To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
The Truth pleaded for, is yet more emphatically express∣ed. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him. The Para∣phrase of Austine on these words gives the sense of them. Ipse peccatum ut nos justitia, non nostra sed Dei, non in nobis
sed in ipso; sicut ipse peccatum non suum sed nostrum, non in se, sed in nobis constitutum. Enchirid. ad Laurent. cap. 4. And the words of Chrysostome upon this place, unto the same pur∣pose, have been cited before at large.
To set out the greatness of the Grace of God in our Re∣conciliation by Christ, he describes him by that Paraphrasis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, who knew no sin, or who knew not sin. He knew sin in the notion or understanding of its nature; and he knew it experimentally in the effects which he under∣went and suffered; but he knew it not, that is, was most re∣mote from it, as to its commission or guilt. So that he knew no sin, is absolutely no more; but he did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth, as it is expressed 1 Pet. 2.22. Or, that he was holy harmless undefiled separate from sinners. Heb. 7.26. Howbeit, there is an Emphasis in the expression which is not to be neglected. For as it is observed by Chrysostome, as containing an auxesis (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,) and by sundry learned persons after him. So those who desire to learn the excellency of the Grace of God herein, will have an impression of a sense of it on their minds, from this emphatical expression, which the Holy Ghost chose to make use of unto that end, and the observa∣tion of it is not to be despised.
He hath made him to be sin; that is, say many Expositors, A Sacrifice for sin. Quemadmodum oblatus est pro peccatis, non immerito peccatum factus dicitur, quia & bestia in lege quae pro peccatis offerebatur, peccatum nuncupatur. Ambros. in locum. So the Sin and Trespass offering are often expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the sin and trespass or guilt. And I shall not contend about this Exposition, because that signified in it, is according unto the truth. But there is another more proper signification of the word; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sin for a sinner; that is, Passively not Actively, not by Inhesion but Imputation. For this this the phrase of speech,
and force of the Antithesis seem to require. Speaking of another sense, Estius himself on the place adds, as that which he approves. Hic intellectus explicandus est per Com∣mentarium Graecorum Chrysostomi & caeterorum; quia pecca∣tum emphaticῶs interpretantur magnum peccatorem; ac si di∣cat Apostolus, nostri causa tractavit eum tanquam ipsum pecca∣tum, ipsum scelus, id est, tanquam hominem insigniter scelera∣tum, ut in quo posuerit iniquitates omnium nostrum. And if this be the interpretation of the Greek Scholiasts, as indeed it is, Luther was not the first, who affirmed, That Christ was made the greatest sinner, namely, by Imputation. But we shall allow the former Exposition, provided, that the true notion of a sin offering, or expiatory sacrifice be admitted. For although this neither was, nor could consist in the trans∣fusion of the inherent sin of the person unto the Sacrifice; yet did it so in the translation of the guilt of the sinner unto it, as is fully declared Levit. 16.20, 21. Only I must say, that I grant this signification of the word to avoid contention. For whereas some say, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies sin, and a sacri∣fice for sin, it cannot be allowed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Kal, signifies to err, to sin, to transgress the Law of God: In Piel it hath a contrary signification, namely, to cleanse from sin, or to make expiation of sin. Hence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is most frequently used with respect unto its derivation from the first conjugation, and sig∣nifies sin, transgression, and guilt. But sometimes with respect unto the second, and then it signifies a sacrifice for sin, to make expiation of it. And so it is rendered by the LXX, some∣times by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ezek. 44.27. sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Exod. 30.10. Ezek. 43.23. A Propitiation, a Propitiatory Sacrifice. Sometimes by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Num. 19.19. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Purification or Cleasing. But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 absolutely doth no where in any good Author, nor in the Scripture signifie a Sacrifice for sin▪ unless it may be allowed to do so in this one place alone. For whereas the LXX do render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 constantly by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
where it signifies sin; where it denotes an Offering for sin, and they retain that word, they do it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Ellip∣tical expression which they invented for that which they knew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of its self neither did, nor could signifie, Lev. 4.3, 14, 32, 35. Chap. 5.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Chap. 6.30. Chap. 8.2. And they never omit the preposition, unless they name the Sacrifice, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This is observed also by the Apostle the new Testament. For twice expressing the Sin-offering by this word, he useth that phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rom. 8.3. Heb. 10.6. But no where useth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 Latine, it is also a mistake, for the first signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is confessed to be sin, and they would have it supposed that thence it is abused to signifie 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 publick expiation, and is not otherwise to be par∣doned, so Virgil
Distulit in seram commissa Piacula mortem.But we shall not contend about words, whilest we can agree about what is intended.
The only enquiry 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. 53.6. And this was by the Imputation of our 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 men∣tioned, either of a Sacrifice for sin, or a Sinner, and the Im∣putation
of the guilt of sin, antecedently unto the punish∣ment of it, and in order thereunto, must be understood. For in every Sacrifice for sin there 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. 1.4. And that the transferring of the guilt of sin unto the offering, was thereby signified, is expresly declared, Lev. 16.21. Wherefore if God made the Lord Christ a Sin Offering for us, it was by the Imputation of the guilt of sin un∣to him antecedently unto his suffering. Nor could any Offe∣ring 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 Murther, those who were to make it by the Law, namely, the Elders of the City that were 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 punishment due unto Blood, they were to wash their hands over it to testi∣fie their own Innocency, Deut. 21.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 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, name∣ly, for a sinner, that is, by imputation, and in Gods esteem, it must be by the imputation of guilt. For none can in any sense be denominated a sinner from mere suffering. None in∣deed 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 in∣deed to say, that the guilt of sin was imputed unto him. For the guilt of sin, is its respect unto punishment, or the obliga∣tion 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 not possible that any one should be punish∣ed for sin properly, and yet that sin be none of his. And if it be not his by inhaesion, it can be his no other way but by imputation. One may suffer on the occasion of the sin of another, that is no way made his, but he cannot be punished for it; for punishment is the recompence of sin on the ac∣count of its guilt. And were it possible, where is the Righ∣teousness of punishing any one for that which no way be∣longs 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 imputation of the guilt of our sins unto him.
But it is said, that if the guilt of sin were imputed unto Christ, he is excluded from all possibility of merit, for he suffered but what was his due; And so the whole work of Christs satis∣faction is subverted. This must be so, if God in judgment did reckon him guilty and a sinner. But there is an ambiguity in these expressions. If it be meant that God in judgment did reckon him guilty and a sinner inherently in his own person, no such thing is intended. But God laid all our sins on him, and in judgment spared him not, as unto what was due unto them. And so he suffered not what was his due upon his own account, but what was due unto our sin, which is impiety to deny; For if it were not so, he dyed in vain, and we are still in our sins. And as his satisfaction consists herein, nor could be without it, so doth it not in the least derogate from his merit. For supposing the infinite dignity of his person, and his voluntary susception of our sin to answer for it, which altered not his state and condition, his Obedience therein was highly meritorious.
In answer hereunto, and by vertue hereof, we are made the Righteousness of God in him. This was the end of his being made sin for us. And by whom are we so made: It is by
God himself, for it is God that justifieth, Rom. 8.33. It is God who imputeth Righteousness; Chap. 4.6. Wherefore it is the Act of God in our Justification that is intended. And to be made the Righteousness of God, is to be made Righteous before God, though emphatically expressed by the abstract for the concrete, to answer what was said before of Christ being made sin for us. To be made the Righteousness of God, is to be justified; and to be made it so in him, as he was made sin for us, is to be justified by the imputation of his Righte∣ousness unto us, as our sin was imputed unto him.
No man can assign any other way whereby he was made sin, especially his being made so by God, but by Gods laying all our Iniquities upon him, that is, imputing our sin unto him. How then are we made the Righteousness of God in him? By the infusion of an habit of Grace say the Papists generally; Then by the Rule of the Antithesis, he must be made sin for us, by the infusion of an habit of sin, which would be a blasphemous imagination. By his meriting, procuring, and purchasing Righteousness for us say others: so possibly we might be made Righteous by him; but so we cannot be made Righteous in him. This can only be by his Righteousness, as we are in him, or united unto him. To be Righteous in him is to be Righteous with his Righteousness, as we are one mystical person with him. Wherefore
To be made the Righteousness of God in Christ as he was made sin for us, and because he was so, can be no other but to be made Righteous by the imputation of his Righteousness unto us, as we are in him or united unto him. All other expositi∣ons of these words are both jejune and forced, leading the mind from the first, plain, obvious sense of them.
Bellarmine excepts unto this interpretation, and it is his first argument against the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ. lib. 2. cap. 7. de justificatione. Quinto refellitur, quo∣niam si vere nobis imputetur justitia Christi ut per eam justi ha∣beamur
ac censeremur, ac si proprie nostra esset intrinseca forma∣lis{que} justitia, profecto non minus justi haberi & censeri debere∣mus quam ipse Christus: proinde deberemus dici at{que} haberi Redemptores, & salvatores mundi quod est absurdissimum. So full an answer hath been returned hereunto, and that so fre∣quently, by Protestant Divines, as that I would not have mentioned it, but that diverse among our selves are pleased to borrow it from him, and make use of it. For, say they, if the Righteousness of Christ be imputed unto us so as thereby to be made ours, then are we as Righteous as Christ himself, because we are Righteous with his Righteousness. Answ. 1. These things are plainly affirmed in the Scripture, that as unto our selves, and in our selves, we are all as an unclean thing, and all our Righteousness is as filthy Rags, Isa. 64.6. on the one hand; And that in the Lord we have Righteousness and strength, in the Lord we are justified and do glory, Isa. 45.24, 25. on the other: That if we say we have no sin, we deceive our selves; and yet that we are the Righteousness of God in Christ. Wherefore these things are consistent what ever cavils the wit of men can raise against them; And so they must be esteemed, unless we will comply with Socinus his rule of interpretation; namely, that where any thing seems repugnant unto our Reason, though it be never so expresly affirmed in the Scripture, we are not to admit of it, but find out some interpretation though never so forced, to bring the sense of the words unto our Reason. Wherefore (2) notwithstanding the Imputation of the Righ∣teousness of Christ unto us, and our being made Righteous therewith, we are sinners in our selves, (the Lord knows greatly so, the best of us) and so cannot be said to be as Righteous as Christ, but only to be made Righteous in him who are sinners in our selves. (3) To say, that we are as Righte∣ous as Christ, is to make a comparison between the personal Righteousness of Christ, and our personal Righteousness, if the comparison be of things of the same kind. But this is
foolish and impious; For notwithstanding all our personal Righteousness, we are sinful, he knew no sin. And if the com∣parison be between Christs personal inherent Righteousness, and Righteousness imputed unto us, inhaesion and imputation being things of diverse kinds, it is fond and of no conse∣quence. Christ was actively Righteous, we are passively so. When our sin was imputed unto him, he did not thereby become a sinner as we are, actively and inherently a sinner, but passively only, and in Gods estimation. As he was made sin, yet knew no sin, so we are made Righteous, yet are sinful in our selves. (4) The Righteousness of Christ as it was his personally was the Righteousness of the Son of God; in which respect it had in itself an infinite perfection and value; But it is imputed unto us only with respect unto our personal want, not as it was satisfactory for all; but as our Souls stand in need of it, and are made partakers of it. There is there∣fore no ground for any such comparison. (5) As unto what is added by Bellarmine that we may hereon be said to be Redeemers and Saviours of the World, the absurdity of the assertion falls upon himself, we are not concerned in it. For he affirms directly, lib. 1. de purgator. cap. 14. That a man may be rightly called his own Redeemer and Saviour, which he endeavours to prove from Dan. 4. And some of his Church affirms that the Saints may be called the Redeemers of others, though improperly. But we are not concerned in these things; seeing from the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, it follows only that those unto whom it is imputed are Redeemed and Saved, not at all that they are Redeemers and Saviours. It belongs also unto the vindication of this Testimony to shew the vanity of his Seventh Argument in the same case, because that also is made use of by some among our selves, and it is this. If by the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto us, we may be truly said to be Righteous and the Sons of God, then may Christ by the imputation of our unrighte∣ousness
be said to be a sinner and a child of the Devil. Ans. (1) That which the Scripture affirms concerning the imputation of our sins unto Christ is, that he was made sin for us. This the Greek Expositors, Chrysostome, Theophylact and Oecumenius with many others take for a sinner. But all affirm, that de∣nomination to be taken from imputation only; he had sin imputed unto him, and underwent the punishment due unto it, as we have Righteousness imputed unto us, and enjoy the benefit of it. (2) The imputation of sin unto Christ, did not carry along with it any thing of the pollution or filth of sin to be communicated unto him by transfusion, a thing im∣possible; so that no denomination can thence arise which should include in it, any respect unto them; A thought here∣of is impious and dishonourable unto the Son of God. But his being made sin through the imputation of the guilt of sin, is his honour and glory. (3) The imputation of the sin of Fornicators, Idolaters, Adulterers, &c. such as the Corinthians were before their Conversion unto Christ, doth not on any ground bring him under a denomination from those sins. For they were so in themselves actively, inherently. subjectively, and thence were so called. But that he who knew no sin, voluntarily taking on him to answer for the guilt of those sins, which in him was an act of Righteousness and the highest Obedience unto God, should be said to be an Idola∣ter, &c. is a fond imagination. The denomination of a sin∣ner from sin inherent, actually committed, defiling the Soul, is a reproach, and significative of the utmost unworthiness; But even the denomination of a sinner, by the imputation of sin, without the least personal guilt or defilement, being un∣dergone by him unto whom it is imputed, in an act of the highest Obedience, and tending unto the greatest glory of God, is highly honourable and glorious. But (4) The imputation of sin unto Christ, was antecedent unto any real union between him and sinners, whereon he took their sin
on him, as he would, and for what ends he would. But the imputation of his Righteousness unto Believers, is consequen∣tial in order of nature unto their union with him, whereby it becomes theirs in a peculiar manner; so as that there is not a parity of reason that he should be esteemed a sinner, as that they should be accounted Righteous. And (5) we acquiesce in this, that on the imputation of sin unto Christ, it is said that God made him to be sin for us, which he could not be, but thereby; and he was so by an act transient in its effects for a time only, that time wherein he underwent the punishment due unto it. But on the imputation of his Righteousness unto us, we are made the Righteousness of God with an everlasting Righteousness that abides ours always. (6) To be a child of the Devil by sin, is to do the works of the Devil, Joh. 8.44. But the Lord Christ in taking our sins upon him, when imputed unto him, did the work of God in the highest act of holy Obedience, evidencing himself to be the Son of God thereby, and destroying the work of the Devil. So foolish and impious is it, to conceive that any absolute change of state or relation in him did ensue there∣on.
That by the Righteousness of God in this place, our own Faith and Obedience according to the Gospel, as some would have it, are intended, is so alien from the scope of the place, and sense of the words, as that I shall not particularly exa∣mine it. The Righteousness of God is revealed to Faith, and received by Faith, and is not therefore Faith it self. And the force of the Antithesis is quite perverted by this conceit. For where is it in this, that he was made sin by the imputati∣on of our sin unto him, and we are made Righteousness, by the imputation of our own Faith and Obedience unto our selves. But as Christ had no concern in sin, but as God made him sin, it was never in him inherently; so have we no inte∣rest in this Righteousness, it is not in us inherently, but only
is imputed unto us. Besides the act of God, in making us righteous, is his justifying of us. But this is not by the in∣fusion of the habit of Faith and Obedience, as we have pro∣ved. And what act of God is intended by them, who af∣firm, That the Righteousness of God which we are made, is our own Righteousness, I know not. The constitution of the Gospel Law it cannot be; for that makes no Man righte∣ous. And the Persons of Believers are the object of this act of God, and that as they are considered in Christ.