And if this distinction should be apprehended to be of " reatus," from its formal respect unto sin and punishment, it must, in both parts of the distinction, be of the same signification, otherwise there is an equivocation in the subject of it. But "reatus pcense" is a liableness, an ohnoxiousness unto punishment according to the sen- tence of the law, that whereby a sinner becomes vmdr/.og rw ©sf and then " reatus culpse" must be an ohnoxiousness unto sin; which is uncouth. There is, therefore, no imputation of sin where there is no imputation of its guilt ; for the guilt of punishment, which is not its respect unto the desert of sin, is a plain fiction, — there is no such thing " in rerum natura." There is no guilt of sin, but in its rela- tion unto punishment.
200 ON JUSTIFICATION.
That, therefore, which we affirm herein is, that our sins were so transferred on Christ, as that thereby he became ^^^, vmBixog ra Qsw, "reus," — responsible unto God, and obnoxious unto punish- ment in the justice of God for them. He was " alienee culpse reus," — perfectly innocent in himself; but took our guilt on him, or our ob- noxiousness unto punishment for sin. And so he may be, and may be said to be, the greatest debtor in the world, who never borrowed nor owed one farthing on his own account, if he become surety for the greatest debt of others: so Paul became a debtor unto Philemon, upon his undertaking for Onesimus, who before owed him nothing.
And two things concurred unto this imputation of sin unto Christ, — First, The act of God imputing it. Second, The voluntary act of Christ himself in the undertaking of it, or admitting of the charge.
(1.) The act of God, in this imputation of the guilt of our sins unto Christ, is expressed by his " laying all our iniquities upon him," "making him to be sin for us, who knew no sin," and the like. For, — [1.] As the supreme governor, law-giver, and judge of all, unto whom it belonged to take care that his holy law was observed, or the offenders punished, he admitted, upon the transgression of it, the sponsion and suretiship of Christ to answer for the sins of men, Heb. X. 5-7. [2.] In order unto this end, he made him under the law, or gave the law power over him, to demand of him and inflict on him the penalty which was due unto the sins of them for whom he undertook. Gal. iii. 13, iv. 4, 5. [3.] For the declaration of the righteousness of God in this setting forth of Christ to be a propitia- tion, and to bear our iniquities, the guilt of our sins was transferred unto him in an act of the righteous judgment of God accepting and esteeming of him as the gttiltt/ person; as it is with public sureties in every case.
(2.) The Lord Christ's voluntary susception of the state and con- dition of a surety, or undertaker for the church, to appear before the throne of God's justice for them, to answer whatever was laid unto their charge, was required hereunto; and this he did absolutely. There was a concurrence of his own will in and unto all those divine acts whereby he and the church were constituted one mystical per- son; and of his own love and gTace did he as our surety stand in our stead before God, when he made inquisition for sin; — he took it on himself, as unto the punishment which it deserved. Hence it became just and righteous that he should suffer, " the just for the unjust, that he might bring us unto God."
For if this be not so, I desire to know what is become of the guilt of the sins of believers ; if it were not transferred on Christ, it remains still upon themselves, or it is nothing. It will be said that guilt is taken away by iliefree pardon of sin. But if so, there was
SUEETISHir. 201
no need of punishment for it at all, — which is, indeed, what the Socinians plead, but by others is not admitted, — for if punishment be not for guilt, it is not punishment.
But it is fiercely objected against what we have asserted, that if the guilt of our sins was imputed unto Christ, then was he constituted a sinner thereby ; for it is the guilt of sin that makes any one to be truly a sinner. This is urged by Bellarmine, lib. ii., De Justificat., not for its own sake, but to disprove the imputation of his righteous- ness unto us; as it is continued by others with the same desig-n. For saith he, " If we be made righteous, and the children of God, through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, then was he made a sinner, ' et quod hon-et animus cogitare, filius diaboli ;' by the imputation of the guilt of our sins or our unrighteousness unto him." And the same objection is pressed by others, with instances of consequences which, for many reasons, I heartily wish had been forborne. But I answer, —
[1.] Nothing is more absolutely true, nothing is more sacredly or assuredly believed by us, than that nothing which Christ did or suffered, nothing that he undertook or underwent, did or could constitute him subjectively, inherently, and thereon personally, a sinner, or guilty of any sin of his own. To hear the guilt or blame of other men's fa^dts, — to be " alienee culpse reus," — makes no man a sinner, unless he did unwisely or irregularly undertake it. But that Christ should admit of any thing of sin in himself, as it is absolutely inconsistent with the hypostatical union, so it would render him unmeet for all other duties of his office, Heb. vii. 25, 26. And I confess it hath always seemed scandalous unto me, that Socinus, Crellius, and Grotius, do grant that, in some sense, Christ suffered for his own sins, and would prove it from that very place wherein it is positively denied, chap. vii. 27. This ought to be sacredly fixed, and not a word used, nor thought entertained, of any possibihty of the contrary, upon any supposition whatever.