' Estius wrote a "Siniima Theologisp," in 1614, and commentaries upon the four books of the Sentences in 1615. — Ed.
JUSTIFICATION AS DECLARED BY PAUL. 3 19
make expiation of it." And so it is rendered by tlie LXX., some- times by 'iXad'Mjg, Ezek. xliv. 27, sometimes s^iXaff/ji.6g, Exod. xxx. 10, Ezek. xliii. 22, a " propitiation," a " propitiatory sacrifice ;" sometimes by dyvig/Ma, Numb. xix. 19, and ayviG/j.og, " pmification," or " cleans- ing." But a/j.apria, absolutely, doth nowhere, in any good author, nor in the Scripture, signify a sacrifice for sin, vmless it may be allowed to do so in this one place alone. For whereas the LXX. do render nx^n constantly by aiiapria, where it signifies sin ; where it denotes an offering for sin, and they retain that word, they do it by 'Xipi aiiapTiag, an elliptical expression, which they invented for that which they knew aijjapria of itself neither did nor could signify. Lev. iv. 3, 14, 32, 35, V. 6-11, vi. 30, viii. 2. And they never omit the pre- position unless they name the sacrifice; as iJ^(i(sxog rrig a/x^apriag. This is observed also by the apostle in the New Testament ; for twice, expressing the sin-offering by this word, he useth that phrase vipi afiapriag, Rom. viii. 3, Heb. x. 6 ; but nowhere useth afiaprlm to that purpose. If it be, therefore, of that signification in this place, it is so here alone. And whereas some think that it answers " piaculum " in the Latin, it is also a mistake; for the first signification of afxapria is confessed to be sin, and they would have it su^jposed that thence it is abused to signify a sacrifice for sin. But " piaculum" is properly a sacrifice, or any thing whereby sin is expiated, or satisfaction is made for it. And very rarely it is abused to denote such a sin or crime as deserves public expiation, and is not otherwise to be par- doned ; so Virgil, —
"Distnlit in seram commissa piacula mortem." — [iEn. vi. 569.]
But we shall not contend about words, whilst we can agree about what is intended.
The only inquiiy is, how God did make him to be sin ? " He hath made him to be sin;" so that an act of God is intended. And this is elsewhere expressed by his " laying all our iniquities upon him," or causing them to meet on him, Isa. liii. 6. And this was by the imputation of oi;r sins unto him, as the sins of the people were put on the head of the goat, that they should be no more theirs, but his, so as that he was to carry them away from them. Take sin in either sense before mentioned, either of a sacrifice for sin, or a sinner, and the imputation of the guilt of sin antecedently unto the punishment of it, and in order thereunto, must be understood. For in every sac- rifice for sin thei'e was an imposition of sin on the beast to be offered, antecedent unto the sacrificing of it, and therein its suffering by death. Therefore, in every offering for sin, he that brought it was to " put his hand on the head of it," Lev. i. 4. And that the transferiing of the guilt of sin unto the offering was thereby signified, is expressly
350 ON JUSTIFICATION.
declared, Lev. xvi. 21. Wherefore, if God made tlie Lord Christ a sin-offering for us, it was by the imputation of the guilt of sin unto him antecedently unto his suffering. Nor could any offering be made for sin, without a typical translation of the guilt of sin unto it. And, therefore, when an offering was made for the expiation of the guilt of an uncertain murder, those who were to make it by the law, — namely, the elders of the city that was next unto the place where the man was slain, — were not to offer a sacrifice, because there was none to confess guilt over it, or to lay guilt upon it; but whereas the neck of an heifer was to be stricken off, to declare the punish- ment due unto blood, they were to wash their hands over it to testify their own innocency, Deut. xxi. 1-8. But a sacrifice for sin without the imputation of guilt there could not be. And if the word be taken in the second sense, — namely, for a sinner, that is, by impu- tation, and in God's esteem, — it must be by the imputation of guilt ; for none can, in any sense, be denominated a sinner from mere suffering. None, indeed, do say that Christ was made sin by the imputation of punishment unto him, which hath no proper sense; but they say sin was imputed unto him as unto punishment : which is indeed to say that the guilt of sin was imputed unto him; for the guilt of sin is its respect unto punishment, or the obligation unto punishment which attends it. And that any one should be punished for sin without the imputation of the guilt of it unto him, is impossible; and, were it possible, would be unjust: for it is Dot possible that any one should be punished for sin properly, and yet that sin be none of his. And if it be not his by inhesion, it can be his no other Avay but by iinputation. One may suffer on the occa- sion of the sin of another that is no way made his, but he cannot be punished for it; for punishment is the recompense of sin on the account of its guilt. And were it possible, where is the righteous- ness of punishing any one for that which no way belongs unto him? Besides, imputation of sin, and punishing, are distinct acts, the one preceding the other ; and therefore the former is only of the guilt of sin : wherefore, the Lord Christ was made sin for us, by the impu- tation of the guilt of our sins unto him.