Christ undertook that guilt of our sin which is nothing but the obligation to punishment, and that such punishment as beseemed him to undergo. There is a •uilt of Fact, and a guilt of crime, and a guilt of punishment. Christ undertook the last, but neither of the former as in themselves considered, unless as by connotation relatively he may be said to be guilty of the sin merely because he undertook to suffer for it; which is improper speech. Christ condescended to the admiration of Angels in taking on him our nature, and our punishment, and suffering for our sins; but his holiness would not suffer him to undertake our sin it self, or take it to be his own sin. Nay considering the communication of attributes which Divines assert from the hypostatical Union, men should tremble to think of laying a ground of calling it The Sin of God, by the same reason as, Acts 20. it's said, [The blood of God.] Its a sad case that partiality can so much prevail, as that they that cry out of some doubtful words as damnable heresies, do yet think it tolerable language to say, that by Imputation of the very sin itself to Christ as his sin, he was the greatest sinner, the greatest Murderer, Liar, Adulterer, &c. in the world. I beseech you abstain from such words till you find them in the Scripture. Christ never was reputed of God a sinner, who did so much to show his hatred of it. Nor ever took our sin unto him, any further than to suffer for it to expiate it: And if this be the similitude by which we must understand how his Holiness and Righteousness ⟨p. 32⟩is made ours, it will make all very plain. It is ours, or imputed to us, so far as to be reputed the true cause of our Justification, Adoption, Sanctification and Glory, as our sin was the cause of his suffering and death.
Christ undertook that guilt of our sin which is nothing but the obligation to punishment, and that such punishment as beseemed him to undergo. There is a •uilt of Fact, and a guilt of crime, and a guilt of punishment. Christ undertook the last, but neither of the former as in themselves considered, unless as by connotation relatively he may be said to be guilty of the sin meerly because he undertook to suffer for it; which is improper speech. Christ condescended to the admiration of Angels in taking on him our nature, and our punishment, and suffering for our sins; but his holiness would not suffer him to undertake our sin it self, or take it to be his own sin. Nay considering the communication of attributes which Divines assert from the hypostatical Union, men should tremble to think of laying a ground of calling it The Sin of God, by the same reason as, Acts 20. it's said, [The blood of God.] Its a sad case that partiality can so much prevail, as that they that cry out of some doubtful words as damnable heresies, do yet think it tolerable language to say, that by Imputation of the very sin itself to Christ as his sin, he was the greatest sinner, the greatest Murderer, Lyer, Adulterer, &c. in the world. I beseech you abstain from such words till you find them in the Scripture. Christ never was reputed of God a sinner, who did so much to shew his hatred of it. Nor ever took our sin unto him, any further than to suffer for it to expiate it: And if this be the similitude by which we must understand how his Holiness and Righteousness ⟨p. 32⟩is made ours, it will make all very plain. It is ours, or imputed to us, so far as to be reputed the true cause of our Justification, Adoption, Sanctification and Glory, as our sin was the cause of his suffering and death.
