the punishment whereof was required of his Son and Posterity 1 Kings 21.29 2 Kings 8 9 and 10. But this shall be more accurately examined when we shall come to this Question What Cause moved God that he punished Christ for our sins Therefore the Sacred Writings do not at all stand on Socinus his side which declare that God did that which Socinus unjustly accuseth of unjustice But neither hath he any great Defence from right Reason which it is wonderful that he so often doth boast of but shews it no where But that all this Errour may be taken away it must be observed that it is essential to punishment that it should be inflicted for sin but it is not essential to it that it should be inflicted upon him who sinned and that is manifest by the similitude of Reward Favour and Revenge For often Reward useth to be conferred upon the Children or Kindred of a well-deserving Person and Favour on them that are near a-kin to him that bestowed the benefit and revenge on the Friends of him that offended neither do they upon that account cease to be what they are Reward Favour and Revenge To the confirmation hereof this all conduceth That if it were against the nature of punishment then this very thing should not be called unjust but impossible But God forbid the Son to be punished by men for the Fathers sin but they are not forbidden things impossible Moreover Unjustice properly happeneth not to a Relation such as Punishment is but to the Action it self such as is the matter of Punishment And here it is necessary that the true difference should be sought Why it should not be equally free to all men to punish a man for another mans sins as to bestow a Reward or Favour for another man's Merit or Benefit For an act in which is Reward or Favour is a benevolent act which in its own nature is free to all but the act in which Punishment is is a hurtful act which is neither granted to all nor upon all Wherefore that a Punishment may be just it is required that the Penal act it self should be in the power of the Punisher which happeneth three ways either by the antecedent right of the Punisher or by a just and valid consent of him whose Punishment is the Concernment or by the Crime of the same Person When by these ways the act is made lawful nothing interposeth but that it may be ordained for the punishment of another man's sin provided there be some Conjunction between him that sinned and the Party to be punished And this Conjunction is either Natural as between a Father and a Son or Mystical as between King and People or Voluntary as between the Guilty Person and the Surety Socinus appeals to the Judgment of all Nations But as to God the Philosophers doubted not that the sins of the Parents were punished by him in the Children Which Plutarch eloquently explaining in his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And presently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is verily a Generation depending upon one Beginning which sustains a certain Power and Natural Communion and that which is begotten is not free from a Relation to that which begetteth as a Building that is made for it came out of it but not from it so that it hath and carries in it self some part of the things pertaining thereunto being both reasonably chastised and punished There is no Cruelty nor Vnreasonableness that those that pertain unto them should partake of their things He adds thereafter something not unlike that which we just now cited out of a Christian Writer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is ridiculous that says it is an unjust thing to burn the Thumb when the Joints are in danger And Valerius Maximus treating of Dionysius the Sicilian Though he did not suffer the Punishments due to so many Sacriledges yet by the Disgrace of his Son he suffered the Punishment which being alive he escaped There are six hundred like places in Historians and Poets So also it was a no less received Sentence from the time of Hesiod who said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justice was Jupiter's Daughter who requested Jupiter that the People might be punished for the sins of the Kings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socinus dares not deny that other men are punished for other mens sins for the thing is manifest in Pecuniary Punishments Vlpianus l. si quis reum d. de cust exhib reorum says Is punished with a Pecuniary Punishment instead of the Guilty Person Caius saith The Surety is rightly taken into the punishment of Theft because great reason adviseth that punishment should be suffered for evil Deeds L. si à reo d. de fidejuss And this very thing is sufficient that it may appear that it is not of the Nature of Punishment that he who sinned should both pay and necessarily suffer But Socinus brings this reason why the same power is not in Corporal Punishments because Money may be made another mans and therefore being paid for another by a short fiction of the hand it may seem given to the Delinquent and afterwards paid by him but Corporal Vexation cannot be made another man's but this is said more subtilely than truly For that Reason makes something for the procuring Deliverance to the Guilty Person But that reason doth not make that the Punishment which another hath deserved should be inflicted on another for if that were of force often the Reward of a well-deserving Person could not be paid to a Person joyned with him to wit because the thing in which the Reward should consist could not be made his that deserved it either because he was dead or because the thing was Incorporeal The Athenians educated the Sons of well-deserving Persons upon the Publick Charge The Romans granted unto the Sons of the ancient Soldiers the priviledges of Corporals They suffered neither the Nephews nor the Sons of the Nephews of the most Perfect as they called them to be subject to Examinations We read in Greek and Roman Histories that the Memory of Parents hath been of advantage to Children to save them from Punishment but the Education Priviledge or Impunity of Children cannot be made the Education Priviledge or Impunity of the dead Parents Yea if it were true that Socinus says then the Punishment could not be exacted of the Surety not being willing that the Guilty Person being absent by chance should be freed from the Obligation of a Pecuniary punishment Therefore as touching this Question this is not the true difference between Pecuniary and Corporal Punishment We shall mention the truer presently But this I most wonder at that Socinus says That it 's proved by the Laws and Customs of all Nations and Ages that a Corporal Punishment that one oweth cannot be paid by another For verily amongst the Persians of old for the Fault of one man his Kindred perished
as witnesses Marcellinus Amongst the Macedonians the Heads of those were Condemned that were of the same Blood with the Traytors as Curtius tells In the Cities of Grecia it was a Custom that together with the Tyrants the Children of the Tyrants were slain as Halicarnassoeus and Cicero observes Indeed these things are not commendable but yet they prove that that Assertion concerning the Consent of all Nations is not in all respects true And in these Examples the Conjunction of Persons only seemed to suffice for Punishment without any Consent which Halicarnassoeus observes to have been rejected by the Romans But where any Consent went before I dare almost be bold to say that there was none of all those whom we call Pagans that judged it an unjust thing for one man to be punished for another man's Fault The power of killing Sureties shews this which was usual to the most courteous People The Thessalians of old killed Two hundred and fifty Hostages as Plutarch tells The Romans beheaded three hundred Volscians They threw down the Tarentines from the Tarpeian Rock as is mentioned in Livius There are extant the like Examples of Goths Danes and English-men And as very Learned men have rightly observed it was judged righteous so to do So also in Capital Judgments the Pledges were usually slain if the Guilty Persons did not present themselves whence by the Grecians they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Souls put in stead it appears sufficiently both from other places and also from the noble History of Damon and Pythias Neither is it any wonder that they so judged for because they believed that every man had no less power of his own life than over other things as appears by the frequent and somuch noised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Self-murder among the Grecians Romans and other Nations it was clearly the Consequence that they believed Life could be strongly obliged no less than other things for the former being presupposed it was necessary the latter also should be granted And verily if any man examine this Business with requisite diligence he will find a true difference why a man is less obliged by consent to Coporal than Pecuniary Punishment that is that he that consents hath not equal power over Body and Money Neither yet do I assent unto the Modern Lawyers approving this by a certain Answer of Vlpianus who said That no man seems Lord of his own Members L. liber homo d. ad Legem Aquil. For he takes the word Lord strictly according to the use of Civil Law as it is opposed to a Servant because the Aquilian Law speaks strictly of a Servant he denies that the direct Action that is answerable to the words of the Law can be accommodated to a Free-man wounded yet so that by the likeness of Respects he thinks an useful Action should be given And that I may truly say what I think though I very much admire the Equity of the Romans in moderating this Extension of Punishment yet I cannot be perswaded to believe that it was a thing by them supposed wholly and of it self unjust that one man should be corporally punished for the Fault of another Neither am I therefore moved because Suretiships were by them forbidden under capital punishment for many things use to be forbidden not because they are judged altogether unjust but because they are dangerous as all Suretiships of Women and of others also for a Dowry this therefore belonged to Civil Law which because it failed in Foreign People therefore it was otherways observed in Hostages by the Romans themselves Yea so long a time afterwards Christian Emperors appointed that the Jaylor when the guilty Person escaped through the default of his Family should bear his Punishment L. ad Commentariensem C. de custod reor And now also or not long since noble Masters of Law have taught that this Rule That no man should oblige himself to Capital Punishment ceaseth if Law or Custom confirmed that manner But as touching those Punishments which respect not any Consent but only the Conjunction of Persons though the Roman Laws forbid a Son to be the Successor of his Father's Punishment or to be marked with any Blot for his Father's Crime yet Halicurnassaeus observes that this very thing obtain'd not from the beginning but from that time in which Sp. Cassius was condemned of Tyranny Wherefore neither the Romans themselves thought that this Power descended from a certain perpetual and immutable Rule of Justice Whereas the Emperours Arcadius and Honorius would seem to grant Life to the Sons of them that had committed Treason not of the Necessity of the Law but of their Imperial Lenity when otherways as they themselves speak they ought to have perished by their Father's Punishment L. quisquis C. ad l. Jul. Majest This also may be added That it can be proved by Histories that the Death of Rebels was inflicted on their Children not only by Tiberius and Severus but also by Theodosius It must also be observed that in the same Law of Arcadius and Honorius Jus omne ab intestato aut ex Testamento cuiquam succedendiâ— all right of succeeding to any man by Testament or otherways is taken away from the Sons of Rebels that Infamy is branded upon them that they are not suffered to attain to Preferments or Corporations Afterwards it is added May they be such that unto them being oppressed with perpetual want Death may be a Comfort and Life a Punishment Exclusion from Preferments about the Children of them that had offended against the Commonwealth was a long time used by the Romans from the times of Sylla But that Sons should suffer want for the Crimes of their Parents Cicero says it is an ancient thing and of all Cities and namely he adds that the Children of Themistocles suffered want which are only therefore brought that it may appear that there was not that Consent of Nations which Socinus brings in himself and that the Romans themselves whose Equity was most conspicuous amongst all People did not regard that difference in punishment that Money may be made another man's but Corporal Punishment may not For neither the Poverty of Children or Infamy or their Exclusion from Preferment could be made the Poverty of Parents their Infamy or their Exclusion from Preferments except perchance by a certain Fiction which esteems the Father and Children as if they were one and the same man Also I wonder at that which Socinus pronounceth of the Fact of Zaleucus whose History is in Diodorus Siculus and Aelianus that he saith â—e hath a very ill report and his name is reckoned amongst headstrong and rash Princes and Judges of People verily all Antiquity both for wise Laws and also chiefly upon the account of that Fact commended Zaleucus as also it appears by these Writers that I mentioned and Plutarch and others and I think that no other ancient Writer judgeth otherways of that Fact The Sentence of Valerius Maximus is
ascribes the Death of Christ as appears to any man which are not joyned with that Effect by any necessity What if it sufficeth to him to alledge Causes not cogent that I may so say but inviting and perswading Equity suffers not that he should give a harder Law to them that dispute with him But it will not be difficult to us to give a sufficient Cause and that very weighty out of the Scriptures whether we ask this Why God would forgive Eternal Punishment to us or Why he was not willing otherways to forgive the same but by punishing Christ The former hath Cause in his Goodness which of all the Properties of God is most proper to God for every where God describes himself chiefly by this Attribute that he is bountiful and gracious Exod. 34.7 Josh 4.2 2 Chron. 30.9 Psal 86.4 and 14. 103.8 111.4,5 Isai 55.7 Jer. 31.20 Joel 2.12 Luke 6.36 Rom. 2.4 Therefore God is forward to help man and make him happy But this he cannot do while that horrible and eternal Punishment remains Moreover if Eternal Death should have been inflicted upon all men all Religion had perished through Despair of Happiness therefore there were great Causes of sparing On the other side those Testimonies of Scripture already brought by us which say that Christ was for our sins delivered up suffered died do prove that God had cause Why he laid punishment on Christ For these kinds of speaking as we there shewed signifie an Impulsive Cause But by these things that we have said of the end it may be understood that there was not only a Cause but also what the Cause was to wit that God would not pass by so many and so great sins without a remarkable Example But this is therefore because every sin doth greatly displease God and so much the more how much greater it is Prov. 11.20 Psal 5.5 Isai 66.4 Rom. 1.18 Zech. 8.17 Psal 45.8 Hebr. 11.2 But because God is active and created Creatures using reason for that purpose that he should make his Properties more manifest it is convenient for him to testifie by some act how much sins displease him but the act most agreeable to that thing is punishment Hence is that in God which Sacred Writings call Anger because there is no other word more significant Exod. 32.10,11 Numb 11.1 16.22 25.3 Psal 2.5,6 1 John 3.36 Rom. 1.18 2.8 Eph. 5.6 Coloss 3.6 Apoc. 5.16 By this Anger God testifies that he is hindered from doing Good to men Gen. 6.7 Jer. 5.25 Isai 59.2 Deut. 32.29,30 Moreover all impunity of sin of it self hath this that sins are thereby esteemed to be of less value as on the contrary the most expeditious way of driving from sin is fear of punishment Hence that by bearing a former Injury thou invitest a new one therefore Prudence upon this account stirs up a Governour to punishment Moreover the Cause of punishment is augmented when any Law is published which threatneth punishment for then the omission of punishment for the most detracts from the Authority of the Law amongst Subjects Hence that Precept of the Politicians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to keep strongly the appointed Laws Therefore God hath very weighty Causes of punishing especially if you please to consider both the magnitude and multitude of sins But because amongst all Gods Properties the love of Mankind hath the pre-eminence therefore God when he could justly and was moved to punish the sins of all men with a deserved and legal punishment that is with Eternal Death he would spare them that believe in Christ But when he was to spare by making some or no Example against so many and so great sins most wisely he chose that way by which many of his Properties should be manifested to wit both Clemency and Severity or the hatred of Sin and care of keeping the Law So Aelianus praising the Fact of Zaleucus mentions two Causes thereof that the young man may not be wholly blinded and that that which once was authorized might not be destroyed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which Causes the one looks thitherward that something of the Law may be changed through Clemency and the other that it should not be changed too much They that have written concerning the Relaxation of Laws observe that those are the best Relaxations unto which Commutation or Compensation is annexed to wit because that way very little of the Authority of the Law is destroyed and in some respect that Reason which is the Cause of the Law is obeyed as if he that is obliged to restore a thing be freed by paying the price for the same and so much are very near a-kin Such Commutation is sometimes admitted not only among things but also sometimes among Persons providing that may be without hurt to the other party So Fathers are permitted to succeed into the Prison of the Son as Cimon succeeded Miltiades and that we may not go out of Penal Judgments and those Divine there are extant express Footsteps of the like Fact in Sacred Scriptures Nathan at the command of God pronounced to David being a Murtherer and Adulterer Thy sin that is the punishment of sin is translated from thee for thou shalt not dye which otherways the Law required but because thou hast given the Enemies of God occasion to blaspheme God that Son which is born to thee to wit very near unto thee and Vicar of thy punishment shall surely die 2 Sam. 12.13,14 Achab defileth himself both with Murder and Robbery God denounceth to him by Elias That it should come to pass that the Dogs should lick his Blood Nevertheless the same God seeing his Fear and a certain Reverence to the Deity said I will not bring the Evil to wit which himself had deserved and I had threatned in his days In the days of his Son who besides his own shall also bear his Father's punishment I will bring the Evil upon his House In both God relaxeth the Law or Threatning of Punishment but not without some Compensation by translating the Punishment upon another And so he evidenceth both his Clemency and Severity or Hatred of Sin So then God willing to spare those that were to believe in Christ had sufficient just and great Causes why he exacted the punishment of our sins of Christ being willing to wit that I may use the words of Aelianus That that which was once ratified may not be disanulled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and least sins should be less regarded if so many and so great should be passed over without an Example Moreover by this very thing God did not only testifie his hatred against sins and so by this Fact terrified us from sins for it is easily gathered if God would not forgive sins no not to them that repent unless Christ succeeded into the pâ—…shment much less will he suffer the Impenitent to be unpunished but also in a signal manner declared his great Love and Good-will
towards us to wit that he spared us to whom it was not a thing indifferent to punish sins but who thought it a thing of so great Concernment that rather than he would suffer them to be wholly unpunished he delivered up his only begotten Son to punishment for those sins So that as it was said by the Ancients 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither according to the Law nor against the Law but above the Law and instead of the Law That is very true of Divine Grace It is above the Law because we are not punished for the Law because Punishment is not omitted And therefore is Remission given that we may in time to come live to the Divine Law These things being rightly understood all those things fall which Socinus objects concerning the Defect of a Cause So that it is not necessary to go through all particulars in which nevertheless not a few Errours may be observed As when in the first Chapter of the first Book also in the first Chapter of the third Book â—…e says That punishing Justice doth not reside in God but is an Effect of his Will Verily to punish is an Effect of the Will but that Justice or Rectitude out of which proceeds both other things and also Retribution of Punishment is a Property residing in God for the Scripture concludes God to be just because he renders Punishment to Faults gathering the Cause from the Effect But Socinus seems to have been led into this Errour because he believed that any Effects of the Properties of God are altogether necessary whereas many of them are free to wit a free Act of the Will interveening between the Property and the Effect So it is an Effect of the Goodness of God to communicate his own Goodness but this he did not before the Creation It belongs to the same Goodness to spare the Guilty but scarcely will any man say that God spares those whom he punisheth with Eternal Punishment Therefore there are some Properties of God the Exercise whereof both as to the Act and also as to the Time and Manner of the Act yea also as to the Determination of the Object depends upon his free Will over which nevertheless Wisdom presides Neither can God therefore be said because he hath the free use of these Properties to do what he doth without a Cause when he useth them For God did not therefore make the World in vain because he had liberty not to make it neither because it pleased God to punish some which Socinus confesseth to be true chiefly in those whose Repentance God waits for doth he therefore punish without cause where he punisheth for many things are performed freely and yet for a weighty cause The other Errour is also above mentioned that he would make God forgiving sins to do just the same thing that men do who give up their own right It hath been shewed that punishment is not in Property or Debt or that it can be equallized to them in all things To give a man 's own to forgive Debt is always honourable of it self When we say of it self we exclude those things which are present 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by accident such as is the Poverty of the Giver himself which also cannot have place in God But to forgive Punishment sometimes would not be honourable no not to God himself as Socinus acknowledgeth Therefore there is a wide difference here but the rise of the difference is thence that the next Foundation of Lordly Power and Debt is a certain Relation of a thing to a Person but the next foundation of Punishment is the Relation of a thing to a thing to wit the Equality of a Fault with some Hurt agreeing to Order and common Good wherefore that is not true which Socinus asserted as most certain That the Common-wealth will commit no unjustice if it absolve a Guilty Person except it also be injurious to the proper right of some private Person or break God's Law For by the name of Common-wealth he either understands the Multitude that governs or is governed The Multitude that is governed as it hath not the power of making Laws so neither hath it the power of moderating them But a Multitude that Governs as a Senate in the State of Peers or the greater part of a Parliament in a Popular State cannot do more than other chiefest Governours as for example free Kings in a Kingdom and Fathers in respect of a Family But it is part of the Justice of a Governour to keep Laws yea those also that are positive and given by himself which Lawyers prove to be true as well in a free University as in the highest King The Reason of both is because the Act of Making or Relaxing a Law is not an Act of Absolute Lordship but an Act of Empire which ought to tend to the Preservation of Good Order That also which Socinus says deserves Reprehension That besides the Will of God and Christ himself there can be no lawful Cause given of the Death of Christ unless we say Christ deserved that he should dye For Merit is in the Antecedent Cause as we said above but Impersonally for our sins deserved that Punishment should be required But that Punishment was conferred upon Christ this we so refer to the Will of God and Christ that that Will hath also its own Causes not in the Merit of Christ who when he knew no sin was made sin by God but in the great fitness of Christ to shew a signal Example which consists both in his great Conjunction with us and in the unmatched dignity of his Person But that Collection of Socinus is confuted by manifest Testimonies of Scripture The Antecedent Cause Why the Infant of David died is made manifest because David by sinning heinously gave occasion to the wicked to insult over the Name of God blasphemously Here there is Merit but not in the Infant And in punishing the Posterity of Achab beyond their own Merit God had respect to the Merit of the sins of Achab. Whence it appears that the Antecedent Cause of Punishment is Merit but not always the Merit of the Person that is punished CHAP. VI. Whether God willed that Christ should be punished And it is shewed that he willed it And also the Nature of Satisfaction is Explained THese two Questions having been handled Whether God could justly punish Christ being willing for our sins And Whether there was some sufficient Cause why God should do it The third remains Whether really God did this or which signifies the same willed to do it For Socinus denies it both in many places elsewhere and also in a set Discourse upon it Lib. 3. cap. 2. We together with Scripture maintain that God willed this and did it For Christ is said to have been delivered up to have suffered and died for our sins Rom. 4.25 1 Pet. 3.18 Isai 53.5 The Chastisement of our Peace was laid upon
thing whether you strike a private Person or a King also whether you strike an unknown Person or a Father because strokes are directed to the Body not to the Dignity of the Person which gross Errour long since Aristotle hath confuted Also the common-Judgment dissents from Socinus For those People whose Laws are most praised esteemed punishments by the dignity of the Persons and other Attributes Wherefore according to the Laws of the Romans which are known evidently to be very full of equity Punishments are varied according to the Condition of the Persons and it hath been abundantly demonstrated by them that did write of Commonwealths that other Nations famous for Wisdom did not otherways appoint And the Interpreters of the Roman Law prove it CHAP. IX What doth it import that Christ died for us IN the third Class we did put those Testimonies which intimate Subrogation as when Christ is said to have tasted death for all men Hebr. 2.9 died for the people John 11.50 suffered for us 1 Pet. 2.21 died for us wicked and sinners Rom. 5.7,8 one died for all 2 Cor. 5.14 It is received in every Tongue that when a Person did or suffered a thing in the room and place of another it is said that he suffered or did that for him So it is in Terentius I will lead thee pro instead of him I will grind pro for thee Neither is this phrase only applied to persons but also to things for that is said to be given put or had for him which in his stead or room is given put or had Socinus declines this Interpretation by the ambiguity of the word pro for which often signifies only the profit of another which is true of the Latin word as also of the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is â—ound in Matthew 20.28 and Mark 10.45 wholly rejects this signification and requires commutation So evil is said to be rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for evil 1 Pet. 3.9 Rom. 12.17 an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth Matth. 5.38 so a Serpent given for a Fish Luke 11.15 the birthright for one morsal Hebr. 12.16 hair for a covering 1 Cor. 11.15 But as oft as that Particle is applied to Persons it signifies that one succeeded into the place of another So Archelaus is said to have reigned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the room of Herod his Father that is that he succeeded him in the Kingdom Matth. 2.22 so Peter is commanded to give a piece of money for himself and Christ Matth. 17.27 because he alone in that action supplied the room of two Neither is it otherways in prophane Writers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one in the room of many and the like Here Socinus being in a strait dares not deny that a certain change is signified by that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for many But he miserably seeks an escape When the Redemption is discoursed of saith he there is place for that Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though a Captive owes nothing for Redemption This is true but not to the purpose For we do not from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 directly infer payment but we gather from thence that Christ died in our stead that is unless Christ had died we should have died and because Christ died we shall not die an eternal Death For verily the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being joyned to a Person and the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 requires that a Person expressed in the Genitive was to give the same in Gender or Species which now another gave Neither is it any difference whether it be lawfully as in a Bond for Debt or unlawfully as in him that is taken by High-way-men but this being granted that it would come to pass that we should have been put to death unless Christ had died the payment is afterwards rightly gathered from the very nature of the thing For either we were to have been unjustly put to death or justly not unjustly for we had deserved death therefore justly If justly then we were debtors of death Christ procured us deliverance from this debt by giving something But to give something that another by that same may be delivered from a Debt is to pay or satisfie Therefore that expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give for many signifies a true exchange as always not a metaphorical which Socinus invents without example But touching the other Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it must be observed that it also not always but often signifies the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paul wisheth to be accursed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in room of the Jews whom otherways persevering in their unbelief he knew would be accursed Rom. 9.3 The Apostles are Ambassadors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Christ that is they are Ambassadours in the room of Christ himself 2 Cor. 5.20 Wherefore seeing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessarily signifies exchange and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 useth sometimes to be put for the same nothing forbids to interpret a word of a doubtful notation from a certain chiefly when the same Argument is treated of But especially that place 2 Cor. 5.14 seems to require that interpretation If one died for all then are all dead Moreover though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it self ambiguous had not been used in these places but it had been openly said that Christ died for our good by this very thing that exchange should not have been excluded but rather inclued other places being compared For he also who dies for this purpose that thereby he may deliver another from death dies for his good Neither can this sense be rejected because the fact of Christ is proposed to us for example For unto an example it is sufficient that there be a certain general similitude though the difference be in a special respect of which nevertheless mention sometimes is made for denoting the thing more certainly Which is manifestly evident from the Exhortation of Peter 1 Pet. 2.19 he would have us be patient in bearing afflictions which we suffer innocently He brings the example of Christ who said he himself also suffered This was sufficient for a comparison but he added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for us which belongs not the comparison but clearly expresseth the thing it self that is the suffering of Christ Therefore Patience is a common thing but that manner is different Otherways Paul should in vain ask if Paul was crucified for believers 1 Cor. 1.13 for he also could have been crucified for the Church that is for the use of the Church as he said he suffered for the Church Col. 1.24 and afterward he himself was for the great good of the Church beheaded Peter and other Apostles crucified But neither Paul nor any other man could be crucified in that manner that Christ was by suffering punishment in our stead Therefore that word pro expresseth here something