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
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
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
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
is reserved for Justice Therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Day of Wrath and the Day of just Judgment is the same Rom. 2.5 And it is said That the last Judgment will be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Righousness Acts 17.3 And elsewhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to judge in Righteousness is severely to punish which is shewed by adding the word pugnare to fight and much more those things that follow a little after Out of his Mouth shall proceed a sharp Sword that he may smite the Nations for he shall rule them with an Iron Rod and he it is who shall tread the Lake of the Wine of the Indignation and Wrath of Almighty God Apoc. 19.11 and 15. So God is called just and his Judgments just because he severely punished sin Apoc. 16.5,7 when also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Righteousness is called both that very punishing Justice of God Acts 28.4 and also the Punishment brought in by it 2 Thess 1.9 Jude 7. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Righteousness of God is declared by Paul to be this That those which do or approve Evil are worthy of Death Rom. 1.31 his paronyma are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 punitor a just Punisher Rom. 13.14 1 Thess 4.6 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the requiring of punishment Luke 21.22 1 Thess 1.8 1 Pet. 2.14 the signification whereof is declared by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to reward Rom. 12.19 Hebr. 10.30 We know that by the Name of Justice often Veracity and often also Moderation is understood But because by that word as hath been already shewed by many Testimonies also that property of God is expressed which moveth God to punish sin and which is demonstrated in the very punishment of sin we say that this signification is proper to this matter for divers times are opposed before Christ and Christ's time To the former time is attributed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 peccatorum the passing by of sins which is also expressed by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not remission but transmission to which is rightly added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forbearance by which word also the Greeks call truce because thereby for a time War is forborn To this Transmission and Inhibition is opposed the Demonstration of such Justice whereby God is just that is appears to be just Of old when God passed by most sins unpunished his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rewarding Justice did not enough appear At length he shewed what a just 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rewarder he was when it pleased him that his own Son should die for this cause That he might be a Propitiation for Mankind and might Redeem all those that ever had believed or that should afterwards believe in God So the Apostle joined together the manifest declaration of the Grace that is the Goodness of God which is conveyed unto Creatures and of his Justice which is the keeper of right order and also of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recompense Verily the very name of Blood the name of Propitiation and also of Redemption do shew that the Discourse here is not of the testifying of Goodness only he joyned also Obtaining with Application Obtaining is by Blood Application is by Faith And that very Justice of God of which we treat is said to be made manifest by Faith to wit that Justice by which the Blood of Christ is believed to have been shed for the appeasing of the Wrath of God Which Faith doth wholly exclude all glorying of Works and all confidence in the Law This end to wit the demonstration of Divine Righteousness is also rightly gathered from the form of the thing concerning which we treat For the end of punishment is the demonstration of justicia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rewarding Justice about sins also from the Antecedent Cause which we shewed above to be meritorious But the moving Cause of any Action cannot be meritorious unless the End also be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to reward The other end as we said is our Freedom from Punishment This Paul said significantly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Being justified by his Blood we shall be saved from Wrath Rom. 5.10 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Anger of God as also Socinus acknowledged signifies the desire if it is allowable so to speak of punishing John 3.36 Rom. 1.18 and often the punishment it self Mich. 7.9 whence it is expressed by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 destruction Rom. 9.22 Hence the Law is said to work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wrath that is to bring forth punishment Rom. 3.5 And the Magistrate is said to be appointed for a taker of vengeance on evil doers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for wrath that is for the inflicting of punishment Rom. 13.4 and that he should be obeyed not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is for fear of punishment but also for conscience But freedom from Punishment is opposed to Punishment Punishment is Eternal Death or a detention under Death whose Serjeant is the Devil who therefore having the power of Death is said to be destroyed by the Death of Christ Hebr. 2.14 for the mention of deliverance from the fear of Death which follows shews that the Discourse is here rather of the Impetration of Pardon than of the Mortification of Sin And Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that delivereth us from the wrath to come 1 Thess 1.10 This same freedom from Punishment by a very usual Phrase of holy Scripture is called Remission of sins which properly follows the Death of Christ as many places shew Such as these are This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins Matth. 26.28 We have in him redemption by his Blood the remission of sins Eph. 1.7 Col. 1.9 Without shedding of Blood there is no remission Hebr. 9.22 Which places do interpret that place of Paul above mentioned Being justified freely by his Grace through the Redemption which is in Christ Jesus whom God hath set forth for a propitiation through Faith in his Blood for a declaration of his Justice for the pardoning of the sins by-past through the forbearance of God for a declaration of his Righteousness that he might be just and the justifier of him that is of the Faith of Jesus where he expressed the same things in many words signifying the same thing Rom. 23,24,25,26 For as he expressed the demonstration of his Justice twice and thirdly added that God might be just that is that he may appear just which appertain to the former End so he expressed the other End also both by repeating the word Justification and the word Redemption Justification as is known in many places of holy Writings but chiefly in the Epistles of Paul signifies Absolution which sin being presupposed consists in the remission of sins Paul himself clearly explaining himself chiefly Rom. 4.2 and 6. wherefore unto these places
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
and so it was observed in every Sacrifice no Sacrifice being otherways offered For which things it is said that the Beasts were brought that their lives might be offered for theirs Antonius the Hermite Epist 2. in which also the Father of Creatures being moved in his Bowels for our wound which could not be heled but by his goodness only sent his only Begotten to us that by our Bondage he might take the form of Bondage and deliver himself up for our sins And our very sins humbled him but by his stripes we all were healed Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem Lib. 2. Act. Concil Nicen. But he came a Saviour of all men and undertook for our sake in his own flesh the punishments that were due to our sins Athanasius concerning the Incarnation of the Word of God And because it was necessary that that which was due from all should at length be restored for it was due that all men should dye as I said before for which chiefly he came For this cause after his manifesting of his Divinity by his Works it remained that he should offer a Sacrifice for all having given the Temple of his own Body unto Death for all men that he might make all men unblameable and free from the ancient Transgression and might declare himself also to be more powerful than death having shewed his own body uncorruptible as a First-fruits of the Resurrection of all And presently For there was need of Death and there was need that Death should be for all that that which was due from all might be performed whence as I said before the Word because it was impossible that he should dye for he was Immortal took upon himself a Body that could dye that he might offer it as being his own instead of all men And that he suffering for all men by entring thereinto he might destroy him that had the power of Death that is the Devil and might deliver those that through fear of Death were subject to Bondage The Saviour of all men having died for us we that believe in Christ do not now dye the death as of old according to the threatning of the Law The same in the same place And by such a manner of death Salvation came to all men and all the Creation was redeemed this is the life of all And as a Sheep he gave his Body unto Death instead of all men for their Salvation The same upon the Passion and Cross of Christ But beholding the visibleness of the wickedness and that the Mortal Generation was not able to stand against Death nor able to suffer the punishment of their sins for the excessive greatness of the evil exceeded all punishment and seeing the goodness of his Father seeing also his own fitness and power For Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God he was moved with love to Mankind and pitying our weakness he cloathed himself therewith for he himself as saith the Prophet took our Infirmities and carried our Diseases and pitying our Mortality cloathed himself therewith for Paul saith He humbled himself unto death and that the death of the Cross and seeing the impossibility of our bearing the punishment took it upon himself For Christ became a Curse for us and so being compassed about and cloathed with Humane Nature by himself brought us to the Father that he himself suffering may make mans suffering to be without damage and may exchange small things for great Hilarius Pictaviensis on cap. 14. Matth. in the Hymn on the Epiphany Jesus hath forth shin'd The gracious Redeemer of all Mankind Blest John with fear doth shiver To dip him in the River Whose Blood is able to purge out The sins of all the world throughout Optatus Milevitanus concerning the Schism of the Donatists against Parmenianus lib. 3. When ye say redeem your souls whence bought ye them that ye may sell them Who is that Angel who makes a fair of souls which the Devil possessed before his coming Christ the Saviour redeemed these with his Blood according as the Apostle said Ye are bought with a price for it is evident that all men were redeemed by the Blood of Christ Victor Antiochenus on the fifteenth Chapter of Mark. And wherefore sayest thou was the Lord and Maker of all things made Man for our sakes and suffered so much reproach and so great punishments He was made like unto us and took our Miseries and our Crosses upon himself that he might raise up our Nature that was fallen down by sin and might again restore it unto its ancient degree of Dignity Therefore the Advantages that have redounded unto us by his Torments are very many for he paid our Debts for us he bore our sins he both lamented and sighed for our sake Cyrillus of Jerusalem Catechis 13. But he set free all that were kept in Bondage under sin and redeemed the whole World of Mankind And you need not wonder that the whole World was redeemed for he was not a meer man but the only begotten Son of God who died for them And verily the sin of one man Adam was effectual to bring death upon the World But if Death reigned over the World by the sin of one man how much more shall life reign by the Righteousness of one man And if then they were thrown out of Paradise for the Tree of Food verily now by the Tree of Jesus Believers shall more easily enter into Paradise If the first man that was formed of the Earth brought Death upon the World certainly it must needs be that he that formed him of the Earth being Life himself should bring Eternal Life If Phinehas being zealous against the Evil-doer caused the Anger of God to cease doth not Jesus who slew not another but delivered up himself the Price of our Redemption take away the Anger of God that was provoked against men Basilius Homil. on Psalm 48. One thing was found that was worthy of all together which was given for the price of the Redemption of our Souls the holy and precious Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ Gregor Nazianz. in the two and fortieth Oration which is the second on the Paschal Lamb. That great thing and unsacrificeable that I may so speak in respect of the first Nature was mingled with Legal Sacrifices and not for a small part of the World nor for a little time but for all the World and it eternized the Purification The same in the same place A few drops of Blood renew the Creation of the whole World and they have united and gathered all men into one Body And in the same Oration It is therefore requisite to search into the Matter and Doctrine which hath been neglected by many but by me hath been very diligently searched after For unto whom was that great and much celebrated Blood of God and the High-Priest and the Sacrifice poured forth and upon what account for we were kept in Bondange by that wicked one under sin and
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
same place Now declare unto me who are those five Enemies from which Christ hath delivered us A. Death the Devil the Curse and Condemnation of the Law Sin and Hell B. As touching Death you said it was destroyed by the Obedience of Christ So also after what manner he delivered us from the slavery of the Devil Now declare how he redeemed us from the Curse of the Law being made a Curse for us And after he had said a few words A. God in his just Judgment required of us all things that are written in the Law which because we were not able to pay therefore Christ our Lord paid those things for us and willingly took and received unto himself the Curse and Condemnation to which we were liable And And he himself suffered those things that we ought to have suffered being scourged besmeared with spittle beaten smitten on the cheek crucified and dyed for us Theophylact in the first Chapter to the Hebrews on these words procuring the Expiation of our sins by him When he had spoken concerning the Majesty of the Divinity of the Word afterwards he discourseth of his care that he takes for men by his flesh which is much more than that he beareth all things And here he asserts two things both that he cleansed us from our sins and also that he did this by himself For by the Cross and Death which he sustained he purged us not only because he dyed for our sin whereas himself was free of all sin and suffered punishment which yet he did not owe to us and delivered that Nature that was simply condemned for the sin and transgression of Adam On Cap. 9. For that cause Christ died that he might cleanse us and in his Testament bequeathed unto us the pardon of sin the use of his Father's Goods being made the Mediator of our Father For the Father would not let go the Inheritance to us but was angry at us as Sons rejecting him and estranged from him Therefore Christ becoming Mediator reconciled him unto us How what we should have suffered for we should have dyed that he suffered for us and made us worthy of his Testament Anselm concerning the Conception of the Virgin and Original Sin cap. 22. If every one hath not the sin of Adam saith some body how sayest thou that none is saved without Satisfaction for the sin of Adam For how doth the just God require of them Satisfaction for the sin they have not To which I say God exacteth of no sinner more than he oweth But because none can restore as much as he owes Christ only rendered more than is due for all that are saved Bernard Epist 190. to Innocentius It was a man that owed and it was a man that paid For saith he if one died for all them are all dead to wit that the Satisfaction of one may be imputed to all as he only did bear the sins of all and so there was not found one that purchased and another that satisfied because one Christ is Head and Body therefore the Head satisfied for the Members Christ for his own Bowels Arnoldus Carnotensis in his Work concerning the seven last words that were spoken by Christ upon the Cross He is forsaken with them that are forsaken and paid a Tribute for the Nature that he took and being to carry with him his own kindred beyond the Sea of this World paid the fare of his flesh to the plundering Pirates and deceived their greedy Teeth being glewed together and drew away and carried up both himself and his prey He offered himself to be a Debtor for Debtors and what he owed not of himself he refused not to owe of his own accord Therefore the Exacter required the sum of the whole Debt of him who gave himself for all Nicetas Choniates in the Annals in John Commenus Christ falling raised up the Carcase of our Nature stretching forth his hands upon the Cross and with a few Sprinklings bringing the whole World into Unity Nicalaus de Cusa Cardinalis excitationum lib. 10. Thus Christ acted for our Justification for we sinners in him suffered the infernal punishments that we justly deserve FINIS
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
is Restitution due to me But the cause of the Punishment is the viciousness of the Act and not because I want something For though no man wants any thing the Act will be rightly punished as in great Crimes which were only begun and were not compleated There is also another difference no less remarkable that the Nature of a thing it self determines the manner and quantity of the Restitution Punishment though in its own kind it hath a Natural Cause in some sense as we shall say afterwards yet it cannot be determined but by a free Act of the Will Add this also that Punishment inasmuch as it consists in speaking or doing is not due ordinarily before Condemnation but Restitution in all respects is due The Debt of Restitution passeth unto the Heir the Punishment passeth not Which I judge requisite to mention only for this Cause lest any should rashly confound that which is due to the offended with Punishment But yet it is true that by a positive Law as also by a Contract way may be made that a Creditor may obtain a right for Punishment which then also the Laws distinguish from the pursuit of a thing or of damage L. si pignore parag cum furti d. de furtis instit de lega Aquilia parag and in these words But this useth for the most part to be appointed in pecuniary punishments which not only bring Damage to him who did the hurt but also Gain to him that was hurt But in Corporal punishments in which there is no true Gain of the person that was injured this is scarcely exercised And therefore we see Kings and other chief Governours forgive punishment to the Guilty against the will of the Party wronged commanding them only to make Restitution of the Damage which no man judgeth unjust But this would be unjust if punishment were due to the Party wronged especially where no necessity of the Common-wealth required remission Wherefore that lesser Magistrates cannot remit Corporal punishments that comes not to pass for any power of the person injured in punishing for they could not punish any thing the more with the consent of the offended person but because the Law of the Superior hath not granted unto them that power yea hath expresly denied it which should likewise be understood concerning Kings being compared with God in those Crimes which the Divine Law hath commanded indispensably to be punished These things make for this that it may appear that God also being offended with us is not properly a Creditor in punishing for he that affirms that relies either on that Right which proceeds from the things themselves or that Rght which is constituted We have sufficiently shewed as I think That the offended person is not a Creditor in the punishment by that Right which proceeds from the things themselves But a constituted Right not whereby punishment but whereby such a credit of punishment may be introduced is neither alledged nor if it be alledged can it be proved neither can any reason be given why it should have been so appointed Some body will perhaps object That God forgiving the punishment of sinners is somewhere compared with a Creditor giving up his own Right as Matth. 18.35 But as we shewed above Comparison doth not require that things should agree genere proximo in their next kind but is contented with any similitude So Christ washing his Disciples feet gave an Example to his Disciples that as he did they should also do that is that they should serve one another But the resemblance of God forgiving sins and of a Creditor's yielding up his own Right is greater than the resemblance of the same God forgiving sins and an offended person forgiving offences concerning which resemblance we just now discoursed For the Acts of God and the Creditor's agree not only in the moving Cause which is Bounty and the Effect which is fâ—eeing from Misery or Trouble but in that also that in both some right goes before in God to punish in the Creditor to require the Debt and on both sides there is a certain Dissolution of the Obligation that was before though in the Obligation it self as also in the Dissolution there is something unlike which though that Example doth not properly belong to the thing to which it is brought cannot wrong the Resemblance or Parable This may be the Third Assertion The right of punishing in a Governour is not either the right of absolute Lordship or the right of the thing credited This is proved first from the End which useth best to distinguish Faculties For the right of absolute Lordship as also the right of the thing credited is procured for his sake that hath that power or right but the power of punishing is not for the sake of the punisher but for the sake of some Community for all punishment hath the common good proposed to wit the Preservation of Order and Example so than it hath not the nature of being desirable but from this end whereas the power of Lordship and of the thing credited are of themselves desirable In this sense God saith That he delights not in the punishment of them that are punished Again It is never contrary to Justice to give up the right of Lordship or of the thing credited for this is the nature of Property that it is as lawful to use it as not to use it But to let some sins go unpunished to wit of them that repent not would be unjust in a Governour yea in God himself as Socinus confesseth Therefore the right of punishing is not the same with the right of Property or Credit Moreover no man is called just for that and is praised upon the account of Justice because he useth his own Property or because he requires the Debt But any Governour and God himself also is called therefore Just and Praised upon the account of Justice because he forgives not punishment but exacts it severely Just art thou O Lord because thou hast so judged Apoc. 16.5 which was proved already in many places Again The diversity of Vertues ariseth from the diversity of Objects But the Virtue whereby we give up our Property or our Debt is called Liberality not Clemency but that whereby freedom from punishment is granted is not called Liberality but Clemency Perhaps some man may ask seeing punishment is said to be owing Who is here the Creditor for a Debtor can scarcely be understood where there is no Creditor But it must be observed that the word debere to owe doth not always signifie a Relation between two persons For oftentimes Debeo hoc facere I ought to do this signifies no other thing but it is convenient that this thing should be performed by me without respect to another person So Debeo poenam I owe punishment that is I am worthy of punishment and I am absolutely obliged to suffer it but not Relatively in respect of this man or that Therefore it is the same sense in
the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to remove from himself so a Tree le ts go the Bark remittit librum a Horsman le ts go the Bridle so the Ears are remitted aures remittuntur and by translation custodia custody disciplina discipline animus the mind and in many places remitti and intendi are opposite Hence the Debt is said remitti when there is no account made of it and so Punishment Neither is that word applied to Punishment for Debt nor to Debt for Punishment but to both for another thing in which those agree with one another It may be added that in some sense it may be said that Punishment is owing to a man not properly because no man here is really a Creditor but for some resemblance For because as the Creditor hath power of exacting the Debt that is due to him so the Governor hath power of punishing and the Accuser of requiring Punishment Therefore sometimes we are said catachrestically to owe Punishment either to a Governor as to God or to an Accuser as to the Devil though neither is the Devil injured if Punishment is not inflicted on a man neither doth it consist with the Justice of God to remit in infinitum infinitely any kind of Punishment neither of which can have place in real Creditors CHAP. III. Of what manner is the Act of God in this Business and it is shewed that it is a Relaxation of the Law or Dispensation THE Part which God undertakes in this Business having been examined it will be easie to give some Name to the Act it self And first because God is here to be looked upon as we have proved as a Governor it follows that this Act is an Act of Jurisdiction generally so called Whence it follows that the Discourse is not here of Acceptilation taking a Debt for paid as Socinus thinks for that is not an Act of Jurisdiction That its own Genus may be more nearly attributed unto this Act the Act it self may be considered either with relation to the Divine Sanction or as Modern Lawyers speak the Penal Law or without that relation which we therefore add because though no Law had expressed Punishment yet naturally the Human Act it self whether having an intrinsâ—…al pravity from the unchangable nature of the thing or also extrinsical for the contrary Command of God for that very Cause deserves some Punishment and that a heavy one that is it was just that man being a sinner should be punished If we consider it thus the Act of God of which we treat will be the Punishment of one to procure freedom from punishment to another concerning the Justice of which Act we shall presently discourse But if furthermore we look back to the Sanction or the Penal Act the Act it self will be a way to Indulgence or a Moderation of the same Law which Indulgence at this day we call Dispensation which may be defined an Act of a Superior whereby the Obligation of a standing Law about certain Persons or Things is taken away This is the Sanction Man eating of the forbidden fruit shall surely dye Gen. 2.17 where by one kind of sin every kind of sin is signified as the same Law expresseth being more clearly explained Cursed is he that continueth not in all the Precepts of the Law Dur. 27.26 Gal. 3.10 But by the word Death and Curse in these places we understand chiefly Eternal Death Therefore it is the same sense as if the Law had been expressed after this manner Let every man sinning bear the Punishment of Eternal Death Therefore there is not here the Execution of that Law for if God should have executed the Law no sinner could have been saved from the Punishment of Eternal Death But now we know that there is no Condemnation to them that believe because they are delivered from Death Rom. 8.2 Gal. 3.31 Moreover this act is not an Abrogation of the Law for a Law that is abrogated hath no power of binding But Unbelievers are yet subject to the same Law Therefore it is writtten that the wrath of God abides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on them that believe not Joh. 3.36 and that the wrath of God comes upon them to the uttermost 1 Thess 2.16 Also the Interpretation of the Law is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Moderation for that Interpretation shews that some Fact or Person hath not been comprehended under the Obligation of the Law as the Works of Religion and Mercy were never comprehended under the forbidding of working on the Sabbath Matth. 12.5 and 6. But all men as having been shut up under sin Rom. 11.32 Gal. 3.22 yea those also that are delivered by nature or of themselves are the Sons of Wrath Eph. 2.3 that is they were obliged to the Sanction of the Law therefore the Obligation is not declared to be none But this is the business that that Obligation which was may be taken away that is that there may be a Relaxation or Dispensation of the Law Here it may be asked Whether that Penal Law is relaxable For there are some Laws unrelaxable either absolutely or upon Conditition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The absolutely unrelaxable are those of which the opposite contains an immutable pravity in it self by reason of the nature of the thing it self As for Example the Law which forbids Perjury and bearing false Witness against a Neighbour for as we say that God cannot lie Hebr. 6.18 or deny himself 2. Tim. 3.13 so no less rightly shall we say That God cannot do or approve evil Actions or grant a power to do them But Laws unrelaxable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon Supposition are those that are made by a definite Decree which the Scripture calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unchangableness or unrepentableness of Will such as is the Law of damning them that are not willing to believe in Christ Hebr. 3.18 but all Positive Laws are absolutely relaxable neither should men fly to an hypothetical necessity by a definite Decree when there is no sign appearing of such a Decree But that some are affraid lest if we grant that we do an injury to God as if we made him mutable in that they are greatly deceived for the Law is not something Internal in God or the very Will of God but a certain Effect of his Will But it is very certain that the Effects of the Divine Will are mutable neither doth God in promulgating a Positive Law which he would at sometime relax signifie that he willeth another thing than he really willeth For God seriously sheweth that he wills that the Law should be ratified and oblige yet retaining the power of relaxing which is joyned to Positive Law of its own nature neither can it be understood by any sign to be abdicated of God Verily it is another thing if there adhere to a Po-Positive Law either an Oath or Promise both of which are observed Hebr. 6.18 for an Oath
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
Town with Cursings that all the Evils of the City might fall upon him and so he was sacrificed to the Immortal Gods All which being gathered together into one we shall see that Plinius not without cause cried out concerning these Sacrifices So those things agreed with all the World though it was at variance and unknown to it self Thus we have discoursed by the by concerning Humane Sacrifices in which the Heathen sinned not only that they sacrificed unto false Gods but also because they had no command to worship God after that manner such as Abraham had But that Custom of the Gentiles in Expiating the sins of Men or Sacrificing of Beasts brings no little light to the understanding of the nature of an Expiatory Sacrifice and the proper names of that Argument And so much the less can this labour be deâ—…iâ—…d because Socinus says That the Baptist when he called Christ the Lamb of God had respect unto Sacrifices in the general by which not only amongst the Hebrews but also among the Heathen sins were believed to be expiated And it is an undoubted thing that seeing the Divine Writer to the Hebrews in this very Argument of Expiatory Sacrifice often useth the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he used it in that sense which the Greek Tongue had received Whence it is easie to understand what that signifies that Christ is called a Sacrifice for sin or expiation For whereas Socinus brings three Interpretations the first That the Death of Christ by begetting Faith in us draws us from sins in time to come The second That Death it self is a certain thing antecedent to the obtaining remission of sins The third That it bears testimony as it were to the remission it self or the Decree made concerning it Of these three only the second belongs hereto Not that Christ did not also those other things and that much more effectually than Socinus thinks but because those things belong not to Sacrifices for sins for Socinus confesseth That the similitude of legal Sacrifices for sin and of the Sacrifice performed by Christ consists in Expiation To which may be joyned the like Sacrifices of the Gentiles considered not according to the thing but according to the opinion of the Gentiles But these Sacrifices did not withdraw from sin especially by procuring the belief of any thing neither did they bear testimony to remission performed or certainly decreed but as Socinus acknowledgeth they were a certain antecedent thing requisite unto remission which those words of the Law shew He shall make atonement and it shall be forgiven Therefore in this the Comparison consists and it is necessary that Expiation should signifie the same when it is applied to legal Sacrifices and when it is applied to Christ because the Writer to the Hebrews brings both from the same Decree to wit that without shedding of Blood there should be no remission but expiation must be made in blood Hebr. 9.21 It hinders not that it is said Hebr. 10.4 that it was not possible that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away sins for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to conscience must be repeated from what was said before as appears manifestly if you compare the like places with this chap. 9. vers 9 and 14. The blood of beasts took away sins that is Temporal Guiltiness but not Spiritual Guiltiness as we shewe before Neither can you without a remarkable wresting interpret that in the Apocalyps who washed us from our sins as if it signified who declared that we are washed Or 1 John 1.7 where it is said The blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin as if it signified it declares us to be clean for both the property of the Words and the perpetual use of Scripture in this Argument contradicts it Socinus confesses That Guiltiness in many places is signified by the name of Vncleanness Hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to take away that guiltiness or to make remission as the Writer to the Hebrews expounds the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 9.22 Christ by himself made this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 purification Hebr. 13. Christ purgeth the conscience from dead works Hebr. 9.14 that is as Socinus himself interprets He frees the conscience from guiltiness and punishment and the fear of punishment Also in the Old Testament tachar hath the same sense Psalm 51.9 But that which in these places is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to cleanse The same upon a like account is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sprinkle 10.22 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to wash in the same verse Whereto belongs the Prophesy Zach. 13.1 There is no reason to go from the sense of the Apostle John in these places for though Jesus is called a faithful witness Apoc. 1.5 yet that washing should not therefore be referred unto bearing witness for those do not cohere immediately the faithful witness and he washed but the mention of his being the first-born from the dead comes between them and the mention of a Kingdom and afterwards of Love that it may appear to a blind man that many Offices and Benefits of Christ are joyned together to illustrate his Dignity But in the Epistle of John it is utterly absurd to interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the declaring of purification and not of purification it self because a little while after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are joyned The Apostle reasons from things joyned together If you walk in light you have cleansing that is remission by the blood of Christ because sins are imputed unto none that walk in the light And the preaching of the Baptist naming Christ the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world seeing it respects the Expiatory Sacrifices both of the Hebrews and the Gentiles according to the acknowledgment of Socinus suffers us not otherways to interpret to take away sins than to take away guiltiness For Expiatory Sacrifices did this but did not withdraw from sinning Neither is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the putting away of sin Hebr. 9.26 any other thing but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we may be cleansed that we may have remission as appears by vers 22. But this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 putting away of sin was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the sacrificing of himself verse 26. But though Socinus endeavours to pluck away some places from the true sense yet being convinced by many others he acknowledgeth That in the Sacrifice of Christ it is expressed that an Expiation was made which goes before the remission of sins as something requisite Yet he denies that God by that Sacrifice is moved to pardon but he say That a certain Faith is begotten in us by which being brought to amendment of life at length we obtain remission of sins In which first he did little remember that which he said That the figure should agree with