without such a Sacrifice or substitute-means as might preserve the Honour of his Law and Government and the future Innoceney of his Subjects as well as their Punishment in the full Sense of the Law wou'd have done Sect. 7. Now when the whole Matter or Thing is agreed to all that the Orthodox intend by that Phrase 't is a very insipid thing for any one vehemently to contend what Word or Name to call it by What if one call our Sins the Meritorious Cause another the Promeritorious Cause another the Occasion of Christ's Sufferings whilst they are all agreed as to the Reference they had to 'em But if any one by a Meritorious Cause intend more than what is abovesaid or by an Occasion intend less it may with just Reason be concluded they are mistaken with the Antinomians in the one or with the Socinians in the other Extream Sect. 8. We blame no one therefore meerly for calling our Sins the Meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings nay Mr. Baxter himself sometimes calls 'em so the Meritorious or Pro-meritorious Cause Confession of Faith p. 153. the Remote or assum'd Cause Life of Faith p. 311. and p. 321. he allows that our sins lay on Christ as the assum'd Meritorious cause of his Sufferings So in his Methodus Theologiae Ad peccatum Relationem habent speaking of the Sufferings of Christ ut ad occasionem ut ad causam meritoriam remotam si non proximam P. III. c. 1. Determ 5. p. 38. And in that other Book to which our Accuser refers us he thus expresses his Sense at his very entring upon this Point When He Christ is said to die for our Sins it may be understood for our Sins as the Pro-meritorious procuring Cause of his Suffering through his own Undertaking to bear what they deserv'd Or if any think it fitter to call 'em the Occasion than the Meritorious Cause they may Universal Redempt p. 5. And the very last Words that I have observ'd him to use of this Matter in that last-mention'd Tract are these The strictest Sense in which He Christ is said to die for Men is to die in their stead or to die for their Sins as the Procuring Cause on his own Undertaking yield this once and we shall much easiler agree c. Ibid. p. 91. Which Two Passages do so inclose and explicate all the rest that for a Person to represent any of the intermediate Passages to adiffering and disadvantageous Sense is what deserves a Censure so severe as we did not think fit to express otherwise than by a significant Silence Sect. 9. But though we allow others their Liberty yet accurately speaking it must be said That all that Reference that our Sins had to the Sufferings of Christ does not amount to a Proper Meritorious Cause Nor did Grotius ever think it did whatever our Accuser may imagine For though he does affirm as is intimated Appeal p. 6. that Praeter Dei Christi voluntatem datur Causa Antecedens Legitima mortis Christi yet he distinguishes once and again betwixt Punishment taken Personally and taken Impersonally By Punishment taken Personally he intends the Sufferings of Christ consider'd as his by Punishment taken Impersonally he means the Sufferings of Christ consider'd only as Sufferings And he expresly tells us That our Sins were only the Meritorious Cause of the Sufferings of Christ in this latter Sense For thus he speaks Illud quoque reprehensione indiget quod dicit Socinus Praeter Dei ipsius Christi voluntatem non posse ullam legitimam Causam reddi mortis Christi nisi dicamus Christum meritum fuisse ut moreretur Nam inest quidem in antecedente Causa meritum ut supra diximus sed Impersonaliter merebantur enim peccata nostra ut paena exigeretur c. Cap. 5. p. 113. Our Sins only did deserve Sufferings and those of such a value and cou'd not be remitted unless such a Compensation was made to Divine Justice for 'em but they never did deserve that Christ should die they made it necessary supposing we be Redeem'd that it be by such a Price but they did not deserve that we shou'd be Redeem'd with his Precious Blood All that Grotius asserts is That Death was deserv'd he no where says that Christ's Death was so § 10. And this is the true Reason why we are not fond of the Phrase a Meritorious Cause because it wou'd intimate Christ's Sufferings were deserv'd Now if they were deserv'd it must either be allow'd that they were the very thing that the Law threatned or we by our Sins deserv'd God shou'd Save and Ransom us by such Sufferings If either of these be true our Sins may then be said to be the Meritorious the proper meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings as our Accuser wou'd have 'em but cannot be strictly and truly so otherwise than upon the one or the other of these Principles In that they deserv'd such Sufferings for weight and cou'd not be remitted without such Sufferings and Christ hereupon consented to suffer for 'em they may be call'd the Meritorious Cause of his Sufferings or much more fitly the ground the reason the assum'd cause the pro-meritorious or quasi-meritorious Cause of his Sufferings But the real proper meritorious Cause of 'em they cou'd not be unless they in a strict and proper Sense deserv'd that Christ shou'd die Now the Death of Christ is considerable under a two-fold Notion either as a Curse or Blessing As inflicted upon Him 't was a most dreadful Curse As it was our Ransom the Price of our Redemption it was and is a most invaluable Blessing If our Sins therefore deserv'd the Death of Christ it must be either in the one or the other of these Respects But no one surely will dare to say That our Sins deserv'd such a Ransom that GOD in giving his Son to be the Saviour of the World gave us no more than we deserv'd this were egregious Blasphemy against the brightest and most amazing Instance of Love with which God ever bless'd the World § 11. It remains then that supposing our Sins the Proper Meritorious Cause of Christ's death they did deserve it as a Curse to be inflicted upon Him tho' not as a Blessing influential upon us And 't is not conceivable how our Sins cou'd so deserve the death of Christ unless this be suppos'd to be the very thing threatned in the Law if thou sinnest Christ shall die And this our Accuser sometimes seems to intend what else can he possibly mean when he tells us Appeal p. 25. If Christ's Obligation to suffer did not result from this Law i. e. the Law which we had violated our Sins were not the Impulsive Cause of his Sufferings Or if it did not immediately our Sins were but the Remote Cause or Occasion not a meer Impulsive or Proper Meritorious Cause of ' em And p. 50. If Christs Sufferings be not ex obligatione Legis we suppose he means the
yet again Crimes unpunish'd are too much countenanc'd at least if they be not thereby authoriz'd We see the meer delay of Punishment is very frequently abus'd to this purpose Eccles 8. 11. Because Sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in 'em to do evil And if meer Forbearance have this effect what may we suppose wou'd have been the consequence of absolute Forgiveness So that we conclude GOD cou'd not consistently with either his own Honour or our Safety Pardon Sin without a Satisfaction it was necessary that Sufferings shou'd be insisted on and such Sufferings as shou'd be Equivalent to what was Threatned Sufferings that were adapted to answer the ends of the Law and Government as well or better than the Sufferings of Sinners themselves Hereupon IV. In order to our Remission the Sufferings of Christ were insisted on by the Father and agreed to by the Son by his Sufferings it was effected brought to pass that Sin might be remitted without either reflecting any Dishonour upon GOD or in the least encouraging any to Sin His Sufferings did fully answer all the Exigencies of our Case and therefore this Constitution is mention'd by the Apostle as a very condecent and becoming one Heb. 2. 10. Supposing so Gracious an Intendment towards us That GOD design'd to put us into the Hand of Christ that He might bring us to Glory it was what well became God to make the Captain of our Salvation perfect through Sufferings But what Condecency or Becomingness wou'd there have been in it if Sin might have been pardon'd and the Sinner sav'd as well without it Nay the Death of Christ was therefore insisted on that thereby GOD's Justice might be demonstrated Rom. 3. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 't is doubled to give it the greater Emphasis GOD would have been Just and sufficiently have demonstrated himself to be so if He had infficted upon us the Vengeance that was threatned but supposing that He Pardon us that He Justifie Sinners though Penitent Believers his Justice might well be call'd in Question unless Satisfaction be first made for our Sins therefore does the Apostle so industriously urge and inculcate this over and over as what he would not by any means have overlook'd Christ therefore was a Propitiatory-Sacrifice that GOD's Justice might be demonstrated that it might clearly be demonstrated to the World and the next Words rise yet higher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that He might be and not only that He might appear to be the Just as if upon the supposal of his Justifying Sinners He cou'd not otherwise be Just So that though meer Remission wou'd have well consisted with Mercy alone or the Damnation of all Apostate Sinners with Justice alone yet if GOD wou'd be merciful to Sinners He must also be Just and that He cou'd not be unless He so far and in such a way punish Sin as will suffice to keep up his own Honour and Authority and effectually to discourage Sin And hence it was that Christ became the Propitiation for our Sins Wherefore V. And in the last place The Sufferings of Christ being thus insisted on in order to his being a Successful Mediator with GOD for Sinners He is therefore said to have died for us and for our Sins Our Sins render'd Suffering necessary GOD thereupon insists on Suffering without shedding of Blood He will allow no Remission Hereupon Christ consents to die and accordingly dies a Sacrifice for us bears our sins carries our griefs c. Sect. 5. And this is that relation betwixt our Sins and the Sufferings of Christ which is intended to be express'd by Grotius and others when they say Our Sins were the Meritorious Cause of his Sufferings i. e. they deserv'd Death and so bound us over to it as that we cou'd not be exempted from it without a Satisfaction without some-what Equivalent to our dying in which Exigency Christ dies for us I cannot find that they or which with every Christian surely shou'd yet be of greater weight that the Scriptures themselves do mean any thing more Thus Grotius Causa altera quae Deum movit sunt peccata nostra paenam commerentia He does not mean that they deserv'd Christ shou'd be punished but they so bound us over to Punishment that unless Christ die for 'em we cou'd not Salva Divinae Justitiae demonstratione a paena mortis aeternae liberari as he had a few Lines before expressed himself And therefore having mention'd that Text a few Pages forward Gal. 2. 21. If righteousness be by the law then Christ died 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without a cause he adds Locus ipse Pauli de quo agimus aliam quam antecedentem causam intelligi non patitur And a little further adds Causam propriam cur se tradiderit Christus mortuusque sit hanc esse quod nos per legem justi non essemus sed rei paenae nostra ergo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 causa est antecedens mortis Christi To which he adds p. 36. Non potest alicujus actionis causa impellens esse Meritoria nisi finis sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And cap. 5. p. 113 114. Merebantur peccata nostra ut paena exigeretur quod vero paena in Christum collata fuerit hoc ita ad Dei Christi voluntatem referimus ut ea quoque voluntas causas suas habeat non in Merito Christi qui peccatum cum non nosset a Deo peccatum factus est sed in summa Christi aptitudine ad statuendum insigne exemplum c. So that whoever allows that our Sins deserv'd Punishment and so bound us over to Eternal Death as that we cou'd not be exempted from it with safety to the Divine Justice unless Satisfaction be made that Christ died for this end by satisfying Divine Justice to procure our Remission and that his Death therefore was antecedently thus caused by our Sin and was inflicted for an example to deterr us from Sin I say whoever agrees to this so far as I can find admits of all that Grotius ever design'd when he calls our Sins the meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings And so also the Bishop of Worcester Our Sins as an Impulsive Cause are to be consider'd as they are so displeasing to GOD that it was necessary for the Vindication of his Honour and the deterring the World from Sin that no less a Sacrifice of Atonement shou'd be offer'd than the Blood of the Son of GOD. Sect. 6. And to all this we do readily agree yea how fully has Mr. Baxter spoken to this Sense particularly in his Reasons of the Christian Religion Part I. Cap. 15. Sect. 9. P. 161 162 163. So also Part II. c. 4. § 6. P. 232. and c. 5. § 10. P. 253 254. The Passages are too large to Transcribe But he has there very plainly intimated That GOD neither has nor cou'd Pardon Sinners
Christ are a Proper Punishment and yet in another Sense which shall appear to be the Sense of Mr. Baxter and those whose Sentiments agree with his in this Matter it is as true That Christ's Sufferings are not a Proper Punishment but Analogically only to be so call'd That the Bishop never own'd it nor any Person of note in the Sense in which we deny it and that we do not Mr. Baxter never did deny it in the Sense in which the Bishop and other Famous Defenders of the Catholick Faith against Socinianism Assert and Plead for it § 3. To Evince this there needs nothing more than a Just Representation of their Sense what the one and the other intend by a Proper Punishment and this they themselves were best able to express Now then to constitute a Proper Punishment in the Bishop's Sense there is no more needful than that there be Sufferings inflicted on the account of Sin to deter Men from Sinning and to assert GOD's Rights as a Sovereign and vindicate his Honour to the World Whatsoever Sufferings do answer all these ends of Divine Punishments and are inflicted on the account of sin have the proper notion of Punishments in ' em And again Whatever is inflicted on the account of sin and with a design to shew God's severity against it and thereby to deter others from the practice of it has the proper notion of Punishment in it This is plainly the Sense of that Right Reverend Person he means no more when he calls the Sufferings of Christ a proper Punishment than what is abovesaid And to all this we cheerfully consent § 4. But Mr. Baxter when he denies the Sufferings of Christ to have been a proper Punishment 't is plain he takes Punishment in the strictest Sense as it does connote the suffering Person to have sinned and intends no more by it than that Christ was not himself a sinner Poena in sensu primo famosissimo est Ipsius Delinquentis malum naturale concludendum est Christus non-fuit rever a peccator ideoque poenam sensu primo famosissimo sic dictam non dedit And this is no more than what every one must agree to that supposing it be taken into the Notion of Punishment that the Snffering be inflicted upon one that has sinned Christ's Sufferings were not a proper Punishment Nor was Mr. Baxter the only Person that apprehended this to be the most strict and proper Notion of Punishment the Learned Pufendorf after Grotius and other Civilians does upon this very Principle assert That however one Man may suffer yet he cannot properly speaking be punish'd for another's Sin Paenae vocari nequit dolor ille aut damnum qui in illos redundat qui nihil deliquerunt qui in altero paenae rationem habiturus est dolor aut damnum delictum proprium tanquam causam respicere debet Unde Paena non est dolor ille quem quis ex paenae propinqui aut amici sui capit nisi ipse fo rs ad istius delictum concurrerit c. To the same purpose he also speaks in his larger Tract Illos quidem qui revera de reatu delicti participant pro ratione influxus ad facinus aliquod puniri posse extra dubium est cum iidem non alienum sed proprium delictum luant De Jure Naturae Gent. Lib. VIII c. 3. § 28. p. 831. But § 30. p. 834. he adds De coetero firmum manet istud in foro humano ob delictum alienum de quo nulla ratione quis participavit recte aliquem puniri non posse c. And the Famous Dr. Ames includes it expresly in the Notion of Punishment not only that it be some Evil inflicted for or on the account of Sin but also that it be inflicted upon the Sinner himself Paenae est malum Peccatori propter peccatum inflictum Amesii Medulla Theol. Lib. 1. C. 12. § 10. p. mihi 56. And therefore he adds § 14. Paena igitur proprie dicta non habet locum nisi in Creaturis intelligentibus in quibus etiam peccatum reperitur § 5. This therefore is the only Question that can lie betwixt us and our Accuser Whether Christ was really a Sinner or not If not which we hope our Accuser himself will not scruple to say with us then his Sufferings were not a Punishment in that most full and proper Sense in which the Sufferings inflicted on Sinnners themselves are so call'd We willingly allow That they were as properly Punishments as it was possible the Sufferings of one who was himself no Sinner cou'd be but we dare not say that Christ was a Sinner And therefore though He suffer'd for Sin yet the Sin since it was not his own did not so nearly and immediately render Christ liable to Suffering as it did the Sinner himself Death was not due to Christ immediately upon our having sinn'd the Law did not threaten Christ if Men sin thou shalt die After we had sinned there was no one obnoxious to Suffering for it besides our selves 'till Christ voluntarily undertook to suffer he was not antecedently oblig'd but when he might have refus'd he freely chose to die for us He gave Himself for our sins Gal. 1. 4. He gave Himself a ransom for us 1 Tim. 2. 6. § 6. So that here is a vast difference betwixt the Sufferings of Christ and the Sufferings of a Sinner The Sinner and Christ do indeed each suffer on the account of Sin so far they agree but the Sinner suffers for his own sin Christ for the sins of others the Sinner suffers deservedly he receives the due reward of his deeds Luk. 23. 41. but Christ's Sufferings were undeserv'd he having done nothing amiss The Sinners sufferings were threatned by the Law but where do we find any threatning against Christ The Sinners Sufferings are inflicted without and against his Consent but Christ's were the matter of his free choice what He might have refus'd c. § 7. Upon which and other like grounds how plain is it That the Sufferings of Christ are not in all respects Commensurate to the Sufferings of Sinners and that however they have such a respect to sin on account whereof they may not unaptly be call'd Punishments as Mr. Baxter himself asserts Method Theol. Part III. p. 38. yet they have not altogether the same respect to Sin as the Sinners own Sufferings have or would have had as appears before and therefore when we call 'em Punishments we must not take so much into the Notion of Punishment as when we call the Sinners own Sufferings by that name § 8. So that when the Sufferings of Christ are compar'd with those of Sinners we say they are less Properly and Analogically call'd Punishments not in that Primary and most Famous sense in which the Sinners own sufferings are so call'd and yet when we compare the same sufferings with meer Calamities that have no relation to Sin
require only that either Christ or we shou'd suffer not that both shou'd now then where is the danger the Psalmist was so apprehensive of And whence is it that he does elsewhere so earnestly deprecate God's Judicial Process Psal 143. 2. Enter not into judgment with thy servant for in thy sight shall no man living be justify'd It must needs be either that the Psalmist or these Men have very greatly misapprehended the Sense of that Law for that according to him if God shou'd judge us by that Law no man living cou'd be justify'd whereas according to them though God shou'd judge us by that Law we cannot but be Justify'd for when the threatned Penalty is inflicted the most rigorous Justice can go no further we are Recti in Curia when the Law is satisfy'd no further charge can have place against us 3. Yea further it follows That we never had as indeed we cou'd never need a Pardon The Case will be very plain by a familiar Instance Suppose two Persons jointly bound for the Payment of a certain Sum of Money or for the performance of any other Condition or Contract if either Party pay the Money or discharge the Bond the other is quit in Law and the Creditor cannot be said to have forgiven him Justice it self is so far from requiring that it wou'd not admit of double Payment Now then if Christ was in the same Bond with us if either He or we suffer the Debt is Paid the utmost Demands of Justice are answer'd what place is there then left for Forgiveness Can a Penalty be said to be forgiven that was not due or can it be yet due when 't is already paid and is it not in Law paid if either the Principal or Surety pay it Upon this Principle then it is plain That God cannot be said to have forgiven us to have been gracious to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For tho' Socinus did as Grotius has manifested Argue from those Terms with great weakness against all Satisfaction yet nothing can with greater force and evidence disprove a full and proper Solution What shall we then say to those numerous Texts where we and our Sins are said to be forgiven Hereupon the Gospel-Covenant as offering Remission Luke 24. 47. and the Sacraments of the Gospel as Sealing it to Sincerely Penitent Believers Acts 2. 38. Mat. 26. 28. are render'd meer Impertinencies and can it be thought these Persons do ever pray for Pardon or that they do account themselves beholden to God for it how they can consistently with this their Opinion I see not 4. Moreover this Doctrine renders our Repentance and all Obedience of our's needless and a continued course of the most enormous wickednesses wou'd hereupon be unhurtful to us If these Persons will be consistent with themselves it seems necessary for 'em to say as Dr. Crisp that Sin can do us no hurt and Holiness can do us no good Upon this Principle what hurt can Sin the grossest wickedness do us Suppose a Person an Atheist a Blasphemer an Adulterer that he live and die such in this case it can only be said The Law was violated and therefore the Threatning must take place But if this Notion be true that the Law threatens only that either the Sinner or Christ shall die it cannot touch such a Creature as this it having been already executed And alike needless must it needs render Holiness and Obedience in all the Instances of it for to what purpose is it can it be suppos'd to be needful if he may be accepted with God if he may be Rectus in curia without it 5. Again If this Principle be admitted none of our sufferings wou'd consist with the Justice of God for that according to them the Law did oblige only Christ or us to suffer if either suffer therefore full Payment is made the Law has no farther demands to make how is it then that we notwithstanding suffer that we are subjected to any Sufferings Spiritual or Temporal not to make any mention here of Eternal ones Whence is it that God with-draws the Quickning or Comforting Influences of his Spirit from any Whence is it that He gives up any to their own Hearts Lusts Whence is it that any are expos'd to the fiery Darts of the wicked one Or yet that the Arrows of the Almighty do wound do stick fast in any Soul Or if we shou'd yet come lower how unaccountable were it that we shou'd groan under pining Sicknesses noisom Diseases racking Pains and at length yield to Death It will perhaps be pleaded That God may inflict all these Evils and many more at pleasure as being Absolute Lord of his Creatures but it shou'd be remembred That having given us a Law He is become our Ruler and thereby He does declare That He will not however antecedently thereto He might have Arbitrarily inflicted any Evil upon us The very giving out a Law in and by which it is Enacted That such certain Evils shall be inflicted upon the Transgressors of it how plainly does it indemnifie-the Non-violaters of it from such Sufferings Such Threatnings otherwise cou'd answer no End if it were intended That whether they violated the Law or not they shou'd be alike obnoxious Now if we consider God as a Governour the Evils He inflicts come under another Consideration they are not meerly Afflictions or Sufferings but they are also Punishments and therefore they are not dispens'd Arbitrarily but according to a Stated Rule He does not punish any but such as by the Law are obnoxious hence is it that we read of his Righteousness in Reference to this Matter And as this does more generally evince That all Evils inflicted by a Ruler as such are Punishments so with Reference to the particular Instances above-mention'd it might be distinctly made appear that they are in the most strict and proper Sense Punishments In the last which is not the least doubted Case how plain is it that the Separation of Soul and Body is Penal that 't is a natural Evil no one doubts as such 't is abhorr'd of all and that 't is inflicted for or by reason of Sin is as unquestionable if the Apostle's account of the Matter may be allow'd for so he tells us Rom. 5. 12. By one man sin enter'd into the world and death by sin and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinn'd So that Death amongst Men has the nature of a Punishment in it but how then comes it to be inflicted if it be not due If we be not obnoxious to the Sentence of the Law it cannot be said to be due to us if the Threatning was disjunctive both Parties Bound cou'd not be obnoxious if Sentence be executed on either the other is clear how comes it then that we are punish'd and Christ too What shall we say Is God unrighteous that taketh vengeance Rom. 3. 5. Or is not this rather an unrighteous Doctrine that wou'd reflect
wou'd think he considers 'em as inflicted by God and yet in other places he speaks of 'em as Acts of Justice where 't is not certain but he may refer to 'em as undertaken by Christ Now these two are far from being the same thing That Christ was not unrighteous in undertaking and undergoing those Sufferings and that God was not unrighteous in inflicting and laying 'em upon Him Again he thus confounds an Act of Dominion and Acts of Dominion whereas the former may import That the Father as Dominus Christi as his Lord might enjoyn Him to suffer and the latter may signifie That Christ as Lord of his own Acts might offer might consent to suffer Besides he confounds Sufferings inflicted by vertue of the Sanction of the Law and Sufferings inflicted with a regard to Sin and makes the latter signifie as much as the former whereas we constantly and with the justest Reason distinguish betwixt 'em and allow that in the Sufferings of Christ there was a regard had to Sin to our Sin as what had offended highly incens'd the Divine Majesty against us and render'd it necessary for the Reputation of his Wisdom Holiness Justice and the support of his Governing-Authority that his Displeasure shou'd in one way or other be manifested against Sin if He shou'd and that He might remit the Penalty due to the Sinner And hereupon it was agreed betwixt the Father and the Son that Christ shou'd Suffer the Divine Wisdom this way at once providing for the Honour of God as Governour and for the Redemption of Apostate-Man So that we readily grant there was a respect had to sin in the Sufferings of Christ yea that it cou'd not have consisted with the Justice of God as Rector to Sentence Him to suffer without a regard to sin But it does not cannot thence follow that He suffer'd by vertue of the Obligation of the Violated Law that that Law oblig'd Him to suffer unless you will also say That that Law oblig'd God to Save Sinners and to appoint this Ransom for ' em But 2. Supposing him to mean as his Reference to the Bishop of Worcester's Letter wou'd intimate That unless we will allow Christ's Sufferings to have been by vertue of the violated Law they cou'd not be inflicted by God as a Ruler but only as an absolute Lord. We deny the Consequence neither is it to be allow'd unless he can make it appear that this is the only Law by vertue whereof Christ cou'd be oblig'd to suffer And therefore also it might be and was a Judicial Act of God an Act of his Rectoral Justice to inflict Sufferings upon Christ because the Law of Mediation render'd him obnoxious to Sufferings and being hence oblig'd to suffer and in that general Sense having guilt upon Him He might have Sentence justly pass'd and executed upon Him and accordingly we find in that Prophetical Psalm 22. 3. Christ Justifies God the Father under the very depth of his Sorrows Nay Christ's Sufferings did not only consist with the Justice of God as a Rector but did also declare and demonstrate it to the World Rom. 3. 25 26. God set Him forth set Him in view of all the World by Him by his Blood to declare his Righteousness that He might be and appear to be just though He was a Justifier of sinful Men. As we shall God willing more fully clear when we come to deal with the Socinian Adversaries in the Second Part of this Discourse 3. Whereas he argues from their being Acts of Obedience in our Opinion that consequently we must hold that they are only Acts of Dominion c. We again deny the Consequence nay rather think the direct opposite shou'd have been inferr'd viz. That because we do consider the Sufferings of Christ as Acts of Obedience to a Law therefore God is not in reference hereto to be look'd upon as a meer Lord or Owner but also as a Ruler And we are the less afraid of having any ill consequence prov'd upon us as to this because which yet this Accuser as if he very little convers'd with the Scriptures seems not to know 't is consecrated Language as well as Divine Truth 't is not only the sense but also the words of the Holy Ghost Rom. 5. 19. Phil. 2. 8. Heb. 5. 8. So that the Sufferings of Christ were Acts of Obedience and consequently we may infer did correspond to the Precepts of a Law and what other could it be but that of Mediation Accordingly in reference to these very Sufferings our Saviour himself tells us That he acted herein pursuant to a Command he had receiv'd of his Father John 10. 17 18. He says not this I was oblig'd to by the threatning of one or other Law but a Command I have received to this purpose and I 'm ready to obey for thus also in the Volum of the Book it is written of him Lo I come to do thy Will O God for to the offering of his Body the Apostle does apply those words Heb. 10. 7 10. 4. And lastly To close this head we add That if indeed we had said that the Sufferings of Christ had no respect at all to the violated Law he might then with some force of Reason have inferr'd upon us that we thereby render'd 'em with the Socinians a meer Act of Dominion upon Christ and not in any sense an Act of Justice But he cannot but know that we willingly grant that they had some Reference even to the Sanction of that Law and that both as The Law obliging us to suffer was the ground and reason of his Undertaking to suffer His Sufferings did in great part answer the Ends for which that Sanction was annex'd to the Law 1. The Law as obliging us to suffer was the Ground the Reason of Christ's Undertaking to suffer but his Sufferings themselves were by reason of that Undertaking had it not been that we were under sentence of Death by that Law we had not needed a Mediator Nay further could that Sentence have been remitted without any satisfaction made Could the Threatning have been absolutely recall'd so as that no severe Marks of Divine Displeasure should have been left upon Sin and this without weakning his Authority and rendring the Majesty of Heaven cheap Christ had never suffer'd never undertaken to suffer But these things are vastly differing to say that upon this Reason Christ undertook to suffer and to say that that very Sanction oblig'd him to suffer in the former Case 't is no more than loco causae Obligatoriae in the latter it would be the Obligatory Cause it self 2. Christ's Sufferings did in great part answer the Ends of that Sanction as will appear if we consider for what purposes a Sanction was added to the Law and amongst others such as these do readily occur viz. thereby to express God's hatred of Sin to secure the Law and Law-giver from Contempt and to enforce Obedience c. Now these Ends of
Personate us farther than He was allow'd and impower'd of God and how far therefore his Commission did extend or with what Limitations it was attended is only to be Collected from the Oracles of God so far then as it shall appear by the Sacred Scriptures that Christ suffer'd in the Person of sinners or as their Representative we shall readily agree and no farther § 15. V. and Lastly The Veneration we have for those Sacred Oracles will not admit us without any limitation to say as this Accuser does that Christ suffer'd as the Representative or in the Person of sinners The Reasons whereof will the better appear if it be first agreed what is the exact and proper Notion of such a Person a Representative Person and in this Matter I suppose our Accuser is not unwilling and for my part I am most willing that the Learned Pufendorf shou'd be our Instructer This therefore is the account he gives us of it Peculiaris species Personarum politicarum est quas dicere possis Representativas ideo quod Personam aliorum referant quae scil potestate authoritate agendi ab aliquo instructae hujus vice negotia expediunt eodem cum effectu ac si ab illo ipso essent confecta So that according to him and indeed according to the truth of the thing so far as any one is allow'd to Represent another they are both in Law reputed one Person and thereupon whatever he has does or suffers as a Representative it is eodem cum effectu i. e. as this Accuser well enough Englishes it to all intents and purposes the same thing as if it were had done or suffer'd by that other whom he Represents § 16. Now if it be the same thing then 't is neither more or less than if we had so suffer'd our selves there are therefore two things that we have to plead against Christ's thus Personating or Representing us and they are that such a Representation of us by Christ is in differing respects both too much and too little to answer the Exigencies of our case and the Scripture-account of this matter § 17. And 1. In some respects Such a Representative personating of sinners in and by Christ's Sufferings would render 'em too little to answer the Exigencies of our Case and the account which the Scriptures give of 'em For if Christ in his sufferings was look'd upon as properly and most strictly our Person or Representative his sufferings as has bin hinted would be but the same thing and no more in Value or Vertue than if we our selves had so suffered But if we our selves had suffer'd as Christ did would it have been effectual to the great and necessary purposes of obtaining Redemption Reconciliation Pardon the Holy Spirit and Eternal Salvation for us Can any one think Dare any one say Our own suffering what Christ did Our own dying as he did would by way of merit have procur'd such consequent Blessings as the Death and Sufferings of Christ did Such as the mention'd Blessings we needed our Case call'd for and these Blessings we find attributed to the Death of Christ as what did meritoriously and by way of a price procure 'em for us So the Apostle tells us we have Redemption through his blood Eph. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. He obtain'd it for us by his own blood Heb. 9. 12. so 1 Pet. 1. 18 19. So also our Reconciliation is the purchase of his Blood this account we have of it Rom. 5 10. When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the Death of his Son And having through several Verses before spoken of this Reconciliation he at length tells us that God made him to be sin i. e. a sin-offering for us to intimate to us which way that Reconciliation was procur'd and brought about 2 Cor. 5. 21. He made him to be sin c. And in that Eph. 2. 16. we are said to be reconcil'd to God by the Cross And Col. 1. 20. Christ is said to have made peace through the Blood of his Cross but wou'd our Death have avail'd to any such purpose If not how can he herein be said strictly to have Represented us The same might be also pleaded in reference to the procurement of our Pardon Mat. 26. 28. And the Holy Spirit Heb. 10. 10 14. 13. 22. with Eternal Salvation 1 Thess 5. 9. 10. These are Blessissings that we cou'd not have procur'd by our own dying this to Christians surely I shall not need to prove Now if Christ died strictly in our Person his death had signify'd no more than ours A Representative so far as he represents another is in Law look'd upon no otherwise than as that other whom He represents whatever Excellencies he may otherwise have above that other yet do they not come under Consideration here as a Representative He does but personate that other Man and what He does or suffers as a Representative is but the same thing as if that other Man had done or suffer'd So far as there is any difference allow'd in Law 't is plain the Law looks upon 'em to be two distinct Persons so far the one does not cannot Represent the other Either therefore these Benefits were not procur'd for us by the Sufferings of Christ or He suffer'd otherwise than as our Representative or in our mean and vile Person viz. in the most highly dignify'd Person of a Mediator To this Sense Mr. Baxter had pleaded long since in the forecited Treatise of Justifying Righteousness P. I. p. 96. If Christ says he suffer'd but in the Person of sinful Man his Sufferings wou'd have been in vain or no Satisfaction to God c. See also Baxter's Life of Faith p. 322. Thus therefore such a Representation of us by Christ wou'd have been too little for us § 18. But again 2. If the matter be consider'd under other respects Christ's strictly personating or representing us in his Sufferings would be too much for us For as we have before observ'd betwixt a Representative and that other whom he represents the Law makes no difference Whatever the Representative does as a Representative in the sense of the Law that other does whom he represents 1. If then Christ suffer'd strictly and properly in the Person of Sinners or as their Representative they did in the account of the Law suffer themselves and whatever is the Moral Effect i. e. whatever the Law under which Christ suffer'd has annex'd by Promise as a Consequence of his Suffering it being the Effect of our Representative's Sufferings may be attributed to us whom He did therein represent whatever is in Scripture ascrib'd to the Sufferings of Christ as an Effect of 'em if He suffer'd in our Person wou'd be to be ascrib'd to us so we shou'd be our own Redeemers our own Saviours we shou'd have merited our own Peace our own Pardon c. as truly as I pay Money which one that in the strict Sense of the Law
individually the same thing that the Law threatned for it threatned the Death of the Offenders themselves In the day Thou eatest Thou shalt die Gen. 2. 17. The same Individual that sinneth shall die Thus does the Prophet express it The Soul that sinneth it that very Soul shall die Ezek. 18. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The very sinning soul it self that very soul shall die The Sense of the Holy Ghost could not have been more fully expressed to this purpose And so also the Apostle Gal. 3. 10. Cursed is every one that continues not c. 'T is denounc'd against no one but the Sinner himself since then the Law mentions no Surety or Substitute the Sufferings of Christ could not be the Execution of its threatning unless He was the very Soul that sinned that very individual Soul And hence we may be assisted in that only Difficulty with which our Accuser at the second hand does seem to press us For in the Passage he quotes from his Brother Ferguson P. 5. amongst other Attributes of GOD that were to influence the Grand Affair of our Redemption he mentions the Divine Veracity God's Truth as that Gentleman says and his Immutability must be evidenc'd in proceeding according to the Penal Law He had at first Enacted And this being presuppos'd he would naturally enough iufer That Man having sinn'd could not be receiv'd into favour but in such a way as might evidence that Truth of God c. Now indeed if the Truth and Immutability of GOD did require that He should proceed exactly according to the Penal Law He had Enacted it must be granted then That Christ's Sufferings could not otherwise bestead us then as being the very Execution of that Penal Law the very Penalty therein threatned And this Objection I shall the rather take notice of because whatever Character our Accuser and this Brother of his deserv'd I find some of greatest Name and deservedly too both for Learning and Piety speak as if they did apprehend That the Truth of GOD did engage Him to Execute the Threatned Penalty that unless the Punishment due by that Law had been inflicted his Veracity could not have been Justified But how much soever I reverence the Names of some that speak thus I dare not agree out of respect to any Man so far to expose the Veracity of the Holy GOD as to suspend it upon any thing that is not certainly True much less upon what is evidently untrue 1. Supposing it only to be uncertain whether He was oblig'd formally to Execute the Threatning of that Law 't is no way fit the Veracity of God should be suspended upon an Uncertainty May I not be sure that GOD is true though I were not sure that his Threatning must needs be executed 2. And especially when we have full and clear Evidence That He has not Executed that Threatning we should surely be afraid to say His Truth oblig'd Him to Execute it He has falsify'd his Word in Not-Executing it Though we could not see which way GOD's Veracity could be reconcil'd with the Non-Execution of his Threatning yet when He has Relax'd or Dispens'd with his Threatning as in this Case He manifestly has we may be assur'd it is not inconsistent with his Truth The Law threatned the Delinquent himself and every Delinquent another who was no Delinquent dies for us Here is not then an Execution of the Threatning is the Truth of GOD therefore violated GOD forbid Yet had his Truth oblig'd Him to inflict the Threatned Penalty at all it would as well have oblig'd Him to inflict it on the Offenders themselves That GOD has inflicted Death for Sin is not therefore because of his Truth but for other Reasons that have been already hinted And this is that which does difference Threatnings from Predictions That Threatnings do only constitute the dueness of Punishment and make the Offender obnoxious without determing certainly whether eventually it shall be inflicted or not but Predictions do primarily respect a certain Event So that the Truth of GOD is indeed concern'd to accomplish a Prediction but not to execute a Threatning a meer Threatning does only render the Transgressor liable to suffer but GOD is afterwards at liberty to inflict or not inflict the Penalty incurr'd as his Wisdom shall see fit indeed if a Prediction should also be added to the Threatning GOD's Word is then past for its Execution and his Truth obliges Him accordingly They that are otherwise Opinionated in this Matter may do well to consider which way the Veracity of GOD upon their Hypothesis can possibly be maintain'd When the Law was at first given to Adam as our Accuser himself expresly owns Christ was not in its obligation it did not run Thou or thy Surety for thee Hereupon the afteradmission of a Surety and the Transferring our Punishment upon Him supposing He had undergone as far as was possible the same that we should was an Act of Soveraign-Dispensing-Power The Threatning was so far relax'd or dispens'd with not Executed But if GOD had engag'd his Word by an absolute Prediction to punish the Offender there had been no place for a Dispensation In that case as indeed in every case where the Divine Truth is concern'd the Event will infallibly and in every respect be answerable to what GOD has fore-declared Since therefore the Event did not answer in this case the very sinning Soul it self did not die but Christ for him it must be concluded That this was not a Prediction of what eventually should be but a meer Threatning of what legally might be inflicted importing only what the Sinner was oblig'd to undergo not what GOD was oblig'd to lay upon him And therefore his Truth was no way violated though Christ's Sufferings were not strictly the same Thing that the Law threatned To which I might add 3. That if Christ's Sufferings had been the very same thing that the Law requir'd we must thereupon ipso facto have enjoy'd present and perfect Deliverance if the Idem the all and that it must needs be if it was the same that the Law threatned was endur'd in the Sufferings of Christ what further Penalty could remain upon us Justice it self could require no more than the Idem quod debetur To this purpose the Learned Grotius speaks Ipso facto liberat solutio rei plane ejusdem quae erat in obligatione Upon which account he does determine That the Death of Christ was not Solutio rei ipsius debitae And so also that very Judicious and Right Reverend Person the Bishop of Worcester to whom this Accuser has Appeal'd does not only deny but does also very largely and nervously disprove Christ's Sufferings to have been the very same that the Law requir'd we shall only transcribe what he offers to the purpose we are Arguing upon If says he the very same had been paid in the strict Sense there would have follow'd a Deliverance ipso facto for the Release
any one particular thing plainly intended by the Orthodox Grotius the Bishop of Worcester c. that use this Phrase against the Socinians I say Let him instance if he be able any one thing they intend by it that is not readily agreed to by us We have reason to suppose That he himself may intend some-what more by it than we are willing to allow and which in due place may be taken notice of But we cannot find that they thereby design in general to express any thing more than that the Sufferings of Christ had a respect to sin to our sins as the ground or reason of 'em they were the assumed Cause of 'em He suffer'd for or on the account of our sins Now whereas it may be difficult to conceive how or which way our Sins cou'd influence his Sufferings in such sort as that He shou'd be said to suffer for our sins to die for our sins What they say for the clearing this Relation that our Sins had to the Sufferings of Christ as an Antecedent procuring Cause for we meddle not now with the other Respect they bear to 'em as a final Cause though He also suffer'd for our Sins so as in a proper Sense to Expiate and make Atonement for 'em I say the whole of what they offer for the clearing the Relation our Sins had to Christ's Sufferings as their Antecedent Procuring Cause may so far as I have yet observ'd be reduc'd to the following particulars viz. Sect. 4. I. Our Sins both in the nature of the Thing and according to the Constitution of the Divine Law deserv'd Death Eternal Death Rom. 1. 32. This was what they had render'd our Due they were in the strictest and most proper Sense Meritorious of our own Sufferings Had we lain Eternally under the Avenging Wrath of GOD it cou'd not have been said with Truth that He had done us any wrong it wou'd have been but the Wages we had earn'd Rom. 6. 23. And what Apostate Angels do actually undergo II. Hereupon Death being the demerit of our Sin it follows That we must of necessity suffer unless we be forgiven for no one surely will or can imagine That it might be avoided by our own Power or Policy whether alone or in Conjunction with any other Creature or Creatures Is it possible we shou'd either hide from GOD's All-seeing Eye or prevail against his All-powerful Hand We cannot therefore escape against or without the Divine Pleasure Now a Liberation a Deliverance from deserved Wrath that does depend upon and derive from the Divine Will and Pleasure is most Proper Remission as has been before said And how is to be conceiv'd that the Miseries which the Law threatned and we had deserv'd by our Sins cou'd otherwise possibly be avoided than by vertue of such an intervening Act of the Divine Will whereby the Penalty is graciously remitted III. Several things concurr'd to render it unmeet that GOD should meerly Pardon that He should so forgive the Sinner as not to leave one way or other any severe marks of his displeasure upon sin He did retain in the heighth of his Displeasure such a Love of Benevolence as did incline Him to commiserate the case of lapsed sinful Man and in some befitting way to re-admit him into favour But it was highly fit and necessary it shou'd be in such a way as shou'd both duly provide for the Honour of GOD and be most apt to deter and affright Men from sinning Due regard must be had to both these the Sinner cou'd not be forgiven unless consistently therewith the Honour of GOD cou'd be secur'd and sin render'd frightful and to be dreaded by us Now in reference to The Former the Honour of God did require That if He Pardon Sinners it shou'd be in such a way as shou'd manifestly vindicate and acquit Him from the Reflections that are not uncommon upon such occasions 'T is a very usual and known case in Humane Governments that the Soveraign's Reputation suffers by too easie Pardons In the case before us it is exceeding plain That the Honour of GOD's Power and Wisdom but specially of his Holiness and Justice were to be provided for whilst He magnify'd his Mercy in our Forgiveness 1. Whereas nothing is more common than for too easie Pardons to be imputed to a Governour as an Evidence of his Weakness and want of Power it was a most condecent and becoming thing That GOD should Pardon in such a way as yet shou'd manifest his Power that it might appear He was not afraid or unable to vindicate his injur'd Law That He did not forgive through a meer want of Power to punish 2. It was equally fit and necessary That He should also vindicate the Honour of his Wisdom and not by a light and easie Pardon tempt the World to impeach Him of Levity and Folly as if He had rashly and unadvisedly made a Law of the Consequences whereof He was not aware and therefore was afterwards oblig'd to change his mind and indemnifie the Transgressors without any Compensation 3. Yea a meer Pardon would also have reflected upon his Holiness it was therefore necessary that GOD for the Vindication of his Essential Purity shou'd make it appear that He hated sin though He lov'd the Sinner that Men might not look upon Him to be a GOD that has pleasure in Iniquity the direct contrary to what He has declar'd of Himself Psal 5. 4. neither yet as if He was indifferently affected towards it He is as we are assur'd of purer Eyes than to behold Iniquity i. e. So as to allow or not to be displeas'd at it Hab. 1. 13. This Holiness of his is that which gives a most adorable and conspicuous Beauty and Lustre to all his other Perfections He is Glorious in Holiness Exod. 15. 11. And therefore it cou'd be no way meet that the Honour of this Attribute should be neglected or post-pon'd to our safety 'T were better that Ten Thousand Worlds should perish than that the Glory of GOD's Holiness be stain'd But how shall it be vindicated if Sin be absolutely remitted That Connexion we find betwixt his Holiness and his not forgiving sin Josh 24. 19. does very plainly intimate That the Holiness of God is a Bar that lies in the way of Pardon that does as it were oblige GOD not to give out Pardons too easily not to Pardon absolutely or without due Provision made for the demonstrating his Antipathy against Sin that in his Eye as well as in its own nature 't is an abominable thing what his Soul hates Jer. 44. 4. 4. It was further necessary That the Reputation of his Governing Justice shou'd also be consulted GOD consider'd as a Governour is necessarily Just cannot but be so How monstrous a sound wou'd these two Words conjoyn'd carry in 'em an unjust GOD they do mutually destroy and subvert each other He that is GOD cannot be unjust and that Being that is unjust for that very