be clearly expressed therein I. THESE things being thus far cleared concerning the nature and ends of punishments and how far they are of the nature of debts and consequently what kind of satisfaction is due for them the resolution of the grand Question concerning the sufferings of Christ will appear much more easie but that we may proceed with all possible clearness in a debate of this consequence we must yet a little more narrowly examine the difference between our Adversaries and us in this matter for their concessions are in terms sometimes so fair as though the difference were meerly about words without any considerable difference in the thing it self If we charge them with denying satisfaction Crellius answers in the name of them that we do it unjustly for they do acknowledge a satisfaction worthy of God and agreeable to the Scriptures If we charge them with denying that our salvation is obtained by the death of Christ they assert the contrary as appears by the same Author Nay Ruarus attributes merit to the death of Christ too They acknowledge that Christ died for us nay that there was a commutation between Christ and us both of one person for another and of a price for a person and that the death of Christ may be said to move God to redeem us they acknowledge reconciliation and expiation of sins to be by the death of Christ. Nay they assert that Christ's death was by reason of our sins and that God designed by that to shew his severity against sin And what could we desire more if they meant the same thing by these words which we do They assert a satisfaction but it is such a one as is meerly fulfilling the desire of another in which sense all that obey God may be said to satisfie him They attribute our salvation to the death of Christ but only as a condition intervening upon the performance of which the Covenant was confirmed and himself taken into Glory that he might free men from the punishment of their sins They attribute merit to Christ's death but in the same sense that we may merit too when we do what is pleasing to God They acknowledge that Christ died for us but not in our stead but for our advantage that there was a commutation but not such a one as that the Son of God did lay down his blood as a proper price in order to our redemption as the purchase of it when they speak of a moving cause they tell us they mean no more than the performance of any condition may be said to move or as our prayers and repentance do The reconciliation they speak of doth not at all respect God but us they assert an expiation of sins consequent upon the death of Christ but not depending upon it any otherwise than as a condition necessary for his admission to the office of a High Priest in Heaven there to expiate our sins by his power and not by his blood but they utterly deny that the death of Christ is to be considered as a proper expiatory sacrifice for sin or that it hath any further influence upon it than as it is considered as a means of the confirmation of the truth of his Doctrine and particularly the promise of remission of sins on which and not on the death of Christ they say our remission depends but so far as the death of Christ may be an argument to us to believe his Doctrine and that faith may incline us to obedience and that obedience being the condition in order to pardon at so many removes they make the death of Christ to have influence on the remission of our sins They assert that God took occasion by the sins of men to exercise an act of dominion upon Christ in his sufferings and that the sufferings of Christ were intended for the taking away the sins of men but they utterly deny that the sufferings of Christ were to be considered as a punishment for sin or that Christ did suffer in our place and stead nay they contend with great vehemency that it is wholly inconsistent with the justice of God to make one mans sins the meritorious cause of anothers punishment especially one wholly innocent and so that the guilty shall be freed on the account of his sufferings Thus I have endeavoured to give the true state of the controversie with all clearness and brevity And the substance of it will be reduced to these two debates 1. Whether the sufferings of Christ in general are to be considered as a punishment of sin or as a meer act of dominion 2. Whether the death of Christ in particular were a proper expiatory sacrifice for sin or only an antecedent condition to his exercise of the Office of Priesthood in Heaven II. 1. Whether the sufferings of Christ in general are to be considered as a punishment of sin or as a meer act of dominion for that it must be one or the other of these two cannot be denied by our Adversaries for the inflicting those sufferings upon Christ must either proceed from an antecedent meritorious cause or not If they do they are then punishments if not they are meer exercises of power and dominion whatever ends they are intended for and whatever recompence be made for them So Crellius asserts that God as absolute Lord of all had a right of absolute dominion upon the life and body of Christ and therefore might justly deliver him up to death and give his body to the Cross and although Christ by the ordinary force of the Law of Moses had a right to escape so painful and accursed a death yet God by the right of dominion had the power of disposal of him because he intended to compensate his torments with a reward infinitely greater than they were but because he saith for great endâ— the consent of Christ was necessary therefore God did not use his utmost dominion in delivering him up by force as he might have done but he dealt with him by way of command and rewards proposed for obedience and in this sence he did act as a righteous Governour and indulgent Father who encouraged his Son to undergo hard but great things In which we see that he makes the sufferings of Christ an act of meer dominion in God without any antecedent cause as the reason of them only he qualifies this act of dominion with the proposal of a reward for it But we must yet further enquire into their meaning for though here Crellius attributes the sufferings of Christ meerly to God's dominion without any respect to sin yet elsewhere he will allow a respect that was had to sin antecedently to the sufferings of Christ and that the sins of men were the impulsive cause of them And although Socinus in one place utterly denies any lawful antecedent cause of the death of Christ besides the will of God and Christ yet Crellius in his Vindication saith by lawful cause he
besides their Publick Confessions they quote Crellius Schlictingius Volkelius Wolzogenius c. And Schlictingius saith The Doctrine of future Punishments was necessary to be preached as being part of the Christian Faith and that God's Veracity is concerned in the Execution of his Threatnings Which is a part of Natural Iustice. And those Learned Men who have been thought most favourable to the Socinian Opinions have declared themselves very frankly as to the Justice of the Punishment of Impenitent Sinners Curcellaeus whom they often mention with respect saith The Justice of God requires that he should inflict the Punishments he hath threatned on Contumacious Sinners And Limborch whom they sometimes appeal to saith That the Justice of God doth not permit the Impunity of Refractory and Impenitent Contemners of his Grace Because saith he God by his declared Will hath tied himself up from the Exercise of his Absolute Power and his Laws would be trampled upon and his Majesty slighted nor would God's hatred of Sin ever be fully discovered And therefore the Day of Wrath is called by St. Paul The Revelation of the Righteous Judgment of God Episcopius saith That although in such Punishments which depend only on the Will of the Law-maker he doth not think that God in Justice is obliged to make good his Threatnings as he is to perform his Promises but that in such Cases God is not bound in Justice to execute all that the Law threatens but when he thinks fit to punish then his Justice requires him not to punish beyond the Commination yet in the Case of obstinate and incurable Offenders he doth not deny that the Justice of God requires the Rigour of the Law to be executed upon them And he adds That the Day of Judgment will fully manifest the Justice of God in the Threatnings he hath made to Impenitent Sinners Even Vorstius who was supposed to be too much inclined to the Socinian Doctrine owns it to be a part of God's Justice to punish wicked and impenitent Persons that his Patience and Goodness may not be always contemned with Impunity And afterwards That although God doth no Injury to the Offender if he doth not execute his Threatnings yet out of regard to the Justice of his Word he doth not recede from what he hath declared But all Threatnings under the Gospel are Conditional and none are damned by it but such as continue in Impenitency and Unbelief And in his Explication he saith That where God hath absolutely declared his Will to punish in such a manner he cannot forgive without Injustice But our Unitarians speak without any Reserve That it is not the Justice of God which prompts him to punish Sinners and so it is not contrary to his Justice to forgive all Offences without Repentance or Amendment And thus the Justice of God is not concerned in the Punishments of the great Day although the Apostle calls it The Revelation of the Righteous Judgment of God And by this the World may see how very far our Modern Unitarians are from handling this Subject more Carefully Judiciously and Exactly than others However one of their own Party hath lately affirmed it with as much Confidence and as little Ground as they have done other things 3. That it is very agreeable to Divine Justice to accept of a Satisfaction on behalf of the Sins of Mankind who do not persist in their evil ways so that their Sins shall be forgiven upon their Repentance and Amendment For since the Exercise of Punitive Iustice is not necessary on the Persons of the Offenders and since God in this Life abates so much of his just Severity against them he thereby shews that he doth not proceed with Mankind here according to the Rigor of his Iustice but yet since God hath given to them very just and righteous Laws since those Laws have been broken and his Authority contemned it is very just for God to require a Sacrifice of Atonement for the Sins of the World that Manâ—ind may see that God was justly displeased at them and that none take Incouragement to go on to commit them but yet that upon their hearty Repentance and sincere Obedience they may be assured of the Remission of Sins and the Promise of Eternal Life All the Difficulty now remaining is about Christ's Suffering in our stead of which the Scripture speaks so fully in the places already mention'd But we must consider what is Answered to them II. To those places of Scripture which speak of Christ's Suffering the Punishment of our Sins all that Socinus saith comes to these two things 1. That Christ suffer'd on the occasion of our Sins and with a Design to take away our Sins 2. That by his Sufferings he came to have a Power to Forgive Sins and that this is the proper Expiation of Sin But by no means that he suffer'd in our stead for he hath these Words Ut nihil aliud sit Christum pro nobis mortuum esse quam vice seu loco nostro mortem subiisse id adeo à veritate abhorret ut nihil magis Which in plain English is that nothing is more false than that Christ suffer'd in our stead The old Editions of the Racovian Catechism follow Socinus and there the Answer to the Places which speak of Christ's Dying for us is that they do not signify in our stead but for our good Which they are very careful to distinguish because they think that the latter implies no more than a Condition in order to the Expiation in Heaven but the other makes him a true Propitiatory Sacrifice for our Sins But if Christ did not suffer in our stead how can they possibly Reconcile his undergoing this Condition with their own Measures of Divine Iustice All they pretend to say is that it was Labour and Suffering but not Punishment Which is to speak against the Common Sense of Mankind and is a ridiculous piece of Stoicism They say it was a meer Act of Dominion as to Christ and not of Justice But if there be such an Essential Attribute as Iustice in God then the Exercise of Dominion must be regulated by it especially where there was nothing but perfect Innocency The Case is very different as to the sinful Race of Mankind who having the Guilt of Sin upon them God may justly exercise his Dominion over them as he sees cause but he always doth it justly although the particular Reasons may not be within our reach But here is no Guilt of Sin consider'd either of his own or others according to their Principles and yet they make him to undergo as great Sufferings as we do who assert that he suffer'd for our sakes in our stead which alone gives a Reasonable Account of it But in the late correct Edition of the Racovian Catechism they say the Sense of Christ's Suffering for our Sins is twofold but both come to one at last 1. That Christ suffered
meant meritorious or such upon supposition of which he ought to die for elsewhere he makes Christ to die for the cause or by the occasion of our sins which is the same that Crellius means by an impulsive or procatartick cause Which he thus explains we are now to suppose a decree of God not only to give salvation to Mankind but to give us a firm hope of it in this present state now our sins by deserving eternal punishment do hinder the effect of that decree upon us and therefore they were an impulsive cause of the death of Christ by which it was effected that this decree should obtain notwithstanding our sins But we are not to understand as tho' this were done by any expiation of the guilt of sin by the death of Christ but this effect is hindred by three things by taking away their sins by assuring men that their former sins and present infirmities upon their sincere obedience shall not be imputed to them and that the effect of that decree shall obtain all which saith he is effected morte Christi interveniente the death of Christ intervening but not as the procuring cause So that after all these words he means no more by making our sins an impulsive cause of the death of Christ but that the death of Christ was an argument to confirm to us the truth of his Doctrine which doctrine of his doth give us assurance of these things and that our sins when they are said to be the impulsive cause are not to be considered with a respect to their guilt but to that distrust of God which our sins do raise in us which distrust is in truth according to this sense of Crellius the impulsive cause and not the sins which were the cause or occasion of it For that was it which the doctrine was designed to remove and our sins only as the caâ—â—es of that But if it be said that he speaks not only of the distrust but of the punishment of sin as an impediment which must be removed too and therefore may be called an impulsive cause we are to consider that the removal of this is not attributed to the death of Christ but to the leaving of our sins by the belief of his Doctrine therefore the punishment of our sins cannot unless in a very remote sense be said to be an impulsive cause of that which for all that we can observe by Crellius might as well have been done without it if â—ny other way could be thought suffiâ—â—ent to confirm his Doctrine and Christ without dying might have had power to save all them that obey him But we understand not an impulsive cause in so remote a sense as though our sins were a meer occasion of Christs dying because the death of Christ was one argument among many others to believe his Doctrine the belief of which would make men leave their sins but we contend for a nearer and more proper sense viz. that the death of Christ was primarily intended for the expiation of our sins with a respect to God and not to us and therefore our sins as an impulsive cause are to be considered as they are so displeasing to God that it was necessary for the Vindication of God's Honour and the deterring the world from sin that no less a Sacrifice of Atonement should be offered than the blood of the Son of God So that we understand an impulsive cause here in the sense that the sins of the people were under the Law the cause of the offering up those Sacrifices which were appointed for the expiation of them And as in those Sacrifices there were two things to be considered viz. the mactation and the oblation of them the former as a punishment by a substitution of them in place of the persons who had offended the latter as the proper Sacrifice of Atonement although the mactation it self considered with the design of it was a Sacrificial act too So we consider the sufferings of Christ with a two-fold respect either as to our sins as the impulsive cause of them so they are to be considered as a punishment or as to God with a design to expiate the guilt of them so they are a Sacrifice of Atonement The first consideration is that we are now upon and upon which the present debate depends for if the sufferings of Christ be to be taken under the notion of punishment then our Adversaries grant that our sins must be an impulsive cause of them in another sense than they understand it For the clearing of this I shall prove these two things 1. That no other sense ought to be admitted of the places of Scripture which speak of the sufferings of Christ with a respect to sin but this 2. That this Account of the sufferings of Christ is no ways repugnant to the Iustice of God III. That no other sense ought to be admitted of the places of Scripture which speak of the sufferings of Christ with a respect to our sins but that they are to be considered as a punishment for them Such are those which speak of Christ bearing our sins of our iniquities being laid upon him of his making himself an offering for sin and being made sin and a curse for us and of his dying for our sins All which I shall so far consider as to vindicate them from all the exceptions which Socinus and Crellius have offered against them 1. Those which speak of Christ's bearing our sins As to which we shall consider First The importance of the phrase in general of bearing sin and then the circumstances of the particular places in dispute For the importance of the phrase Socinus acknowledges that it generally signifies bearing the punishment of sin in Scripture but that sometimes it signifies taking away The same is confessed by Crellius but he saith it doth not always signifie bearing proper punishment but it is enough says he that one bears something burdensome on the occasion of others sins and so Christ by undergoing his sufferings by occasion of sins may be said to bear our sins And for this sense he quotes Numb 14.33 And your Children shall wander in the Wilderness forty years and bear your whoredoms until your carcasses be wasted in the Wilderness Whereby saith he it is not meant that God would punish the Children of the Israelites but that by the occasion of their parents sins they should undergo that trouble in wandring in the Wilderness and being deprived of the possession of the promised Land But could Crellius think that any thing else could have been imagined setting aside a total destruction a greater instance of God's severity than that was to the Children of Israel all their circumstances being considered Is it not said that God did swear in his wrath they should not enter into his rest Surely then the debarring them so long of that rest was an instance of God's wrath and so according to his own principles must
therefore generally punisheth the whole Family or People 3. That which may be a meer exercise of dominion as to some may be a proper punishment to others as in the case of Infants being taken away for their Parents sins For God as to the Children he saith useth only an act of dominion but the punishment only redounds to the Parents who lose them and though this be done for the very end of punishment yet he denies that it hath the nature of Punishment in any but the Parents 4. That punishment may be intended for those who can have no sense at all of it as Crellius asserts in the case of Saul's sons 2 Sam. 21.8 14. that the punishment was mainly intended for Saul who was already dead From these concessions of Crellius in this case we may take notice 1. That a remote conjunction may be sufficient for a translation of penalty viz. from one Generation to another 2. That sins may be truly said to be punished in others when the offenders themselves may escape punishment thus the sins of Parents in their Children and Princes in their Subjects 3. That an act of dominion in some may be designed as a proper punishment to others 4. That the nature of punishment is not to be measured by the sense of it Now upon these concessions though our Adversaries will not grant that Christ was properly punished for our sins yet they cannot deny but that we may very properly be said to be punished for our sins in Christ and if they will yield us this the other may be a strife about words For surely there may be easily imagined as great a conjunction between Christ and us as between the several Generations of the Iews and that last which was punished in the destruction of Ierusalem and though we escape that punishment which Christ did undergo yet we might have our sins punished in him as well as Princes theirs in their Subjects when they escape themselves or rather as Subjects in an innocent Prince who may suffer for the faults of his people if it be said that these are acts of meer dominion as to such a one that nothing hinders but granting it yet our sins may be said to be punished in him as well as Parents sins are punished properly in meer acts of dominion upon their Children if it be said that can be no punishment where there is no sense at all of it that is fully taken off by Crellius for surely we have as great a sense of the sufferings of Christ as the first Generation of the Iews had of the sufferings of the last before the fatal destruction of the City or as Saul had of the punishment of his Sons after his death So that from Crellius his own concessions we have proved that our sins may very properly be said to be punished in Christ although he will not say that Christ could be properly punished for our sins nay he and the rest of our Adversaries not only deny it but earnestly contend that it is very unjust to suppose it and repugnant to the rectitude of God's nature to do it III. And so we come to consider the mighty arguments that are insisted on for the proof of this which may be reduced to these three viz. 1. That there can be no punishment but what is deserved but no man can deserve that another should be punished 2. That punishment flows from revenge but there can be no revenge where there hath been no fault 3. That the punishment of one cannot any ways be made the punishment of another and in case it be supposed possible then those in whose stead the other is punished must be actually delivered upon the payment of that Debt which was owing to God 1. That one man cannot deserve anothers punishment and therefore one cannot be punished for another for there is no just punishment but what is deserved This being the main Argument insisted on by Crellius must be more carefully considered but before an answer be made to it it is necessary that a clear account be given in what sense it is he understands it which will be best done by laying down his principles as to the justice of punishments in a more distinct method than himself hath done which are these following 1. That no person can be justly punished either for his own or anothers faults but he that hath deserved to be punished by some sin of his own For he still asserts That the justice of punishment ariseth from a mans own fault though the actual punishment may be from anothers But he that is punished without respect to his own guilt is punished undeservedly and he that is punished undeservedly is punished unjustly 2. That personal guilt being supposed one man's sin may be the impulsive cause of another's punishment but they cannot be the meritorious The difference between them he thus explains The cause is that which makes a thing to be the impulsive that which moves one to do a thing without any consideration of right that one hath to do it Merit is that which makes a man worthy of a thing either good or bad and so gives a right to it if it be good to himself if bad to him at whose hands he hath deserved it Now he tells us that it is impossible That one mans sins should make any other deserve punishment but the person who committed them but they may impell one to punish another and that justly if the person hath otherwise deserved to be punished unjustly if he hath not The reason he gives of it is That the vitiosity of the act which is the proper cause of punishment cannot go beyond the person of the offender and therefore can oblige none to punishment but him that hath committed the fault And therefore he asserts That no man can be justly punished beyond the desert of his own sins but there may sometimes be a double impulsive cause of that punishment viz. His own and other mens whereof one made that they might be justly punished the other that they should be actually but the latter he saith always supposeth the former as the foundation of just punishment so that no part of punishment could be executed upon him wherein his own sins were not supposed as the meritorious cause of it These are his two main principles which we must now throughly examine the main force of his Book lying in them But if we can prove that it hath been generally received by the consent of mankind that a person may be punished beyond the desert of his own actions if God hath justly punished some for the sins of others and there be no injustice in one mans suffering by his own consent for another then these principles of Crellius will be found not so firm as he imagines them IV. 1. That it hath been generally received by the consent of mankind that a person may be justly punished beyond the desert of his own
Texts which are confessed to express our Doctrine only by saying that they may be otherwise understood which destroys all kind of certainty in words which by reason of the various use of them may be interpreted to so many several senses that if this liberty be allowed upon no other pretence but that another meaning is possible men will never agree about the intention of any person in speaking For upon the same reason if it had been said That Christ declared by his death God's readiness to pardon it might have been interpreted That the blood of Christ was therefore the declaration of God's readiness to pardon because it was the consideration upon which God would do it So that if the words had been as express for them as they are now against them according to their way of answering places they would have been reconcileable to our opinion 2. The Scripture in these expressions doth attribute something peculiar to the blood of Christ but if all that were meant by it were no more than the declaring God's will to pardon this could in no sense be said to be peculiar to it For this was the design of the Doctrine of Christ and all his miracles were wrought to confirm the truth of that part of his Doctrine which concerned remission of sins as well as any other but how absurd would it have been to say that the miracles of Christ purge us from all sin that through Christ healing the sick raising the dead c. we have redemption even the forgiveness of sins which are attributed to the blood of Christ but if no other respect than as a testimony to the truth of the Doctrine of Remission of sins they were equally applicable to one as to the other Besides if this had been all intended in these expressions they were the most incongruously applied to the blood of Christ nothing seeming more repugnant to the Doctrine of the Remission of sins which was declared by it than that very thing by which it was declared if no more were intended by it For how unsuitable a way was it to declare the pardon of the guilty persons by such severities used towards the most Innocent Who could believe That God should declare his willingness to pardon others by the death of his own Son unless that death of his be considered as the meritorious cause for procuring it And in that sense we acknowledge That the death of Christ was a declaration of God's will and decree to pardon but not meerly as it gave testimony to the truth of his Doctrine for in that sense the blood of the Apostles and Martyrs might be said to purge us from sin as well as the blood of Christ but because it was the consideration upon which God had decreed to pardon And so as the acceptance of the condition required or the price paid may be said to declare or manifest the intention of a person to release or deliver a Captive So God's acceptance of what Christ did suffer for our sakes may be said to declare his readiness to pardon us upon his account But then this declaration doth not belong properly to the act of Christ in suffering but to the act of God in accepting and it can be no other ways known than God's acceptance is known which was not by the Sufferings but by the Resurrection of Christ. And therefore the declaring Gods will and decree to pardon doth properly belong to that and if that had been all which the Scripture had meant by purging of sin by the blood of Christ it had been very incongruously applied to that but most properly to his Resurrection But these phrases being never attributed to that which most properly might be said to declare the will of God and being peculiarly attributed to the death of Christ which cannot be said properly to do it nothing can be more plain than that these expressions ought to be taken in that which is confessed to be their proper sense viz. That Expiation of sin which doth belong to the death of Christ as a Sacrifice for the sins of the world VIII But yet Socinus and Crellius have another subterâ—uge for therein lies their great art in seeking rather by any means to escape their enemies than to overcome them For being sensible that the main scope and design of the Scripture is against them they seldom and but very weakly assault but shew all their subtlety in avoiding by all imaginable arts the force of what is brought against them And the Scripture being so plain in attributing such great effects to the death of Christ when no other answer will serve turn then they tell us That the death of Christ is taken Metonymically for all the consequents of his death viz. His Resurrection Exaltation and the Power and Authority which he hath at the right hand of his Father But how is it possible to convince those who by death can understand life by sufferings can mean glory and by the shedding of blood sitting at the right hand of God And that the Scripture is very far from giving any countenance to these bold Interpretations will appear by these considerations 1. Because the effect of Expiation of our sins is attributed to the death of Christ as distinct from his Resurrection viz. Our reconciliation with God Rom. 5.10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of hâ—â— Son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life To which Crellius answers That the Apostle doth not speak of the death of Christ alone or as it is considered distinct from the consequences of it but only that our Reconciliation was effected by the death of Christ intervening But nothing can be more evident to any one who considers the design of the Apostles discourse than that he speaks of what was peculiar to the death of Christ for therefore it is said that Christ died for the ungodly For scarcely for a righteous man will one die but God commendeth his love towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us Much more then being now justified by his blood we shall be saved through him upon which those words follow For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son c. The Reconciliation here mentioned is attributed to the death of Christ in the same sense that it is mentioned before but there it is not mentioned as a bare condition intervening in order to something farther but as the great instance of the love both of God and Christ of God in sending his Son of Christ in laying down his life for sinners in order to their being justified by his blood But where is it that St. Paul saith that the death of Christ had no other influence on the expiation of our sins but as a bare condition intervening in order to that power and authority whereby he would expiate sins