196 ON JUSTIFICATION.
the law is not disannulled, but established. Lastly, The Lord Christ was the mediator and surety of the neio covenant, in and by whom it was ratified, confirmed, and established: and therefore by him the constitution of it was not procured ; for all the acts of his ofiice belong unto that mediation, and it cannot be well apprehended how any act of mediation for the establishment of the covenant, and ren- dering it effectual, should procure it.
7. But to return from this digression. That wherein all the pre- cedent causes of the union between Christ and believers, whence they become one mystical person, do centre, and whereby they are ren- dered a complete foundation of the imputation of their sins unto him, and of his righteousness unto them,, is the communication of his Spirit, the same Spirit that dwelleth in him, unto them, to abide in, to animate and guide, the whole mystical body and all its mem- bers. But this hath of late been so much spoken unto, as that I shall do no more but mention it.
On the considerations insisted on, — whereby the Lord Christ became one mystical person with the church, or bare the person of the church in what he did as mediator, in the holy, wise disposal of God as the author of the law, the supreme rector or governor of all mankind, as unto their temporal and eternal concernments, and by his own con- sent,— the sins of all the elect were impided unto him. This having been the faith and language of the church in all ages, and that de- rived from and founded on express testimonies of Scripture, with all the promises and presignations of his exhibition in the flesh from the beginning, cannot now, with any modesty, be expressly denied. Wherefore the Socinians themselves grant that our sins may he said to be imputed unto Christ, and he to undergo the punishment of them, so far as that all things which befell him evil and afflictive in this life, with the death which he underwent, were occasioned by our sins; for had not we sinned, there had been no need of nor occasion for his suffering. But notwithstanding this concession, they expressly deny his satisfaction, or that properly he undenvent the punishment due unto our sins ; wherein they deny also all imputation of them unto him. Others say that our sins were imputed unto him " quoad reatum poense," but not " quoad reatum culpse." But I must acknowledge that unto me this distinction gives "inanem sine mente sonum." The substance of it is much insisted on by Feuardentius, Dialog, v. p. 467; and he is followed by others. That which he would prove l)y it is, that the Lord Christ did not present himself before the throne of God with the burden of our sins upon him, so as to answer unto the justice of God for them. Whereas, therefore, "reatus," or "guilt," may signify either "dignitatem poenae," or "obligationem ad poenam," as Bellannine distinguisheth, De Amiss.
SURETISHIP. 197
Grat., lib. vii. cap. 7, with respect unto Christ the latter only is to be admitted. And the main argument he and others insist upon is this, — that if our sins be iminited unto Christ, as unto the guilt of the fault, as they speak, then he must be ijolluted tuith them, and thence be denominated a sinner in every hind. And this would be true, if our sins could be communicated unto Christ by transfusion, so as to be his inherently and subjectively; but their being so only by imputation gives no countenance unto any such pretence. How- ever, there is a notion of legal uncleanness, where there is no inherent defilement; so the priest \vho offered the red heifer to make atone- ment, and he that burned her, were said to be unclean, Numb. xix. 7, 8. But hereon they say, that Christ died and suffered upon the special command of God, not that his death and suffering were any way due upon the account of our sins, or required in justice; which is utterly to overthrow the satisfaction of Christ.
Wherefore, the design of this distinction is, to deny the imputa- tion of the guilt of our sins unto Christ; and then in what tolerable sense can they be said to be imputed unto him, I cannot understand. But we are not tied up unto arbitrary distinctions, and the sense that any are pleased to impose on the terms of them. I shall, there- fore, first inquire into the meaning of these words, guilt and guilty, whereby we may be able to judge what it is which in this distinc- tion is intended.
The Hebrews have no other word to signify guilt or guilty but Ct^'X ■ and this they use both for sin, the guilt of it, the punishment due unto it, and a sacrifice for it. Speaking of the guilt of blood, they use not any word to signify ^it^Y^, but only say, ^^ D"^, — "It is blood to him." So David prays, " Deliver me" Q"'P1P, " from blood;" which we render " blood -guiltiness," Ps, li. 14. And this was because, by the constitution of God, he that was guilty of blood was to die by the hand of the magistrate, or of God himself But ^i?'^ (ascham) is no- where used for guilt, but it signifies the relation of the sin intended unto punishment. And other significations of it will be in vain sought for in the Old Testament.