Peter. And yet you deny that Christ’s sufferings were properly penal.
James. You would not deny eternal life which is promised to believers to be properly a reward; but you would deny its being a real and proper reward TO THEM.
Peter. And what then?
James. If eternal life, though it be a reward, and we partake of it, yet is really and properly the reward of Christ’s obedience, and not our’s; then the sufferings of Christ, though they were a punishment, and he sustained it, yet were really and properly the punishment of our sins, and not his. What he bore was punishment: that is, it was the expression of divine displeasure against transgressors. So what we enjoy is reward: that is, it is the expression of God’s well-pleasedness in the obedience and death of his Son. But neither is the one a punishment to him, nor the other, properly speaking, a reward to us.
There appears to me great accuracy in the scriptural language on this subject. What our Saviour underwent is almost always expressed by the term suffering. Once it is called a chastisement: yet there he is not said to have been chastised; but “the chastisement of our peace was upon him.” This is the same as saying he bore our punishment. He was made a curse for us: that is, having been reckoned, or accounted the sinner, as though he had actually been so, he was treated accordingly, as one that had deserved to be an outcast from heaven and earth. I believe the wrath of God that was due to us was poured upon him, but I do not believe that God for one moment was angry or displeased with him, or that he smote him from any such displeasure.
There is a passage in Calvin’s Institutes, which so fully expresses my mind, that I hope you will excuse me if I read it. You will find it in Bk. ii. chap. xvi. § 10, 11. “It behoved him that he should, as it were, hand to hand, wrestle with the armies of hell, and the horror of eternal death. The chastisement of our peace was laid upon him. He was smitten of his Father for our crimes, and bruised for our iniquities: whereby is meant that he was put in the stead of the wicked, as surety and pledge, yea, and as the very guilty person himself, to sustain and bear away all the punishments that should have been laid upon them, save only that he could not be holden of death. Yet do we not mean that God was at any time either his enemy, or angry with him. For how could he be angry with his beloved Son, upon whom his mind rested? Or how could Christ by his intercession appease his Father’s wrath towards others, if, full of hatred, he had been incensed against himself? But this is our meaning—that he sustained the weight of the divine displeasure; inasmuch as he, being stricken and tormented by the hand of God, DID FEEL ALL THE TOKENS OF GOD WHEN HE IS ANGRY AND PUNISHETH.”
Peter. The words of scripture are very express—He hath made him to be sin for us—He was made a curse for us.—You may, by diluting and qualifying interpretations, soften what you consider as intolerable harshness. In other words, you may choose to correct the language and sentiments of inspiration, and teach the apostle to speak of his Lord with more decorum, lest his personal purity should be impeached, and lest the odium of the cross, annexed by divine law, remain attached to his death: but if you abide by the obvious meaning of the passages, you must hold with a commutation of persons, the imputation of sin and of righteousness, and a vicarious punishment, equally pregnant with execration as with death.
John. I wish brother Peter would forbear the use of language which tends not to convince, but to irritate.
James. If there be any thing convincing in it, I confess I do not perceive it. I admit with Mr. Charnock, “That Christ was ‘made sin’ as if he had sinned all the sins of men; and we are ‘made righteousness,’ as if we had not sinned at all.” What more is necessary to abide by the obvious meaning of the words? To go further must be to maintain that Christ’s being made sin means that he was literally rendered wicked, and that his being made a curse is the same thing as his being punished for it according to his deserts. Brother Peter, I am sure, does not believe this shocking position: but he seems to think there is a medium between his being treated as if he were a sinner, and his being one. If such a medium there be, I should be glad to discover it: at present it appears to me to have no existence.
Brother Peter will not suspect me, I hope, of wishing to depreciate his judgment, when I say, that he appears to me to be attached to certain terms without having sufficiently weighed their import. In most cases I should think it a privilege to learn of him: but in some things I cannot agree with him. In order to maintain the real and proper punishment of Christ, he talks of his being “guilty by imputation.” The term guilty, I am aware, is often used by theological writers for an obligation to punishment, and so applies to that voluntary obligation which Christ came under to sustain the punishment of our sins: but strictly speaking, guilt is the desert of punishment; and this can never apply but to the offender. It is the opposite of innocence. A voluntary obligation to endure the punishment of another is not guilt, any more than a consequent exemption from obligation in the offender, is innocence. Both guilt and innocence are transferable in their effects, but in themselves they are untransferable. To say that Christ was reckoned or counted in the divine administration as if he were the sinner, and came under an obligation to endure the curse or punishment due to our sins, is one thing: but to say he deserved that curse, is another. Guilt, strictly speaking, is the inseparable attendant of transgression, and could never therefore for one moment occupy the conscience of Christ. If Christ by imputation became deserving of punishment, we by non-imputation cease to deserve it; and if our demerits be literally transferred to him, his merits must of course be the same to us: and then, instead of approaching God as guilty and unworthy, we might take consequence to ourselves before him, as not only guiltless, but meritorious beings.