Both filth, guilt, and punishment... they were reckoned as his - John Gill

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." (1 Peter 2:24)

"What Christ bore were "sins", even all sorts of sin, original and actual, and every act of sin of his people; and all that is in sin, all that belongs to it, arises from it, and is the demerit of it, as both filth, guilt, and punishment... His "bearing" them was in this manner: he becoming the surety and substitute of his people, their sins were laid upon him by his Father, that is, they were imputed to him, they were reckoned as his, and placed to his account; and Christ voluntarily took them upon himself; he took them to himself, as one may take the debt of another, and make himself answerable for it; or as a man takes up a burden, and lays it on his shoulders..." -John Gill on 1 Peter 2:24

How was Jesus Christ made of God to be sin for us? - John Bunyan

How was Jesus Christ made of God to be sin for us? Even so as if himself had committed all our sins; that is, they were as really charged upon him as if himself had been the actor and committer of them all. “He hath made him to be sin,” not only as a sinner, but as sin itself. Some, indeed, will not have Jesus Christ our Lord to be made sin for us. Their wicked reasons think this to be wrong judgment in the Lord. It seems, supposing that because they cannot imagine how it should be, therefore God, if he does it, must do it at his peril, and must be charged with doing wrong judgment, and so things that become not his heavenly Majesty. But against this duncish sophistry we set Paul and Isaiah, the one telling us still, “the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” and the other that “God made him to be sin for us.”

But these men, as I suppose, think it enough for Christ to die under that notion only, not knowing nor feeling the burden of sin and the wrath of God due thereto. These make him as senseless in his dying, and as much without reason, as a silly sheep or goat, who also died for sin, but so as in name, in show, in shadow only. They felt not the proper weight, guilt and judgment of God for sin. But thou, sinner, who art so in thine own eyes, and who feelest guilt in thine own conscience, know thou that Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God in flesh, was made to be sin for thee, or stood sensibly guilty of all thy sins before God, and bare them in his own body upon the cross.

God charged our sins upon Christ and that in their guilt and burden. What remaineth but that the charge was real or feigned? If real, then he hath either perished under them, or carried them away from before God. If they were charged but feignedly, then did he but feignedly die for them, then shall we have but feigned benefit by his death, and but a feigned salvation at last — not to say how this cursed doctrine chargeth God and Christ with hypocrisy, the one in saying, He made Christ to be sin; the other in saying that he bare our sin; when, in deed and in truth, our guilt and burden never was really upon him.

All the iniquities of all his members found on him - Gilbert Beebe on 2 Corinthians 5:21

"He was made sin. See him whom the heavens adored arraigned before the bar of justice, now in the form of sinful flesh, with all the iniquities of all his members found on him, not merely by imputation, as some suppose, but by actual identity of head and body." - Gilbert Beebe

II CORINTHIANS 5:21

Brother Beebe: Will you please give your views on II Corinthians 5:21. “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.” I am aware that you have many such requests from brethren and sisters; but I am so situated that I have no preaching except that comes to me in the “Signs of the Times.” The “Signs,” with my Bible and hymn book supply all I receive. There are no Old School Baptists within fifty miles of me, that I know of. Elder T. H. Owen is the nearest, and I have not seen him for eighteen months.

Yours as ever,

B. Newkirk.

Yola County, California.

April 11, 1866.

Reply: The apostle in the connection of this text is treating upon the subject of the complete redemption of the people of God from the curse and dominion of the law, the guilt and punishment of sin, by the blood and righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ. That all for whom Christ died were sinners against God, transgressors of his righteous law, and, by nature, children of wrath even as others, is fully demonstrated; for if they were not sinners, no expiation of sin would be required on their behalf. This apostle informs us in Romans 4:24,25, that Jesus, the Lord, was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification. And in our context, verses 14 and 15, he says, “For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.”

Our views on this subject, which we believe are warranted by the scriptures, are that the immaculate Son of God, who was delivered for our offenses, was holy, harmless, separate from sinners, and higher than the heavens. He was a Lamb without spot or blemish, who knew no sin in his nature, or in his works. Shining in all the brightness of his Father’s glory, he was the express image of the invisible God, and he was and is the Lord from heaven, and filled with all the fullness of the Eternal Godhead. All the infinite perfections of the eternal deity were embodied in him. He was one with the Father, and he was in the Father, and the Father was in him. In his eternal identity with the Father he knew no sin. His will was and is the will of the Father, and that will is the supreme standard of holiness, according to which God worketh all things. On his unsullied purity and absolute holiness all holy beings love to contemplate; angels adore, saints extol, and devils tremble before him. If he had known sin, as attaching impurity to himself, it must have disqualified him for the great work of our redemption.

“For he that could for sins atone,

Must have no blemish of his own.”

All the victims required to be slain under the ceremonial law, and indeed all that were offered from the foundation of the world, as typical of Christ our sacrifice, including that of Abel, were required to be without blemish, to show that we, the church of God, are not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without spot or blemish, as set forth from the foundation of the world, pointing to that one offering wherein he through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, and by which he hath obtained eternal redemption for us.

This holy and spotless Lamb was made sin for us! How? By himself coming under that law of which he was the author and superior, and which his members in their Adamic nature had transgressed. “When the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his own Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them (his members) that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.” In thus coming under the law he took on him the seed of Abraham. “Forasmuch, then, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death; that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels,” (for angels were not in the nature of those to be redeemed, or to receive the adoption of children) “but he took on him the seed of Abraham.” That is, as explained by Paul to the Galatians, “If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” In taking on him this seed, he took on him all their transgressions. “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities (Isaiah 53:4-11).” Thus he was made sin, or, if we include the supplied words of our text, he was made to be sin for us. He was not made to sin, or to do that which was sinful; but in taking on him our nature, he took on him our infirmities; was made like unto his brethren (Hebrews 2:17).

Much has been said and written in modern times of the immaculate conception of the Messiah, as though his design had been only to take on him the seed of Abraham, and not their sins. But the very object or design was to bear the sins of his people in his own body. Imbodied in the seed of Abraham, which body was prepared for him, with that seed he stood identified, as its life, and he was recognized by the law and justice of God, as being responsible for their sins. Should a capital offense be committed by a man’s hand, would not the life of the body of which that hand is a member be held in law and justice for the offense? In the typical illustration of this sublime subject, the priest confessed the sins of Israel over the head of the scape goat, and it was said their sins were laid upon the head of the scape goat, and borne away. It is in this way we understand that Jesus was made sin for us. And he was made a curse for us, as it is written in the law, “Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree.” Mere substitution could not meet the demands of the law. To condemn and punish the innocent, or to justify the guilty, were alike forbidden by the law which Christ came to fulfill. Yet the head being identified with its body may be held for the transgressions of the body. The right of Christ to redeem his people, as the one nearest of kin to them, and holding, by virtue of higher claim, a right of property in the seed of Abraham, before they were partakers of flesh and blood, and before they had sinned, rests on their spiritual existence in him, anterior to their becoming partakers of flesh and blood; but his qualifications to redeem them with his blood required that he should take part of the same flesh and blood in which they had offended, that he might be recognized as being under the same law by which they were condemned. Hence he was made flesh and dwelt among them. With them identified as the head with its body; the life of the body was prepared for him. He was made sin. See him whom the heavens adored arraigned before the bar of justice, now in the form of sinful flesh, with all the iniquities of all his members found on him, not merely by imputation, as some suppose, but by actual identity of head and body.

He has taken on him that body, that seed, and in that body crushed with the mighty weight of all the sins, which with the body he assumed, the law with unabating fury pours on him the wrath that was due to the sins which were laid on him. An arbitrary act of imputation could not suffice. He is made sin, or made to be sin, for us. For whom? For the seed of Abraham: for his body, his bride, his sheep, his seed, his members, and for them only. “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit (Romans 8:3-4).” But we pass to consider the great purpose or design of this wonderful condescension and unparalleled humiliation of the Son of God.

We are told in the sacred word that God sent his Son to redeem them that were under the law, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself; to save his people from their sins; to redeem them unto God. But justification as well as redemption is contemplated in our text. Merely the putting away their sins would not secure to them the righteousness of God. It could only restore to them their original innocence in which they stood in Adam before sin entered. Hence to make the redeemed seed the righteousness of God himself required that the same relationship should exist between Christ and his members which we have found to be indispensable for their redemption.

Theological speculators talk of justification before God in a variety of ways. Some look for justification by the deeds of the law, or by the righteousness of their own works. But God has informed us that in that way no flesh shall be justified in his sight. As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse. Others speak of the righteousness which Christ wrought out by his active and passive obedience to the law. This was indispensable in our redemption from sin. “By the obedience of one, many shall be made righteous.” And so far as legal righteousness is considered, it is secured by the obedience which Christ has rendered to all the jots and tittles of the holy law. This legal righteousness redeems and saves us from wrath and condemnation, but does it qualify us for communion with God, for fellowship with the Spirit, and for an inheritance with the saints in light? Our text contemplates a higher order of righteousness than the mere satisfaction rendered to the law for our transgressions. “That we might be made the righteousness of God.” Much more than an acquittal from guilt and condemnation is required to bring us to God, and prepare us to stand before him in the perfection of his nature. God has told us by the mouth of Daniel that Christ should not only “finish transgression and make an end of sins, and make reconciliation for iniquity,” but also “bring in everlasting righteousness.” To work out is one thing, but to bring in is quite another. Without the former, the latter would be impossible. It was indispensably necessary that Christ should redeem us from sin, and death and hell; but having so redeemed us, it is no less indispensable that we be made the righteousness of God, and partakers of the divine nature. We are therefore assured that Christ is of God “made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” This is the name wherewith he shall be called, “The Lord our righteousness.” “For their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord.” So then as Christ was made to be sin for us, in the putting away of our sins, and as he was made sin by taking on him the seed of Abraham, so the seed of Abraham are made the righteousness of God in him who is the righteousness of God. Christ is our life, and he is the true God, and Eternal Life. We are in him, and he is in us, that all his members should be made perfect in one, that the world may know that God hath sent him, and that he hath loved us even as he hath loved him.

Middletown, N.Y.

July 1, 1866.

Elder Gilbert Beebe

Editorials Volume 6

Pages 352 - 357

A sense of guilt, and of Divine wrath - William Rushton

If sin itself be not transferable, Christ could not have borne all the effects and consequences of our iniquities. The shame and pain which the undefiled Redeemer endured from the Jews, the Roman soldiers, the cross, the nails, and the thorns, were a very small part of the reward of our transgressions. The principal part of the punishment of sin, consists in a sense of guilt, and of Divine wrath: but neither of these could Immanuel have endured, unless he had borne our sins themselves.

If sin itself be not transferable - William Rushton

If sin itself be not transferable, but only its effects, then it is not true that Christ bore our sins. Their consequences in part he might bear, but our sins themselves he could not bear, unless they were transferred to him. "He shall bear their iniquities," saith the prophet: for the original word signifies to bear, as a porter carries a burden. The Old Testament saints were well acquainted with their God, as a sin-bearing God, and considered this the glory of his character. "Who is a God like unto thee, that beareth iniquity; and that passeth over the transgression of the remnant of his heritage?"[Micah vii. 18.] But because it is impossible among mortals that guilt should be transferred, Mr. F. argues that it is impossible with God.

Guilt is imputed to Him - Charles Spurgeon

“What!” you say, “Does God actually account His Son to be a sinner?” Yes, He does. His Son agreed to be the Substitute, to stand in the sinner’s stead. God begins with Him at His birth. He puts Him in a manger. If He had considered Him as a perfect man, He would have provided Him a throne. But considering Him as a sinner, He subjects Him to woe and poverty from beginning to end. Now, see Him grown to manhood: See Him—griefs pursue Him; sorrows follow Him. Griefs, why follow ye the Perfect? Why pursue ye the Immaculate? Justice, why dost thou not drive these griefs away?...The answer comes: “This Man is pure in Himself, but He has made Himself impure by taking His people’s sin.” Guilt is imputed to Him, and the very imputation of guilt brings grief with all its reality. At last, I see death coming with more than its usual horrors. I see the grim skeleton with his dart well sharpened. I see behind him, Hell. I mark the grim prince of darkness and all the avengers uprising from their place of torment. I see them all besetting the Savior. I notice their terrible war upon Him in the garden. I note Him, as He lies there wallowing in His blood in fearful soul-death. I see Him as in grief and sorrow. He walks to Pilate’s bar. I see Him mocked and spit upon. I behold Him tormented, maltreated, and blasphemed. I see Him nailed to the cross! I behold the mocking continued, and the shame unabated.36 I mark Him shrieking for water, and I hear Him complaining of the forsakings of God! I am astonished! Can this be just that a perfect being should suffer thus?—Oh, God, where art Thou, that Thou canst thus permit the oppression of the innocent? Hast thou ceased to be King of Justice? Else, why dost Thou not shield the perfect One? The answer comes: “Be still. He is perfect in Himself, but He is the sinner now. He stands in the sinner’s stead. The sinner’s guilt is on Him; therefore, it is right, it is just, it is what He hath Himself agreed to that He should be punished as if He were a sinner, that He should be frowned upon, that He should die, and that He should descend to Hades unblessed, uncomforted, unhelped, unhonored, and unowned. This was one of the effects of the Great Exchange that Christ made.

Bearing the sins of his people, under an imputation of them to him - John Gill

The form or manner in which satisfaction was made by Christ; which was by bearing the sins of his people, under an imputation of them to him, and by dying for their sins, and for sinners; that is, in their room and stead, as their substitute; these are the phrases by which it is expressed in scripture. First, By bearing the sins of his people, which we first read of in Isaiah 53:11, 12 where two words are made use of, both alike translated: “And he bare the sin of many,” he took, he lifted them up, he took them off of his people, and took them upon himself; and again, “He shall bear their iniquities,” as a man bears and carries a burden upon his shoulders; and from hence is the use of the phrase in the New Testament: the author of the epistle to Hebrews in 9:28 observes, that “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many;” pointing at the time when he bore the sins of many; it was when he was offered up a sacrifice to make atonement for them; and the apostle Peter observes where he bore them; “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree!” (1 Pet. 2:24). “He bore them in his own body,” in the body of his flesh; when that was offered once for all; and “on the tree,” upon the cross, when he was crucified on it. Now his bearing sin, supposes it was upon him: there was no sin “in” him, inherently, in his nature and life; had there been any, he would not have been a fit person to take away sin, to expiate it, and make satisfaction for it; he was manifested to take away our sins; that is, by the sacrifice of himself; and in him is no sin (1 John 3:5), and so a fit sacrifice for it: but sin was upon him, it was “put” upon him, as the sins of Israel were “put upon” the scapegoat, by Aaron.

Albert Barnes Denies Absolute Substitution

Here is an example of the "...as if..." language which false teachers use in order to deny that Christ owned the guilt of our sins when He was made a curse for us.

"...He did not so take human guilt upon him, that the words sinful and sinner could with any propriety be applied to him."

"...The sense of the passage before us is, therefore, that Jesus was subjected to what was regarded as an accursed death. He was treated in his death as if he had been a criminal. He was put to death in the same manner as he would have been if he had himself been guilty of the violation of the Law. If he had been a thief or a murderer; if he had committed the grossest and the blackest crimes, this would have been the punishment to which he would have been subjected. This was the mode of punishment adapted to those crimes, and he was treated as if all these had been committed by him. Or, in other words, if he had been guilty of all these, or any of these, he could not have been treated in a more shameful and ignominious manner than he was; nor could he have been subjected to a more cruel death. Since it has already been intimated, it does not mean that Jesus was guilty, nor that he was not the object of the approbation and love of God, but that Jesus’ death was the same that it would have been if he had been the vilest of malefactors, and that that death was regarded by the Law as accursed."

"...But what made the atonement so wonderful, so glorious, so benevolent; what made it an atonement at all, was that innocence was treated as if it were guilt; that the most pure, and holy, and benevolent, and lovely being on earth should consent to be treated, and should be treated by God and man, as If Jesus were the most vile and ill-deserving. This is the mystery of the atonement; this shows the wonders of the divine benevolence; this is the nature of substituted sorrow; and this lays the foundation for the offer of pardon, and for the hope of eternal salvation." Albert Barnes (Commentary on Galatians 3:13)

In response to this read William Rushton HERE.

The ground of the sufficiency of His work - Styles

Christ’s sufferings proportioned to His people’s guilt, the ground of the sufficiency of His work.

We believe that as the death of the Lord Jesus was penal (that is to say inflicted on Him in punishment for the sins of His people), His vicarious agonies were proportioned to their guilt, and that He suffered at the hands of impartial Justice what they in their own persons must otherwise have endured in the place of endless woe, and that thus the measure of His sufferings rendered His oblation gloriously sufficient for the great ends contemplated in the covenant of grace (Isa. 53:5, 8; Rom. 8:32; 2 COr. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:18).

“My Lord, my love was crucified, He all my pains did bear, But in the sweetness of His rest, He makes His servants share.

“His blood was shed instead of ours, His soul our hell did bear, He took our sin, gave us Himself: What an exchange is here!”

Sufferings according to the degree of their guilt - John Stevens

Mr. F. “If the measure of Christ's sufferings were according to the number of those for whom he died, in such a manner as that if more had been saved, his sorrows must have been proportionally increased ; it might, for aught I know, be inconsistent with indefinite invitations."* iv Page 109.

Ans. 1. Whatever Christ suffered that had any saving merit in it, was endured by him as a public person, as the Head and Representative of his whole chosen body, for which body he suffered and died exclusively. He loved the church, and gave himself for it. The rest he never knew, and, therefore, certainly never suffered on THEIR account; so that they can have no invitation to the enjoyment of salvation on His account. Now, as it is clear, that Christ did suffer for some, and not for others, and as the scriptures call the atonement he made for some a ransom; and as the same persons are said to be bought with a price, and their debts forgiven by graciously providing them a Surety, and taking payment of him in their stead; we may, therefore, safely conclude, that the demands of impartial justice were greater than if only one sinner had been ordained to salvation; and that they must have been proportionable to the number of criminals appointed to obtain salvation thereby.

2. It is true, that not one sinner could have been saved had not Jesus laid down his life as a sacrifice; but, it is also true, that the expiatory sufferings of the Redeemer did not consist merely in giving up the ghost, but chiefly in what preceded that, for He endured the wrath of God, and paid the dreadful debt required, on account of his chosen people, so as to be able to say, before he expired and left his body, It is finished. Hence it appears that, though death must have been unavoidable, if only one sinner had been redeemed from the second death to endless life; yet, it by no means follows that our Lord's sufferings must have been equally great in dying. As a hint, merely illustrative, it may be remarked that while all men die, they by no means suffer alike in dying. Our Saviour's actual death, rather marks the termination of his sufferings, than the degree of them. Yet, if his sorrows were in proportion to the number of persons for whom he suffered, as they evidently were, Mr. F. has acknowledged indefinite invitations might be inconsistent for aught he knew.

3. It is said of the unjust sinner, that he shall eventually “receive according to the things done in his body, according to that he hath done." But, is there no greater measure of punishment justly due to a world of sinners, than there is to one? Then what is meant by the greater damnation and the more tolerable condition mentioned by our Lord? (*v.) If there are not different degrees of punishment, how can some have a more tolerable condition than others? But, if one lost sinner be to suffer as much as all lost sinners, as Mr. F.'s mode of reasoning supposes, then it must follow that one sinner does as much dishonor to the name of God as all mankind put together! It will next follow that man is not only accountable for his own faults, but for those of mankind. Where do the sacred writings hold out such sentiments for our reception? Paul says, The sinner shall receive according to that he bath done in his body; but, he has never said, that any one shall suffer according to what others have done in their bodies. Therefore if we suppose any one to stand in the place of one lost sinner, we are not, in so doing, to imagine, that such a substitute must, on that account, suffer as much as though he had represented all lost sinners. The greater the guilt, the greater the punishment: the greater the numbed *vi of sinners, the greater the measure of guilt. It must, therefore, follow that, “if more sinners had been saved, the sorrows of the Saviour must have been proportionably increased." But, Mr. F. admitted that if this were the case, then, for aught he knew, indefinite invitations might be inconsistent with particular redemption. (*v Matt. 10:15. and 23: 14).

(*vi ROM. 5: 15. Isaiah 53: 6, 12).

Now, as it is impossible that one sinner, in the few years of his embodied state on earth, should commit as much sin and do as much dishonor to God, as all mankind put together, or even as his chosen race, it is incredible that a just God can have punished Christ in the same degree, as though all the world had been to be saved by his death : or, that he would have suffered just the same as he did suffer, had only one sinner been ordained to salvation. Yet, this preposterous idea must be maintained, or Mr. F.'s system of indefinite invitations is without foundation in the death of Christ, by his own concession!

Mr. F. “If the measure of his sufferings were according to the degree of their guilt, or if his sorrows must have been proportionably increased, if those who are saved had been more guilty ; it might, for aught I know, be inconsistent with indefinite invitations.": (* vii Page 109).

Ans. To be guilty, is to be chargeable with crimes that expose one to punishment. A man's being more guilty than his neighbor, supposes that he has sinned more heinously, and committed more crimes than his neighbor has. That the measure of Christ's sufferings was proportionable to the guiltiness of his members, whom he represented to God, and covenanted for, I conceive appears from the following considerations:—

1. Some are said to owe “five hundred pence, and others fifty;" which saying Jesus afterwards explained in the same connection, when he said (speaking of a certain woman) “her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little."* As all do not owe alike, I apprehend he who was Surety for the whole elect number of debtors was not required to suffer to the same degree for each one of them. Can it be thought that Christ suffered as much for every one of those infants that are saved, as he did for this woman? or, that God the Father shews as much grace in pardoning an infant, as he did in pardoning Saul of Tarsus, who styled himself the chief of sinners, because of his wicked deeds ?
(* Luke vii. 47).

2. The more grace the Father manifests in pardoning and justifying a sinner, the more heinous and numerous his crimes are thereby supposed to have been, and the more was required to be endured by Jesus, his Surety for him. For the sufferings of the Mediator, who agreed in covenant to hear the sins of a particular people, must have been according to the dishonor done to God, the sovereign Lawgiver, who is the party offended; otherwise the dignity and honor of the divine Law-giver would not have been restored.

3. Jesus Christ, in his work of mediation, was considered by his Father, as the Head and Surety of the chosen body, which contains many members. Now all these members are distinctly known, distinctly loved, distinctly brought into the world, distinctly preserved in Christ and called, and he is touched with the feeling of all their infirmities, in a distinct way and manner, and knows what every member bears: and why are we not to suppose that he suffered distinctly for the evil ways of all the members of his mystical body? In short, I question whether it were possible for Christ to suffer for his people, by bearing their sins in his own body on the tree, without suffering for them in a distinct way, according to the exact knowledge which he had of them.* (* Psalm 40: 12).

4. The Lord has frequently set forth the great sinfulness of Israel by the number of their sins; and I see no reason why we are to suppose that the Lord would deal with Israel according to the number of their sins, as in Numb. 14: 22. Jer. 5: 6. Lam. 1: 3. Hosea 9: 7, 9. Psalm 78: 40. and that so as to manifest an inflammation of wrath against the aggressors; and yet when he came to punish sin to the utmost in Christ, the public Head and Surety of the elect remnant, take no notice of the number of sins, so as to punish him accordingly.

5. Why do the scriptures so particularly set forth the sinfulness of those that
are saved, and also the merits of their Saviour, by the number of their sins, if it all stands for nothing? It. is said, “judgment was by one (offence) to condemnation; but the free gift is of many offences (*ix) unto justification, by the obedience of Christ." Now, how came the Apostle to speak so emphatically of many offences, if he considered the atonement of Christ in the same way as our author did? (*ix Rom. 5: 16).

6. The Holy Ghost convinces of sins, of many sins, and causes the chosen seed of the Lord to confess their sins as innumerable, and to feel grief at times on account of the number of them, and to ask for the forgiveness of them as being many, like the woman's of old; of whom Christ said her sins, which are many; are forgiven. Now, how is it that the saint, who is a member of Christ's body, and a partaker of his nature and spirit, should suffer under a sense of the number of his sins, and afterward praise God for the forgiveness of his many offences, if Christ his Head and ensample did not so suffer? Can it be thought the believer has a more distinct view of his criminality, and that with sorrow and pain, than what Christ had and felt in the great work of redemption? Surely not.

7. The omniscient and heart-searching God distinctly knows all the sins of his people; yea, he wisely permits them, and perfectly hates them; nor could he fail to punish them according to their desert. For this end they were laid, imputatively on Jesus, as their Head and Surety, who suffered for them distinctly, when he bore their sins, their numbered offences, in his own body on the tree. He, by the mouth of his servant David, said, “Innumerable evils have compassed me about, they are more than the hairs of my head." But why speak thus, unless the number of the sins referred to was the cause of his sufferings being the greater? Punishment is not inflicted in sovereignty, but in equity; and justice consists in assigning to every one his due; but, this implies that the measure of our Surety's sufferings was according to the degree of our guilt: if this be the case said Mr. F., indefinite invitations may, for aught I know, be inconsistent with peculiar redemption.

8. In the great day of judgment, all the deeds done in the body will come under notice, and the ungodly will receive punishment accordingly; from which it may reasonably be imagined that all the sins of the elect world were brought forward against their divine Surety, and distinctly and righteously punished in him, in the garden and on the cross. God will bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. The preceding considerations have induced me to conclude, that our sins, as well as our persons, were viewed, numbered, and covenanted for distinctly, and so distinctly suffered for, that if one person, or one sin, had been lacking of the number atoned for, the load had been lighter on the person of Jesus our Surety and Redeemer: consequently indefinite invitations are inconsistent with the true doctrine of atonement.

William Rushton Refutes Andrew Fuller's view of Imputation

"A voluntary obligation to endure the punishment of another is not guilt, any more than the 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." -Fuller

"That the Scriptures represent believers as receiving only the benefits of the effects of Christ’s righteousness in justification, is a remark of which I am not able to see the fallacy: nor does it follow that his obedience itself is not imputed to them. Obedience itself may be, and is imputed, while its effects only are imparted, and consequently received. Neither sin nor righteousness are in themselves transferable." -Fuller

"I apprehend, then, that many important mistakes have arisen from considering the interposition of Christ under the notion of paying a debt. * * Sin is a debt only in a metaphorical sense: properly speaking it is a crime, and satisfaction for it requires to be made not on pecuniary, but on moral principles. The reason of this difference is easily perceived. Debts are transferable, but crimes are not. A third person may cancel the one, but he can only obliterate the effects of the other: the desert of the criminal remains." -Fuller

William Rushton responds to Fuller's view on imputation in these words,

"...I cannot pass by the very exceptionable manner in which Mr. Fuller has explained himself on the subject of imputation. I have quoted his words in my first letter, to which I beg leave to refer you, and also to the original. We are there informed what the term signifies: we are also told that, like many other words, it has a proper and an improper meaning. We are informed, moreover, that the word, in a proper sense, means so and so; and in an improper sense, it means so and so; the conclusion of all which is, that when the Scripture speaks of the imputation of sin to Christ, or of righteousness to the sinner, the term is to be taken not in a proper, but in an improper sense. Now, all this sounds very philosophically; but what real instruction or comfort can such a detail communicate to a sincere, inquiring soul? Such a one, on meeting with this explanation of Mr. Fuller, would immediately start, and say, "Alas! I did indeed think that all my sins were imputed to the Lord Jesus, and this was the ground of my comfort; but Mr. Fuller tells me that this was so only in what he calls an improper sense. And I have comforted myself with the thought that Christ’s righteousness was mine, being truly imputed to me; but Mr. Fuller has perplexed and distressed me, for he says this is not properly the case." In this manner would Mr. Fuller’s philosophy be worse than thrown away. But his whole statement on this subject is badly illustrated, and essentially deficient.

In the first place, then, the statement itself is liable to be misunderstood, owing to the indistinct and confused manner in which he has attempted to illustrate it. To give an instance or two. The proper sense of imputation, we are told, is, "the charging, reckoning, or placing to the account of persons and things THAT WHICH PROPERLY BELONGS TO THEM." And the very first instance of the imputation in a proper sense, which Mr. Fuller has adduced, is the case of Eli charging Hannah with drunkenness. "Eli thought she had been drunken." Now there is reason to think that many of Mr. Fuller’s readers would not clearly comprehend his meaning here; and if they did not understand the deep metaphysical sense of the word "proper," they wouldbe weak enough to imagine that Eli’s imputation was an improper imputation. But even amongst those who are more expert in the meaning of words, there may be some, who, being aware that Eli charged Hannah unjustly, would perhaps not find it so easy to understand how he imputed to her "that which properly belonged to her." Equally at a loss would some readers be to find that the Lord’s not imputing iniquity to men, is to be understood in a proper sense; that is, he does not properly impute iniquity to his people. They would be still more at a loss, on reflecting that Mr. Fuller understands the imputation of sin to Christ in an improper sense, and might naturally conclude that, as the Lord does not properly impute sin to his people, nor yet to Christ, that their sin is never properly imputed at all. It is truly a pity to find so important, and yet so simple a subject darkened as it is in Mr. Fuller’s explanation. Indeed, the artificial distinctions and scholastic phrases are sometimes worse than useless, and often good for nothing but to increase the importance of the teacher, and to serve the same purpose in divinity as a barbarous kind of Latin is made to answer in law and in physic.

But Mr. Fuller’s explanation of this important subject is not only confused and indistinct, but it is essentially deficient. In short, the imputation of sin to Christ is explained away. According to Mr. Fuller, sin was not really, or, as he terms it, properly imputed to Christ, but only in appearance. He was treated as though sin were really imputed to him; he suffered as though he were guilty; but yet, according to Mr. Fuller, guilt itself was not truly imputed to him. Not to dispute about words, the subject may be illustrated by transactions among men. When one man imputes sin or crime to another, this is the same thing as charging him with that crime. Thus Saul imputed treason to Ahimelech, when he charged him with it. But such imputation may be real, or it may be only in appearance; an imputation may be just, or it may be unjust. When Nathan charged David with sin in the matter of Uriah, the imputation was both real and just. When Joseph imputed bad motives to his brethren, he charged them not really, but only in appearance, for he knew they were not spies; and when Eli imputed drunkenness to Hannah he did so really, but he did so unjustly. Now, when God imputed sin to Christ he charged him either really, or only in appearance, justly or unjustly. With respect to justice we shall not now inquire; but the question relates to the former, namely whether God really imputed sin to Christ, as a sinner’s surety, or whether he did so only in appearance. Mr. Fuller denies that he did so really, or that Christ suffered real and proper punishment; and although he does not say, in the very words, that this imputation was only in appearance, yet this is his meaning. He tells us that the imputation of sin to Christ is to be understood in an improper sense. By imputation in an improper sense, he understands "charging, reckoning, or placing to the account of persons and things that which does not properly belong to them, as though it did." As an instance of this improper imputation, he gives us the complaint of Job, "Wherefore hidest thou thy face and holdest me for thine enemy?" Now the Lord did not really count Job for an enemy; he imputed enmity to him only in appearance, or he dealt with him as though he were an enemy. Yet in this very sense does Mr. Fuller understand the imputation of sin to Christ. "He was counted," says he, "in the divine administration, as if he were, or had been the sinner, that those who believe in him might he accounted as if they were, or had been righteous." The plain meaning of which is, that God gave his Son to suffer, as though sin had been found upon him, or, in other words, that Christ bore the punishment of guilt, but not guilt itself. Now, for Christ to suffer instead of theguilty is one thing, but to have guilt itself imputed to him is another. The difference is so manifest that it scarcely needs the following illustration. A certain man is found guilty of high treason, and condemned to die. His brother, from mere compassion, offered to die in his stead. The ransom was accepted, and the innocent man underwent the penalty of the law as a voluntary substitute for his guilty brother. Now, in this case, the innocent man bore the punishment of his brother’s guilt, but not the guilt itself. He underwent, indeed, the sentence of the law, but treason was not imputed to him—justice forbade that it should. He was treated .as though he were guilty, and that is one thing, but to lie under the imputation of guilt is another. Thus Mr. Fuller explains away the doctrine of imputation. By denying the transfer of our guilt to Christ, he admits of no real imputation of our sins to him, but only a transfer of punishment. Imputation of sin, therefore, in Mr. Fuller’s improper or figurative sense, means no real imputation at all." -William Rushton

The Lord reckons them no longer theirs, when he hath made them once to be Christ's - Tobias Crisp

"You know that text in Isa. 53:6, "He hath laid on him the iniquities of us all; and you know that place in 2 Cor. 5:21, "He was made sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Now I ask this question, Whose are the sins that believers commit? When Christ became their sin, are they not his? and if they are his, are they any longer theirs, that did commit them? 2 Cor. 5:19, shews plainly, that the Lord reckons them no longer theirs, when he hath made them once to be Christ's; God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;  as much as to say, "I will never reckon them thine any more; I will never impute them to thee; all that I look for in respect of thy sins, I look for at the hands of Christ; "for he was made sin for us," saith the text." - Tobias Crisp

Crucified with Christ (Romans 6) - Robert Hawker

"I cannot propose to enlarge on every particular the Apostle hath here stated. It would swell our pages too much. But it will be sufficient to observe, that as Paul refers the whole of what he advanceth, as so many consequences arising out of baptism; it must follow, that he could mean no other than the baptisms of the Holy Ghost. Water baptism, under whatever form administered, could never produce such blessed effects. The regeneration of the soul is the only cause of life, for being planted in the likeness of Christ's death; and the only way by which the old man of sin becomes crucified with Christ, And very blessed it is, when, from the baptism of the Holy Ghost at regeneration, the soul is quickened, which was dead in trespasses and sins; and is led to trace, that grace-union with Christ, whereby, from the Father's gift, before the foundation of the world, being chosen in him, now in the time-state of the Church Christ hath accomplished the salvation of his people; and God the Spirit, by the washing of regeneration, brings the soul from darkness to light, and from the power of sin and Satan, to the living God; Ephesians 1:4; Colossians 1:13-14; Titus 3:4-7.







I cannot refrain, however, from detaining the Reader to a short observation on that sweet verse, where the Apostle, speaking of a oneness, and union, and interest in Christ, declares our participation both in the death and life of Jesus. Now, (saith he,) if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. Reader! pause and calculate if you can, the blessedness of both states. Dead with Christ! When Jesus died on the cross, he died as the Head and Husband of his body the Church. He hung there the Public Representative of his Spouse, for whom he died. And every individual member of his mystical body was crucified with him. Precisely as our first father in the garden, when he sinned, all his natural seed then in his loins, sinned in him, and with him; and were equally involved in all the eventual consequences of that sin: So, in like manner, when Christ died for sin on the cross, all his spiritual seed werein him, and partook in all the blessedness of it; that is to say, in all the benefits of it, while He alone had all the glory.


Now then, (saith Paul,) if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. And, without all question, his seed, his people, have an equal privilege in all the benefits of his life, as they have in his death.Because I live, (saith Jesus,) ye shall live also,John 14:19. Yea, they are united to him, and are one with him. The Person of Christ, that is,God and man in one, is united to every believer. And every believer, body, soul, and spirit, is united to the Person of Christ; John 17:21-23; 1 Thessalonians 5:23." - Robert Hawker's commentary on Romans 6