CHAP. I.

THIS is so far from being a pernicious Error, as that it is a very Important and most Useful Truth; for the manifest­ing [Page 17] which I'll set my self to hint the ab­surd Consequents of the opposite Notion, and to obviate the seeming Reasonings of this Accuser against it.

§. 1. Suppose we for a while that this Notion of Mr. Baxter's is false, as this Ac­cuser would have it; now if it be so, then the Proposition contrary to it must needs be true; and if it were true, nothing but what is so could naturally and necessarily flow from it. We will therefore consider some of the direct Consequences of that op­posite Notion, and they are such as these.

§. 2. 1. If Christ did suffer by vertue of the violated Law, then it must needs be, either that he was a Violator of the Law Himself, or that Law must be disjunctive; [Thou, or thy Surety, shall obey, otherwise, Thou, or thy Surety, shall suffer.] That one of these Consequents must be allow'd, can­not (with any appearance of Reason) be denied: He cou'd not suffer by vertue of that Law, unless He were under the reach of it; and how cou'd He be any other way under the reach of that Law, than one of these two:

Either as having violated it Himself; or, being bound, when the Law was given, as a Surety in the same Bond with us.

[Page 18] There is indeed a third way pretended by this Accuser, and that is, That by his own Sponsion, and by the will of the Father, He came under the Obligation of the Violated Law, and so stood bound by this Law to suffer, Ap. p. 5, 6. But 'tis strange, that a Person so well ac­quainted with Laws, as he wou'd be thought to be, shou'd need to be told, that if the Obligation Christ laid Himself under to suf­fer, was as exactly the same, with that we lay under, as it was possible to be; yet the Change that was made in the Person oblig'd to suffer, did alter the Form of it, and make it truly another Law, another Obligation, and not that of the Original Law, otherwise than Materially only. We are willing to allow, That Christ suffer'd the same for Quantity and Quality that we shou'd have suffer'd, so far as there is but probable Proof. Baxt. of Univers. Redempt. p. 78, 79. But if it were most strictly the same thing that we were oblig'd to, yet it is not sufficient to prove, He suffer'd under the Formal Obligation of the Violated Law, or that He stood bound by that Law to suffer; for that another Per­son may, in the stead of a Criminal, suffer the very same kind of Pain, or Loss, That the Criminal himself was Condemn'd to, and this by his own Sponsion, and the Will of the Prince: In which case I dare appeal to all the Learned in the Law, whether the Obligation be not another; whether the Law by vertue whereof He suffers, be not differ­ing [Page 19] from that which Condemn'd the Male­factor himself.

So that if Christ did (as this Accuser of him, as well as us, says) suffer by vertue of the Violated Law; 'tis not to be conceiv'd, how the threatning of that Law cou'd reach Him, unless He were (as we have hinted)

Either a Violater of that Law Himself, or an Antecedent Surety with and for us.

Which either of these he shall say, it will equally be subversive of the whole Gospel.

§. 3. (1.) Shou'd he have the Front to say, That Christ was Himself a Violater of that Law, what more Egregious Blasphemy cou'd he utter against the Author of our Holy Religion? How shou'd He be the Re­deemer of Sinners, that was a Sinner Him­self! The whole Gospel does depend upon, and necessarily presuppose his Innocency (yea, which is more, his Divinity) as the Foundation of it, John 1. 1. Hell it self cannot Foam out greater Rage and Nonsense than to call God a Sinner; and while we are so expresly assur'd, That our Lord Jesus was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, Heb. 7. 26. That He knew no sin, 2 Cor. 1. 21. Heb. 4. 15. 1 Pet. 2. 22. 1 Joh. 3. 5. 1 Pet. 1. 19. We shall not so much as suspect, that any one Professing the Christian [Page 20] Name will imagine, that Christ suffer'd as being a Violater of that Law Himself.

2. If then He suffer'd by Vertue of the Sanction of that Law, it remains that He was an Antecedent Surety with and for us; other­wise the Obligation of that Law cou'd never reach Him; and then the Law as given to Adam, must be supposed to run [Thou shalt obey, or thy Surety for thee; otherwise, thou shalt die, or thy Surety for thee.] Now if the Original Law did thus take in a Surety, how plain is it, that it was never violated! Our Surety did obey, did fulfill all Righteous­ness; if then it only oblig'd either Him, or us disjunctively to obey; what ground is there left, whereupon either Christ or we shou'd suffer!

Obj. But I presume some will allege, His Suretiship did only respect the Sanction, not the preceptive part of the Law; that the Law did not oblige Him to obey; but only (sup­posing our Disobedience) either He or we must suffer.

Repl. To which it might be reply'd, The Surety's Name is not more Legible in the Penal; than in the Preceptive Part of the Law; and we find He did Obey, as well as Suffer; and therefore have reason to think He was equally oblig'd to Obey, as He was to Suffer. But yet we will suppose it to be (as they wou'd have it) that Christ was only [Page 21] oblig'd in case of our Disobedience; that He was only a Surety with reference to the Penalty; and that the Sense of the Law was [Thou Adam shalt obey, otherwise, thou or Christ, shall die.] And thus far at least He must be obnoxious to the Original Law, otherwise He cou'd not possibly suffer under the Obligation of that Law; He cou'd not be said to be (as this Accuser wou'd have it thought He was) in the same Bond with us, and oblig'd to suffer by vertue of the San­ction of the same Law that oblig'd us to suf­fer.

§. 4. Now this Notion in the Consequen­ces of it, is equally subversive of Christiani­ty with the former,

For 1. If the Original Law (as to its Pe­nal Part) was disjunctive, viz. either that the Offender shou'd suffer, or Christ for him, then the Gospel had not been the bringing in of a better Covenant, but a performance Of the Suf­ferings of Christ, last Edition, p. 14. of the Old. Thus does that Right Reverend Person, to whom this Accuser has Appeal'd, argue against him. Upon this Principle, what the Apostle had so carefully distin­guish'd, are confounded together, and made one and the same thing, when upon a com­paring 'em together, he does once and again give the Preferrence to the latter Covenant, (as Heb. 7. 22.—8. 6.) 'tis plain he sup­poses the one is not the other; or, if the Apostle in that Discourse had a more im­mediate [Page 22] Reference to the Mosaick Law, his Argument will hold a fortiori from hence, in reference to the Original Law. But there is one thing farther I wou'd add un­der this Head, which perhaps will be of weight with this Accuser and his Friends, and that is, That hereupon the Gospel must needs be a Law, the very Old, Original Law, and not so much as a Law of greater Grace; what can there possibly be left to distinguish the Old, Original Law, and the Gospel, if this Principle be admitted?

2. If the Original Law (as to its Penal Part) was disjunctive, it wou'd also fol­low, That we are Justifiable, according to the utmost Rigour of that Law; for sup­posing the Penalty to be already borne, what has that Law further to Charge upon us? The Psalmist (surely) had much dif­fering Apprehensions of the Matter, when he cried out, If thou, Lord, shouldst mark Iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? Psal. 130. 3. The Reverend Dr. Owen's Words upon this place, are very remarkable: ‘But (says he) may not an Intercessor be ob­tain'd to Plead on the Behalf of the guil­ty Soul? Eli determines this matter, I Sam. 2. 25. If one Man sin against ano­ther, the Judge shall judge him; but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall intreat for him? There is not, says Job, between us, [...] one that might argue the case, [Page 23] in pleading for me, and so make up the Matter, laying his hand upon us both, Job 9. 33. We now (as he immediately adds) consider a Sinner purely under the Dr. Owen, on Psal. CXXX. p. 48. Administration of the Law, which knows nothing of a Mediator.’ So that (ac­cording to him, and indeed according to the Truth of the thing) the Original Law did not admit or appoint any Mediator, any Christ to suffer and plead on the behalf of the guilty Soul; and consequently left no place for hope. But upon this Supposal, That that Law only oblig'd either Christ, or us to suffer, what reason was there for so dismal Apprehensions? tho' God shou'd mark Iniquities, resolve to Animadvert upon 'em with utmost Rigour, we may yet stand; for that the very rigour of the Law does (according to them) require only, that ei­ther Christ, or we shou'd suffer, not that both shou'd, now then where is the danger the Psalmist was so apprehensive of? And whence is it, that he does elsewhere so ear­nestly deprecate God's Judicial Process, Psal. 143. 2. Enter not into judgment with thy ser­vant, for in thy sight shall no man living be justify'd. It must needs be, either that the Psalmist, or these Men, have very greatly misapprehended the Sense of that Law; for that according to him, if God shou'd judge us by that Law, no man living cou'd be ju­stify'd; whereas according to them, though God shou'd judge us by that Law, we can­not [Page 24] but be Justify'd; for when the threatned Penalty is inflicted, the most rigorous Ju­stice can go no further; we are Recti in Cu­ria, when the Law is satisfy'd; no further charge can have place against us.

3. Yea further, it follows, That we ne­ver had (as indeed we cou'd never need) a Pardon. The Case will be very plain by a familiar Instance: Suppose two Persons jointly bound for the Payment of a certain Sum of Money, or for the performance of any other Condition or Contract; if either Party pay the Money, or discharge the Bond, the other is quit in Law, and the Creditor cannot be said to have forgiven him. Justice it self is so far from requiring, that it wou'd not admit of double Pay­ment. Now then, if Christ was in the same Bond with us, if either He or we suf­fer, the Debt is Paid, the utmost Demands of Justice are answer'd; what place is there then left for Forgiveness? Can a Penalty be said to be forgiven, that was not due? or can it be yet due, when 'tis already paid? and is it not in Law paid, if either the Principal or Surety pay it? Upon this Prin­ciple then it is plain, That God cannot be said to have forgiven us, to have been graci­ous to us [...]: For tho' Socinus did (as Grotius has manifested) Ar­gue from those Terms, with great weakness, against all Satisfaction; yet nothing can, [Page 25] with greater force and evidence, disprove a full and proper Solution. What shall we then say to those numerous Texts, where we and our Sins are said to be forgiven? Here­upon the Gospel-Covenant, as offering Re­mission, Luke 24. 47. and the Sacraments of the Gospel, as Sealing it to Sincerely Pe­nitent Believers, Acts 2. 38. Mat. 26. 28. are render'd meer Impertinencies; and can it be thought these Persons do ever pray for Pardon; or that they do account themselves beholden to God for it? how they can con­sistently with this their Opinion, I see not.

4. Moreover, this Doctrine renders our Repentance, and all Obedience of our's needless; and a continued course of the most enormous wickednesses wou'd here­upon be unhurtful to us. If these Persons will be consistent with themselves, it seems necessary for 'em to say (as Dr. Crisp) that Sin can do us no hurt, and Holiness can do us no good. Upon this Principle, what hurt can Sin, the grossest wickedness do us? Sup­pose a Person an Atheist, a Blasphemer, an Adulterer, that he live and die such; in this case it can only be said, The Law was violated, and therefore the Threatning must take place: But if this Notion be true, that the Law threatens only, that either the Sinner or Christ shall die, it cannot touch such a Creature as this, it having been al­ready executed.

[Page 26] And alike needless must it needs render Holiness and Obedience in all the Instances of it; for to what purpose is it, can it be suppos'd to be needful, if he may be ac­cepted with God, if he may be Rectus in curia without it.

5. Again, If this Principle be admitted, none of our sufferings wou'd consist with the Justice of God: for that according to them, the Law did oblige only Christ, or us, to suf­fer; if either suffer therefore, full Payment is made; the Law has no farther demands to make; how is it then, that we notwith­standing suffer? that we are subjected to any Sufferings, Spiritual or Temporal (not to make any mention here of Eternal ones) Whence is it that God with-draws the Quickning, or Comforting Influences of his Spirit from any? Whence is it, that He gives up any to their own Hearts Lusts? Whence is it that any are expos'd to the fiery Darts of the wicked one? Or yet, that the Arrows of the Almighty do wound, do stick fast in any Soul? Or, if we shou'd yet come lower, how unaccountable were it, that we shou'd groan under pining Sicknesses, noisom Diseases, racking Pains, and at length yield to Death?

It will, perhaps, be pleaded, That God may inflict all these Evils, and many more at pleasure, as being Absolute Lord of his Crea­tures; [Page 27] but it shou'd be remembred, That having given us a Law, He is become our Ruler; and thereby He does declare, That He will not, however (antecedently there­to) He might have Arbitrarily inflicted any Evil upon us: The very giving out a Law, in and by which it is Enacted, That such certain Evils shall be inflicted upon the Transgressors of it; how plainly does it in­demnifie-the Non-violaters of it from such Sufferings? Such Threatnings otherwise cou'd answer no End; if it were intended, That whether they violated the Law, or not, they shou'd be alike obnoxious. Now if we consider God as a Governour, the Evils He inflicts come under another Con­sideration; they are not meerly Afflictions or Sufferings, but they are also Punishments, and therefore they are not dispens'd Arbi­trarily, but according to a Stated Rule; He does not punish any but such as by the Law are obnoxious; hence is it that we read of his Righteousness in Reference to this Matter.

And as this does more generally evince, That all Evils inflicted by a Ruler as such, are Punishments; so (with Reference to the particular Instances above-mention'd) it might be distinctly made appear, that they are, in the most strict and proper Sense, Pu­nishments—In the last (which is not the least doubted) Case, how plain is it! that the Separation of Soul and Body is Penal; that [Page 28] 'tis a natural Evil no one doubts, as such 'tis abhorr'd of all; and that 'tis inflicted for, or by reason of Sin, is as unquestionable, if the Apostle's account of the Matter may be allow'd; for so he tells us, Rom. 5. 12. By one man sin enter'd into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinn'd. So that Death (amongst Men) has the nature of a Punishment in it, but how then comes it to be inflicted, if it be not due? If we be not obnoxious to the Sentence of the Law, it cannot be said to be due to us; if the Threatning was dis­junctive, both Parties Bound cou'd not be obnoxious, if Sentence be executed on ei­ther, the other is clear; how comes it then that we are punish'd and Christ too! What shall we say? Is God unrighteous that taketh vengeance? Rom. 3. 5. Or is not this ra­ther an unrighteous Doctrine, that wou'd re­flect the Imputation of Injustice upon the Holy God?

6. Yet again, According to this Notion, How can the Eternal Damnation of any Soul consist with Divine Justice? This Surety is a Punishment with a witness; but how can it be a righteous one if it be not due? And it cannot be due to any Man, if it be already paid; and every Man has paid it, if his Surety have done it. I see not, upon this Principle, how God can, in Justice, Damn any individual Soul: Here [Page 29] then is Universal Redemption, and Universal Grace, beyond the utmost stretch of Armi­nianism it self. What! is it then not only possible that they may, but is it also certain that all shall be Sav'd from Everlasting Per­dition! Is there not only a Sufficiency of Grace afforded to all, but that Efficacious Influence that will secure the Effect! Is God not only unwilling to Damn any, but is He also unjust, unrighteous if He do! 'Tis strange then, that we should read of a [...], Rom. 2. 5. and an [...], Heb. 2. 2. Certainly a Threat­ning us with Wrath, because of God's righ­teous Judgment, and with Remediless Ruine, as a just Recompence of Reward, cannot but intimate, That God wou'd be Righteous and Just, tho' careless obdurate Sinners shou'd finally perish.

Nay, while we are assur'd, That Sodom and Gomorrah, Jude, v. 7. and many others, suffer the vengeance of Eternal Fire, and that God has not only [...], Power, Ability, Mat. 10. 28. but also [...], Power, Au­thority, Luke 12. 5. to cast into Hell: those, and many like Texts, cannot be more true, than this Opinion is false, that wou'd in­fer God cannot Punish, cannot cast into Hell, were unjust if He shou'd do it; yea, such a Notion must needs be false, that these Sacred Scriptures may be true.

[Page 30] 7. I'll add but one more absurd Conse­quence of this Opinion (though many more might be subjoyn'd) and that is, That the Patrons of this Principle do hereby greatly obscure, and lessen that Free-Grace in Christ, which they so highly pretend to Exalt and Magnifie. When they have seem'd to ad­vance Free-Grace beyond all others, to cry up Gospel-Grace, and Gospel-Preaching, they do at length subvert all Purely-Gospel-Grace at once, and necessarily resolve the Whole of Divine Grace into the Constitution of the Law of Works: For, supposing (with them) that Christ's Name was put into the Original Bond; supposing that Law did take in Christ as Surety with us; 'tis not of Grace, but Justice, that God is reconcil'd to us, or that we are accepted with Him; it shou'd not be said that we are Justify'd freely by his Grace, but that the Rigour of the Law did exact nothing more, and there­fore our Justification was a due debt, 'twas what was owing to us by Governing Justice; the Righteous God cou'd not Condemn us, having already exacted the threatned Pu­nishment at our Surety's Hands. Now is it so Adorable, so Surprizing Grace, that God shou'd be just to his own Law! Is it so very Astonishing and Wonderful a thing, that God shou'd be true to his Word! Thus, after all their Pretences of a more exalted Admiration of, and Value for Divine Grace, [Page 31] they do by this Notion shrink it into so nar­row a Compass, as the Framing the Origi­nal Law; and as for all that which the Gos­pel magnifies as Grace, they render it no­thing other than pure Justice; all Gospel Grace shou'd (with them, if they will con­sist with themselves) be nothing differing from a due Debt, tho' the Apostle does so carefully contra-distinguish and oppose 'em to each other, Rom. 4. 4.

§ 5. (2.) If Christ did suffer by Vertue of the violated Law, then his Sufferings were most strictly the same that we were ob­noxious to; this is as plain, as that the Sanction of the Law was the same with it self. But is it to be admitted, that our Lord Jesus Christ was alienated from the Life and Love of God! that He was dead in trespasses and sins! deserted of the Spirit of Holiness! was his Soul over-run with outragi­ous and impetuous Lusts! All which, under one consideration, is our Punishment, tho' under another respect it be also our Sin. Or was the Lord Jesus hated, abhorr'd of the Father! Did He lose all right to, and In­terest in God's Favour and Kindness? Did He bear the stinging Reflections of a guilty Consci­ence, the horrors of a despairing damned wretch in Hell? This is but part of the Punish­ment included in the Threatning against us; but what Pious Soul wou'd not rise with In­dignation against any one, that shou'd so [Page 32] far Blaspheme the Holy and ever-blessed Redeemer, as to say this was his Case, his State? And if He did not suffer what that Law threatned, it cannot be said that He suffer'd by vertue of that Law. It remains then, that He did only suffer by vertue of the Law of Mediation, as before.

§. 6. (3.) Then the Law oblig'd him to suffer; whereupon it wou'd follow, that neither He cou'd refuse the Undertaking; nor God refuse to accept it as Punishment; but this I shall but mention here.

§. 7. We are next to obviate the seeming Reasonings of this Accuser against this Truth; and what he does loosely (and im­methodically enough) offer here and there to this purpose, we shall endeavour to re­duce into some Order, that it may appear, with all the force it has, against us; and be more capable of receiving a just Reply. And,

(1.) He does insinuate, That Christ's Suf­ferings cannot otherwise be an Act of Rectoral Justice; but only Acts of Obedience and Do­minion. Take his own Words: ‘We are of Opinion, That Sufferings which are not from the Obligations of a Violated Law, cannot be an Act of Rectoral Ju­stice, which does Essentially respect the Law in its Distributions.—If a Rector sen­tenceth [Page 33] any to Sufferings, without a re­gard to Sin, it is Unjust. Appeal, p. 7.’

And again, ‘If Mr. B. resolve Christ's Sufferings wholly into a Conformity to the Precept of the Mediatorial Law,—they can be but Acts of Obedience and Dominion, not Acts of Justice, p. 50, 51.’ So he goes on, p. 52. ‘They affirm 'em to be but Acts of Obedience, and consequently Acts of Dominion, not of Punitive Justice.’ So again, p. 54. The Sufferings of Christ—‘cou'd not be a Judicial Act of God: He (Christ) cou'd not be Condemn'd, nor cou'd Sentence pass upon Him; nor ac­cording to any Sentence cou'd He be exe­cuted; for where no Obligation to Pu­nishment by the Sanction of the Law, there no Guilt in any Sense; where no Guilt, no Condemning, no Passing a Sentence justly, no Execution, &c.’ And P. 56. His Sufferings cou'd be but an Act of Dominion.

Now to all this we Answer.

1. That He is so Confus'd, and Unsteady in the Forming this Objection, that we can hardly so much as guess what it is he means: Sometimes he speaks of the Sufferings of Christ as an Act of Rectoral Justice, and a Judicial Act of God; where one wou'd think he considers 'em as inflicted by God; and yet in other places, he speaks of 'em as [Page 34] Acts of Justice, where 'tis not certain, but he may refer to 'em as undertaken by Christ: Now these two are far from being the same thing, That Christ was not unrighteous in undertaking, and undergoing those Suffer­ings; and that God was not unrighteous in inflicting and laying 'em upon Him.

Again, he thus confounds, an Act of Do­minion, and Acts of Dominion; whereas the former may import, That the Father (as Dominus Christi, as his Lord) might enjoyn Him to suffer; and the latter may signifie, That Christ (as Lord of his own Acts) might offer, might consent to suffer.

Besides, he confounds Sufferings inflicted by vertue of the Sanction of the Law, and Suf­ferings inflicted, with a regard to Sin, and makes the latter signifie as much as the for­mer, whereas we constantly (and with the justest Reason) distinguish betwixt 'em; and allow that in the Sufferings of Christ, there was a regard had to Sin, to our Sin, as what had offended, highly incens'd the Di­vine Majesty against us, and render'd it ne­cessary (for the Reputation of his Wisdom, Holiness, Justice, and the support of his Governing-Authority) that his Displeasure shou'd in one way or other be manifested against Sin, if He shou'd (and that He might) remit the Penalty due to the Sinner. And hereupon it was agreed betwixt the [Page 35] Father and the Son, that Christ shou'd Suf­fer; the Divine Wisdom this way at once providing for the Honour of God, as Go­vernour, and for the Redemption of Apo­state-Man. So that we readily grant, there was a respect had to sin, in the Sufferings of Christ; yea, that it cou'd not have con­sisted with the Justice of God as Rector, to Sentence Him to suffer, without a regard to sin. But it does not, cannot thence fol­low, that He suffer'd by vertue of the Obliga­tion of the Violated Law; that that Law oblig'd Him to suffer; unless you will also say, That that Law oblig'd God to Save Sinners, and to appoint this Ransom for 'em. But,

2. Supposing him to mean (as his Refe­rence to the Bishop of Worcester's Letter wou'd intimate) That unless we will allow Christ's Sufferings to have been by vertue of the violated Law, they cou'd not be in­flicted by God as a Ruler, but only as an absolute Lord. We deny the Consequence: neither is it to be allow'd, unless he can make it appear, that this is the only Law, by vertue whereof Christ cou'd be oblig'd to suffer.

And therefore also, it might be (and was) a Judicial Act of God, an Act of his Rectoral Justice to inflict Sufferings upon Christ, because the Law of Mediation ren­der'd [Page 36] him obnoxious to Sufferings: and be­ing hence oblig'd to suffer (and, in that ge­neral Sense, having guilt upon Him) He might have Sentence justly pass'd and exe­cuted upon Him; and accordingly we find (in that Prophetical Psalm, 22. 3.) Christ Justifies God the Father under the very depth of his Sorrows.

Nay, Christ's Sufferings did not only consist with the Justice of God as a Rector; but did also declare and demonstrate it to the World, Rom. 3. 25, 26. God set Him forth, set Him in view of all the World, by Him (by his Blood) to declare his Righteous­ness, that He might be, and appear to be just, though He was a Justifier of sinful Men. As we shall (God willing) more fully clear, when we come to deal with the Socinian Ad­versaries, in the Second Part of this Dis­course.

(3.) Whereas he argues from their be­ing Acts of Obedience (in our Opinion) that consequently we must hold, that they are only Acts of Dominion, &c. We again de­ny the Consequence; nay, rather think the direct opposite shou'd have been inferr'd, viz. That because we do consider the Sufferings of Christ, as Acts of Obedience to a Law, therefore God is not, in reference hereto, to be look'd upon as a meer Lord or Owner, but also as a Ruler.

[Page 37] And we are the less afraid of having any ill consequence prov'd upon us, as to this, because (which yet this Accuser, as if he very little convers'd with the Scriptures, seems not to know) 'tis consecrated Lan­guage as well as Divine Truth; 'tis not on­ly the sense, but also the words of the Holy Ghost, Rom. 5. 19. Phil. 2. 8. Heb. 5. 8. So that the Sufferings of Christ were Acts of Obe­dience, and consequently we may infer, did correspond to the Precepts of a Law, and what other could it be but that of Media­tion: Accordingly, in reference to these very Sufferings, our Saviour himself tells us, That he acted herein pursuant to a Command he had receiv'd of his Father, John 10. 17, 18. He says not, this I was oblig'd to by the threatning of one or other Law; but a Command I have received to this pur­pose, and I'm ready to obey; for thus also in the Volum of the Book it is written of him, Lo, I come to do thy Will, O God; for to the offering of his Body, the Apostle does apply those words, Heb. 10. 7—10.

(4.) And lastly, To close this head, we add, That if indeed we had said, that the Sufferings of Christ had no respect at all to the violated Law, he might then (with some force of Reason) have inferr'd upon us, that we thereby render'd 'em, with the So­cinians, a meer Act of Dominion upon Christ, and not (in any sense) an Act of [Page 38] Justice: But he cannot but know, that we willingly grant, that they had some Reference even to the Sanction of that Law, and that both as,

• The Law, obliging us to suffer, was the ground and reason of his Under­taking to suffer.
• His Sufferings did in great part answer the Ends, for which that Sanction was annex'd to the Law.

(1.) The Law, as obliging us to suffer, was the Ground the Reason of Christ's Un­dertaking to suffer; but his Sufferings them­selves, were by reason of that Undertaking; had it not been that we were under sen­tence of Death by that Law, we had not needed a Mediator; Nay further, could that Sentence have been remitted without any satisfaction made; Could the Threat­ning have been absolutely recall'd (so as that no severe Marks of Divine Displea­sure should have been left upon Sin) and this without weakning his Authority, and rendring the Majesty of Heaven cheap: Christ had never suffer'd, never undertaken to suffer—But these things are vastly differing; to say that upon this Reason Christ undertook to suffer; and to say, that that very Sanction oblig'd him to suffer; in the former Case, 'tis no more than loco causae Obligatoriae; in the latter, it would be the Obligatory Cause it self.

[Page 39] (2.) Christ's Sufferings did, in great part answer the Ends of that Sanction; as will appear, if we consider for what pur­poses a Sanction was added to the Law; and amongst others, such as these do readi­ly occur, viz. thereby to express God's ha­tred of Sin; to secure the Law and Law­giver from Contempt; and to enforce Obedi­ence, &c. Now these Ends of the Threat­ning were answer'd as well (perhaps bet­ter) by the Sufferings of Christ, than they could have been by the sufferings of Sinners themselves. Yet it cannot therefore be said, that the Threatning it self was executed upon Christ. In short, some respect the Suffer­ings of Christ had to the violated Law, as is above said, but not such, as that it can be said with Truth, either that that Law oblig'd Him to suffer, or that it was fulfill'd in and by his Sufferings.

(2.) He does next Insinuate, As if Christ cou'd not be a Mediator, at least, not suffer as such; unless He suffer'd by Vertue of the Violated Law. This (surely) must be his Sense, if he have any, P. 25. where he says, ‘That though Christ came not un­der the Obligation of the Law of Works, but by the Father's Will, and his own Consent—Yet (on his Entring into the Office of a Mediator) the Obligation to suffer for Sin, is immediately by Vertue of the Sanction of the Law.’ I take him [Page 40] to mean, That tho' He was not a Mediator, without the Appointment of God, and his own Consent, yet upon his very becoming a Mediator, the Obligation of the violated Law must immediately lay hold upon Him; so that tho' He might have avoided Suffer­ing, had He declin'd his Mediatory Under­taking; yet supposing Him to Mediate, the Violated Law immediately seizeth on Him, and obliges Him to suffer. To which we Answer,

1. The Violated Law did indeed oblige the Sinner himself to suffer; but that it did or cou'd oblige any one else, is what (how oft soever it be said) has never yet been prov'd.

2. Nor does Christ's meerly entring into the Office of a Mediator, necessarily (and in the nature of the thing) oblige Him to suffer; for it is conceivable, (as a thing very possible) that He might have Media­ted for a mitigation of our Sufferings only. Suppose (for instance) that instead of the Torments of Hell for ever, we might only endure those Tortures for a determinate Number of Years. I would not be mista­ken: I am not saying Christ did so, being well assur'd He did otherwise; nor am I de­vising a better Method, or one equally good with that which took place: 'Tis not without inexpressible Delight and Grati­tude, [Page 41] that I do own and adore the Infinite­ly excelling Wisdom and Goodness, that is conspicuous in the Gospel-way of Media­tion. All I say is, That in the nature of the thing 'twas not impossible, there might have been a Mediation set on foot to this purpose; in which case I ask, how it does appear, that the Mediator Himself must needs suffer? And this with a design to convince Our Accuser, his Argument can have no force in it; for that it must accord­ing to all Rules of Logick, proceed upon this Indefinite and Unlimitted Proposition, Whoever Mediates for an obnoxious Criminal, shall suffer. Which Proposition is not to be allow'd, unless every one that Mediates (in what way soever) for such an one must needs suffer: An Assertion so weak, that barely to mention it is sufficiently to expose it; yet if he shou'd limit it to this, or any other special Case, 'twould there only be a naked Assertion, and no Argument.

3. But supposing Christ was (as I wil­lingly grant he was) upon his entring into the Office of a Mediator oblig'd to suffer for Sin; yet still, it appears not that He is so, immediately by vertue of the Sanction of the Law. That the Sufferings of the Mediator had a Respect to the Sanction of the Law (as before) we grant; but that He was proper­ly oblig'd by that Law to suffer (whether mediately, or immediately) is what we be­lieve [Page 42] this Accuser can never prove. The violated Law never said, If Christ Mediate for Sinners, He shall die; but another Law that was peculiar to Himself, and which we therefore call the Law of Mediation.

(3.) But he proceeds, ‘If Christ's Obli­gation to Suffer did not result from this Law (i. e. the Violated Law) our sins were not the Impulsive Cause of his Suffer­ings, Ibid. p. 25. And he adds, p. 41. It's impossible Sin shou'd be their Merito­rious Cause. And again, p. 50. If Christ's Sufferings be not—by vertue of the Penal Sanction of a violated Law, our Sins cannot be their Meritorious Cause.’

The Answer to this we must defer to the Fourth Chapter, where we shall have occasion to speak fully to it. Again,

(4.) He does also suggest, in the last quo­ted Pages, That Christ's Sufferings cou'd not otherwise be a proper Punishment—The Consideration whereof is also to be reserv'd for the Fifth Chapter of this Discourse. More­over,

(5.) He does next intimate, That it was either by vertue of that Sanction (i. e. that of the Violated Law) or by vertue of no Sanction at all, that Christ was oblig'd to suffer: For [Page 43] that according to us, the Mediatorial Law had no Penal Sanction; and thereupon he challenges us to shew, by vertue of what Sanction Christ was oblig'd to suffer, Vid. p. 26. In Answer whereto,

We distinguish be­twixt a Sanction

• In a more Loose and General Sense;
• In a more Strict and Proper one.

Accordingly we say,

1. In the strictest Sense, as it does im­port the Threatning that is annex'd to a Law, we see not how it can be said, that Christ was oblig'd to Suffer by vertue of any San­ction; for that we know no Law that threat­ned Him. But,

2. If we understand the Word in a looser and more general Sense, as signifying only an Ordination at large; we may say, Sanci­tum fuit, it was Ordain'd, Enacted by the Law of Mediation, that He shou'd suffer for Sin; and so He was oblig'd to suffer by ver­tue of that Sanction.

6. In the last place, He does advance a very formidable Argument against us, viz. That (upon the fore-mention'd Principle) we cannot hold Christ's Sufferings to have been in our place and stead, otherwise than as [Page 44] it signifies only for our Benefit and Advantage. This he inlarges upon, p. 29, 30.

To which we Reply, First, and more ge­nerally, That all that make use of that Di­stinction, are not agreed upon one and the same Sense; and therefore the Sense of the Terms shou'd be fix'd, before they can sig­nifie any thing in an Argument. 'Tis pos­sible such a Sense may be affix'd to one, or other of the Terms, in which it may be true, that we cannot hold Christ's Suffer­ings to have been in our place and stead, or to have been otherwise so, than as it signi­fies for our good. Who knows what Secret Sense this Accuser may understand these Phrases in, by which he may prove his charge against us.

We shou'd therefore know, what it is he means, both by Christ's Suffering in our place and stead, and by his Suffering for our bene­fit and advantage: For by knowing only his Sense of one of these Phrases, we cannot possibly Conjecture, whether the other (with him) import less or more, or just the same thing. Yet,

2. And more particularly, tho' we can­not (in his declar'd Sense) hold that Christ suffer'd in our place, yet it will not follow, that we do not (or cannot) hold that He [Page 45] suffer'd in our stead, otherwise than as it sig­nifies for our good only. But what we do, (and consistently with our selves can) main­tain his Suffering in our stead, in such a Sense in which the Socinians ever deny'd it, shall (thro' Divine Assistance) be made appear in the Second Part of this Discourse.

CHAP. II.

§. 1. THIS also he would have to be accounted amongst our Errors, as appears not only from several Passages in his Appeal, but also from his objecting this, amongst other faults, against the Third Pa­per (in his Report) viz. That it was so word­ed as to be calculated to their Meridian, who hold, That Christ suffer'd only in the Person of a Mediator, not in the Person of Sinners.

§. 2. That Christ was a Mediator, and did suffer as (or in the Person of) a Media­tor, I will suppose is no part of the Con­troversie betwixt the Accuser and us: All that can then remain as questionable, is, Whether he suffer'd as (or in the Person of) a Sinner—which being affirm'd, shou'd also have been prov'd by this Ac­cuser: We being only Doubters or Deni­ers in this Point, have nothing to do but only to hear his Proofs: No Rules I have yet met with, oblige us to any thing more.

[Page 47] §. 3. Yet since he has not (as might have been expected) done his part; or perhaps, could not do it; we shall more than do our own; that it may appear, what it is we do herein deny, and upon what Reasons we do it. And

§. 4. In order to a better understanding the state of the Case, it should be consider­ed, That the Phrase it self is what the Scriptures are utterly a Stranger to: We no where read in those sacred Oracles, ei­ther of Christ's sustaining, or suffering in the Person of Sinners; and 'tis but reasona­ble for us, when Articles of Faith are propos'd to, nay press'd upon us, to hesi­tate about 'em (can we be blam'd, if we also deny, renounce 'em) unless Scripture-Evidence be produc'd for 'em. If their sense of this (or any other) Phrase appear in the Scriptures, we shall readily own that sense; but the Phrase it self cannot be thought necessary, while it is not there.

§. 5. But besides, This is not only an Humane Phrase, but a very obscure and ambiguous one; and 'tis hard to conceive (amongst the many senses it is capable of) any one sense, in which it may be tolerably apply'd to the present Case—We shall briefly mention some of the more remarka­ble Notations of the Word [Person:] And passing by several others, I shall only take [Page 48] notice of the vastly differing sense in which the Word is us'd by Metaphysicians, and by Civilians.

§. 6. The word [Person] as made use of by Metaphysicians, is design'd to express an individual, compleat; intelligent Substance. Thus every Man, and every Angel are di­stinct Persons; and Christian Philosophers transfer this account of the word [Person] to Christ as God-Man; yea, and to the God-Head it self, when they use that Term with reference to the Sacred Three, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. But in this sense 'tis not to be admitted, that Christ suffer'd in the Person of Sinners; for that in order to his suffering in any Person (one or other) it was first necessary he should assume that Person; Now, however he did assume the Nature of Man, yet he did not, 'twas not possible that he should, in this sense, assume the Person of any Sinner. Surely this Ac­cuser himself will not dare to assert, That Christ was the individual Substance of Pe­ter, Judas, &c. if not, he was not their Per­son; and if not their Person, then he did not suffer as such.

§. 7. Or if they should refer us to Civi­lians for the sense of the word, 'tis amongst them a very perplex'd and un-agreed Term. Sometimes they do only in general contra­distinguish Persons to Things, and make the [Page 49] word Person to be aequivalent to the word Man. Thus Zouch, Res sunt de quibus homines agunt; Personae quae agunt in se; i. e. Viri & Elementa Jurisprud. p. 1. §. 7, 8. Mulieres: qui Hominis appellatione continentur. Yet according to others, this Term of Per­son is not so extensive as that of Man. So Lexic. Jurid. Sub Tit. Personae. Calvin tells us, Personae appellatio cum ho­minis appellatione non est eadem; haec enim quam illa est generalior—Omnis Persona est homo, sed non vicissim. Inde Persona de­finitur Homo, qui caput habet civile. By ca­put civile habens. he does not (as some ap­prehend) mean one that has a Civil Head, or a superiour in the State; then indeed (as they infer) a King would be no Person; but what he and other Civilians intend by it, is one that has the liberties of a Free-born Subject in the State; and so is design'd only to exclude Prisoners of War, Bond-Slaves, &c. from being Persons. Thus Sub Tit. Caput. he explains himself at large, Qui in eum (scil. liberorum) ordinem cooptatur, ca­put jam habere dicitur: Unde servus, qui pro lihertate pretium persolvit, pretium pro ca­pite solvere dicitur, apud Plautum & J. con­sultos frequentissime, i. e. ut liceat illi caput in ordinem libertorum habere: Qui, si postea li­bertate mulctetur, capite minutus dicetur; and thus also the Learned Pufendorf explains it: Persona apud J. Consultos praeprimis, Elementa Jurisprud. p. 19. illa dicitur, quae caput (i. e. libertatem per­sonalem) habet. But this distinction is not [Page 50] to be admitted with reference to the Suffer­ings of Christ; in dying he had a respect, not only to Jews, but to Gentiles; and a­mongst them not only to the Learned Greeks, but also to the more uncultivated Barbarians and Scythians; not only to such as were free among 'em, but also to the very bond slaves, Rom. 10. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 13. Gal. 3. 28. Col. 3. 11.

§. 8. Again, sometimes they do by the Term [Person] intimate (not absolutely the Man himself, but) the Man respectively con­sider'd, with Reference to the Quality, State or Condition, in which he stands. So Cal­vin, ubi supra. Persona tam hominem, quam qualitatem hominis & conditionem significat. De jure naturae & gentium, lib. 1. cap. 1 §. 12. To the same pur­pose he al­so speaks. Elem, Ju­risp. lib. 1, Def. 4. And more fully, Pufendorf, Personae mora­les—sunt homines—considerati cum statu suo aut munere, in quo in vita communi ver­santur.

Now will this Accuser say, That in this Sense Christ did sustain, and suffer in the per­son of Sinners? Was He every one of those very Men for whom He died? Did He possess the place, state, condition, quality of every individual Sinner.

§. 9. But amongst Political Persons (to omit other Sub-divisions) there is one spe­cial kind, which they call Representative [Page 51] Persons; and this I suppose may be inten­ded, when 'tis said, That Christ suffer'd in the Person of Sinners. Under this rank the Civilians do commonly reckon Embas­sadors, Plenipotentiaries, Vice-Roys, &c. as acting in the Person of the Prince that Com­missionates 'em: Members of Parliament, as Personating or Representing those that do Elect 'em: Advocates or Attorneys, as Pleading in the Person of their Clients: Tutors and Guardians, acting for, and in the Name of the Pupils and Minors, with whom they are entrusted: a Servant, or any other Delegate, whom we Authorise and Appoint to pay Money, or Transact any other Af­fair for us; so far as any one does with Authority manage any of our Affairs, he may in some Sense be said to Represent us, or to do it in our Person. Now if in any tolerable Sense it may be said, That Christ suffer'd in the Person of Sinners, it must (I conceive) be in this, that He did suffer as their Representative.

§. 10. And therefore, that it may the better appear, how far He did, and where­in He did not Represent, or personate us in his Sufferings, we should carefully di­stinguish,

1. Betwixt Christ's Representing us in his Sufferings; and representing us in his Obe­dience.

[Page 52] 2. Betwixt his Representing, or Persona­ting a Sinner in his Sufferings, and his Re­presenting or Personating Sinners therein.

3. Betwixt his Representing, or Personat­ing sinners when He suffer'd, only in some very limited and restrain'd Sense; and his Re­presenting 'em therein simply and absolutely.

4. We may also distinguish betwixt a Representative, that is deputed and delega­ted thereto by us; and one that is appointed and authoriz'd by God.

§. 11. Whereupon I add, I. He did not so far Represent, or Personate Sinners in his Holiness and Obedience, as in his Sufferings; 'tis (as we shall immediately shew) in some Sense allowable to say, Christ suffer'd in the Person of a Sinner, or Sinners; but I know no Sense in which it may be said, That He obey'd in the Person of a Sinner, or Sinners. He did not Personate a Sinner, much less Sinners, in his sinless Obedience; this were as grosly absurd (as Mr. Baxter himself Treatise of Justif. Righteous. Part I. p. 58. hints) as it would be to say, In the Person of Sinners He never sinned. Now this we the rather take notice of, because this Accuser extends Christ's Personating us in­differently, and equally, to both his Obe­dience and his Sufferings; for thus he speaks [Page 53] in his late Defence, p. 28. Christ's thus suf­fering and obeying in the Person of Sinners, it is to all intents and purposes as effectual, as if they did it themselves. And what any Li­bertine or Antinomian wou'd say more than this, I know not; or which way he will [...] ­can, make this consist with the necessity of Faith and Repentance, in order to our actu­al Discharge from Punishment (which yet he largely asserts, Appeal, p. 8. 9.) I can­not imagine.

§. 12. II. It is more allowable to say, That Christ suffer'd in the Person of a Sinner, than that He suffer'd in the Person of Sinners: for that the former of these signifies no more, than that He suffer'd as a Sinner. Now that may be suppos'd to intimate, either that Christ, in the inflicting Sufferings upon Him, was dealt with like a Sinner; or also, that therein He was reputed and declar'd a Sinner, suffer'd under that Imputation and Charge: And both these are true; the former, whether we consider Him as suffer­ing under the Hand of God or Men; and even the latter also, so far as Men were con­cern'd in 'em; He died by their Sentence as a Blasphemer.

§. 13. III. Yet in a very Limited and restrain'd Sense it may be said, That Christ suffer'd in the Person of Sinners; that is, so far as that He suffer'd in our room and stead, [Page 54] He stood before God as an Undertaker to suffer for our sins, and accordingly became a Sacrifice for us: If any one will say He was our Representative, or suffer'd in our Per­son thus far, I shall not contend with him. Nor would Mr. Baxter neither, as is plain from such Passages as these—‘When we are agreed, That the Person of the Sponsor, Treat. of Justifying Righteous. page 56. and of every particular Sinner, are di­verse; and that Christ had not suffer'd if we had not sinn'd; and that He, as a Sponsor, suffer'd in our stead, and so bore the Punishment which (not He, but) we deserv'd: If any will here, instead of a Mediator or Sponsor, call Him our Repre­sentative, and say that He suffer'd in all our Persons reputatively,—not repre­senting our Persons simply, and in all re­spects, and to all ends; but only so far as to be a Sacrifice for our Sins, and to suf­fer in our place and stead. We take this (says he) to be but lis de Nomine—and will not oppose any Man that thinks those Words fittest, as long as we agree in the Matter signify'd.’

Again, ‘Christ suffer'd in our stead, and Ibid. p. 58. in a large sense, to certain uses, and in some respects, as the Representer, or in the Person of sinners.’

Yet further, ‘Though the Person of Ibid, p. 56. the Mediator be not really, or reputa­tively the very Person of each sinner, yet it does belong to the Person of the [Page 55] Mediator, so far (limitedly) to bear the Person of a sinner, and to stand in the place of the Persons of all Sinners, as to bear the Punishment they deserv'd, and to suffer for their Sin.’

I'll mention but one more, though there be several other Passages to this purpose—‘It belongs to Him (Christ) as Mediator, to undertake the Sinner's Punishment in his own Person; and if any will impro­perly call that, the Personating and repre­senting of the sinner, let 'em limit it, and confess that it is not simply, but in tantum, so far, and to such uses, and no other; and that yet Sinners did it not in and by Christ, but only Christ for them, to con­vey the Benefits as He pleas'd; and then we delight not to quarrel about meer Words, though we like the Phrase of Scri­pture better.’

§. 14. IV. So far as He did Represent, or Personate us in his Sufferings; He did it not as our Deputy, or Delegate; we did not order, nor could we authorize Him there­unto; not being capable either of obliging Him to suffer, or of impowering Him in such Sufferings to represent us, and stand in our stead: But, He voluntarily consent­ing to suffer for us, God authoriz'd and ap­pointed Him thereunto; and from that Di­vine Appointment his Sufferings become ef­ficacious for us; and therefore from thence [Page 56] it is, from that Appointment of God, that it must be adjusted how far, and to what ends and uses, He shou'd suffer as the Representa­tive, or in the Person of Sinners; and in what way and method, and upon what terms his Sufferings shou'd be of Saving Benefit and Effect to 'em. Christ did not represent us as far as we please; or to what ends and uses we please; nor will his Sufferings be effectu­ally Saving to us in what way and method we please, upon any, or no terms, as we think fit; but all this is (according to Divine Pleasure) unalterably Determin'd and Fix'd, by that Appointment and Law of God, by which it was also ordain'd, That Christ our Mediator shou'd be Sacrific'd for us. He cou'd not Personate us farther than He was allow'd and impower'd of God; and how far therefore his Commission did extend, or with what Limitations it was attended, is only to be Collected from the Oracles of God; so far then, as it shall appear by the Sacred Scriptures, that Christ suffer'd in the Person of sinners, or as their Representative, we shall readily agree, and no farther.

§. 15. V. and Lastly, The Veneration we have for those Sacred Oracles, will not admit us (without any limitation) to say, as this Accuser does, that Christ suffer'd as the Representative, or in the Person of sinners: The Reasons whereof will the better appear, if it be first agreed what is the exact and pro­per [Page 57] Notion of such a Person, a Represen­tative Person: and in this Matter, I sup­pose, our Accuser is not unwilling (and for my part, I am most willing) that the Lear­ned Pufendorf shou'd be our Instructer. This therefore is the account he gives us of it, Peculiaris species Personarum politica­rum est, quas dicere possis Representativas, De Jure Nat. & Gent. lib. 1, cap. 1. §. 12. ideo quod Personam aliorum referant: quae scil. potestate & authoritate agendi ab aliquo in­structae, hujus vice negotia expediunt eodem cum effectu, ac si ab illo ipso essent confecta.

So that according to him (and indeed according to the truth of the thing) so far as any one is allow'd to Represent another, they are both in Law reputed one Person; and thereupon, whatever he has, does, or suffers as a Representative, it is (eodem cum effectu, i. e. as this Accuser well enough Englishes it) to all intents and purposes the same thing, as if it were had, done, or suf­fer'd by that other whom he Represents.

§. 16. Now, if it be the same thing, then 'tis neither more or less, than if we had so suffer'd our selves; there are therefore two things that we have to plead against Christ's thus Personating, or Representing us; and they are, that such a Representation of us by Christ, is in differing respects, both too much and too little to answer the Exigencies [Page 58] of our case, and the Scripture-account of this matter.

§. 17. And (1.) In some respects, Such a Representative personating of sinners in and by Christ's Sufferings, would render 'em too little to answer the Exigencies of our Case, and the account which the Scriptures give of 'em: For if Christ in his suffer­ings was look'd upon as properly, and most strictly our Person or Representative, his sufferings (as has bin hinted) would be but the same thing, and no more in Value or Vertue, than if we our selves had so suffered: But if we our selves had suffer'd as Christ did, would it have been effectual to the great and necessary purposes of ob­taining Redemption, Reconciliation, Par­don, the Holy Spirit, and Eternal Salvation for us! Can any one think? Dare any one say, Our own suffering what Christ did, Our own dying as he did, would (by way of merit) have procur'd such consequent Blessings as the Death and Sufferings of Christ did!

Such as the mention'd Blessings we need­ed, our Case call'd for; and these Blessings we find attributed to the Death of Christ, as what did (meritoriously, and by way of a price) procure 'em for us—So the Apo­stle tells us, we have Redemption through his blood, Eph. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. He obtain'd it [Page 59] for us by his own blood, Heb. 9. 12. so 1 Pet. The word [...] in the Greek, as also [...] and [...] in the Hebrew, do admit of two very differing Senses; they signifie either sin it self, or a sin-offering, a Sacrifice for Sin; as cannot be unknown to any that are conversant with the Scriptures of the Old Testament and the New, in the Langua­ges in which they were endited by the Inspir'd Penmen; the Instances to that purpose are too numerous to be over-look'd; I'll name a few, Isa. 53. 10. When he shall make his soul [...] an offering for sin; So we read it there, And in Lev. 7. This is the Law [...] (not of the sin, but) of the sin-offering, verse 1. So verse 2. They shall kill, [...] the sin­offering, the blood thereof shall he sprinkle, &c. So Verse 5. [...] it is a sin-offering. Once more, 1 Sam. 6. 3, 4. If ye send away the Ark of the God of Israel, send it not empty, but in any wise return Him [...] (not Sin but) a Sin-offer­ing—then said they [...] what shall be the sin­offering; which you find afterwards specified in that Verse. So for the other word [...] how promiscuously is it us'd in that one Chapter, Lev. 4. If any one of the common People, [...] there it is commit a sin, verse 27. And so again, ver. 28. If [...] his sin which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge, then he shall bring his offering [a kid, &c.] for his sin which he hath sinn'd; there you have the same Word again. Yet in the very next Verse the Sense of the Word is chang'd, and that very Kid which is offer'd, is call'd [...]—So verse 29. And he shall lay his hand upon the head [...] ('tis not now to be read of the sin, but) of the sin-offering: and slay [...] the sin-offering: The very Word that, but the Verse before, signify'd Sin it self. The same Word you have again twice for a sin-offering, ver. 33. And again, the Priest shall take of the blood [...] of the sin­offering, ver. 34. It wou'd be endless to refer you to the many other places of Scripture, where the same Observation would occur; I'll therefore only mention one Text more (which may help to evince the Usefulness hereof in interpreting several difficult Texts of Scripture) and that is, Hos. 4. 8. They eat up [...] the sin of my People; so we read it; but it were scarce possible, to devise any tolerable Sense that the Words cou'd be capable of, according to that reading; yet what we have observ'd, ren­ders 'em exceeding easie and plain; all the Difficulty dis-ap­pears when you read, They eat up the sin-offering of my people; And by this Reading of the Words, the latter part of the Verse may be also most satisfactorily accounted for; they set their heart on their Iniquity; i. e. they rejoicé at, or are pleas'd with it. Thus does the very ingenious and Reverend Bishop of Sa­lisbury Comment upon the Words: ‘That corrupt Race of Priests (says he) attended still up­on the Temple, and offer'd up the sin-offering, and Feasted upon their Portion:—And because of the Advantage this brought 'em, they were glad at the abounding of Sin, &c.’ Discourse of the Pastoral Care, p. 23. (A Tract so very valuable and useful, that having mention'd it, I cou'd not for­bear to recommend it, though I cou'd wish what is said of Praying by the Spirit, p. 199, 200. were re-view'd by the very Reverend Author, and some-what more distinctly Explain'd; that he might not seem to reflect upon Praying by the Spirit it self, when (I suppose) he only intends to animadvert upon some Persons mistaken Apprehensions of it; The same I cou'd also wish in reference to one or two Passages in that Book which I may not now stay to mention. Now the words that the LXX. use in those places, are [...], and [...], and [...]—but we shall only take notice of the second of those Words, [ [...]] and sometimes indeed by a reduplicated Article, or by a Preposi­tion, they plainly refer to some or other Word that is under­stood. So we read in that 4th Chap. of Leviticus, sometimes [...], and [...], and chap. 6. ver. 25. [...]—Where the Word immediately fore-going is most probably referr'd to, i. e. in one place [...], the she-goat, in another [...], the be-goat; and in the third, [...], the burnt-offering; sometimes the Phrase is [...], vel [...], for sin, where the Word [...], Sacrifice, is plainly enough intimated, though not express'd: yet some­times again there is nothing more than the bare Word [...], Sin, express'd, where yet a Sin-offering must needs be meant; for instance, Lev. 4. 21. [...], it is (not a Sin, but) a Sin-offering for the Congregation. And Lev. 6. 25. [...], This is the Law (surely not that they should Sin by, but that they should Sacri­fice according to) the Law of the Sin-offering. So also in that mention'd Hos. 4. 8. [...], they eat (not the Sins, for how cou'd that be done, but) the Sin-offering of the People. And the New Testament Stile is generally conform'd to the Septuagint: thus you read here also, [...], Heb. 10. 6. in burnt-offerings, and for Sin (i. e. and in Sacrifices for Sin, as we render it) Thou hast had no pleasure. And Rom. 8. 3. we are told, That God condemn'd Sin in the flesh of Christ; but how, which way? by sending Him in our likeness, to die a Sacri­fice for Sin. And since the Word will as well signifie a Sacri­fice for Sin, as Sin it self, it should surely be readily agreed to intend only a Sacrifice for Sin, in that 2 Cor. 5. 20. He made Him to be a Sin-offering for us, &c. Nor does any thing in the Context discountenance this Reading—He that knew no Sin, was not a Sinner, what should hinder but He might be (nay, for that very reason was He the fitter to be) made a sin-offer­ing for us: I cou'd not therefore read Mr. Cross's Objection, without a Smile, when he alledges against our thus Interpre­ting Sin for a Sin-offering; that then Sin wou'd be us'd Equivo­cally in differing Senses; and sup­pose it be, what would the ill Consequence be? Why, he tells you, The Apostle then would bring a Sophism instead of an Argument. He knew no Sin pro­perly, ergo, He was made Sin. Cross's Two Sermons on Justi­fication and Imputed Righteousness, p. 32. Now what if this Text be a naked Assertion, and not design'd for an Argument, what Sophistry would there be in it, if the Apostle barely tell us, He that was no Sinner Himself, was yet made a Sacrifice for our Sin. But if he will have no Argument of it, 'twill be as weak and impertinent, though the Words should be Interpre­ted according to his Mind: He knew no sin properly, ergo, He was made Sin; I see no Consequence in it, whether the Phrase bare his Sense or ours. As to what he next alledges, p. 33. from its Opposition to Righteousness, it signifies as little; for that the Apostle is not here (there is no appearing proof that he is) Critically Contradistinguishing Christ's being made Sin, and our being made Righteousness; nay, the contrary is plain, for that he uses differing Words in reference to Christ and us to intimate that he did not intend, Christ was made sin, in the same way, or sense, that we are made Righteousness; nor can he for that Alteration, be justly charg'd again as Sophisticating, whilst he only designs to acquaint us, That our being made Righ­teousness (take it in one Sense or other) did pre-require, and de­rive from Christ's having been made a Sacrifice for us. As to his Third Allegation against us, I cann't guess what he produc'd it for. And for his Fourth, that the Word made is sometimes us'd for Imputed, if that shou'd be granted him, yet still it must be added, That 'tis where other Words are found in the Greek Text; for I remember not (nor do I think our Opposer can produce) one single Instance where the Word [...] (which is made use of in the Text) does carry that Sense: it does most plainly intimate the work of an Effective Agent; and therefore does strongly argue for our Sense of the Text, That He was made a Sa­crifice for Sin, made sin in such a Sense as that GOD might be the Author and Efficient, without being chargeable as the Author of Sin. And for his Fifth and last Objection, That Criticks distinguish betwixt [...], and [...], and say the latter is us'd for a Sacrifice, not the former: I think we have already made the contrary suffici­ently appear from the LXX. to whom he refers us. So that I see not what further can be pleaded against this Interpre­tation of the Text. 1. 18, 19. So also our Reconciliation is the purchase of his Blood; this account we have of it, Rom. 5 10. When we were ene­mies [Page 60] we were reconciled to God by the Death of his Son. And having through several Ver­ses before spoken of this Reconciliation, he at length tells us, that God made him to be [Page 61] sin, i. e. a sin-offering for us, to intimate to us which way that Reconciliation was pro­cur'd and brought about, 2 Cor. 5. 21. He made him to be sin, &c.

[Page 62] And in that, Eph. 2. 16. we are said to be reconcil'd to God by the Cross. And Col. 1. 20. Christ is said to have made peace through the Blood of his Cross; but wou'd our Death [Page 63] have avail'd to any such purpose? If not, how can he herein be said strictly to have Represented us—

The same might be also pleaded in refe­rence to the procurement of our Pardon, Mat. 26. 28. And the Holy Spirit, Heb. 10. 10, 14.—13. 22. with Eternal Sal­vation, 1 Thess. 5. 9. 10. These are Bles­sissings that we cou'd not have procur'd by our own dying (this, to Christians surely, I shall not need to prove): Now, if Christ died strictly in our Person, his death had signify'd no more than ours: A Repre­sentative, so far as he represents another, is in Law look'd upon no otherwise, than as that other whom He represents; whatever Excellencies he may otherwise have above that other, yet do they not come under Consideration here; as a Representative, He does but personate that other Man; and what He does or suffers as a Representative, is but the same thing, as if that other Man had done or suffer'd. So far as there is any difference allow'd in Law, 'tis plain the Law [Page 64] looks upon 'em to be two distinct Persons; so far the one does not, cannot Represent the other. Either therefore these Benefits were not procur'd for us by the Sufferings of Christ, or He suffer'd otherwise than as our Representative, or in our mean and vile Person, viz. in the most highly dignify'd Person of a Mediator. To this Sense Mr. Baxter had pleaded long since, in the fore­cited Treatise of Justifying Righteousness, P. I. p. 96. ‘If Christ (says he) suffer'd but in the Person of sinful Man, his Sufferings wou'd have been in vain, or no Satisfaction to God, &c.’ See also Baxter's Life of Faith, p. 322. Thus therefore such a Representation of us by Christ, wou'd have been too little for us.

§. 18. But again, (2.) If the matter be consider'd under other respects, Christ's strictly personating or representing us in his Sufferings, would be too much for us. For (as we have before observ'd) betwixt a Representative and that other whom he re­presents, the Law makes no difference: Whatever the Representative does as a Representative, in the sense of the Law, that other does whom he represents.

(1.) If then Christ suffer'd strictly and properly in the Person of Sinners, or as their Representative, they did, in the account of the Law, suffer themselves; and what­ever is the Moral Effect (i. e. whatever the [Page 65] Law under which Christ suffer'd has an­nex'd, by Promise, as a Consequence) of his Suffering, it being the Effect of our Re­presentative's Sufferings, may be attributed to us whom He did therein represent; what­ever is in Scripture ascrib'd to the Suffer­ings of Christ, as an Effect of 'em, if He suffer'd in our Person, wou'd be to be ascrib'd to us: so we shou'd be our own Redeemers, our own Saviours, we shou'd have merited our own Peace, our own Pardon, &c. as truly as I pay Money, which one that in the strict Sense of the Law represents me, does pay in my Name; or Purchase Land, which my Legal Representative Purchases for me.

§. 19. (2.) If Christ had Suffered strictly in our Representative Person, we shou'd have had an immediate and absolute right to all the proper Results and Benefits of his Sufferings: Indeed, if Christ in his own Person, as Mediator, purchas'd these Bles­sings by Suffering for us, He may confer 'em on us at what time, in what measure, in what order, and upon what terms He plea­ses, as we find He does: But supposing Him to have been our proper Representative therein, our Right in Law, to all the Bene­fits of his Sufferings, wou'd have been abso­lute (as His now is) and have immediately resulted from his having so suffered; so as [Page 66] that no place cou'd have been left for the introducing and imposing upon us any Terms or Conditions in order to our enjoying such Benefits: there cou'd be no room for such a Constitution afterwards, if thou [Sinner] Repent, Believe in Christ, &c. thou shalt be saved: For according to this Principle, the Sinner has purchas'd Salvation by the Suf­ferings of Christ [as his Representative] He has thereupon an absolute and present right to the Salvation so purchas'd; to deny or suspend his right, or with-hold him from Possession, wou'd be injurious to Him, as keeping Him from that which is his own: How then will this consist with the Justice of God, who does not give Sinners immedi­ately the full of what was purchas'd by the Sufferings of Christ! God does not give 'em an immediate and absolute Pardon, pre­sent freedom from all sin and sorrow, present possession of the Heavenly Inheritance—If Sinners have an immediate absolute right to these Blessings, it wou'd be a wrong done to 'em, for God to keep 'em out of Posses­sion as He does; and such a Right we shou'd have, if He Suffer'd (strictly) as our Repre­sentative—So that this way consider'd, it does as much exceed, as the other way it fell short of Answering the Exigencies of our Case.

[Page 67] §. 20. And we may add, as a farther Consequent hereupon (3.) If Christ had Suffer'd (strictly) as the Representative Per­son of Sinners (indefinitely, as 'tis express'd) it wou'd follow, that every Sinner equally has a right to the fore-mention'd Benefits of Christ's Sufferings; why then have not all equally a Pardon? Why are not the In­fluences of the Divine Spirit equally dif­fus'd? Why are some (yea, even of the truly sanctify'd) more freed from Sin and Sorrow, than others? Some but babes, while others are strong Men in Christ? Nay, why are not all in Heaven (whom Christ did represent) as well as some there?

§. 21. Moreover (4.) If Christ had thus suffer'd as our Representative (and we had thus Satisfy'd and Merited in Him) what room would there have been left for His Holiness and Obedience to bestead us, or be of any advantage to us. We are most ex­presly assur'd, That by the Obedience of One (i. e. of Christ) we are made righteous, Rom. 5. 19. Suppose his Sufferings and Death to be included, as it cannot be deny'd, yet 'tis as they were instances of his Obedience, Phil. 2. 8. and (according to that known Rule, a quatenus, ad omne valet consequentia) if his Sufferings did meritoriously procure [Page 68] our Pardon, Peace, &c. as they were in­stances of his Obedience to the Law of Me­diation, then whatever was an instance of such Obedience, had an influence upon the same effect. His Habitual, Active and Pas­sive Obedience, are therefore to be consi­der'd as one entire Meritorious Cause, one entire Purchasing Price of such Blessings.—But upon this Principle, That Christ in suf­fering did strictly Personate, or Represent us, where can his Habitual Holiness, and Active Obedience be taken in! what room is there for 'em! what need is there of 'em! when we have merited a Pardon, acceptance with God, Eternal Salvation already, by the Suf­ferings of Christ as our Representative; what further need can we have of his Obeying for us?

Or shall we say, That He was our Re­presentative, in his Obeying, as well as in his Suffering? So indeed our Accuser would have it, in his Defence, P. 28. Christ (says he) thus Suffering and Obeying in the Person of Sinners, it is, to all intents and purposes, as Effectual, as if they did it themselves. But besides, that these two Parts of the Asser­tion are inconsistent with each other, had He Obeyed in our Person, He needed not to have Suffer'd in our Person; or had He Suf­fer'd in our Person, He needed not so to have Obey'd. I say, besides that, the Notion car­ries [Page 69] a manifest Inconsistence in it—If it were admitted, it would infer all those Se­ven Absurdities mention'd in the fore-going Chapter, with many more, that I cannot now stay to mention.

§. 22. In a Word then, since his strict Representing, or Personating us, would inti­mate, That Christ and we are, in the Sense of the Law, but one Person; and thereupon his Suffering in our Person (our Represen­tative Person, properly so call'd) would intimate either that He (in his Sufferings) was (in the esteem of God and the Law) depress'd to the mean, and vile, and sinful State of us, whom He did Represent; or else that we are (in the account of God and the Law) exalted to the Dignity and Perfection of his State who Represented us: and neither of these are to be admitted. Not the former, for that it would render Christ's Sufferings unavailable to the great purposes that were to be serv'd of 'em; not the latter, for the Reasons last mention'd: It follows, That He cannot (otherwise than very improper­ly, and with great Limitations) be said to have Suffer'd in the Person (the Represen­tative Person) of Sinners.

CHAP. III.

§. i THIS our Accuser charges also upon us, as a Branch of that Design, that Plot he impeaches us of; a Socinian Plot, a Plot to introduce Socinianism: That we have such a Design, he once and again insinuates, and thereupon Brands us as Episcopians, So­cinianizing Arminians, &c. He had signi­fy'd his Apprehensions, his fears of a Design against the Doctrine of a Real, Full, and Pro­per Satisfaction to God's Justice for our Sins, P. 4. but by that time we are got to the 12th. Page, those Surmizes are improv'd into clear Evidence, he is now aware of the De­sign; nay, twice together we are told it, to intimate (no doubt) that he is throughly [Page 71] aware of it; and to make Proof of it, he does alledge, amongst other Matters, That (according to us) Christ's Sufferings were the same we were oblig'd to, only Materially, and not Formally. Now the Design he suggests, is what we do from our Souls abhorr; and if this Accuser were himself a Socinian, he could no way more effectually serve their Interests, than by persuading the World (as he here endeavours) That all must be Socinians, at least Socinianize, that are not Antinomians.

Sect. 2. But for the Principle he charges upon us, we are not asham'd to own it; and cannot but wonder, that our Accuser should never once attempt to prove the contrary; it lying upon him here again, as being the Affirmer, to produce his Evi­dence: Surely this, That Christ's Sufferings were Formally the same we were oblig'd to, is not to be reckon'd amongst those Propo­sitions which carry their own Light along with 'em, and engage our Assent at the first Hearing: Why then has he only men­tion'd our denial of it, as if that alone, were sufficient to expose us to the severest Censures.

[Page 72] Sect. 3. But we cannot satisfie our selves (though we be on the Negative Part) to deny, and Dispute against Words that have no meaning, or (which is, in Effect, the same thing) Words that have an un­agreed and uncertain one: And therefore though he has not told us his meaning, we shall, with greatest plainness, tell him, and the World, ours; that it may be understood what we intend, when we deny, That Christ's Sufferings were Formally the same we were oblig'd to.

Sect. 4. Now there are two Things that (we apprehend) may be meant, when 'tis Asserted, That Christ's Sufferings were not on­ly Materially, but also Formally the same we were oblig'd to, viz. Either that they were not only in a more loose and general way of Speaking, but strictly and fully the same kind of Sufferings that we were oblig'd to: Or, also it may intimate, That they were not only the same kind of Sufferings, but even the very same thing in Law, as if we our selves had Suffer'd. And the former of these we dare not admit, much less the latter.

[Page 73] Sect. 5. 1. Not the former, viz. That Christ's Sufferings were strictly and fully of the same kind with those we were oblig'd to. That they were not, could not be so, I think was sufficiently made appear, Chap. I. Sect. 5. of this Discourse. And Mr. Baxter has yet more distinctly and fully clear'd it, by an Enumeration of several Particulars, in which his were not the same with ours, under these Three Heads;

I. Christus nullas tulit penas, quae etiam pec­cata sunt.

II. Nullas tales paenas dedit, quae sunt tan­tum naturalia peccandi consequentia.

III. Nullas Deus ipse paenas in Christum in­flixit, quae ex displicentia (adversus Christum scil.) vel amoris diminutione aliqua proveniunt. Vid. Method. Theol. P. III. Cap. 1. Disp. 4. P. 36, 37.

Sect. 6. 2. Much less can we agree to it in the Latter Sense, as it intimates, That Christ's Sufferings were the Idem, the very same thing in Law, as if we our selves had Suffer'd; for that this it could not be, un­less He Suffer'd (most strictly) in our Person; and that too, by vertue of the Law, which we had Transgress'd: Both which have [Page 74] been abundantly Disprov'd by us in the Fore-going Chapters. What has been there alledg'd against the one, or the other of those Errors, may also have place here again. To which I shall only add;

1. The Inconsistency hereof with the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction. For if Christ's Sufferings should be allow'd to be strictly the same thing that the Law oblig'd to, then they could not be a Satisfaction for our Non-Payment, but would themselves have been the proper Payment: Now these two things are vastly differing, to pay a Debt; and to offer some-what instead of Payment, that is accepted as Satisfaction for Non-Payment. Since the Word [Satis­faction] was borrow'd from the Civilians, from them it is that the Import of it may be best understood; And they do carefully distinguish betwixt Solution and Satisfaction. Solution is when the very same thing is paid, to which the Law oblig'd. So Vinnius,—Solutio, specialiter accepta, denotat In Notis ad Justini. Instit. Tit. 30. p. (mi­hi) 494. naturalem praestationem ejus quod debetur. Which is agreeable to the account Grotius gives us of it, with whom Solutio stricte sumpta, is Solutio rei plane ejusdem, quae erat in obligatione; Solutio rei ipsius debitae. Now this, as the Bishop of Worcester tells us, in De Satisf. p. 123, 126 the Sense of the Law is never call'd Satisfaction, but strict Payment. This is what cannot be P. 13. [Page 75] refus'd, when offer'd in Payment. But Christ's Sufferings might have been refus'd: God was not oblig'd to accept of them, but might have insisted upon the Sufferings of Sinners themselves. Therefore Grotius tells of another sort of Solution, cum aliud, quam quod in obligatione est, Solvitur. When some-what else, and not strictly that which the Law requir'd, is paid; and this, if ac­cepted, is peculiarly call'd Satisfaction. Ta­lis autem solutio (says he) quae aut admitti, aut recusari potest, admissa; in Jure, speciale habet nomen Satisfactionis; quae interdum So­lutioni Ib. p. 124. strictus sumptae opponitur. So that by a Satisfaction, 'tis plain they intend a valuable Consideration offer'd instead of what was due, which the Creditor in Pecuniary (and the Rector in Criminal) Cases, may accept or refuse at pleasure. Under this Notion do the greatest and best of our Divines maintain the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfacti­on, in Opposition to the Socinian Adversa­ries; nor can it be Defended upon any other bottom. To make the Controversie betwixt the Socinians and Us (in the Point of Satisfaction) to be not (as it has been wont to be stated) whether Christ's Suffer­ings were an Equivalent (a valuable Consi­deration) offer'd and accepted, instead of what was due from us to Divine Justice; so far as that upon account thereof, we have Recon­ciliation, Pardon, and Eternal Salvation, [Page 76] in the Order, and upon the Terms of the Gospel? I say, to make the Question in difference, not to be what is above-said, but whether Christ's Sufferings be the very same thing, the All, that the Law requir'd, oblig'd to, the very Execution of its Threat­ning? How plainly is this to betray the Cause into their Hands!

If the Bishop of Worcester has any Judg­ment in this Controversie (and while the Learned World has so universally approv'd what he has wrote in it, they cann't them­selves be thought to have much, that deny, or doubt his thorow Acquaintance with it; and of all Men living, our Accuser, who has appeal'd to him, surely does not suspect it; I say, if that Right Reverend Person has any insight into this Matter) the Soci­nian Cause can scarcely any way be more effectually befriended, than by such as pre­tending to be their Adversaries, do thus State our Controversie with 'em: For with these remarkable Words does he close up his most Convincing Reasonings against Christ's Sufferings having been the very same thing which the Law requir'd: ‘When (says he) our Adversaries (meaning the Soci­nians) Dispute against this Opinion, no wonder if they do it successfully; but this whole Opinion is built upon a Mi­stake, that Satisfaction must be the Pay­ment [Page 77] of the very same; which while they Contend for, they give our Enemies too great an advantage, and make 'em think they triumph over the Faith of the Discourse of the suf­ferings of Christ, P. 17. Church, when they do it only over the Mistake of some particular Persons.’

2. Neither could the Sufferings of Christ be strictly (and individually) the same thing that the Law threatned; for it threatned the Death of the Offenders themselves: In the day Thou eatest, Thou shalt die, Gen. 2. 17. The same Individual that sinneth, shall die: Thus does the Prophet express it, The Soul that sinneth, it (that very Soul) shall die. Ezek. 18. 4. [...] The very sinning soul it self, that very soul shall die. The Sense of the Holy Ghost could not have been more fully expressed to this purpose. And so also the Apostle, Gal. 3. 10. Cur­sed is every one that continues not, &c. 'Tis denounc'd against no one but the Sinner himself? since then the Law mentions no Surety or Substitute; the Sufferings of Christ could not be the Execution of its threatning, unless He was the very Soul that sinned, that very individual Soul.

[Page 78] And hence we may be assisted in that only Difficulty, with which our Accuser (at the second hand) does seem to press us: For in the Passage he quotes from his Bro­ther Ferguson, (P. 5.) amongst other At­tributes of GOD that were to influence the Grand Affair of our Redemption, he men­tions the Divine Veracity: God's Truth (as that Gentleman says) and his Immutability must be evidenc'd in proceeding according to the Interest of Reason in Religion, p. 536. Penal Law He had at first Enacted. And this being presuppos'd, he would naturally enough iufer, That Man (having sinn'd) could not be receiv'd into favour, but in such a way as might evidence that Truth of God, &c. Now indeed, if the Truth and Immutability of GOD did require, that He should pro­ceed (exactly) according to the Penal Law He had Enacted, it must be granted then, That Christ's Sufferings could not otherwise bestead us, then as being the very Execution of that Penal Law, the very Pe­nalty therein threatned.

And this Objection I shall the rather take notice of, because (whatever Character our Accuser, and this Brother of his deserv'd) I find some of greatest Name (and deser­vedly too) both for Learning and Piety, speak as if they did apprehend, That the Truth of GOD did engage Him to Execute [Page 79] the Threatned Penalty; that unless the Punish­ment due by that Law had been inflicted, his Veracity could not have been Justified.

But (how much soever I reverence the Names of some that speak thus) I dare not agree, out of respect to any Man, so far to expose the Veracity of the Holy GOD, as to suspend it upon any thing that is not cer­tainly True, much less upon what is evi­dently untrue.

1. Supposing it only to be uncertain, whe­ther He was oblig'd formally to Execute the Threatning of that Law, 'tis no way fit the Veracity of God should be suspended upon an Uncertainty: May I not be sure that GOD is true, though I were not sure, that his Threatning must needs be exe­cuted!

2. And especially, when we have full and clear Evidence, That He has not Executed that Threatning; we should surely be afraid to say, His Truth oblig'd Him to Execute it; He has falsify'd his Word in Not-Executing it. Though we could not see which way GOD's Veracity could be reconcil'd with the Non-Execution of his Threatning; yet when He has Relax'd or Dispens'd with his Threatning (as in this Case He manifestly has) we may be assur'd, it is not incon­sistent [Page 80] with his Truth. The Law threat­ned the Delinquent himself, and every De­linquent; another (who was no Delin­quent) dies for us: Here is not then an Execution of the Threatning; is the Truth of GOD therefore violated? GOD for­bid. Yet had his Truth oblig'd Him to in­flict the Threatned Penalty at all, it would as well have oblig'd Him to inflict it on the Offenders themselves. That GOD has inflicted Death for Sin, is not therefore be­cause of his Truth, but for other Reasons that have been already hinted. And this is that which does difference Threatnings from Predictions: That Threatnings do only constitute the dueness of Punishment, and make the Offender obnoxious, without de­terming certainly whether (eventually) it shall be inflicted, or not; but Predictions do primarily respect a certain Event. So that the Truth of GOD is indeed concern'd to accomplish a Prediction; but not to execute a Threatning; a meer Threatning does only render the Transgressor liable to suffer, but GOD is afterwards at liberty to inflict, or not inflict the Penalty incurr'd, as his Wisdom shall see fit; indeed if a Prediction should also be added to the Threatning, GOD's Word is then past for its Execu­tion, and his Truth obliges Him according­ly—They that are otherwise Opinionated in this Matter, may do well to consider, [Page 81] which way the Veracity of GOD (upon their Hypothesis) can possibly be main­tain'd: When the Law was at first given to Adam (as our Accuser himself ex­presly owns) Christ was not in its obliga­tion; it did not run [Thou, or thy Su­rety for thee.] Hereupon the after­admission of a Surety, and the Trans­ferring our Punishment upon Him (sup­posing He had undergone, as far as was possible, the same that we should) was an Act of Soveraign-Dispensing-Power: The Threatning was so far relax'd, or dispens'd with; not Executed. But if GOD had engag'd his Word (by an absolute Prediction) to punish the Of­fender, there had been no place for a Dispensation; In that case, as indeed in every case where the Divine Truth is concern'd, the Event will infallibly, and in every respect be answerable to what GOD has fore-declared. Since there­fore the Event did not answer in this case, the very sinning Soul it self did not die, but Christ for him, it must be con­cluded, That this was not a Prediction of what eventually should be, but a meer Threatning of what legally might be in­flicted; importing only what the Sinner was oblig'd to undergo, not what GOD was oblig'd to lay upon him. And there­fore [Page 82] his Truth was no way violated, though Christ's Sufferings were not strictly the same Thing that the Law threatned. To which I might add,

3. That if Christ's Sufferings had been the very same thing that the Law requir'd, we must thereupon, ipso facto, have en­joy'd present and perfect Deliverance; if the Idem, the all (and that it must needs be, if it was the same) that the Law threatned, was endur'd in the Suf­ferings of Christ, what further Penalty could remain upon us? Justice it self could require no more than the Idem quod debetur. To this purpose the Lear­ned Grotius speaks, Ipso facto liberat, so­lutio Grotius de Satisfact. Cap. 6. P. (mihi) 123 rei plane ejusdem, quae erat in obliga­tione. Upon which account he does de­termine, That the Death of Christ was not Solutio rei ipsius debitae. And so al­so P. 126. that very Judicious and Right Reve­rend Person (the Bishop of Worcester) to whom this Accuser has Appeal'd, does not only deny, but does also very largely and nervously disprove, Christ's Sufferings to have been the very same that the Law requir'd; we shall only transcribe what he offers to the purpose we are Arguing upon—‘If (says he) the Discourse of the suf­ferings of Christ, P. 15. very same had been paid in the strict [Page 83] Sense, there would have follow'd a Deliverance ipso facto; for the Re­lease immediately follows the Pay­ment of the same; and it had been In­justice to have requir'd any thing fur­ther, in order to the Discharge of the Offender, when strict and full Payment had been made of what was in the Obligation. But we see that Faith and Repentance, and the Con­sequences of those two, are made Con­ditions on our parts, in order to the enjoying the Benefit of what Christ has procur'd; so that the Release is not immediate upon the Payment, but depends on a New Contract, made in consideration of what Christ has done and suffer'd for us.’ This is but a small part of his most clear and invin­cible Arguings against Christ's Paying (in his Sufferings) the very same that we were to have paid. And therefore we add,

4. Had Christ's Sufferings been the very same thing that the Law threatned, there had been, there cou'd have been no such thing as Pardon; we must have been discharg'd, set at liberty as before; but we could not afterwards have been said to be Pardon'd. To remit a Debt [Page 84] or Penalty, is a Phrase that is never us'd but in reference to such from whom the one or other was due; and does import a Gracious Discharge of a Person (either in whole, or in part) from what in Ju­stice might have been requir'd. The Civilians therefore explain it by Relax­atio, Indulgentia, &c. And this is most manifestly the import of the Greek Term [ [...]]. Proper Remission that cannot be, that is not an Act of Grace and Favour, but what in strict Justice we are oblig'd to. Therefore Grotius does accurately distinguish betwixt Li­beration and Remission; allowing (as he needs must) That all Remission is a Li­beration, or Discharge; but not that every Discharge is or may be so call'd, Remission: The Law it self does of course acquit and discharge a Person (Debtor or Criminal) that fully answers its Obligation; but when a Discharge is granted, by the Rector or Creditor, out of meer Pleasure, to one that accord­ing to the Rigour of the Law could not lay claim to it, here is proper Remission. Ubi idem Solvitur (scil. quod debetur) aut a Debitore, aut ab alio, nomine debi­toris, nulla contingit Remissio—Si quis poenam pertulerit quam debet, Liberatio hic Ib. p. 123. erit; Remissio non erit. Remitti aliquid [Page 85] recte dicitur, etiam ubi solutio accedit, sed talis quae sine actu voluntatis vim non ha­beat pariendae liberationis. Where there is a Payment of what was owing, there Ib. p. 133. is no Remission, no place for Forgive­ness; the quondam Debtor or Criminal now neeeds it not, nor can the Credi­tor or Rector be said to have granted it; the same Debt cannot be both Paid and Forgiven. ‘It is impossible (as the Bishop of Worcester further urges) to reconcile the freeness of Remission, with the full payment of the very same, which was in the Obligation. Ib. p. 16.’

Sect. 7. For the close therefore of this Head, let it be consider'd, That Mr. Baxter (in that very Book to which our Accuser refers us) thus Explains the Que­stion before us: ‘It is not (says he) de materia debiti that we enquire, but de forma; whether it was the same formally which we ow'd, and the obli­gation requir'd? Or, only the value, and not the same full Debt? Also, you must know, That though we may well use the Word [Debt] in this case, because the Scripture does, yet we must acknowledge it but a Meta­phor, and the proper Terms are, whe­ther Christ's Sufferings are the same [Page 86] thing that the Law in its Threatning re­quir'd, i. e. oblig'd to, and made due; and so a fulfilling of that Threatning? and this with great Aversness he does (and very justly sure) deny.’ Now therefore if our Accuser will not Baxt. of Universal Redempt. p. 79. own Christ's Sufferings to be formally the same we were oblig'd to, in the Sense in which Mr. Baxter denied it, why does he quarrel with him? If he will, 'tis but reasonable to expect, he should either disown and disprove the Doctrine of Satisfaction, of Pardon of Sin, &c. Or, else make it appear, we have not justly charg'd these Consequences upon him.

CHAP. IV.

§. 1. SInce our Accuser bears so hard upon this Point, and seems most plausibly from hence to insinuate his Spiteful and Unchristian Surmizes of us, I shall endeavour with all the Freedom and Plainness possible, to deliver our Thoughts about this Matter; that it may appear what we Deny, and what we Own; and that herein we do not in the least vary from the Common Faith of Christians, or make the least Approaches towards the Socinian Tents.

[Page 88] Sect. 2. We do therefore distin­guish (in reference to the Controversie, Whether our Sins were the Meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings) betwixt the Name, and the Thing intended by it; as every one surely will do, that does not prefer Strife before Truth. If we can agree in this, or other Controver­sies, in Sense, Words are not worthy of a Contention on either side: 'Tis strange that what the Apostle has said of such Contentions, that just account he has given of their so base Original, and sad Effects, should not Awe the Spirits of all (at least) that make any Pretensions to the Christian Name, 1 Tim. 6. 4. For (according to the Order in which the Apostle has plac'd it) this doting about Questions, that are but a strife of words, a [ [...]] does presuppose the Person to be Proud, puff'd up with Ar­rogance and Self-Conceit, as the Word imports; and withal extreamly Ignorant, [...], one that knows no­thing, that has no Skill, no Judgment, one that has never Penetrated into Things, that has look'd no further than their outside; and therefore is he so ex­ceeding Sollicitous about Words, for that he is acquainted with nothing more valu­able [Page 89] about which to be concern'd; he is sick, nay, he does insanire, if his Word may not be allow'd [such a Sense the Term [...] seems to carry in it]. Neither are the Effects of this Logomachy less fruitful; thereof (as the Apostle adds) cometh envy, strife, railings, evil-surmiz­ings, perverse disputings, [...], such as are nothing to the purpose, that can serve no good End. I wou'd requite all this Accuser's hard Speeches of us, with a serious Admonition that he wou'd carefully look into the Text last men­tion'd, and if to that he adds, what does occur, in The Carnality of Religious Con­tentions, p. 39, 40, 41, 42. (A Tract well worthy of its most excellent Author.) Perhaps, it may minister towards the Cure of his so sickly Mind; and he may not hereafter so far dote upon an Un­scriptural Word or Phrase, or turn it to our Reproach, that we are not alike fond of 'em.

Sect. 3. But to proceed, We chal­lenge this Accuser to instance any one particular thing plainly intended by the Orthodox (Grotius, the Bishop of Wor­cester, &c.) that use this Phrase against the Socinians; I say, Let him instance (if he be able) any one thing they in­tend [Page 90] by it, that is not readily agreed to by us. We have reason to suppose, That he himself may intend some-what more by it, than we are willing to al­low (and which in due place may be taken notice of): But we cannot find that they thereby design (in general) to express any thing more, than that the Sufferings of Christ had a respect to sin, to our sins, as the ground or reason of 'em; they were the assumed Cause of 'em; He suffer'd for, or on the account of our sins. Now, whereas it may be difficult to con­ceive how, or which way our Sins cou'd influence his Sufferings in such sort, as that He shou'd be said to suffer for our sins, to die for our sins: What they say for the clearing this Relation that our Sins had to the Sufferings of Christ, as an Antecedent, procuring Cause (for we meddle not now with the other Respect they bear to 'em as a final Cause; though He also suffer'd for our Sins, so as in a pro­per Sense to Expiate, and make Atone­ment for 'em) I say, the whole of what they offer, for the clearing the Relation our Sins had to Christ's Sufferings, as their Antecedent Procuring Cause, may (so far as I have yet observ'd) be reduc'd to the following particulars, viz.

[Page 91] Sect. 4. I. Our Sins, both in the na­ture of the Thing, and according to the Constitution of the Divine Law, de­serv'd Death, Eternal Death, Rom. 1. 32. This was what they had render'd our Due; they were (in the strictest and most proper Sense) Meritorious of our own Sufferings. Had we lain Eternally under the Avenging Wrath of GOD, it cou'd not have been said, with Truth, that He had done us any wrong; it wou'd have been but the Wages we had earn'd, Rom. 6. 23. And what Apostate An­gels do actually undergo.

II. Hereupon (Death being the deme­rit of our Sin) it follows, That we must of necessity suffer, unless we be forgiven; for no one (surely) will, or can ima­gine, That it might be avoided by our own Power or Policy (whether alone, or in Conjunction with any other Creature, or Creatures): Is it possible we shou'd either hide from GOD's All-seeing Eye, or prevail against his All-powerful Hand! We cannot therefore escape against, or without the Divine Pleasure. Now, a Liberation, a Deliverance from deserved Wrath, that does depend upon, and derive from the Divine Will and Plea­sure, [Page 92] is most Proper Remission, as has been before said. And, how is to be con­ceiv'd, that the Miseries which the Law threatned, and we had deserv'd by our Sins, cou'd otherwise possibly be avoid­ed, than by vertue of such an interve­ning Act of the Divine Will, whereby the Penalty is graciously remitted.

III. Several things concurr'd to ren­der it unmeet, that GOD should meerly Pardon; that He should so forgive the Sinner, as not to leave (one way or other) any severe marks of his displea­sure upon sin. He did retain (in the heighth of his Displeasure) such a Love of Benevolence, as did incline Him to commiserate the case of lapsed, sinful Man; and (in some befitting way) to re-admit him into favour. But it was highly fit and necessary, it shou'd be in such a way as shou'd both duly provide for the Honour of GOD, and be most apt to deter and affright Men from sin­ning. Due regard must be had to both these; the Sinner cou'd not be forgiven, unless (consistently therewith) the Ho­nour of GOD cou'd be secur'd, and sin render'd frightful, and to be dreaded by us. Now in reference to

[Page 93] The Former; the Honour of God did require, That if He Pardon Sinners, it shou'd be in such a way, as shou'd mani­festly vindicate and acquit Him, from the Reflections that are not uncommon upon such occasions. 'Tis a very usual and known case, in Humane Govern­ments, that the Soveraign's Reputation suffers by too easie Pardons: In the case before us, it is exceeding plain, That the Honour of GOD's Power and Wisdom, but specially of his Holiness and Justice, were to be provided for; whilst He magnify'd his Mercy in our Forgive­ness.

1. Whereas nothing is more common, than for too easie Pardons to be imputed to a Governour, as an Evidence of his Weakness and want of Power; it was a most condecent and becoming thing, That GOD should Pardon in such a way, as yet shou'd manifest his Power; that it might appear, He was not afraid, or unable to vindicate his injur'd Law; That He did not forgive, through a meer want of Power to punish.

[Page 94] 2. It was equally fit and necessary, That He should also vindicate the Ho­nour of his Wisdom, and not by a light and easie Pardon tempt the World to impeach Him of Levity and Folly; as if He had rashly and unadvisedly made a Law, of the Consequences whereof He was not aware; and therefore was after­wards oblig'd to change his mind, and indemnifie the Transgressors, without any Compensation.

3. Yea, a meer Pardon would also have reflected upon his Holiness; it was therefore necessary that GOD (for the Vindication of his Essential Purity) shou'd make it appear, that He hated sin, though He lov'd the Sinner; that Men might not look upon Him to be a GOD that has pleasure in Iniquity (the direct contrary to what He has declar'd of Himself, Psal. 5. 4.) neither yet, as if He was indifferently affected towards it. He is (as we are assur'd) of purer Eyes than to behold Iniquity, i. e. So as to al­low, or not to be displeas'd at it, Hab. 1. 13. This Holiness of his, is that which gives a most adorable and conspicuous Beauty and Lustre to all his other Per­fections, He is Glorious in Holiness, Exod. [Page 95] 15. 11. And therefore it cou'd be no way meet, that the Honour of this At­tribute should be neglected, or post-pon'd to our safety: 'Twere better that Ten Thousand Worlds should perish, than that the Glory of GOD's Holiness be stain'd: But how shall it be vindicated, if Sin be absolutely remitted! That Con­nexion we find betwixt his Holiness, and his not forgiving sin, Josh. 24. 19. does very plainly intimate, That the Holi­ness of God is a Bar that lies in the way of Pardon, that does (as it were) oblige GOD not to give out Pardons too easily; not to Pardon absolutely, or without due Provision made for the de­monstrating his Antipathy against Sin; that in his Eye (as well as in its own nature) 'tis an abominable thing, what his Soul hates, Jer. 44. 4.

4. It was further necessary, That the Reputation of his Governing Justice, shou'd also be consulted. GOD (consider'd as a Governour) is necessarily Just, cannot but be so: How monstrous a sound wou'd these two Words conjoyn'd carry in 'em [an unjust GOD!] they do mutu­ally destroy and subvert each other; He that is GOD cannot be unjust; and that Being that is unjust, for that very reason [Page 96] cannot possibly be GOD. Now this Justice of GOD, not only has place in the conferring Promised Rewards, but al­so in the executing threatned Penalties: Of the former, no one makes a doubt; 'tis the latter therefore that only needs to be clear'd: And how plain is it that even the Punishment of Sin is still men­tion'd as an Act of Justice, Rom. 3. 8.—2. 5. 2 Thess. 1. 6. Heb. 2. 2. Rev. 16. 5. 7.—19. 2. But though in the nature of the thing, and from these Texts it is most evident, That when GOD punishes Sin, He does it justly; it may yet be a doubtful Case with some, Whether, or how far his Justice obliges Him to punish it? And that it does oblige Him in some Cases, surely shou'd be agreed; for that we cannot form a No­tion of Rectoral Justice, that does not import and carry in it a difference betwixt the Righteous and the Wicked in its Distri­butions; it will not admit, that all be a­like treated: The Wise Man therefore complains of this, as one of the great Evils of our World, That there be Righ­teous Men to whom it happens according to the work of the Wicked, and wicked Men to whom it happens according to the work of the Righteous, Eccles. 8. 14. But is cer­tain it shall not (at last) be well with 'em, [Page 97] v. 13. GOD has declar'd this Justify­ing the Wicked in Humane Judicatures, to be an abomination to Him, Prov. 17. 15. and has accordingly denounc'd a Woe against it, Isa. 5. 23. and therefore surely it can have no place with Him. Besides that in reference to Himself, we are assur'd, that He is no Respecter of Persons in Judgment, Rom. 2. 11. which Text is the more considerable, for that the Apostle does there alledge this as an Argument to Evince, That GOD will render to every man according to his works, and thereby manifest his Judg­ment to be Righteous, v. 5. 6. Intimating that his Justice does consist therein, viz. In rendring to every one according to his works; his Justice obliges Him thereto: Now, that we may not mistakingly ima­gine, that He intends it only of the good that is their due, He carefully distinguishes betwixt Good and bad, and applies this Exercise of Justice to both—Not only will He (as Justice obliges Him) render glory, honour, and peace to every man that worketh good, but also (as the same Justice obliges) tribulation and anguish upon every Soul of Man that does evil, ver. 9. 10. Not upon one, or two, but every one; for there is no respect of persons with GOD. And (to give this yet the greater force) [Page 98] we find it conjoyn'd with the denial of any Iniquity in GOD, 2 Chron. 19. 7. There is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor respect of persons. Signifying there­by, That shou'd GOD (as a Ruler) deal unequally with Persons, whose cases are the same; or deal alike with Persons, whose cases are differing (either of which ways there wou'd be a [...], a Respect of Persons) He wou'd be chargeable with Iniquity: 'Tis as certain therefore that GOD cannot but severe­ly Animadvert upon Sin, as that there can be no Iniquity in Him. But what need we further Proof, while Crellius himself owns it, That the Justice of God in some cases oblige Him to punish. Nec illud negamus, rectitudinem ac justitiam Dei, nonnunquam eum ad peccata punienda movere; eorum nempe, &c.—Quales sunt homines non-resipiscentes, at (que) in pec­catis contumaciter perseverantes, &c.—Maxime, si ipsum peccati Genus in quo persistunt, insignem animi malitiam, aut apertum Divinae Majestatis contemptum spiret. And he not only grants this (which yet, as we may hereafter make appear, does plainly infer the whole of what he had been pleading against) but he does also nervously prove it in the immediately following Words, Si enim [Page 99] hujusmodi hominibus venia concederetur, facile supremi Rectoris Majestas (ex qua Ordo Universitatis pendet;) & Legum, ab Crell. Resp. ad Grot. Cap. 1. §. 78. p. (mi­hi) 98. ipso latarum, Authoritas evilesceret; & gloria ipsius, quae praecipuus operum ejus finis est, minueretur. To the same purpose he speaks again: Non resipiscentes paena non liber are—Positis quibusdam finibus quos C. 2. §. 29. p. 198. Deus sibi in regendis hominibus prefixit, factu necessarium, &c.

Now upon these Concessions of Crel­lius, it may be inferr'd, That supposing GOD to rule us by his Laws, we must conceive of Him as necessarily oblig'd to punish the Impenitent; But, why is He so necessitated to punish? That the Ho­nour of his Majesty, and the Authority of his Law may be maintain'd: And that Principle (as we may call it) that in God which obliges Him for these Ends to punish the Impenitent, the Contuma­cious, he allows to be his Justice. Now therefore if Crellius will consist with him­self, I think he needs must own, that un­less GOD Govern the World so, as to attain the great Ends of Government, he would not be Just; and that those Ends cannot be attain'd, unless Sin be punish'd, will easily be made appear, if any one shou'd make a doubt of it; but [Page 100] the further Consideration of this, is more properly to be reserv'd, till we meet with it in the Second Part of this Discourse.

In the mean time, let it be observ'd, how far we have proceeded; and these things seem to be very plain, viz. That GOD is (in a most proper Sense) the Governour of Intelligent Creatures; That (as such) He is most necessarily Just; That his Justice does respect the Distri­bution of Rewards and Punishments, and that however in Reference either to Re­wards or Punishments, it may not al­ways oblige Him to execute strictly what the very Letter of the Law im­ports; yet will it not admit, either in reference to the one or other, of any such Relaxation or Change, as wou'd not well consist with, and secure the great Ends of Threatnings or Promises. This Governing Justice therefore was a further Bar in the way of a meer Par­don; GOD could not (consistently herewith) absolutely Pardon: If the very Penalty threatned be not inflicted, Justice it self requir'd that an Equivalent should, i. e. such Sufferings as should as well attain the ends of the Law, as the threatned Penalty it self should. Thus, [Page 101] in respect of GOD, his Honour, the Honour of his Power, Wisdom, Holiness, and Governing Justice, did necessarily re­quire, that if GOD Pardon the Sinner, He should yet (one way or other) leave such marks of his displeasure upon Sin, as shou'd as effectually support the Au­thority, and secure the Ends of his Go­vernment, as if the Sinner himself had suffer'd according to the utmost rigour of the Law. And in reference also,

To the Latter Thing mention'd, i. e. That we be discourag'd and affrighted from Sinning; in order thereto, it was alike necessary, that Sin shou'd with great Severity be animadverted on; if no Pu­nishment was inflicted, or none propor­tion'd to the Offence, what shou'd keep the World in awe, or make 'em afraid of Sinning yet again? Crimes unpu­nish'd are too much countenanc'd at least, if they be not thereby authoriz'd. We see the meer delay of Punishment is very frequently abus'd to this purpose, Eccles. 8. 11. Because Sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in 'em to do evil. And if meer Forbearance have this effect, what (may we suppose) wou'd have been the consequence of ab­solute [Page 102] Forgiveness? So that we con­clude GOD cou'd not (consistently with either his own Honour, or our Safety) Pardon Sin without a Satisfacti­on; it was necessary that Sufferings shou'd be insisted on; and such Sufferings as shou'd be Equivalent to what was Threatned, Sufferings that were adapted to answer the ends of the Law and Go­vernment, as well, or better than the Sufferings of Sinners themselves. Here­upon,

IV. In order to our Remission, the Sufferings of Christ were insisted on by the Father, and agreed to by the Son; by his Sufferings it was effected, brought to pass, that Sin might be remitted, without either reflecting any Dishonour upon GOD, or (in the least) encou­raging any to Sin. His Sufferings did fully answer all the Exigencies of our Case; and therefore this Constitution is mention'd by the Apostle as a very con­decent and becoming one, Heb. 2. 10. Supposing so Gracious an Intendment to­wards us, That GOD design'd to put us into the Hand of Christ, that He might bring us to Glory, it was what well became God, to make the Captain of our Salvation perfect through Sufferings. But [Page 103] what Condecency or Becomingness wou'd there have been in it; if Sin might have been pardon'd, and the Sinner sav'd as well without it? Nay, the Death of Christ was therefore insisted on, that thereby GOD's Justice might be de­monstrated, Rom. 3. 25. [...]; 'tis dou­bled to give it the greater Emphasis. GOD would have been Just, and suf­ficiently have demonstrated himself to be so, if He had infficted upon us the Vengeance that was threatned; but sup­posing that He Pardon us, that He Justi­fie Sinners (though Penitent Believers) his Justice might well be call'd in Question, unless Satisfaction be first made for our Sins; therefore does the Apostle so in­dustriously urge and inculcate this over and over, as what he would not, by any means, have overlook'd—Christ there­fore was a Propitiatory-Sacrifice, that GOD's Justice might be demonstrated, that it might clearly be demonstrated to the World; and the next Words rise yet higher, [...], that He might be (and not only that He might appear to be the) Just, as if, upon the supposal of his Justifying Sinners, He cou'd not otherwise be Just. So that though meer Remission wou'd have well [Page 104] consisted with Mercy alone; or the Dam­nation of all Apostate Sinners with Ju­stice alone; yet if GOD wou'd be mer­ciful to Sinners, He must also be Just; and that He cou'd not be, unless He so far, and in such a way punish Sin, as will suffice to keep up his own Honour and Authority, and effectually to dis­courage Sin: And hence it was that Christ became the Propitiation for our Sins.—Wherefore,

V. And in the last place, The Suf­ferings of Christ being thus insisted on, in order to his being a Successful Me­diator with GOD for Sinners, He is therefore said to have died for us, and for our Sins. Our Sins render'd Suffer­ing necessary: GOD thereupon insists on Suffering, without shedding of Blood He will allow no Remission: Hereupon Christ consents to die, and accordingly dies a Sacrifice for us, bears our sins, carries our griefs, &c.

Sect. 5. And this is that relation be­twixt our Sins and the Sufferings of Christ, which is intended to be express'd by Grotius, and others, when they say, Our Sins were the Meritorious Cause of his Sufferings, i. e. they deserv'd Death, [Page 105] and so bound us over to it, as that we cou'd not be exempted from it, without a Satisfaction, without some-what Equi­valent to our dying; in which Exigency Christ dies for us. I cannot find that they (or, which with every Christian surely shou'd yet be of greater weight, that the Scriptures themselves) do mean any thing more. Thus Grotius, Causa altera, quae Deum movit sunt peccata no­stra paenam commerentia. He does not mean that they deserv'd Christ shou'd be punished; but they so bound us over to Punishment, that unless Christ die for 'em, we cou'd not Salva Divinae Justitiae demonstratione, a paena mortis aeternae liberari, as he had a few Lines before expressed himself. And there­fore having mention'd that Text a few Pages forward, Gal. 2. 21. If righteous­ness be by the law, then Christ died [...], without a cause, he adds, Locus ipse Pauli, de quo agimus, aliam (quam anteceden­tem) causam intelligi non patitur—And a little further adds; Causam propriam, cur se tradiderit Christus, mortuus (que) sit, hanc esse, quod nos per legem justi non esse­mus, sed rei paenae; nostra ergo [...] De Satisf. cap. 1. p. 9, 10. causa est antecedens mortis Christi. To which he adds, p. 36. Non potest alicu­jus actionis causa impellens esse Meritoria, [Page 106] nisi & finis sit [...]. And cap. 5. p. 113, 114. Merebantur peccata no­stra ut paena exigeretur: quod vero paena in Christum collata fuerit, hoc ita ad Dei & Christi voluntatem referimus, ut ea quoque voluntas causas suas habeat, non in Merito Christi (qui peccatum cum non nosset, a Deo peccatum factus est) sed in summa Christi aptitudine ad statuendum insigne exem­plum, &c. So that whoever allows, that our Sins deserv'd Punishment, and so bound us over to Eternal Death, as that we cou'd not be exempted from it, with safety to the Divine Justice, unless Satis­faction be made; that Christ died for this end, by satisfying Divine Justice to procure our Remission; and that his Death therefore was antecedently thus caused by our Sin, and was inflicted for an example, to deterr us from Sin; I say, whoever agrees to this (so far as I can find) admits of all that Grotius ever design'd, when he calls our Sins the me­ritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings. And so also the Bishop of Worcester; ‘Our Sins, as an Impulsive Cause, are to be Discourse of Christ's Suff. p. 69. consider'd, as they are so displeasing to GOD; that it was necessary for the Vindication of his Honour, and the deterring the World from Sin, that no less a Sacrifice of Atonement [Page 107] shou'd be offer'd, than the Blood of the Son of GOD.’

Sect. 6. And to all this we do readily agree; yea, how fully has Mr. Baxter spoken to this Sense, particularly in his Reasons of the Christian Religion, Part I. Cap. 15. Sect. 9. P. 161, 162, 163. So also Part II. c. 4. §. 6. P. 232. and c. 5. §. 10. P. 253, 254. The Passages are too large to Transcribe. But he has there very plainly intimated, That GOD neither has, nor cou'd Pardon Sinners without such a Sacrifice, or substitute-means, as might preserve the Honour of his Law and Government, and the future Innoceney of his Subjects, as well as their Punishment in the full Sense of the Law wou'd have done.

Sect. 7. Now when the whole Mat­ter or Thing is agreed to, all that the Orthodox intend by that Phrase, 'tis a very insipid thing for any one vehement­ly to contend what Word or Name to call it by: What if one call our Sins the Meritorious Cause, another the Pro­meritorious Cause, another the Occasion of Christ's Sufferings; whilst they are all agreed as to the Reference they had to 'em: But if any one by a Meritorious [Page 108] Cause intend more than what is above­said, or by an Occasion intend less, it may with just Reason be concluded, they are mistaken with the Antinomians in the one, or with the Socinians in the other Extream.

Sect. 8. We blame no one therefore meerly for calling our Sins the Meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings; nay, Mr. Baxter himself sometimes calls 'em so, the Meritorious, or Pro-meritorious Cause. Confession of Faith, p. 153. the Remote, or assum'd Cause. Life of Faith, p. 311. and p. 321. he allows, that our sins lay on Christ as the assum'd Meritorious cause of his Sufferings. So in his Methodus Theologiae—Ad peccatum Relationem ha­bent (speaking of the Sufferings of Christ) ut ad occasionem, & ut ad causam meri­toriam remotam, & si non proximam. P. III. c. 1. Determ. 5. p. 38. And in that other Book to which our Accuser refers us, he thus expresses his Sense, at his very entring upon this Point? ‘When He (Christ) is said to die [for our Sins] it may be understood—for our Sins as the Pro-meritorious pro­curing Cause of his Suffering, through his own Undertaking to bear what they deserv'd: Or, if any think it [Page 109] fitter to call 'em the Occasion, than the Meritorious Cause, they may. Uni­versal Redempt. p. 5.’ And the very last Words that I have observ'd him to use of this Matter (in that last-men­tion'd Tract) are these: ‘The strict­est Sense in which He (Christ) is said to die for Men, is, to die in their stead; or to die for their Sins as the Procuring Cause, on his own Under­taking: yield this once, and we shall much easiler agree, &c. Ibid. p. 91.’ Which Two Passages do so inclose and explicate all the rest, that for a Person to represent any of the intermediate Passages to adiffering and disadvantageous Sense, is what deserves a Censure so se­vere, as we did not think fit to ex­press, otherwise than by a significant Si­lence.

Sect. 9. But though we allow others their Liberty, yet (accurately speaking) it must be said, That all that Reference that our Sins had to the Sufferings of Christ, does not amount to a Proper Me­ritorious Cause: Nor did Grotius ever think it did; whatever our Accuser may imagine; For though he does affirm (as is intimated, Appeal, p. 6.) that Praeter Dei & Christi voluntatem, datur Causa [Page 110] Antecedens Legitima mortis Christi: yet he distinguishes once and again, betwixt Punishment taken Personally, and taken Impersonally: By Punishment taken Per­sonally, he intends the Sufferings of Christ, consider'd as his; by Punishment taken Impersonally, he means the Sufferings of Christ consider'd only as Sufferings: And he expresly tells us, That our Sins were only the Meritorious Cause of the Suffer­ings of Christ in this latter Sense. For thus he speaks, Illud quo (que) reprehensione indiget quod dicit Socinus, Praeter Dei, & ipsius Christi voluntatem non posse ul­lam legitimam Causam reddi mortis Christi, nisi dicamus Christum meritum fuisse ut moreretur: Nam inest quidem in antecedente Causa meritum, ut supra dix­imus, sed Impersonaliter; merebantur enim peccata nostra ut paena exigeretur, &c. Cap. 5. p. 113. Our Sins only did deserve Sufferings, and those of such a value, and cou'd not be remitted, unless such a Com­pensation was made to Divine Justice for 'em; but they never did deserve that Christ should die; they made it necessary, suppo­sing we be Redeem'd, that it be by such a Price; but they did not deserve that we shou'd be Redeem'd with his Precious Blood: All that Grotius asserts is, That Death was deserv'd, he no where says that Christ's Death was so.

[Page 111] §. 10. And this is the true Reason why we are not fond of the Phrase [a Merito­rious Cause] because it wou'd intimate, Christ's Sufferings were deserv'd: Now if they were deserv'd, it must either be al­low'd, that they were the very thing that the Law threatned, or we (by our Sins) deserv'd God shou'd Save and Ransom us by such Sufferings. If either of these be true, our Sins may then be said to be the Meritorious, the proper meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings, as our Accu­ser wou'd have 'em; but cannot be strict­ly and truly so, otherwise than upon the one, or the other of these Principles. In that they deserv'd such Sufferings for weight, and cou'd not be remitted with­out such Sufferings, and Christ hereupon consented to suffer for 'em, they may be call'd the Meritorious Cause of his Suffer­ings, or, much more fitly, the ground, the reason, the assum'd cause, the pro-meritori­ous, or quasi-meritorious Cause of his Suf­ferings: But the real, proper meritorious Cause of 'em they cou'd not be, unless they in a strict and proper Sense deserv'd that Christ shou'd die. Now the Death of Christ is considerable under a two-fold Notion, either as a Curse or Blessing. As inflicted upon Him, 'twas a most dreadful Curse: As it was our Ransom, the Price of our Redemption, it was and [Page 112] is a most invaluable Blessing. If our Sins therefore deserv'd the Death of Christ, it must be either in the one, or the other of these Respects: But no one surely will dare to say, That our Sins deserv'd such a Ransom; that GOD in giving his Son to be the Saviour of the World, gave us no more than we deserv'd; this were egre­gious Blasphemy, against the brightest and most amazing Instance of Love, with which God ever bless'd the World.

§. 11. It remains then, that (supposing our Sins the Proper Meritorious Cause of Christ's death) they did deserve it as a Curse to be inflicted upon Him, tho' not as a Blessing influential upon us. And 'tis not conceivable how our Sins cou'd so deserve the death of Christ, unless this be suppos'd to be the very thing threatned in the Law; [if thou sinnest, Christ shall die]: And this our Accuser sometimes seems to intend; what else can he pos­sibly mean, when he tells us, Appeal, p. 25. If Christ's Obligation to suffer did not result from this Law (i. e. the Law which we had violated) our Sins were not the Impulsive Cause of his Sufferings: Or, if it did not immediately, our Sins were but the Remote Cause, or Occasion; not a meer Impulsive, or Proper Meritorious Cause of 'em. And p. 50. If Christs Sufferings be not ex obligatione Legis (we suppose he means the [Page 113] same Law as before) our Sins cannot be their Meritorious Cause. And p. 41. Whence its impossible (i. e. if Christ's Sufferings arise not from the violated Law, but from the Mediatorial Law, its impossible) Sin shou'd be their Meritorious Cause. So that his Sense shou'd be, That Christ's Sufferings were not, could not be, 'twere impossible they shou'd be from our Sins, as the Proper Meritorious Cause, unless they did result, and immediately result from the violated Law. And this is what we also say; and therefore while he pleads for our Sins being so properly, so imme­diately, the Meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings; he must needs mean, that they did result, immediately result from the Law when violated; i. e. so soon as ever the Law was violated, so soon as we had sinn'd, the Law immediately lays hold on Christ, binds Him over to Death; and that it cou'd not do, unless he was threatned by it.

Here therefore I wou'd have manifest­ed that the Death of Christ was not threatned by that Law, but that I have already largely done it, both in the first and third Chapters of this Discourse: And our Accuser himself has render'd it the less needful, by giving it as his true Sense, That when the Law was at first given [Page 114] to Adam, Christ was not in the Obligation: it did not run [Thou, or thy Surety for thee] p. 5. of this very Appeal. We shall there­fore (instead of perusing the Matter fur­ther) allow him leisure to bethink himself how these things will be made to consist together, That Christ's Obligation to suffer did immediately result from the Law, and that yet the Law did not include a Surety: Humanity it self (and much more Christi­anity) obliging us to shew some pity, and not to press too hard a Person that labours under the hardships of Self-contradiction.

§. 12. To sum up this Head then, Or­thodoxness does not consist in Words and Phrases; 'twould be egregious weakness to imagine, That the Controversies be­twixt us and the Socinians are only whe­ther this, or the other Word, or Form of Speaking, be most apt and expressive of that Truth about which there is no diffe­rence: That which the Bishop of Worcester has observ'd, with a more particular re­spect to a Change of Persons, will admit a much more extensive Application. ‘It is not (says he) the use of the Words, but the Sense of 'em is to be enquir'd into.’ See his Lordship's Letter to Mr. W. inserted in the Answer to the Report, p. 57. 'Tis not the bare Word [Trinity] that divides betwixt them and us in that point, [Page 115] or the term [Person] or [Satisfaction] or [meritorious Cause] &c. But 'tis the Sense design'd to be express'd by those Terms, in which they will not agree with us; wou'd they allow the Truth we plead for, that is wont to be express'd by those Words; they wou'd no longer be Soci­nians; nor wou'd any wise Man perpetu­ate the Contention with 'em, tho' they shou'd yet be unsatisfy'd as to the fore­mention'd Phrases.

Our Accuser therefore does not (to use that Right Reverend Persons Words again) discover his profound Knowledge in these Matters, if he think, as he says, Ap. p. 39. That the Heart of the Contro­versie lies in Asserting or Denying our Sins to be the Properly Meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings: And if He know otherwise, and to design to impose upon those that do not, where is his Ingenuity. 'Tis so far from being true, that the Heart of the Controversie lies here, that so far as I have yet observ'd, this very Man is the first that ever asserted, Our Sins were the Properly meritorious Cause, &c. Grotius, Vossius, and the Bishop of Wor­cester, do indeed speak of 'em as the Me­ritorious Cause; but how they explain themselves we have before manifested as to two of 'em. Nor does Vossius intend any [Page 116] thing more, than only that they are tru­ly Meritorious of Sufferings, that they cou'd not be remitted without 'em; and that in this Exigency, Christ consents to suffer for us; whereupon he calls 'em the Meritorious Cause of his Sufferings; though he (as Grotius) means it only of the Sufferings he underwent, not of those Sufferings as undergone by Him. To this purpose we find him explaining himself; Punitio omnis qua talis, sive Im­personaliter spectata, causam [...] habet Justitiam Dei [...] Procatar­ctica vero causa sunt peccata, itidem Im­personaliter, & in genere spectata, sine de­terminatione, &c. Punitio vero, quae pro alio est, plane misericordiae Divinae opus est: procatarctica vero causa sunt peccata nostra Satisfactionem Exigentia. Vossi Responsum ad Judicium Ravensperg. Chap. 12. So that though they call 'em the Meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings, yet they plainly manifest, that they intend only they were meritorious of the Sufferings He under­went (abstractly consider'd) and there­fore may improperly be said to be meri­torious of his Sufferings; but I no where find 'em asserting our sins to be the pro­perly meritorious Cause of Christ's Suffer­ings, much less fixing that as the Point in Controversie betwixt the Orthodox [Page 117] and the Socinians, whether they be to be so call'd, or not.

Nay, 'tis not only not needful to use the Phrase our Accuser wou'd impose upon us, but (unless carefully explain'd) 'tis very unsafe; for that if the Words be taken as they sound, they wou'd import that (in a strict and proper sense) Our sins deserv'd that Christ shou'd die: an Assertion, that in a sense very obvious does amount to blas­phemy, and (without a manifest force put upon the Words) cannot possibly be a Truth.

CHAP. V.

§. 1. IN this Point also, our Accuser is as Clamourous, as in the for­mer; and what has been said in the fore-going Chapter will furnish out a just Answer to all his Cavils upon this Head. He represents us, as if we did allow the Sufferings of Christ to be the Punishment of Sin, only so far, and in the same Sense as Crellius does, Appeal, p. 27. but deny'd 'em to be a Proper Punish­ment; and that therefore we are against the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, Ap. p. 4. 10. And lest this shou'd not be enough to leave us under the Reproach of Socinianism, he represents this as the very parting Point betwixt the Orthodox and the Socinians; the Heart of the Con­troversie (according to him) lies in the Asserting or Denying—Christ's Sufferings to be properly Penal, p. 39. and (if he be not mistaken) Grotius, Vossius, and the B. of Worcester, are of the same mind.

[Page 119] §. 2. But after all, what if it should appear, That the Phrase is Ambiguous; that in one Sense (and which is plainly the Sense of that very Judicious and Learned Bishop, and others, that use the Phrase) it is true, That the Sufferings of Christ are a Proper Punishment; and yet in another Sense (which shall appear to be the Sense of Mr. Baxter, and those whose Sentiments agree with his in this Matter) it is as true, That Christ's Suffer­ings are not a Proper Punishment, but Ana­logically only to be so call'd: That the Bishop never own'd it, nor any Person of note, in the Sense in which we deny it; and that we do not, Mr. Baxter never did de­ny it, in the Sense in which the Bishop, (and other Famous Defenders of the Ca­tholick Faith against Socinianism) Assert and Plead for it.

§. 3. To Evince this, there needs no­thing more than a Just Representation of their Sense; what the one and the other intend by a Proper Punishment, and this they themselves were best able to ex­press: Now then to constitute a Proper Punishment in the Bishop's Sense, there is no more needful, than that there be Sufferings inflicted on the account of Sin, to deter Men from Sinning, and to assert GOD's Rights as a Sovereign, and vindicate his Honour to the World. [Page 120] Whatsoever Sufferings do answer all these ends of Divine Punishments, and are inflicted on the account of sin, have the proper notion of Discour. of the Suff. of Christ. P. 59. Punishments in 'em. And again, Whatever is inflicted on the account of sin, and with a design to shew God's severity against it, and thereby to deter others from the practice of it, has the proper notion of Punishment in it. Ib. p. 73. This is plainly the Sense of that Right Reverend Person, he means no more when he calls the Sufferings of Christ a proper Punishment, than what is abovesaid. And to all this we cheerfully consent.

§. 4. But Mr. Baxter, when he denies the Sufferings of Christ to have been a proper Punishment, 'tis plain, he takes Pu­nishment in the strictest Sense, as it does connote the suffering Person to have sin­ned; and intends no more by it than that Christ was not himself a sinner. Poena in sensu primo & famosissimo est Ipsius De­linquentis malum naturale.—concludendum est. Christus non-fuit rever a peccator; ideo (que); Meth. The. P. III. c. 1. determ. 5. P. 38. poenam sensu primo & famosissimo sic dictam non dedit. And this is no more than what every one must agree to; that sup­posing it be taken into the Notion of Punishment, that the Snffering be inflicted upon one that has sinned, Christ's Suffer­ings were not a proper Punishment. Nor was Mr. Baxter the only Person that ap­prehended this to be the most strict and [Page 121] proper Notion of Punishment, the Lear­ned Pufendorf (after Grotius, and other Civilians) does upon this very Principle assert, That however one Man may suf­fer, yet he cannot (properly speaking) be punish'd for another's Sin. Paenae vo­cari nequit dolor ille aut damnum, qui in Pufendorf. Element. Jurisp. Univers. Lib. 1. def. 21. §. 7. p. 237. illos redundat, qui nihil deliquerunt—& qui in altero paenae rationem habiturus est dolor aut damnum, delictum proprium tanquam causam respicere debet. Unde Paena non est dolor ille, quem quis ex paenae pro­pinqui aut amici sui capit, nisi ipse fors ad istius delictum concurrerit, &c. To the same purpose he also speaks in his larger Tract; Illos quidem, qui revera de reatu delicti participant, pro ratione influxus ad facinus aliquod puniri posse, extra dubium est; cum iidem non alienum, sed proprium delictum luant. De Jure Naturae & Gent. Lib. VIII. c. 3. §. 28. p. 831. But §. 30. p. 834. he adds, De coetero firmum manet istud, in foro humano, ob delictum alienum, de quo nulla ratione quis partici­pavit, recte aliquem puniri non posse, &c. And the Famous Dr. Ames includes it expresly in the Notion of Punishment, not only that it be some Evil inflicted for or on the account of Sin, but also that it be inflicted upon the Sinner himself. Paenae est malum Peccatori propter peccatum in­flictum. Amesii Medulla Theol. Lib. 1. [Page 122] C. 12. §. 10. p. (mihi) 56. And there­fore he adds, §. 14. Paena igitur proprie dicta non habet locum, nisi in Creaturis in­telligentibus, in quibus etiam peccatum repe­ritur.

§. 5. This therefore is the only Que­stion that can lie betwixt us and our Ac­cuser, Whether Christ was really a Sin­ner, or not? If not (which we hope our Accuser himself will not scruple to say with us) then his Sufferings were not a Punishment, in that most full and proper Sense, in which the Sufferings in­flicted on Sinnners themselves are so call'd. We willingly allow, That they were as properly Punishments, as it was possible the Sufferings of one, who was himself no Sinner, cou'd be; but we dare not say, that Christ was a Sinner: And therefore, though He suffer'd for Sin, yet the Sin (since it was not his own) did not so nearly and immediately ren­der Christ liable to Suffering, as it did the Sinner himself. Death was not due to Christ immediately upon our having sinn'd; the Law did not threaten Christ [if Men sin, thou shalt die]: After we had sinned, there was no one obnoxious to Suffering for it besides our selves, 'till Christ voluntarily undertook to suf­fer; he was not antecedently oblig'd, [Page 123] but (when he might have refus'd) he freely chose to die for us, He gave Him­self for our sins, Gal. 1. 4. He gave Him­self a ransom for us, 1 Tim. 2. 6.

§. 6. So that here is a vast difference betwixt the Sufferings of Christ, and the Sufferings of a Sinner. The Sinner, and Christ do indeed each suffer on the ac­count of Sin, so far they agree; but the Sinner suffers for his own sin, Christ for the sins of others; the Sinner suffers de­servedly, he receives the due reward of his deeds, Luk. 23. 41. but Christ's Suffer­ings were undeserv'd, he having done nothing amiss: The Sinners sufferings were threatned by the Law; but where do we find any threatning against Christ: The Sinners Sufferings are inflicted with­out and against his Consent; but Christ's were the matter of his free choice, what He might have refus'd, &c.

§. 7. Upon which, and other like grounds, how plain is it, That the Suf­ferings of Christ are not in all respects Commensurate to the Sufferings of Sin­ners; and that however they have such a respect to sin, on account whereof they may not unaptly be call'd Punishments (as Mr. Baxter himself asserts, Method. Theol. Part III. p. 38.) yet they have not altogether the same respect to Sin, as the [Page 124] Sinners own Sufferings have, or would have had (as appears before) and there­fore when we call 'em Punishments, we must not take so much into the Notion of Punishment as when we call the Sinners own Sufferings by that name.

§. 8. So that when the Sufferings of Christ are compar'd with those of Sinners, we say, they are less Properly and Analogically call'd Punishments not in that Primary and most Famous sense in which the Sinners own sufferings are so call'd: and yet when we compare the same sufferings with meer Calamities, that have no relation to Sin, or guilt; we say, they are not unaptly, but pro­perly enough to be call'd Punishments, for that they had such a respect to Sin, as has been before-said. In this Mr. Baxter Baxt. Two Disputat. of Original Sin, p. 156. is plain: and therefore elsewhere As­serts, That his (i. e. Christs) sufferings were truly Punishments because for sin, though not for his own; yet not Punish­ments, in so full and strict a Sense as ours, who suffer for our own sins.

§. 9. And hence it appears, that our Accuser has with no just reason, repre­sented Mr. Baxter as agreeing with Crellius in this matter: Crellius (says he) says the same, only with this Explicati­on, viz. that it must be taken materially [Page 125] and Improperly which is the sense in which Mr. Baxter—takes it. Appeal, p. 27. But besides that Mr. Baxter (so far as yet appears) no where says, that the sufferings of Christ are Punishments ma­terially only, (as this Accuser intimates) nay, on the contrary, he argues from their participating in the formal Reason of Punishment, that they may properly enough be so call'd, Quoad nomen vero, non inepte poena dicuntur, dum ad Peccatum habent, relationem &c. Baxter ubi supra. I say, besides this, any considering and unprejudic'd Reader will easily see, can­not but observe, that if at any time they happen both to use one and the same Term, they yet intend it in a vastly differing Sense. So if Crellius allow Christ's sufferings to be Punishments im­properly so call'd; it is most evident he thereby excludes that respect they had to Sin, to our Sin, which we have in the fore-going Chapter asserted and clear'd, and in reference to which Mr. Baxter with the Bishop of Worcester, and all the Orthodox are agreed: and so also when he calls our Sins the Occasion of Christ's Sufferings, he means it not as Mr. Baxter does, of such an Occasion as was (so far as the Nature of the thing will admit) a meritorious Cause of 'em also.

[Page 126] And it may as well be said that Crellius says the same with Grotius, and the Bi­shop, because he sometimes calls our Sins the Impulsive cause of Christ's sufferings; and that his sense is the same with their's, because sometimes his words are so; and therefore also, that their sense is the same with his, and thereupon that they are Socinians: I say, there is the same Reason why they might also, as well as Mr. Baxter, be thus represented by our Accuser, for that they also sometimes use Crellius's words without any scru­ple.

§. 10. Nor is it any uncommon thing, for several Persons, to use the same words in differing senses: Our Accuser himself affords us a most convincing In­stance to this purpose, in reference to the very matter before us. The sufferings of Christ are to be consider'd as a Punish­ment of sin, a Proper Punishment. In the Expression the Bishop of Worcester, and our Accuser are agreed; but that not­withstanding, the sense intended by the one, and the other is not the same. He pretends indeed p. 38. that it is not the Words and Phrases, but his Lordship's sound sence, that he contends for; but if that were all he would have, there was no occasion for him to contend at all; [Page 127] that having never (by those he Accuses) been call'd in Question: where he appre­hended a difference betwixt his Lord­ship and Mr. Baxter at the most, it could be but a Verbal one, that their sence, when they explain themselves, does well agree, has been already manifested; and since Mr. Baxter did, and we do most Entirely agree, that Christ's suffeings were a Proper Punishment, according to the Notion his Lordship, gives us of such a Punishment, we may surely hope for an End of this Contention.

§. 11. Only for a Close, I would re­mark it to our Accuser, That whilst (either through Prejudice, or Inadver­tency) he groundlesly charges us as dif­fering from that Judicious and Right Reverend Person; he does himself give Occasion, for any one to return back the Charge, with greatest Justice, upon him. For under the pretence, That Christ's Sufferings were a proper Punish­ment (for which he alledges the Bishop of Worcester) he wou'd have 'em to be the very Punishment we had deserv'd, the very Punishment the Law threatned, Punishment inflicted by vertue of the Sanction of the violated Law. V. p. 23, 26, 28, 29, &c. This Notion almost runs throughout his Appeal. But this is [Page 128] so far from being the sound Sense, in which his Lordship has us'd this Ex­pression, that 'tis what he does most directly dispute against.

§. 12. And whereas he does once and again Insinuate, That 'tis necessary Christ's Sufferings should be truly and properly Penal (we must suppose he means it in his own, not in the Bishop's Sense) in Order to their being a proper Satisfaction to God's Justice for our Sins: 'tis (as has bin already, in some measure, manifested) utterly subversive of the True, and Universally own'd Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, to assert his suf­ferings to have been Penal, in any such Sense, as would inferr or include their having been inflicted by vertue of the violated Law, undergone in the proper Person of Sinners, their having been for­mally the same we were oblig'd to, and most immediately and properly deserv'd by our Sins; while yet this is what he every where pleads for: But of this Point of Satisfaction we design (God assisting) to treat more distinctly and at large hereafter.