Gospel Truth Stated and Vindicated, Chapter 2
CHAP. II. Of God's laying Sins on Christ.
Truth. THough our Sins were imputed to Christ with respect to the Guilt thereof, so that he, by the Father's Appointment, and his own Consent, became obliged, as Mediatour, 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 upon Christ; nor can he be called the Transgressor, or was he, in God's Account, the Blasphemer, Murtherer, &c.
Errour. 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 Filthiness and Loathsomeness; yea so, that Christ was really the Blasphemer, Murtherer, and Sinner, and so accounted by the Father.
Proved, that this is Doctor Crisp's Opinion.
The Doctor, p. 312. tells us, It's Iniquity it self that the Lord laid upon Christ; not only our Punishment, but our very Sin, &c. This Transaction of our Sins to Christ, is a real Act; our Sins so became Christ's, that he stood the Sinner in our stead, and we discharged. Obj. But he may mean no more than the Punishment? A. No, he chuseth as express Words as possible, to shew it's the Sin it self. P. 270. he saith, It's the Iniquity it self that the Lord hath laid upon Christ: I mean, it is the Fault of the Transgression it self, &c. To speak more plainly; hast thou been an Idolater, hast thou been a Blasphemer, hast thou been a Murtherer, an Adulterer, a Thief, a Lyer or a Drunkard? If thou hast part in the Lord, all these Transgressions of thine, become actually the Transgressions of Christ. P. 268. 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. P. 286. he spends time to prove, that our very Sins were transacted on Christ; yea, some Sermons have this Title, Sins transacted really on Christ. Obj. But may not he mean, only that they were imputed as to the Guilt? A. No, he saith, p. 436. the Loathsomness, Abominableness, and Hatefulness of Rebellion, is laid upon Christ's Back: He bears the Sin, as well as the Shame and Blame. He, p. 270, 271, 272, 273. 280, 281. endeavours to prove, it's the Sin opposed to Guilt; and, For that Objection, That the Lord lays on Christ the Guilt and Punishment, but not simply the Sin it self, (he saith) for ought I see, it is a simple Objection. Yea, p. 272. he affirms, That to say, that God did lay the Guilt of Sin, but not the Sin it self, is contrary to Scripture. And, p. 286, 292. denies an Imputation, that is not a real Transacting of the Sin: And, p. 289. he represents this by these Similes; The bloody Coat of a Deer-stealer is followed by the Blood hound; and stollen Goods taken by the Friend of the Thief, and found with him, and not with the Theif. He saith, p. 328. God makes Christ as very a Sinner as the Creature himself was. P. 409. God lay upon him, the Felony of Thieves, the Murthers of Murtherers, &c.
Wherein the Difference is not.
The Difference is not, 1. Whether Christ bare the Punishment of our Sins. 2. Nor Whether 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. 3. Nor whether Christ was esteemed by Men a Transgressor and arraigned as such. 4. Nor whether, what Christ suffered, was not as effectual to put away Sin, as if our very Sin had been transacted on him. All these I affirm.
The real Difference.
The real Difference lies in these things, 1. Whether Sin it self, as to its Filth and Fault, was transacted on Christ. This the Doctor affirms, and I deny. 2. Whether Christ was made and accounted by the Father, the very Transgressor, the Adulterer, the Blasphemer, &c. This the Doctor affirms, and I deny.
The Truth confirmed.
1. To transact our very 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 propagator of our corrupt Qualities to him, which is as impossible; and any other way to transact Sin on him, besides imputing the Guilt, there is none.
2. It is needless to the ends for which our sins were laid on Christ. Sins were laid on Christ, that he might make Atonement by suffering for them; and so release us who had transgressed. 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. All that endangered us, was the Threatning of the Law; that which was destructive to the Offender, was the Punishment included in that Threat. Hence Christ by the Father's Appointment, obliging himself to suffer, and actually suffering what he was obliged to; and this upon an Agreement, that, for his sufferings, we should be released; where is the need of more? The obliquity of the Fact, as against the Precept, shall not hurt, where the Sanction of the Law is answered; 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. 33. Philem. 18.
3. This Transacting of the Filthiness of our sins on Christ, is blasphemous.
He that took care his Body should not see Corruption, Act. 2. 3. would much more abhor to take in our Pollution, to need (as the Doctor says) a breathing it out. He was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from Sinners, Heb. 7. 26. It was condescension enough that he agreed to be treated as a Sinner; but how odious is it to load him with Sin it self? To spit that in his Face, which the worst of Men abused him with? and it would justify his Persecutors who punished him, if that he was really the Person the Doctor's Principle represents him.
4. Had he been accounted, by the Father, the very Transgressor, his atonement had been unavailable to us. The Person esteemed a Sinner was uncapable of atoneing; he that must redeem us was to be the Just for the Unjust, 1 Pet. 3. 18. Whilst offering himself a Sacrifice, he must be accounted innocent and blameless; an Offering without Spot, Heb. 9. 14. All the typical Sacrifices were to be clean. Let none say he must have no sins of his own; for if the Filthiness of our Sins is transferred on him, they are as much his own as if they had been originally his; and the Doctor saith, They made Christodious to the Father; and more he had not been, if the Sin had been committed by himself.
5. Christ then suffered for his own Sins, and not for ours; this is plain: For by the Doctor's Notion, they ceased to be our. Sins before he suffered, and they became his own; for they were laid on him before he suffered for them; yea, before he was obliged to suffer for them: This laying of Sins on him, was that without which (the Doctor saith, p. 294.) he could not justly be put to suffer. But surely none can doubt, but it was the punishment of our sins was laid on Christ, and not his own, Heb. 7. 27.
Testimonies.
Let us hear the Judgment of the Assembly. If you see their Confess. Ch. 8. a. 4. They enumerating the Instances of Christ's Humiliation, speak nothing of this, though it was far the greatest, if it were true, as Doctor Crisp observes, p. 380. And in the Larger Catechism, Q. How doth Christ execute the Office of a Priest? they answer, In his own Offering up himself, without Spot, to God, to be a Reconciliation for the Sins of the People. Surely without Spot is very opposite to his having all Sin and Filth. Doctor Owen's Tr. of Justif. p. 284, 285, 287. He vindicates the Reformed from what he calls a horrid Consequence, viz. That Christ was a Sinner, which was objected, p. 283. And he tells us, that the Guilt of Sin is an external Respect of it; with respect of the Sanction of the Law only, this is separable from sin, and this alone was imputed to Christ. And he at large proves that this Imputation of Guilt to Christ, is the meaning of Christ's being made Sin for us: He laid on him the Iniquities of us all. And, p. 511. he saith, The Imputation of Sin unto Christ, did not carry along with it any of the Filth or Pollution of Sin to be communicated to him by Transfusion, a thing impossible: So that no Denomination can thence arise, which should include in it any respect to them; a Thought hereof is impious, and dishonourable to the Son of God. And then he next infers, that Christ could not be called an Idolater, Adulterer, &c. Reader, thou mayst in other places find Doctor Owen as positive against Doctor Crisp in this as VVords can express.
The Ground of Doctor Crisp's Mistake.
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 seems not to apprehend what the true Notion of imputing a thing to another in Law in criminal Cases, is; hence because laying a material Burthen on a Shoulder, is putting that very Burthen there, he thinks God took our very▪ Sins and placed them on Christ: whereas God's laying our Sins 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. Hence also, because a man bound in a Bond for Money becomes a Debtor; therefore he thinks because Christ suffered to save the Idolater, or Blasphemer, therefore Christ must be the very Idolater and Blasphemer; whereas Christ, paying our Debts was a Satisfaction for Criminals, not a Payment of Money; And yet it's plain, that if I were bound for Money for one, that by Drunkenness wasts his Estate, my being bound to pay the Money, doth not argue that I was the Drunkard, or must by the Creditors be so accounted, when I make the Payment. Because Christ was made Sin, that is, an Offering or Sacrifice for Sin; therefore he thinks our very sin was on him, and he made filthy. To add no more, because Men wickedly arraigned him as a Blasphemer therefore the Doctor thinks he was so indeed, and in God's Account.