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
Christ God laid upon Christ our sins that is the punishment of sins which were so required that he upon that account was afflicted Christ did bear our sins that is again the punishment of sins Isai 53.5,6,7 1 Pet. 2.24 Christ made himself Sin and a Curse that is liable to the punishment of sins Isai 53.10 2 Cor. 5.21 Gal. 3.13 The Blood of Christ was shed for the Remission of sins so that that Remission did not come to pass without the shedding of Blood but by it Matth. 26.28 Hebr. 9.22 and elsewhere in many places Here Socinus opposeth many things Some Examples and Promises before Christ some sayings concerning those things that God said he gave by Christ The word remittere and cordonare to forgive and pardon and the very nature of Liberality from which he thinks it follows that God willeth to grant Impunity to us repenting requiring no punishment of any man upon that account As touching the Examples of Indulgence besides that no universal thing is rightly concluded from them it must be observed that these belong either to Temporal Punishment or Eternal If they belong to Temporal Punishment only the difference is manifest for as it is proverbially said That which is deferred is not taken away Now add this that in the very Fact of Achab as also in the Fact of David the contrary appears of that which Socinus would infer alledging them for himself for the Temporal Punishment was so taken away from David and Achab that it was translated unto others And in the Law it self sins are not forgiven except the Blood of the Sacrifices be poured out as shall be explained afterwards But if the remission of Eternal Punishment be the matter of Discourse Socinus proves by no Argument that it was made to any man without a respect of God to Christ The same must be said of Promises that hath been said of Examples and by the way it must be observed That when God promiseth to them that repent that he will forgive Temporal Punishments that should not be understood always of the whole punishment but of so much for God often useth to punish them also that repent but fatherly and gently So God restored his people when they repented from the Babylonish Captivity unto their Country but restored not the former Liberty and Glory of the Kingdom But as touching Eternal Punishment there is no Promise of Remission which excludes a respect to Christ Hitherto belong those sayings of Sacred Scripture which shew that Christ tasted death for all men without any difference of time that he gave himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Ransom for all Heb. 2.9 1 Tim. 2.6 and much more those that by a Comparison being added admit no restriction of time as when all are said to have sinned and to be justified by Redemption in Christ Rom. 3.23 and when Righteousness is said to have come by one Christ upon all to wit as many as are justified as by one Adam Condemnation came upon all men Rom. 3.12 5.17,18 1 Cor. 15.22 Hence it is that Christ is called the Lamb slain from the foundation of the World Apoc. 13.8 which place is sufficiently vindicated from the Interpretation of Socinus both by the very coherence of the words and also by a like place of Peter where Redemption is said to be made by the Blood of Christ the unblameable and unspotted Lamb that was foreknown before the foundation of the World but made manifest in the last times 1 Pet. 1.19,20 Wherefore elsewhere the Death of Christ is said to have interposed for the Redemption of those Transgressions that had been under the former Covenant Hebr. 9.15 and the Righteousness of God is said to be declared by his Blood for the pardoning of sins that went before which God is shewed to have tolerated and suffered at that time the declaring of Righteousness being deferred to the time of Christ Rom. 3.25 Hereunto belongs that famous place to the Hebrews 3.25 not that he should often offer up himself as the Chief Priest entered once a year into the Sancturry with the Blood of another or else he should have suffered often from the Foundation of the World but now he hath been made manifest once in the end of the World to take away sin by the offering up of himself and as it is appointed for all men once to die and after this the Judgment so Christ was once offered that he might carry up the sins of many c. The whole coherence of which place if it be rightly considered and especially if that place of Peter be compared 1 Pet. 1.19 where the same thing is discoursed of almost in the same words it will appear that in this the Sacrifice of Christ differs from the Levitical because the Efficacy was limited within the time of a year but the Efficacy of that extends it self through all Ages for his Passion was esteemed with God as performed before all Ages though really it was performed in a certain time and so the decree of God was very manifestly revealed unto us And unless it had been so Christ must often have underwent Sufferings not after he began to preach but from the beginning of the World Which words have no signification at all unless the Efficacy of the Death of Christ extend it self to all sins which have any time been forgiven to men from the very beginning of the World Just as the Judgment after Death extends it self to all sins that a man committed during life But the contrary Interpretation of Socinus doth not only render the words vain but weakens the Argument of the Writer for it doth not follow if it were granted that Christ should have often been offered that he ought to have suffered not only often but often from the Foundation of the World unless you put together that Christ should have been often offered from the Foundation of the World for these have a coherence with one another for the Effect of the Oblation is not stretched farther than the Dignity of the Sacrifice But that Christ should have been offered oft-times from the Foundation of the World if the parity of the Sacrifice of Christ and the Levitical were granted which the Writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews opposeth it would not follow from any other thing but because the Effect of the Oblation of Christ is extended unto those sins that were at any time committed and forgiven from the Foundation of the World For if it were equal to the Levitical that is of a vertue limited within a certain time verily its Efficacy could not reach from the time that Christ died unto the most ancient sins But it would have been altogether necessary that many Acts of that kind should have been interposed between both times Now let us come to those Testimonies that seem to Socinus properly to belong to the time of Christ and the New Covenant Jeremiah indeed says God will be propitious to sins but denies not
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
Yea also Greek and Latin Authors when they use that Phrase do always include imputation Socinus for the confirming of this Exception cites a place of Jeremiah which is thus Our Fathers sinned and are not and we bear their punishment neither doth he suffer here any imputation to be understood But by what Argument doth he prove that that Phrase signifies another thing here than in all other places where it is put Socinus himself is compelled to confess that as oft as the Sons follow their Fathers footsteps not only their own but their Fathers sins are imputed unto them for the Word of God is evident Exod. 20.5 But that those concerning whom Jeremiah speaks were like their Fathers that makes it evident which follows in the Prophet Wo to us that we have sinned verse 16. Neither is this different from the intent of Jeremiah for that he may aggravate the Misery of those that then lived he saith That the punishment both of their own and their Ancestors sins redounds upon them and that therefore the lot of their Fathers was much better than their lot who being alike guilty were yet taken out of life before that those very bitter punishments heaped up as if it were in the Treasure of Divine Wrath were at length poured forth together But though the signification of these words ferre peccata to bear sins were ambiguous in Sacred Writings yet both in this place of Isaiah and in that of Peter the joint mention of the Sufferings of Christ and our Deliverance would make the Interpretation certain For to bear sins by suffering and so that others may be delivered from them cannot signify another thing but the undertaking of anothers punishment And in the same Isaiah vers 6. and 7. it is God cast or laid on him the punishment of us all he is punished and he is afflicted Here Socinus moves every stone that he may wrest the genuine sense from the words and deviseth a new Interpretation God did by him or with him go against the iniquity of us all But the Hebrew word doth manifestly contradict Hiphgiah being of that Conjunction which signifies not a single but twofold Action wherefore seeing Phaga properly signifies to go against it follows that Hiphgiah signifies he made to go against and by Metaphor he deprecated because a person that deprecates doth as it were interpose his Prayers To deprecate here hath not place for then God should be said to have deprecated for Christ for that is the signification of this word the Particle Beth following Jer. 15.11 Neither doth fecit deprecari he made to deprecate agree here both because bo on him follows when otherways it ought to have been said He made him deprecate and also because all things that next go before and follow pertain to Affliction not to Deprecation Therefore these words do not bear another sense but this God did make the sins of us all occurrere illi to go against him that is impegit incussit he inflicted or he did cast upon him Sin is required exigitur peccatum that is according to Scripture phrase the punishment of sin Et ipse affligitur and he is afflicted Here Socinus objects unto us that place of Lev. 16.21 and 22. where sins are said to be put upon the Goat of Atonement and the Goat himself is said to carry the sins of the people into a waste Wilderness For he thought that nothing is more manifest than that it could in no ways be said that this Goat suffered punishment for the sins of the People which by what right he takes upon him I see not For verily Punishment taken in the general befals Beasts also The blood of all your Souls will I require Of every Beast will I require it Gen. 9.5 When an Ox shall push a Man or a Woman that he die let that Ox be stoned Exod. 21.28 If any man lie with a Beast let him be put to death also slay the Beast it self Lev. 20.15 The Earth was cursed with a Deluge for man's sake Gen. 8.21 The Creature was subject to vanity Rom. 8.20 Neither is there Cause why Socinus should object that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scape-Goat did not use to be killed but that the shedding of blood or death was required for the remission of sins For though the Scripture doth not expresly declare that that very Goat was thrown headlong from a high place in the Wilderness and so slain the Hebrew Interpreters agree about it which though it were not so yet what other thing did that driving into a waste Wilderness threaten but a death not at all natural either of hunger or the tearings of wild Beasts Also the word Nagash is to be marked in Isaiah for it is very certain that Nagash Schin having a point in the left-horn doth properly signify exigere to require as appears 2 Kings 23.35 Zach. 9.8 but metaphorically is taken for opprimere to oppress therefore the Passive Nagash is either opprimitur he is oppressed or exigitur he is required Opprimitur he is oppressed hath no place here because it follows in the same vehou Sentence ipse affligitur and he is afflicted whence it appears that this Verb is referred to another Noun than that unto which the word affligitur he is afflicted is applied Therefore it remaineth that that word should be taken properly that it may signify exigitur is required and may be referred to the Noun immediately going before Now to require sin is or can be nothing else but to require the punishment of sin therefore the requiring of Punishment and Christ's Affliction are joined together There went before in the same Prophet these words The Chastisement of our peace was laid upon him and by his stripes we are healed In the Hebrew Chastisement is called Musar which word signifieth not every Affliction but that which hath a relation to Punishment whether it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exemplary or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 admonitory only by which words of old Taurus the Philosopher did aptly distinguish the kinds of Punishment And thence it came to pass that any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 admonition per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the figure Catachresis was signified by the word Musar But because the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rebuke hath no place in Christ especially seeing the discourse is concerning Afflictions including Death it remains that we should understand Affliction that hath joined together with it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exemplary punishment for the use of that Hebrew word is not found separated from all respect unto a fault But here if by the subject matter we understand the good of Impunity it will appear that Christ's Punishment and our Impunity are very well opposed the one against the other Though nothing hinders Reconciliation to be understood by the name of Peace though there was no mention made of Enmity which the matter it self and the following words of the Prophet do abundantly
declare to have went before For neither did the Angels make mention of Enmity when they proclaimed that Peace was to come upon the Earth Luke 2.14 nor the Apostle when he said We have peace with God Rom. 5.1 And as the Hebrews put Sin for Punishment as it appears besides other places now alledged Zachar. 14.19 and Gen. 4.13 so also the same call him sin who suffers the punishment as also the Latines take piaculum both for the Crime and also for him that suffers the punishment of the Crime Whence it is that instead of peccatum sin the Scripture calls the Piacular Host or Propitiatory Sacrifice Sin Lev. 4.29 and 5.6 Therefore Isaiah following this form of Speech said concerning Christ Tashim asham naphsho he made his Soul sin that is he made his Soul obnoxious to the punishment of sin Neither did Paul speak otherways For God made him that knew no sin to become sin that we might be the righteousness of God in him 2 Cor. 5.2 It appears in the words of Paul that in both Members the Adjunct is taken for the Subject Socinus that he may invalidate the authority of that place of Paul by the word sin would have to be understood a man supposed by men to be a sinner First without Example for no where is the Hebrew or Greek word so taken Moreover Paul attributes this Action to God that he made Christ sin But yet that the Jews and others did judge of Christ as if he had been a wicked and flagitious man God is in no ways the Author of that thing yea on the contrary by a Voice from Heaven and by working Miracles he did that which made the Innocency of Christ manifest unto all men Moreover that new Interpretation of Socinus can in no ways agree to the words of Isaiah which contain the like Phrase for that which Paul said God did Isaiah attributes the same to Christ to wit that he made his soul sin or that he made himself sin Moreover Paul opposeth sin and righteousness We are made the righteousness of God that is we are justified or delivered from Divine punishment but Christ that that might come to pass was made sin that is he suffered Divine punishment There is also another Antithesis to be observed in these same words of Paul for God made him that knew no sin that is who deserved no punishment to become sin that is he would have him suffer punishment Christ was innocent not only towards the Humane but also the Divine Law Therefore the force of the opposition requires that he should also have suffered the punishment of the Divine Law Moreover it is a thing that daily comes to pass that the Innocent are evil entreated by the Wicked but here the Apostle observes some excellent thing And what other thing can this be but that God laid punishment on him that deserved it not Not unlike those former places is that of Paul to the Galatians 3.13 Christ redeemed us from the Curse of the Law being made a Curse for us for it is written Cursed is he that hangeth on a Tree that the Blessing of Abraham in Christ Jesus might come unto the Gentiles Here we have the less difficulty in understanding the sense of Paul's words when he says Christ was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Curse or Execration because he himself interprets himself and alledges Moses the Author of his saying he shews that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Curse he understands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Accursed And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paul himself being Interpreter is he that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under the Curse Execration saith Socinus in this place is the very punishment of Execration which is true For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Curse in many places signifies the punishment proceeding from the sanction of the Law 2 Pet. 2.14 Matth. 25.41 And here the mention of the Law being added forbids the Curse to be otherways taken And the same Socinus confesseth That this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Curse was in Christ the Cross it self Therefore the Cross of Christ signifies punishment and that is it which we say Perhaps Socinus will grant that the Cross was a punishment because it was laid upon Christ by Pilate the Judge in way of a punishment But this doth not contain all that Paul said For that he may prove that Christ was made liable to punishment he cites Moses openly saying That those who are hanged to wit according to the Law of God are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Accursed of God Wherefore the same word also is to be supplied in Paul citing Moses and referring these words to Christ as if he had said That Christ was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Accursed of God that is liable to the punishment inflicted by God and that very ignominious For the Apostles when they refer the Passion of Christ to our uses they do not therein look at the deeds of men but at the fact of God himself as is manifest by many places before mentioned To all these things this also may be added That Death it self that is the destruction of that person which is made up of a Body and Soul inasmuch as it is inflicted by God hath always some signification of punishment Not that God hath no power otherways to inflict it upon man for he is Lord of the Creature but because it seemed good otherways to his Goodness That the state of this peculiar Controversy may be rightly understood we deny not that Man when he was created was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 earthly who had a certain vital strength but not a life-giving strength as Paul teacheth us 1 Cor. 15.45,46 and therefore that was the Condition of the Body that it would have perished unless God sustained it yet we contend that by the decree of God he was not to die if he had continued in Innocency The nobleness and eminency of that Creature proveth this as being the only Creature that is said to be made after the Image of God that is endued with a Mind and Free-will which is the Foundation of his Dominion over other Creatures for he cannot be Lord of other things who is not Lord of his own Actions Therefore this Excellency above other Creatures is an Argument that something more than a Temporal use was regarded in the Creation of Man And now what is more clear than that Divine Word If thou eatest thou shalt die Here the Discourse is concerning the Act of Death whether it was to be violent or without violence Therefore Death it self would not have happened unto Man unless the Condition of Sin had been No less clear and general is that of Paul The wages that is the punishment of sin is death Rom. 6.23 Before he had said By sin came death and so death passed upon all men All men saith he therefore he treats of the common event of all Mankind Therefore by man that is by human
fact came death and by man came the resurrection of the dead As in Adam all die as many as die so in Christ all shall be made alive as many as shall be made alive 1 Cor. 15.21,22 Who reading these very words sees not that this saying to the Corinthians is exactly answerable to that to the Romans Therefore the Discourse is concerning Death that is common to the Posterity of Adam and from which they do rise again which rise again Wherefore also this place being compared with that to the Romans we say the Discourse is here concerning Adam a sinner for what he said here by man there he said by sin The Animal Condition of Adam is discoursed upon in Twenty Verses and more by the Apostle on a very different occasion for here Death is opposed to the Resurrection but there the Qualities of the Body at the first created and afterwards raised again are compared with one another of which that had joined with a natural possibility of dying by the bounty of God a possibility also of living but this shall so have life in it self that it shall be without any natural possibility of dying Here I cannot omit the adding of an excellent place of the very excellent Writer of the Book of Wisdom which though it is not in the Hebrew Canon yet it hath a venerable Antiquity and was always had in estimation among Christians So then saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1.13 And next 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2.23 God made not Death neither doth he delight in the destruction of living Creatures for he created all things to have Existence and their Generations are healthful and the Poison of destruction is not in them neither is the dominion of Hell upon Earth But Righteousness is immortal But the ungodly with their hands and words called it to them and thinking it to be their Friend were consumed and made a Covenant with it because they are worthy to have a portion with it God created Man for uncorruption and made him the Image of his own Deity but by the Envy of the Devil Death came into the World and they have Experience of it that are on its side Here he shews that any kind of Death is understood which Death God is said not to have created nor to desire to wit with a will going before sin in opposition to uncorruption for the hope whereof Man is said to be created and that hope is not obscurely declared to have been a part of the Divine Image or at least a Consequent thereof But Uncorruption excludes all Death whether it is violent or not violent And what the Apostle said That by Man and by Sin Death entred this Author said no less truly That Death entred by the Envy of the Devil For all these Expressions signify the same Fact to wit That the first Sin of Man was committed by the Suggestion of the Devil Neither doth it hinder that this Author observes a certain special Effect of Death upon the Wicked for Death having entred by the first sin and gained power over all Men gets a certain peculiar strength by the great and continual sins of every Man in which sense sin is called the sting of death 1 Cor. 15.56 Therefore those from whom after their death all passage to life is shut up are deservedly called the Confederates of Death or its Bondslaves and peculiar Possession It might very easily be demonstrated if this were the thing that is treated upon that this was the constant Opinion both of Jews and Christians that any kind of death of a Man is a punishment of sin so that the Christian Emperours not without cause disallowed that Opinion besides others in Pelagius and Celestius that they said That Death did not flow from the snare of sin but that the Law of an unchangeable Appointment required it But that we may gather the things that hitherto have been said into one because the Scripture saith That Christ was chastised by God that is was punished That Christ did bear our sins that is the punishment of our sins That he was made sin that is subjected to the punishment of sin That he was made a Curse unto God or liable to the Curse that is the punishment of the Law But the Passion of Christ it self having been full of Torments bloody and ignominious is a very fit matter of punishment Moreover because the Scripture saith That these things were inflicted on him by God for our sins that is our sins so deserving because Death it self is called the wages that is the punishment of sin verily it cannot be justly doubted that in respect of God the Passion and Death of Christ was a punishment Neither are the Interpretations of Socinus worthy to be regarded which deviates from the constant use of words without Example especially because no just reason hindereth to retain the signification of the words which shall appear more evident afterwards Therefore in God the punishment is actively in Christ passively yet to whose Passion a certain voluntary Action is joyned to wit the undertaking of the Penal Passion The end of the thing that is discoursed upon according to the Intention of God and Christ which being placed in act may also be called an Effect is twofold to wit a Demonstration of the Divine Righteousness and the Remission of Sins in respect of us that is our Impunity For if you take the exacting of punishment impersonally it 's end is the Demonstration of Divine Righteousness but if you take it personally that is wherefore Christ was punished the end is that we might obtain freedom from punishment The former end is expressed by Paul when he saith concerning Christ Whom God hath appointed for a Propitiation in his Blood for the demonstration of his Righteousness for the pardoning the foregoing sins in the forbearance of God Afterwards he adds repeating almost the same words To declare his Righteousness at this time that he may be the justifier of him that is of the Faith of Jesus Rom. 3.25,26 Here next unto his Blood that is his bloody Death is joyned the end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to declare his Righteousness By this Name of the Righteousness of God that Righteousness should not be understood that God works in us or which he imputeth unto us but that which is in God for it follows That he may be just that is that he may appear to be just This Justice of God that is Righteousness according to its divers Objects hath divers Effects About the good or evil Deeds of a Creature the Effect thereof amongst others is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reward unto which Paul having respect said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is it is just with God to reward Affliction to them that afflict you And elsewhere Every Transgression and Disobedience received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a just Recompence of Reward And that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 3.8 the Syrian translated it Whose Condemnation
which ascribe the remission of sins to the Blood of Christ that place should be joyned which we just now cited Being justified in his Blood Rom. 5.9 Also those that attribute the washing away of sins to Blood or Death Te Blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin 1 John 1.7 For the purging of the Blood of Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 1.2 Christ washed us from our sins in his Blood Apoc. 1.5 For though to wash away to cleanse and the like words may signifie either to cause that sins may not be committed in time to come or that being committed they may not appear yet the other Interpretation is more agreeable to the Phrase of Scripture So to abolish sins is expounded not to remember sins Isaiah 43.24 and to cleanse from Iniquity is shewed to be the same thing with forgiveing Jer. 33.8 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that sins may be blotted out hath evidently the same sense Acts 3.19 And these are taken wholly for the same thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to forgive sins and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to cleanse from all inquity 1 John 1.9 and elsewhere these are put as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 synonimous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to be cleansed and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that pardon may be Hebr. 9.22 Wherfore also Socinus is forced to confess that in John's Apocal. cap. 1. vers 5. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to cleanse is attributed to Blood deliverance from punishment is more rightly understood than the cleansing of the Soul To these may be joyned that of Isaiah just now cited The chastisement of our peace was upon him that is his punishment procures us peace with God concerning which peace the Angels speak Luke 2.14 And that of the same Isaiah By his stripes we are cured that is by his punishment we have freedom from punishment By these Testimonies therefore it is manifest that the impunity of our sins is the End of the Death of Christ and also an Effect of the same Death Socinus who is not willing to acknowledge this Connexion of Death with the Remission of sins performed unto us brings others wonderfully different from the words and scope of the Scripture But all these that he hath here and there scattered in his Book seem to be reducible to these four Heads The first is That Christ when he preached that the remission of sins lyes open to the Penitent did not refuse Death to give testimony to that Preaching But this sense makes the Death of Christ an Effect of remission more than remission of Death For the Existence of a thing is the cause of a Testimony not contrariways But the Scrripture says that we obtain remission by Blood Ephes 1.7 Coloss 1.14 And that Blood blots out our sins 1 John 1.7 Also that the shedding of Blood is a thing Antecedent without which there is no Remission Hebr. 9.22 Moreover if this Interpretation were true the Martyrs also might be said to have shed their Blood for the remission of sins and that we obtain remission by that Blood when yet the Scripture gives this priviledge to Christ only Moreover the Cause of the Killing of Christ in respect of men was not properly the preaching of Repentance and Remission of Sins but that he called God his Father making himself equal to God John 5.18 and consequently that he did profess himself to be God For which cause his Death gave properly a Testimony to this Profession not to the preaching of Pardon And also a Testimony concerning the Doctrine was given no less but more by the Miracles than by the Death of Christ But no where is this Effect attributed unto Miracles that by them we obtain Remission of sins The second thing that Socinus brings is That Christ by his Death obtained the power of giving Remission But Socinus himself overturns this Position who sheweth that Christ living on Earth had and exercised this Power But that which is cannot be any more made mine And lest any man should so mistake which Socinus doth more hint at than affirm as if this Power of Christ had only respect to Punishments Temporal and of this Life it must be observed That when Christ is said to have had power upon earth to forgive sins the Effect is not restrained by that Addition on Earth but the place of the Action is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 emphatically expressed For it is also said to the Apostles Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth where though to loose is to declare to be loosed yet that Expression on the Earth signifies only the place of the Action for it follows they shall be loosed in Heaven For that is it which Christ signified that that Power though so eminent and Celestial belonged to him living on the Earth Neither do the People wonder at any other thing but that so great power was given to men that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by enallagy to one of the number of men Christ himself also first forgives the sins of the man that had the Palsy before he takes away the Palsy which was a Temporal Punishment and manifestly distinguishing both Powers he proves the one by the other to wit the invisible by the visible Then Christ did not at length obtain the power to forgive sins by his Death and consequently those sayings which ascribe the Effect of the remission of sins to his Death cannot be drawn to this sense Moreover the Scripture explains the way of the Connexion between Death and Remission by the word Propitiation and other such like words which cannot be applied to the power of giving Pardon The third thing is That in the Death of Christ an Example of Patience and Obedience is proposed to us But this Example in some respect pertains to Sanctification and that which follows it Eternal Glory but not any ways to the remission of sins for Christ by his Patience and Obedience obtained no pardon to himself as having no sin Wherefore when Christ is proposed for Imitation that we keeping that way which he went may come to the same Mark nothing would be more unseasonable than to make any mention of remission of sins And the Phrases of Scripture Blood cleanseth us By his Blood we have Remission do utterly reject this sense The fourth thing remains which most pleased Socinus So that in very many places he inculcates this as the support of his Cause and it is this That the Death of Christ perswades us to that very thing that is required for the obtaining remission of sins to wit Faith or as Socinus explains himself the hope of obtaining Eternal Life But verily what is more disagreeable unto truth than that so bloody a death of a most innocent man doth of it self conduce unto this that it may perswade us that great Joys are prepared by God for us living holily Wherefore Socinus seeing the absurdity of this Invention saith That the Death of Christ doth not this but his Resurrection
and those things that followed his Resurrection But that it was requisite Death should go before But if the Scripture had signified so it would have mentioned perpetually the Resurrection or rather the Exaltation unto Heaven and sitting at the right hand of God where forgiveness of sins is discoursed of not Death and Blood at least not so often and in words so significant For that so frequent and usual joyning of Blood with Remission signifies some Effect not common but proper not far remote but near hand For what By-ways are these The Remission of sins is granted unto none but them that live holily for so speaks Socinus Faith and a certain hope of reward makes for holiness of Life This Faith is begotten by the Example of Christ raised from the Dead and glorified for holiness of Life as Socinus would have it Death went before that raising up therefore rightly and fitly is Remission said to be obtained by the Death of Christ Is not this it really which he finds fault with in others Alas That the Pine-tree was cut in the Pelian Wood for that is brought for a cause which is not some near thing or at least not far distant but that which is most remote from the Effect What if this had been in one place of Scripture it would perhaps have been less wonderful But what man that is in his right wits can believe that the Scripture speaks so often so obscurely and so coldly That Saying of Paul is very unlike Christ was raised from the dead for our justification Rom. 4.25 Which that it may be explained there is no need to fetch so long a compass of Socinus For the Resurrection of Christ begets in us Faith and Reliance on God and Christ to which Faith is promised Remission of sins And this Series is manifestly shewed Acts 13.33,38 Rom. 1.4 and 10.9 for Death is so far from being fit to beget Faith that on the contrary it most affrighteth men from that Faith And therefore in preaching the Gospel the Apostles do always oppose the Resurrection to the Ignominy of the Cross and the Misery of Death But that by Death and the shedding of Blood which the Scripture frequently expresseth in this Argument which is not properly a Cause of the Resurrection but only an Antecedent he would have the Resurrection it self to be expressed What is it else but to name Night that thereby Day may be understood Moreover if Death did not belong to the Remission of sins except because of the Resurrection that followed how could it have happened that Remission of sins was very seldom referred to the Resurrection but to Death in innumerable places Now add this also that Paul doth attribute to Death it self apart that is as it is abstracted from the Resurrection and Glory of Christ the Effect of Redemption purchased For he says If when we were Enemies we were reconciled to God by the Death of his Son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his Life Rom. 5.10 Death is opposed unto a glorious Life and as Reconciliation is ascribed distinctly unto that so is Preservation unto this Reconciliation is obtained for Enemies by Death as a Sacerdotal Act being reconciled they are kept by his Kingly Power unto which Resurrection made access So also elsewhere the same Apostle puts Reconciliation before Preaching which begets Faith God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself not imputing their sins unto them and did put in us the Word of Reconciliation therefore we are Ambassadours for Christ and as if God were requesting by us we beseech you in Christ's stead be ye reconciled unto God 2 Cor. 5.19,20 Here a twofold Reconciliation is put the former which is declared by the Word the other that is made by the Word that is the Reconciliation of Impetration this of Application that is before the Word this is after the Word We treat of that former and do justly deny that it can be referred to the Ingeneration of Faith which comes by the Word That also may be added John 3.16 where Christ is said to be given to wit unto death that they who believe may not perish Therefore it is profitable for another thing than that they may believe And verily if you please to attend the same thing is not obscurely shewed in that very place of Paul which is by Socinus cited for to confirm his own Opinions to wit that of which we discoursed who was delivered to wit unto death for our sins and rose again for our justification Because Sins are an evil thing and Justification a good thing it appears that the word propter for is not taken alike in both Members and it is convenient that the final Cause should be expressed in the latter Member if I am not mistaken we sufficiently shewed above that in the former the Impulsive Cause is signified Just as if I say that a Medicine is taken for a Disease and for Health Therefore Justification is the end proposed unto the Resurrection to wit by the Ingeneration of Faith by the Confession of Socinus Though verily I know not whether the Resurrection in this place is looked upon as an Argument to perswade Faith or whether it rather signifies the whole glorious state of Christ who hath this end proposed to himself amongst others that the Preachers of the Gospel may be sent and that their Endeavour may be promoted with a very plentiful Influence of the Spirit and Faith being made after that manner men may obtain the Remission of sins for so said Christ himself All Power is given to me in Heaven and in Earth Therefore go ye and teach all Nations Behold I am with you always to the end of the World Matth. 28.18,19,20 Before as John saith the Spirit was not to wit poured forth with that efficacy and abundance the cause is added because Jesus was not yet exalted to Glory John 7.39 Paul also said of Christ When he had ascended on high he led Captivity captive and gave gifts to men He gave some Apostles others Prophets and others Evangelists and others Pastors and Teachers to the perfecting of the Saints Ephes 4.8,12 But whether of these two ways you take it it appears that some peculiar and is ascribed to the Resurrection inasmuch as it is distinguished from Death On the other side it is ascribed unto Death apart or deliverance unto Death that it happened for sins but that very thing is no where ascribed unto the Resurrection and in this place it is not obscurely taken from the same But the Death of Christ in this Affair is both to be separated from the Resurrection and from the Ingeneration of Faith and in these places which deduce the Remission of sins from the Resurrection of Christ a certain distinct Effect is to be understood which the very simplicity of the Words import agreeing with other words of Scripture which say That Christ for our sins died a bloody death and that the
of a Hebraism or Syrianism or to epitomize in a perspicuous compend of words those things which belonged to the same Matter the Scripture hath delivered in several places So that which the Scripture said That Christ was delivered to death for sins and to have suffered sins that is the punishment of sins and that his blood was shed for the remission of sins is expressed in elegant Latine and significantly by the word satisfaciendi of satisfying for that word in Law or common use signifies the exhibition of a Fact or Thing from which Deliverance followeth not ipso facto but an Act of the Will being joyned And it useth to be taken in this sense not only in pecuniary Debts but also in Crimes which Languages that are derived of the Roman Language with depravation call contentare to content But that it may appear that Expressions of the same value yea those very Expressions that Socinus rejects are found in Sacred Scripture we shall add some other Testimonâ—…s unto those that were drawn out of the Sacred Book above in the first Explication of this Sentence and we shall refer them to four Classes The first Class shall be of those Expressions that signifie the turning away of Anger The other of those that declare Deliverance made by Redemption or the paying of a price The third of those that signifie Subrogation The fourth of those that ascribe unto the Death of Christ the vertue of an Expiatory Sacrifice That we may enter upon the first Class it is very well known that to turn away the wrath of a man is called in the Greek Language 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the Latine placare pacare conciliare reconciliare also propitiare to appease to pacify to reconcile to propitiate Both the act it self and also that by which the act is properly performed is called by the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by the Latines placamen In God Anger as we said above is called by anthropopathy as it were the affection of punishing which the Apostle saith is revealed from heaven upon all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men that detain the Truth in unrighteousness that is that go against the known Commands of Christ But no man is excepted because we are all by nature the sons of wrath that is liable to the anger of God This anger abides upon some Joh. 3.26 and it is turned from them upon whom it abides not Christ by his Death attains this Aversion and therefore it is very rightly called Propitiation So John the Apostle calls him twice when he says If any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the Righteous and he is a Propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but for the sins of all the world Epist 1. cap. 2. vers 2. Also in this is love not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his son to be a Propitiation for our sins cap. 4. vers 10. with which place that of Paul must be compared God commendeth his love that when we were yet sinners Christ died for us Rom. 5.8 for both Paul and John prove by the same Argument that we did not first love but were beloved of God and that which Paul calls he died John calls he was made a Propitiation Moreover that place of Paul must be added We are justified freely by the Redemption in Christ Jesus whom God hath set forth to be a Propitiation by Faith in his Blood Therefore Christ was made a Propitiation in his own blood which what is it else but that very thing that Socinus denies That God was reconciled in Christ for that he interprets in John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Expiation and by the word Expiation understands the destruction of sin he doth that for no cause and guarded by no example 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all Greek Writers Poets Historians and others is to propitiate and useth to be construed with an Accusative signifying the person whose anger is turned away neither is it otherways taken in the Septuagint and Luke 18.13 In one place only which is Hebr. 2.17 Christ is said to be appointed a Chief Priest to propitiate the sins of the people where there is an Enallagy coming from the Hebraism to propitiate the sins when it should have been said according to custom to propitiate God for the sins of the people Therefore he there signifies Expiation but that which is made by Reconciliation Otherways this use of the word should have nothing common with the nature of the word and the perpetual signification of the same Wherefore that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to propitiate and the word thence derived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propitiation cannot signifie such an Expiation as Socinus deviseth that is the destruction of sin which is performed without atonement But Socinus interpreteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned by Paul that in which God sheweth himself appeased We deny not that this signification may agree to the word and for some such reason the covering of the Ark is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Writer to the Hebrews But because words of that Termination signifie properly a certain effective Vertue and improperly a declarative no reason suffereth us here to depart from property for it is evident that Christ is so called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Paul as he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by John But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verily signifies atonement not the testimony of atonement wherefore Scripture interpreting Scripture the word also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be expounded of Christ actively not declaratively Moreover the word blood being joyned with it shews the same to which the virtue of reconciling is attributed because without shedding blood there is no remission These are well known Sanguine placastis ve'ntos virgine coesa Ye pacifi'd the Winds with blood and a Virgin slain and the like in Poets concerning which there will afterwards be place to discourse more accurately The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is like the word appeasing to procure favour and reconcile which Paul useth in this very Argument Rom. 5.10 and 11.292 Cor. 5.18 and Eph. 2.16 and Col. 1.10 Socinus opposeth That it is written that God was not reconciled to us but we to God and that upon that account because God was not angry at us but we were turned away from God For the word reconciling as also the word appeasing promiscuously assigns sometimes the Dative sometimes the Accusative to either party both the party that is angry and also the party that is not angry at all or less angry Therefore it hath the same signification that we are reconciled to God and God to us Sophacles in Ajax 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But he goes being turned to the best Opinion That he may be reconciled to the Gods from his anger Where the Quire expresseth that which Ajax had said
before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I go to washings and the brinks of the shore that having cleansed my faults I may escape the heavy wrath of the Goddess We see here manifestly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be reconciled to the Gods is the same with escaping their anger And verily he that diligently hath lookt into those places just now cited cannot deny that they speak of this Reconciliation that is the turning away of the wrath of God or verily of this also For Rom. 5. Paul after his own manner expressing twice the same thing that which he had said before that Christ died for the wicked and sinners vers 6. and 8. presently he expresseth the same in these words that when we were Enemies we were reconciled unto God by the death of his Son vers 10. And it appears by the opposite Member that this benefit is before Conversion it self If these things saith he are so much more now being justified by him we shall be saved from wrath verse 9. also much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life The Apostolick Argumentation proceeds à majori If God was so good towards us before we were converted what will he be to us being converted Here the word Reconciliation in the formed Member cannot signifie Conversion for the Apostle observes some singular thing in Christ but to convert sinners is not such a thing for they are not converted at any time but being sinners But it is a rare and altogether singular thing to dye for sinners and to reconcile sinners by death seeing that there have been always very few who would dye for their Friends being good men vers 7. Then Conversion is more aptly ascribed unto the glorious Life of Christ than his Death but this Reconciliation is attributed to Death distinguished and discriminated from a glorious Life as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 opposite signification of the word shews Moreover by the latter benefit it is given to be understood what the former is The latter that comes to the converted is to have peace with God verse 1. to be saved from wrath vers 9. and 10. The Apostle calls this same to receive reconciliation verse 11. What other thing is it here to receive reconciliation but to receive remission of sins as the Scripture speaks Acts 10.43 and 26.18 but to receive Conversion is an unknown kind of speaking If therefore in the latter Member to receive reconciliation is to receive the reconciliation of sinners and in effect to be delivered from wrath or from punishment in the former Member also to be reconciled should have an analogical signification that the former Member may be a right to the thing the latter an exhibition of the same thing Add unto all these that the love of God cannot be said but very unsutably and unaptly to be gathered from this that we have departed from the hatred of God For though Paul would have discoursed of the benefit of our Redemption it should have been expressed with anotherguess word that might signifie not our action but Gods But nothing is more plain than our Interpretation nothing more agreeable to the Apostle's purpose But that Socinus objects that the mention of satisfaction here is not sutable yea that the praise of love is thereby diminished it is a vain thing for mention is not made of satisfaction in respect of its being a punishment but as it is a way of delivering us Neither as we proved before can the love of God towards men be more manifestly shewed any way than that being angry that is requiring punishment yet found a way for our freedom from punishment having bestowed Christ for that purpose In that place 2 Cor. 5. about the end as in that to the Romans there is found mention of a twofold Reconciliation The former Reconciliation is that whereby God reconciled all things or the World to himself by Christ or in Christ vers 18 and 19. The latter is that unto which the Apostles as Ministers of Reconciliation in whom the word of Reconciliation is put exhort men in the name of God and Christ vers 18 19 20. Therefore that former cannot be Conversion it self for it is the Antecedent and chief Matter of that word by which conversion is made Moreover Paul himself sheweth that it consists in the not imputing of sins that is in the decree of not imputing them But now to impute sins and to forgive them signifie the same thing Rom. 4.6,7,8 But how is this Decree of not imputing sins founded on Christ Paul will tell for God made him that knew no sin to become sin for us That which Socinus objects That the not imputing of sins is contrary to that way of reconciling by satisfaction is without reason for as was explained before satisfaction goes before afterwards emission and non-imputation of sins follow It may also be said that it is not absolutely said that God imputes not sins but that he imputes them not to them that is to the sinners And that sin may be forgiven to one man or not be imputed to him and that it may be imputed to another man for example or that another man may upon that account be afflicted and punished it appears sufficiently both by many things that we alledged before and also chiefly by that which happened to David And though these are not joyned immediately in words not imputing sins and he made him that knew no sin to become sin that doth not make them not to belong to the same thing For these are joyned to one another by conjunctive words and and for neither doth any new speech and differing from this argument come between but this is said that God hath made the Apostles Ambassadors and Ministers of the benefit by him bestowed to wit that they were sent for this purpose through the World that they might plant the Faith of that benefit in men by their preaching But the strongest argument for making that Faith is from the delivering up of Christ unto Death for it is not credible that God would have had his Son that was most dear to him and most innocent so heavily afflicted except he had proposed some excellent end unto himself But this end to wit the proper end and most nearly adhering to that fact Scripture every where and reason it self in some respect by induction testifying can scarcely be any other but the obtaining the right of pardon by antecedent satisfaction But that we request you in Christ's stead be ye reconciled to God though according to the nature of the word it may signifie either cast ye away your hatred towards God or receive ye the remission of sins to wit by repentance as is shewed Mark 1.4 Luke 3.3 Acts 3.19 and 5.31 yet according to the nature of the thing discoursed of it more rightly admits the latter sense for a weaker person useth not to be requested to receive more
after we are justified by Faith Rom. 5.1 Before we are sons o wrath Eph. 2.3 for our sins are the cause of separtion that is they make God averse from us Isai 59.2 This Anger excludes Peace or Friendship but not any kind of Love generally so called as appears John 3.16 and 1 John 4.10 And verily Socinus himself supposeth That sins are not forgiven to men before repentance But he cannot be said to be reconciled or as Socinus expresseth it throughly reconciled who yet imputes sins Which thing that it may be more clearly understood there are verily three moments that I may so say of Divine Will to be distinguished The first is before the coming to pass of the Death of Christ either really or in the decree and foreknowledge of God In this moment God is angry at a sinner but so as he doth not abhor all ways and reasons of laying down his wrath The second moment is when Christ's Death is now come to pass In which God doth not only appoint but also promise that he will lay down his wrath The third is when a man believes with a true faith in Christ and Christ according to the form of the Covenant commends the Believer to God Here now God lays down his anger and receives a man into favour But because Verbs Active and Passive answering to the same use to have a twofold signification either that they are confined within Vertue and Efficacy or that they include Effect also it follows that in the first moment neither of these have place and therefore in respect thereof God may be called only reconcileable In the second and third he is rightly said to be reconciled the two Senses that I mentioned being distinguished In the former sense God is said to have reconciled the world to himself and we reconciled to God when we were Enemies In the latter is that Be ye reconciled to God and we received Reconciliation and the same is the signification of the words Redemption and Expiation and that expression whereby Christ is said sometimes to have died for all sometimes for some Moreover that must be observed that the word Reconciliation doth not exclude Satisfaction or all Performance and Expence For in Livius there is That by that gift he might reconcile unto himself the minds of his Country men and elsewhere in many places the like may be seen so that upon that account Christ should no less be called our Reconciler which very thing the Scripture also shews when it adds to Reconciliation the mention of Blood CHAP. VIII Concerning our Redemption purchased by the Death of Christ THat we may come to the second Class of Testimonies which is of Redemption before all things it must be put beyond Controversie that Redemption and the like words in holy Scripture are applied to our deliverance from deserved Punishment which appears to be so Gal. 3.13 Rom. 3.24 and especially Eph. 1.7 and Coloss 1.14 neither doth Socinus deny it Yea also those places which say that we were redeemed from iniquity and vain conversation as Tit. 2.14 and 1 Pet. 1.18 belong to the same for it is a very frequent thing for sin to be put for the punishment of sin And in that place to Titus the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being added that is to expiate which we shall afterwards explain and after that in the place of Peter the mention of a Lamb that is a Sacrifice make this evident because the Scripture in many places bears witness that this Redemption is ascribed to the Death of Christ as the cause as Eph. 1.7 Rom. 3.24 Hebr. 10.12 Socinus could not deny it But how the Death of Christ is the cause of Redemption this is it that is in Controversie For we say That the Death of Christ is therefore the cause of Redemption because thereby he moved God to deliver us from punishment but Socinus denies this thing But though there were something ambiguous in these Testimonies in which mention of Redemption is made it would be sufficient to bring other places of the same Argument for interpreting them of which sort we have cited many which signifie not obscurely that Christ died for our sins suffered punishment for us and so obtained us the remission of sins to wit God being reconciled by his Death yet we hope that the same Opinion may be proved clearly enough by these places which use the word Redemption and other like it Now there is a twofold phrase in Scripture one which names the Redemption of sins another which names our Redemption by a divers kind of speaking but with the same signification That former phrase Hebr. 9.15 where the Death of Christ is said to have been caused 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the redemption of transgressions but that by this kind of speaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Latine culpas delicta crimina redimere to redeem faults offences crimes there is not only signified the Cause moving to deliver but such also as includes Compensation or Satisfaction it is so manifest that Socinus ought to have confessed that also Therefore sith this is the most usual signification of that word it is not allowed us to recede from it except two things be proved that sometimes though less frequently another thing is signified by that expression and that there is here just cause why the less usual signification should be preferred before the more usual Neither of these is proved by Socinus For he brings no place of Sacred or Profane Writer where to redeem transgression sins faults offences signifies any other thing but that which we said In the Sentence of Solomon Prov. 16.6 there is a Hebrew word Chaphar which doth not properly answer the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which very thing Socinus also acknowledgeth when he saith Expiation rather than Redemption is signified by that word It may be added that the most native signification of that word is to cover and thence it is drawn to other things by a certain resemblance Neither doth it follow because the word Chaphar which among the Hebrews as many others because of the penury of primitive words in that tongue is of many significations so that it may signifie both other things and also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to redeem that therefore likewise the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should have all the significations that Chaphar hath because the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is simple among the Greeks answering its own Original but other words of the Greeks express other significations of the word Chaphar In Dan. 4.24 there is a Hebrew word Pharak which is not of equal force with the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but both properly and frequently it signifies to tear to break to pluck up and for this also to deliver Howbeit though we should interpret redimere in this place with the Ancients nothing compels to take this word out of the signification that we defend
For God is moved by the fruits of repentance to withold temporal punishment as before also hath been observed But the other expression that signifies the person redeemed very often in holy Scripture it is found accommodated to our Argument as Rom. 3.24 Eph. 1.7 and elsewhere In Greek there is the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hence the verbal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is asked Whether this act is attributed properly or improperly to Christ Socinus defines proper redemption that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for otherways the word redimendi in Latine is of many significations the deliverance of a Captive out of the hands of him that detains him by giving a price to him that detains him too narrowly For both the nature and use of the word is not confined to captivity only but to every kind of hurt as also is the word deliverance Therefore you may more rightly define 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or redemptio redemption is the deliverance of a man from an evil by the interposing the payment of a price So Maro used the word Redemption properly when he said Si fratrem Pollux alterna morte redemit If Pollux redeem'd his brother by alternal death Castor is delivered from perpetual death by the alternal death of his brother being interposed but improperly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and redemptio redemption signifies any kind of deliverance yea that also which hath no price interposed But as Socinus confesseth and as the Laws teach us the property of words should not be receded from but for weighty causes Therefore in a doubtful case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 redemption should be understood to be made by the interposing a price But now there is no place for doubting because the Scripture calls him openly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the price of redemption For the son of man came that he might give his soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a price of redemption for many Matth. 20.28 Mark 10.45 with which places those are to be joyned that bear witness that the Redemption was made by Death in Blood as Hebr. 9.12 Because these places went strongly against Socinus he could invent no other thing but to say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or pretium price here is said improperly And he defines a price properly called that which is received by him that detains Here first that which we said just now must be repeated that property should not be forsaken unless the matter urge it But if Socinus brought any Causes of devising improperty we trust they are confuted by us Chap. 4 5 6. for the comparison made between Moses and Christ scarcely needs an answer because every similitude hath certain bounds beyond which it cannot be stretched They are compared as deliverers but in respect of the way of delivering neither doth it more follow from thence that Christ by satisfying hath not delivered us than that Christ delivered us by the death of Enemies because Moses did that What if the Comparison belonged also to the way of delivering that it might proceed the better it should be said that Christ delivered us by Miracles as Moses but not by his own Death or his own Blood which neither is ascribed nor can be ascribed to Moses But the chiefest thing is that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 price concerning the force of which we here treat is added to the deliverance purchased by Moses For according to the Opinion of Socinus himself the way of delivering is not the same for Moses and Joshua and others delivered not by doing any thing about the persons to be delivered which Socinus attributes to Christ but by removing them that opposed their liberty to wit their Enemies therefore the property of that word should be retained yet the definition of Socinus being somewhat corrected that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be properly a thing or fact by which any man is moved that whereas he was inclined to do a man hurt he suffereth him to be delivered from it That we call a fact or thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 herein we disagree not with Socinus who confesseth that every thing whereby Satisfaction is made to another is properly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or price and not money only But without cause he confines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 price to captivity only sâ—…h that word agrees both to bondage and banishment and death and every inconvenience from which we can be delivered for both the Original to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belongs to those things and common use is not against it Moreover we approve not that that he would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly called to be received by some man For if the word receiving be taken rigidly as it useth to be in definitions it cannot be applied to deeds but to things only But Satisfaction may be made and deliverance obtained by deeds and this appears chiefly in deliverance that is made by the translating of punishment For it appears by those things which we said before that punishment is not properly received by any man where we shewed that in punishment no man is properly and naturally a Creditor Moreover the word acception properly taken if it doth not signifie the translation of property yet at least some benefit of the receiver But in punishment the proper advantage of the punisher is not regarded but the common good and order of things Therefore there is here no Receiver unless you please to call very improperly a Judge a Receiver as one that takes care of Law and Right and Common Good Nevertheless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath place properly also in punishment So the Eye of Zaleucus was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Eye of the Son and they that are punished in decimation are a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the whole Legion The ancient Latines whose whole Tongue was a depravation of the Greek putting in one letter call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lustrum and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lustrare Therefore lustrare urbem is to free a Town from punishment by a succedaneous punishment which is also called piaculum So by the foolish Opinion of the Heathen the Decii Lustrârunt Romanum exercitum by their suffering punishment freed the Roman Army from punishment And of old Menoeceus suffered punishment for Thebae concerning whom his Mother in Papinius said Lustralemne feris ego te puer inclyte Thebis Devotumque caput vilis ceu mater alebam Did I as a base Mother nourish thee O worthy Boy to make Expiation and to be Condemned for the cruel City of Thebes On which place Luctatius or whosoever that ancient Scholiast is It is the custom of France to expiate a City He called that lustrare which Caesar called placare Deorum immortalium numen to appease the Deity of the immortal Gods Therefore placamen and lustrum which is in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which as the Pagans in a thing falsly believed so the Apostles in a thing truly believed used in the same sense So in the Epistle to the Hebrews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are put for the same thing as it appears Chap. 9. v. 12,14,15,22,23 Neither is it only there inferred that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Argument should be taken properly because no efficacious reason compels us to go to improperty but hence also much more because no place is brought either out of Sacred or Profane Writer in which the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is stretched beyond the description set down by us Socinus brings no place out of Greek and out of Hebrew he brings one place only Prov. 13.8 in which is Chaphar But besides that Chaphar may be of a larger extent than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to deliver whereas Chaphar as we said before is a word of many significations it cannot by any Argument be proved that in that place any other thing is signified by the word Chaphar but that which can move him that was about to hurt that he hurt not whether he have only the power and affection of hurting or whether he have also the right and authority For that of Solomon Chaphar or if you would have it so the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a man are his Riches is like the Sentence in Job 2.4 All that a man hath will he give for his life For this amongst other things is the use of Riches that they can pacifie either the just or unjust anger of many and so turn away the punishment that hanged over according to that Munera crede mihi placant himinesque Deosque Believe me Gifts appease both Gods and Men. And verily in that Sentence there is an elegant comparison of the Advantages that both Fortunes bring with them The rich man hath that wherewith he may appease the angry man the poor man is less liable to another man's anger What if it were very true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be taken for any charges yea for such also by which no man is moved to deliver which hath been proved by no example yet the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Paul useth 1 Tim. 2.6 is more significant than to admit such a cold interpretation For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in composition signifies either contrariety or change here contrariety hath no place therefore compensation is signified Neither are they called in another sense in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who devote themselves unto death for another that they may deliver him So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which the deliverer undergoes something like that evil that hanged over the head of him that is delivered and there is as it were an excellent periphrasis of that word Galat. 3.13 Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 redeemed us from the curse being made a curse for us concerning the sense of which place we treated before Moreover Peter compares the Blood of Christ to Gold or Silver as being something greater than them upon that very account that it is a price 1 Pet. 2.18 But Gold and Silver use to be a price truly and not figuratively wherefore it is necessary that blood should be as truly or also much more truly a price Now a price is that by the expence whereof some thing or right is acquired and that is the nature of a price that by its worth or estimation it moves another to grant some thing or priviledge as impunity To these may be added those places that shew that Christ gave his flesh or himself for the life of the world and that he might deliver us John 6.51 Tit. 2.14 for this phrase to give something for something is very sutable to a true price Socinus cannot invalidate these and many other places in which the Death and Blood of Christ are called the price of our deliverance but by saying that ou◠deliverance from punishment is indeed an effect of the death of Christ for here is no place of treating of the deliverance from the bondage of sin but in respect of us not in respect of God that is that God is not thereby perswaded to deliver us but we that we may come to the deliverance But both the things that we have said and also many other things shut up this refuge from him For first the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and much more the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are of that nature that they signifie a thing the effect whereof is about the deliverer before the delivered Moreover though to buy is taken sometimes simply for to acquire as to sell for to enslave but the word price being added to the word buying as 1 Cor. 6.20 and 7.23 requires a nearer similitude For it most proper to a price that it should be esteemed by any man to be of as great worth as the thing Moreover the Apostle expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 3.24 But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an act that is exercised about the deliverer before the person to be delivered And elsewhere to wit Hebr. 9.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is expounded by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is expiation concerning the force of which word we shall afterwards treat Add to these things that when an effect is attributed to a thing very frequently and so that it was never found attributed to other things as the effect of Redemption is referred to the Death and Blood of Christ Gal. 3.13 Matth. 20.28 Mark 10.45 Tit. 2.14 Hebr. 9.15 Apoc. 5.9 and 20.28 Rom. 3.24 Eph. 1.7 then it is necessary that an end more proper and near than common and remote should be understood But about us the effect of deliverance is both removed many degrees from the Death of Christ and also so far from being proper that is agrees much more to other things to which it useth not to be ascribed For any thing that Socinus saith of the connexion of our deliverance with the Death of Christ may be summarily explained thus Deliverance as he thinks follows from holiness of life holiness from the hope of reward Hope firstly and chiefly proceeds from the Resurrection but it is attributed unto Death either in respect that it is a way to the Resurrection and compared with it it confirms the same hope Whence it follows Socinus also confessing it that we are much more delivered by the Resurrection then by the Death of Christ Yea if we acknowledge the truth Death is only joyned with that effect by accident for the Resurrection makes not Faith but as it is a part of the Glory of Christ but the greatest glory could have happened to Christ though he had not been dead But that Christ by suffering shewed us an example
that we should follow that cannot at all be applied to the remission of sins that happened not to Christ Wherefore then is that so often repeated mention of Death in this business of Redemption Socinus brings two things first because in Death there is some Expence which is not in the Resurrection therefore the mention of Death is fitter for Redemption also because the Love of God and Christ is more declared by Death As touching the first we go back to the same thing for if by the Death of Christ the effect of our deliverance did not follow of it self which is the profession of Socinus himself expressed in manifest words there was no need that Christ and his Apostles should have mentioned either Redemption or Price especially so often sith Deliverance might be expressed more conveniently in other words But that other consideration though it may belong to those Sentences that commemorate the Love of God yet is not very sutably brought to explain other Sentences which do not nor yet the very word Redemption It may also here be mentioned that Love is not shewed by this thing because it was not so much the cause as the naked occasion of our good Socinus thinks he pursueth our Opinion when he says That the Scripture so treats of the Redemption purchased by the Death of Christ that it sets something manifest before the eyes but not that it may declare some hidden Vertue such as he thinks that to be which we deduce from Scripture But when he says this he wounds not us but rather furnishes us with a Dart against themself For those things which are God's who knows but the Spirit of God and he to whom he will reveal them 1 Cor. 2.10,11 But that the Death of Christ is procured by God for this purpose that the punishment of our sins might be required of him and that he might become our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isaiah said it long before Christ himself said it neither did the holy Rites in the Old Covenant signifie any other thing So that he who should take notice of these things could not be ignorant of God's Will and Decree about this business though I may now also say that Nature it self says that Death is the wages of sin This Will of God being known by Oracles there is afterwards gathered the great love of God towards us as John speaks 1 Epist 4.10 and Paul Rom. 5.10 Neither is it any other thing that is signified by the word witness 1 Tim. 2.6 as it is easie to understand by those things that go before vers 4. And verily the words of Scripture themselves simply understood bring these things with them whereas it is so impossible for any man to gather that consequence of deliverance from Death which Socinus deduceth through so many Degrees and so variously from the words of Scripture themselves that it cannot be easily understood out of Socinus himself what he would have to be the proper sense of Scripture in these Expressions Therefore true Redemption hath been proved by us as just now true Reconciliation hath been proved But either of those being proved that which is intended is proved to wit That we are delivered by the punishment of Christ which he paid for our sins Not that all Redemption and Reconciliation is such but because the subject matter admits of no other Therefore it is vain and nothing to the purpose that Socinus so often says both that a man may be appeased though nothing is performed and also that a man may be truly redeemed that owes nothing and therefore without payment For we treat of that Propitiation and Redemption which the Scripture declares to be made by the performance of something to wit by Death and of that Redemption by which the same Scripture testifies that we are delivered from deserved punishment but such a performance which frees the Debtor of punishment from punishment is both rightly and properly called Satisfaction which Socinus seeing that he might take away Satisfaction he took away also Propitiation and true Redemption Here I think good to censure some other things which he did not discourse of whilst he handled the Argument of Redemption yet he discoursed of them elsewhere as belonging to this Argument He would not have the word Mediator to signifie any other thing in the holy Scripture but the Interpreter of God Two places do perswade me of another thing the one 1 Tim. 2.5 where there is said to be one Mediator of God and Men Jesus Christ who gave himself an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all The other Hebr. 9.15 where Christ is called the Mediator of the New Covenant that Death intervening for the Redemption of Transgressions they that are called might obtain eternal life To which fitly may be added a third Hebr. 12.24 which shall be discoursed of afterwards it appears here that Mediation is placed in Redemption it self neither is the word contrary For it belongs no less to the Office of a Mediator to be in the room of Men with God than to be in the room of God with Men. Neither is a Mediator only among the unlearned called he that appeaseth a man but also amongst those who speak elegantly Whence Suidas interpreted that word Peace-maker Elsewhere Socinus says The dignity of the Person makes nothing for the estimation of the punishment and consequently that the Divine Nature of Christ and his great Perfection brings no value to the punishment But we believe otherways to wit that this punishment was thence to be esteemed that he who suffered the punishment was God though he suffered not as God For hitherto belongs that Expression whereby God is said to have purchased the Church with his own Blood Acts 20.23 After which manner also elsewhere the Lord of Glory is said to have been crucified 1 Cor. 2.8 Also the Dignity of the whole Person that is Christ contributes not a little to this estimation Therefore in the Scripture it is called emphatically the Blood of the Lord 1 Cor. 11.27 the Blood of Christ Hebr. 9.14 The blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God 1 John 1.7 both the most perfect innocency and holiness of Christ comes into the same estimation Hence it is called precious blood to wit of the Lamb without blame 1 Pet. 1.19 making allusion to the custom received not only by the Hebrews but also the Gentiles that they sacrificed Beasts excellent for whiteness and all beauty of Body which because they were exempted from the whole Flock thence by a word invented in holy things but presently translated to prophane they were called eximiae excellent To the same purpose belong these also My righteous servant shall justifie many Isai 53.11 He made him that knew no sin to become sin 2 Cor. 5.21 But that Socinus disputes because the Divinity it self doth not suffer therefore that this comes not into the consideration of punishment it is just as if you should say that it is the same
thing whether you strike a private Person or a King also whether you strike an unknown Person or a Father because strokes are directed to the Body not to the Dignity of the Person which gross Errour long since Aristotle hath confuted Also the common-Judgment dissents from Socinus For those People whose Laws are most praised esteemed punishments by the dignity of the Persons and other Attributes Wherefore according to the Laws of the Romans which are known evidently to be very full of equity Punishments are varied according to the Condition of the Persons and it hath been abundantly demonstrated by them that did write of Commonwealths that other Nations famous for Wisdom did not otherways appoint And the Interpreters of the Roman Law prove it CHAP. IX What doth it import that Christ died for us IN the third Class we did put those Testimonies which intimate Subrogation as when Christ is said to have tasted death for all men Hebr. 2.9 died for the people John 11.50 suffered for us 1 Pet. 2.21 died for us wicked and sinners Rom. 5.7,8 one died for all 2 Cor. 5.14 It is received in every Tongue that when a Person did or suffered a thing in the room and place of another it is said that he suffered or did that for him So it is in Terentius I will lead thee pro instead of him I will grind pro for thee Neither is this phrase only applied to persons but also to things for that is said to be given put or had for him which in his stead or room is given put or had Socinus declines this Interpretation by the ambiguity of the word pro for which often signifies only the profit of another which is true of the Latin word as also of the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is â—ound in Matthew 20.28 and Mark 10.45 wholly rejects this signification and requires commutation So evil is said to be rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for evil 1 Pet. 3.9 Rom. 12.17 an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth Matth. 5.38 so a Serpent given for a Fish Luke 11.15 the birthright for one morsal Hebr. 12.16 hair for a covering 1 Cor. 11.15 But as oft as that Particle is applied to Persons it signifies that one succeeded into the place of another So Archelaus is said to have reigned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the room of Herod his Father that is that he succeeded him in the Kingdom Matth. 2.22 so Peter is commanded to give a piece of money for himself and Christ Matth. 17.27 because he alone in that action supplied the room of two Neither is it otherways in prophane Writers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one in the room of many and the like Here Socinus being in a strait dares not deny that a certain change is signified by that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for many But he miserably seeks an escape When the Redemption is discoursed of saith he there is place for that Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though a Captive owes nothing for Redemption This is true but not to the purpose For we do not from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 directly infer payment but we gather from thence that Christ died in our stead that is unless Christ had died we should have died and because Christ died we shall not die an eternal Death For verily the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being joyned to a Person and the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 requires that a Person expressed in the Genitive was to give the same in Gender or Species which now another gave Neither is it any difference whether it be lawfully as in a Bond for Debt or unlawfully as in him that is taken by High-way-men but this being granted that it would come to pass that we should have been put to death unless Christ had died the payment is afterwards rightly gathered from the very nature of the thing For either we were to have been unjustly put to death or justly not unjustly for we had deserved death therefore justly If justly then we were debtors of death Christ procured us deliverance from this debt by giving something But to give something that another by that same may be delivered from a Debt is to pay or satisfie Therefore that expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give for many signifies a true exchange as always not a metaphorical which Socinus invents without example But touching the other Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it must be observed that it also not always but often signifies the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paul wisheth to be accursed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in room of the Jews whom otherways persevering in their unbelief he knew would be accursed Rom. 9.3 The Apostles are Ambassadors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Christ that is they are Ambassadours in the room of Christ himself 2 Cor. 5.20 Wherefore seeing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessarily signifies exchange and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 useth sometimes to be put for the same nothing forbids to interpret a word of a doubtful notation from a certain chiefly when the same Argument is treated of But especially that place 2 Cor. 5.14 seems to require that interpretation If one died for all then are all dead Moreover though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it self ambiguous had not been used in these places but it had been openly said that Christ died for our good by this very thing that exchange should not have been excluded but rather inclued other places being compared For he also who dies for this purpose that thereby he may deliver another from death dies for his good Neither can this sense be rejected because the fact of Christ is proposed to us for example For unto an example it is sufficient that there be a certain general similitude though the difference be in a special respect of which nevertheless mention sometimes is made for denoting the thing more certainly Which is manifestly evident from the Exhortation of Peter 1 Pet. 2.19 he would have us be patient in bearing afflictions which we suffer innocently He brings the example of Christ who said he himself also suffered This was sufficient for a comparison but he added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for us which belongs not the comparison but clearly expresseth the thing it self that is the suffering of Christ Therefore Patience is a common thing but that manner is different Otherways Paul should in vain ask if Paul was crucified for believers 1 Cor. 1.13 for he also could have been crucified for the Church that is for the use of the Church as he said he suffered for the Church Col. 1.24 and afterward he himself was for the great good of the Church beheaded Peter and other Apostles crucified But neither Paul nor any other man could be crucified in that manner that Christ was by suffering punishment in our stead Therefore that word pro expresseth here something
peculiar which cannot be communicated to the Apostles But it could if the benefit of Christ's death were distinguished only by degree from the death of the Apostles and not also in its proper end So also in the Epistle to the Hebrews 2.10 there is an example in it that Christ came to glory by Sufferings the special manner is in that that Christ suffered for every man vers 9. And as in those places patience so in other places love is commended to us by the same example of Christ but the special manner doth more openly express the deed of Christ Though if you will look more exactly into those places we shall see that not so much the act of death as the danger of death is there regarded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which only John useth 10 11 15. and 1 John 3.16 as also John 13.37 and 38. also John 15.13 is not properly there to lose life but as it were to put it in pledge that is to undergo the danger of death Therefore in those places that very thing that is prescribed to us contains not only the benefit of another but also a certain exchange to wit in that sense which Horace expressed in these Verses Paratus omne Caesaris periculum Subire Moecenas tuo Being prepared to undergo all dangers of Caesar Mecenas with thine But in the saying of Caiaphas not only as a Prophesy dropt from him at unawares but also according to his Opinion a certain true substitution was expressed For he feigned the inevitable destruction of the Jews if Christ should be permitted to live and on the contrary if Christ should be slain that certain safety should be obtained for this very thing Therefore he desired to substitute really the death of Christ to a destruction otherways hanging over And so he would have the same in kind to befall Christ with that which was otherways to happen to the people and he believed that the death of Christ was a near cause of the deliverance of the People and fit of it self Which is the same thing as if you should say he would have Christ perish in the room of the People that was otherways that is under a contrary condition to perish Here it must be marked by the by that Caiaphas did put the first effect of the death of Christ not about the Jews whose deliverance he sought but about the Roman Governours whose Anger he desired to escape So that if it be true which Socinus urgeth that such an interpretation of the words of Caiphas should be taken which may answer both the mind of the Holy Spirit and his mind this dying for the people must needs signifie that safety was to be obtained from another but that other according to the mind of the Holy Ghost can be none but God whence it follows it is exercised about God before it is exercised about men which Socinus stubbornly denies But those things that have been hitherto said by us concerning the signification of exchange in the Particle pro for are much illustrated by the the nature of the Expiatory Sacrifice For in those the Scripture and common Opinion of Nations do witness that blood is given for life which shall now be made manifest CHAP. X. Concerning the Expiation made by the Death of Christ THere remains the last rank of Testimonies which signifie that Christ's Death is an Expiatory Sacrifice which because by the Artifice of Socinus they are involved in many Mists we reserved them for the last place that they might receive some light from these things that have been said before We and Socinus are agreed concerning the word that Christ's Death was an Expiatory Sacrifice or a Sacrifice for Sin the Divine Epistle to the Hebrews testifying the same especially cap. 9. But of the proper force of that word Socinus thinks one way and the Church of Christ another way The disagreement shall be briefly and perspicuously so explained if we say that according to Socinus the effect of expiation first and properly is exercised about sins to come because the Death of Christ by ingenerating Faith draws us from sins but in respect of by-past sins only secondarily and in that respect also all this action is exercised about us not about God that is that God is not moved to pardon but we are prepared to receive remission to wit by the Amendment of Life but according to the Opinion of the Church which agrees to Scripture the effect of expiation is properly exercised about by past sins and the first action is about God who is moved to forgive That the first action is exercised about God not about Men it is proved from the nature of Priesthood For a Priest is appointed for Men in the things of God Hebr. 5.1 but not for God in the things of Men which is the Office of a Prophet And because Sacrifice especially Expiatory Sacrifice is an act of the Priest as such for a High-Priest is appointed for this purpose that he may offer Sacrifices for sins Hebr. 5.1 8.3 it follows that Sacrifice belongs to those things which are performed for Man with God But the whole matter will be made more manifest by comparing the Sacrifices of the Old Law with this Sacrifice of which comparison the Writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews is an Author unto us and elsewhere the Prophets and Apostles The ancient Law is considered two manner of ways either carnally or spiritually Carnally as it was an Instrument of the Commonwealth of the Jews Spiritually as it had a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shadow of things to come Hebr. 10.1 As touching the former consideration the Expiatory Sacrifices of the Law sanctified unto the purifying of the flesh Hebr. 9.13 which of what sort it is we shall explain The Law of God had this sanction he is accursed that abides not in all the words of the Law Deut. 27.26 Gal. 3.10 therefore he shall be guilty of punishment whosoever in the least shall deviate from the Law as James shews James 2.10 This Punishment according to a carnal sense was violent death which is evident from the contrary because life is promised to him that fulfils the Law Lev. 18.5 Gal. 3.12 But as in every Commonwealth rightly governed the King requires punishment by his Judges and if they fail by himself So in the Hebrew Commonwealth which Josephus rightly called Theocratia because God was its King Judg. 8.23 1 Sam. 8.7 God ordinarily required the punishments of the Law by Judges yet so that he himself required the same punishment if the Judges failed in their duty Let the people saith he stone him or I setting my angry face against that man will cut him off Lev. 20.3 Neither did he only threaten this but also often performed it as it appears by many Examples of the Old Testament But because a Lawyer may somewhat relax his own Law especially Penal God the King of the Hebrews in some Crimes admitted Expiatory Sacrifices in the room
the thing fignified by the figure in that in which the Comparison is made Neither did he remember that which the Scripture shews that those words All things are cleansed by blood belong the same way to Legal Sacrifices and to Christ Hebr. 9.22 But Legal Sacrifices did not at all beget such a Faith neither is that Exposition of the word tolerable that to expiate is to do something that is requisite for remission For on the contrary all these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the like which the Apostles use of their own nature and by perpetual use design not only a precedency of order but also a certain efficacy The Scripture also furnisheth us with other most certain Arguments for the overthrowing this Interpretation invented by Socinus For it saith there was need of a new Priest after the Order of Melchisedec Hebr. 7.11 But the Levitical Priests also could preach Faith in God yea and confirm this preaching by their Death Wherefore if the Priesthood of Christ doth nothing more which Socinus would have it follows there was no need of him Moreover this very thing that Christ died for our sins is believed unto salvation 1 Cor. 15.2,3 therefore the Expiation of Christ was not chiefly procured for this that it might bring a man to believe seeing it self is among things to be believed For that which serves only to gain credit to a thing it is necessary that it should be different from the thing to be believed Moreover after the implantation of Faith the Expiation of Christ hath effect in us For Christ is a High Priest appointed to expiate the sins of the people that is of Believers Hebr. 2.17 Therefore to expiate cannot be to bring to Faith But now that we may not only beat down the false Interpretation of Socinus but also prove the true one which is this That God is moved by the Death of Christ to forgive sins Observe that place to the Hebrews where Christ's blood of sprinkling is said to speak better than the blood of Abel The blood of Abel cried unto God for vengeance The blood of Christ cries for pardon Socinus denies that God is reconciled by Expiatory Sacrifices But the Writers above alledged by us testifie the contrary who use the word reconciling to express those Sacrifices Whence also that phrase came in the Epistle to the Hebrews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 placare peccata to reconcile sins that is to expiate sins by reconciling God Socinus acknowledgeth no Satisfaction in Expiatory Sacrifices Whereas the very word expiating signifies no other thing but making satisfaction by punishment and in many places the Authors cited when they would periphrastically express Expiating they call it to give blood for blood life for life soul for soul to purchase a thing with blood to obtain salvation by the death of another Neither do the Hebrew words disagree from this for Chaphar is not only to cover but also to redeem Exod 21.30 Psalm 49.7 and to appease Gen. 32.20 and thence to expiate Hata is to suffer punishment Gen. 31.39 whence this also began to be used for signifying Expiation Now Expiation is attributed first to Sacrifices as appears Hebr. 9.13 and 23. therafter to the Priest for the Sacrifices that he offers as often in Leviticus and then to God admitting that Satisfaction But as the word Redeeming began to be used improperly for any Deliverance so also it began to be called Expiation for the like effect yea where no Satisfaction intervenes Psal 51.8 But Expiation is attributed unto Christ as unto a Sacrifice and therefore the word blood is added but blood in Sacrifices as before was proved is given instead of the soul of a sinner whence of necessity this word Expiation must be taken properly here Add unto these things that if that were true which Socinus would have That Expiation was made much more by the Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven than by Death and shedding of Blood because those are fitter to perswade us to believe than Death it self at least in some place of Scripture Expiation would have been attributed unto those acts which it did no where It is false that Socinus saith That expiation or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 purification is attributed unto the manifestation of the Divine Will neither do the places alledged prove this For Hebr. 1.3 Christ is said to sustain all by his Word because all things are subject to his Dominion as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is found in the same sense chap. 11. verse 3. and Luke 5.5 and chap. 10. verse 26 and 29. The knowledge of the Truth and sanctification by Blood are not put for the same but many Benefits are joyned together that the Crime of an unthankful man may appear the more odious There is added sometimes unto Blood the mention of a Covenant but much more oftner of a Sacrifice wherefore that Interpretation is to be taken that may joyn them together But this will be if we look unto that part of the Covenant in which Christ engaged that if he underwent death it should come to pass that their sins should be forgiven them that believed in him and God promised the same as appears Isai 53.10 But that Christ is said to offer his blood in Heaven that is to shew his death to his Father and as it were to put God in remembrance thereof which is also read to make intercession for us these things take not away the Expiation that was compleated upon the Cross For the Expiation performed upon the Cross moves God to forgive and acquires us a right but under a certain Condition and Manner in which is comprehended Intercession on Christ's part and on our part true Faith as hath been explained when Satisfaction was discoursed of But Socinus manifestly contradicts the Scripture when he denies that Expiation was made before Christ went into Heaven For in many places Scripture attributes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 redemption purification and sanctification and the putting away of sin to death and declares the same thing to be already performed an Oblation indeed was made in Heaven but so that Socinus should not have denied that title to the death that Christ suffered on Earth against the manifest words of Paul Eph. 5.2 where Christ is said to have delivered himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an offering for us The looking upon the coherence of the words is a sufficient refutation of his Interpretation In the same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Offering and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacrifice are joyned together And all the Books of Greek and Latin Authors declare That a Sacrifice is compleated when the thing to be sacrificed is put to death Whence it came to pass that mactare signifies both to sacrifice and also to kill any way the signification being extended from Sacrifices to other things Hence Ammonius distinguisheth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Appellations of
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
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
this matter and unusual to Scripture but Bounty and that much greater than that lately started up Opinion of Socinus The former Bounty is that God seeing he was stirred up with great hatred against sin and could have as well been utterly unwilling to spare us as he was utterly unwilling to spare the Angels that finned yet that he might spare us he did not only admit such a payment as he was not obliged to admit but he also himself of his own accord found it out Verily this benefit is much greater and much more glorious than if God judging it a matter of no value whether some Example were made or not had suffered our sins to go unpunished as Socinus would have Therefore the Glemency of God is not overthrown by the payment of punishment because to admit such payment and much more to invent it proceeded from meer Clemency The other Bounty is that he delivered up to death his own Son being most dear unto him the Image of himself and if it is lawful so to speak his other self not only that he might give a Testimony to the Truth of the Doctrine and so might attain unto the Resurrection within which Socinus contained himself but chiefly that he might perform that payment or satisfaction by suffering the punishment of our sins in which part Socinus ought to confess that he would owe much less to Christ than we owe yea this evidenceth that a greater love of God is declared by us because it is just that Benefits should be esteemed not only for the Expence but chiefly for the Advantage that by the Expence redounds unto the person on whom the Benefit is bestowed But we besides the Advantages which together with us Socinus confesseth acknowledge a chief one which he denies Neither say we That God bestowed his Son that God himself might receive his own and so make God sordid with which Socinus upbraids us but we say God therefore did it that he might openly declare the merit of sin and his own hatred against our sins and also that he might consult the order of things and his own Law as much as be could in sparing us Neither is that less unjust and that I may use his own word cruel that he sats we make God cruel For that end of the Satisfaction being added makes the Sufferings of Christ no heavier which Socinus is compelled to confess that they were laid upon him by God without any cruelty yea how many more ends there are so much farther is the appearance of Cruelty removed for he is a cruel person that without cause or for a light cause tormenteth any one Moreover this end of Satisfaction or bearing Punishment coheres with the Death of Christ much more evidently and with a much surer connexion than those ends that Socinus acknowledgeth for Miracles could give Testimony to the Doctrine enougn and abundantly Also Celestial Glory could have been conferred upon Christ without the intervening of Death but Death such a Death especially is fitted properly for suffering Punishments and punishment for procuring deliverance But though we hitherto shewed that satisfaction was made to God by the punishment of Christ yet we desire not to deny that the force of satisfaction is in the very action of Christ For oftimes an acceptable action useth to be admitted instead of a punishment A benefit coming after saith Seneca suffereth not an injury to appear Lib. 6. cap. 5. In which place he sheweth that to render is to give a thing for a thing and that by payment the same thing is not paid but so much But though God that needeth nothing cannot receive a Benefit yet his great Goodness taketh any Dutifulness for a Benefit So Achab prevented a Temporal punishment by calling humbly upon God Neither doth only a mans own action profit him for freedom from punishment but also another man's with whom he is joyned So punishment was forgiven to the Posterity of David for the sake of David himself 2. Kings 8.19 not only for the Promises made to David but also because the actions of David pleased God judging graciously of them 1 Kings 11.13 and 20.6 So Aelianus tells That Aeschylus was delivered from punishment because his Brother Amyntas had acted valiantly for bis Country So amongst the Romans when Titus Quintius was accused the Memory of his Father profitted him Livius concerning Appius He commemorated the Merits of his Forefather towards the Common-wealth that he might deprecate punishment Death was forgiven to Plautius Lateranus for the eminent Merit of his Uncle And in the general Sallustius said If they offended their ancient Nobility the valiant Acts of their Ancestors are present for a Safeguard unto them Cicero It will behove him who shall require that he may be pardoned to produce good Deeds of his Predecessors if any are known Quintilian The Merits of Progenitors plead for a person in danger And as Works temporally good avail for a temporal impunity so the Work of Christ being perfectly and spiritually good availed for deliverance from eternal punishment Unto which that hath reference By the obedience of one man many are made righteous that is they are justified they are esteemed as innocent Rom. 5.19 and that other for his Name to wit the Name of Christ and there was no mention of God before as Socinus confesseth And moreover the like Sentence proveth this same thing Acts 10.43 Our sins are forgiven to us 1 John 2.13 For it is certain that by this phrase for the name of a man the impulsive cause is signified Neither can Socinus prove the contrary by any place of Scripture But what we said of Satisfaction that it is first given to the punishment and afterward to the obedient action if self the same should be understood concerning the appeasing God concerning our Redemption and concerning Expiation for the explaining whereof we are now preparing CHAP. VII Concerning Propitiation and Reconciliation made by the Death of Christ SOcinus himself took care that no man might mistake this present Disputation as if it were concerning a word only for he professeth in many places That be opposeth not the naked word of Satisfaction but the thing it self signified by the word Therefore Christ reconciled God unto us by his blood Christ delivered us out of the hands of Divine Justice by giving thereunto his own blood the price of our Redemption Christ made amends for our wicked works by his own obedience Christ worthily deserved that God should bestow upon us the remission of sins Christ pacified the Anger of God by the loss of his life Socinus no less disallows all these than the word Satisfaction it self and yet if this Disputation were concerning the word the Church cannot be justly defrauded of the liberty of interpreting Scriptures In which this also is comprehended to translate very aptly into other Languages those things that either the Prophets spake in Hebrew words or the Apostles in Greek words which savoured many times