Sermon 19

Objection: But the Gospel, from the law of love — not the law itself — forbids the believer to sin; neither do we teach (say they) that the Gospel makes sin to be no sin, but it only makes it to be no more my sin, but Christ's, and counted on his score, who was wounded for my iniquities, and was my surety, and therefore his payment is my payment, so as we have no more conscience of sins.

Answer: It is true, the Gospel speaks no contradictions, and makes not sin to be no sin, or David's adultery not to be a violation of the seventh Commandment: indeed, it makes Peter's denial of Christ not to be Peter's sin, in a legal and forensic way, but that Peter believing in Christ, who justifies the ungodly, shall not be condemned for that, nor for any other sin, that, and all his other sins with that, are counted upon Christ's score. But the denial of Christ, in another relation, is the sin of Peter only; to wit, according to the physical inherence of it, in that it proceeded from Peter's lust, and body of sin dwelling in him, and not any way from Christ Jesus, and in that it is against Christ's express commandment, who charged Peter to confess his Lord and Master.

But Antinomians, and by name Doctor Crisp, teach us, that not only the guilt of sin, but sin itself, really, and inherently, was laid upon Christ, in regard Christ was not by way of supposition only, or imagination counted the sinner, but made sin. And second, in regard, not only the guilt of sin, but sin itself was laid upon Christ, for says Doctor Crisp, the guilt of sin and sin itself are all one. In Genesis 42:21, when Joseph's brothers were accused for spies, they say, we are guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul, when he besought us and we would not hear. Reuben expounds the meaning, verse 22: Did not I say to you, sin not against the lad? But you would not hearken to me, and therefore, behold, we are guilty. What is that? We did sin against the child. To be guilty therefore, and to commit a sin, is all one — they are but two words expressing the same thing. Second, suppose a malefactor be asked, Guilty, or not guilty? He answers, Not guilty: what does he mean? He means, he has not done the fact that was laid to his charge. When the jury is asked, Guilty, or not guilty, the jury says Guilty. What do they mean? Do they mean anything in respect of punishment? No: the jury has nothing to do with that, but only in matter of fact; that is, whether the fact be done or not done — it had been extreme injustice to punish Christ, if sin had not been on him, and if he had been at his arraignment complete and absolutely innocent, even as if a judge should hang a man, though there were nothing found against him. Man is a broken debtor, and Christ a surety: God is content to take Christ's single bond, and looks for no other paymaster but Christ: sin was really translated upon Christ, else it was false that the Lord laid on him the iniquities of us all; yes, by this transaction of sin, Christ does now become, or did become, when our sins were laid on him, as really and truly the person that had all these sins, as those men who did commit them really and truly had themselves — so Christ was made sin itself, we are made righteousness in him, this is no imagination: but as we are actual and real sinners in Adam, so here is a real act, God does really pass over sin upon Christ, still keeping this fast, that Christ acted no sin; so that in respect of the act, not one sin of the believer is Christ's: but in respect of transaction, in respect of passing of accounts from one head to another, in respect of that, there is reality of making of Christ to be sin — if a judge will think such a man to be a malefactor, and by reason of his thoughts that he is a malefactor, he will actually hang this man; is there any justice in such an act? If God will but suppose Christ to have sin upon him, and knows that he has it not, but others have the sins upon them: and upon this supposition will execute Christ: what will you call this? In Isaiah 53: He shall bear the sins of many: does a man bear a thing on him in a way of supposition? Or, where there is bearing, is there not real weight? The Lamb of God takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29). Can it sink in a reasonable person, that a thing should be taken away, and yet be left behind? It is a flat contradiction: if a man is to receive money at a certain place, and he does take this money away with him, is the money left in the place where it was when he has taken it away? Although I have searched the Scripture as narrowly as possibly I may, yet this I find, that throughout the whole Scripture, there is not one Scripture that speaks of imputing our sins to Christ: but still the Holy Spirit speaks of sin not imputed to us, and of righteousness imputed to us.

Let me answer: that in all this you shall find grace turned to wantonness — in all these many sermons there is not one word to stir up to the duties of sanctification and holiness, but there is much in these words, and several other passages of his two little Volumes of Sermons, to depress, and cry down holiness and walking with God. I shall therefore say a little on this, and deliver truth shortly in these positions:

Position 1. No believer's sin is so counted upon Christ's score, as that it leaves off to be the believer's sin, according to its physical and real indwelling. It is true it is Christ's sin by law-imputation, and legal obligation to satisfactory punishment, and only laid upon Christ in that notion: yet it is so the believer's sin, as he is to mourn for this very thing, that Christ was pierced, and crucified, to remove the guilt, and the obligation to satisfactory punishment (Zechariah 12:10). And they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son. Indeed, it is so the believer's sin, even when he believes that his original corruption is pardoned, yet it dwells in him, having the complete essence and being of sin; so as if he should say, he had no sin, and nothing in him contrary to the holy Law of God; he should deceive himself, and the truth should not be in him (1 John 1:8). Indeed, let him be a Paul, not under the Law, but being dead to the Law (Romans 7:6), as touching all actual obligation, to eternal death: yet in regard of the real essence of sin, and proper contrariety that sin has to God's righteous Law, he cries out, verse 14, For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am carnal, and sold under sin. Verse 17: Now it is no more I — sanctified and pardoned I, who am in Christ (Romans 8:1), dead to the Law (Romans 7:6), freed from condemnation — that do sin, but sin that dwells in me. If there were no sinful I (to speak so) and no corrupt self in Paul, which breaks out into sin, and this indwelling sin were as really in its essence, and its being removed, and taken close out of Paul, as money taken really out of a place, is no more left in that place, then if it had never been there: surely, then justified saints were as clean as these, who are up before the Throne, clothed in white. And when Paul says, It is no more I that do sin, but sin that dwells in me: he should speak contradictions, and say, It is no more I that do sin, but it is I that do sin. There should be in justified Paul, no law in his members, warring against the law of his mind: as he says (Romans 7:23); no body of death leading him captive to the law of sin ([reconstructed: verse 23]), and making him wretched, verse 24; no flesh lusting against the spirit, hindering the regenerated to do the good that they would: as Paul speaks (Galatians 5:17). There should be no members on earth to be crucified, as it is (Colossians 3:5); no old man to be put off, no corruption, no deceitful lusts in us to be abated; as we are charged (Ephesians 4:22-23); no fleshly lusts in us, which wars against the soul: as (1 Peter 2:11); no weight, no sin that does so easily beset us, to be laid aside by the regenerated and justified, who are to run their race with patience, contrary to the Spirit of God, speaking the contrary (Hebrews 12:1-2). Indeed, there shall be no original sin remaining in the justified person which can be named sin, nothing in them lusting against the spirit, nothing to be mortified, crucified, resisted, nothing to [reconstructed: be] a work for the grace of God, nothing to be a field and plot of ground to be labored on by the spirit, by faith, nothing to be the seed and rise of humiliation, the sinner may go to heaven, and be nothing in Christ's debt, to help him against indwelling sin, for that guest is so taken away, as money that was in a place, and is every penny really removed to another place. Indeed, it is a flat contradiction (say Antinomians) to be a pardoned soul, and yet to have sin dwelling in the soul.

Positi. 2. The guilt of sin, and sin itself, are not one and the same thing, but far different things; that I may prove the point, let the terms be considered. There be two things in sin very considerable: 1. Macula, the blot, defilement, and blackness of sin; which, I conceive, is nothing but the absence and privation of that moral rectitude, the want of that whiteness, innocence, and righteousness which the holy and clean Law of the Lord requires to be in the actions, inclinations and powers of the soul of a reasonable creature. 2. There is the guilt of sin; that is somewhat which issues from this blot and blackness of sin; according to which the person is liable and obnoxious to eternal punishment: this is the debt of sin, the Law-obligation to satisfaction passive for sin; just as there be two things in debt, so these two are in sin: for when a man borrows money, and profusely and lavishly spends it, this is injustice against his brother, in matter of his goods, and a breach of the eighth Commandment: Again, this breach in relation to policy to the Magistrate, and the Law of the land, puts this broken man under another relation, that he is formally a debtor, and so it is just, that he either pay the money, or suffer for this act of injustice, and satisfy the Law of the fifth Commandment: which is, that he satisfy the Law, and the Magistrate, the public Father, tutor of a wronged and oppressed brother. Now here be two things in debt: 1. An unjust thing; a hurting of our brother in his goods: this is a blot, and a thing privatively contrary to justice. 2. A just thing, a guilt, a just debt, according to which it is most just, that the broken man either pay or suffer: Now these two, as all contraries do, Faciunt numerum, they make a number; as just and unjust must be two things, and two contrary things: I know there be cavils, and subtleties of School-men, touching the blot, or Macula peccati, and Reatus, the guilt of sin; but this is the naked truth which I have declared. Some say the blot of sin is that uncleanness of sin which is washed away by the blood of the Lord Jesus, and this is nothing but the very guilt of sin, which is wholly removed in Justification. But I easily answer: The blot of sin has diverse relations, and these contrary one to another: As, 1. There is the blot of sin in relation to the holy Law, as it is a privation of the rectitude and holiness that the spiritual Law requires; and it is formally sin, and not the guilt of sin; in which consideration, as nothing removes blindness, but seeing eyes; or deafness, but hearing ears; so nothing, formally removes sin, but only the perfect habit of accomplished sanctification; and so the blot of sin, Macula, is not that which is formally removed in justification, but only in perfected sanctification. 2. The blot of sin in relation to God, as offended and injured, puts on the habit of guilt, and so it is washed away in the Fountain opened to the house of David, and formally removed in justification, but now it is not formally considered as sin, but according to that which is accidental in sin; to wit, obligation to punishment, which may be, and is removed from sin, the true essence and nature of sin being saved whole and entire: Hence sin has diverse considerations: 1. As sin is contrary to the righteousness and holiness of the Law, it is formally sin, and this essential form, and life of sin remains in us while we live sin being in an act of dying, or a passion rather to be crucified, and in the way to its grave and perfect destruction, which shall be, when Glory shall grow up out of the stalk of Grace, and sanctification shall be perfected; for Grace is the bud, Glory the fruit; Grace the Spring and Summer, Glory the Harvest. 2. As sin is a blackness contrary to the innocency that the Law requires, and as it blots and defiles the soul, it is a Macula, a spot, a filthy and deformed thing, abasing the creature, making the creature black, crooked, defiled, like the skin of the Ethiopian, or spotted like the Leopard (Jeremiah 13:23). 3. As sin is a blot that makes the creature impure, unclean, and contrary and hateful to God, so it is a blot and unclean thing to God, and that two ways: 1. As it is contrary to God's holy Law, it is formally sin, as is before said: 2. As it offends and injures God in his honor and glory of supreme Authority, to command what is just and holy, it is an offense, and a provocation (Isaiah 3:8; Psalm 78:17), a displeasing of God (1 Corinthians 10:5; 2 Samuel 11:27), a grieving of him and his spirit (Ephesians 4:30; Genesis 6:6; Psalm 95:10), a tempting of God (Psalm 77:18; Psalm 95:9; Acts 15:10), a wearying of the Lord and a making him to serve (Isaiah 43:24; Isaiah 7:15), a loading of the Lord (Isaiah 1:24), a pressing of the Lord, as a Cart is pressed under a heavy load of sheaves (Amos 2:13), and so is punished with everlasting punishment. Hence there is a twofold guilt, one Fundamental, potential, reatus culpae; the guilt of sin as sin, this is all one with sin being the very essence, soul, and formal being of sin, and this guilt of sin you cannot remove from sin, so as sin shall remain sin, take this away, and you take away sin itself: But this is removed in sanctification as perfected, not in justification, as all the Arguments of Doctor Crispe go along in their strength to prove that the guilt of sin, Reatus culpae, the fundamental guilt of sin, and sin itself are all one: so we shall yield all to him, but with no gain to his bad cause: For Joseph's brothers say (Genesis 42:22), Truly we sinned, Vere peccantes, nos super fratrem nostrum; or were guilty against our brother: This is nothing, but we trespassed against our brother; this is not spoken so much of guilt, as of sin itself: and the Malefactor, saying, he is not guilty, means of fundamental guilt, or the guilt of sin, and that he has not committed the crime charged upon him. But there is another guilt in sin, called Reatus poenae, reatus personae, reatus actualis, the guilt or obligation to punishment, the actual guilt, or actual obligation of the person, who has sinned to punishment; and this guilt is a thing far different from sin itself, and is separable from sin, and may be, and is removed from sin without the destruction of the essence of sin, and is fully removed in justification. Now that this guilt is different from sin: I prove, 1. Because, that which our blessed Surety took upon him for our cause, without taking to him any thing which is essential in sin, such as is, to be a Sinner like us, to do violence, to be justly accused of sin, that is different from sin: But Christ took on him the guilt of our sin; that is, the actual obligation to be punished for sin, while as he bore our sins in his own body on the Tree (1 Peter 2:24), and was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities, and did bear on him the chastisement of our Peace (Isaiah 53:5), and died for our offenses (Romans 4:25; Romans 5:6), and this punishment Christ could not have borne except by Law he had obliged himself as our surety to pay our debts (Hebrews 10:4-8; Hebrews 7:22). Now that in all his life and sufferings he did no violence, committed no sin, nor touched any contagion of sin in his own person is evident, because he was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separated from sinners (Hebrews 7:26; Hebrews 4:15; Isaiah 53:9). The Proposition is sure, for if Christ was so made sin, and punished for sin, and liable to suffer for sin, and yet had not any sinful or blameworthy guilt on him, then that guilt of the person by which any is liable to punishment for sin, is some other thing than sin, and the blameworthy guilt that is in sin; forasmuch, as they are really separated, the one being in Christ and the other not being in him, nay nor could it be in him.

2. The cause cannot be one and the same with the effect, nor the subject and fundament one with the adjunct, and that which results from the fundament. But sin is the cause, fundament and subject, from which, guilt or actual obligation to punishment issues, because therefore is the sinner under guilt-personal, and actual obligation to punishment, because he has sinned, and is under the guilt of transgression, as he is therefore in law and justice a guilt-debtor to suffer evil of punishment, because against law and justice he is a bad deserving sinner, in doing against, and so by a (reatus culpae) a sin-guilt, has transgressed a law; for all evil of punishment, is a daughter which lay in the womb of the evil of sin; and the guilt of the latter ill of punishment must flow from the former; to wit, from the ill of sin; so, to be guilty, or obliged to eternal punishment, is a fruit, and result or consequent of the fundamental and intrinsical guilt of sin. 3. An unjust and sinful deviation from the holy will of God revealed in his law, and hateful to, and punishable by God, cannot be one and the same thing with that which is just, and agreeable to the just and holy will of God; but sin itself, in its formal being, is a deviation from the holy will of God revealed in his law; sin being defined by John, A transgression of the law, and is hateful to, and punishable by the Lord: But the guilt of sin, of which we now speak, is nothing but the demerit, and actual obligation to eternal punishment, and is no unjust thing, no transgression of God's will revealed in his law: indeed, the demerit of sin is a most just thing, and the actual obligation to punishment is most just, and holy, and agreeable to God's just will, and obligation to punishment can neither be punishable, nor hateful to God; indeed, it is just with God that the sinner be under law-obligation, to eat the fruits of the tree of his own planting, to have his teeth set on edge with the sour grapes that he ate himself. 4. He that borrows money, and profusely and lavishly spends it, is in that a transgressor against the eighth Commandment, he commits an act of injustice against his brother; now this act of injustice cannot formally or intrinsically be the sin or sinful guilt of the innocent surety; no law of God, or man can make actions evil and sinful, that are physically, inherently, intrinsically, really the unjust actions of the doer, the formal sin, or intrinsical and fundamental sinful guilt of another man, who in that action is innocent, and is not a member, an hand or a foot of the man that committed that fault, which I speak for; the sons of Adam, who intrinsically sinned in Adam, and by God's supreme will were made a part of Adam: yet the surety is formally made a debtor, and by law obliged to pay the debt, and it is an act of justice that he pay the debt, his promise to the creditor makes him a debtor, but his promise to the creditor puts no act of injustice in lavishly spending his neighbor's goods on him, for in that he is innocent, and cannot be charged morally, as a faulty and a broken bankrupt, the fruit and effect of the broken man's injustice does only lie upon him, in regard of his promise. There are three brethren born of the same parents, Adam, John, Thomas; suppose we then that the law of the city or kingdom is so, that one brother may die for his brother, John murders Thomas traitorously, under trust; by law then John ought to die; the elder brother Adam, out of love, interposes himself to the judge to die for his younger brother John; in this case Adam by law ought to die, and he is in law reputed and counted the murderer, but truly, not morally, not intrinsically, for he can be reproached formally, with no act of treacherous dealing, as if under trust he had stabbed his brother, for he did no such act; if shame by accident accompany his public laying down of his life, it is morally no reproach, no intrinsical blot to him; indeed, that Adam dies for John the murderer, it is through his own free consent an act of extreme love, in relation to the judge it is a most just act, and in law only, in imputation and legal account, he is the murderer. But poor soul he never thought, nor acted any treachery or cruelty against his brother.

3. Hence this Position: Christ was made sin, or imputed the sinner, and died for us sinners: the second Adam, the firstborn among many brethren suffered for his younger brethren, and so, by free consenting to be our Surety and die for us (Psalm 40:6-8; Hebrews 10:5-7; John 10:17-18; John 14:31; Matthew 26:46; Mark 14:42; John 18:7-8), he was made by Law account, sin for us, as the sinner (John 15:13; 2 Corinthians 5:21), to die for us (Romans 4:25). And the Lord laid upon him the iniquities of us all (Isaiah 53:6; 1 Peter 2:24-25). But I judge it blasphemy to say: by this transaction of sin upon Christ, Christ does now become, or did become, when our sins were laid on him, as really and truly the person that did all these sins, as these men who did commit them really and truly had these sins on themselves. For the elect believers in Christ were intrinsically, formally, inherently adulterers, murderers, disobedient, serving various lusts (Titus 3:3), dead in sins and trespasses, by nature the children of wrath (Ephesians 2:1), and in their own persons acted all these acts of wickedness, so as sin does formally denominate them sinners — as whiteness in snow, in milk, in the wall denominates all these white. But Christ never is, never was intrinsically, formally, inherently the adulterer, a disobedient person, nor is sin personally in Christ, to denominate him as really and intrinsically a sinner as David, Isaiah, Peter, Paul for whom he died, for he did no violence, neither was there any deceit in his mouth (Isaiah 53:9). There was no fundamental guilt, nor any bad deserving in him: how then was he a sinner, or made sin for us? I answer, by mere imputation, and Law-account, and no other way. But the Libertine says, it were the greatest injustice in the world to punish Christ, if sin had not been on him really; if he had been at his arraignment complete and absolutely innocent; and if only in imagination, and by a lying supposition, which lacks all reality in the thing, God should put Christ to death for these sins, that he knows Christ to be free of — this were, as if a judge should hang a malefactor, whom in conscience he knew to be free from all sin, and could find nothing against him. But I answer, Law-imputation is a most real thing, and no imagination, nor any lying supposition — as a man that is surety for his broken brother who has wasted the creditor's goods, is truly surety and really the debtor, and his obligation to pay for his broken friend is real, and most just upon two grounds: 1. That he gave faith and promise, and writ and seal, that his friend failing, he should pay; 2. The creditor accepted him as a real Law-debtor and paymaster in that case. And yet the surety in his person did neither borrow the money, nor lavishly waste it, and he has in his person neither conscience nor guilt of injustice toward his brother. And in regard of personal contagion of sinful guilt, Christ was completely and absolutely innocent in his arraignment, as one that neither acted sin, nor could be the formal subject of sin, in whom the blot of it was intrinsically, or really inherent. But in regard that Christ was willing to strike hands with God, and to plight his faith and soul in pawn, and did willingly sign with his hand, an act of surety as our guarantor (Psalm 40:6-8; Hebrews 10:3-10), and the Lord accepted him as Surety, and laid our sins on him (Isaiah 53:6; 2 Corinthians 5:21; John 3:19; Romans 3:2), he was made sin — that is, he was made a debtor, and a Law-paymaster so constituted by his own and his Father's will. So that God did no act of injustice in punishing Christ, nor was he in law absolutely innocent, but liable and guilty — that is to say, in regard of his Law place, or Law-condition, he was by imputation liable and subject to actual satisfaction and punishment for our sins. Yet he was a debtor made so, not intrinsically; a debtor legally, not personally; a debtor by reason of his condition and office, not by reason of his person — a sinner, a debtor by imputation, a debtor by Law, by place, by office, and served himself heir to our sins, and the miseries following sin. Now he was not in imagination, and in a false and lying supposition, made sin — imputation is not a lie. But as truly and really, a real Law-deed, as Judah offered himself surety for Benjamin, and was in Law, and really a bondman to Joseph, and might have so been dealt with as a real slave, if he had pledged himself in place of Benjamin; and the surety by the words of his own mouth, and by his covenant and promise is really and truly ensnared, as a true and real debtor in Law; as a roe is really in the hand of the hunter; and a bird in the fowler's net, being once caught and in hands (Proverbs 6:1-5). He is no debtor by imagination, he is not supposed to be what he is not indeed by the Law of God and nature and all laws — a man's promise brings him within the Law-compass of a real debtor. So Christ was under bail and a Law-act of surety by his own act, his own word of promise and covenant: 'You have given me a body, I have taken the debts and sins of my poor brethren on me; ask it of me Lord, as only paymaster, lo here am I, to do your will' (Psalm 40:6-8; Hebrews 10:4-8; John 10:18). Now there are but these two elements in sin: 1. The act committed against the Law of God; 2. The debt and obligation to punishment is clear. And though Doctor Crispe denies that sin was imputed to Christ, at least he cannot see, or read it in all the Scripture, yet he grants the thing itself. But I prove both the one and the other. And first, that Christ committed and did no act, nor deed against Law, for which he should be intrinsically and inherently the sinner, is clear — because that holy thing Jesus, being God-man, could not sin, nor did he ever any violence or deceit (Isaiah 53:9; Hebrews 4:15; Hebrews 8:26). Second, the inherent corruption, and sinful blot of sin, which follows upon the physical act of sin, being once done and committed by David, Peter, and all the elect of God, cannot come out by a real transmigration, and true and physical derivation or removal from one agent and subject to another, to inhere in, and denominate another subject. The same whiteness in number that was in milk cannot remove out of it, and reside and dwell in another subject — it is a principle of nature: the same individual quality does not migrate from subject to subject. No law in the world, no covenant, no transaction imaginable can effectuate this, that the real wickedness once committed by David should really and truly remove out of him, and go in, and reside in, and denominate the man Christ a wicked person. It is an everlasting contradiction that the treacherous murdering of innocent Uriah should remove out of David into the Son of David, Jesus Christ, and denominate him the murderer of Uriah, so as the same murder can be said to be committed by David only, and not by David only, but by the man Christ. It must then be a lie, a dream, and palpable untruth to make Jesus Christ intrinsically the sinner, and murderer. Judge then if this doctrine be of God, which Doctor Crispe right down has asserted to the world in print, Sermon 3, Volume 2, page 84: 'God made Christ a transgressor — no transgressor in the world was such a transgressor as Christ was' (page 88). 'You will never have quietness of spirit in respect of sin, till you have received this principle, that it is iniquity itself, that the Lord has laid on Christ. Now when I say with the prophet, it is iniquity itself that the Lord has laid on Christ, I mean as the prophet does, it is the fault or the transgression itself; and to speak more fully, that erring, and straying like sheep — that very erring, and straying, and transgressing is passed off from you, and laid upon Christ. To speak it more plainly, have you been an idolater? Have you been a blasphemer? Have you been a despiser of God's word, and a trampler upon him? Have you been a profaner of his name and ordinances? Have you been a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, a liar, a drunkard? Reckon up whatever you can against yourself: if you have part in the Lord Christ, all these transgressions of yours become actually the transgressions of Christ, and so cease to be yours, and you cease to be a transgressor from that time they were laid upon Christ, to the last hour of your life. Mark it well, Christ himself is not so completely righteous, but we are as righteous as he was, nor we so completely sinful, but Christ became, being made sin, as completely sinful as we. Nay, in fact, the righteousness that Christ has with the Father, we are the same righteousness, for we are made the righteousness of God — that very sinfulness that we were, Christ is made that very sinfulness before God.' Answer 1. No Scripture calls Christ the thief, the murderer, the adulterer, the idolater — God avert from pious hearts such blasphemies. He may by a figure be called sin, and be said to be made sin for us, but that is by mere imputation — as if you would say, the surety is the broken and riotous waster: all that have common sense know this to be a figurative and improper speech, that is, he is in Law liable to pay the debts of the broken waster; and the Law-guilt, and Law-obligation, that was in the broken man is transferred on him by his own promise. But no man in his right mind can say, that the broken man is as intrinsically just, as sober a manager of his goods, as free from all intrinsic fault and sin of injustice and breach of the eighth Commandment, as the innocent surety. No sober mind can say, that the injustice and injury done by the broken man to his brother, and against the eighth Commandment, 'You shall not steal,' is nothing formally, but the very just and real deed that the surety has taken upon him; and that the surety is as guilty with the same very fault and sin of waste, that is inherent in the broken bankrupt, as the bankrupt himself. And it is as great blasphemy to say Christ is as guilty, and as inherently faulty, and no less a transgressor of the sixth and seventh Commandment, by killing Uriah, and defiling Bathsheba, than ever David was, and that David was as free from the inherent fundamental guilt of these sins from eternity (for Libertines will needs have our sins from eternity to lie on Christ, and our persons before all time justified) as Christ himself is. 1. God made Christ sin, God made not David to murder Uriah: then Christ must be one way a sinner, David another way — the one by imputation, the other by real inherency. 2. David was intrinsically a transgressor of a Law; Christ not so. 3. David was washed and pardoned in the blood of Christ; Christ not so: then David's righteousness is but borrowed, and Christ's righteousness his own. 2. There is an essential righteousness that Christ has with the Father, and it is communicable neither to men nor angels, no more than God can communicate with the creature any other of his essential attributes, such as are infinite justice, infinite mercy, infinite grace, holiness, goodness, omnipotence, eternity, immensity. It is only the cautionary, the surety righteousness of Christ God that is made ours, and that we are as completely righteous as Christ, is a teaching not borrowed from the fountain of the holy Scriptures, but the man's own dream. For the broken debtor is never so righteous as the surety, except in this sense, he is equal in kind, but not equal in degree — he is righteous as the surety who has paid the sum for him, in regard that the creditor can no more in Law charge him with the sum, than he can in Law charge the surety, who has completely paid it. So are we in Christ freed from the guilt of eternal wrath, in that the Lord can no more in Law charge sin to actual condemnation on the believer, than he can put Christ to death again, or give a new ransom for us. But this is but formally a righteousness, in regard of freedom from the punishment of sin. But as I have said, the surety is more righteous simply, in regard the surety never broke faith to the creditor; the broken debtor has broken to him. 2. The surety never injured the creditor by injustice done against the eighth Commandment, but the broken man has failed in this. But I would be resolved what truth can be in those scriptures — 'Who can say I have made my heart clean?' (Proverbs 20:9); 'Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? No, not one' (Job 14:5); 'There is not a just man upon earth, that does good and sins not' (Ecclesiastes 7:20); 'If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us' (1 John 1:8). If we be completely as righteous as Christ; and if, as Crispe divines, all the idolatry, thefts, murders of the redeemed become actually the transgressions of Christ, and so cease to be the transgressions of the sinners, from that time they were laid upon Christ to the hour of their death: can he determine the time when persecuting Saul's blasphemies, and bloody outrages to the saints were laid upon Christ? I conceive he will say from eternity, they were laid upon Christ, and before he believed — certainly this was an untruth then. Saul made havoc of the Church, even when he did make havoc of the Church, and before he believed. For if Saul persecuting, and all the elect unconverted, yet disobedient, and boiling in their lusts, be as righteous as Christ all their life, it is most false that ever they were dead in sin, or sometime disobedient. If it be said, the elect considered in themselves and in nature are sinners, but considered as men in Christ, they are as righteous as Christ: it does not help, for we must not dream of, and imagine considerations, that have no reality and truth in them. For all now born since our Lord died, I am persuaded, by the doctrine of Antinomians, were never, nor can they be real and true objects of this consideration. For from that time that their sins were laid upon Christ to the last hour of their life, they are as righteous as Christ, and so washed and justified. Now their sins were laid upon Christ, as some Libertines say, from eternity, as others, from that day that he died on the cross. 2. Sins taken away by Christ's blood, says Doctor Crispe, are no sins of the saints: Christ did take them away, and bear their weight, even in the fault and sin itself, and not the guilt only, and not by supposition or mere imputation only, and that from eternity. But when Antinomians confess, that Christ acted no sin, so that in respect of the act (the sinful act against the Law of God must be here understood) not one sin of the believers is Christ's, but only in respect of passing accounts from one head to another — this is all the truth we here plead for. Because the act (or something answerable to that) done against the spiritual Law of God is sin itself, and essentially sin; if this was never upon Christ, then sin itself was never upon Christ. Now there is no other thing remaining in sin but the debt, guilt or obligation of sin that can be laid on Christ, and the truth is, the Scripture expounds the laying our sins upon Christ, to be nothing but God punishing Christ for our sins, as Isaiah 53:4. The cause and formal reason why Christ did bear our griefs, and carry our sorrows is verse 6: because the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all. And is so expounded in 1 Peter 2, whereas it is said, verse 21, that Christ suffered for us, and an objection is removed, verse 22: why should he suffer? Did he sin? The apostle answers by concession of the antecedent, and by denying the consequence, verse 22: he did no sin (personally), neither was guile found in his mouth. But it does not follow that he should not suffer legally, and for others the punishment due to them. So his sufferings are expounded, verse 24: 'Who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree.' Now how did Christ bear our sins? On the tree — that is, by suffering. And in Galatians 3, Paul evidently distinguishes between two sorts of persons that are cursed: the sinners that abide not in all that is written in the Law to do them (verse 10) — these are intrinsically, and in their person cursed, as being sinners in their person; and so the intrinsic objects of divine hatred, and a curse and abominable to God. Indeed, but Christ was also cursed — but how? Not intrinsically; God is never said to hate his Son Christ, nor to abhor him, as he does sin which personally resides in the man who acts sin in his own person. Therefore the Lord's forsaking of Christ his Son, is not an intrinsic detesting, or a moral abhorring of Christ; but an extrinsic, a penal, or a judicial suspending of the beams and rays (as Cyril says) or the overclouding of his favor, in the comfortable shining on the soul of his own Son. And it is not said that Christ was cursed, but only, verse 13, he was made a curse for us — that is, the fruits and effects of God's curse, the punishment due to sinners, even that satisfactory, and penal curse and punishment, which infinite justice requires, was laid upon Christ, while he died upon the cross, and suffered the effects of God's wrath upon his soul for our sins. Then he must be the sinner, only by imputation, except Antinomians show to us, how a person is made sin, or accounted the sinner, and yet is neither a sinner by inherent and personal acting of sin, nor yet by Law-imputation. And truly, it is bad theology for Doctor Crispe to say, as we are actual and real sinners in Adam, so here God passes really sin over upon Christ — for we sinned intrinsically in Adam, as parts, as members, as being in his loins, and we are therefore, by nature the children of wrath (Ephesians 2). But it is blasphemy to say, that our blessed Savior sinned intrinsically in us, as part or member of the redeemed, or that he is a son of God's wrath for sin intrinsically inherent in him, as it is in us.

Furthermore, Christ's bearing of our iniquities is an obvious Hebraism, and the same as the bearing, not of the intrinsic and fundamental guilt of sin, but of the extrinsic guilt, or debt and punishment of sin. So, (Exodus 28:38) a miter shall be on Aaron's forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things, Hebrew: [in non-Latin alphabet], Venasa signifies to carry, or as the 70 translate it, [in non-Latin alphabet], Aaron shall take away, or, bear the punishment of the violation of the holy things. Moses says to Aaron's sons, (Leviticus 10:17) God has given you the sin offering, to bear the iniquity of the congregation.

[in non-Latin alphabet], Aaron and his sons did bear the sins of the people as types of Christ, not by an intrinsical guilt put on them, but by mere imputation (Leviticus 16:22). And the goat shall bear upon him all the iniquities of the children of Israel to a land not inhabited. The priest prayed that the sins, that is, the punishment of the sins of the people might be laid on the goat (Numbers 18:1). Aaron and his sons are to bear the iniquity of the sanctuary, that is, the punishment of their iniquity, in that they were punished, if any of the sanctuary polluted the holy things of God (Leviticus 5:1). The witness who sees and hears a swearing, and does not utter it, he shall bear his iniquity; that is, says Vatablus, and all the interpreters, the punishment of his iniquity (Ezekiel 18:19). Yet say you, why does not the son bear the iniquity of the father? (Verse 20) The soul that sins shall die, the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father? (Ezekiel 23:35) Because you have forgotten me — bear you also your lewdness and your whoredom. In the same very sense, Christ (Hebrews 9:28) was once offered to bear the sins of many (1 Peter 2:24). He did bear our sins on his body on the tree (Isaiah 53:12). He did bear the sins of many; he did bear heavy punishment, death and the wrath of God, for the sins of many. The word [in non-Latin alphabet] Sabal, is to bear a burden as a porter (verse 6). The Lord laid the iniquity of us all on him. Hebrew [in non-Latin alphabet] Hifgang, the word signifies to fall on any with violence, and to kill him; as Gideon fell on the princes of Midian. And verse 7, he was oppressed, he was afflicted, yet opened he not his mouth. [in non-Latin alphabet] Niggas is not in the Hebrew. [in non-Latin alphabet] Niggash, per [in non-Latin alphabet] Adductus oblatus. Arias Montanus reads it [in non-Latin alphabet] Niggas, with the point on the left side of [in non-Latin alphabet] not [in non-Latin alphabet]. So Cyrillus, and it is, he was exacted, or payment of violence sought of him. Pagnan, multatus, Christ was put to a fine, condemned to pay an amercement, or forfeit, or Christ was pursued as pay-master and surety for us. The Father pursued Christ's bond, that he should now at the appointed day, tell down the sum, the great ransom-money of his life for sinners who were broken men. Justice gave in a broad and large claim against Jesus Christ, in which were written all the sins of the elect; and Christ opened not his mouth, but was dumb as a lamb, led to the shambles, and his silence was as much as, Lord, I grant, I yield to all the accounts in this sad claim. You will not confess your guiltiness, O sinners in Christ! Nor take with riots, murders, oaths, and all your sins: but the surety Christ was craved, and all your accounts demanded of him, and he confessed debt, and granted all. Verse 12, he was numbered. So [in non-Latin alphabet] Minna, he was reputed, and written up in the count among thieves: this was mere imputation, he was not a wicked man indeed. And consider how; verse 3, he is called, despised and rejected of men. Christ in himself and intrinsically was the glory, the flower, the prince of men, even at his lowest; he must then be abased below all men, in regard of imputation, and that penal degrading of Christ. So as it is said of him, he was [in non-Latin alphabet] Chadal ishim, which is, as Vatablus expounds it, so contemptible a man, that men would not admit him in company of men. Arias Montanus, desiit viris; others expound it, Cessatio virorum; Jerome, novissimus virorum. Sanctius says, he was not numbered among men, he was so despised, that he was the lowest among the lowest of men, or the minimum quod sic of men, as it is (Psalm 22:6). A worm, no man, no body, not in the class or rank of men. He was in himself, the mighty God, the prince of peace, more than above men and angels, the chief of the kindred of men, the fairest among the sons of men, even at his lowest; but in regard of his low condition, he was made the off-scouring or the dross or refuse of all men, as if not a Christianed creature. When our divines say, Christ took our place, and we have his condition, Christ was made us, and made the sinner; it is true, only in a legal sense, as we say, the advocate is the client, or the guilty man; because the advocate bears his name and person, and what the accused man could in law say before the judge in his own defense, that the advocate says for him. The advocate says, I cannot in law die for this crime, for such reasons. So the surety in law or in a legal substitution, is the broken man: the surety says, the debt is mine, all the wants, all the poverty, all the debts and burdens of my broken friend, be on me, and the rich surety having paid all, can say, I have paid all, I am in law free, my friend and surety has done all, and paid all for me. And that is as good in foro, in the court of justice, as if I had paid in my own person all; for the truth is, there are not two debts and two bonds, and two sums, nor two debtors. The broken man and the surety are in law but one person, one party indebted; which of them pay, it is all one to law and justice: it is all one sum they owe. The believer in Christ is put in Christ's law-place, and Christ by law is put in his place; Christ made surety says: I am the sinner, O justice, all my broken friends' wants, all their debts be upon me, my life for their life, my soul for my brethren's souls, my glory, my heaven for my kinsmen's glory and heaven. The law's bloody bond was the curse of God upon the sinner, upon the debtor: Christ changed bonds and obligations with us, and puts out our name, and puts in his own name in the bloody bond. And where the law reads, the curse of God upon the debtor, Christ is assigned to this bond, and the gospel reads it, the curse of God upon the rich surety (Galatians 3:13). Hear then the boldness of faith: now then there is no condemnation to those that are in Jesus Christ. What challenges Satan or conscience can make against the believer (for justice being put to silence by Christ, makes none), hear an answer: I was condemned, I was judged, I was crucified for sin, when my surety Christ was condemned, judged and crucified for my sins. And what would you have more of a man than his life? It was a man's life and soul, my life that my surety offered up to God for sin, and I have paid all, because my surety has paid all. And the truth is, it is not two debts, one that the believer owes to God's justice, and another that Christ paid; but the debt that Christ paid is our very debt and sins which he did bear on his own body on the tree (1 Peter 2:24). But though it be true in a legal sense, that the surety is the broken man; yet it is true, only in regard of the law punishment, or Malum poenae, the ill of punishment, that is laid upon him. For I take Doctor Crisp's words from his own pen: suppose (says he) a malefactor should be asked, guilty, or not guilty? He answers, not guilty. What does he mean? He means he has not done the fact that was laid to his charge. Then not to do the fact of sin, to Doctor Crisp, is not to be guilty. Now I assume, but Jesus Christ did never any sinful fact, as he also confesses; then Christ was punished for sin, and yet was never guilty of sin. This must be the greatest injustice in the world to punish a man for sin, altogether free of the guilt of sin; except Antinomians distinguish with us, between sinful guilt and penal guilt, called Reatus culpae and Reatus poenae, or Reatus personae, seu potentialis, and Reatus formalis, seu actualis, they shall never extricate themselves.

Now though it be true, that in law the debtor and the surety be both one legal person, yet intrinsically they are not one, the broken debtor as such may be an unjust man, and the surety a faithful and just man; so that the surety, as a satisfying surety, removes only the punishment due to the debtor for his injustice; but he removes not formally injustice, except he be such a surety as Christ, who can both pay the debt, and so remove the ill of punishment, and also infuse holiness, and sanctify and remove the evil of sin; hence in justification formally, Christ only takes away the punishment of everlasting fire, and eternal condemnation due to sin; but he removes not sin itself; sin itself is removed in sanctification, and by degrees; justification takes the sting out of the serpent, but does not formally kill the serpent; the serpent is killed by another act of grace, by infused and perfected sanctification; justification is a forensic and a legal act, and removes the power of the law, which involves the sinner in a curse: Now the strength or the legal sting of sin is the law (1 Corinthians 15:56). So we may judge how false this divinity is, which Doctor Crispe asserts: You will never (says he) have quietness of spirit in respect of sin, till you have received this principle, that it is not the guilt of iniquity only, but iniquity itself that the Lord laid on Christ; For it is true, quietness and peace of faith with God flows from justification (Romans 5:1). And the assurance that Christ has pardoned sin, and has removed the penal guilt, the punishment of eternal condemnation from sin, but that the conscience should be quiet; that is, that it should not have also a care to believe that Christ will sanctify thoroughly, and perfect his good work in us, is most false; for though a soul be justified and freed from the guilt of eternal punishment, and so the spirit is no more to be afraid and disquieted for eternal wrath and hell, which should never have been feared as the greatest evil, in regard that sin as sin is more to be feared than hell as hell; yet there be two other acts of disquietness of spirit laudable and commendable, even in the saints after they are justified; and the guilt of eternal punishment removed; as, 1. The believer is to have a holy anxiety and care of spirit (I do not call it a troubled conscience) to improve his faith in believing that Christ will perfect what he has begun. 2. He is to be grieved that sin dwells in him, and to groan and cry as a captive in fetters, out of the sense of his wretched estate, as Paul does (Romans 7:23-24). Antinomians will have the justified to be so quiet in spirit, as if Christ had removed sin in root and branch, buds and stump; whereas only the eternal punishment and fear of eternal condemnation is removed in justification: But there is a worse thing remaining in sin after this, and more to be feared, and a more real and rational ground of disquietness of spirit; and that is the fundamental, intrinsic, and sinful guilt of sin, which Christ never took on him, and is not removed in justification; but only in the gradual and successive perfection of sanctification, and so being justified, I am to be secure and to enjoy a sound peace, and quietness of spirit, in freedom from eternal wrath: But yet am I to be disquieted, grieved, yes, to sorrow that such a guest as sin lodges in me, and with me; even as an ingenuous and honest-hearted debtor, is to rejoice and be glad in the goodness and grace of his gracious surety who has paid his debt, and never to fear that the law or justice can go against him to arrest and imprison him, for that debt which is now completely paid by his surety: But if the surety gave his back-bond to pay him service of love, and service of sorrow, and remorse for his injustice and sinful lavishing of his neighbor's goods, which did necessitate his loving surety to hurt himself, and be at a great loss for him — he owes to his surety the debt of love, and disquietness of spirit, in so far, as the blot of his wastefulness, and the shame of his riotous youth, lies on him all his days: Antinomians conceive, that there ought to be no disquietness of spirit, no remorse, no trouble of mind, but that which has its rise and spring from sins apprehended as not pardoned, and from the fear of eternal punishment, to be inflicted for these sins: and it is true, that such a troubled and perplexed soul which is once in the state of justification, is but the issue and brood of unbelief, and arises from the flesh prevailing over the spirit in such sorrow: indeed, or if confession of sin arises from this spring of servile and slavish fear, it is not a work of faith, except that a conditional fear of eternal wrath; If a David fallen in adultery and treacherous murder, or a Peter overtaken with a denying of his Savior before men, shall not renew his repentance and faith in Christ, is required in all the justified for the perfecting of their salvation, and final perseverance: But there is another remorse and sorrow according to God, required in all the justified; and it is this, that though they are not to fear condemnation with a legal fear, so as to distrust God, and be afraid of eternal wrath; yet he who is ransomed by Christ, though he can never recompense the free grace, nor pay a satisfactory ransom for so great and rich a love, he is under a back-bond, or a re-obligation of love, service, and obedience to him that ransomed him: And this law of love and thankfulness is not, as Libertines, and others conceive, a positive and simply supernatural gospel-obligation; for the law of both nature and nations, require that the captive be thankful to the ransom payer: I grant that the particular commandments are positive and supernatural; so the justified is obliged by this back-bond, and gospel re-obligation to confess sin dwelling in him, to groan, and sigh and sorrow under it, to be troubled and grieved in spirit, for sin as sin dwelling in his members, and rebelling against the law of his mind; and keeping him in bondage, to walk humbly, and softly all his days; by reason of the running issue of sin, and to strive by all means to walk worthy of Christ; and this in the general is the law of nature, from which Christ has in no sort exempted us (Matthew 7:12; 1 Corinthians 11:14; Ephesians 5:28-29). Now as a man having fallen from a high place upon a rock, and has broken bones of thighs and legs though he be cured and can walk abroad, yet all his days he halts in his walking; or like one that is cured of an extreme fever, tertian, at such and such seasons, some fits of the disease recurs: yet is he not to doubt of the fidelity and love of the surgeon and physician, who have really cured him, in so far as he is in capacity in this life to be cured, and therefore as he is to walk warily, and with circumspection all his days, caring for his weakened body, so is he to be thankful to those who recovered him, and may be sad and heavy now and then; that by his own folly and temerity, he hurt his body: for even sins pardoned, as concerning their eternal guilt, by our sovereign physician Christ in justification, lay a law on us to serve our physician Christ in these positive commandments of obedience, love, sorrow, softness of spirit, with a care to sin no more, though we must needs halt, and slip all our days, yet not so to sorrow, as to call in doubt the reality of pardoning grace.