The Sufferings of Christ, Part 1 · Chapter 5
CHAP. V. The Vindication of Iſa. 53.6.
Iſa. 53.6. All we like ſheep have gone aſtray, we have turned every one to his own way, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Dialogu. THe Lord laid not the ſin of the Elect upon Chriſt by imputation; The true manner how the Lord laid all our iniquities upon Chriſt, was the very ſame manner as the Lord laid the ſinnes of Iſrael upon the Prieſt and ſacrifice, and no other.
Anſw. If he laid them no otherwiſe on the Antitype then upon the type, then ſin was laid typically only; and not in truth upon Chriſt, conſequently the type and the antitype are confounded; and thoſe types are ſo many untruths, yea, we are yet in our ſins. But whatſoever your words are, we preſume your meaning is: The types inſtanced in, did not typically hold forth any imputation of ſin unto Chriſt the antitype.
How then did the Lord lay the ſins of Iſrael upon the Prieſt, and upon the ſacrifice?
Dialogu. The Prieſt bare the iniquity of the holy things by his Prieſtly appearing before Iehovah with his prieſtly apparrell, especially with the golden plate, Exo. 28.38. he bare the iniquity of the Congregatton by eating the peoples ſin-offering in the holy place to make atonement, Lev. 10.17. The Lord laid all our ſins upon Chriſt as upon our ſacrifice, Iſa. 53.12. where dying, bearing ſin, interceſſion, are Synonima's. He bare the ſins of men, namely, by his Mediatoriall ſacrifice. God laid all our ſins upon Chriſt as our ſacrifice of atonement; In this ſenſe Paul explaineth the Levitical bearing of ſin, Heb. 9.26, 28.
Anſw. It is not requiſite to the nature of a type in all reſpects to anſwer the Antitype;Similitudo non currit quatuor pedibus. Paraeus Log. 122. Figura non habet quodcunque habet veritas. but to teſtifie and according to the pleaſure of the Authour to exemplifie the thing typified. Logick refers types to ſimilitudes, and you know the Proverb, Similitudes run not on four feet; there is alwaies ſome diſlikeneſſe between the parts of the compariſon: Ionah was a type of Chriſt lying dead in the grave, yet Ionah though he lay in the Whales belly, did not lye dead there.
Put caſe you produce a type which holdeth not forth bearing of ſin by imputation in the Antitype; except it may appear, that the manner of Chriſts bearing ſin was thereby fully intended, you conclude nothing. Aaron the High-Prieſt wearing the golden plate upon his forehead, having engraven therupon HOLINESSE TO THE LORD, typified rhe perfect holineſſe in Chriſt, by reaſon of the Divine nature, whereby he was able effectually to bear, and bear away ſin; What is here againſt Imputation? nay, it is implied in the Prieſthood of Aaron,
The Prieſts Lev. 10.17. by eating the peoples ſin-offering, declared by that act, together with the fore-mentioned appearing in their ſtead, confeſſing of their ſin, and offering ſacrifice for them; that by divine inſtitution they took upon them typically to make atonement for their ſin. Hereby it is more plainly figured that Chriſt ſhould bear away our ſin by bearing it in our ſtead. This Text maketh againſt you.
It is very true, God laid our ſins upon Chriſt as our ſacrifice, Iſa. 53.12. therefore (ſay we) by imputation: for Chriſts ſacrifice is his voluntary and obedient yeelding himſelf unto death, according to the Covenant of God in a way of ſatisfaction to divine juſtice for ſin, and meritorious expiation of ſin. Hence in your ſaying he bare ſin, ergo not by imputation, you may ſee your ſelf intangled in a contradiction, and the argument turning head directly againſt you. In but ſaying ſo and not proving it, you beg, but do not prove what you ſay,
Synonima's are divers words ſignifying the ſame thing, but death, bearing ſinne, interceſſion, are doubtleſſe divers things, though they concurre as ingredients into the ſame whole of Mediatorſhip.
Thoſe other words [OF ATONEMENT] are here only ſuperadded unto your reaſon immediatly before-going, and were alſo neceſſarily implied there: this then being the ſame reaſon with the former, the former Anſwer may ſatisfie both.
The force of this reaſon is;foreign. Surſum tulit Piſcat. in 1 Pe. 2.24. Chriſts ſacrifice was effectuall to procure Atonement, therefore ſin was not imputed to him: a meer non-ſequitur; nay, the contrary conſequence is true: Chriſt appeared, that is, was manifeſted in the fleſh 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, or bear up op high, and that ſo as to bear away; and is an alluſion unto the whole burnt-offering; that we may then have the clear and full ſenſe of the Apoſtles phraſe, we muſt inform our ſelves, as concerning the type or manner how the burnt-offering was laid upon the Altar (whereunto the croſſe is in ſome reſpect tacitly compared) which was thus.
The Perſon that brought the ſacrifice was to put his hand (lay his hand ſaith Ainſworth) upon the head thereof, yet living. Lev. 1.4. as confeſſing his guilt, and putting, or imputing it upon the Beaſt to be ſacrificed. Compare Exo. 29.10. Lev. 4.24, 29. & 5.5, 6. & 16.21. By the like ceremony of Impoſition of hands ſin was charged, both for the teſtifying of the accuſation, and the ſtoning of the offender, Deut. 17.7. Guilt thus typically imputed to the Beaſt, it was ſlain and laid upon the Altar.
The Apoſtle then whileſt he is ſpeaking of the Antitype, chooſing out ſuch a word to expreſſe Chriſts bearing of ſin, teacheth us thereby that Chriſt did both carry up and bear the load of our ſins imputed to him upon the croſſe, and alſo bear them clear away: and thus Iſaiah, Paul, and Peter ſweetly agree together, and interpret one another, as concerning Chriſts bearing the imputation of guilt and puniſhment of ſin.
Dialogu. If you will build the common doctrine of imputation upon this phraſe, The Lord laid all our iniquities upon Christ, then by the ſame phraſe you muſt affirm that the father laid all our ſins upon himſelf by imputing the guilt of our ſins to himſelf, for the father is ſaid to bear our ſins as well as Chriſt, Pſal. 25.18. & 32.1. and elſewhere.
Anſw. This place is but one of very many, whereupon the doctrine of Imputation is builded.
The Hebrew word NASA ſignifieth ſometimes to take up a burden ſimply, as is to be ſeen in the places mentioned by you; ſometimes to ſuſtain or bear a burthen as a Porter beareth it, Levit. 5.1. Numb, 18.1. Deut. 1.31. Iſa. 49.12. the word therefore is to be interpreted according to the nature of the agent ſpoken of, Chriſt beareth away our ſins, as the ſurety, by ſatisfying the debt; God taketh away ſin as the creditor, by acquitting the debtor upon ſatisfaction given. Your reaſoning is as if one ſhould ſay, Upon the paiment of the debt to the Creditor by the Surety, the Creditor diſchargeth the debt. Therefore the Creditor payeth the debt.
Sure you miſtake your ſelf in arguing out of this Text from the word NASA, againſt concluding the doctrine of Imputation therefrom, becauſe the word NASA is not in the Text.
Dialogu. Thoſe three terms, Bleſſed is the man whoſe tranſgreſſion is born, whoſe ſin is covered, whoſe iniquity is not imputed, are Synonima's, and they do ſweetly expound each other, and they do alſo ſet out the true manner how ſinners are made juſt and bleſſed, namely, when their ſins are born away, covered, and not imputed by the fathers mercifull atonement, pardon, and forgiveneſſe.
Anſw. Paul alledging theſe words of David Rom. 4. ſheweth us that the Pſalmiſts ſcope therein, was to teach us juſtification by faith.
Paul findes imputation of righteouſneſſe, Rom. 4.6. in Davids not imputation of ſin, Pſal. 32.1.2. Imputation of righteouſneſſe, the effect whereof is our juſtification, conſiſting of the not-imputing of unrighteouſneſſe, and the accepting of us as righteous: Paul teacheth expreſly, David by conſequence.
The juſtification of a ſinner held out by the Dialogue, which not only denies it ſelf to be the effect of, but alſo denies, and well nigh defies the very being of Chriſts mediatorly obedience to the Law, is a peſtilent fiction. You here preproperate your conceit, concerning the formall cauſe of juſtification; but of it in its proper place.
Dialogu. The word foreign which is tranſlated in ver. 6. hath laid upon, is tranſlated in the 12. ver. of this 35. ch. hath made interceſſion, and therefore the Verb ſignifying both incurrere fecit and interceſſit, is too weak a foundation for the doctrine of imputation, and of Christs ſuffering Gods wrath.
Anſw. If this reaſon holds, then your own tranſlating the word in Hebrew, Pſa. 22.1. Why haſt thou left me? will not hold: becauſe the ſame word elſewhere ſignifieth to help up or fortifie, Neh. 3.8. and 4.2.
Piaculum ſignificat ſacrificium, & flagitium. foreign ſignificat ſanctum & profanum. foreign ſignificat benè precari, & male precari.Who indifferently acquainted with the Languages, is ignorant that one Hebrew root hath not only various, but ſometimes contrary ſignifications (the like whereof is obſerved in other, and may be in our Engliſh tongue) in ſuch caſes, which ſignification is here or there intended, the learned know: how they know it, is not here the place to ſpeak.
The word foreign by vertue of the conjugation, ſignifieth to cauſe to meet together upon a heap: the root ſignifieth properly to meet one, or fall upon, metaphorically to intercede, becauſe the interceſſor doth as it were meet the offended by his prayers, and interpoſes between him and the offender. We look at this text, not as a foundation, but as a ſolid argument of imputation.