Sermons Preached on Several Occasions, Chapter 2

Sermons Preached on Several Occasions · Chapter 2

p. 265CHAP. II.A

The particular state of the Controversie, concerning the sufferings of Christ. The Concessions of our Adversaries. The debate reduced to two heads: The first concerning Christs sufferings, being a punishment for sin, entred upon. In what sense Crellius acknowledgeth the sins of men, to have been the impulsive cause of the death of Christ. The sufferings of Christ proved to be a punishment, from Scripture. The importance of the phrase Bof bearing sins. Of the Scape-Goats bearing the sins of the people into the Wilderness. Grotius his sense of 1 Pet. 2. 24. vindicated against Crellius and himself. foreign never used for the taking away a thing by the destruction of it. Crellius his sense examined. Isa. 53. 11. vindicated. The argument from Mat. 8. 17. answered. Grotius constant to himself in his notes on that place. Isa. 53. 5, 6, 7. cleared. Whether Christs death be a proper foreign, and whether that doth imply, that it was a punishment of sin? How far the punishments of Children Cfor their Fathers faults, are exemplary among men. The distinction of calamities and punishments, holds not here. That Gods hatred of sin could not be seen in the sufferings of Christ, unless they were a punishment of sin, proved against Crellius. Grotius his Arguments from Christ being made sin and a curse for us, defended. The liberty our Adversaries take in Changing the sense of words. The particles foreign, being joyned to sins and relating to sufferings do imply those sufferings to be a punishment for sin. According to their way of interpreting Scripture, it Dhad been impossible for our doctrine to be clearly expressed therein.

THese things being thus far cleared concerning the nature and ends of punishments, and how far they §. 1. The particular state of the controversie concerning the sufferings of Christ for us.are of the nature of debts, and consequently what kind of satisfaction is due for them, the resolution of the grand Question concerning the sufferings of Christ will appear much more easie; but that we may proceed with all Epossible clearness in a debate of this consequence, we must yet a little more narrowly examine the difference between our Adversaries and us in this matter; for their concessions are in te…ms sometimes so fair, as though the difference were meerly p. 266about words without any considerable difference in the Athing it self. If we charge them with denying satisfaction, Crellius answers in the name of them, that we do it unjustly; Crell. praes. p. 7.for they do acknowledge a satisfaction worthy of God, and agreeable to the Scriptures. If we charge them with denying that our salvation is obtained by the death of Christ, they assert the contrary, as appears by the same Author. Nay, Ruarus attributes merit to the death of Christ too. They acknowledge, Ruarus in Epistol. Crell. cap. 9. sect. 2. Cap. 10. sect. 10. Cap. 7, 8, &c. Cap. 1. sect. 57.that Christ dyed for us, nay, that there was a commutation between Christ and us, both of one person for another, and of a price for a person; and that the death of Christ Bmay be said to move God to redeem us; they acknowledge reconciliation, and expiation of sins to be by the death of Christ. Nay, they assert, that Christs death was by reason of our sins, and that God designed by that to shew his severity against sin. And what could we desire more, if they meant the same thing by these words, which we do? They assert a satisfaction, but it is such a one as is meerly fulfilling the desire of another; in which sense all that obey God may be said to satisfie him. They attribute our salvation to the death of Christ, but only as a condition intervening, upon the performance Cof which the Covenant was confirmed and himself taken into Glory, that he might free men from the punishment of their sins. They attribute merit to Christs death but in the same sense that we may merit too, when we do what is pleasing to God. They acknowledge, that Christ died for us, but not in our stead, but for our advantage; that there was a commutation; but not such a one, as that the Son of God did lay down his blood as a proper price in order to our redemption as the purchase of it; when they speak of a moving cause, they tell us, they mean no more than the performance of any condition Dmay be said to move, or as our prayers and repentance do. The reconciliation they speak of, doth not at all respect God but us; they assert an expiation of sins consequent upon the death of Christ, but not depending upon it any otherwise, than as a condition necessary for his admission to the office of a High Priest in Heaven, there to expiate our sins by his power, and not by his blood; but they utterly deny, that the death of Christ is to be considered as a pròper expiatory sacrifice for sin; or that it hath any further influence upon it, than as it is considered as a means of the confirmation of the Etruth of his Doctrine, and particularly the promise of remission of sins, on which, and not on the death of Christ they say our remission depends; but so far as the death of Christ may be an argument to us to believe his Doctrine, and that faith may p. 267incline us to obedience, and that obedience being the condition Ain order to pardon, at so many removes they make the death of Christ to have influence on the remission of our sins. They assert that God took occasion by the sins of men to ex ercise an act of dominion upon Christ in his sufferings, and that the sufferings of Christ were intended for the taking away the sins of men; but they utterly deny, that the sufferings of Christ were to be considered as a punishment for sin, or that Christ did suffer in our place and stead; nay, they contend with great vehemency, that it is wholly inconsistent with the justice of God to make one mans sins the meritorious Bcause of anothers punishment; especially one wholly innocent, and so that the guilty shall be freed on the account of his sufferings. Thus I have endeavoured to give the true state of the controversie with all clearness and brevity. And the substance of it will be reduced to these two debates.

1. Whether the sufferings of Christ in general are to be considered as a punishment of sin, or as a meer act of dominion?

2. Whether the death of Christ in particular were a proper expiatory sacrifice for sin, or only an antecedent condition to Chis exercise of the Office of Priesthood in Heaven?

1. Whether the sufferings of Christ in general are to be considered §. …. Whether the sufferings of Christ are to be considered as a punishment of sin.as a punishment of sin, or as a meer act of dominion? for that it must be one or the other of these two, cannot be denyed by our Adversaries; for the inflicting those sufferings upon Christ, must either proceed from an antecedent meritorious cause, or not. If they do, they are then punishments; if not, they are meer exercises of power and dominion; whatever ends they are intended for, and whatever recompence be made for them. So Crellius asserts, that God as absolute Crell. cap. 2. sect. 1. p. 142.DLord of all, had a right of absolute dominion upon the life and body of Christ, and therefore might justly deliver him up to death, and give his body to the Cross; and although Christ by the ordinary force of the Law of Moses, had a right to escape so painful and accursed death, yet God by the right of dominion had the power of disposal of him, because he intended to compensate his torments with a reward infinitely greater than they were: but because he saith, for great ends the consent of Christ was necessary, therefore God did not use his utmost dominion in delivering him up by force as he might Ehave done, but he dealt with him by way of command, and rewards proposed for obedience, and in this sence he did act as a righteous Governor, and indulgent Father, who encouraged his Son to undergo hard, but great things. In which we see, that p. 268he makes the sufferings of Christ an act of meer dominion in AGod, without any antecedent cause as the reason of them; only he qualifies this act of dominion with the proposal of a reward for it. But we must yet further enquire into their meaning, for though here Crellius attributes the sufferings of Christ meerly to Gods dominion, without any respect to sin, yet elsewhere he will allow a respect that was had to sin antecedently to the sufferings of Christ, and that the sins of men were the Crell. cap. 1. sect. 7. &c. So…i…. de Christo servat. l. 3. c. 10. Crell. cap. 1. sect. 16. Socia. l. 2. c. 7.impulsive cause of them. And although Socinus in one place utterly denies any lawful-antecedent cause of the death of Christ, besides the will of God and Christ, yet Crellius in his Vindication Bsaith, by lawful cause, he meant meritorius, or such upon supposition of which he ought to dye; for elsewhere he makes Christ to dye for the cause, or by the occasion of our sins; which is the same that Crellius means by an impulsive, or procatartick cause. Which he thus explains, we are now to suppose a decree of God not only to give salvation to Mankind, Crell. c. 1. sect. 11.but to give us a firm hope of it in this present state, now our sins by deserving eternal punishment, do hinder the effect of that decree upon us, and therefore they were an impulsive cause of the death of Christ, by which it was effected, that this Cdecree should obtain notwithstanding our sins. But we are not to understand as though this were done by any expiation of the guilt of sin by the death of Christ; but this effect is hindred by three things, by taking away their sins, by assuring men that their former sins, and present infirmities upon their sincere obedience shall not be imputed to them, and that the effect of that decree shall obtain, all which, saith he, is effected morte Christi interveniente, the death of Christ intervening, but not as the procuring cause. So that after all these words he means no more by making our sins an impulsive cause of the Ddeath of Christ, but that the death of Christ was an argument to confirm to us the truth of his Doctrine, which doctrine of his doth give us assurance of these things: and that our sins when they are said to be the impulsive cause, are not to be considered with a respect to their guilt, but to that distrust of God which our sins do raise in us; which distrust is in truth according to this sense of Crellius the impulsive cause, and not the sins which were the cause or occasion of it. For that was it which the doctrine was designed to remove, and our sins only as the causes of that. But if it be said, that he speaks not only of the distrust, Ebut of the punishment of sin as an impediment which must be removed too, and therefore may be called an impulsive cause, we are to consider that the removal of this is not attributed to the death of Christ, but to the leaving of our sins by the belief of his p. 269Doctrine; therefore the punishment of our sins cannot unless Ain a very remote sense be said to be an impulsive cause of that, which for all that we can observe by Crellius, might as well have been done without it; if any other way could be thought sufficient to confirm his Doctrine, and Christ, without dying, might have had power to save all them that obey him. But we understand not an impulsive cause in so remote a sense, as though our sins were a meer occasion of Christs dying, because the death of Christ was one argument among many others to believe his Doctrine, the belief of which would make men leave their sins; but we contend for a neerer and Bmore proper sense, viz. that the death of Christ was primarily intended for the expiation of our sins, with a respect to God and not to us, and therefore our sins as an impulsive cause are to be considered as they are so displeasing to God; that it was necessary for the Vindication of Gods Honour, and the deterring the world from sin, that no less a Sacrifice of Attonement should be offered, than the blood of the Son of God. So that we understand an impulsive cause here in the sense, that the sins of the people were, under the Law, the cause of the offering up those Sacrifices, which were appointed Cfor the expiation of them. And as in those Sacrifices there were two things to be considered, viz. the mactation, and the oblation of them, the former as a punishment by a substitution of them in place of the persons who had offended; the latter as the proper Sacrifice of attonement, although the mactation it self, considered with the design of it, was a Sacrificial act too: So we consider the sufferings of Christ with a twofold respect, either as to our sins, as the impulsive cause of them, so they are to be considered as a punishment, or as to God, with a design to expiate the guilt of them, so they are Da Sacrifice of Attonement. The first consideration is, that we are now upon, and upon which the present debate depends, for if the sufferings of Christ be to be taken under the notion of punishment, then our Adversaries grant, that our sins must be an impulsive cause of them in another sense than they understand it. For the clearing of this, I shall prove these two things.

1. That no other sense ought to be admitted of the places of Scripture which speak of the sufferings of Christ with a respect to sin, but this.E

2. That this Account of the sufferings of Christ, is no ways repugnant to the Iustice of God.

p. 270That no other sense ought to be admitted of the places of AScripture, which speak of the sufferings of Christ with a respect § 3. The sufferings of Christ proved to be a punishment from Scripture 1 Pet. 2. 24. Isa. 53. 45, 6, 7, 10, 11. 2 Cor. 5. 2…. Gal. 3. 13. Rom. 4. 25.1 Pet 2:24Isa 53:45Isa 53:6Isa 53:7Isa 53:10Isa 53:112 Cor 5:2Gal 3:13Rom 4:25to our sins, but that they are to be considered as a punishment for them. Such are those which speak of Christ hearing our sins, of our iniquities being laid upon him, of his making himself an offering for sin, and being made sin and a curse for us, and of his dying sor our sins. All which I shall so far consider, as to vindicate them from all the exceptions which Socinus and Crellius have offered against them.

1. Those which speak of Christs bearing our sins. As to which we shall consider, First, The importance of the phrase Bin general of bearing sin, and then the circumstances of the particular places in dispute. For the importance of the phrase, Socinus acknowledges, that it generally signifies bearing the Soc. d… s…rvat. l. 2. cap. 4.punishment of sin in Scripture: but that sometimes it signifies taking away. The same is confessed by Crellius, but he saith, it doth not always signifie bearing proper punishment, but it is Crell. cap. 1. Sect. 32.enough (he says) that one bears something burdensome on the occasion of others sins: and so Christ by undergoing his sufferings by occasion of sins, may be said to bear our sins. And for this sense he quotes Numb. 14. 33. And your Children shall Cwander in the Wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, untill your carcasses be wasted in the Wilderness. Whereby, saith he, it is not meant that God would punish the Children of the Israelites, but that by the occasion of their parents sins, they should undergo that trouble, in wandering in the Wilderness, and being deprived of the possession of the promised Land. But could Crellius think that any thing else could have been imagined, (setting aside a total destruction) a greater instance of Gods severity, than that was to the Children of Israel all their circumstances being considered? DIs it not said, that God did swear in his wrath, they should not enter into his rest? Surely then the debarring them so Psal. 95. 11. Heb. 3. 11.Ps 95:11Heb 3:11long of that rest, was an instance of Gods wrath, and so according to his own principles must have something of Vindicta in it, and therefore be a proper punishment. The truth is, our Adversaries allow themselves in speaking things most repugnant to Humane Nature in this matter of punishments, that they may justifie their own hypothesis. For a whole Nation to be for forty years debarred from the greatest blessings were ever promised them; and instead of enjoying them, to endure Ethe miseries and hardships of forty years travels in a barren wilderness, must not be thought a punishment, and only because occasioned by their Parents sins. But whatever is inflicted on the account of sin, and with a design to shew Gods p. 271severity against it, and thereby to deter others from the practice Aof it, hath the proper notion of punishment in it; and all these things did concur in this instance, besides the general sense of mankind in the matter of their punishment, which was such, that supposing them preserved in their liberty, could not have been imagined greater. And therefore Vatablus, whom Socinus and Crellius highly commend, thus renders those words, dabunt poenas pro fornicationibus vestris quibus Doc…issi…e & …ga…tissi…è Vata…lus …t f…e …olet. Soc. d …v. l. 1 c. 8. Crell. cap. 1. Sect. 31.defecistis a Deo vestro: they shall suffer the punishment of your forications. And that bearing the sins of Parents doth imply properly bearing the punishment of them, methinks they Bshould not so earnestly deny, who contend that to be the meaning of the words in Ezekiel, The Son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father; viz. that he shall not bear the punishment Ezekiel 18 20.Ezek 18:20of his Fathers sins. Where in bearing iniquity with a respect to their Parents sins, by their own confession, must be taken for the proper punishment; for otherwise they do not deny, Crell. cap. 4. Sect. 15.but Children, notwithstanding that sentence, may undergo much affliction on the occasion of their Parents sins.

But Socinus further objects, that bearing sins doth not imply §. 4. Of the Scape-Go…ts bearing away the sins of the people.the punishment of them, because the Scape-Goat under the CLaw, is said to bear upon him the iniquities of the people, and yet could not be said to be punished for them. To which Grotius answers, that Socinus takes it for granted without reason, that the Scape-Goat could not be said to be punished for Socil. 2. c. 4. Lev. 16. 22. Grot. de sat. cap. 1.Lev 16:22the sins of the people; for punishment in general, may fall upon beasts for the sins of men, Gen. 9. 5. Exod. 21. 28. Lev. 20. 15. Gen. 8. 21. and Socinus hath no cause to say, that the Scape-Goat was not slain; for the Iewish Interpreters do all agree that he was, and however the sending him into the Wilderness was intended as a punishment; and most probably Dby an unnatural death. To which Crellius replies, That in Crell. cap. 1. Sect. 56.the general, he denies not but punishment may fall upon beasts as well as men; but (that he might shew himself true to his principle, that one cannot be punished for anothers faults,) he falls into a very pleasant discourse, That the Beasts are not said to be punished for mens sins, but for their own, and therefore when it is said, before the flood, that all flesh had corrupted his way; he will by no means have it understood only Gen. 6. 12.Gen 6:12of men, but that the sins of the beasts at that time, were greater than ordinary, as well as mens. But he hath not Etold us what they were, whether by eating some forbidden herbs; or e…g into conspiracies against mankind their lawful Soveraigns, or unlawful mixtures; and therefore we have yet reason to believe, that when God saith, the ground p. 272G…n. 8. 21.was cursed for mans sake, that the beasts were punished for Amans sin. And if all fl…sh, must comprehend be …sts in this place, why shall not all flesh seeing the glory of the Lord, take Isa. 40. 5.Isa 40:5in the beasts there too: for V…ablus parallels this place with the other. But if, saith Crellius any shall contend that some beasts at least were innocent, then, he saith, that those though they were destroyed by the flood, yet did not suffer punishment, but only a calamity by occasion of the sins of men. I wonder he did not rather say, that the innocent beasts were taken into the Ark, for the propagation of a better kind afterwards. But by this solemn distinction of calamities and punishments, Bthere is nothing so miserable, that either men or beasts can undergo, but when it serves their turn, it shall be only a calamity and no punishment, though it be said to be on purpose to shew Gods severity against the sins of the world. And this excellent notion of the beasts being punished for their own sins, is improved by him to the vindication of the Scape-Goat from being punished; because then, saith he, the most wicked and corrupt Goat should have been made choice of. As though all the design of that great day of expiation had been only to call the Children of Israel together with great solemnity; to let Cthem see, how a poor Goat must be punished for breaking the Laws which we do not know were ever made for them. I had thought our Adversaries had maintained that the Sacrifices (on the day of expiation at least) had represented and typified the Sacrifice which was to be offered up by Christ; and so Socinus and Crellius elsewhere contend: he need not therefore have troubled himself concerning the sins of the Goat, when it is expresly said, That the sins of the people were put on the head of the Goat; Whatever then the punishment Lev. 16. 21.Lev 16:21were, it was on the account of the sins of the people, and not Dhis own. But Crellius urgeth against Grotius, that if the Scape-Goat had been punished for the expiation of the sins of the people, that should have been particularly expressed in Scripture, whereas nothing is said there at all of it, and that the throwing down the Scape-Goat from the top of the rock, was no part of the Primitive Institution, but one of the superstitions taken up by the Iews in after-times, because of the ominousness of the return of it; and although we should suppose (which is not probable) that it should dye by famine in the Wilderness, yet this was not the death for expiation, Ewhich was to be by the shedding of blood. To this therefore I answer. 1. I do not insist on the customs of the later Jews to prove from thence any punishment designed by the primitive institution. For I shall easily yield, that many superstitions p. 273obtained among them afterwards about the Scape-Goat; Aas the stories of the red list turning white upon the head of it, the booths and the causey made on purpose, and several other things mentioned in the Rabbinical Writers do manifest. But Cod. Ioma. tit. 6.yet it seems very probable from the Text it self, that the Scape-Goat was not carried into the Wilderness at large, but to a steep mountain there. For although we have commonly rendered Azazel by the Scape-Goat, yet according to the best of the Jewish Writers, as P. Fagius tell us, foreign doth not come from foreign a Goat, and foreign abiit; but is the name of a Mountain very steep and rocky near Mount Sinai, and therefore Bprobably called by the later Jews, foreign the name of a Rock: and to this purpose, it is observable that where we render it, and let him go for a Scape-Goat into the Wilderness in the Lev. 16. 10.Lev 16:10Hebrew it is, foreign to send him to Azazel in the Wilderness: as the joyning the preposition foreign doth import, and the Arabick Version where-ever Azazel is mentioned, renders it by Mount Azaz: and the Chaldee and Syriack to Azazel; so that from hence, a carrying the Scape-Goat to a certain place may be inferred; but I see no foundation in the Text for the throwing it down from the rock Cwhen it was there; and therefore I cannot think, but that if the punishment intended did lye in that, it would have been expresly mentioned in the solemnities of that day, which had so great an influence on the expiation of the sins of the people. 2. I answer, that the Scape-Goat was to denote rather the effect of the expiation, than the manner of obtaining it. For the proper expiation was by the shedding of blood, as the Apostle Heb. 9. 22.Heb 9:22tells us; and thence the live Goat was not to have the sins of the people to bear away into the desert, till the High Priest Lev. 16. 20.Lev 16:20had made an end of reconciling the Holy Place, and the Tabernacle Dof the Congregation, and the Altar; and by the sprinkling of the blood of the other Goat which was the sin-offering for the people; which being done, he was to bring the V. 15.live Goat, and to lay his hands upon the head of it, and confess over it all the iniquities of the Children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the Goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into V. 21.the Wilderness; and so the Goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited, and he shall let go the V. 22.Goat in the Wilderness. So that the former Goat noted the Eway of expiation by the shedding of blood, and the latter the effect of it, viz. that the sins of the people were declared to be expiated by the sending the Goat charged with their sins into a desart place; and that their sins would not appear in the p. 274presence of God against them, any more than they expected, Athat the Goat which was sent into the Wilderness should return among them. Which was the reason that afterwards they took so much care that it should not, by causing it to be thrown off from a steep rock; which was no sooner done; but notice was given of it very suddenly by the sounding of horns all over the Land. But the force of Socinus his argument from the Scape Goats bearing the sins of the people, that therefore that phrase doth not always imply the bea…ing of punishment, is taken off by Crellius himself, who tell us Crell. c. 1 Sect. 56.that the Scape-Goat is not said to bear the sins of the people in Bthe Wilderness; but only that it carried the sins of the people into the Wilderness, which is a phrase of another importance from that we are now discoursing of. As will now further appear from the places where it is spoken of concerning our Saviour, which we now come particularly to examine.

The first place insisted on by Grotius with a respect to Christ, is 1 Pet. 2. 24. Who his own self bare our sins in his §. 5. Grotius his sense of 1 Pet. 2. 24. vindicated. Crell. c. 1. Sect. 35.1 Pet 2:24own body on the tree, which, saith Crellius, is so far from proving that Christ did bear the punishment of our sins, that it doth not imply any sufferings that he underwent on the occasion Cof them. He grants that foreign doth signifie to carry up, but withall (he saith) it signifies to take away; because that which is taken up, is taken away from the place where it was. Besides, he observes, that foreign doth answer to the Hebrew foreign he hath made to ascend, which is frequently rendred by it in the LXX. and sometimes by foreign, but that Hebrew word doth often signifie to take away, where it is rendred in the Greek by one of those two words, 2 Sam. 21. 13. Iosh. 24. 32. Psal. 102. 25. Ezra. 1. 11. To which I answer, 1. That the signification of foreign in this place, must not be Dtaken from every sense the word is ever used so, but in that which the words out of which these are taken do imply; and in Isa. 53. 11. it doth not answer foreign but to foreign a word which by the confession of all is never properly used for taking away, but for bearing of a burden, and is used with a respect to the punishment of sin, Lament. 5. 7. Our fathers have sinned, and are not, and we have born their iniquities, where the same word is used; so that the signification of the word foreign here, must depend upon that in Isaiab, of which more afterward. 2. Granting that foreign doth answer Esometimes to the Hebrew foreign yet it makes nothing to Crellius his purpose, unless he can prove that foreign doth ever signifie the taking away a thing by the destruction of it; for where it answers to that word, it is either for the offering p. 275up of a Sacrifice, in which sense foreign is very frequently Aused, as is confessed by Crellius; and in that sense it is no prejudice at all to our cause; for then it must be granted, that Christ upon the Cross is to be considered as a sacrifice for the sins of men; and so our sins were laid upon him as they were supposed to be on the Sacrifices under the Law, in order to the expiation of them, by the shedding their blood; and if our Adversaries would acknowledge this, the difference would not be so great between us; or else it is used for the removal of a thing from one place to another, the thing it self still remaining in being, as 2 Sam. 21. 13. And he made Sauls Bbones to ascend, foreign, he took them away, saith Crellius; true, but it is such a taking away, as is a bare removal; the thing still remaining; the same is to be said of Iosephs bones, Iosh. 24. 32. which are all the places where foreign is used; and although foreign may be sometimes taken in another sense, as Psal. 102. 25. yet nothing can be more unreasonable than such a way of arguing as this is; foreign saith Crellius signifies taking away; we demand his proof of it; is it that the word signifies so much of it self? No; that he grants it doth not. Is it that it is frequently used in the CGreek Version to render a word that properly doth signifie so? No; nor that neither. But how is it then? Crellius tells us, that it sometimes answers to a word that signifies to make to ascend: well, but doth that word signifie taking away? No; not constantly, for it is frequently used for a sacrifice: but doth it at any time signifie so? Yes; it signifies the removal of a thing from one place to another. Is that the sense then he contends for here? No; but how then? why foreign is used to render the same word that foreign doth, and foreign though it signifies too a bare removal, as Ezra 1. 11. yet Psal. 102. D25. it is used for cutting off, foreign, the Hebr. is, make me not to ascend in the midst of my days. But doth it here signifie utter destruction? I suppose not; but grant it, what is this to foreign, when the LXX. useth not that word here, which for all that we know was purposely altered; so that at last foreign is far enough from any such signification as Crellius would fix upon it, unless he will assert, that Christs taking away our sins, was only a removal of them from Earth to Heaven. But here Grotius comes in to the relief of Crellius against himself; for in his Notes upon this place, though he Ehad before said, that the word was never used in the New Testament in that sense, yet he there saith, foreign is abstulit, for which he refers us to Heb. 9. 28. where he proceeds altogether as subtilly as Crellius had done before him, for he tells p. 276us foreign is put for foreign Numb. 14. 33. Deut. 14. 24. AIsa. 53. 12. but foreign, i. e. foreign is put for foreign, Lev. 10. 17. Num. 14. 18. A most excellent way of interpreting Scripture! considering the various significations of the Hebrew words, and above all of that foreign which is here mentioned. For according to this way of arguing, foreign shall signifie the same with foreign, and foreign, for foreign signifies all these, and is rendred by them in the Greek Version, so that by the same way that Grotius proves that foreign signifies foreign, we can prove that foreign doth not signifie to take away, but to bear punishment; nay, foreign signifies the bearing punishment Bin the strictest sense, Ezek. 16. 52, 54. and bearing sin in that sense, Ezek. 16. 58. Thou hast born thy lewdness, and thy abominations, foreign So that when foreign is more frequently used in this than in the other sense, why shall its signifying foreign at any time make foreign be taken in the same sense with that? Nay, I do not remember in any place where foreign is joyned with sin, but it signifies the punishment of it, so foreign, Lev. 19. 8. to bear his iniquity, Lev. 20. 17. foreign, bearing their iniquity in one verse is explained by being out off from among their people, in the next. And in the places cited Cby Grotius, that Numb. 14. 33. hath been already shewed to signifie bearing the punishment of sin, and that Deut. 14. 24. is plainly understood of a Sacrifice, the other, Isa. 53. 12. will be afterwards made appear by other places in the same Chapter, to signifie nothing to this purpose. So that for all we can yet see, foreign must be taken either for bearing our sins as a sacrifice did under the Law, or the punishment of them; in either sense it serves our purpose, but is far enough from our Adversaries meaning.

But supposing we should grant them, that foreign may signifie Dto take away, let us see what excellent sense they make of these §. 6. Crell. his sense examined.words of St. Peter. Do they then say, that Christ did take away our sins upon the Cross? No, they have a great care of that, for that would make the expiation of sins to have been performed there; which they utterly deny, and say, that Christ only took the Cross in his way to his Ascension to Heaven, that there he might expiate sins. But doth not St. Peter say, that what was done by him here, was in his body on the tree: and they will not say, he carryed that with him to Heaven too. Well, but what then was the taking away of sin which belonged Eto Christ upon the Cross? is it only to perswade men to live vertuously, and leave off their sins? This Socinus would have, and Crellius is contented that it should Soc. deserv. l. 2. cap. 6. Crell cap. 1. Sect. 39.be understood barely of taking away sins, and not of p. 277the punishment of them, but only by way of accession and Aconsequence: but if it be taken (which he inclines more to) for the punishment, then (he saith) it is to be understood not of the vertue and efficacy of the death of Christ, but of the effect: and yet a little after he saith, those words of Sect. 44.Christs bearing our sins, are to be understood of the force and efficacy of Christs death to do it, not including the effect of it in us; not as though Christ did deliver us from sins by his death, but that he did that by dying, upon which the taking away of sin would follow, or which had a great power for the doing it. So uncertain are our Adversaries, in affixing Bany sense upon these words, which may attribute any effect at all, to the death of Christ upon the Cross. For if they be understood of taking away sins, then they are only to be meant of the power that was in the death of Christ, to perswade men to leave their sins; which we must have a care of understanding so, as to attribute any effect to the death of Christ in order to it; but only that the death of Christ was an argument for us to believe what he said, and the believing what he said would incline us to obey him, and if we obey him, we shall leave off our sins, whether Christ had died or Cno: supposing his miracles had the same effect on us, which those of Moses had upon the Iews, which were sufficient to perswade them to believe and obey without his death. But if this be all that was meant by Christs bearing our sins in his body on the tree; why might not St. Peter himself be said to bear them upon his cross too? for his death was an excellent example of patience, and a great argument to perswade men he spake truth, and that doctrine which he preached, was repentance and remission of sins: So that by this sense, there is nothing peculiar attributed to the death of Christ But taking Dthe other sense for the taking away the punishment of sins, we must see how this belongs to the death of Christ: Do they then attribute our delivery from the punishment of sin, to the death of Christ on the Cross? yes, just as we may attribute Coesars subduing Rome, to his passing over Rubicon, because he took that in his way to the doing of it: so they make the death of Christ only as a passage, in order to expiation of sins, by taking away the punishment of them. For that shall not be actually perfected, they say, till his full deliverance of all those that obey him, from hell and the grave, Ewhich will not be till his second coming. So that if we only take the body of Christ for his second coming, and the Cross of Christ, or the tree, for his Throne of Glory, then they will acknowledge, that Christ may very well be said, to take p. 278away sins in his own body on the tree: but if you take it in Aany sense that doth imply any peculiar efficacy to the death of Christ, for all the plainness of St. Peters words, they by no means will admit of it.

But because Crellius urgeth Grotius with the sense of that place, Isa. 53. 11. out of which he contends these words are §. 7. Isa. 53. 11. vindicated. Crell. c. 1. sect. 35.Isa 53:11taken, and Crellius conceives he can prove there, that bearing is the same with taking away sin: We now come to consider, what force he can find from thence, f…r the justifying his assertion, That the bearing of sins, when attributed to Christ, doth not imply the punishment of them, but the taking Bthem away The words are, for he shall bear their iniquities. As to which Grotius observes, that the word foreign which signifies iniquity, is sometimes taken for the punishment of sin, 2 Kings 7. 9. and the verb foreign is to bear, and when ever it is joyned with sin or iniquity, in all languages, and especially the Hebrew, it signifies to suffer punishment; for although foreign may sometimes signifie to take away, foreign never does: so that this phrase can receive no other interpretation. Notwithstanding all which, Crellius attempts to prove, that foreign here, must be taken in a sense contrary to Cthe natural and perpetual use of the word; for which his first Crell. c. 1. sect. 44.argument is very infirm, viz. because it is mentioned after the death of Christ, and is therefore to be considered as the the reward of the other. Whereas it appears: 1. By the Prophets discourse, that he doth not insist on an exact methodical order, but dilates and amplifies things as he sees occasion: for Verse 9. he saith, He made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; and Verse 10. he saith, Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him, he hath put him to grief: Will Crellius therefore say, that this must be consequent to his Ddeath and burial? 2. The particle … may be here taken causally, as we render it, very agreeably to the sense; and so it gives an account of the fore-going clause, By his knowledge, shall my righteous servant justifie many, for he shall bear their iniquities. And that this is no unusual acception of that particle, might be easily cleared from many places of Scripture if it were necessary; and from this very Prophet, as Isa. 39. 1. where foreign is the same with foreign 2 King 20. 12. and Isa. 64. 5. Thou art wroth, for we have sinned foreign where the same particle is made the causal of what went before. But Ewe need not insist upon this to answer Crellius, who elsewhere makes use of it himself, and says, They must be very ignorant of the Crell. c. 9. sect. 7. p. 463. Soc. Prae…. c. 14. sect. 6.Hebrew Tongue, who do not know, that the conjunction copulative is often taken causally; and so much is confessed by Socinus p. 279also, where he explains, that particle in one sense in the beginning Aand causally in the middle of the verse: And the 2 Sam. 24. 1.2 Sam 24:1Lords anger was kindled against Israel, foreign for he moved, &c. but if this will not do, he attempts to prove, That foreign in this very Chapter, hath the signification of taking away, v. 4. For he hath born our griefs, and carried our sorrows, which is applied by St. Matth. 8. 17. to bodily diseases, which our Saviour did not bear, but took away, as it is said in the foregoing verse; he healed all that were sick, on which those words come in, That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias, &c. To which I answer: 1. It is granted by our Adversaries, Bthat St. Mathew in those words, doth not give the full sense of the Prophet, but only applies that by way of accommodation, to bodily diseases, which was chiefly intended for the sins of men. And in a way of accommodation it is not unusual to strain words beyond their genuine and natural signification, or what was intended primarily by the person who spake them. Would it be reasonable for any to say that foreign signifies to give, because that place Psal. 68, 18. where the word by all is acknowledged to signifie to receive, is rendred to give, Eph. 4. 8. so that admitting another sense of the Cword here, as applied to the cure of bodily diseases, it doth not from thence follow, that this should be the meaning of the word in the primary sense intended by the Prophet. 2. The word as used by St. Matthew, is very capable of the primary and natural sense; for St. Matthew retain words of the same signification, with that which we contend for, foreign and foreign, neither of which doth signifie taking away, by causing a thing not to be. So that all that is implied hereby, is the pains and trouble which our Saviour took in the healing of the sick. For to that end, as Grotius well observes Dupon that place, the circumstances are mentioned, That it was Matth. 8. 16.Matt 8:16at even, and multitudes were brought to him in St. Matthew, that after Sunset all that were diseased were brought, and all the City was gathered together at the door, in St. Mark; That he departed Ma…k 1. 32, 33. Luke 4. 42.Luke 4:42not till it was day, in St. Luke; that we might the better understand how our Saviour did bear our griefs, because the pains he took in healing them were so great. And here I cannot but observe, that Grotius in his notes on that place, continued still in the same mind he was in, when he writ against Socinus; for he saith, Those words may either Erefer to the diseases of the body, and so they note the pains he took in the cure of them; or to our sins, and so they were fulfilled when Christ by suffering upon the cross, did obtain remission of sins for us, as St. Peter saith, p. 2801 Pet. 2. 24. But upon what reason the Annotations on that Aplace come to be so different from his sense expressed here, long after Crellius his answer, I do not understand. But we are sure he declared his mind, as to the main of that Controversie, to be the same, that it was when he writ his Book which Crellius answered; as appears by two Letters of his to Vossius, not long since published; and he utterly disowns the charge of E…ist. Eccle. p. 747, 748. Discuss. p. 16, 17.Socinianism, as a calumny in his discussion, the last Book he ever writ.

But we are no further obliged to vindicate Grotius, than he did the truth; which we are sure he did in the vindication B§. 8. Isa. 53. 5, 6, 7. vindicated.Isa 53:5Isa 53:6Isa 53:7of the 53 of Isaiah, from Socinus his interpretations, notwithstanding what Crellius hath objected against him. We therefore proceed to other Verses in the same Chapter insisted on by Grotius, to prove That Christ did bear the punishments of our sins, v. 6, 7. The Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all: It is required, and he was afflicted, as Grotius renders those words. Socinus makes a twofold sense of the former De Servat. l. 2. c. 5.clause; the first is, That God by or with Christ did meet with our iniquities; the latter, That God did …ake our iniquities to mee… with Christ. The words saith Grotius, will Cnot bear the former interpretation, for the verb foreign being in Hiphil, must import a double action, and so it must not be, That God by him did meet with our sins, but that God did make our sins to meet upon him. To which Crellius replies, That words in Hiphil are sometimes used intransitively; but Crell. c. 1. sect. 52.can he produce any instance in Scripture, where this word joyned with foreign and foreign is so taken? for in the last ver…e of the Chapter, the construction is different: And … uncertain way of interpreting Scripture will this be, … every Anomalous signification, and rare use of a word, shall be made Duse of to take away such a sense as is most agreeable to the design of the place. For that sense we contend for, is not only enforced upon the most natural importance of these words, but upon the agreeableness of them with so many other expressions of this Chapter, that Christ did bear our iniquities, and was wounded for our transgressions, and that his soul was made an offering for sin: to which it is very suitable, that as the iniquities of the people were (as it were) laid upon the head of the Sacrifice; so it should be said of Christ, who was to offer up himself for the sins of the world. And the Iews Ethemselves by this phrase do understand the punishment either for the sins of the people, which Iosias underwent, or which the people themselves suffered, by those who interpret this prophesie of them. To which purpose, Aben Ezra observes, p. 281that iniquity is here put for the punishment of it, as 1 Sam. A28. 10. & Lam. 4. 6. But Socinus mistrusting the incongruity of this Interpretation, flies to another; viz. That God did make our iniquities to meet with Christ: And this we are willing to admit of, if by that they mean, That Christ underwent the punishment of them; as that phrase must naturally import, for what otherwise can our iniquities meeting with him signifie? For the word foreign taken properly (as Socinus acknowledgeth it ought to be, when he rejects Pagnins Interpretation of making Christ to interceed for our iniquities) signifies, either to meet with one by chance, or out of kindness, Bor else for an encounter, with an intention to destroy that which it meets with. So Iudg. 8. 21. Rise thou foreign foreign LXX irrue in nos, fall upon us; i. e. run upon us with thy sword, and kill us, Iudg. 15. 12. Swear unto me, that ye will not fall upon me your selves; where the same word is used, and they explain the meaning of it in the next words, v. 13. We will not kill thee, Amos 5. 19. as if a man did flee from a Lyon, and a Bear met him, foreign i. e. with a design to kill him. Now I suppose they will not say that our sins met with Christ by Chance, since it is said, that CGod laid on him, &c. nor out of kindness; it must be there fore out of enmity; and with a design to destroy him, and so our sins cannot be understood as Socinus and Crellius would have them, as the meer occasions of Christs death: but as the proper impulsive cause of it. Whether the following word foreign be taken with a respect to sin, and so it properly signifies It is required, or with a respect to the person, and so it may signifie he was oppressed, is not a matter of that consequence, which we ought to contend about; if it be proved that Christs oppression had only a respect to sin, as the punishment Dof it. Which will yet further appear from another expression in the same Chapter, vers. 5. The chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed. In which Grotius saith the word foreign doth not signifie any kind of affliction, but such as hath the nature of punishment, either for example or instruction; but since the latter cannot be intended in Christ, the former must. Crellius thinks to escape from this, by acknowledging, that the Crell. c. 1. Sect. 57.sufferings of Christ have some respect to sin; but if it be such a respect to sin, which makes what Christ underwent a punishment E(which is only proper in this case) it is as much as we contend for. This therefore he is loth to abide by; and saith that chastisement imports no more than bare affliction without any respect to sin, which he thinks to prove p. 282from St. Pauls words, 2 Cor. 6. 9. We are chastised, but not Agiven over to death; but how far this is from proving his purpose will easily appear, 1. Because those by whom they were said to be chastened, did not think they did it without any respect to a fault; but they supposed them to be justly punished; and this is that we plead for, that the chastisement considered with a respect to him that inflicts it, doth suppose some fault as the reason of inflicting it. 2. This is far from the present purpose, for the chastisement there mentioned is oposed to death, as chastened, but not killed; whereas Grotius expresly speaks of such chastisements as include death, that these cannot be Bsupposed to be meerly designed for instruction, and therefore must be conceived under the notion of punishment. The other place Psal. 73. 14. is yet more remote from the business; for though the Psalmist accounts himself innocent in respect of the great enormities of others; yet he could not account himself so innocent with a respect to God, as not to deserve chastisement from him.

But Crellius offers further to prove that Christs death must be considered as a bare affliction, and not as a foreign, or exemplary §. 9. Whether Christs death be a proper. foreign, and whether that doth imply that it was a punishment of sin.punishment, because in such a punishment the guilty Cthemselves are to be punished, and the benefit comes to those who were not guilty, but in Christs sufferings it was quite contrary, for the innocent was punished, and the guilty have the benefit of it: and yet (he saith) if we should grant that Christs sufferings were a foreign, that will not prove that his death was a proper punishment. To which I answer, That whatever answers to the ends of an exemplary punishment, may properly be called so: but supposing that Christ suffered the punishment of our sins, those sufferings will answer to all the ends of an exemplary punishment. DFor the ends of such a punishment assigned by Crellius himself, are, That others observing such a punishment may abstain from those sins which have brought it upon the person who suffers. Now the question is, whether supposing Christ did suffer on the account of our sins, these sufferings of his may deter us from the practice of sin or no? And therefore in opposition to Crellius, I shall prove these two things: 1. That supposing Christ suffered for our sins, there was a sufficient argument to deter us from the practice of sin. 2. Supposing that his sufferings had no respect to our Esins, they could not have that force to deter men from the practice of it: for he after asserts, That Christs sufferings might be a foreign to us, though they were no punishment of sin. 1. That the death of Christ considered as a punishment of sin, p. 283is a proper foreign or hath a great force to deter men from Athe practice of sin: and that because the same reason of punishment is supposed in Christ and in our selves, and because the example is much more considerable, than if we had suffered our selves. 1. The same reason of punishment is supposed. For why are men deterred from sin, by seeing others punished; but because they look upon the sin as the reason of the punishment; and therefore where the same reason holds, the same ends may be as properly obtained. If we said that Christ suffered death meerly as an innocent person out of Gods dominion over his life; what imaginable force could this have to Bdeter men from sin, which is asserted to have no relation to it as the cause of it? But when we say, that God laid our iniquities upon him, that he suffered not upon his own account but ours, that the sins we commit against God were the cause of all those bitter Agonies which the Son of God underwent, what argument can be more proper to deter men from sin than this is? For hereby they see the great abhorrency of sin which is in God, that he will not pardon the sins of men without a compensation made to his Honor, and a demonstration to the world of his hatred of it. Hereby they Csee what a value God hath for his Laws, which he will not relax as to the punishment of offenders, without so valuable a consideration as the blood of his own Son. Hereby they see, that the punishment of sin is no meer arbitrary thing depending barely upon the will of God; but that there is such a connexion between sin and punishment as to the ends of Government, that unless the Honor and Majesty of God, as to his Laws and Government may be preserved, the violation of his Laws must expect a just recompence of reward. Hereby they see what those are to expect who neglect or despise Dthese sufferings of the Son of God for them; for nothing can then remain, but a certain fearful looking for of judgement and fiery indignation which shall devour the Adversaries. So that, here all the weighty arguments concur which may be most apt to prevail upon men to deter them from their sins. For if God did thus by the green tree, what will be do by the dry? If he who was so innocent in himself, so perfectly holy, suffered so much on the account of our sins; what then may those expect to suffer, who have no innocency at all to plead, and add wilfulness and impenitency to their sins? But if it be replied Eby Crellius, that it is otherwise among men: I answer, that we do not pretend in all things to parallel the sufferings of Christ for us, with any sufferings of men for one another. But yet we add, that even among men the punishments inflicted p. 284on those who were themselves innocent as to the cause of Athem, may be as exemplary as any other. And the greater appearance of severity there is in them, the greater terror they strike into all offenders. As Childrens losing their estates and honors, or being banished for their Parents treasons in which they had no part themselves. Which is a proper punishment on them of their Fathers faults, whether they be guilty or no? and if this may be just in men, why not in God? If any say, that the Parents are only punished in the Children, he speaks that which is contradictory to the common sense of mankind; for punishment doth suppose sense or feeling of it; and in this Bcase the Parents are said to be punished, who are supposed to be dead and past feeling of it, and the Children who undergo the smart of it must not be said to be punished; though all things are so like it, that no person can imagine himself in that condition, but would think himself punished, and severely too. If it be said, that these are calamities indeed, but they are no proper punishments, it may easily be shewed that distinction will not hold here. Because these punishments were within the design of the Law, and were intended for all the ends of punishments, and therefore must have the nature of them. CFor therefore the Children are involved in the Fathers punishment on purpose to deter others from the like actions. There are some things indeed that Children may fall into by occasion of their Fathers guilt, which may be only calamities to them, because they are necessary consequents in the nature of the thing, and not purposely designed as a punishment to them. Thus, being deprived of the comfort and assistance of their Parents, when the Law hath taken them off by the hand of justice: this was designed by the Law as a punishment to the Parents, and as to the Children it is only a necessary consequent Dof their punishment. For otherwise the Parents would have been punished for the Childrens faults, and not the Children only involved in that which unavoidably follows upon the Parents punishment. So that Crellius is very much mistaken either in the present case of our Saviours punishment, or in the general reason of exemplary punishments, as among men. But the case of our Saviour is more exemplary, when we consider the excellency of his person, though appearing in our nature, when no meaner sufferings would satisfie, than of so transcendent a nature as he underwent, though he Ewere the Eternal Son of God, this must make the punishment much more exemplary, than if he were considered only as our Adversaries do, as a meer man. So that the dignity of his person under all his sufferings may justly p. 285add a greater consideration to deter us from the practice of sin, Awhich was so severely punished in him, when he was pleased to be a Sacrifice for our sins. From whence we see that the ends of a foreign are very agreeable with the sufferings of Christ considered as a punishment for sin.

We now consider whether as Crellius asserts, supposing Christs death were no punishment, it could have these effects § 10. Gods hatred of sin could not be seen in the sufferings of Christ, if they were no punishment of sin. Crell. c. 1. p. 69.upon mens minds or no? Yes, he saith, it might, because by his sufferings we might see how severely God would punish wicked and obstinate persons. Which being a strange riddle at the first hearing it, viz. that by the sufferings of an innocent Bperson without any respect to sin as the cause of them: we should discern Gods severity against those who are obstinate in sin; we ought the more diligently to attend to what is said for the clearing of it. First, saith he, If God spared not his own most innocent and holy and only Son, than whom nothing was more dear to him in Heaven or Earth, but exposed him to so cruel and ignominious a death; how great and severe sufferings may we think God will inflict on wicked men, who are at open defiance with him? I confess my self not subtle enough to apprehend the force of this Cargument, viz. If God dealt so severely with him who had no sin either of his own or others to answer for; therefore he will deal much more severely with those that have. For Gods severity considered without any respect to sin, gives rather encouragement to sinners, than any argument to deter them from it. For the natural consequence of it is, that God doth act arbitrarily, without any regard to the good or evil of mens actions; and therefore it is to no purpose to be sollicitous about them. For upon the same account that the most innocent person suffers most severely from him, for Dall that we know, the more we strive to be innocent, the more severely we may be dealt with, and let men sin, they can be but dealt severely with, all the difference then is, one shall be called punishments, and the other calamities, but the severity may be the same in both. And who would leave off his sins meerly to change the name of punishments into that of calamities? And from hence it will follow, that the differences of good and evil, and the respects of them to punishment and reward, are but aiery and empty things; but that God really in the dispensation of things to men, hath no regard Eto what men are or do, but acts therein according to his own Dominion, whereby he may dispose of men how or which way he pleases. If a Prince had many of his Subjects in open rebellion against him, and he should at that time p. 286make his most obedient and beloved, Son to be publickly exposed Ato all manner of indignities, and be dishonoured and put to death by the hands of those rebels; could any one imagine that this was designed as an exemplary punishment to all rebels, to let them see the danger of rebellion? No, but would it not rather make them think him a cruel Prince, one that would punish innocency as much as rebellion; and that it was rather better to stand at defiance, and become desperate, for it was more dangerous to be beloved than hated by him, to be his Son than his declared Enemy? So that insisting on the death of Christ as it is considered as a foreign, (for of Bthat we speak now) there is no comparison between our Adversaries hypothesis and ours; but, saith Crellius, the consequence is not good on our side, if Christ suffered the punishment of our sins, therefore they shall suffer much more who continue in sin, for Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world; but they suffer only for their own, and what they have deserved themselves. To which I answer, that the argument is of very good force upon our hypothesis, though it would not be upon theirs. For if we suppose him to be a meer man that suffered, then there could be no argument drawn from Chis sufferings to ours, but according to the exact proportion of sins and punishments: but supposing that he had a divine as well as humane nature, there may not be so great a proportion of the sins of the world to the sufferings of Christ, as of the sins of a particular person to his own sufferings; and therefore the argument from one to the other doth still hold. For the measure of punishments must be taken with a proportion to the dignity of the person who suffers them. And Crellius himself confesseth elsewhere, that the dignity of the person is Crell. c. 8. sect. 43.to be considered in exemplary punishment, and that a lesser Dpunishment of one that is very great, may do much more to deter men from sin, than a greater punishment of one much less. But he yet further urgeth, that the severity of God Crell. c. 1. sect. 57, …0.against sinners may be discovered in the sufferings of Christ, because Gods hatredagainst sin is discovered therein. But if we ask how Gods hatred against sin, is seen in the sufferings of one perfectly innocent and free from sin, and not rather his hatred of innocency, if no respect to sin were had therein? he answers, that Gods hatred against sin was manifested, in that he would not spare his only Son to draw men off from sin. For Eanswer to which, we are to consider the sufferings of Christ as an innocent person, designed as an exemplary cause to draw men off from sin; and let any one tell me, what hatred of sin can possibly be discovered, in proposing the sufferings of a p. 287most innocent person to them without any consideration of Asin as the cause of those sufferings? If it be said, that the Doctrine of Christ was designed to draw men off from sin; and that God suffered his Son to dye to confirm this Doctrine, and thereby shewed his hatred to sin. I answer, 1. This is carrying the dispute off from the present business, for we are not now arguing about the design of Christs Doctrine, nor the death of Christ as a means to confirm that, but as a foreign, and what power that hath without respect to our sins as the cause of them, to draw us from sin, by discovering Gods hatred to it. 2. The Doctrine of Christ according to their Bhypothesis, discovers much less of Gods hatred to sin than ours doth. For if God may pardon sin without any compensation made to his Laws or Honour, if repentance be in its own nature a sufficient satisfaction for all the sins past of our Lives; if there be no such thing as such a Justice in God which requires punishment of sin committed; if the punishment of sin depend barely upon Gods will; and the most innocent person may suffer as much from God without respect to sin as the cause of suffering, as the most guilty; let any rational man judge whether this Doctrine discovers as much Gods abhorrency Cof sin, as asserting the necessity of vindicating Gods honour to the World, upon the breach of his Laws, if not by the suffering of the offenders themselves, yet of the Son of God as a sacrifice for the expiation of sin, by undergoing the punishment of our iniquities, so as upon consideration of his sufferings, he is pleased to accept of repentance and sincere obedience, as the conditions upon which he will grant remission of sins; and eternal life. So that if the discovery of Gods hatred to sin be the means to reclaim men from it, we assert upon the former reasons, that much more is done upon our DDoctrine concerning the sufferings of Christ, than can be upon theirs. So much shall suffice to manifest in what sense Christs death may be a foreign, and that this doth imply, that his sufferings are to be considered as a punishment of sin.

The next Series of places which makes Christs sufferings § 11. Grotius his arguments from Christ's being made sin and a curse for us defined against Crellius.to be a punishment for sin, are those which assert Christ to be made sin and a curse for us: which we now design to make clear, ought to be understood in no other sense; for as Grotius saith, As the Jews sometimes use sin, for the punishment of sin; as appears, besides other places, by Zach. 14. E19. Gen. 4. 13. so they call him that suffers the punishment of sin, by the name of sin; as the Latins use the word Piaculum, both for the fault, and for him that suffers for it. Thence under the Law, an expiatory Sacrifice for p. 288sin, was called sin, Levit. 4. 3, 29—5. 6. Psal. 40. 7. AWhich way of speaking Esaias followed, speaking of Christ, Esai. 53. 10. foreign he made his soul sin, i. e. liable to the punishment of it. To the same purpose St. Paul, 2 Cor. 5. 21. He made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. To which Crellius replies, ``That as there is no necessity, that by the name of sin, when applied to sufferings, Crell. cap. 1. sect. 60.any more should be implied, than that those sufferings were occasioned by sin, no more is there when it is applied to the person; nay, much less, for he saith, ``No more is required Bto this, but that he should be handled as sinners use to be, and undergo the matter of punishment, without any respect to sin, either as the cause or occasion of it. So he saith, The name Sinner is used, 1 King. 1. 21. and in St. Paul, the name of sin in the first clause is to be understood, as of righteousness in the latter; and as we are said to be righteousness in him, when God deals with us as with righteous persons, so Christ was said to be sin for us, when he was dealt with as a sinner. And the Sacrifices for sin under the Law were so called, not with a respect to the punishment of Csin, but because they were offered upon the account of sin, and were used for taking away the guilt of it, or because men were bound to offer them, so that they sinned if they neglected it. So that all that is meant by Esaias and St. Paul is, That Christ was made an expiatory Sacrifice, or that he exposed himself for those afflictions which sinners only by right undergo. But let Crellius or any others of them tell me, if the Scripture had intended to express, that the sufferings of Christ were a punishment of our sins, how was it possible to do it more Emphatically than it is done by these expressions D(the custom of the Hebrew Language being considered) not only by saying, that Christ did bear our sins, but, that himself was made sin for us? those phrases being so commonly used for the punishment of sin. Let them produce any one instance in Scripture, where those expressions are applied to any without the consideration of sin? that place 1 King. 1. 21. is very far from it; for in all probability, the design of Bathsheba in making Solomon King was already discovered, which was the reason that Adonijah his elder Brother declaring himself King, invited not him with the rest of the EKings sons: All that she had for Solomons succession, was a secret promise and oath of David; and therefore she urgeth him now to declare the succession, v. 20. Otherwise, she saith, when David should dye, I and my son Solomon shall be accounted p. 289offenders; i. e. saith Crellius, We shall be handled as Aoffenders, we shall be destroyed: But surely not without the supposition of a fault; by them which should inflict that punishment upon them: The plain meaning is, they should be accused of Treason, and then punished accordingly. But we are to consider, that still with a respect to them, who were the inflicters, a fault or sin is supposed as the reason of their punishment, either of their own or others. But of our Saviour it is not said, That he should be counted as an offender by the Iews; for although that doth not take away his innocency, yet it supposeth an accusation of something, which in it self Bdeserves punishment. But in Esai. 53. 10. it is said, He made his soul sin; and 2 Cor. 5. 21. That God made him sin for us, which must therefore imply, not being dealt with by men only as a sinner, but that with a respect to him who inflicted the punishment, there was a consideration of sin as the reason of it. We do not deny but Gods suffering him to be dealt with as a sinner by men, is implied in it, for that was the method of his punishment designed; but we say further, that the reason of that permission in God, doth suppose some antecedent cause of it: For God would never have suffered his only CSon, to be so dealt with by the hands of cruel men, unless he had made himself an offering for sin; being willing to undergo those sufferings, that he might be an expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the world. And although Socinus will not yield, That by being made sin for us should be understood Soc. l. 1. c. 8.Christs being an expiatory Sacrifice for sin; yet Crellius is contented it should be so taken in both places: Which if he will grant, so as by vertue of that Sacrifice, the guilt of sin is expiated, we shall not contend with him about the reasons, why those Sacrifices were called sins, although the most proper Dand genuine must needs be that, which is assigned by the Law, that the sins of the people were supposed to be laid upon them, and therefore they were intended for the expiation of them: But it is very unreasonable to say; That Expiatory Sacrifices were called sins, because it would have been a sin to neglect them: For on the same account, all the other Sacrifices must have been called so too; for it was a sin to neglect any where God required them, and so there had been no difference between Sacrifices for sin and others. To that reason of Crellius, from our being made righteous, because dealt with as such, Eto Christs being made sin only, because dealt with as a sinner, we need no more than what this parallel will afford us; For as Crellius would never say, that any are dealt with as righteous persons, who are not antecedently supposed to be so; p. 290so by his own Argument, Christ being dealt with as a sinner, Amust suppose guilt antecedent to it; and since the Apostle declares it was not his own, in those words, Who knew no sin, it follows that it must be the consideration of ours, which must make him be dealt with as a sinner by him, who made him to be sin for us. But to suppose that Christ should be said to be made sin, without any respect to sin, is as much as if the Latins should call any one Scelus, and mean thereby a very honest man; or a Piaculum, without any supposition of his own or others guilt. But we are to consider, that the sufferings of Christ, seeming at first so inconsistent with that relation Bto God as his only Son, which the Apostles assert concerning him, they were obliged to vindicate his innocency as to men, and yet withal to shew, that with a respect to God, there was sufficient reason for his permission of his undergoing these sufferings. That he knew no sin, was enough to clear his innocency as to men; but then the question will be asked, If he were so innocent, why did God suffer all those things to come upon him? Did not Abraham plead of old with God, That he would not slay the righteous with the wicked, because Gen. 18. 25.Gen 18:25it was repugnant to the righteousness of his nature to do so; CThat be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked, and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee; shall not the Iudge of all the earth do right? How then comes God to suffer the most perfect innocency to be dealt with so, as the greatest sins could not have deserved worse from men? Was not his righteousness the same still? And Abraham did not think the distinction of calamities and punishments, enough to vindicate Gods proceedings, if the righteous should have been dealt withall as the wicked. And if that would hold for such a Dmeasure of righteousness as might be supposed in such who were not guilty of the great abominations of those places, that it should be enough, not only to deliver themselves, but the wicked too; how comes it that the most perfect obedience of the Son of God, is not sufficient to excuse him from the greatest sufferings of Malefactors? But if his sufferings had been meerly from men, God had been accountable only for the bare permission; but it is said, that he fore-ordained and determined these things to be, that Christ himself complained, that God had forsaken him; and here, that he made Ehim sin for us: and can we imagine all this to be without any respect to the guilt of sin, as the cause of it? Why should such an expression be used of being made sin? might not many others have served sufficiently to declare the indignities p. 291and sufferings he underwent, without such a phrase as Aseems to reflect upon Christs innocency? If there had been no more in these expressions than our Adversaries imagine, the Apostles were so careful of Christs honour, they would have avoided such ill-sounding expressions as these were; and not have affected Hebraisms, and uncouth forms of speech, to the disparagement of their Religion. But this is all which our Adversaries have to say, where words are used by them out of their proper sense, that the Prophets and Apostles affected tricks of wit, playing with words, using them sometimes in one sense, and presently quite in another. So BCrellius saith of Esaiah, That he affects little elegancies of words and verbal allusions, which makes him use words Crell. c. 1. sect. 57.sometimes out of their proper and natural sense; thence he tells us, The sufferings of Christ are called chastisements, though they have nothing of the nature of chastisements in them: And from this liberty of interpreting, they make words (without any other reason, than that they serve for their purpose) be taken in several senses in the same verse: For Socinus in one verse of St. Iohns Gospel, makes the World be taken in three several senses: He was in the World, So…i…. ex…l…cat. 1 cap. Ioh. v. 10.John 5:10Cthere it is taken, saith he, for the men of the world in general: The world was made by him, there it must be understood only of the reformation of things by the Gospel: and, the world knew him not, there it must be taken in neither of the former senses, but for the wicked of the world: What may not one make of the Scripture, by such a way of interpreting it? But by this we have the less reason to wonder, that Socinus should put such an Interpretation upon Gal. 3. 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that Dhangeth on a tree: In which he doth acknowledge by the curse, in the first clause to be meant, the punishment of sin, but not in the second: And the reason he gives for it is, amavit enim Socin. de C…isto servat. l 2. c. 1.Paulus in execrationis verbo argutus esse. St. Paul affected playing with the word curse, understanding it first in a proper, and then a Metaphorical sense. But it is plain, that the design of S. Paul and Socinus are very different in these words: Socinus thinks he speaks only Metaphorically, when he saith, that Christ was made a curse for us; i. e. by a bare allusion of the name, without a correspondency in the Ething it self; and so that the death of Christ might be called a curse, but was not so: but St. Paul speaks of this not by way of extenuation, but to set forth the greatness and weight of the punishment he underwent for us. He therefore p. 292tells us, what it was which Christ did redeem us from, AThe curse of the Law; and how he did it, by being not only made a curse, but a curse for us; i. e. not by being hateful to God, or undergoing the very same curse, which we should have done; which are the two things objected by Crellius against our sense; but that the death of Christ was to be considered, not as a bare separation of soul and body, but as properly poenal, being such a kind of death, which none but Malefactors by the Law were to suffer; by the undergoing of which punishment in our stead, he redeemed us from that curse which we were liable to by the violation of Bthe Law of God. And there can be no reason to appropriate this only to the Iews, unless the death of Christ did extend only to the deliverance of them from the punishment of their sins; or because the curse of the Law did make that death poenal, therefore the intention of the punishment, could reach no further than the Law did; but the Apostle in the very next words speaks of the farther extension of the great blessing promised to Abraham, That it should come upon the Gentils also; and withall those whom the Apostle speaks to, were not Iews, but such as thought they ought to joyn the Law Cand Gospel together: that St. Paul doth not mean as Crellius Crell. Annot. in loc.would have it, that Christ by his death did confirm the New Covenant, and so take away the obligation of the Law; (for to what end was the curse mentioned for that? What did the accursedness of his death add to the confirmation of the truth of his Doctrine? and when was ever the curse taken for the continuance of the Law of Moses?) but that Christ by the efficacy of his death as a punishment for sin hath redeemed all that believe and obey him from the curse deserved by their sins, whether inforced by the Law of Moses, Dor the Law written in their hearts, which tells the consciences of sinners, that such who violate the Laws of God are worthy of death, and therefore under the curse of the Law.

We come now to the force of the particles which being joyned with our sins as referring to the death of Christ, do §. 12. The particles foreign being joyned to sins, and relating to sufferings, do imply those sufferings to be the punishment of sin.imply that his death is to be considered as a punishment of sin. Not that we insist on the force of those particles foreign and foreign, as though of themselves they did imply this (for we know they are of various significations according to the Enature of the matter they are joyned with) but that these being joyned with sins and sufferings together, do signifie that those sufferings are the punishment of those sins. Thus it is said of Christ, that he dyed, foreign p. 293for our sins, foreign, that he suffered once foreign, that Rom. 4. 25. 1 Cor. 15. 3. 1 Pet. 3. 18. Heb. 10 12. Crell. c. 1. Sect. 6.Rom 4:251 Cor 15:31 Pet 3:18Heb 10:12Ahe gave himself, foreign, that he offered a Sacrifice foreign. To which Crellius replies, That if the force of these particles not being joyned with sufferings, may be taken for the final and not for the impulsive cause, they may retain the same sense when joyned with sufferings, if those sufferings may be designed in order to an end; but if it should be granted, that those phrases being joyned with sufferings, Sect. 14. p. 17.do always imply a meritorious cause, yet it doth not follow, it should be here so understood because the matter will not bear it. To this a short answer will at present serve: for, BIt is not possible a meritorious cause can be expressed more emphatically than by these words being joyned to sufferings: so that we have as clear a testimony from these expressions as words can give; and by the same arts by which these may be avoided any other might; so that it had not been possible for our Doctrine to have been expressed in such a manner, but such kind of answers might have been given as our Adversaries now give. If it had been said in the plainest terms, that Christs death was a punishment for our sins, they would as easily have avoided the force of them as they do of these; Cthey would have told us the Apostles delighted in an Antanaclasis, and had expressed things different from the natural use of the words by them; and though punishment were sometimes used properly, yet here it must be used only metaphorically because the matter would bear no other sense. And therefore I commend the ingenuity of Socinus after all the pains he had taken to enervate the force of those places which are brought against his Doctrine; he tells us plainly, That Socin. de servat. l. 3. c. 6.if our Doctrine were not only once, but frequently mentioned in Scripture; yet he would not therefore believe the Dthing to be so as we suppose. For, saith he, seeing the thing it self cannot be, I take the least inconvenient interpretation of the words; and draw forth such a sense from them, as is most consistent with it self and the tenor of the Scripture. But for all his talking of the tenor of the Scripture, by the same reason he interprets one place upon these terms, he will do many, and so the tenor of the Scripture shall be never against him: and by this we find, that the main strength of our Adversaries is not pretended to lye in the Scriptures; all the care they have of them is only to reconcile them if possible Ewith their hypothesis; for they do not deny but that the natural force of the words doth imply what we contend for; but because they say the Doctrine we assert is inconsistent with reason, therefore all their design is to find out any other possible p. 294meaning which they therefore assert to be true, because Amore agreeable to the common reason of mankind. This therefore is enough for our present purpose, that if it had been the design of Scripture to have expressed our sense, it could not have done it in plainer expressions than it hath done, that no expressions could have been used, but the same arts of our Adversaries might have been used to take off their force, which they have used to those we now urge against them, and that setting aside the possibility of the thing, the Scripture doth very fairly deliver the Doctrine we contend for; or, supposing in point of reason there may be arguments enough to Bmake it appear possible, there are Scriptures enough to make it appear true.CDE