Turretin on Double Imputation via Witsius...

X. These things are prosecuted excellently by and large by Turretin, on the truth of Christ's satisfaction, part II. sedition xxxiv. Neither do I think it will be disagreeable to any, if his words be here recited. 

"As we are said to be made righteousness in Christ, by imputation, because on account of the righteousness of Christ, apprehended by us through faith, and imputed by God, we are pronounced righteous before him; so in like manner, that the nature of the opposition may appear, he was made sin for us by imputation, because our guilt, wherewith we were bound in the judgment of God, was laid upon him as our Surety, that he might suffer the punishment due to it. Augustine expresses himself most excellently in his Enchiridion to Laurentius, chap. xli. He sin, and we righteousness: not our own, but God's; not in ourselves, but in him. As he was made sin; not his own, but ours; not in himself, but in us. 

Thus, indeed, by a wonderful exchange, he took our evils upon himself, that he might bestow his benefits upon us; received misery, that he might grant mercy; received the curse, that he might make us partakers of the blessing; received death, that he might confer life; received sin, that he might impart righteousness. This exchange on both Sides agrees in the following things; first, that in both, something foreign is by the estimation of the Divine judgment transferred to a person: which translation is not an error of judgment, but a certain appointment, whereby on account of something done by another, something is assigned to thee, as if thou hadst been that very person from whom that action arose. On account of our sin, death was inflicted on Christ, as if he himself had sinned; and because of Christ's righteousness, life and the inheritance are conferred on us, as if we had been righteous, and had fulfilled the law. 

Further, that on both sides there behoved to be a connection between these persons: for our sins could not have been imputed to Christ, unless he had been united to us both by the bond of the same nature, and a voluntary suretiship: neither could his righteousness have been imputed to us unless we had become one body with him. Yet they differ far in this, that the imputation to Christ is according to justice, to us according to mercy. Sin was translated to him, but to be abolished; righteousness to us, but to be preserved; the curse to him, in order to be swallowed up; the blessing to us, with a view to be continued; pollutions to him, that they might be cast into the depths of the sea; the new robe of the first-born to us, that it might be put on. Hence it is, that we can be called truly righteous, and the sons of God; but Christ cannot therefore be called either a sinner, or a son of wrath: because he neither had sin of himself, nor did the wrath of God abide on him, but only passed over him." 

So far Turretin: to which things, expressed with equal solidity and elegance, I subscribe with heart and hand.

CONCILIATORY, OR IRENICAL ANIMADVERSIONS, On The Controversies Agitated In Britain, Under The Unhappy Names Of Antinomians And Neonomians. By Herman Witsius, D. D., Chapter II.

John Calvin on Confessing Sins

"As for the confession of sins, scripture teaches us thus: because it is the Lord who forgives, forgets, and wipes out sins, let us confess to Him to obtain grace and pardon. He is the Physician so let us show Him our wounds and sores. It is He who has been offended and wounded so let us ask of Him mercy and peace. It is He who knows the hearts and sees all the thoughts so let us open our hearts before Him. It is He who calls sinners so let us withdraw to Him. David says: "I have made known to you my sin and I have not hidden my iniquity. I said, `I will confess against myself, I will confess my unrighteousness to the Lord, and you have pardoned the iniquity of my heart"' (Ps. 32[5]). Another confession of the same David is similar: "Have pity on me, Lord, according to your great mercy" (Ps. 51[1]). Such is likewise the confession of Daniel: "We have sinned, Lord, we have done what is perverse, we have committed impiety and have rebelled against your commandments" (Dan. 9[5]). There are enough other similar ones which are seen in scripture. "If we confess our sins;' says St. John, "the Lord is faithful to pardon us" (i Jn. 1[9] ).

"To whom do we confess them? To Him certainly. That is, if with an afflicted  and humbled heart we bow ourselves before Him; if in true sincerity, rebuking and condemning ourselves before His face, we ask to be absolved by His goodness and mercy. Whoever makes this confession of heart before God will also no doubt have a tongue ready to confess, when there is need to proclaim God's mercy among the people. And this not only to disclose the secret of his heart to a single person, once, in the ear, but freely to make known his poverty as well as God's glory, more than a few times, publicly and with all the world hearing. In this way, after having been rebuked by Nathan than and being pierced with a goad of conscience, David confessed his sin before God and before people. He says: "I have sinned against the Lord" (2 Sam. 12[13]), that is, "I do not want to excuse myself any more, or equivocate so that everyone will not judge me to be a sinner, or so that what I wanted to hide from God might not be clear even to people." This is the way we must take the solemn confession which is made by the whole people at the admonition of Nehemiah and Ezra [Ezra 10:1-17; Neh. 9:1-37]. All churches ought to follow this example when they ask pardon from God, as is certainly the custom among churches which are well ordered."

John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion: The First English Version of the 1541 French Edition

The Substance of the gospel/covenant of grace in the Old Testament...

Scott Clark has a helpful paragraph quote from Berkhof over at the Heidelblog.  Here is a small part that brings home a biblical truth regarding the substance of the covenant of grace/gospel in the Old Testament:

"There is gospel in the maternal promise, gospel in the ceremonial law, and gospel in many of the Prophets, as Isa. 53 and 54; 55:1–3, 6, 7; Jer. 31:33, 34; Ezek. 36:25–28. In fact, there is a gospel current running through the whole of the Old Testament, which reaches its highest point in the Messianic prophecies."

The substance of the gospel promise/covenant of grace runs through the Old Testament and comes to fruition in the person of Jesus Christ, "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."

Gal. 3:14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. 

Gal. 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Gal. 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 

Heb. 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

The covenant of works, or of the law, is this..." - Dickson and Durham

The Sum of Saving Knowledge, written by David Dickson and James Durham, uses "covenant of works" and "law" interchangeably when considering the "chief general use of Christian doctrine." Dickson, along with two others, was also appointed by the Scottish Kirk to write the Directory of Publick Worship. This treatise (Sum of...) was bound together and originally published with the Westminster Standards in 1650 as an explanation of the doctrines found in the Standards and it continued to be published together at least well into the 19th century. It was universally accepted as orthodox. Although never reaching official confession status, it was considered an accurate exposition of Christian doctrine as found in the Westminster Confessional Standards at the time of the first publication of those standards and still so today.

THE chief general use of Christian doctrine is, to convince a man of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment, John xvi. 8, partly by the law or covenant of works, that he may be humbled and become penitent; and partly by the gospel or covenant of grace, that he may become an unfeigned believer in Jesus Christ, and be strengthened in his faith upon solid grounds and warrants, and give evidence of the truth of his faith by good fruits, and so be saved.

The sum of the covenant of works, or of the law, is this: "If thou do all that is commanded, and not fail in any point, thou shalt be saved: but if thou fail, thou shalt die." Rom. x. 5. Gal. iii 10, 12.

The sum of the gospel, or covenant of grace and reconciliation, is this: "If thou flee from deserved wrath to the true Redeemer Jesus Christ, (who is able to save to the uttermost all that come to God through him,) thou shalt not perish, but "have eternal life." Rom. x. 8, 9, 11.

For convincing a man of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment by the law, or covenant of works, let these scriptures, among many more, be made use of...

The Other Worldview by Peter Jones - A Review

Peter Jones’ book, The Other Worldview, was published by Kirkdale Press in June of 2015. Having received a complimentary copy from Lexham Press/Faithlife Corp. it’s my pleasure to offer this brief review.

The Other Worldview, written by Peter Jones, is a sober wakeup call and warning to the West. Chronicling the decline of the Christian philosophical underpinnings of Western culture, Jones documents the resurgence of ancient paganism in modern dress. Indeed, the author frames the situation with the metaphor, “where the dark forces of Sauron have taken power in the once-Christian Shire of Western culture.” If that seems far-fetched to you, then this may be a worthwhile read as Jones makes an effective case. This “other worldview” is what Jones labels as Oneism, a philosophical system which

“sees the world as self-creating (or perpetually existing) and self-explanatory. Everything is made up of the same stuff, whether matter, spirit, or a mixture. There’s one kind of existence…”

Essentially this is a worldview and belief system which denies that there are two distinct realities in the universe, the Creator God who is independent and self-existent and his very dependent creation. This worldview opposing Oneism is what Jones labels as Twoism:

“The only other option is a world that is the free work of a personal, transcendent God, who creates ex nihilo (from nothing)... There is God, and there is everything that is not-God…”

In the Oneism worldview all reality, seen and unseen, is of one unity, that of the creation. There is no recognition by creation of the sovereign “Other.” This is actually fairly standard Christian doctrine as Jones’ notes, taught in Scripture in places like Romans 1. What is new is how Jones frames Oneism and Twoism as today's epic cultural battle. He traces Oneism's roots back to the old religions of paganism and he makes the case that Twoism (essentially biblical Christianity) is the foundation upon which western cultural has been built. The evidence convincingly concludes that Oneism is supplanting Twoism.

To make his case, Peter Jones makes abundant use of Scripture while supplying ample references to and quotes from secular writers/thinkers such as Carl Jung, Saul Alinsky, Deepak Chopra, Descartes, Heinrich Himmler, Camille Paglia to name several. Jones gives a convincing  if not troubling diagnosis of our present western culture. So much so that the reader may feel at times a bit overwhelmed by the reach of this new godless reality as it becomes more and more mainstream. He traces the reappearance of this Oneism or paganism over the past 100-plus years in order to establish that It is now the dominant “religious” belief system animating much of the West. 

Laying out a plethora of historical evidence, Jones contends that the modern day wellspring feeding this new Oneism is found in the teachings of 20th century psychologist Carl Jung. Now that may sound surprising and it was somewhat so to me, even though I had come across Jung in my biblical counseling studies in seminary. Jones effectively unpacks the lesser known but more authentic Jung for the reader, that of a spiritual pantheist whose mystical and philosophical musings are found to be interwoven with various modern movements such as the Sixties sexual revolution, the so-called Age of Aquarius, new age mysticism, yoga, redefinitions of gender and sex and the related redefining of the institution of marriage. In this “new” yet really old worldview all good and evil, all right and wrong, male and female, indeed all creational opposites of importance simple cease to exist as such... defined away. Rather than separate entities or opposing realities they are just various integrated parts of the whole. All is homogenized and accepted as good because it exists. The only wrongs are biblical moral distinctions and the acknowledgment of a sovereign Creator God.

The book is divided into three sections:
Part 1 - Coming Apart traces Oneism’s initial threats to biblical Christianity growing from the 18th thru 20th century, the rise of secular humanism (materialistic Oneism), the promotion of pagan mythology and sexual liberation, and the undermining of the “moral virtues that were still presupposed.”
Part 2 - Given Over examines how what once was a Christian cultural consensus slowly eroded “through secularism, Jungian psychology, the cultural changes of the Sixties, and the appearance of Eastern religions in the West.”
Part 3 - Not Giving Up is the wakeup call to arms, so to speak. What are those presently living in the West to do in order to stem this Oneism tide? In general Jones’ answer is biblical Christianity and more specifically the Gospel. The goal is to regain “Christian living (Rom.12:1) and Christian thinking (Rom. 12:2)." And in so doing “gear up for a struggle with a culture under the powerful sway of Satan.” He highlights how parts of the Christian Church have unwittingly adopted some of Oneism’s worldview and practices. And so the call goes out for Christians to wake up and turn back to their biblical foundation. The power for this new living and thinking is nothing less than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And Jones clearly presents it as the Truth that counters the Lie, the Good News that is the remedy for the Bad News. 

It’s not entirely clear to me how much Jones sees the gospel as a means to a cultural end, i.e. reconnecting western culture to its biblical moral moorings or, simply that any cultural benefits which may occur are just the possible positive side effects of the Gospel earnestly going forth. To a degree in some parts of the book the former might be a fair inference as Jones’ main concern seems to be that of restoring the West’s traditional worldview. That said, Peter Jones clearly presents the Gospel of Salvation through faith in Jesus Christ as the hope not only for the declining culture of the West but more importantly for lost souls who need to hear the Good News of forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ in order to counter the Bad News of sin and this fallen world into which all are born. Jones wonderfully writes near the end, “So the gospel is all about God’s work: the forgiveness of our sins and a future life resurrected with him.” Amen!

Justification: Sins of the Elect Imputed to Christ, Christ's Righteousness Imputed to the Elect - John MacPherson (4)

To finish up this series of posts (here, here, and here) on the imputation of the elect's sins to their Surety, Jesus Christ we have the words of Rev. John MacPherson who, in his commentary and notes on the Sum of Saving Knowledge (mid-17th century exposition on WCF doctrines), helpfully defines imputation and further explains what is meant by the imputation of sins to Christ and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the elect for
their justification received through faith...

The doctrine of Imputation set forth in the words on which we are commenting, involves the rejection of that theory of infusion of righteousness to which we have referred. The term imputation, as used in theology, does not mean simply a charge upon or against one, but rather the making of such a charge in terms of law and justice. We speak of the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, the imputation of man's sin to the second Adam, the imputation of Christ's righteousness to those who believe,—the imputation in each case being made in terms of the covenant of grace. Under the express conditions of that covenant, sin and righteousness respectively are regarded as of right belonging to the parties referred to therein. The ground of the sinner's justification is the work of Christ, the merit of which is attributed to us on condition of our believing in Him [see * Note below ]. The friend of another man's debtor says to his friend's creditor, put that debt to my account; when this proposal is accepted, the debt is imputed to me, who before this imputation was not chargeable with it, and he who was before a debtor is now in the state of one against whom the creditor can no longer advance a charge. Thus by the imputation of the sinner's guilt to Christ, the sinner who believes is justified.  

That which is imputed to the sinner for his justification is described as Christ's perfect obedience to the law and satisfaction on the cross unto justice. This embraces the whole work of Christ, His active and passive obedience, His doing and suffering, His life and death. Like the changes of state in the believer enumerated in this section, these distinctions in regard to the work of Christ are not to be viewed as successive and temporally separable parts of Christ's life, but as two aspects illustrated throughout its entire course. He suffered in doing and He did in suffering. In His passion, which began in the first stages of His humiliation and was only consummated on the cross. He was not passive in the sense of merely submitting to a superior power : no man took His life from Him, but He laid it down,—not merely suffered it to be taken, for He had power to lay it down (John x. 18). The ground of our justification lies not in the death of Christ upon the cross alone. Christ's whole life of obedience unto death is that upon which we must depend for our justification.

The Sum of Saving Knowledge - With Introduction and Notes, 1871 - by Rev. John MacPherson M.A., page 127 - 128. 

___________________________________________________

* Note: MacPherson explains what is meant by 'on condition of our believing in Him' on page 66:

But under the covenant of grace, God was dealing with a corrupt nature where selfishness and pride were already present. When faith was introduced in place of works as the condition of the covenant on man's side, there would be a danger of man's regarding faith as a work of his own upon which he might pride himself. It was necessary, therefore, in order to exclude boasting, to show those who are children of God by faith, and to make them remember that their faith was no work of their own, but a gift of God. Now, this is just another way of stating the doctrine of election. Those on whom God bestows the gift of faith are the chosen. It is His sovereign good pleasure alone that determines who are to receive this gift. It is the divine election which is the condition of our receiving His gift of faith. At the same time, so far as we are concerned, God's choice of us in His electing love, can become known only through our possession of that grace of faith which is the gift from God by which all His chosen are distinguished. In bestowing this gift He showeth mercy unto whom He will have mercy (Ex. xxxiii. 19; Rom. ix. 15).

"Sins of the redeemed... imputed to innocent Christ" is the teaching of the WCF - David Dickson (3)

The Westminster Standards do not explicitly use the term imputation when speaking of Christ's bearing the sins of the elect. Yet, lest there be any question as to whether those confessional Standards teach the Substance of that doctrine and was so held by Presbyterians in Scotland at the time of the Assembly, one need only consult the treatise on the doctrines found in those Standards authored by Rev. David Dickson and Rev. James Durham, The Sum of Saving Knowledge. Although not produced by the Westminster Assembly, it was originally published along with the Confession of Faith, Larger Catechism, Shorter Catechism, and Directory for Publick Worship (DPW co-authored by Dickson, see the two historical sketches * below) in Scotland (1650) and more or less consistently well into the 19th century. Here is the relevant excerpt from that work:

"9. To make it appear how it cometh to pass that the covenant of reconciliation should be so easily made up betwixt God and a humble sinner fleeing to Christ, the apostle leads us unto the cause of it, holden forth in the covenant of redemption, the sum whereof is this: It is agreed 

• "betwixt God and the Mediator Jesus Christ the Son of God, surety for the redeemed, as parties-contractors, that the sins of the redeemed should be imputed to innocent Christ, and he both condemned and put to death for them, upon this very condition, that whosoever heartily consents unto the covenant of reconciliation offered through Christ, shall, by the imputation of his obedience unto them, be justified and holden righteous before God; for God hath made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, (saith the apostle), that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." [2 Corinthians 5:21]

THE SUM OF SAVING KNOWLEDGE: OR, A BRIEF SUM OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, CONTAINED IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, AND HOLDEN FORTH IN THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH AND CATECHISMS; TOGETHER WITH THE PRACTICAL USE THEREOF by David Dickson and James Durham 1650; Chapter 3: Warrants and Motives To Believe.
_____________________________________________________

* #1. Brief bio of Rev. David Dickson and the place held by The Sum of Saving Knowledge relative to the Westminster Standards:

• The authorship of this short treatise on Christian doctrine, which is made the basis of the following notes, is ascribed to the celebrated Scottish divine, Mr. David Dickson. This able theologian and valiant defender of the faith was born in Glasgow in 1583. After passing through the regular course of study in Glasgow University, he was licensed, and in 1618 ordained as minister at Irvine. Sentenced four years later, because of his opposition to Episcopacy, and especially his bold denunciation of the erastianism of the attempt to impose any form of Church government against the will of the people, to deprivation of his ministerial charge and to exile to Turriff, in Aberdeenshire, he continued his useful labours, aided by the testimony of a good conscience. Returning in 1623, he resumed his labours in Irvine, and much blessing attended his ministry there. In 1641 he was appointed Professor of Divinity in the University of Glasgow, and about 1650 he was transferred to occupy a similar chair in Edinburgh. He continued to hold the Professorship of Divinity until his death in 1662. Thus for twenty-one years he was actively engaged in the systematic study of theology. He was a ripe theologian and a cultured scholar, according to the learning of his day. At the time when the Westminster Assembly met, in 1643, Dickson, along with David Calderwood and Alexander Henderson, drew up by command of the General Assembly that Directory of Public Worship which is bound up with the Westminster Confession and Catechisms among the Subordinate Standards of the Church of Scotland. In this volume we also find the Sum of Saving Knowledge. In the Act and Declaration concerning the publication of the Subordinate Standards of the Church of Scotland in 1851, in the enumeration of documents, this one is described as 'a practical application of the doctrine of the Confession, 'as  a valuable treatise which, though without any express Act of Assembly, has for ages had its place among them.' It is understood that Dickson and Durham consulted together in drawing up this summary. For those who may be somewhat doubtful as to the effect of strictly doctrinal summaries on the spiritual condition of our youth, it may be interesting to learn that M'Cheyne attributes his first clear perception of the way of salvation to the reading of this treatise. His diary of March 11, 1834, has this entry 'Reading the Sum of Saving Knowledge, the work which I think first of all wrought a saving change in me.' [See Scots Worthies on David Dickson, edited by Mr. Carslaw and editor's note on p. 294.] 

The type of doctrine here presented is precisely the same as that set forth in the Westminster Confession. The editor has in his notes entered into detailed exposition of the earlier sections, where historical references are helpful; while in the later sections, which did not seem to call for such treatment, he has confined himself to short, and purely explanatory notes. (Rev. John MacPherson. commentary and notes on the Sum of Saving Knowledge - 1871)

______________________________________________________

* #2. The Sum of Saving Knowledge was included in a new edition of the Standards published in 1725. Below is an excerpt from the introduction. Though not produced by the Westminster Assembly,

•  "the Sum of Saving Knowledge and the Practical Use thereof... for more than Seventy Years has constantly been published with our Westminster Confession and Catechisms. It was never yet condemned, in any Head or Article thereof, by any Church-judicatory; but, on the contrary, has met with such Approbation in the Hearts and Consciences of the Lord’s People, and been so universally received, as if it had been a publick Standard, that now it may pass for such by common Consent; it being A brief Sum of Christian Doctrine, contained in Holy Scripture, and held forth in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms; and will be quarrel’d by none, who hold the Mystery of Faith in a pure Conscience, and go aside neither to the right nor left-hand Extremes." (The Confessions of Faith, etc. - Edinburgh: Lumisden and Robertson, 1725, vi–vii) 

The sins of the elect were imputed to Christ... (2)

... in order that Jesus Christ should legally stand in our place before God's Law and, having taken upon himself our sins (though in his own person he was and is sinless), in order that he would take upon himself the Law's just sentence of death for our sins which we alone committed and which penalty of death we alone should have borne except for Christ, our Surety, who intervened on our behalf. John Calvin elaborates:

"Moreover the kind of death is not without mystery. The cross was cursed, not only by human opinion but by the decree of God's law (Deut. 21[23]). So when Christ was affixed to a cross He made Himself subject to the curse. It was necessary that this be done: that the curse which we deserved served and which was prepared for our sins be transferred to Him, in order that we might be delivered from it. That had been previously done as a figure in the law. For the victims which were offered for sins were called by the same name "sin" [Lev. 4:1-5:13; 16]; by that name the Holy Spirit wanted to signify that these victims accepted all the curse due to the sin. What was done then by representative figure in the Mosaic sacrifices was fulfilled in truth by Jesus Christ, who is the substance of the figures. That is why, in order to obtain our redemption, "He made His soul a sacrifice for sin;' as the prophet says, in order that all the curse which we deserved as sinners, being cast back on Him, might no longer be imputed to us (Isa. 53[10, ii]). The apostle declares this more clearly when he says that "the One who had never known sin was made sin for us by the Father, in order that in Him we might obtain righteousness before God" (2 Cor. 5[21]). For the Son of God, being pure and clean of every vice, took and clothed Himself with the shame and ignominy of our sins and, on the other hand, covered us with His purity. This is also shown in another passage of St. Paul where it is said that sin was condemned as sin in the flesh of Jesus Christ (Rom. 8[3]). For the heavenly Father destroyed the strength of sin when its curse was transferred to the flesh of Jesus Christ. It is clear now what this sentence of the prophet means, that "all our sins were placed on Him" (Isa. 53[6]), that, desiring to wipe out the stains of sins, He first accepted them in His person in order that they might be imputed to Him. So the cross was a sign of that; when Jesus Christ was affixed to the cross He delivered us from the curse of the law (as the apostle says) by being made a curse for us (Gal. 3[13]). For it is written: "Cursed be the one hung on a tree" [Dent. 27:26; Gal. 3:10]. Thus the blessing promised to Abraham was poured out on all peoples. Nevertheless we must not understand that He took our curse in such a way that He was covered and crushed by it, but on the contrary, in receiving it He brought it down, broke it, and tore it in pieces. That is why, in the damnation of Christ faith lays hold on absolution, and in His curse it lays hold on blessing." [emphasis added]

John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion 1541 French Edition. Translated by Elsie Anne McKee William

Double Imputation: Christ stood in the place of the elect... (1)

"XIV. Both may be said in a sound sense, viz, that our sins, as many of us as are elect, are ours not Christ's, and that the same sins are Christ's, and no more ours. They are ours, because committed by us, and because by them we brought upon ourselves the guilt of eternal death, and thus far they will remain ours for ever: that is, it will be always true that we committed them, and, in so doing, deserved the wrath of God. For what is done, can never become undone, and thus they are not Christ's, because he did not commit them, neither did he contract any personal guilt. Neither could they become his sins; because the nature of things does not suffer that the same numerical act which was committed by us, should be done by Christ. But the sins which we committed became Christ's, when imputed to him as Surety, and he on account of his suretiship took them upon him, that in the most free and holy manner he might satisfy for them; and they cease to be ours, in as much as for the sake of Christ's satisfaction, we neither ought, nor can, in the judgment of God, be brought to condemnation or satisfaction in our own person on their account. And these things seem so evident to me, that there can be no difference as to the matter itself among the orthodox...

"... as what I say is orthodox: because as Christ representing the person of the elect, was made sin for them; so also on the other hand, the elect considered in the person of Christ become the righteousness of God in him: and because his righteousness is as much their righteousness, as their sins were his sins; both by imputation: [3.] but an imputation so valid, that as he could not but be punished on account of their sins imputed to him, so they cannot but be saved on account of his righteousness imputed to them."

Herman Witsius. Conciliatory, or Irenical Animadversions, p 27, 33