same place an Argument is produced from the effect of the Legal Sacrifice to the effect of this That was offered by the Spirit How much more c. vers 14. So it is allowed to us to argue after this manner most certainly the Legal Sacrifice took away carnal guiltiness by moving God to remission therefore much more the Sacrifice offered by the Spirit takes away spiritual guilt by moving God also to remission Unto the same purpose belong those places in which Christ is called a Lamb. Neither would it be much to the purpose though Lambs had not been used to be sacrificed in the Law for sin For so also it would have been lawful for holy men to name one Beast for another that both the comparison might consist in the general signification of a Beast and a Lamb rather than a Ram or a Goat being named the innocency of the Sacrifice might be expressed For therefore also Peter added without blame or spot 1 Pet. 1.19 and at the same time by a certain compend of words there might have been an eye upon the Prophesy of Isai 53.7 in the intepretation whereof was the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 8.32 But it is also certain that a Lamb was used in the expiating of Pollutions Lev. 14.12 Numb 6.12 which Pollutions in the Old Law so nearly resembled sin that they also received the name of sin Whence also that Lamb in both places is said to be offered for guilt or sin And in the other place it is expresly added because he sinned about the dead body The effect also is the same in some respect For persons defiled were not admitted to the Society of the Jewish Commonwealth but by such an Expiation Moreover the Sacrifice of the Passover which it is certain was for the most part a Lamb Exod. 12.5 in its first institution had something Expiatory For God saith that he looking on the blood thereof would turn away from the Hebrews that destruction which otherways they were to have had common with the Egyptians by the imitation of whom they had defiled themselves Exod. 12.13 Hebr. 11.28 But also the Law shews that a Lamb was used to be offered for sin to wit the sin of a rash Oath Lev. 5.4,6 But when Christ is called a Lamb not only Peter shews that a Sacrifice is understood saying that we were redeemed by the blood of a Lamb I Pet. 1.18 but also John in the Revelation in many places and amongst others where he says he was slain Rev. 5.6 9.11 and 13.8 But no other Sacrifice but a Sacrifice for sin can be understood because as Peter witnesseth it was Redemptory Such is only Sacrifice for sin Whence it is more than manifest that when the Baptist said Christ was the Lamb which took away the sins of the World John 1.29 Sins past are there treated of not future and the taking away of sins by the obtaining of remission with God not by the ingenerating of Faith Neither is it true that Socinus says That only the High-Priest did bear the figure of Christ and only the anniversary Expiation the figure of his Sacrifice for though there was a more excellent figure in the High-Priest and that solemn Sacrifice which therefore the Holy Spirit pursues with a singular care in the Epistle to the Hebrews yet it cannot be denied that other Priests and other Expiatory Sacrifices looked the same way more obscurely That same Epistle shews this cap. 9. vers 13. where every carnal purification by Sacrifice is compared with the spiritual purification by Christ And much more verse 21. and the following verses where after it had been said in the general that almost all things in the Law are purged by Sacrifice and that there is no remission of sins without shedding of blood there is afterwards subjoyned therefore there was a necessity that the resemblances of Celestial things should be purged by these things So also chap. 10. vers 11. daily Sacrifices are compared with the Sacrifice of Christ the sense of which place Socinus overthrows expounding daily for yearly without example For that he brings a place Hebr. 7.27 to confirm this Interpretation it is vain because he falsly pretends that the Priest ought to have offered for himself in the Anniversary Sacrifice only For on the contrary he ought to have offered for himself as oft as he was conscious to himself of sin Lev. 4.3 Also he shews that the Sacrifice of the Passover was a figure of the Sacrifice that was performed by Christ John 19.36 and Paul 1. Cor. 5.7 But though these things could suffice yet I think good to explain somewhat more plentifully the natue of an Expiatory Sacrifice according to the common understanding of the Heathen or rather according to the most ancient Tradition spread abroad through all the Earth It cannot be doubted that there were Sacrifices before the Law of Moses under the state of the Natural Law as it is called the Rites whereof having been commanded by God those that survived the Flood being dispersed through all the Earth transmitted unto Posterity and Religion remained for some time uncorrupted not only among the Posterity of Shem but also Japhet perhaps also Ham until the worship of many and therefore false Gods succeeded in its room but then also having changed their God the Rites and Ceremonies remained being translated from a pious to a wicked use a great testimony against themselves of the Truth being received but detained in unrighteousness as saith the Apostle Rom. 1.18 Therefore those Nations esteemed it for a certain thing that the Gods were offended and angry at the sins of Men and that from this Anger great Calamities partly private and partly publick used to follow See that excellent Book of Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning those that were heavily punished by God in which if instead of Gods you write God you will find many things worthy to be said by a Christian That Anger was gathered from Causes or Effects From Causes if any wicked Deeds came to be known From Effects Foretokens Prodigies and Celestial Signs See Cicero concerning the Answers of Soothsayers Lucan 1. of Pharsalia the Greek and Roman Historians in many places Yet they hoped this Anger could be turned away by certain Sacrifices By these the Deity was said to be reconciled the guilty whether it was one person or a whole people to be purged or according to the ancient word to be februated and the sin it self to be expiated or cleansed Wherefore the same Sacrifices were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Propitiatory Cleansing and Purifying and in Latine placamina februa piamina Propitiations Cleansings Expiations The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to propitiate is applied by Homer and others very often to Sacrifices There is in Plutarch concerning Romulus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to cleanse the City with purgings this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also called
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
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
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
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
powerful into favour And those words of Paul express the Ministry of Reconciliation which Reconciliation he had just now described by the Non-imputation of sins So Christ himself said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was sent to proclaim liberty to Captives Luke 4.18 and commanded the Apostles to preach in his name the remission of sins Luke 24.47 So Paul himself said he declared the remission of sins Acts 13.38 Eph. 2.16 It is written concerning Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he may reconcile both Jews and Gentiles in one Body unto God This Dative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be governed but by the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the Interpretation of Socinus that Deo here may stand by it self or that reconciliare Deo should be to reconcile them amongst themselves that they may serve God is wrested hard and without example Neither is the Argument drawn thence of any force that in that place Paul treats of the Peace made between the Jews and the Gentiles for it doth not follow that mention of Peace is unsutable to this Argument which is purchased unto them both with God for the two divers things that are joyned are so joyned with one another that they are first and more eminently joyned to the Bond it self for they are not joyned with one another but by and for the Bond. Therefore the Gentiles and Jews are made Friends with one another through their Friendship with God And it is wonderful that Socinus doth not acknowledge this when he says himself Col. 1.20,21,22 That the Apostle having raised a Discourse concerning the Agreement procured between Creatures presently and immediately subjoyns mention of that Reconciliation by which men are made friends to God and that by the interposition of the word and which useth not to joyn things that have no manner of coherence Whence it is manifest that these things are joyned with one another so that Paul in that place to the Ephesians whereof we treat did rightly refer the Reconciliation of men with men unto the Reconciliation of men with God as an effect to its Cause That must be added that in that same place the blood of Christ is named as by which reconciliation was made But the Scripture in many places subjoyns remission of sins to the blood of Christ as its most proper effect Matth. 26.28 Ephes 1.7 Coloss 1.14 Hebr. 9.22 Rom. 3.25 and 5.9 1 John 1.7 1 Pet. 1.2 Apoc. 1.5 to wit by a Propitiatory Virtue 1 John 2.2 and 4.10 Like unto that place to the Ephesiâ—…s seems that of which already mention hath been made to the Coloss 1.20 so that for the explication of that I think that this rather should be brought then that Eph. 1.9,10 for very many things agree what there is said separately by Blood and by Cross is here said joyntly by the Blood of the Cross There is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making peace here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having made peace there that he might reconcile both to God here to reconcile all unto himself that is God This is the difference that there only mention is made of men reconciled with one another because they were reconciled unto God but here of men reconciled both with one another and with Angels therefore because they were reconciled unto God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is verily unto himself as also the Syrian interprets for if this were the sense of these words into one as Socinus would have it it should have been written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or at least 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but should not have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is necessarily referred to a certain person Neither is it a new thing that the Preposition in with an Accusative is put for a Dative because amongst the Hebrews there is a very frequent change of the Particles b and l for by the confession of Socinus himself it is an usual Phrase amongst the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that a man is reconciled to another But no man can deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Apostolick Speech is put in the place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who hath looked into a few places diligently such as Matth. 15.24 Acts 16.40 Eph. 3.19 and the exchange of the same words may be also frequently observed in profane Writers Wherefore that is not likely that Socinus would have that in this Sentence only the Reconciliation of Creatures with one another is mentioned but in the following Sentence the Reconciliation of men with God for contrariways what is said in the general vers 20. that is specially applied to the Colossians v. 21. which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and you signifies that is yea you also or you your selves But in this Sentence that is not said which Socinus says That Reconciliation was made by making us unblameable but that we were reconciled that we might be made unblameable Socinus made the way of the end verily very licentiously The Scripture in many places declares that sins are forgiven to us that in time to come we may live holily being obliged by so great a benefit Luke 1.17 And it is to be observed that in this Sentence also there is made mention of the body of Christ which was broken for us for the remission of sins 1 Cor. 11.24 Matth. 26.28 and of death to which likewise already before we shewed that remission as an effect is attributed But that which the Apostle adds That we were reconciled when we were estranged and enemies in our mind is like that which he said elsewhere that Christ died for us when we were sinners and wicked Rom. 5.6,8 and that it is God that justifies the ungodly Rom. 4.5 Wherefore it is so much the more justly believed that here also the same benefit is treated of for this was the beginning whereby the Apostle came in to this speech that we have in Christ redemption to wit the remission of sins and verily it cannot be better understood how much God and Christ loved us and how much we are Debtors to God and Christ than if we consider that the remission of sins was first obtained and afterwards applied to us being under the wrath of God and guilty of sins which two things the Scripture for the most part joyns together But that which Socinus saith in another place That it behoved God to be throughly appeased towards us and not angry at all before Christ was sent to make a Covenant How disagreeable unto truth this is he seems himself elsewhere to have acknowledged when he said That at that very moment when God offered Conditions to renew Friendship with us he was of a mind not reconciled but reconcilable And verily Reason it self teacheth this very thing for in all conditional things the conditional are before the absolute Neither should the Condition only be offered but also fulfilled before an absolute Act followeth Wherefore the Scripture saith We have peace with God