so Bathsheba says unto David, that she and her son Solomon should be sinners, that is, be esteemed guilty or liable unto punishment for some evil laid unto their charge; 1 Kings i. 21. And the distinction of Dignitas pœnæ,' and 'obligatio ad pœnam,' is but the same thing in divers words. For both do but express the relation of sin unto the sanction of the law, or if they may be conceived to differ, yet are they inseparable; for there can be no obligatio ad pœnam,' where there is not 'dignitas pœnæ.'

Much less is there any thing of weight in the distinction of 'reatus culpæ,' and 'reatus pœnæ.' For this 'reatus culpa' is nothing but 'dignitas pœnæ propter culpam.' Sin hath other considerations, namely, its formal nature, as it is a transgression of the law; and the stain of filth that it brings upon the soul; but the guilt of it, is nothing but its respect unto punishment from the sanction of the law. And so indeed 'reatus culpæ,' is 'reatus pœnæ ;' the guilt of sin, is its desert of punishment. And where there is not this 'reatus culpæ,' there can be no pœna,' no punishment properly so called. For 'pœna' is 'vindicta noxæ,' the revenge due to sin. So therefore there can be no punishment, nor 'reatus pœnæ,' the guilt of it, but where there is 'reatus culpæ ;' or sin considered with its guilt. And the 'reatus pœnæ,' that may be supposed without the guilt of sin, is nothing but that obnoxiousness unto afflictive evil on the occasion of sin, which the Socinians admit with respect unto the suffering of Christ, and yet execrate his satisfaction.

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 pœnæ' is a liableness, an obnoxiousness unto punishment according to the sentence of the law; that whereby a sinner becomes úródiкos T JE. And then 'reatus culpæ' must be an obnoxiousness 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 its relation unto punishment.

That therefore which we affirm herein is, that our sins were so transferred on Christ, as that thereby he became OWN, ÚTÓSIKOS T JE, 'reus,' responsible unto God, and obnoxious unto punishment in the justice of God for them. He was alienæ culpæ reus.' Perfectly innocent in himself; but took our guilt on him, or our obnoxiousness 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. 1. The act of God imputing it. 2. 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, lawgiver, 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 suretyship 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 propitiation, 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 guilty person; as it is with public sureties in every case.

2. The Lord Christ's voluntary susception of the state and condition 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 person. And

of his own love and grace 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 the free pardon of sin. But if so, there was 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 righteousness unto us, as it is continued by others with the same design. 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 horret 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 forborn. 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 bear the guilt or blame of other men's faults, to be 'alienæ culpæ 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 offered for his own sins, and would prove it

from that very place wherein it is positively denied; Heb. vii. 27. This ought to be sacredly fixed, and not a word used nor thought entertained of any possibility of the contrary, upon any supposition whatever.

2. None ever dreamed of a transfusion or propagation of sin from us unto Christ, such as there was from Adam unto us. For Adam was a common person unto us, we are not so to Christ; yea, he is so to us; and the imputation of our sins unto him, is a singular act of divine dispensation, which no evil consequence can ensue upon.

3. To imagine such an imputation of our sins unto Christ, as that thereon they should cease to be our sins, and become his absolutely, is to overthrow that which is affirmed. For on that supposition, Christ would not suffer for our sins, for they ceased to be ours, antecedently unto his suffering. But the guilt of them was so transferred unto him, that through his suffering for it, it might be pardoned unto us.

These things being premised, I say,

1. There is in sin a transgression of the preceptive part of the law, and there is an obnoxiousness unto the punishment from the sanction of it. It is the first that gives sin its formal nature, and where that is not subjectively, no person can be constituted formally a sinner. However, any one may be so denominated as unto some certain end or purpose, yet without this, formally a sinner none can be, whatever be imputed unto them. And where that is, no non-imputation of sin as unto punishment, can free the person in whom it is, from being formally a sinner. When Bathsheba told David that she and her son Solomon should be sinners, by

having crimes laid unto their charge; and when Judah told Jacob, that he would be a sinner before him always on the account of any evil that befell Benjamin (it should be imputed unto him), yet neither of them could thereby be constituted a sinner formally. And on the other hand, when Shimei desired David not to impute sin unto him, whereby he escaped present punishment, yet did not that non-imputation free him formally from being a sinner. Wherefore, sin under this consideration as a transgression of the preceptive part of the law, cannot be communicated from one unto another, unless it be by the propagation of a vitiated principle or habit. But yet neither so will the personal sin

of one as inherent in him, ever come to be the personal sin of another. Adam hath upon his personal sin communicated a vitious, depraved, and corrupted nature unto all his posterity; and besides, the guilt of his actual sin is imputed unto them, as if it had been committed by every one of them. But yet his particular personal sin, neither ever did, nor ever could become the personal sin of any one of them, any otherwise than by the imputation of its guilt unto them. Wherefore our sins neither are, nor can be so imputed unto Christ, as that they should become subjectively his, as they are a transgression of the preceptive part of the law. A physical translation or transfusion of sin is in this case naturally and spiritually impossible; and yet on a supposition thereof alone, do the horrid consequences mentioned depend. But the guilt of sin is an external respect of it, with regard unto the sanction of the law only. This is separable from sin, and if it were not so, no one sinner could either be pardoned or saved. It may therefore be made another's by imputation, and yet that other not rendered formally a sinner thereby. This was that which was imputed unto Christ, whereby he was rendered obnoxious unto the curse of the law. For it was impossible that the law should pronounce any accursed but the guilty; nor would do so; Deut. xxvii. 26.

2. There is a great difference between the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto us, and the imputation of our sins unto Christ; so as that he cannot in the same manner be said to be made a sinner by the one, as we are made righteous by the other. For our sin was imputed unto Christ only, as he was our surety for a time, to this end, that he might take it away, destroy it, and abolish it. It was never imputed unto him, so as to make any alteration absolutely in his personal state and condition. But his righteousness is imputed unto us, to abide with us, to be ours always, and to make a total change in our state and condition as unto our relation unto God. puted unto him, only for a season, not absolutely, but as he was a surety, and unto the special end of destroying it; and taken on him, on this condition, that his righteousness should be made ours for ever. All things are otherwise in the imputation of his righteousness unto us, which respects

Our sin was im