there is between Christ's Priesthood â—â—d his offering up a proper Sacrifice between his â—eing a proper Sacrifice and his bearing the Guilt â—â—d Punishment of our sins and between his bearâ—â—g the Guilt and Punishment of our sin and his â—eing under the Sanction of the violated Law is so â—ose so firmly fixed and inviolable that on the â—â—anting that Christ's Suretiship belongs to him as â—â—iest the whole here mentioned necessarily follows The Links are too strog to be broken If then our Divines hold that the Suretiship mentioned in Heb. 7.22 belongs to Christs Priestly Office if they produce this Text to prove that Christ as our Surety took on him the Guilt and Punishment of our sins to satisfie God's Justice for them then they do run counter herein unto the Episcopians and Socinians in holding that Christ came under the Sanction of the Law 4. That in what I have delivered I have given the sense of the Orthodox is manifest The Learned Bishop Reynolds on Psal 110.4 p. 417. saith That Christ being a Priest must of necessity be a Mediator and Surety between Parties that he might have one unto whom and others for whom and in whose behalf to offer a Sacrifice Every Priest must be a Mediator to stand between God and the People and to intercept and bear the Iniquity oâ— their Holy things But every Mediator is not presently a Priest for there is a Mediator only by way of Intreaty and Prayer c. And there are Mediators by way of Satisfaction as Sureties are between the Creditor and the Debtor and such a Mediator was Christ not only a Mediator but also a Surety of a better Covenant Heb. 8.6 Heb. 7.22 He was not to procure Remission of our sins by way of Favour and Request but he was set forth to declare the Righteousness of God Rom. 3.25 and such a Mediator between God and Us must needs be a Priest too For the Debt which we Owed unto God was Blood Without shedding of Blood there is no Remission Heb. 9.22 Essenius who is applauded for his Defence of Grotius de Satisfactione by Lutherans as well as Calvenists saith the same Quantum ad Locum Heb. 7.22 rationes à Crellio allatas cur Christus Sponsor Novi Foederis vocetur minimè sufficere oftendimus Sect. 1. hujus Libri Imò in anâ—ecedentibus consequentibus agitur de Sacerdotio Christi quo ipse non fungitur nomine Dei apud bomines sed nontine Hominum apud Deum cui se victimam obtulit Atque Ita Sponsorem egit pro hominibus apud Deum Essenâ— Triump Crucis 〈◊〉 2. sect 3. cap. 1. p. 500. Judicious Mr. Strong his Discourse of the two Covenants lib. 2. cap. 2. â—â—ct 1. § 2. p. 128. has it thus ' The Lord Christ by becoming a Surety did give his hand that is be did enter into Covenant with the Lord and so his Name is put into our Bond Gal. 4.4 5. He is said to be made under the Law and that as a Covenant and when the Apostle saith He is the Surety of a better Covenant whereas the main of Christ's Suretiship refers unto the first Covenant the Covenant of Works broken and therefore in respect of our Debt he is the Surety of the first Covenant yet the Apostle doth not so express it but of the better Covenant because the Commutation of the Person the bringing in of a Surety doth properly belong unto the Covenant of Grace and it is a part of the Covenant of Grace that there should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a Propitiation one to stand in our stead or to make Satisfaction to the Justice of God for the Breach of the Covenant of Works and therefore the whole Suretiship of Christ doth refer unto the Covenant of Grace of which his standing in our stead and paying our Debt is a principal part To this of Mr. Strong I will add what Mr. Alsop with about the Covenant of Grace in his Anti-Sozzo 717 c. The Covenant of Grace may be considered either in its Constitution or Execution In the Execution of the fixed Constitution the Redeeming Mediator Vndertakes with God as a Righteous Judge and therefore becomes a Priest a Sacrifice a Price a Ransom a Curse to satisfâ—â—â— the Iudge and his Law Christ himself is promised in the Covenant as the Great Comprehensive Blessing of the Covenant Isa 49.8 9. So that Chrisâ— being given in the Covenant of Grace to Redeen us by his Death and Sufferings by his satisfying thâ— Judge and his Law from that Misery our sins haâ— brought upon us he might very well be stiled by thâ— Apostle Heb. 7.22 a Surety of a better Covenant oâ— Testament which shows the vanity of that part oâ— the Objection which saith Christ cannot be said to come under the Sanction of the Law of Works because being stiled the Surety of a better Testament catâ— respect only the Covenant of Grace Once more The Learned Dr. Owen in opposition to the Interpretation given of Heb. 7.22 by Schlictingius Curcellaeus and Hammond and I may justly add to that given by Mr. W. declares That the generality of Expositors Antient and Modern of the Roman and Protestant Churches on the place affirm that the Lord Christ as the Surety of the Covenant was properly a Surety or Vndertaker unto God for us and not a Surety or Vndertaker unto us for God And because this is a matter of great importance wherein the Faith and Consolation of the Church is highly concerned I shall saith he a little insist upon it It is the Priesthood of Christ that the Apostle treats of in this place viz. Heb. 7.22 and that alone Wherefore he is a Surety as he is a Priest and in the discharge of that Office and therefore is so with God on our behalf He undertook as the Surety of the Covenant to answer for all the sins of those who are to be and are made Partakers of the Benefits of it that is to undergo the Punishment due unto their sins to make Attonement for them by offering himself a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Expiation of their sins Redeeming them by the â—â—ice of his Blood from their state of Misery and Bondage under the Law and the Curse of it Isa 53.4 5 6 10. Matth. 20.28 1 Tim. 2.6 1 Cor. 6.20 Rom. 3.25 26. Heb. 10.5 6 7 8. Rom. 8.2 3. 2 Cor. 5.19 20 21. Gal. 3.13 And his was Absolutely Necessary that the Grace and Glory prepared in the Covenant might be communicated to us This and much more to the me purpose hath the Learned Dr. in his Disc of â—â—stif p. 256 c. To whom I will only add what â—e Learned Author of the Interest of Reason in Reâ—ion offers on this Point ' Whereas Christ is stiled saith he the Surety of a better Covenant it iâ— because the Enacting of the Covenant of Grace respects his Undertaking to he made sin and to undergo the Curse as the Moral Cause and
were not the meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings That no Sufferings are properly Paenal but what are infliced on the Delinquent himself that when Parents or Princes sinâ— and their Children or Subjects suffer their Sufferings are but Improperly or Analogically Poenal and that therefore Christ not being the actual Transgressor could not be in a proper Sense punished for our Sins That properly speaking he did not satisfie the violated Law And agreeably adds that the Sufferings were exacted by God not as he was a Rector as such but as a Rector supra Leges and as an offended Lord and Benefactor And that I may be the more clear in this attempt I will show how exact the Agreement between Mr. B. Crellius Episcopius Curcellius and Limborch is and how full a Confutation the Answers of Grotius to Socinus of the Bishop of Worcester unto Crellius and of the Principal of Jesus Oxon unto the Disciples of Episcopius are of the Principles which Mr. Baxter has advanced Subsect I. Of the Meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings 1. That Mr. Baxter denies our sins to be the near impulsive and proper meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings 1. It 's well known to the Learned That if Christs suffering be not ex obligatione Legis and by vertue of the Sanction of the Law sin cannot be the near impulsive or proper meritorious Cause of them For as an universal and perfect Obedience to the Praeceptive part of the Law as it respects the Promissary Part would according to the Rules of distributive Justice have been the meritorious Cause of the Promised reward in like manner Sin the transgression of the Precept as it respects the Paenal Sanction is the meritorious Cause of the threatned Sufferings If then I clear it that Mr. B. is of Opinion That Christs sufferings are not Ex obligatione Legis it must be acknowledged that he denies our sins to be their meritorious Cause which I hope to prove even to Mr. Alsop's Conviction and moreover to evince it that he doth expresly declare that our sins were not the meritorious Cause of Christs sufferings For 2. Mr. B. in his sixth Determination which is in the first Chapter of the third Part of his Methodus after he had set down his Distinctions between the Law of innocent Nature and the Law peculiar to the Mediator And considering the Law in the first Sense which he saith obliged Christ himself as Man and all others even sinners he adds another Distinction between the Obligation of this Law as a Remote and as a near Cause and declares his Judgment thus 1. ' The Law of Nature altho' it did oblige both Christ and us unto Obedience yet it did only oblige us not Christ unto Punishment The Law obligeth not an innocent Person to Punishment it condemns not the Just. 2. ' That the Law of Grace obliged Christ neither to Obedience nor to Punishment 3. ' By the Law peculiar to the Mediator called the Covenant between the Father and the Son Christ was obliged to suffer Punishment for Sinners namely by his Consent and proper Sponsion and the Fathers Will and Commandment From this Law the near obliging Cause of Christs suffering Punishment had its Rise 4. ' By the Law of Nature obliging us sinners unto Punishment Christ was not directly obliged to Punishment However it was the occasion of his Punishment and the Obligation we lay under was â—he Remote Cause of Christs Obligation for if the Law had not condemned us Christ had never undertaken or suffered a vicarious Punishment So 〈◊〉 Mr. B. 3. From what Mr. B. has so freely declared it 's â—ident he is of Opinion That the Obligation Christ 〈◊〉 under to suffer ariseth not from that Law we violated but from the mediatorial Convenant and â—at the Obligation to Punishment which is by â—â—rtue of the Sanction of the Law we violated â—nder which we all are by Nature is but an â—ccasion or Remote Cause and therefore our sins â—e not the near impulsive and proper meritorious â—â—use of Christs sufferings which is conform to that he has in his other Writings not only in his Posthumous Discourse of Universal Redemption but in the Preface to his Confession of Faith pag. 4. where he saith That as Christ could not take upon himself the same Numerical Guilt which lay on us so neither could he take upon himself Guilt of the same sort as having not the same sort of Foundation or Efficient Ours arising from the Merit of our sins and the Commination of the Law and his being rather occasioned than meritted by our sin and occasioned by the Laws threatning of us both which are as we may call them but â—rocauses as to him c. And in his Catho Theol. Part II. Pag. 78. Christ suffered not by that Obligation which bound us to suffer 4. These Passages I have mentioned do sufficiently clear it That Mr. B. owns not that our sins were the near impulsive or meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings the most he 'll yield being this viz. That our sins were the Occasion or Remote Impulsive Cause or the Pro-cause somewhat in the place of a meritorious Cause which is no more than Socinus Crellius and their Followers do grant as I will immediately show II. The Socinians do grant That our sins are a Remote Impulsive Cause or meer Occasion of Christs sufferings 1. That the Socinians make so large a Concession as this unto us is evident from most of their Writings Crellius against Grotius confesseth it Fatemur Peccata nostra posito Dei de salute nobis danda decreto eatenus etiam fuisse Impulsivam mortis Christi Causam c. Ad partic 2. Cap. 1. But 2. There is so much to this Purpose in the Answer the Learned Bishop of Worcester gives to what Crellius has on this Point that I will say no more of 〈◊〉 in this place but proceed to the Proposal of â—hat the Bishop offereth unto your Consideration III. What Mr. Baxter and the Socinians hold about our sins being only a Remote Impulsive Cause or Occasion of Christs sufferings opposed by the Orthodox particularly by the Bishop of Worcester 1. The Learned Bishop gives the Sense of the Socinians about the Impulsive Cause of Christs sufferings assuring us ' That tho' Crellius Attributes â—he sufferings of Christ meerly to Acts of Dominion without any respect to sin yet elsewhere he will allow a Respect that was had to sin antecedently to the Sufferings of Christ and that the Sins of Men were the Impusive cause of them And although Socinus in one place utterly denies any Lawful Antecedent Cause of the Death of Christ besides the Will â—f God and Christ yet Crellius in his Vindication â—ith by Lawful cause he meant Meritorious or â—â—ch upon supposition of which he ought to Die for elsewhere he makes Christ to die for the Cause or by the occasion of our Sins which is the same that Crellius means by an Impulsive or Procatartick Cause Of
Christs Suffer Cap. 2. Sect. 2. 2. To this Notion of Socinus and Crellius the Bishop who throughly search'd into this Controversie Answers ' That we understand not an impulsive Cause in so remote a Sense as though our Sins were 〈◊〉 meer Occasion of Christs Dying because the Death of Christ was one Argument among many others â—o believe his Doctrine the Belief of which would make Men leave their Sins But we contend for a nearer and more proper Sense But when we come to consider that other point whether Christs Sufferings were a proper Punishment We shall hear further what his Lordship saith to this particular For he rightly informs us That if the Sufferings of Christ be to be taken under the Notion of Punishment then our Adversaries grant That our Sins must be an impulsive Cause of them in another Sense than they understand it What that other Sense is will be shown under the next Head about Punishment where you will meet with enough to satisfy you That the impulsive Cause which they 'l grant on a Supposition that Christs Sufferings are properly Paenal is a near impulsive and proper meritorious Cause 3. Dr. Edwards doth also in his Preservative against Socinianism Part 2. p. 94. speak very distinctly to this thing For saith he That Christ dyed for us are the plain words of Scripture He gave himself for us Gal. 2.20 Eph. 5.25 1 Thes 5.10 2 Cor. 5.14 15. And this not only in general for our good but he was delivered up for our Offences Rom. 4.25 He dyed for our Sins 1 Cor. 15.3 So to the same purpose and for the same Reason he is said to dye for the Vngodly Rom. 5.6 And it is mentioned as the great Instance of Gods Love to us that whilst we were yet Sinners Christ dyed for us ver 10. of the same Chap. All which Phrases of dying for Sins and Sinners plainly denote to us that Sin in those places is not to be considered as the Final but as the impulsive and meritorious Cause of Christs Death Thus you see the Agreement between Mr. Baxter Socinus and Crellius about our Sins being the remote impulsive Cause or meer occasion of Christs Sufferings to be real and that he hath herein left the Orthodox such as Grotius the Bishop and Dr. Edwards is clearly proved I will therefore consider what is â—aid of Christs Sufferings being Paenal Subject II. Of the Paenalness of Christs Sufferings 1. Mr. Baxter denies Christs Sufferings to be a proper Punishment 1. Mr. Baxter in his Methodus proposeth this Question Whether the Passion or Sufferings of Christ were properly and formally a Punishment and his Determination is such as clears it that he holds Christs Sufferings to be only Improperly Analogically and Materially not properly and formally a Punishment 2. To evince thus much I will distinctly conâ—â—der what he hath premised and show how he determines it 1. In his Premises he tells us ' That a proper Punishment is a natural Evil inflicted for a moral Evil. The Matter is Affliction or a natural Evil inflicted The Form is the Relation of this Matter to its meritorious Cause The Fault or moral Evil is either really such or by a wrong Judgment and so Punishment is distinguished into that which is due 〈◊〉 Justitia or that which is undue ex Injustitia The first is a Punishment in a proper Sense the â—ther is a Punishment Analogice and only in â—he sense of a Judge and others unjustly judging â—he word Punishment therefore is ambiguous Punishment in the first and most famous Sense is a natural Evil on the Delinquent himself Punishment 〈◊〉 a secondary and Analogical Sense is a natural Evil which doth not directly but mediately only and by accident flow from a moral Evil. This Punishment ' is twofold The one which naturally follows the Sin of another that is from that natural proximity there iâ— between the Sufferer and the Sinner The other which doth not naturally but by a voluntary Sponsion so that by Vertue of the Sponsion vicarious Punishments are endured 2. The Determination is 1. That Christ waâ— not re verâ the Sinner and therefore his Suffering were not Penal in the Primary and most Famouâ— Sense 2. Christ was not in the account of the Fatheâ— a Sinner For God doth not judge falsely and therefore he did not suffer an Analogical Punishment ex falsâ Reputatione Dei 3. Christ being miraculously conceived by the Holy Ghost could not suffer Anolagical Punishments for his Parents Sins 4. Christ being voluntarius Poenarum Sponsor did as our Sponsor suffer Analogical vicarious Punishments His Sufferings therefore as to the Reason of the thing were a natural Evil endured 〈◊〉 occasione causalitate remota Peccatorum human generis proxime from the Obligation of his propeâ— Sponsion and Consent 3. In these Premises and this Determination Mr Baxter freely declares That our Sins were but thâ— occasion or remote not the near impulsive Cause oâ— Christs Sufferings that his Sufferings were noâ— properly and formally but only Improperly and Analogically Penal Yea 4. There is more in it he is express That a proper Punishment cannot be inflicted on any but the Delinquent himself For saith he Poena in sensâ— primo famosissimo est ipsius Delinquentis malum nâ—ralâ—rale The formal Nature of Punishment lying in 〈◊〉 Relation unto Sin as its meritorious Cause the Punishment formally considered cannot he thinks â—e on any but them by whom the Sin is committed â—nd therefore agreeably enough in pursuit of his Principle He denies the Sufferings of Children and â—ubjects for their Parents and Princes Sins to be â—roperly and formally Penal His distinction is beâ—ween Punishment taken properly in Sensu primo â—â—mosissimo and in an improper secondary and an Analogical Sense His Determination that Punishment 〈◊〉 the first sense is only on him that actually commitâ—ed the Sin That there can be no Punishment â—ut what is deserved and that no Man can deserve â—hat another should be punished That when Paâ—ents and Princes sin and their Children and Subjects â—uffer their Sufferings cannot be properly and forâ—ally Penal because they did not commit the Sin â—nd so could not deserve it Their Sufferings thereâ—ore can be but improperly and analogically Penal as â—r B. freely owns when he saith That Poena in â—â—nsu secundo analogico est duplex Altera quae pecâ—atum alterius naturaliter sequitur id est ex proximiâ—â—te naturali patientis ad peccantem ita ob peccata â—ominorum Poenas consequenter patiuntur vernae 〈◊〉 in sensu adhuc pleniore filius pro Parentum peccatis 〈◊〉 Paenas which he thinks may be called Punishâ—ent aptly enough because they have a relation unto â—â—â—n as to an Occasion or remote meritorious Cause 2. Mr. Baxter's Agreement with Crellius about the meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings and his Sufferings being a proper Punishment The Sense of Crellius being with the greatest â—earness delivered by the Bishop of W.