A DEFENCE OF THE Catholick Faith Concerning the Satisfaction of Christ Written originally By the Learned HVGO GROTIVS And now Translated by W. H. A Work very necessary in these Times for the preventing of the Growth of Socinianism LONDON Printed for Thomas Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns at the lower end of Cheapside near Mercers Chappel and Jonathan Robinson at the Golden Lyon in St. Paul's Church-yard 1692. TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL Sir CHARLES WOOSELEY Knight and Baronet Much Honoured Sir THE Translation of this worthy Labour of the great and famous Grotius may boldly Claim the Honour of being Dedicated to your Patronage for many Causes The Excellency of this Subject being a Defence of one of the most Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith requires a Patron of Worth and Excellency and such a one I may speak it without flattery is your self who are eminent for Learning and exemplary for Piety Your Works that are published in the World which are both greatly approved for their Piety and justly admired for their Profundity are an invincible Argument how Greatness and Goodness are joyned together in you by a a lovely Union But there is also a peculiar Encouragement to Dedicate this Book to you because you were the first that encouraged the Translation and Publication of this Work And verily if the seasonableness of a thing adds to its beauty as Solomon hath testified this Work hath found a fit time for its Impression For at this time that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 damnable Heresie or Heresie of Destruction as the word in the Original signifies that Root of Bitterness the hellish Error of wretched and blasphemous Socinus who trampled under his Feet the Blood of Jesus the Mediatour of the New Covenant is now beginning to spread it self in England and to infect whole Houses with a worse and more dangerous than any Egyptian Plague If the Son of Croesus who had been dumb all his days before was so wonderfully affected with the danger his Father's Life was in that the bands of his Tongue through the vehemency of Natural Affection were dissolved so that he that never spake before suddainly cried out Kill not my Father King Croesus how much more zealously may I that have been a great while lurking in Darkness as those that have been long dead now appear in the Light against those Enemies of my Redeemer who by their horrid Blasphemies are not ashamed to spit in the Face of my Lord Jesus with greater Impudence than ever did the Jews at his Crucifixion I am very glad that my blessed Redeemer hath honoured me to be Instrumental for the Confutation of that filthy Error of Socinianism which is as ready a way to Hell as ever the Devil of Hell found out since he was a Devil Methinks the very mention of the name of Socinus may make the heart of a gracious Christian to rise with holy Indignation and his hair to stand with amazement that such a blasphemous Wretch could be found upon the Earth How did this Blasphemer strive to vilifie the Blood of Christ Jesus as if thereby our Sins had not been expiated as if thereby no Satisfaction had been made to the Justice of the holy God as if the Death and Sufferings of this Lamb of God had not taken away the sins of the World and had been no Propitiation for our sins Those wicked Blasphemies are throughly Confuted both by invincible Arguments of sound Reason and evident Testimonies of Scripture in this Learned Work of Grotius God hath exhorted all Christians by the holy Apostle Jude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to contend vehemently or to contend as men that are striving for the mastery as the Original Word signifies for the Faith that was once delivered to the Saints therefore I may justly hope that this Work will be acceptable to all good Christians into whose hands it shall come And that your self as you were the first Encourager of its Publication will now also willingly Patronize its being published Worthy Sir I recommend you to the Grace of the Lord Jesus and I beg of God that he may prolong your Life to the glory of his Name and after you have passed the time of your Mortality that an Entrance may be ministred to you abundantly into the Everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ I am Your much obliged Servant W. H. A DEFENCE OF THE Catholick Faith Concerning the Satisfaction of Christ AGAINST FAVSTVS SOCINVS Written by Hugo Grotius CHAP. I. The State of the Controversy is shewed and the true Opinion is Explained in the Words of Scripture BEfore we come to this Dispute we will first set down that Opinion which being taken out of Sacred Writings the Church of Christ hath hitherto defended with an unwavering Faith that afterwards it may evidently appear what is the difference between this and the Opinion of Socinus Therefore we shall explain the same Opinion bringing some Testimonies of Scripture which because Socinus wrested to another Sense by the way the true Interpretation of them shall be vindicated Therefore the Catholick Opinion is thus God being moved by his own Goodness to be signally beneficial unto us but our sins standing in the way which deserved Punishment he appointed that Christ being willing of his own free Love towards men should suffer punishment for our sins by enduring very grievous Torments and a bloody and ignomious Death that without prejudice to the demonstration of the Divine Righteousness we should by Faith Interposing be delivered from the punishment of Eternal Death The first Efficient Cause of the Thing whereof we treat is God God gave his only begotten Son that he that believeth in him should not perish John 3.16 God spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all Rom. 8.32 God laid upon Christ the sins of us all Isai 53.6 God made Christ sin 2 Cor. 5.21 The former Cause that moved God is Mercy or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Love to Mankind So God loved the World that he gave his Son John 3.16 God commends his Love to us that when we were yet sinners Christ died for us Rom. 5.10 The other Cause which moved God is our Sins deserving Punishment Christ was delivered for our sins Rom. 4.25 Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is with an Accusative which amongst the Authors of the Greek Tongue Sacred and Profane is a very usual sign of an impulsive Cause As when it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For these things the wrath of God comes upon the Children of Disobedience Eph. 5.6 And as oft as that Phrase propter peccata for Sins is joined to Sufferings it admits no sense different from an impulsive Cause I will punish you seven times for your sins Levit. 26.28 For those Abominations the Lord God casts them out from your sight Deut. 18.12 and in several other places of Scripture neither is it any where other ways And that other Phrase pro peccatis for
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
especially that which was not due But that which Socinus puts for a thing most certain that this also is required to the signification of that word that a man should take something from himself and should deprive himself of a benefit of his own is not true For not only all those things that are mentioned in many places of the Scripture concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the free Gifts of God as amongst others for example when it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be given to us to believe in Christ and to suffer for Christ. Jesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 freely gave to the blind man his sight When did Christ deprive himself of any benefit when he did so He that for the sake of any man condemns an innocent person is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 freely to give him Acts 25.11 and 16. who yet did not belong to the Condemner Paul exercised the severity of Apostolick Discipline towards the person guilty of Incest not being injured himself neither for any advantage of his own And forgiving this he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he forgave 2 Cor. 2.10 admonishing also the Corinthians to admit the same man unto the priviledge of their former Friendship this also he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 freely to give Ib. 7.10 By these and many other places both of the New Testament and also of other Writers it evidently appears that it is sufficient to the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that something of advantage that was not due comes to the Patient though nothing is taken away from the Agent Moreover we shewed above that a Governour in punishment doth not abdicate any thing proper and private and that is the more evident in this matter because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not only attributed to God but also to Christ Eph. 4.32 but the injury of sin is directed properly against God so that if upon that account God forgiving sins should be said to take away from himself that which is his own yet the same cannot be said of Christ as Mediatour Neither is that more true which Socinus deduceth from that already supposed to wit That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is contrary to any Satisfaction For it is not contrary to that Satisfaction which is both freely admitted when it could have been rejected and unto which he that receives the benefit contributed nothing himself We are in vain solicitous concerning that word condonare because the Holy Spirit caused not any thing to be written in that Language What if yet this word also should appear in Sacred Scripture Yet because in Punishment a Donation properly so called hath no place neither is the Translation of that word unusual nothing could hence be inferred against Satisfaction a thing may be said rightly to be forgiven as also to be pardoned then also when payment is made but such a payment as hath no power to purchase Liberation without an act of the Will For Princes also when they give pardon unto persons guilty of Capital Crimes they use to require of them both some Mulct and a certain publick deprecation of the Fault neither yet are they therefore said the less to forgive Crimes Therefore how much more justly may that word be used here where the required satisfaction proceeds not from us but Liberation comes altogether freely in respect of us though not freely absolutely which the Scripture declares when it says we are justified freely and immediately adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the redemption which is in Christ Jesus Rom. 30.24 Verily seeing the Scripture says not in one place only that we are redeemed and that with a price and that Christ gave himself or his Flesh to deliver us no Equity suffers to overthrow all the force of these by urging the word condonare beyond what the use of the word requires But to that other Argument of Socinus which is drawn from the imitation of God and Christ in freely giving which we are commanded there is no need that any other thing should be answered but what we have already said on the Parable Matth. 13. that the thing is proposed to our imitation not the manner of the thing The thing is the Bounty it self even after sin and the Remission following from it or the Forgiving if so you are pleased to speak the manner is different in God Satisfaction going before in us without it neither is it any wonder because God is a Judge and we private Persons What if a man consider the matter more nicely he will find that all Satisfaction is not removed wholly from that Condonation that is commanded to us but that only which in respect of the Person to wit an Equal not a Superiour exceeds measure For the very Confession of a Fault and Deprecation which Christ forbids not to be required Luke 17.4,5 is so far from disagreeing with Satisfaction that elegant Latin Authors do call it as it were by a peculiar name Satisfacere to satisfie So also Paul useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning the Corinthian when yet the Rebuke of many had went before 2 Cor. 2.6 And we know that in the Ages next the Apostles the peace of the Church as they called it was not given to them that fell but after some publick Acts of Submission which they therefore called Satisfactions The Reason drawn from Liberality leans upon a weak Foundation For as we shewed before that the Vertue which God useth in forgiving of sins is not Liberality but Clemency which Seneca rightly defineth the Meekness of a Superiour towards an Inseriour in appointing punishment Cicero putting the name of a Gender for a Species called this same Clemency Meekness and defined it Justice placed in the moderation of Punishment taking the word Justice in so large a sense that it comprehends Piety and Faith and Friendship Therefore this Clemency belongs to that Vertue which Aristotle in his Ethicks calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Meekness for Clemency is the Meekness of a Ruler But Meekness and Liberality are very much different The Scripture by a somewhat more general name calls this Clemency of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Goodness Rom. 2.4 and 11.22 Tit. 2.4 but never called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Liberality Yea which is more the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Liberality is not applied to God no not in other things that use to be given and received but this Vertue also is rather called the Love of God because it properly belongs to Liberality so to give a thing that it perisheth to the giver But that Socinus with great intemperance of Speech condemns the constant Opinion of the Church of Impiety and Sacriledge because that he himself acknowledgeth a twofold Liberality of God and we only a simple in that thing he doth a great injury to the Truth for our Opinion also acknowledgeth in God a twofold not Liberality for that word is unsutable to
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
punishment of our sins was exacted of him concerning which things we have already treated and with those words of Scripture which testifie not obscurely That God was appeased and reconciled to us by the Blood of Christ That his Blood was a price given for us That Christ died in our stead and was our Propitiation of which there will be occasion to speak afterwards CHAP. II. How God should be considered in this Affair and it is shewed that he should be considered as a Governour THe State of the Controversie being understood and that Opinion being confirmed by Scriptures on which the Faith of the Church is supported that the Objections which the Reason of Socinus or rather the abuse of his Reason furnish-him with may be routed it is requisite that it should be understood What is God's part or office in this matter to be discoursed of Socinus confesses That the Discourse is concerning Deliverance from Punishment We add That the Inflicting of Punishment is also treated of Whence it follows That God must needs be here considered as a Governour For to inflict Punishment or to Deliver a man from Punishment whom thou mayest punish which the Scripture calls to justifie is only the part of a Governour as such firstly and of it self As for Example Of a Father in a Family Of a King in a Common-wealth Of God in the Universe Though this is manifest unto all yet it may be easily proved because Punishment is the last thing in Compulsion but Compulsion belongs only to a Superior 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the higher Power whence Seneca called Clemency the meekness of a Superiour towards an Inferiour in appointing Punishment Neither doth it hinder that Revenge seems sometimes to be attributed to men private and furnished with no superior Power For that Revenge is either of fact not of right which is contrary to natural Justice it self or it signifies a certain right belonging to some man not first and of it self but by the concession of another whence the Father of the ravished Maid kills the Ravisher and any man kills the banished man or it signifies not the Act of Punishment it self but the requiring of the Punishment to be inflicted either by God himself or by another Governour Unto which ways of revenging so many ways of remission of sins or pardon are answerable which both Scripture and common Speech attributes to private men But this Assertion needs so much the less proof because Socinus himself somewhere confesseth That God should be looked upon as a Prince in punishing and absolving men then which nothing more true can be said Neither did James signifie any other thing when he said there is one Law-giver who can save and destroy James 4.12 Therefore in this matter we have a new 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habitude of God which being found it is easie to remove all others First then We grant this to Socinus requiring it That here God should not be looked upon as a Judge appointed under a Law for he that is such a Judge could not free the Offender from punishment by translating the punishment upon another Not because that of it self it is unjust but because it agrees not with the Law whereof he is chosen a Minister Which Lactantius expressed in these words concerning the Anger of God Chap. 19. A Judge cannot give pardon to Offences because he is subject to the Will of another But God can because he himself is the Decider of his own Law which when he appointed verily he took not away all power from himself but hath liberty to forgive Seneca says well Clemency hath a Free-will not under a Condition but judgeth according to justice and Goodness for Equity belongs to a Judge tied to a Form of Law but Clemency properly so called belongs only to the highest Governour in every Community The same Seneca bids a Prince think on this Any man may kill against the Law bur none can save against the Law but my self Augustinus took notice of this distinction It is appointed by the Judges that it should not be lawful to repeal a Sentence given against a guilty person Will the Emperour also be under this Law For it is lawful to him only to repeal a Sentence and absolve a person guilty of Death and to pardon him And Symmachus For there is one condition of Magistrates whose Sentences seem to be corrupted if they are milder than the Laws and there is another power of Sacred Princes whom it becomes to mitigate the sharpness of a severe Law Unto which also Cicero had respect when he said for Ligarius to Caesar I did not I thought not such Arguing useth to be before a Judge but I say to a Father I have erred I did rashly I repent I fly to thy Clemency I beg pardon of the fault I beseech you that you would pardon But Socinus though in the place above-cited he looks upon God as the highest Prince yet in many places in all this act he attributes another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habitude to him to wit of a Party offended And he would have every offended Party to be the Creditor of the Punishment and therein to have such a power as other Creditors have in things owing to them Which power he often calleth by the name of Lordship therefore he very often repeats that here God should be looked upon as a Party offended as a Creditor as a Lord putting these three as signifying the same thing This Error of Socinus because it is largely spread abroad through his whole Treatise and may be said to be in this matter his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chiefest lye must be confuted accurately That this may be performed this Assertion may be put first To punish is not an Act belonging to the Party offended as such this is proved because otherways the power of Punishment of it self would belong to every offended Party which appears to be false because we proved that to punish is an act 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Superiority By the Confession of Socinus himself when he says That God should be look'd upon as a Prince whence another firm Argument ariseth If God punisheth and taketh away punishment as a Prince then not as a Party offended for the same thing cannot be attributed to two divers things as such But at the same time we deny not that God who punisheth sins or lets them go unpunished is rightly called the offended Party But we deny that to punish or let go unpunished is attributed to him as an offended Party For it is very well known that a thing may be said of a man that doth not agree to him as such as a Counseller of Law sings not as a Counseller of Law but as a Musician Lactantius observed this rightly We rise to punishment not because we are injured but that Discipline may be preserved Manners may be corrected Licentiousness may be restrained This is just Anger which as it is necessary in man