the iniquity of the Father, (i.e.) the Son ſhall not bear the Guilt, nor the Puniſhment of the Fathers ſin; but the wickedneſs of the wicked ſhall be upon him (i.e.) the Guilt and Puniſhment of the wicked ſhall be upon him; whence that word which in the Hebrew doth ſignify Guilt doth alſo ſignify Sin; tis foreign Gen. 42.21. we are Guilty foreign the ſame word is elſewhere tranſlated ſins and treſpaſſes; as in Pſal. 68.21. God will wound the hairy ſcalp of ſuch an one, as goeth on ſtill in his treſpaſſes foreign Again to have iniquity laid on us, is the ſame with the bearing iniquity, that is, the bearing the guilt of ſin. In fine, The being made ſin, and the being made a curſe, are terms much of the ſame import, denoting the Guilt and Puniſhment, and (as I humbly conceive,) more properly, the guilt of ſin, becauſe the wicked, even on their ſinning are immediately accurſed; are abnoxious, though not immediately Puniſhed, q. d. Since to be obnoxious is to be guilty, to be curſed is to be guilty; but, that the being made a curſe doth not, as formerly conſidered, ſignify the being made formally ſin, is evident, in that, 'tis an evil threatned for what is ſtrictly ſin; and therefore, as ſuch, denotes ſomewhat diſtinct from ſin, taking ſin, in a ſtrict ſenſe, for the very fault, or tranſgreſſion it ſelf.
Thus I have in ſome weak meaſure performed, what I engag'd to doe, and have prov'd, That Guilt is ſeparable from Sin, the formal Nature and Filth thereof; and conſequently, may paſs from us to Chriſt, even when it muſt not be concluded as if Chriſt had been for ſuch a reaſon formally a ſinner. I have further ſhewn, That the Guilt, as well as Puniſhment of ſin, is laid on Chriſt, Theſe being ſo inſeparable, that a Righteous Judge in doing Right, cannot omit the Puniſhing the Guilty; nor preſume to inflict any evil penally on ſuch, as are not in any wiſe Guilty: But,
3. To conſider the Filth of Sin. The Filth of Sin, being of a Polluting and Defiling Nature, was not laid on Chriſt, as ſome very boldly have aſſerted, who not diſtinctly minding what the Filth of Sin is; how diſtinguiſhed from Guilt, &c. have under the notion of exalting Free-Grace, faln into Dangerous Errors; which I will eſſay to demonſtrate by ſhewing the falſeneſs, Abſurdity and Impoſſibility thereof. But before I do ſo, 'twill be neceſſary, that I acquaint you with the ſenſe of thoſe men that aſſert it, which is this.
"God doth not only lay the Puniſhment and Guilt of Sin on Chriſt, but ſimply the very Fault it ſelf, that men commit, that is, The Tranſgreſſion it ſelf is become the tranſgreſſion of Chriſt, ſo that, in reſpect of the Reality of being a Tranſgreſſor, Chriſt is as really a Tranſgreſſor, as the perſon that did commit the ſin.—Yea Chriſt Jeſus by vertue of Gods laying ſin on him, is as really a Tranſgreſſor, as if he himſelf, had actually committed Tranſgreſſion. The very Erring, Straying, and Tranſgreſſing of the Elect is paſſed from them and laid on Chriſt.—Haſt thou been an Idolater, Blaſphemer, &c. If thou haſt part in the Lord Chriſt, all theſe Tranſgreſſions of thine become actually the Tranſgreſſions of Chriſt, and ſo ceaſe to be thine, and thou ceaſeſt to be a Tranſgreſſor from that time they were laid on Chriſt to the laſt hour of thy life.—Thy Sins being laid on Chriſt are taken from thee.—If Godhimſelf ſay, thy ſins lye upon thee, and withal ſay, he did before lay them on Chriſt, how much is this better than a Contradiction?—The Sin it ſelf or the Filth is removed from the Elect by being laid on Chriſt, and the ſoul made Perfect.—God doth not waſh them by halves, nor doth he leave ſome ſpots and blemiſhes and ſtains behind.—Chriſt's holineſs is imputed unto the Elect, as well as his Righteouſneſs, otherwiſe they could not be perfect in this life, ſince the Spirit's work in their Sanctification is but imperfect in this life; 'tis Chriſt therefore who by bearing our ſins carries away all the Abhorrency and loathſomneſs of ſin, otherwiſe God could take no pleaſure in us.—God is a God of ſo much Purity, that he cannot endure that Perſon where the leaſt SPOT of Sin is found."
This, and much more, is aſſerted by Dr. Criſp in his Sermons on Iſaiah. 53.6. as alſo by ſome others, which for the greater clearneſs, I'le ſum up in theſe following particulars.
1. That theſe men conclude that the Filth of ſin is laid on Chriſt, and made really his Filth.
2. That Chriſt is our Juſtification by the Imputation of his Righteouſneſs, even ſo, he is our Sanctification by the Imputation of his Holineſs.
3. That the Filth of ſin being laid on Chriſt, the Elect are thereby totally, and perfectly delivered from every loathſome Spot and blemiſh of ſin.
To all which I reply diſtinctly.
1. To the firſt. That the Filth of ſin is laid on Chriſt, and made really his Filth (as they ſay) this is Impoſſible, Abſurd and Falſe.
1. Impoſſible, for by the Filth of ſin we muſt underſtand, either Irregular, Oblique, and diſorderly defections, or inclinations, or words, or actions. For ſin is a moral relation, which cannot be, but in a ſubject; and as the Perſon ſinning, is the Remote Subject, even ſo, the Diſpoſition, Thought, Word or Action, or ſome defection muſt be the neareſt Subject; whence then, ſince ſin cannot be, and not be in ſome Subject, the ſin in its filth cannot paſs from us to Chriſt, but in tranſity, i.e. in its paſſage from one Subject to another, it muſt be conſidered, as in no Subject (i.e.) as what is deſtroyed. For the Relation muſt paſs without its Subject, which is impoſſible; or with the neareſt Subject it ſelf, that is, All our ſinful Defections, Propenſions, Words and Actions muſt paſs from us into Chriſt, but if this be not alſo impoſſible, what is? But 2ly. Tis Abſurd and falſe. For,
2. If the Filth of our ſin be laid on Chriſt, then ſurely, the Lord Chriſt is thereby made really filthy; for as Guilt is laid on Chriſt, and thereby Chriſt is made really guilty that is, really guilty of another mans ſin, even ſo, if the Filth of ſin be laid on Chriſt, then Chriſt muſt be really filthy, for in quocunque ineſt abſtractum, de eo dicitur concretum, the denomination is à forma denominante: Filth, on whomſoever 'tis, doth give the denomination of filthy; but was our Lord Chriſt really filthy? Was there any ſin in any reſpect in him, who knew no ſin, and in whom there was no guile? Guilt is an extrinſecal reſpect of ſin to the threatning of the Law, and a man may be guilty of ſin, that is of anothers ſin, who hath no ſin in him of his own; but Filth the fault it ſelf, is ſo intrinſecal to ſin, that in whomſoever the Filth of ſin is, in him ſin muſt be; and were it a thing poſſible, that the ſin of the elect ſhould paſs from the elect to Chriſt, it would make the Lord Chriſt a real ſinner, really Unclean, Impure, Filthy, and Corrupt, but who can entertain ſuch a thought without abhorrence? For,
1. The Scriptures never aſſert that the Filth of ſin was laid on Chriſt. Tis true our iniquities were laid on Chriſt, that is, the Puniſhment and Guilt of our iniquities, as hath been proved, but not the Filth of our iniquities; neither was it neceſſary, that any more ſhould be laid on Chriſt, than the Puniſhment and Guilt. For the Lord Chriſt came only to exempt us from wrath, to bring us into a ſtate of Grace, and to purchaſe a right to glory for us, by his ſufferings, and perfect righteouſneſs. But,
2. The Scriptures do moſt vehemently conclude, that there was no ſpot in Chriſt.
1. As Chriſt is God, we cannot ſay, that any Filth was on him without blaſphemy ſurely, that God, who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, could never be ſo in love with the filth, the worſt of iniquity, as to take it on himſelf. Neither (2) Durſt we aver that the Lord Chriſt, with reſpect to his Humane Nature, had the leaſt Filth of ſin, either in, or upon him. For he was born an Holy thing, Luke 1.35. therefore alſo that Holy thing, which ſhall be born of thee, ſhall be called the Son of God. He was born with holy inclinations, and propenſions, yea and all his Thoughts, Words and Actions were holy all his lifetime, for he fulfilled all Righteouſneſs, Matth. 3.15. ch. 5.17. and at his death, his blood was the pretious blood of him, who was without blemiſh and without ſpot, 1 Pet. 1.19. He did not ſin, neither was guile found in his mouth, Ch. 2.22. For ſuch an High Prieſt became us, who is Holy, Harmleſs, Undefiled, Separate from Sinners, Heb. 7.26. Which could not be,had he the leaſt ſpot or blemiſh on him. Note well Iſa. 53.9.
3. In what part of Chriſt was the filth of ſin laid, or what was there in Chriſt, that was either faulty, or filthy? was there any flaw in his underſtanding, or, were the inclinations of his ſoul after evil? were his thoughts irregular, or his words, or actions diſſonant from Gods Law? The Filth of ſin is a ſpiritual filth, polluting the Soul, but which part of his righteous ſoul was polluted? was our Ignorance laid on Chriſt, making Chriſt Ignorant? or our Pride, Stubbornneſs, Uncleanneſs, Sinful anger, and Undue Paſſions in Chriſt? was the Lord Chriſt, Ignorant, Proud, Paſſionate, or Unclean? what ſound believer doth not tremble at ſuch thoughts as theſe. But, for the Filth of ſin to be laid on Chriſt, and yet the Filth of no one particular ſin to be found on him, is ſtrange. Oh that men, who preſume to contradict the Generation of the Juſt, would ſhew, what they mean by the filth of ſin, as 'tis diſtinguiſhed, both from Guilt and Puniſhment, and what they underſtand by the Fathers laying the Filth of ſin on Chriſt, or what by the words, tranſacting the filth of ſin on Chriſt! For methinks, 'tis impoſſible, that any truly gracious ſoul ſhould conclude that the filth of ſin, the fault it ſelf, as diſtinguiſhed from Guilt and Puniſhment, can in any reſpect be laid on Chriſt.
Wherefore then conſider, 'tis a great diſhonor to Free-Grace, to ſay, that the Father laid the filth of ſin on Chriſt, for this is inconſiſtent with the Holineſs and Wiſdom of God, and to ſet up Free-Grace to the reproach of Divine Holineſs or Wiſdom is to abuſe it.