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
ascribes the Death of Christ as appears to any man which are not joyned with that Effect by any necessity What if it sufficeth to him to alledge Causes not cogent that I may so say but inviting and perswading Equity suffers not that he should give a harder Law to them that dispute with him But it will not be difficult to us to give a sufficient Cause and that very weighty out of the Scriptures whether we ask this Why God would forgive Eternal Punishment to us or Why he was not willing otherways to forgive the same but by punishing Christ The former hath Cause in his Goodness which of all the Properties of God is most proper to God for every where God describes himself chiefly by this Attribute that he is bountiful and gracious Exod. 34.7 Josh 4.2 2 Chron. 30.9 Psal 86.4 and 14. 103.8 111.4,5 Isai 55.7 Jer. 31.20 Joel 2.12 Luke 6.36 Rom. 2.4 Therefore God is forward to help man and make him happy But this he cannot do while that horrible and eternal Punishment remains Moreover if Eternal Death should have been inflicted upon all men all Religion had perished through Despair of Happiness therefore there were great Causes of sparing On the other side those Testimonies of Scripture already brought by us which say that Christ was for our sins delivered up suffered died do prove that God had cause Why he laid punishment on Christ For these kinds of speaking as we there shewed signifie an Impulsive Cause But by these things that we have said of the end it may be understood that there was not only a Cause but also what the Cause was to wit that God would not pass by so many and so great sins without a remarkable Example But this is therefore because every sin doth greatly displease God and so much the more how much greater it is Prov. 11.20 Psal 5.5 Isai 66.4 Rom. 1.18 Zech. 8.17 Psal 45.8 Hebr. 11.2 But because God is active and created Creatures using reason for that purpose that he should make his Properties more manifest it is convenient for him to testifie by some act how much sins displease him but the act most agreeable to that thing is punishment Hence is that in God which Sacred Writings call Anger because there is no other word more significant Exod. 32.10,11 Numb 11.1 16.22 25.3 Psal 2.5,6 1 John 3.36 Rom. 1.18 2.8 Eph. 5.6 Coloss 3.6 Apoc. 5.16 By this Anger God testifies that he is hindered from doing Good to men Gen. 6.7 Jer. 5.25 Isai 59.2 Deut. 32.29,30 Moreover all impunity of sin of it self hath this that sins are thereby esteemed to be of less value as on the contrary the most expeditious way of driving from sin is fear of punishment Hence that by bearing a former Injury thou invitest a new one therefore Prudence upon this account stirs up a Governour to punishment Moreover the Cause of punishment is augmented when any Law is published which threatneth punishment for then the omission of punishment for the most detracts from the Authority of the Law amongst Subjects Hence that Precept of the Politicians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to keep strongly the appointed Laws Therefore God hath very weighty Causes of punishing especially if you please to consider both the magnitude and multitude of sins But because amongst all Gods Properties the love of Mankind hath the pre-eminence therefore God when he could justly and was moved to punish the sins of all men with a deserved and legal punishment that is with Eternal Death he would spare them that believe in Christ But when he was to spare by making some or no Example against so many and so great sins most wisely he chose that way by which many of his Properties should be manifested to wit both Clemency and Severity or the hatred of Sin and care of keeping the Law So Aelianus praising the Fact of Zaleucus mentions two Causes thereof that the young man may not be wholly blinded and that that which once was authorized might not be destroyed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which Causes the one looks thitherward that something of the Law may be changed through Clemency and the other that it should not be changed too much They that have written concerning the Relaxation of Laws observe that those are the best Relaxations unto which Commutation or Compensation is annexed to wit because that way very little of the Authority of the Law is destroyed and in some respect that Reason which is the Cause of the Law is obeyed as if he that is obliged to restore a thing be freed by paying the price for the same and so much are very near a-kin Such Commutation is sometimes admitted not only among things but also sometimes among Persons providing that may be without hurt to the other party So Fathers are permitted to succeed into the Prison of the Son as Cimon succeeded Miltiades and that we may not go out of Penal Judgments and those Divine there are extant express Footsteps of the like Fact in Sacred Scriptures Nathan at the command of God pronounced to David being a Murtherer and Adulterer Thy sin that is the punishment of sin is translated from thee for thou shalt not dye which otherways the Law required but because thou hast given the Enemies of God occasion to blaspheme God that Son which is born to thee to wit very near unto thee and Vicar of thy punishment shall surely die 2 Sam. 12.13,14 Achab defileth himself both with Murder and Robbery God denounceth to him by Elias That it should come to pass that the Dogs should lick his Blood Nevertheless the same God seeing his Fear and a certain Reverence to the Deity said I will not bring the Evil to wit which himself had deserved and I had threatned in his days In the days of his Son who besides his own shall also bear his Father's punishment I will bring the Evil upon his House In both God relaxeth the Law or Threatning of Punishment but not without some Compensation by translating the Punishment upon another And so he evidenceth both his Clemency and Severity or Hatred of Sin So then God willing to spare those that were to believe in Christ had sufficient just and great Causes why he exacted the punishment of our sins of Christ being willing to wit that I may use the words of Aelianus That that which was once ratified may not be disanulled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and least sins should be less regarded if so many and so great should be passed over without an Example Moreover by this very thing God did not only testifie his hatred against sins and so by this Fact terrified us from sins for it is easily gathered if God would not forgive sins no not to them that repent unless Christ succeeded into the pâ—…shment much less will he suffer the Impenitent to be unpunished but also in a signal manner declared his great Love and Good-will
the Manich cap. 4. Christ undertook our punishment without guilt that thereby he might take away our guilt and also put an end to our punishment The same in the eight Sermon concerning Time There is a twofold cause chiefly why the Son of God became the Son of Man One is that as Man through suffering all things for us he might set us free from the bonds of Sins for so the Prophet Isaiah had foretold he bore our sins c. But the other cause of the Lord's Passion is that he might stir us up whom he redeemed from sins and wickedness by his own blood unto the study of Piety not only by the help of Doctrine and Grace but also by his own Example De Temp. Serm. 51. Death could not be overcome but by Death therefore Christ suffered Death that an unjust Death might overcome just Death and might deliver them that were jusâ—ly condemned whilst he was unjustly slain for them And Serm. 141. Our Lord Jesus Christ by partaking with us of the punishment without the sin hath taken away both the sin and the punishment De Serm. Dom. on Luke 37. It is thy fault that thou art unjust but it is thy punishment that thou art mortal He that he might be thy Neighbour he undertook thy punishment but he took not upon him thy sin or if he took it upon him he took it upon him to abolish it not to do it And presently after by taking upon him the punishment and not taking upon him the sin he abolished both the sin and the punishment Cyrillus on Leviticus lib. 10. Then all the People cried that he should let Barrabbas go free but delier up Jesus to Death Behold thou hast the Goat that was sent away alive into the Wilderness carrying with him the sins of the People crying and saying Crucifie Crucifie He then is the Goat was sent alive into the Wilderness and he is the Goat that was offered to the Lord for a Sacrifice to make Atonement for sins and he made a true Propitiation for the People that believe in him The same against Julian lib. 9. See therefore the Sacrament and how it is well delineated by the two Goats For the Goat was slain for the sins of the Priest and People according to that which was commanded in the Law And because Christ was sacrificed for our sins he is compared to a Goat For so saith the Prophet Isaiah We all went astray like sheep every man wandred in his own way and God delivered him up for our sins For two Goats are taken not that there are two Christs that is two Sons as some supposed But rather because it was requisite that he should be seen who was also to be slain for us dying indeed according to the flesh but living according to the spirit The same on John lib. 2. cap. 1. One Lamb is slain for all that he may offer all kind of men to God One for all that he may gain all and that all may no longer live to themselves but to Christ that died for all and that rose again for all For because we were in sin and were therefore a due debt to Death and Destruction the Father gave his Son for our Reddemption He gave one for all both because all are in him and he is better then all The same in the Homil. that was said at Ephesus against Nestorius Verily these wicked Hereticks are the Sons of Perdition and the wicked Seed which deny the Lord that bought them for we are bought with a price not corruptible as Gold and Silver but with the precious blood of Christ as of a Lamb without blemish and spot But how could the blood of a common man like us have been the Redemption of the World In the Exegesis to Valerianus concerning the Incarnation of the Word which is extant Concil Eph. 6. c. 17. He who was without a Body as God confesseth that he hath a Body prepared for him that being made an oblation for us he might heal us all by his stripes according to the saying of the Prophet But how could one dying for all pay a sufficient price for all if we say that was the suffering of any meer man But if the Word having suffered according to the Flesh translated unto himself the Sufferings of his own Flesh as if they were his own Sufferings and claimed them to himself then indeed we do very well affirm that the Death of one according to the Flesh was of greater value than the life of all men Theodoretus quaest 9. on Numb For the Lord Christ only as Man is unblameable and the Prophet Isaiah fore-seeing this cries out Who did no sin neither was guile found in his mouth For this cause also he took upon him the sins of others having none of his own for he saith he doth bear our sins and is in anguish for our sakes And the great John Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the World For this cause he is free among the dead as having suffered Death unjustly The same Serm. 10. concerning Providence he brings in the Lord speaking thus For I have paid the Debt for that Generation for not owing Death I suffered Death and being made subject to Death I undertook Death and though being unblameable I was reckoned among them that were worthy of blame and being free from Debts was reckoned amongst the Debtors I therefore paid the Debt of nature and having suffered an unjust Death I abolish the just Death and I having been unjustly detained do free them that were justly detained from their bondage Behold the Nature's Bill of Indictment taken away O bitter Death behold it nailed to the Cross Behold it being a Bill of wickedness not received for the eyes of this very body have paid for the eyes that beheld wickedly the ears of this body for the ears that received pollution this tongue likeways these hands and the other parts for those Members that committed any manner of sin But the Debt being paid it is requisite that they who were kept in bondage upon this account should be freed from their bondage and receive their former liberty and return to the Country of their Father Proclus the Constantinopolitan Homil concerning the Nativity of Christ. The nature of man was deeply indebted through sins and was in distress about the Debt for through Adam all were made guilty of sin the Devil kept us in slavery The first Inventer of our Miseries stood up arguing the Debt upon us and demanded of us Justice Therefore it was necessary that one of these two things should be that either Death should be brought upon all according to the Condemnation because all have sinned or that such a price should be given in recompense that contained all Righteousness that was required Now then Man could not save us for he was liable to the Debt of Sin An Angel could not redeem the Human Nature for the was not capable to
A DEFENCE OF THE Catholick Faith Concerning the Satisfaction of Christ Written originally By the Learned HVGO GROTIVS And now Translated by W. H. A Work very necessary in these Times for the preventing of the Growth of Socinianism LONDON Printed for Thomas Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns at the lower end of Cheapside near Mercers Chappel and Jonathan Robinson at the Golden Lyon in St. Paul's Church-yard 1692. TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL Sir CHARLES WOOSELEY Knight and Baronet Much Honoured Sir THE Translation of this worthy Labour of the great and famous Grotius may boldly Claim the Honour of being Dedicated to your Patronage for many Causes The Excellency of this Subject being a Defence of one of the most Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith requires a Patron of Worth and Excellency and such a one I may speak it without flattery is your self who are eminent for Learning and exemplary for Piety Your Works that are published in the World which are both greatly approved for their Piety and justly admired for their Profundity are an invincible Argument how Greatness and Goodness are joyned together in you by a a lovely Union But there is also a peculiar Encouragement to Dedicate this Book to you because you were the first that encouraged the Translation and Publication of this Work And verily if the seasonableness of a thing adds to its beauty as Solomon hath testified this Work hath found a fit time for its Impression For at this time that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 damnable Heresie or Heresie of Destruction as the word in the Original signifies that Root of Bitterness the hellish Error of wretched and blasphemous Socinus who trampled under his Feet the Blood of Jesus the Mediatour of the New Covenant is now beginning to spread it self in England and to infect whole Houses with a worse and more dangerous than any Egyptian Plague If the Son of Croesus who had been dumb all his days before was so wonderfully affected with the danger his Father's Life was in that the bands of his Tongue through the vehemency of Natural Affection were dissolved so that he that never spake before suddainly cried out Kill not my Father King Croesus how much more zealously may I that have been a great while lurking in Darkness as those that have been long dead now appear in the Light against those Enemies of my Redeemer who by their horrid Blasphemies are not ashamed to spit in the Face of my Lord Jesus with greater Impudence than ever did the Jews at his Crucifixion I am very glad that my blessed Redeemer hath honoured me to be Instrumental for the Confutation of that filthy Error of Socinianism which is as ready a way to Hell as ever the Devil of Hell found out since he was a Devil Methinks the very mention of the name of Socinus may make the heart of a gracious Christian to rise with holy Indignation and his hair to stand with amazement that such a blasphemous Wretch could be found upon the Earth How did this Blasphemer strive to vilifie the Blood of Christ Jesus as if thereby our Sins had not been expiated as if thereby no Satisfaction had been made to the Justice of the holy God as if the Death and Sufferings of this Lamb of God had not taken away the sins of the World and had been no Propitiation for our sins Those wicked Blasphemies are throughly Confuted both by invincible Arguments of sound Reason and evident Testimonies of Scripture in this Learned Work of Grotius God hath exhorted all Christians by the holy Apostle Jude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to contend vehemently or to contend as men that are striving for the mastery as the Original Word signifies for the Faith that was once delivered to the Saints therefore I may justly hope that this Work will be acceptable to all good Christians into whose hands it shall come And that your self as you were the first Encourager of its Publication will now also willingly Patronize its being published Worthy Sir I recommend you to the Grace of the Lord Jesus and I beg of God that he may prolong your Life to the glory of his Name and after you have passed the time of your Mortality that an Entrance may be ministred to you abundantly into the Everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ I am Your much obliged Servant W. H. A DEFENCE OF THE Catholick Faith Concerning the Satisfaction of Christ AGAINST FAVSTVS SOCINVS Written by Hugo Grotius CHAP. I. The State of the Controversy is shewed and the true Opinion is Explained in the Words of Scripture BEfore we come to this Dispute we will first set down that Opinion which being taken out of Sacred Writings the Church of Christ hath hitherto defended with an unwavering Faith that afterwards it may evidently appear what is the difference between this and the Opinion of Socinus Therefore we shall explain the same Opinion bringing some Testimonies of Scripture which because Socinus wrested to another Sense by the way the true Interpretation of them shall be vindicated Therefore the Catholick Opinion is thus God being moved by his own Goodness to be signally beneficial unto us but our sins standing in the way which deserved Punishment he appointed that Christ being willing of his own free Love towards men should suffer punishment for our sins by enduring very grievous Torments and a bloody and ignomious Death that without prejudice to the demonstration of the Divine Righteousness we should by Faith Interposing be delivered from the punishment of Eternal Death The first Efficient Cause of the Thing whereof we treat is God God gave his only begotten Son that he that believeth in him should not perish John 3.16 God spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all Rom. 8.32 God laid upon Christ the sins of us all Isai 53.6 God made Christ sin 2 Cor. 5.21 The former Cause that moved God is Mercy or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Love to Mankind So God loved the World that he gave his Son John 3.16 God commends his Love to us that when we were yet sinners Christ died for us Rom. 5.10 The other Cause which moved God is our Sins deserving Punishment Christ was delivered for our sins Rom. 4.25 Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is with an Accusative which amongst the Authors of the Greek Tongue Sacred and Profane is a very usual sign of an impulsive Cause As when it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For these things the wrath of God comes upon the Children of Disobedience Eph. 5.6 And as oft as that Phrase propter peccata for Sins is joined to Sufferings it admits no sense different from an impulsive Cause I will punish you seven times for your sins Levit. 26.28 For those Abominations the Lord God casts them out from your sight Deut. 18.12 and in several other places of Scripture neither is it any where other ways And that other Phrase pro peccatis for
sins hath the same force as oft as it is join'd with Sufferings Hitherto belong those Christ died 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for our sins 1 Cor. 15.3 Christ suffered once 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for sins 1 Pet. 3.18 Christ gave himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for our sins Gal. 1.4 Christ offered a Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for sins Hebr. 10.12 And yet in these places Socinus would have the final Cause and not the impulsive to be denoted Yea which is more he adds That by the word pro for and the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for there was never an impulsive Cause declared but always a final Many places do evince that this latter on which Socinus relies is not true For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 use to signifie no less the impulsive Cause than the final Cause The Gentiles are said to praise God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Mercy Rom. 15.9 that thanks may be given on our behalf 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faith Paul 2 Cor. 1.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for you Eph. 1.16 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 5.20 We pray 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Christ's sake 2 Cor. 5.21 Great is my glorying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on your behalf 2. Cor. 7.4 and 9.2 and 12.5 straits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Christ 2 Cor. 12.10 I give thanks to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for you 1 Cor. 1.4 God will rebuke the wicked 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all their ungodly Deeds Jude 15. So also the Latines say Pro beneficiis gratias agere aut reddere to give or render thanks for benefits as Cicero doth very often The same said Vlcisei pro injuriis To revenge for Injuries Pro magnitudine sceleris poenas persolvere To suffer punishment for the greatness of the Crime Supplicia pro maleficiis metuere To fear punishments for evil Deeds As Plautus Castigare pro commerita noxia To chastise for a deserving Crime And Terentius Pro dictis factis ulcisci To take vengeance for Words and Deeds In all these places pro for signifies not the final Cause but the impulsive So also when Christ is said pro peccatis passus aut mortuus to have suffered or died for sins the Matter it self suffers not the final Cause to be understood as Socinus would have it for because there is a twofold End 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The End to whom and the End for whom As the End to whom the Medicine is made is the diseas'd Man the End for the sake whereof is Health and neither of them agree to sin For whether you say with Socinus that it is the end of Christ's Death that we should be drawn back or removed from our sins or whether also that we may obtain the remission of sins that we may omit that this End according to his opinion could not be attributed unto Death but very remotely neither of them can be expressed by these words propter peccata for sins or pro peccatis for sins for the End to whom will be Man but the End for what is not for sins but for that which is most contrary to sins the destruction or remission of sins Who ever said a Drug or Medicine was taken for Death that is to prevent Death But it is therefore said to be taken for the Disease because the Disease drives us thitherto It follows therefore that the impulsive Cause should be understood here Wherefore when also the Particle Min amongst the Hebrews denoted the Antecedent or impulsive Cause as Psal 38.9 and elsewhere often that place of Isai 53.5 cannot be translated better and more agreeably to other Scriptures than Dolore afficitur ob defectiones nostras atteritur ob iniquitates nostras he is afflicted for our faults he is bruised for our iniquities And that Romans 6.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 died unto sin what other thing can it signifie but Mortuus est ob peccatum he died for sin But the impulsive Cause though it may be manifold yet in this place it must be taken for meritorious for the Discourse is of Punishment as we shall presently shew Now sins are the cause of punishment no otherways than by way of merit Neither can it be shewed that these words ob peccata for sins or propter peccata for sins are any otherways taken in the holy Scriptures than in this signification of Merit especially when they are joined with Sufferings That place doth not prove the contrary 1 Kings 14.16 God will deliver Israel for the sins of Jeroboam for the sins of Jeroboam in that place signifie the kind it self of the sin to wit Idolatry unto which Jeroboam stirred up the People for the following words make that evident quibus peccavit quibus peccare fecit Israelem which he sinned and which he made Israel to sin For this is the truer Interpretation than that brought by Socinus Qui peccavit qui peccare fecit Israelem Who sinned and who made Israel to sin Therefore those sins whereof Jeroboam was the Author and the People the Followers deserved that Punishment of being delivered up Though I may also mention that Sacred Writings do testify that the followers of other mens sins are justly punished not only for their own but also for other mens sins which is so evident that Socinus himself is compelled to confess that a man may be punished for other mens sins if he is partaker of the Crime But that place of Psalm 39.12 which Socinus citeth makes evidently against him In increpationibus propter iniquitatem corripuisti aliquem liquefieri fecisti ut tineam desiderium ejus With rebukes thou hast corrected man for iniquity and hast made his beauty to consume like a Moth that is If thou would'st punish a man as much as his sin deserves verily that man's life would not be worth the enjoying of it for by this Argument he endeavours to move God to pity As elsewhere If thou mark iniquities that is if thou strictly requirest punishment for them who shall stand or endure Psal 130.3 Therefore that remains unshaken that the Phrase ob peccata for sins doth denote the Impulsive Cause and indeed the Meritorious for that Socinus somewhere seeks this way of escape that he says It is sufficient for the truth of this Phrase that any kind of occasion be signified First That is contrary to his Position in which he had said that the word pro for was never referred to an Impulsive Cause but always to a Final Cause because an Occasion is no way a Final Cause but if it deserves to be called a Cause it ought to be referred to an Impulsive Moreover both the Custom of Scripture and Usual Speech doth clearly confute such an Exposition of the words pro peccatis for sins and ob peccata for sins Hence it may be understood how erroneously Socinus denies That there may be found an Antecedent Cause of the
Death of Christ besides the Will of God and Christ Which is manifestly contrary to the saying of Paul If there is righteousness by the Law then Christ died 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in vain Gal. 2.21 where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in vain by the acknowledgment of Socinus signifies without Cause but there should have been added without an Antecedent Cause which is the original and most frequent signification of this word The original of it is from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a Gift that is such a Gift as hath not an Antecedent Cause of Right whence it began to be translated also to other things in which the Antecedent Cause is not found So David Psalm 25.19 speaking of his Enemies says They hated me hinam in vain that is when I had given them no Causes of hatred Which Christ applying to himself John 15.25 says They hated me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without a cause just in the same signification The place of Paul it self of which we are treating suffers not another Cause than an Antecedent to be understood For the Cause which Socinus deviseth to wit That they who mend their lives should be assured of the pardon of their sins this Final Cause appertains unto the Preaching and the Resurrection but not to Death which when Socinus saw here he would have Christ understood by the name of Death and also that Preaching and the Resurrection are included both wrestingly and contrary to the mind of Paul for Paul denying that Christ died for all signifies that there is some peculiar Cause which should belong to the Death of Christ for otherways he could have preached for a certain Cause and for a certain Cause have received a Reward for according to Socinus the Resurrection is only referred hither and not have died Moreover that Paul had a peculiar respect to the Death of Christ that which goes before makes it sufficiently evident who gave himself for me for that Giving every where in the Scripture signifies Death And Paul calling this same thing the Grace of God denies that that is despised or rejected by him and immediately gives a Reason For if righteousness came by the Law Christ then died in vain signifying by the contrary that this is the peculiar Cause why Christ gave himself and died because we by the Law were not just but guilty of punishment therefore our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iniquity is the Antecedent Cause of the Death of Christ The other Efficient Cause is Christ himself and that a willing Cause I lay down my life saith Christ no man taketh it from me but I lay it down of my self John 10.18 Christ gave himself for us for the Church Gal. 2.20 Eph. 5.2 and 5.25 The Cause that moved Christ was his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Love to Mankind This is saith he my Command that ye love one another as I loved you Greater love than this hath no man that a man should lay down his life for his Friends Ye are my Friends John 15.13 In the Faith of the Son of God that loved me and gave himself for me Gal. 2.20 Who loved us and washed us from our sins in his blood Apoc. 1.5 Christ loved us and gave himself for us an Oblation Eph. 5.2 Christ loved the Church and gave himself for her Eph. 5.25 The Matter is both the Torment going before Death and chiefly Death it self Isaiah calleth Torments by a pathetical name haburah a Wound Isai 53.5 And 1 Pet. 2.24 calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stripes Therefore we also see mention made of the Cross where this Argument is handled He reconciled both to God by the Cross Ephes 2.16 Having made peace by the blood of the Cross 1 Col. 12. Neither should only those Corporal pains be understood by the name of Torments but chiefly those very grievous Sufferings of Mind which the Evangelists signifie by the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be sorrowful to be astonished to be heavy in respect of which chiefly Christ cried out that he was forsaken of God The other part of the Matter Death it self is urged in many places I lay down my life John 10.18 He reconciled us by Death Coloss 1.22 Death coming between for the Redemption of Transgressions Hebr. 9.15 This Death in the holy Scriptures is considered chiefly with two qualities as Bloody and as Ignominious That quality of bloody Death is denoted by the word Blood This is the Blood of the New Covenant which is poured forth for many for the remission of sins Matth. 26.28 Luke 22.20 God purchased the Church with his own blood Acts 20.28 God hath appointed Christ for a Propitiation by Faith in his Blood Rom. 3.25 Justified in his Blood Rom. 5.9 We have redemption by his Blood the remission of sins Eph. 1.7 Ye that sometimes were afar off are made near by the Blood of Christ for he is our peace Eph. 2.13 We have redemption by his Blood Col. 1.14 Having made peace by the Blood of the Cross Col. 1.14 Not by the Blood of Bulls or Goats but by his own Blood he entred into the holy place having obtained eternal redemption Hebr. 10.12 Without shedding of Blood there is no remission Hebr. 10.22 Ye are come to the Blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of Abel Hebr. 12.24 According to the purification of the Blood of Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 1.2 The Blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin 1 John 1.7 Christ washed us from our sins in his Blood Apocal. 1.5 But the other quality of an Ignominious Death is signified by the very Name of the Cross for in that very punishment there is great ignominy whence it is said He suffered the Cross having despised the shame Hebr. 1.2 And by the name of Contempt which Isaiah used Isai 53.3 Here by the by it may be observed That not only in the places now alledged and others like them that either only or chiefly treat of the remission of sins there is mention made of Death Cross Blood but that in very many places the Apostles did profess they knew nothing they taught nothing but Christ and him crucified 1 Cor. 1.23 and 2.2 and that therefore the Gospel it self is by them called the Word of the Cross 1 Cor. 1.12 Moreover Christ appointed the Sacred Sacrament of his Supper not peculiarly for a Commemoration of his Life or Resurrection but of his Death and the shedding of his Blood 1 Cor. 11.26 Which things having been so often repeated do manifestly shew that some proper and peculiar Effect should be attributed unto this Death and Blood which Socinus cannot do For the whole Life of Christ gave an Example of Holiness more than his Death it self which was compleated in a short time But the Confirmation of that Promise of Celestial Life consists properly in the Resurrection of Christ unto which Death is only as a way
So that the Scripture looking towards this should have made mention of the Resurrection not of Death verily not so often and with Marks of Emphasis adjoined Socinus himself lib. 1. cap. 3. endeavouring to shew that the way of Salvation was confirmed by the Effusion of Blood when he had taken away the true Cause which we defend could not substitute any other probable Cause of that Confirmation neither could he bring any other true Difference why that ought to be attributed to the Death of Christ only and not to the Death of other Martyrs also Neither can Socinus ever explain how Christ obliged God to us which he himself grants to be true in some sense if God hath promised nothing for the shedding of Blood The Form is the suffering of Punishment for our Sins which Socinus lib. 3. cap. 9. and lib. 2. cap. 4. stifly denies Wherefore we will briefly prove this very thing The Hebrews that they may signify that which the Latins call poenas pendere to suffer punishment they have no phrase more usual than this ferre peccatum to bear sin Like unto which is an expression of the Latins lucre delicta to suffer sins that is the punishment of sins If any do not discover the Blasphemer he feret peccatum shall bear his sin Lev. 5.1 Qui nuditatem Sororis sue retexit peccatum suum ferto He that hath uncovered his Sisters nakedness let him bear his sin Lev. 20.17 So Expiatory Sacrifices are said to bear the Iniquities of them that offer them Lev. 10.17 because their Blood is for the soul of man Lev. 17.11 Neither only conjunctly but also separately these words are found in the same sense So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bear Judgment is said Gal. 5.10 Ferre ob peccata to bear for sins Ezech. 18.20 And sin is said to overtake a man that is the punishment of sin And by the same phrase Peter said Christ carried up our sins in his Body unto the Gross 1 Pet. 2.24 He could have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he carried but because he would also signify his ascent up to the Cross therefore he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he carried up that is he carried up in going which doth diminish nothing from the said phrase but adds something to it therefore the Syrian translated it portavit ascendere fecit he carried and made to ascend Socinus that he may weaken the strength of this place first says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies he took away but contrary to the nature and use of the word for neither doth the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suffer that interpretation neither hath any Greek Author so used that word Also in the New Testament it no where occurs in that signification but it signifies either to carry up Luke 24.51 or to lead up Matth. 17. Mark 9.2 And because the Sacrifices were carried into an upper place that is into an Altar therefore they also are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be carried up Hebr. 2.27 James 2.21 Whence also Christ himself is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have carried up himself Hebr. 7.27 and we are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to carry up Praises or spiritual Sacrifices Hebr. 13.15 And 1 Pet. 2.24 Socinus cites one place only Hebr. 9.28 where he would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to carry up sins to be nothing else but to take away but without Cause and without Example and the sense of the place not requiring it For the two Comings of Christ are opposed the one against the other the former in which he did bear our sins the other in which he is to come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without sin that is not loaded not burdened with any sins but set at liberty and freed from them But these are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 opposite to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without sin and peccata auferre to take away sins but to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without sin and peccatis oneratum esse to be burdened with sins Whence it appears that in that place to the Hebrews also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is either to carry up to wit unto the Cross as in the place of Peter and that appositely for here also is an allusion to Sacrifices but the Cross was as an Altar or simply to suffer as in Thucydides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to suffer dangers Therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies ferre to bear not auferre to take away which the Text of Peter it self proves For the Discourse is not concerning any Benefit of Christ but concerning his great Patience which is shewed not by taking away but by suffering That Socinus adds That with this sense whereby Christ is said to bear our sins that which follows doth not rightly enough cohere it is said without cause for Peter doth manifestly declare That Christ did so bear our sins that he might deliver us also from punishment whence he presently adds By his wounds ye are made whole But these cohere very well together If Christ underwent such hard things that he might obtain the pardon of sins verily ye that have obtained it ought to beware of sins in time to come God hath given to us that being freed from the hand of our Enemies we should serve him in all holiness and righteousness Luke 1.74 Behold thou art made whole sin no more John 5.14 Ye are bought with a price glorify therefore God in your Body 1 Cor. 7.20 Neither doth Paul any other thing in the Seventh and following Chapters to the Romans but shew that we ought to be stirred up by the great Benefits of God and Christ to live holily like unto that place of Peter yea whither Peter certainly had an eye as it also appears by the words following Ye were healed by his stripes is that of Isai 53.11 My righteous Servant shall justify many and shall bear their sins In Hebrew it is Ve avonotam hou jisbal Now the word avon signifies Iniquity and also the punishment of Iniquity as 2 Kings 7.9 but the word sabal signifies to bear or sustain and as oft as to bear is put with the name of sin or iniquity that in every Tongue and especially in Hebraism signifies to bear punishment For indeed nasha sometimes signifies to take away but sabal signifies not so therefore here apparently Christ is said that he will bear the punishment of them that are justified This Phrase admits of no other Interpretation neither doth it hinder that this bearing of iniquity seems to be put by the Prophet after death for it is verily after death not in time but in order as the Effect the Cause existing together with it But Socinus says that this word sabal being joined to sin doth not always include some imputation but that it is enough if it signify a man's being afflicted upon any occasion of another man's deed He proves that by no Example neither doth the Holy Scriptures speak so at any time
Yea also Greek and Latin Authors when they use that Phrase do always include imputation Socinus for the confirming of this Exception cites a place of Jeremiah which is thus Our Fathers sinned and are not and we bear their punishment neither doth he suffer here any imputation to be understood But by what Argument doth he prove that that Phrase signifies another thing here than in all other places where it is put Socinus himself is compelled to confess that as oft as the Sons follow their Fathers footsteps not only their own but their Fathers sins are imputed unto them for the Word of God is evident Exod. 20.5 But that those concerning whom Jeremiah speaks were like their Fathers that makes it evident which follows in the Prophet Wo to us that we have sinned verse 16. Neither is this different from the intent of Jeremiah for that he may aggravate the Misery of those that then lived he saith That the punishment both of their own and their Ancestors sins redounds upon them and that therefore the lot of their Fathers was much better than their lot who being alike guilty were yet taken out of life before that those very bitter punishments heaped up as if it were in the Treasure of Divine Wrath were at length poured forth together But though the signification of these words ferre peccata to bear sins were ambiguous in Sacred Writings yet both in this place of Isaiah and in that of Peter the joint mention of the Sufferings of Christ and our Deliverance would make the Interpretation certain For to bear sins by suffering and so that others may be delivered from them cannot signify another thing but the undertaking of anothers punishment And in the same Isaiah vers 6. and 7. it is God cast or laid on him the punishment of us all he is punished and he is afflicted Here Socinus moves every stone that he may wrest the genuine sense from the words and deviseth a new Interpretation God did by him or with him go against the iniquity of us all But the Hebrew word doth manifestly contradict Hiphgiah being of that Conjunction which signifies not a single but twofold Action wherefore seeing Phaga properly signifies to go against it follows that Hiphgiah signifies he made to go against and by Metaphor he deprecated because a person that deprecates doth as it were interpose his Prayers To deprecate here hath not place for then God should be said to have deprecated for Christ for that is the signification of this word the Particle Beth following Jer. 15.11 Neither doth fecit deprecari he made to deprecate agree here both because bo on him follows when otherways it ought to have been said He made him deprecate and also because all things that next go before and follow pertain to Affliction not to Deprecation Therefore these words do not bear another sense but this God did make the sins of us all occurrere illi to go against him that is impegit incussit he inflicted or he did cast upon him Sin is required exigitur peccatum that is according to Scripture phrase the punishment of sin Et ipse affligitur and he is afflicted Here Socinus objects unto us that place of Lev. 16.21 and 22. where sins are said to be put upon the Goat of Atonement and the Goat himself is said to carry the sins of the people into a waste Wilderness For he thought that nothing is more manifest than that it could in no ways be said that this Goat suffered punishment for the sins of the People which by what right he takes upon him I see not For verily Punishment taken in the general befals Beasts also The blood of all your Souls will I require Of every Beast will I require it Gen. 9.5 When an Ox shall push a Man or a Woman that he die let that Ox be stoned Exod. 21.28 If any man lie with a Beast let him be put to death also slay the Beast it self Lev. 20.15 The Earth was cursed with a Deluge for man's sake Gen. 8.21 The Creature was subject to vanity Rom. 8.20 Neither is there Cause why Socinus should object that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scape-Goat did not use to be killed but that the shedding of blood or death was required for the remission of sins For though the Scripture doth not expresly declare that that very Goat was thrown headlong from a high place in the Wilderness and so slain the Hebrew Interpreters agree about it which though it were not so yet what other thing did that driving into a waste Wilderness threaten but a death not at all natural either of hunger or the tearings of wild Beasts Also the word Nagash is to be marked in Isaiah for it is very certain that Nagash Schin having a point in the left-horn doth properly signify exigere to require as appears 2 Kings 23.35 Zach. 9.8 but metaphorically is taken for opprimere to oppress therefore the Passive Nagash is either opprimitur he is oppressed or exigitur he is required Opprimitur he is oppressed hath no place here because it follows in the same vehou Sentence ipse affligitur and he is afflicted whence it appears that this Verb is referred to another Noun than that unto which the word affligitur he is afflicted is applied Therefore it remaineth that that word should be taken properly that it may signify exigitur is required and may be referred to the Noun immediately going before Now to require sin is or can be nothing else but to require the punishment of sin therefore the requiring of Punishment and Christ's Affliction are joined together There went before in the same Prophet these words The Chastisement of our peace was laid upon him and by his stripes we are healed In the Hebrew Chastisement is called Musar which word signifieth not every Affliction but that which hath a relation to Punishment whether it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exemplary or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 admonitory only by which words of old Taurus the Philosopher did aptly distinguish the kinds of Punishment And thence it came to pass that any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 admonition per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the figure Catachresis was signified by the word Musar But because the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rebuke hath no place in Christ especially seeing the discourse is concerning Afflictions including Death it remains that we should understand Affliction that hath joined together with it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exemplary punishment for the use of that Hebrew word is not found separated from all respect unto a fault But here if by the subject matter we understand the good of Impunity it will appear that Christ's Punishment and our Impunity are very well opposed the one against the other Though nothing hinders Reconciliation to be understood by the name of Peace though there was no mention made of Enmity which the matter it self and the following words of the Prophet do abundantly
fact came death and by man came the resurrection of the dead As in Adam all die as many as die so in Christ all shall be made alive as many as shall be made alive 1 Cor. 15.21,22 Who reading these very words sees not that this saying to the Corinthians is exactly answerable to that to the Romans Therefore the Discourse is concerning Death that is common to the Posterity of Adam and from which they do rise again which rise again Wherefore also this place being compared with that to the Romans we say the Discourse is here concerning Adam a sinner for what he said here by man there he said by sin The Animal Condition of Adam is discoursed upon in Twenty Verses and more by the Apostle on a very different occasion for here Death is opposed to the Resurrection but there the Qualities of the Body at the first created and afterwards raised again are compared with one another of which that had joined with a natural possibility of dying by the bounty of God a possibility also of living but this shall so have life in it self that it shall be without any natural possibility of dying Here I cannot omit the adding of an excellent place of the very excellent Writer of the Book of Wisdom which though it is not in the Hebrew Canon yet it hath a venerable Antiquity and was always had in estimation among Christians So then saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1.13 And next 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2.23 God made not Death neither doth he delight in the destruction of living Creatures for he created all things to have Existence and their Generations are healthful and the Poison of destruction is not in them neither is the dominion of Hell upon Earth But Righteousness is immortal But the ungodly with their hands and words called it to them and thinking it to be their Friend were consumed and made a Covenant with it because they are worthy to have a portion with it God created Man for uncorruption and made him the Image of his own Deity but by the Envy of the Devil Death came into the World and they have Experience of it that are on its side Here he shews that any kind of Death is understood which Death God is said not to have created nor to desire to wit with a will going before sin in opposition to uncorruption for the hope whereof Man is said to be created and that hope is not obscurely declared to have been a part of the Divine Image or at least a Consequent thereof But Uncorruption excludes all Death whether it is violent or not violent And what the Apostle said That by Man and by Sin Death entred this Author said no less truly That Death entred by the Envy of the Devil For all these Expressions signify the same Fact to wit That the first Sin of Man was committed by the Suggestion of the Devil Neither doth it hinder that this Author observes a certain special Effect of Death upon the Wicked for Death having entred by the first sin and gained power over all Men gets a certain peculiar strength by the great and continual sins of every Man in which sense sin is called the sting of death 1 Cor. 15.56 Therefore those from whom after their death all passage to life is shut up are deservedly called the Confederates of Death or its Bondslaves and peculiar Possession It might very easily be demonstrated if this were the thing that is treated upon that this was the constant Opinion both of Jews and Christians that any kind of death of a Man is a punishment of sin so that the Christian Emperours not without cause disallowed that Opinion besides others in Pelagius and Celestius that they said That Death did not flow from the snare of sin but that the Law of an unchangeable Appointment required it But that we may gather the things that hitherto have been said into one because the Scripture saith That Christ was chastised by God that is was punished That Christ did bear our sins that is the punishment of our sins That he was made sin that is subjected to the punishment of sin That he was made a Curse unto God or liable to the Curse that is the punishment of the Law But the Passion of Christ it self having been full of Torments bloody and ignominious is a very fit matter of punishment Moreover because the Scripture saith That these things were inflicted on him by God for our sins that is our sins so deserving because Death it self is called the wages that is the punishment of sin verily it cannot be justly doubted that in respect of God the Passion and Death of Christ was a punishment Neither are the Interpretations of Socinus worthy to be regarded which deviates from the constant use of words without Example especially because no just reason hindereth to retain the signification of the words which shall appear more evident afterwards Therefore in God the punishment is actively in Christ passively yet to whose Passion a certain voluntary Action is joyned to wit the undertaking of the Penal Passion The end of the thing that is discoursed upon according to the Intention of God and Christ which being placed in act may also be called an Effect is twofold to wit a Demonstration of the Divine Righteousness and the Remission of Sins in respect of us that is our Impunity For if you take the exacting of punishment impersonally it 's end is the Demonstration of Divine Righteousness but if you take it personally that is wherefore Christ was punished the end is that we might obtain freedom from punishment The former end is expressed by Paul when he saith concerning Christ Whom God hath appointed for a Propitiation in his Blood for the demonstration of his Righteousness for the pardoning the foregoing sins in the forbearance of God Afterwards he adds repeating almost the same words To declare his Righteousness at this time that he may be the justifier of him that is of the Faith of Jesus Rom. 3.25,26 Here next unto his Blood that is his bloody Death is joyned the end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to declare his Righteousness By this Name of the Righteousness of God that Righteousness should not be understood that God works in us or which he imputeth unto us but that which is in God for it follows That he may be just that is that he may appear to be just This Justice of God that is Righteousness according to its divers Objects hath divers Effects About the good or evil Deeds of a Creature the Effect thereof amongst others is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reward unto which Paul having respect said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is it is just with God to reward Affliction to them that afflict you And elsewhere Every Transgression and Disobedience received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a just Recompence of Reward And that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 3.8 the Syrian translated it Whose Condemnation
which ascribe the remission of sins to the Blood of Christ that place should be joyned which we just now cited Being justified in his Blood Rom. 5.9 Also those that attribute the washing away of sins to Blood or Death Te Blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin 1 John 1.7 For the purging of the Blood of Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 1.2 Christ washed us from our sins in his Blood Apoc. 1.5 For though to wash away to cleanse and the like words may signifie either to cause that sins may not be committed in time to come or that being committed they may not appear yet the other Interpretation is more agreeable to the Phrase of Scripture So to abolish sins is expounded not to remember sins Isaiah 43.24 and to cleanse from Iniquity is shewed to be the same thing with forgiveing Jer. 33.8 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that sins may be blotted out hath evidently the same sense Acts 3.19 And these are taken wholly for the same thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to forgive sins and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to cleanse from all inquity 1 John 1.9 and elsewhere these are put as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 synonimous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to be cleansed and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that pardon may be Hebr. 9.22 Wherfore also Socinus is forced to confess that in John's Apocal. cap. 1. vers 5. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to cleanse is attributed to Blood deliverance from punishment is more rightly understood than the cleansing of the Soul To these may be joyned that of Isaiah just now cited The chastisement of our peace was upon him that is his punishment procures us peace with God concerning which peace the Angels speak Luke 2.14 And that of the same Isaiah By his stripes we are cured that is by his punishment we have freedom from punishment By these Testimonies therefore it is manifest that the impunity of our sins is the End of the Death of Christ and also an Effect of the same Death Socinus who is not willing to acknowledge this Connexion of Death with the Remission of sins performed unto us brings others wonderfully different from the words and scope of the Scripture But all these that he hath here and there scattered in his Book seem to be reducible to these four Heads The first is That Christ when he preached that the remission of sins lyes open to the Penitent did not refuse Death to give testimony to that Preaching But this sense makes the Death of Christ an Effect of remission more than remission of Death For the Existence of a thing is the cause of a Testimony not contrariways But the Scrripture says that we obtain remission by Blood Ephes 1.7 Coloss 1.14 And that Blood blots out our sins 1 John 1.7 Also that the shedding of Blood is a thing Antecedent without which there is no Remission Hebr. 9.22 Moreover if this Interpretation were true the Martyrs also might be said to have shed their Blood for the remission of sins and that we obtain remission by that Blood when yet the Scripture gives this priviledge to Christ only Moreover the Cause of the Killing of Christ in respect of men was not properly the preaching of Repentance and Remission of Sins but that he called God his Father making himself equal to God John 5.18 and consequently that he did profess himself to be God For which cause his Death gave properly a Testimony to this Profession not to the preaching of Pardon And also a Testimony concerning the Doctrine was given no less but more by the Miracles than by the Death of Christ But no where is this Effect attributed unto Miracles that by them we obtain Remission of sins The second thing that Socinus brings is That Christ by his Death obtained the power of giving Remission But Socinus himself overturns this Position who sheweth that Christ living on Earth had and exercised this Power But that which is cannot be any more made mine And lest any man should so mistake which Socinus doth more hint at than affirm as if this Power of Christ had only respect to Punishments Temporal and of this Life it must be observed That when Christ is said to have had power upon earth to forgive sins the Effect is not restrained by that Addition on Earth but the place of the Action is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 emphatically expressed For it is also said to the Apostles Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth where though to loose is to declare to be loosed yet that Expression on the Earth signifies only the place of the Action for it follows they shall be loosed in Heaven For that is it which Christ signified that that Power though so eminent and Celestial belonged to him living on the Earth Neither do the People wonder at any other thing but that so great power was given to men that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by enallagy to one of the number of men Christ himself also first forgives the sins of the man that had the Palsy before he takes away the Palsy which was a Temporal Punishment and manifestly distinguishing both Powers he proves the one by the other to wit the invisible by the visible Then Christ did not at length obtain the power to forgive sins by his Death and consequently those sayings which ascribe the Effect of the remission of sins to his Death cannot be drawn to this sense Moreover the Scripture explains the way of the Connexion between Death and Remission by the word Propitiation and other such like words which cannot be applied to the power of giving Pardon The third thing is That in the Death of Christ an Example of Patience and Obedience is proposed to us But this Example in some respect pertains to Sanctification and that which follows it Eternal Glory but not any ways to the remission of sins for Christ by his Patience and Obedience obtained no pardon to himself as having no sin Wherefore when Christ is proposed for Imitation that we keeping that way which he went may come to the same Mark nothing would be more unseasonable than to make any mention of remission of sins And the Phrases of Scripture Blood cleanseth us By his Blood we have Remission do utterly reject this sense The fourth thing remains which most pleased Socinus So that in very many places he inculcates this as the support of his Cause and it is this That the Death of Christ perswades us to that very thing that is required for the obtaining remission of sins to wit Faith or as Socinus explains himself the hope of obtaining Eternal Life But verily what is more disagreeable unto truth than that so bloody a death of a most innocent man doth of it self conduce unto this that it may perswade us that great Joys are prepared by God for us living holily Wherefore Socinus seeing the absurdity of this Invention saith That the Death of Christ doth not this but his Resurrection
and those things that followed his Resurrection But that it was requisite Death should go before But if the Scripture had signified so it would have mentioned perpetually the Resurrection or rather the Exaltation unto Heaven and sitting at the right hand of God where forgiveness of sins is discoursed of not Death and Blood at least not so often and in words so significant For that so frequent and usual joyning of Blood with Remission signifies some Effect not common but proper not far remote but near hand For what By-ways are these The Remission of sins is granted unto none but them that live holily for so speaks Socinus Faith and a certain hope of reward makes for holiness of Life This Faith is begotten by the Example of Christ raised from the Dead and glorified for holiness of Life as Socinus would have it Death went before that raising up therefore rightly and fitly is Remission said to be obtained by the Death of Christ Is not this it really which he finds fault with in others Alas That the Pine-tree was cut in the Pelian Wood for that is brought for a cause which is not some near thing or at least not far distant but that which is most remote from the Effect What if this had been in one place of Scripture it would perhaps have been less wonderful But what man that is in his right wits can believe that the Scripture speaks so often so obscurely and so coldly That Saying of Paul is very unlike Christ was raised from the dead for our justification Rom. 4.25 Which that it may be explained there is no need to fetch so long a compass of Socinus For the Resurrection of Christ begets in us Faith and Reliance on God and Christ to which Faith is promised Remission of sins And this Series is manifestly shewed Acts 13.33,38 Rom. 1.4 and 10.9 for Death is so far from being fit to beget Faith that on the contrary it most affrighteth men from that Faith And therefore in preaching the Gospel the Apostles do always oppose the Resurrection to the Ignominy of the Cross and the Misery of Death But that by Death and the shedding of Blood which the Scripture frequently expresseth in this Argument which is not properly a Cause of the Resurrection but only an Antecedent he would have the Resurrection it self to be expressed What is it else but to name Night that thereby Day may be understood Moreover if Death did not belong to the Remission of sins except because of the Resurrection that followed how could it have happened that Remission of sins was very seldom referred to the Resurrection but to Death in innumerable places Now add this also that Paul doth attribute to Death it self apart that is as it is abstracted from the Resurrection and Glory of Christ the Effect of Redemption purchased For he says If when we were Enemies we were reconciled to God by the Death of his Son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his Life Rom. 5.10 Death is opposed unto a glorious Life and as Reconciliation is ascribed distinctly unto that so is Preservation unto this Reconciliation is obtained for Enemies by Death as a Sacerdotal Act being reconciled they are kept by his Kingly Power unto which Resurrection made access So also elsewhere the same Apostle puts Reconciliation before Preaching which begets Faith God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself not imputing their sins unto them and did put in us the Word of Reconciliation therefore we are Ambassadours for Christ and as if God were requesting by us we beseech you in Christ's stead be ye reconciled unto God 2 Cor. 5.19,20 Here a twofold Reconciliation is put the former which is declared by the Word the other that is made by the Word that is the Reconciliation of Impetration this of Application that is before the Word this is after the Word We treat of that former and do justly deny that it can be referred to the Ingeneration of Faith which comes by the Word That also may be added John 3.16 where Christ is said to be given to wit unto death that they who believe may not perish Therefore it is profitable for another thing than that they may believe And verily if you please to attend the same thing is not obscurely shewed in that very place of Paul which is by Socinus cited for to confirm his own Opinions to wit that of which we discoursed who was delivered to wit unto death for our sins and rose again for our justification Because Sins are an evil thing and Justification a good thing it appears that the word propter for is not taken alike in both Members and it is convenient that the final Cause should be expressed in the latter Member if I am not mistaken we sufficiently shewed above that in the former the Impulsive Cause is signified Just as if I say that a Medicine is taken for a Disease and for Health Therefore Justification is the end proposed unto the Resurrection to wit by the Ingeneration of Faith by the Confession of Socinus Though verily I know not whether the Resurrection in this place is looked upon as an Argument to perswade Faith or whether it rather signifies the whole glorious state of Christ who hath this end proposed to himself amongst others that the Preachers of the Gospel may be sent and that their Endeavour may be promoted with a very plentiful Influence of the Spirit and Faith being made after that manner men may obtain the Remission of sins for so said Christ himself All Power is given to me in Heaven and in Earth Therefore go ye and teach all Nations Behold I am with you always to the end of the World Matth. 28.18,19,20 Before as John saith the Spirit was not to wit poured forth with that efficacy and abundance the cause is added because Jesus was not yet exalted to Glory John 7.39 Paul also said of Christ When he had ascended on high he led Captivity captive and gave gifts to men He gave some Apostles others Prophets and others Evangelists and others Pastors and Teachers to the perfecting of the Saints Ephes 4.8,12 But whether of these two ways you take it it appears that some peculiar and is ascribed to the Resurrection inasmuch as it is distinguished from Death On the other side it is ascribed unto Death apart or deliverance unto Death that it happened for sins but that very thing is no where ascribed unto the Resurrection and in this place it is not obscurely taken from the same But the Death of Christ in this Affair is both to be separated from the Resurrection and from the Ingeneration of Faith and in these places which deduce the Remission of sins from the Resurrection of Christ a certain distinct Effect is to be understood which the very simplicity of the Words import agreeing with other words of Scripture which say That Christ for our sins died a bloody death and that the
is a sign of the immutableness of the thing to which it is added Psal 95.11 110.4 Hebr. 3.11 6.17 7.21 And a Promise gives power to a Party which cannot without injury be taken from it Therefore though to promise is free yet there is not a freedom to break Promises therefore that ought to be referred to those things that have immutable pravity in themselves Therefore God cannot do this who is therefore called faithful because he keeps his Promises 1 Thess 5.24 Therefore let us see whether there is in the said Penal Law any thing that utterly disallows Relaxation And first it may be objected That it is just naturally that the Guilty themselves be punished with such a punishment as is answerable to their Crime and therefore that it is not subject to Free-will nor is relaxable That this Objection may be answered it must be known that unjust doth not follow of any denial of just no not at that very time when the same Circumstances are put for as it doth not follow if a King should be called Liberal who gave to some Man a thousand Talents that he should therefore not be Liberal if he gave them not so it is not perpetual that that which is performed justly cannot be omitted but unjustly Now a thing is called natural as in Physicks so in Morals either properly or less properly Natural in Physicks properly is that which necessarily coheres to the Essence of every thing as for a living Creature to have sense but less properly that which is convenient and as it were fitted for any Nature as for a man to use his right hand So then in Morals there are some things properly natural which follow necessarily from the relation of the things unto rational Natures as that Perjury is unlawful but some improperly as that a Son succeeds the Father Therefore that he that hath offended deserves Punishment and therefore is punishable this follows necessarily from the relation of the sin and sinner to the Superior and it is properly natural But that any sinner should be punished with such a Punishment as is answerable to the Fault is not neceslary simply and universally Neither is it properly natural but agreeable enough unto Nature whence it follows that nothing hinders why the Law commanding this same thing should not be relaxable The sign of a definite Decree or Irrevocability appears not in that Law of which we Discourse neither is it a promising Law therefore none of those things hinder a Relaxation for it should not be admitted that a threatning should be equallized to a Promise for by a Promise some right is acquired to him to whom the Promise was made But by threatning only the merit of Punishment in the sinner and the right of punishing in the Threatner are more openly declared Neither is it to be feared least something be detracted from the Veracity of God if he doth not fulfil all his Threatnings for it must be understood that all threatnings that have not with them a sign of Irrevocability by their own nature do diminish nothing of the right of the Threatner to relax as before was declared and it appears manifestly by the Example of the Divine Clemency towards the Ninevites It must not be here omitted that the ancient Philosophers by Natural Light judged that no matter was more relaxable than Penal Law Therefore Aristotle says that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Sopater in an Epistle to Demetrius saith so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which is called moderate Justice comfortably interpreting the austere voice of the Laws seems unto me an innocent pretence of the true and free Graces but correcting Justice in mutual Exchanges wholly shuns the nature of the Graces But that which consists in Accusations doth not abhor the meek and courteous face of the Graces It appears by these things which hitherto have been said that that Positive and Penal Law of God was dispensable But this hinders not but that there were certain Reasons which might disswade that I may stammer after humane manner this Relaxation And these may be taken either from the nature of all Laws or from the proper matter of the Law It is common to all Laws that by relaxing something seems to be taken away from the Anthority of a Law It is a property of this Law that though that Law as we said hath not an inflexible Rectitude yet it is very agreeable to the Nature and Order of things from which things it follows That the Law was not to be wholly unrelaxable but not easily nor for a light Cause And the only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 infinitely wise Lawgiver did according to that For he had a very weighty Cause when Mankind fell into sin to relax the Law because if all sinners had been to be given up to Eternal Death two very beautiful things had utterly perished out of the World on Mens part Religion towards God on God's part the Testimony of his special Bounty towards Men. Neither did God in relaxing the Law observe Causes only and that very weighty ones but also did set a singular Bounds to the Relaxation concerning which there will be a fitter place to Discourse afterwards CHAP. IV. Whether it is unjust that Christ should be punished for our sins And it is shewed that it is not unjust THE Arguments whereby Socinus goes about to disprove this Doctrine having not been placed by him in a right enough Order seems to us that they ought to be digested in this manner That the first rank be of those Reasonings which gather that That which we defend to have been performed is unjust The second of those that deny there was cause for so doing The third of those which deny that God did that which we assert For if the thing it self hath Unrighteousness in it in vain is the Cause thereof sought for because there can be no reasonable Cause of that which is unjust In vain also is it disputed Whether it hath been because no unjust thing can be done by God Also the Examination of the Cause because by nature it goes before the Question of the Fact should also first be handled therefore that we may come to the Question of Just and Unjust first these things are to be separated Whether it was just that Chirst should be punished for our sins And if that could any thing Conduce to obtain a pardon for us For this latter must be referred to the second rank that disputes of the Cause of the Fact but it belongs not properly to this first For though such a Cause of Punishment had not been it would not thence follow that some Injury is contained in the Punishment But it seems that an Injury may be sought either in the Matter it self that is in the very heavy Afflictions and Death compared with the Innocency of him who suffered those things or in the Form that is in the Punishment compared with other mens Sins
as the meritorious Cause Therefore we shall shew that there is Injury in neither First then Socinus confesseth That it is not unjust that Christ most Innocent should suffer from God very heavy Punishments and Death it self that hence no help can come to his Cause And the thing it self demonstrates the same very evidently For Sacred History shews that Christ suffered very grievous things and that he died also The Scripture no less evidently says that God did this very thing But without blaspheming the Sacred Deity it cannot be denied that God doth nothing unjustly Therefore passing over to the other part I affirm That it is not simply unjust or against the nature of punishment that a man should suffer for other mens sins When I say unjust it is manifest that I speak of unjustice which riseth out of things not which riseth out of Positive Law as whereby Divine Liberty cannot be diminished I prove this that I said Exod. 20.5 and 34.7 God visits the Iniquities of the Fathers upon the Sons Nephews and Nephews Children Our Fathers sinned and we bear their punishment Lam. 5.7 For the Fact of Cham Canaan is subjected to a Curse Gen. 9.25 For the Fact of Saul his Sons and Nephews were hanged God approving of it 2 Sam. 21.8,14 For the Fact of David 70000 perish and David cries out I have sinned and done wickedly but what have these sheep done 2 Sam. 24.15 and 17. So for the Fact of Achan his Sons are punished Jos 7.24 and for the Fact of Jeroboam his Posterity 1 King 14. These places manifestly shew that some are punished by God for other mens sins He that hath time may see Chrysostom Homil. 29. on Gen. chap. 4. Tertullian against Marcion Socinus objects that in Ezechiel The Soul that hath sinned it shall die The Son shall not bear the Iniquity of the Father neither shall the Father bear the Iniquity of the Son But in these words God teacheth not what he must necessarily do but what he hath decreed freely to do Therefore it doth no more follow hence that it is wholly unjust that the Son should bear any punishment of his Father's fault than that it is unjust that a sinner should die The place it self proves That God doth not here discourse of a perpetual and immutable Law but of the ordinary Course of his Providence which he professeth he will after that time use towards the Jews that he may break off all occasions of Calumny Neither is that more to the purpose that is written Deut. 24.16 Let not the Fathers be put to death for the Sons nor the Sons for the Fathers but let every man be put to death for his own sin Of which also there is mention made 2 Kings 14.6 for this Law is in part Positive whereunto God is not tied as having no where made that Law to himself neither indeed can he be tied to any Law Also the diversity of the Reason is manifest because the power of Men is narrower than that of God which shall be more clearly explained afterwards though now also I may intimate that the abuse of Power is feared in men but it is not feared in God Socinus replies That no where in Scripture the Innocent are found punished for the sins of the Guilty But this Reply is not to the purpose For seeing we read that some were punished not only for their own sins in respect whereof they were guilty but also for other mens sins it follows that they were also punished as they were not guilty But if a man may in part be punished as he is not guilty the nature of the thing doth not hinder but that he may be punished in the whole for the right of the parts and the whole is the same Add also that the Posterity of Saul were wholly innocent as to that sin for which they were punished But if a man may be punished in a respect wherein he is innocent he may also be punished being innocent And if a man rihtly consider Innocence hindereth not punishment more than Affliction yea it hindereth not that at all but for this Therefore the distinction of Guilty and Innocent belongs to the Question Whether any man may be justly Afflicted but not to this Whether his Affliction may have the force of Punishment For it being granted That Relation to a man 's own Sin is not of the Essence of Punishment it being also granted that the Innocent may be afflicted as Socinus confesseth God may do for a while no Reason verily can be given why by the very nature of things for here we treat not of Positive Law it should be unjust that an innocent Person should be punished for another man's Fault with such Affliction especially if he hath of his own accord obliged himself to such a Punishment and hath power in himself to undertake it which shall be handled afterwards Socinus urgeth That at least between the Guilty and him that is punished there ought to be some Conjunction which he acknowledges between Father and Son but between Christ and us he doth not acknowledge It might be said here that man is not without relation to man that there is a Natural Kindred and Consanguinity between Men because Christ took upon him our Flesh But another much greater Conjunction between Christ and us was decreed by God for he was appointed of God that he should be the Head of the Body of which we are Members And here it must observed that Socinus did erroneously confine to the Flesh that Conjunction which is sufficient for the laying Punishment upon one for the sins of another because here the Mystical Conjunction hath no less power which appeareth most in the Example of a King and People There was cited above the History of the People of Israel punished for the sin of David Concerning which thing the Ancient Author of Questions and Answers to the Orthodox which are carried about with the Name of Justinus discoursing wisely said thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As a man consists of a Soul and Body so a Kingdom consists of the King and People and as a man having sinned a sin with his hand if he be struck upon the back he that struck him doth no injustice so God doth no injustice in punishing the People for the Faults of their Kings At length Socinus comes to this that he saith That at least this is not found in the Scripture that an Innocent Person was punished for those Faults for which the Guilty Person himself was not punished But this also is not to the purpose For because it is not of it self and universally unjust to grant Impunity to a guilty Person which Socinus confesseth neither is it unjust to punish a man for another man's sins there cannot be injustice in these no not when they are joyned together Yea the Scripture makes manifest that that very thing is not unjust by the Example of Achab who received the impunity of his sins
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
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
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
For God is moved by the fruits of repentance to withold temporal punishment as before also hath been observed But the other expression that signifies the person redeemed very often in holy Scripture it is found accommodated to our Argument as Rom. 3.24 Eph. 1.7 and elsewhere In Greek there is the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hence the verbal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is asked Whether this act is attributed properly or improperly to Christ Socinus defines proper redemption that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for otherways the word redimendi in Latine is of many significations the deliverance of a Captive out of the hands of him that detains him by giving a price to him that detains him too narrowly For both the nature and use of the word is not confined to captivity only but to every kind of hurt as also is the word deliverance Therefore you may more rightly define 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or redemptio redemption is the deliverance of a man from an evil by the interposing the payment of a price So Maro used the word Redemption properly when he said Si fratrem Pollux alterna morte redemit If Pollux redeem'd his brother by alternal death Castor is delivered from perpetual death by the alternal death of his brother being interposed but improperly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and redemptio redemption signifies any kind of deliverance yea that also which hath no price interposed But as Socinus confesseth and as the Laws teach us the property of words should not be receded from but for weighty causes Therefore in a doubtful case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 redemption should be understood to be made by the interposing a price But now there is no place for doubting because the Scripture calls him openly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the price of redemption For the son of man came that he might give his soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a price of redemption for many Matth. 20.28 Mark 10.45 with which places those are to be joyned that bear witness that the Redemption was made by Death in Blood as Hebr. 9.12 Because these places went strongly against Socinus he could invent no other thing but to say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or pretium price here is said improperly And he defines a price properly called that which is received by him that detains Here first that which we said just now must be repeated that property should not be forsaken unless the matter urge it But if Socinus brought any Causes of devising improperty we trust they are confuted by us Chap. 4 5 6. for the comparison made between Moses and Christ scarcely needs an answer because every similitude hath certain bounds beyond which it cannot be stretched They are compared as deliverers but in respect of the way of delivering neither doth it more follow from thence that Christ by satisfying hath not delivered us than that Christ delivered us by the death of Enemies because Moses did that What if the Comparison belonged also to the way of delivering that it might proceed the better it should be said that Christ delivered us by Miracles as Moses but not by his own Death or his own Blood which neither is ascribed nor can be ascribed to Moses But the chiefest thing is that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 price concerning the force of which we here treat is added to the deliverance purchased by Moses For according to the Opinion of Socinus himself the way of delivering is not the same for Moses and Joshua and others delivered not by doing any thing about the persons to be delivered which Socinus attributes to Christ but by removing them that opposed their liberty to wit their Enemies therefore the property of that word should be retained yet the definition of Socinus being somewhat corrected that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be properly a thing or fact by which any man is moved that whereas he was inclined to do a man hurt he suffereth him to be delivered from it That we call a fact or thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 herein we disagree not with Socinus who confesseth that every thing whereby Satisfaction is made to another is properly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or price and not money only But without cause he confines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 price to captivity only sâ—…h that word agrees both to bondage and banishment and death and every inconvenience from which we can be delivered for both the Original to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belongs to those things and common use is not against it Moreover we approve not that that he would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly called to be received by some man For if the word receiving be taken rigidly as it useth to be in definitions it cannot be applied to deeds but to things only But Satisfaction may be made and deliverance obtained by deeds and this appears chiefly in deliverance that is made by the translating of punishment For it appears by those things which we said before that punishment is not properly received by any man where we shewed that in punishment no man is properly and naturally a Creditor Moreover the word acception properly taken if it doth not signifie the translation of property yet at least some benefit of the receiver But in punishment the proper advantage of the punisher is not regarded but the common good and order of things Therefore there is here no Receiver unless you please to call very improperly a Judge a Receiver as one that takes care of Law and Right and Common Good Nevertheless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath place properly also in punishment So the Eye of Zaleucus was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Eye of the Son and they that are punished in decimation are a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the whole Legion The ancient Latines whose whole Tongue was a depravation of the Greek putting in one letter call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lustrum and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lustrare Therefore lustrare urbem is to free a Town from punishment by a succedaneous punishment which is also called piaculum So by the foolish Opinion of the Heathen the Decii Lustrârunt Romanum exercitum by their suffering punishment freed the Roman Army from punishment And of old Menoeceus suffered punishment for Thebae concerning whom his Mother in Papinius said Lustralemne feris ego te puer inclyte Thebis Devotumque caput vilis ceu mater alebam Did I as a base Mother nourish thee O worthy Boy to make Expiation and to be Condemned for the cruel City of Thebes On which place Luctatius or whosoever that ancient Scholiast is It is the custom of France to expiate a City He called that lustrare which Caesar called placare Deorum immortalium numen to appease the Deity of the immortal Gods Therefore placamen and lustrum which is in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉
peculiar which cannot be communicated to the Apostles But it could if the benefit of Christ's death were distinguished only by degree from the death of the Apostles and not also in its proper end So also in the Epistle to the Hebrews 2.10 there is an example in it that Christ came to glory by Sufferings the special manner is in that that Christ suffered for every man vers 9. And as in those places patience so in other places love is commended to us by the same example of Christ but the special manner doth more openly express the deed of Christ Though if you will look more exactly into those places we shall see that not so much the act of death as the danger of death is there regarded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which only John useth 10 11 15. and 1 John 3.16 as also John 13.37 and 38. also John 15.13 is not properly there to lose life but as it were to put it in pledge that is to undergo the danger of death Therefore in those places that very thing that is prescribed to us contains not only the benefit of another but also a certain exchange to wit in that sense which Horace expressed in these Verses Paratus omne Caesaris periculum Subire Moecenas tuo Being prepared to undergo all dangers of Caesar Mecenas with thine But in the saying of Caiaphas not only as a Prophesy dropt from him at unawares but also according to his Opinion a certain true substitution was expressed For he feigned the inevitable destruction of the Jews if Christ should be permitted to live and on the contrary if Christ should be slain that certain safety should be obtained for this very thing Therefore he desired to substitute really the death of Christ to a destruction otherways hanging over And so he would have the same in kind to befall Christ with that which was otherways to happen to the people and he believed that the death of Christ was a near cause of the deliverance of the People and fit of it self Which is the same thing as if you should say he would have Christ perish in the room of the People that was otherways that is under a contrary condition to perish Here it must be marked by the by that Caiaphas did put the first effect of the death of Christ not about the Jews whose deliverance he sought but about the Roman Governours whose Anger he desired to escape So that if it be true which Socinus urgeth that such an interpretation of the words of Caiphas should be taken which may answer both the mind of the Holy Spirit and his mind this dying for the people must needs signifie that safety was to be obtained from another but that other according to the mind of the Holy Ghost can be none but God whence it follows it is exercised about God before it is exercised about men which Socinus stubbornly denies But those things that have been hitherto said by us concerning the signification of exchange in the Particle pro for are much illustrated by the the nature of the Expiatory Sacrifice For in those the Scripture and common Opinion of Nations do witness that blood is given for life which shall now be made manifest CHAP. X. Concerning the Expiation made by the Death of Christ THere remains the last rank of Testimonies which signifie that Christ's Death is an Expiatory Sacrifice which because by the Artifice of Socinus they are involved in many Mists we reserved them for the last place that they might receive some light from these things that have been said before We and Socinus are agreed concerning the word that Christ's Death was an Expiatory Sacrifice or a Sacrifice for Sin the Divine Epistle to the Hebrews testifying the same especially cap. 9. But of the proper force of that word Socinus thinks one way and the Church of Christ another way The disagreement shall be briefly and perspicuously so explained if we say that according to Socinus the effect of expiation first and properly is exercised about sins to come because the Death of Christ by ingenerating Faith draws us from sins but in respect of by-past sins only secondarily and in that respect also all this action is exercised about us not about God that is that God is not moved to pardon but we are prepared to receive remission to wit by the Amendment of Life but according to the Opinion of the Church which agrees to Scripture the effect of expiation is properly exercised about by past sins and the first action is about God who is moved to forgive That the first action is exercised about God not about Men it is proved from the nature of Priesthood For a Priest is appointed for Men in the things of God Hebr. 5.1 but not for God in the things of Men which is the Office of a Prophet And because Sacrifice especially Expiatory Sacrifice is an act of the Priest as such for a High-Priest is appointed for this purpose that he may offer Sacrifices for sins Hebr. 5.1 8.3 it follows that Sacrifice belongs to those things which are performed for Man with God But the whole matter will be made more manifest by comparing the Sacrifices of the Old Law with this Sacrifice of which comparison the Writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews is an Author unto us and elsewhere the Prophets and Apostles The ancient Law is considered two manner of ways either carnally or spiritually Carnally as it was an Instrument of the Commonwealth of the Jews Spiritually as it had a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shadow of things to come Hebr. 10.1 As touching the former consideration the Expiatory Sacrifices of the Law sanctified unto the purifying of the flesh Hebr. 9.13 which of what sort it is we shall explain The Law of God had this sanction he is accursed that abides not in all the words of the Law Deut. 27.26 Gal. 3.10 therefore he shall be guilty of punishment whosoever in the least shall deviate from the Law as James shews James 2.10 This Punishment according to a carnal sense was violent death which is evident from the contrary because life is promised to him that fulfils the Law Lev. 18.5 Gal. 3.12 But as in every Commonwealth rightly governed the King requires punishment by his Judges and if they fail by himself So in the Hebrew Commonwealth which Josephus rightly called Theocratia because God was its King Judg. 8.23 1 Sam. 8.7 God ordinarily required the punishments of the Law by Judges yet so that he himself required the same punishment if the Judges failed in their duty Let the people saith he stone him or I setting my angry face against that man will cut him off Lev. 20.3 Neither did he only threaten this but also often performed it as it appears by many Examples of the Old Testament But because a Lawyer may somewhat relax his own Law especially Penal God the King of the Hebrews in some Crimes admitted Expiatory Sacrifices in the room