Chapter 16 [VI.]—Misrepresentation Concerning Sin in Christ.

They have not a righteous advocate, who are (even if that were the only difference) distinguished absolutely and widely from the righteous. Be it far from us to say, as they themselves slanderously affirm, that this just Advocate “spoke falsely by the necessity of the flesh;” but we say that He, in the likeness of sinful flesh, in respect of sin, condemned sin. And they, perchance not understanding this, and being blinded by the desire of misrepresentation, and ignorant of the number of ways in which the name of sin is accustomed to be used in the Holy Scriptures, declare that we affirm sin of Christ. Therefore we assert that Christ both had no sin,—neither in soul nor in the body; and that, by taking upon Him flesh in the likeness of sinful flesh, in respect of sin He condemned sin. And this assertion, somewhat obscurely made by the apostle, is explained in two ways,—either that the likenesses of things are accustomed to be called by the names of those things to which they are like, so that the apostle may be understood to have intended to call this likeness of sinful flesh by the name of “sin;” or else that the sacrifices for sins were under the law called “sins,” all which things were figures of the flesh of Christ, which is the true and only sacrifice for sins,—not only for those which are all washed away in baptism, but also for those which afterwards creep in from the weakness of this life, on account of which the universal Church daily cries in prayer to God, “Forgive us our debts,” and they are forgiven us by means of that singular sacrifice for sins which the apostle, speaking according to the law, did not hesitate to call “sin.” Whence, moreover, is that much plainer passage of his, which is not uncertain by any twofold ambiguity, “We beseech you in Christ’s stead to be reconciled to God. He made Him to be sin for us, who had not known sin; that we might be the righteousness of God in Him.” 214    2 Cor. v. 20, 21. For the passage which I have above mentioned, “In respect of sin, He condemned sin,” because it was not said, “In respect of his sin,” may be understood by any one, as if He said that He condemned sin in respect of the sin of the Jews; because in respect of their sin who crucified Him, it happened that He shed His blood for the remission of sins. But this passage, where God is said to have made Christ Himself “sin,” who had not known sin, does not seem to me to be more fittingly understood than that Christ was made a sacrifice for sins, and on this account was called “sin.”

CAPUT VI.

16. Calumnia de peccato in Christo. Justum advocatum non habent illi, qui sunt a justis (etiamsi sola ista esset differentia) in contrarium longeque discreti. Quem justum advocatum absit ut dicamus, sicut ipsi calumniantur, «carnis necessitate mentitum:» sed dicimus eum in similitudine carnis peccati de peccato damnasse peccatum (Rom. VIII, 3). Quod fortasse isti non intelligentes et calumniandi cupiditate caecati, quam diversis modis peccati nomen in Scripturis sanctis poni soleat ignorantes, peccatum Christi affirmare nos jactant. Dicimus itaque Christum, et nullum habuisse peccatum, nec in anima, nec in carne; et suscipiendo carnem in similitudine carnis peccati de peccato damnasse peccatum. Quod subobscure ab Apostolo dictum duobus modis solvitur: sive quia rerum similitudines solent earum rerum nominibus nuncupari, quarum similes 0600 sunt, ut ipsam similitudinem carnis peccati voluisse intelligatur Apostolus appellare peccatum: sive quia sacrificia pro peccatis peccata appellabantur in lege, quae omnia figurae fuerunt carnis Christi, quod est verum et unicum sacrificium pro peccatis, non solum his quae universa in Baptismate diluuntur, verum etiam his quae post ex hujus vitae infirmitate subrepunt; propter quae quotidie universa in oratione ad Deum clamat Ecclesia, Dimitte nobis debita nostra; et dimittuntur nobis per singulare sacrificium pro peccatis, quod Apostolus secundum legem loquens, non dubitavit appellare peccatum. Unde est etiam illud ejus multo evidentius, nec aliquo bivio cujusquam ambiguitatis incertum: Obsecramus pro Christo reconciliari Deo: eum qui non noverat peccatum, pro nobis peccatum fecit, ut nos simus justitia Dei in ipso. (II Cor. V, 20 et 21). Nam quod superius commemoravi, De peccato damnavit peccatum; quia non dictum est, De peccato suo, potest quispiam sic intelligere, ut dicat eum de peccato Judaeorum damnasse peccatum; quia de peccato eorum, qui eum crucifixerunt, factum est ut sanguinem suum in remissionem funderet peccatorum: hoc vero , ubi dicitur Deus ipsum Christum, qui non noverat peccatum, fecisse peccatum, non mihi convenientius videtur intelligi, quam Christum factum sacrificium pro peccatis, et ob hoc appellatum esse peccatum.