towards us to wit that he spared us to whom it was not a thing indifferent to punish sins but who thought it a thing of so great Concernment that rather than he would suffer them to be wholly unpunished he delivered up his only begotten Son to punishment for those sins So that as it was said by the Ancients 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither according to the Law nor against the Law but above the Law and instead of the Law That is very true of Divine Grace It is above the Law because we are not punished for the Law because Punishment is not omitted And therefore is Remission given that we may in time to come live to the Divine Law These things being rightly understood all those things fall which Socinus objects concerning the Defect of a Cause So that it is not necessary to go through all particulars in which nevertheless not a few Errours may be observed As when in the first Chapter of the first Book also in the first Chapter of the third Book â—…e says That punishing Justice doth not reside in God but is an Effect of his Will Verily to punish is an Effect of the Will but that Justice or Rectitude out of which proceeds both other things and also Retribution of Punishment is a Property residing in God for the Scripture concludes God to be just because he renders Punishment to Faults gathering the Cause from the Effect But Socinus seems to have been led into this Errour because he believed that any Effects of the Properties of God are altogether necessary whereas many of them are free to wit a free Act of the Will interveening between the Property and the Effect So it is an Effect of the Goodness of God to communicate his own Goodness but this he did not before the Creation It belongs to the same Goodness to spare the Guilty but scarcely will any man say that God spares those whom he punisheth with Eternal Punishment Therefore there are some Properties of God the Exercise whereof both as to the Act and also as to the Time and Manner of the Act yea also as to the Determination of the Object depends upon his free Will over which nevertheless Wisdom presides Neither can God therefore be said because he hath the free use of these Properties to do what he doth without a Cause when he useth them For God did not therefore make the World in vain because he had liberty not to make it neither because it pleased God to punish some which Socinus confesseth to be true chiefly in those whose Repentance God waits for doth he therefore punish without cause where he punisheth for many things are performed freely and yet for a weighty cause The other Errour is also above mentioned that he would make God forgiving sins to do just the same thing that men do who give up their own right It hath been shewed that punishment is not in Property or Debt or that it can be equallized to them in all things To give a man 's own to forgive Debt is always honourable of it self When we say of it self we exclude those things which are present 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by accident such as is the Poverty of the Giver himself which also cannot have place in God But to forgive Punishment sometimes would not be honourable no not to God himself as Socinus acknowledgeth Therefore there is a wide difference here but the rise of the difference is thence that the next Foundation of Lordly Power and Debt is a certain Relation of a thing to a Person but the next foundation of Punishment is the Relation of a thing to a thing to wit the Equality of a Fault with some Hurt agreeing to Order and common Good wherefore that is not true which Socinus asserted as most certain That the Common-wealth will commit no unjustice if it absolve a Guilty Person except it also be injurious to the proper right of some private Person or break God's Law For by the name of Common-wealth he either understands the Multitude that governs or is governed The Multitude that is governed as it hath not the power of making Laws so neither hath it the power of moderating them But a Multitude that Governs as a Senate in the State of Peers or the greater part of a Parliament in a Popular State cannot do more than other chiefest Governours as for example free Kings in a Kingdom and Fathers in respect of a Family But it is part of the Justice of a Governour to keep Laws yea those also that are positive and given by himself which Lawyers prove to be true as well in a free University as in the highest King The Reason of both is because the Act of Making or Relaxing a Law is not an Act of Absolute Lordship but an Act of Empire which ought to tend to the Preservation of Good Order That also which Socinus says deserves Reprehension That besides the Will of God and Christ himself there can be no lawful Cause given of the Death of Christ unless we say Christ deserved that he should dye For Merit is in the Antecedent Cause as we said above but Impersonally for our sins deserved that Punishment should be required But that Punishment was conferred upon Christ this we so refer to the Will of God and Christ that that Will hath also its own Causes not in the Merit of Christ who when he knew no sin was made sin by God but in the great fitness of Christ to shew a signal Example which consists both in his great Conjunction with us and in the unmatched dignity of his Person But that Collection of Socinus is confuted by manifest Testimonies of Scripture The Antecedent Cause Why the Infant of David died is made manifest because David by sinning heinously gave occasion to the wicked to insult over the Name of God blasphemously Here there is Merit but not in the Infant And in punishing the Posterity of Achab beyond their own Merit God had respect to the Merit of the sins of Achab. Whence it appears that the Antecedent Cause of Punishment is Merit but not always the Merit of the Person that is punished CHAP. VI. Whether God willed that Christ should be punished And it is shewed that he willed it And also the Nature of Satisfaction is Explained THese two Questions having been handled Whether God could justly punish Christ being willing for our sins And Whether there was some sufficient Cause why God should do it The third remains Whether really God did this or which signifies the same willed to do it For Socinus denies it both in many places elsewhere and also in a set Discourse upon it Lib. 3. cap. 2. We together with Scripture maintain that God willed this and did it For Christ is said to have been delivered up to have suffered and died for our sins Rom. 4.25 1 Pet. 3.18 Isai 53.5 The Chastisement of our Peace was laid upon
that which Paul says That this Propitiation is made in the Blood of Christ or that God hath respect unto Christ yea all the Prophets among whom also Jeremiah bear witness that remission of sins is received by the Name that is the Efficacy and Virtue of Christ Acts 10.43 And Deliverance by Christ is said to have come to us according to that Covenant which God made with the Fathers and according to those things that he foretold by the Prophets Luke 1.68,70,71,72,73,74 The Baptist also at the Command of God promiseth remission to the Penitent and that for the Bowels of Mercy of our God but the same said That Christ is the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the World to wit by Sacrificing which the Revelation expresseth or by Blood as Peter speaketh in which places likewise the mention of a Lamb having been made shews unto what the Baptist had respect The name remittendi of forgiving which Socinus urgeth in the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Ancient Interpreter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated to put away We shewed above that that was not the force either of the Greek or Latin word that it should necessarily include all kinds of giving up a man's right because the original and primitive signification of the word is opposite to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to retain or bring unto whence by a certain resemblance it began to be translated both to Punishment and to Debt Nor to those only but also to other things for the Grecians call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forgiving the absolving of an accused Person being Innocent in Judgment We also shewed above how much difference there is between the remission of Debt and the remission of Punishment and that in the remission of sin which is made by a Governour there is no abdication of such a proper and private right as Socinus mentioneth to wit absolute Lordship or Debt therefore these things may be fetch'd thence Now that only must be added That it is not true which Socinus would have that remission is contrary to any payment going before Which that it may be understood we shall represent a certain Description of Remission of Debt which contains under it both those kinds to wit of Debt and Punishment and that according to the use of that word both in Civil Law and in common Speech Therefore to forgive a Debt is an Act either of a Creditor or Governour freeing the guilty Person from the Obligation of Punishment or Debt We shall give a larger Explication for the sake of those who are not well acquainted with Terms of Law the destruction of Obligation in Law is called liberatio freeing Payment may go before this it cannot follow it because no Act can be exercised about that which is no more Therefore liberatio freeing comes sometimes when some Payment goes before sometimes without any Payment But one Payment frees ipso facto and another not ipso facto at the very time of Payment The Payment of a thing that is wholly the same with what was in the Obligation frees ipso facto and it is the same sense whether a guilty Person himself pay or another for him to this intent that he may be freed Which should therefore be observed because if another man pay the same for another intent liberatio freedom is not thereby procured L. si poena l. in summa D. de cond indeb l. Cassius D. de solut Therefore where the same is paid by a Debtor or by another in the name of a Debtor there is no remission for the Creditor or Governour doth nothing about the Debt Wherefore if any man suffer the punishment that he ought hence will be deliverance but not remission And Lawyers call the profession of such a Deliverance in the right of the Debt properly and strictly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L. si accepto parag 1. D. de acceptil but no other payment delivers ipso facto to wit if another thing is paid than what was in the Obligation L. 1. parag 2. d. de reb cred but it is necessary that some Act of the Creditor or Governour should be added thereto which Act rightly and usually is called remission And such a payment that may either be admitted or refused being admitted in Law it hath the special name of Satisfaction which is sometimes opposed unto Payment more strictly taken L. Satisfactio D. de solut And hence the true Cause is to be brought why a Vicar of Corporal Punishment cannot ipso facto deliver a guilty Person by paying the punishment For this happeneth first and of it self not because another paid for that hindereth not the liberation if so be it is the will of the payer but because he paid another thing than what is in the Obligation for there is in the Obligation the punishing of him who sinned whence it useth to be said That the Head follows a Crime which may also be seen in other Obligations to a Fact that are meerly personal as in a Contract of Marriage and in the Obligation of Workmen in Office L. Operae de operis libert For in all these if another pay deliverance will not follow ipso facto because together with that another thing is paid therefore that by the punishment of one man Deliverance may come to another some Act of the Governour should interpose for the Law commands him that sinned to be punished This Act in respect of the Law is Relaxation or Dispensation in respect of the Debtor Remission But deliverance without payment comes to pass either by the substituting of a new Obligation or by a total rescinding thereof The substitution of a new Obligation whereby deliverance is made is called novatio novation and if the Person of the Debtor is changed delegation But the liberatio deliverance which wholly destroys the Debt without any payment it is performed with solemn words about the Debt in Civil Law it is called acceptilation a verbal discharge of Debt But about Punishment it hath not a proper name that excludes necessarily payment of what manner soever or how great soever but it is called by a common name gratia venia indulgentia abolitio grace pardon indulgence abolition Therefore Socinus is twice deceived when he applies the word acceptilatio verbal discharge taken out of the Law to that Remission which God grants to us For first that word at the very time when no payment went before may be applied to the right of Debt but cannot neither useth to be applied to punishment for no man hath read that indulgence of Crimes hath been called acceptilatio by any ancient Writer for that thing accepta fertur is said to be received that can be received But a Governour really requires Corporal Punishment but receives it not because nothing of the punishment comes properly to him Moreover acceptilatio is opposed to any manner of payment whence it is figuratively defined an imaginary payment But Christ gave his
is Restitution due to me But the cause of the Punishment is the viciousness of the Act and not because I want something For though no man wants any thing the Act will be rightly punished as in great Crimes which were only begun and were not compleated There is also another difference no less remarkable that the Nature of a thing it self determines the manner and quantity of the Restitution Punishment though in its own kind it hath a Natural Cause in some sense as we shall say afterwards yet it cannot be determined but by a free Act of the Will Add this also that Punishment inasmuch as it consists in speaking or doing is not due ordinarily before Condemnation but Restitution in all respects is due The Debt of Restitution passeth unto the Heir the Punishment passeth not Which I judge requisite to mention only for this Cause lest any should rashly confound that which is due to the offended with Punishment But yet it is true that by a positive Law as also by a Contract way may be made that a Creditor may obtain a right for Punishment which then also the Laws distinguish from the pursuit of a thing or of damage L. si pignore parag cum furti d. de furtis instit de lega Aquilia parag and in these words But this useth for the most part to be appointed in pecuniary punishments which not only bring Damage to him who did the hurt but also Gain to him that was hurt But in Corporal punishments in which there is no true Gain of the person that was injured this is scarcely exercised And therefore we see Kings and other chief Governours forgive punishment to the Guilty against the will of the Party wronged commanding them only to make Restitution of the Damage which no man judgeth unjust But this would be unjust if punishment were due to the Party wronged especially where no necessity of the Common-wealth required remission Wherefore that lesser Magistrates cannot remit Corporal punishments that comes not to pass for any power of the person injured in punishing for they could not punish any thing the more with the consent of the offended person but because the Law of the Superior hath not granted unto them that power yea hath expresly denied it which should likewise be understood concerning Kings being compared with God in those Crimes which the Divine Law hath commanded indispensably to be punished These things make for this that it may appear that God also being offended with us is not properly a Creditor in punishing for he that affirms that relies either on that Right which proceeds from the things themselves or that Rght which is constituted We have sufficiently shewed as I think That the offended person is not a Creditor in the punishment by that Right which proceeds from the things themselves But a constituted Right not whereby punishment but whereby such a credit of punishment may be introduced is neither alledged nor if it be alledged can it be proved neither can any reason be given why it should have been so appointed Some body will perhaps object That God forgiving the punishment of sinners is somewhere compared with a Creditor giving up his own Right as Matth. 18.35 But as we shewed above Comparison doth not require that things should agree genere proximo in their next kind but is contented with any similitude So Christ washing his Disciples feet gave an Example to his Disciples that as he did they should also do that is that they should serve one another But the resemblance of God forgiving sins and of a Creditor's yielding up his own Right is greater than the resemblance of the same God forgiving sins and an offended person forgiving offences concerning which resemblance we just now discoursed For the Acts of God and the Creditor's agree not only in the moving Cause which is Bounty and the Effect which is fâ—eeing from Misery or Trouble but in that also that in both some right goes before in God to punish in the Creditor to require the Debt and on both sides there is a certain Dissolution of the Obligation that was before though in the Obligation it self as also in the Dissolution there is something unlike which though that Example doth not properly belong to the thing to which it is brought cannot wrong the Resemblance or Parable This may be the Third Assertion The right of punishing in a Governour is not either the right of absolute Lordship or the right of the thing credited This is proved first from the End which useth best to distinguish Faculties For the right of absolute Lordship as also the right of the thing credited is procured for his sake that hath that power or right but the power of punishing is not for the sake of the punisher but for the sake of some Community for all punishment hath the common good proposed to wit the Preservation of Order and Example so than it hath not the nature of being desirable but from this end whereas the power of Lordship and of the thing credited are of themselves desirable In this sense God saith That he delights not in the punishment of them that are punished Again It is never contrary to Justice to give up the right of Lordship or of the thing credited for this is the nature of Property that it is as lawful to use it as not to use it But to let some sins go unpunished to wit of them that repent not would be unjust in a Governour yea in God himself as Socinus confesseth Therefore the right of punishing is not the same with the right of Property or Credit Moreover no man is called just for that and is praised upon the account of Justice because he useth his own Property or because he requires the Debt But any Governour and God himself also is called therefore Just and Praised upon the account of Justice because he forgives not punishment but exacts it severely Just art thou O Lord because thou hast so judged Apoc. 16.5 which was proved already in many places Again The diversity of Vertues ariseth from the diversity of Objects But the Virtue whereby we give up our Property or our Debt is called Liberality not Clemency but that whereby freedom from punishment is granted is not called Liberality but Clemency Perhaps some man may ask seeing punishment is said to be owing Who is here the Creditor for a Debtor can scarcely be understood where there is no Creditor But it must be observed that the word debere to owe doth not always signifie a Relation between two persons For oftentimes Debeo hoc facere I ought to do this signifies no other thing but it is convenient that this thing should be performed by me without respect to another person So Debeo poenam I owe punishment that is I am worthy of punishment and I am absolutely obliged to suffer it but not Relatively in respect of this man or that Therefore it is the same sense in
the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to remove from himself so a Tree le ts go the Bark remittit librum a Horsman le ts go the Bridle so the Ears are remitted aures remittuntur and by translation custodia custody disciplina discipline animus the mind and in many places remitti and intendi are opposite Hence the Debt is said remitti when there is no account made of it and so Punishment Neither is that word applied to Punishment for Debt nor to Debt for Punishment but to both for another thing in which those agree with one another It may be added that in some sense it may be said that Punishment is owing to a man not properly because no man here is really a Creditor but for some resemblance For because as the Creditor hath power of exacting the Debt that is due to him so the Governor hath power of punishing and the Accuser of requiring Punishment Therefore sometimes we are said catachrestically to owe Punishment either to a Governor as to God or to an Accuser as to the Devil though neither is the Devil injured if Punishment is not inflicted on a man neither doth it consist with the Justice of God to remit in infinitum infinitely any kind of Punishment neither of which can have place in real Creditors CHAP. III. Of what manner is the Act of God in this Business and it is shewed that it is a Relaxation of the Law or Dispensation THE Part which God undertakes in this Business having been examined it will be easie to give some Name to the Act it self And first because God is here to be looked upon as we have proved as a Governor it follows that this Act is an Act of Jurisdiction generally so called Whence it follows that the Discourse is not here of Acceptilation taking a Debt for paid as Socinus thinks for that is not an Act of Jurisdiction That its own Genus may be more nearly attributed unto this Act the Act it self may be considered either with relation to the Divine Sanction or as Modern Lawyers speak the Penal Law or without that relation which we therefore add because though no Law had expressed Punishment yet naturally the Human Act it self whether having an intrinsâ—…al pravity from the unchangable nature of the thing or also extrinsical for the contrary Command of God for that very Cause deserves some Punishment and that a heavy one that is it was just that man being a sinner should be punished If we consider it thus the Act of God of which we treat will be the Punishment of one to procure freedom from punishment to another concerning the Justice of which Act we shall presently discourse But if furthermore we look back to the Sanction or the Penal Act the Act it self will be a way to Indulgence or a Moderation of the same Law which Indulgence at this day we call Dispensation which may be defined an Act of a Superior whereby the Obligation of a standing Law about certain Persons or Things is taken away This is the Sanction Man eating of the forbidden fruit shall surely dye Gen. 2.17 where by one kind of sin every kind of sin is signified as the same Law expresseth being more clearly explained Cursed is he that continueth not in all the Precepts of the Law Dur. 27.26 Gal. 3.10 But by the word Death and Curse in these places we understand chiefly Eternal Death Therefore it is the same sense as if the Law had been expressed after this manner Let every man sinning bear the Punishment of Eternal Death Therefore there is not here the Execution of that Law for if God should have executed the Law no sinner could have been saved from the Punishment of Eternal Death But now we know that there is no Condemnation to them that believe because they are delivered from Death Rom. 8.2 Gal. 3.31 Moreover this act is not an Abrogation of the Law for a Law that is abrogated hath no power of binding But Unbelievers are yet subject to the same Law Therefore it is writtten that the wrath of God abides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on them that believe not Joh. 3.36 and that the wrath of God comes upon them to the uttermost 1 Thess 2.16 Also the Interpretation of the Law is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Moderation for that Interpretation shews that some Fact or Person hath not been comprehended under the Obligation of the Law as the Works of Religion and Mercy were never comprehended under the forbidding of working on the Sabbath Matth. 12.5 and 6. But all men as having been shut up under sin Rom. 11.32 Gal. 3.22 yea those also that are delivered by nature or of themselves are the Sons of Wrath Eph. 2.3 that is they were obliged to the Sanction of the Law therefore the Obligation is not declared to be none But this is the business that that Obligation which was may be taken away that is that there may be a Relaxation or Dispensation of the Law Here it may be asked Whether that Penal Law is relaxable For there are some Laws unrelaxable either absolutely or upon Conditition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The absolutely unrelaxable are those of which the opposite contains an immutable pravity in it self by reason of the nature of the thing it self As for Example the Law which forbids Perjury and bearing false Witness against a Neighbour for as we say that God cannot lie Hebr. 6.18 or deny himself 2. Tim. 3.13 so no less rightly shall we say That God cannot do or approve evil Actions or grant a power to do them But Laws unrelaxable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon Supposition are those that are made by a definite Decree which the Scripture calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unchangableness or unrepentableness of Will such as is the Law of damning them that are not willing to believe in Christ Hebr. 3.18 but all Positive Laws are absolutely relaxable neither should men fly to an hypothetical necessity by a definite Decree when there is no sign appearing of such a Decree But that some are affraid lest if we grant that we do an injury to God as if we made him mutable in that they are greatly deceived for the Law is not something Internal in God or the very Will of God but a certain Effect of his Will But it is very certain that the Effects of the Divine Will are mutable neither doth God in promulgating a Positive Law which he would at sometime relax signifie that he willeth another thing than he really willeth For God seriously sheweth that he wills that the Law should be ratified and oblige yet retaining the power of relaxing which is joyned to Positive Law of its own nature neither can it be understood by any sign to be abdicated of God Verily it is another thing if there adhere to a Po-Positive Law either an Oath or Promise both of which are observed Hebr. 6.18 for an Oath
in the eyes of all men Also there is nothing stronger than those Examples of Justice Zaleucus when he had guarded the City of the Locrenses with very wholsom and profitable Laws when his Son being Condemned for the Crime of Adultery according to the Law appointed by him should have wanted both his Eyes and the whole City in respect to the Father forgave the young man the necessity of the Punishment for sometime he consented not At length being overcome by the Prayers of the People first having plucked out his own Eye and then his Sons he reserved the use of seeing to both So he rendered unto the Law the due measure of Punishment by a wonderful moderation of Justice having divided himself between a merciful Father and a just Law-giver And verily if a man had a free power as of Living in Banishment so in plucking out his own Eye nothing could be found more praise-worthy than that Fact of Zaleucus especially when the precise Obligation of the Law ceased either for his Principality or for the Peoples Consent Therefore Zaleucus erred as almost all Pagans that he claimed a greater power over his own Body than was due But that Fact so much celebrated gives Testimony against that Knowledge that Socinus thinks is imprinted in the minds of men that no man can take upon himself the punishment of another man's Fault That we may conclude this Question this is not enquired Whether it is lawful for any Judge to inflict upon any man any punishment of another man's Crime For the Law of Superiour Judges takes away this power from the Inferiour Neither is this enquired Whether this be lawful to the highest Power among men in any punishment and over any man for sometimes either the Law of God or natural Reason hindereth But this properly is enquired into Whether the Act that is in the power of the Superiour may without consideration of another man's Crime be ordained by that Superiour for the punishment of another man's Crime The Scripture denies this to be unjust which shews that God did this Nature denies because it is not proved to forbid the Consent of Nations openly denies And that the thing may be presented more naked before the Eyes who judges Decimation that was usual in the Roman Legions to be unjust when he that offended and could have been pardoned no less than another is punished not for his own Fault only but for the Fault of all the other Who judgeth it unjust if the highest Power relaxing the Law some man useful to the Common-wealth but deserving Banishment for a Fault is retained in the Common wealth yet another of his own accord obliging himself to Banishment to satisfie the Example Who would judge it unjust if a chief Governour of a Common-wealth denies Preferments to Children of Rebels otherways not unworthy if there are others found as fit for them Verily there is no injustice here for in the first kind of Fact the proper fault of the Person punished in the second the valid Consent of the Party concerned in the third the Liberty of the Governour permitted that to be performed which the Governour useth for punishment In our Fact God hath power to punish Christ being Innocent unto a Temporal Death as Socinus confesseth to wit a Lordly Power Christ also had by Divine Concession yea as being God himself a Power which we have not over his own Life and Body I saith Christ have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Power and Authority to lay down my Life John 10.18 Therefore there is no Injustice in this That God who hath the highest Power for all things that are not of themselves unjust he himself being subject to no Law would use the Torments and Death of Christ to shew a weighty Example against the great Crimes of us all to whom Christ was very nearly joyned by Nature Kingdom Suretiship which how not only justly but also wisely was appointed by the most Wise and most Just God it will appear more in the following Chapter where we shall search into the Cause of this Divine Counsel CHAP. V. Whether there was sufficient Cause that moved God to punish Christ for us and it is shewed that there was Socinus often endeavours to prove that God was not willing that Christ should suffer punishment for us by this Argument because there appears no Cause that God would do so We need not here use the Lawyers Defence who deny that account can be given of all things that were appointed by Ancestors though this Refuge may much more justly be laid open to us than to them because it is not so difficult to men to search into the Causes of Human Will because of the Community of Nature but the Causes of the Divine Will many times through their very sublimeness are hid from us Who knoweth the mind of the Lord who hath been his Counseller Rom. 11.32 Therefore often 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 11.33 his ways are unsearchable It could be added that often the Will of God is sufficient to it self for a Cause for these things being excepted that contain in themselves a certain rectitude and determined to one which God willeth because they are just that is because they agree to his Nature in all other things that he willeth he maketh them just by willing so on whom he will he hath mercy and whom he will he hardneth Rom. 9.18 But it is not necessary that we should fly to those things because God himself hath manifestly enough declared unto us Causes of his own Counsel But it is convenient that we should say this only by way of Preface that Socinus doth not rightly require that such a Cause should be rendered which may prove that God could not do otherways for such a Cause in these things that God doth freely is not requisite But he that will say this Action is free will have Augustine for a Consenter that professeth God wanted not another possible way of delivering us but there was not another more convenient way for curing our Misery But also before Augustine Athanasius said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God could have said a word and so abolished the Curse if he had not come at all but it behoveth to consider that which is profitable to men and not the power of God in all things Therefore that demand of Socinus is so much the more unjust because he himself gives no Causes of the Torments and Death of Christ which draw any necessity with them for Oracles and Miracles could suffice to shew us the way of Holiness and Christ could without Death and Death without Christ for the Afflictions and Death of the Prophets also and Apostles the Life also of Christ could be abundantly sufficient unto us for this use Christ also could after a Life passed innocently here as Enoch or Elias have been translated into Heaven without Death and thence shew his Majesty to the Earth For these are the Causes to which Socinus
so verily is it in God from whom the Example came to Man It is a received Rule That no Man is a fit Judge in his own Cause But this Rule is not of Natural Law but Positive and therefore not Universal For it hath not any place in the highest Governours under which name I also comprehend Parents in respect of the care of the Family Lawyers observe that Emperours judge in their own Cause ad l. hoc Tiberius de Hoere instit This also may come to pass in Crimes as in the Judgment of Treason and in Wars which for the Injury offered to the King are proclaimed by the King Of which thing there is a famous Example 2 Kings ch 10. Therefore Princes though offended but not as offended punish Crimes or let them go unpunisht for if they did that as injured then others being injured would have the same power who nevertheless can neither punish the Offender nor cause him to be unpunished Again if it should belong to Princes as offended to punish or let go unpunished then they would have no power to punish Crimes in which they were not offended the contrary whereof Reason and Experience sheweth And lest Men should be mistaken by this Errour as if evil doers were therefore punished by a Prince because they hurt the Common-wealth whereof he is Governour we see that Subjects also who have grievously offended out of the Territory and against a forreiner are rightly and with praise punished Whence it manifestly appears That the power of punishing doth not belong to an offended person as offended because the Offence being committed this power doth not immediately follow neither is it removed when the Offence is removed But on the contrary the same right belongs to a Superiour as a Superiour for as soon as you put Superiority you also put the power of punishing and that being removed you remove it But whatsoever is said of the power of inflicting punishment it is necessary the same should be understood concerning the power of giving freedom from punishment for these things are by a natural Bond joined together Perhaps Socinus was mistaken because smetimes in Sacred Writings and amongst others in the Lord's Prayer the Example of God forgiving sins is proposed unto us that we also being offended may forgive others their sins But he ought to have considered that Examples are taken not only from things that are the same genere proximo in the next kind but also from those things that have some resemblance chiefly because some self-same name is put upon things though divers in their next kind because of resemblance So Christ forbids us to judge to wit unmercifully lest we our selves also be judged and adds That with what measure we mete unto others with the same it shall be measured unto us Math. 7.1,2 where that former judging in its whole kind differs from the other For the former is the judgment of Liberty the other the judgment of Power After the same manner it is a far other thing in God and in other Governours to forgive sins and another thing in private persons offended by another for to punish is opposed to that but to the other to require punishment or wish it or also to complain Coloss 3.13 therefore they differ intrinsecally but extrinsecally in some respect they agree for the moving Cause to both is Bounty or Love to Mankind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Effect is that he who hath sinned is freed from some Inconvenience either really or at least as much as lies in the forgiver which Agreement is sufficient that the Example may have its own efficacy This may be the other Assertion Naturally the offended Party as such hath no power in punishment This is somewhat more than what the first Assertion had gathered For there we denied that the very act of punishing belongs to the offended Party Here we deny that any power belongs unto it not only to exercise the act of it self but also to oblige another to exercise that is that the Party offended is not really a Creditor in punishment which yet Socinus thinketh and often repeats it as a most certain thing Here I understand a Creditour not in a strict signification according to the Original of the word him that hath given credit to another man's word but more generally Creditors are they to whom Debt is due for any Cause And it is thus proved that it is true that we say It is very well known that Right is twofold Natural or Positive wherefore it is necessary that all Debt should arise hence or thence Naturally Right consists in the Adequation of things among themselves such therefore also is Natural Debt But Positive Right is that which proceeds from a free act of the Will which is twofold Contract and Law-Contract is an Effect of that Power that any man hath over himself and his own things But Law is an Effect of that Power which any man hath over another man and another man's things Here we treat not of Positive Death therefore we add the word Naturally the Cause of which thing we shall explain afterwards Now by Nature nothing else is due to me by thy Deed neither indeed can be due but an equality according to the thing that is that as much as I want by thy means so much should be restored It may be called by this one word Indemnity or Restitution Hence Aristotle rightly called a Creditor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 him that had less And this hath place both in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 willing and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unwilling receivings as the same Aristotle observes For as thou art obliged to restore that which was lent or entrusted so also the thing that was taken away by Theft And in this sense we may naturally become Creditors through a fault Neither hath that place only in these faults in which the receiving of a Corporal thing is interposed but also in other facts hurtful to a man So he that hath wounded another man ought both to pay Rewards to the Physicians and the Charges laid out for the Cure and Damage of Workmen Some have wondered that Aristotle did put Manslaughter also amongst 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exchanges in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a justice of making right is exercised But Eustathius well observed That that comes to pass no other way but because there useth to be some Recompense made unto the Wife Children or Kinsmen of the slain man So also he who hath hurt the Good Name of another by a Lie ought by the Profession of the Truth to make up what he detracted from his Credit By all which it appears that what is naturally due through Faults is different from Punishment For the Cause of that natural Debt is first and of it self not the viciousness of the Act but because some thing is wanting to me for though it is absent without a Fault as in a thing entrusted yet no less
powerful into favour And those words of Paul express the Ministry of Reconciliation which Reconciliation he had just now described by the Non-imputation of sins So Christ himself said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was sent to proclaim liberty to Captives Luke 4.18 and commanded the Apostles to preach in his name the remission of sins Luke 24.47 So Paul himself said he declared the remission of sins Acts 13.38 Eph. 2.16 It is written concerning Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he may reconcile both Jews and Gentiles in one Body unto God This Dative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be governed but by the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the Interpretation of Socinus that Deo here may stand by it self or that reconciliare Deo should be to reconcile them amongst themselves that they may serve God is wrested hard and without example Neither is the Argument drawn thence of any force that in that place Paul treats of the Peace made between the Jews and the Gentiles for it doth not follow that mention of Peace is unsutable to this Argument which is purchased unto them both with God for the two divers things that are joyned are so joyned with one another that they are first and more eminently joyned to the Bond it self for they are not joyned with one another but by and for the Bond. Therefore the Gentiles and Jews are made Friends with one another through their Friendship with God And it is wonderful that Socinus doth not acknowledge this when he says himself Col. 1.20,21,22 That the Apostle having raised a Discourse concerning the Agreement procured between Creatures presently and immediately subjoyns mention of that Reconciliation by which men are made friends to God and that by the interposition of the word and which useth not to joyn things that have no manner of coherence Whence it is manifest that these things are joyned with one another so that Paul in that place to the Ephesians whereof we treat did rightly refer the Reconciliation of men with men unto the Reconciliation of men with God as an effect to its Cause That must be added that in that same place the blood of Christ is named as by which reconciliation was made But the Scripture in many places subjoyns remission of sins to the blood of Christ as its most proper effect Matth. 26.28 Ephes 1.7 Coloss 1.14 Hebr. 9.22 Rom. 3.25 and 5.9 1 John 1.7 1 Pet. 1.2 Apoc. 1.5 to wit by a Propitiatory Virtue 1 John 2.2 and 4.10 Like unto that place to the Ephesiâ—…s seems that of which already mention hath been made to the Coloss 1.20 so that for the explication of that I think that this rather should be brought then that Eph. 1.9,10 for very many things agree what there is said separately by Blood and by Cross is here said joyntly by the Blood of the Cross There is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making peace here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having made peace there that he might reconcile both to God here to reconcile all unto himself that is God This is the difference that there only mention is made of men reconciled with one another because they were reconciled unto God but here of men reconciled both with one another and with Angels therefore because they were reconciled unto God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is verily unto himself as also the Syrian interprets for if this were the sense of these words into one as Socinus would have it it should have been written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or at least 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but should not have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is necessarily referred to a certain person Neither is it a new thing that the Preposition in with an Accusative is put for a Dative because amongst the Hebrews there is a very frequent change of the Particles b and l for by the confession of Socinus himself it is an usual Phrase amongst the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that a man is reconciled to another But no man can deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Apostolick Speech is put in the place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who hath looked into a few places diligently such as Matth. 15.24 Acts 16.40 Eph. 3.19 and the exchange of the same words may be also frequently observed in profane Writers Wherefore that is not likely that Socinus would have that in this Sentence only the Reconciliation of Creatures with one another is mentioned but in the following Sentence the Reconciliation of men with God for contrariways what is said in the general vers 20. that is specially applied to the Colossians v. 21. which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and you signifies that is yea you also or you your selves But in this Sentence that is not said which Socinus says That Reconciliation was made by making us unblameable but that we were reconciled that we might be made unblameable Socinus made the way of the end verily very licentiously The Scripture in many places declares that sins are forgiven to us that in time to come we may live holily being obliged by so great a benefit Luke 1.17 And it is to be observed that in this Sentence also there is made mention of the body of Christ which was broken for us for the remission of sins 1 Cor. 11.24 Matth. 26.28 and of death to which likewise already before we shewed that remission as an effect is attributed But that which the Apostle adds That we were reconciled when we were estranged and enemies in our mind is like that which he said elsewhere that Christ died for us when we were sinners and wicked Rom. 5.6,8 and that it is God that justifies the ungodly Rom. 4.5 Wherefore it is so much the more justly believed that here also the same benefit is treated of for this was the beginning whereby the Apostle came in to this speech that we have in Christ redemption to wit the remission of sins and verily it cannot be better understood how much God and Christ loved us and how much we are Debtors to God and Christ than if we consider that the remission of sins was first obtained and afterwards applied to us being under the wrath of God and guilty of sins which two things the Scripture for the most part joyns together But that which Socinus saith in another place That it behoved God to be throughly appeased towards us and not angry at all before Christ was sent to make a Covenant How disagreeable unto truth this is he seems himself elsewhere to have acknowledged when he said That at that very moment when God offered Conditions to renew Friendship with us he was of a mind not reconciled but reconcilable And verily Reason it self teacheth this very thing for in all conditional things the conditional are before the absolute Neither should the Condition only be offered but also fulfilled before an absolute Act followeth Wherefore the Scripture saith We have peace with God
after we are justified by Faith Rom. 5.1 Before we are sons o wrath Eph. 2.3 for our sins are the cause of separtion that is they make God averse from us Isai 59.2 This Anger excludes Peace or Friendship but not any kind of Love generally so called as appears John 3.16 and 1 John 4.10 And verily Socinus himself supposeth That sins are not forgiven to men before repentance But he cannot be said to be reconciled or as Socinus expresseth it throughly reconciled who yet imputes sins Which thing that it may be more clearly understood there are verily three moments that I may so say of Divine Will to be distinguished The first is before the coming to pass of the Death of Christ either really or in the decree and foreknowledge of God In this moment God is angry at a sinner but so as he doth not abhor all ways and reasons of laying down his wrath The second moment is when Christ's Death is now come to pass In which God doth not only appoint but also promise that he will lay down his wrath The third is when a man believes with a true faith in Christ and Christ according to the form of the Covenant commends the Believer to God Here now God lays down his anger and receives a man into favour But because Verbs Active and Passive answering to the same use to have a twofold signification either that they are confined within Vertue and Efficacy or that they include Effect also it follows that in the first moment neither of these have place and therefore in respect thereof God may be called only reconcileable In the second and third he is rightly said to be reconciled the two Senses that I mentioned being distinguished In the former sense God is said to have reconciled the world to himself and we reconciled to God when we were Enemies In the latter is that Be ye reconciled to God and we received Reconciliation and the same is the signification of the words Redemption and Expiation and that expression whereby Christ is said sometimes to have died for all sometimes for some Moreover that must be observed that the word Reconciliation doth not exclude Satisfaction or all Performance and Expence For in Livius there is That by that gift he might reconcile unto himself the minds of his Country men and elsewhere in many places the like may be seen so that upon that account Christ should no less be called our Reconciler which very thing the Scripture also shews when it adds to Reconciliation the mention of Blood CHAP. VIII Concerning our Redemption purchased by the Death of Christ THat we may come to the second Class of Testimonies which is of Redemption before all things it must be put beyond Controversie that Redemption and the like words in holy Scripture are applied to our deliverance from deserved Punishment which appears to be so Gal. 3.13 Rom. 3.24 and especially Eph. 1.7 and Coloss 1.14 neither doth Socinus deny it Yea also those places which say that we were redeemed from iniquity and vain conversation as Tit. 2.14 and 1 Pet. 1.18 belong to the same for it is a very frequent thing for sin to be put for the punishment of sin And in that place to Titus the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being added that is to expiate which we shall afterwards explain and after that in the place of Peter the mention of a Lamb that is a Sacrifice make this evident because the Scripture in many places bears witness that this Redemption is ascribed to the Death of Christ as the cause as Eph. 1.7 Rom. 3.24 Hebr. 10.12 Socinus could not deny it But how the Death of Christ is the cause of Redemption this is it that is in Controversie For we say That the Death of Christ is therefore the cause of Redemption because thereby he moved God to deliver us from punishment but Socinus denies this thing But though there were something ambiguous in these Testimonies in which mention of Redemption is made it would be sufficient to bring other places of the same Argument for interpreting them of which sort we have cited many which signifie not obscurely that Christ died for our sins suffered punishment for us and so obtained us the remission of sins to wit God being reconciled by his Death yet we hope that the same Opinion may be proved clearly enough by these places which use the word Redemption and other like it Now there is a twofold phrase in Scripture one which names the Redemption of sins another which names our Redemption by a divers kind of speaking but with the same signification That former phrase Hebr. 9.15 where the Death of Christ is said to have been caused 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the redemption of transgressions but that by this kind of speaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Latine culpas delicta crimina redimere to redeem faults offences crimes there is not only signified the Cause moving to deliver but such also as includes Compensation or Satisfaction it is so manifest that Socinus ought to have confessed that also Therefore sith this is the most usual signification of that word it is not allowed us to recede from it except two things be proved that sometimes though less frequently another thing is signified by that expression and that there is here just cause why the less usual signification should be preferred before the more usual Neither of these is proved by Socinus For he brings no place of Sacred or Profane Writer where to redeem transgression sins faults offences signifies any other thing but that which we said In the Sentence of Solomon Prov. 16.6 there is a Hebrew word Chaphar which doth not properly answer the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which very thing Socinus also acknowledgeth when he saith Expiation rather than Redemption is signified by that word It may be added that the most native signification of that word is to cover and thence it is drawn to other things by a certain resemblance Neither doth it follow because the word Chaphar which among the Hebrews as many others because of the penury of primitive words in that tongue is of many significations so that it may signifie both other things and also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to redeem that therefore likewise the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should have all the significations that Chaphar hath because the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is simple among the Greeks answering its own Original but other words of the Greeks express other significations of the word Chaphar In Dan. 4.24 there is a Hebrew word Pharak which is not of equal force with the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but both properly and frequently it signifies to tear to break to pluck up and for this also to deliver Howbeit though we should interpret redimere in this place with the Ancients nothing compels to take this word out of the signification that we defend