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
as the meritorious Cause Therefore we shall shew that there is Injury in neither First then Socinus confesseth That it is not unjust that Christ most Innocent should suffer from God very heavy Punishments and Death it self that hence no help can come to his Cause And the thing it self demonstrates the same very evidently For Sacred History shews that Christ suffered very grievous things and that he died also The Scripture no less evidently says that God did this very thing But without blaspheming the Sacred Deity it cannot be denied that God doth nothing unjustly Therefore passing over to the other part I affirm That it is not simply unjust or against the nature of punishment that a man should suffer for other mens sins When I say unjust it is manifest that I speak of unjustice which riseth out of things not which riseth out of Positive Law as whereby Divine Liberty cannot be diminished I prove this that I said Exod. 20.5 and 34.7 God visits the Iniquities of the Fathers upon the Sons Nephews and Nephews Children Our Fathers sinned and we bear their punishment Lam. 5.7 For the Fact of Cham Canaan is subjected to a Curse Gen. 9.25 For the Fact of Saul his Sons and Nephews were hanged God approving of it 2 Sam. 21.8,14 For the Fact of David 70000 perish and David cries out I have sinned and done wickedly but what have these sheep done 2 Sam. 24.15 and 17. So for the Fact of Achan his Sons are punished Jos 7.24 and for the Fact of Jeroboam his Posterity 1 King 14. These places manifestly shew that some are punished by God for other mens sins He that hath time may see Chrysostom Homil. 29. on Gen. chap. 4. Tertullian against Marcion Socinus objects that in Ezechiel The Soul that hath sinned it shall die The Son shall not bear the Iniquity of the Father neither shall the Father bear the Iniquity of the Son But in these words God teacheth not what he must necessarily do but what he hath decreed freely to do Therefore it doth no more follow hence that it is wholly unjust that the Son should bear any punishment of his Father's fault than that it is unjust that a sinner should die The place it self proves That God doth not here discourse of a perpetual and immutable Law but of the ordinary Course of his Providence which he professeth he will after that time use towards the Jews that he may break off all occasions of Calumny Neither is that more to the purpose that is written Deut. 24.16 Let not the Fathers be put to death for the Sons nor the Sons for the Fathers but let every man be put to death for his own sin Of which also there is mention made 2 Kings 14.6 for this Law is in part Positive whereunto God is not tied as having no where made that Law to himself neither indeed can he be tied to any Law Also the diversity of the Reason is manifest because the power of Men is narrower than that of God which shall be more clearly explained afterwards though now also I may intimate that the abuse of Power is feared in men but it is not feared in God Socinus replies That no where in Scripture the Innocent are found punished for the sins of the Guilty But this Reply is not to the purpose For seeing we read that some were punished not only for their own sins in respect whereof they were guilty but also for other mens sins it follows that they were also punished as they were not guilty But if a man may in part be punished as he is not guilty the nature of the thing doth not hinder but that he may be punished in the whole for the right of the parts and the whole is the same Add also that the Posterity of Saul were wholly innocent as to that sin for which they were punished But if a man may be punished in a respect wherein he is innocent he may also be punished being innocent And if a man rihtly consider Innocence hindereth not punishment more than Affliction yea it hindereth not that at all but for this Therefore the distinction of Guilty and Innocent belongs to the Question Whether any man may be justly Afflicted but not to this Whether his Affliction may have the force of Punishment For it being granted That Relation to a man 's own Sin is not of the Essence of Punishment it being also granted that the Innocent may be afflicted as Socinus confesseth God may do for a while no Reason verily can be given why by the very nature of things for here we treat not of Positive Law it should be unjust that an innocent Person should be punished for another man's Fault with such Affliction especially if he hath of his own accord obliged himself to such a Punishment and hath power in himself to undertake it which shall be handled afterwards Socinus urgeth That at least between the Guilty and him that is punished there ought to be some Conjunction which he acknowledges between Father and Son but between Christ and us he doth not acknowledge It might be said here that man is not without relation to man that there is a Natural Kindred and Consanguinity between Men because Christ took upon him our Flesh But another much greater Conjunction between Christ and us was decreed by God for he was appointed of God that he should be the Head of the Body of which we are Members And here it must observed that Socinus did erroneously confine to the Flesh that Conjunction which is sufficient for the laying Punishment upon one for the sins of another because here the Mystical Conjunction hath no less power which appeareth most in the Example of a King and People There was cited above the History of the People of Israel punished for the sin of David Concerning which thing the Ancient Author of Questions and Answers to the Orthodox which are carried about with the Name of Justinus discoursing wisely said thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As a man consists of a Soul and Body so a Kingdom consists of the King and People and as a man having sinned a sin with his hand if he be struck upon the back he that struck him doth no injustice so God doth no injustice in punishing the People for the Faults of their Kings At length Socinus comes to this that he saith That at least this is not found in the Scripture that an Innocent Person was punished for those Faults for which the Guilty Person himself was not punished But this also is not to the purpose For because it is not of it self and universally unjust to grant Impunity to a guilty Person which Socinus confesseth neither is it unjust to punish a man for another man's sins there cannot be injustice in these no not when they are joyned together Yea the Scripture makes manifest that that very thing is not unjust by the Example of Achab who received the impunity of his sins
in the eyes of all men Also there is nothing stronger than those Examples of Justice Zaleucus when he had guarded the City of the Locrenses with very wholsom and profitable Laws when his Son being Condemned for the Crime of Adultery according to the Law appointed by him should have wanted both his Eyes and the whole City in respect to the Father forgave the young man the necessity of the Punishment for sometime he consented not At length being overcome by the Prayers of the People first having plucked out his own Eye and then his Sons he reserved the use of seeing to both So he rendered unto the Law the due measure of Punishment by a wonderful moderation of Justice having divided himself between a merciful Father and a just Law-giver And verily if a man had a free power as of Living in Banishment so in plucking out his own Eye nothing could be found more praise-worthy than that Fact of Zaleucus especially when the precise Obligation of the Law ceased either for his Principality or for the Peoples Consent Therefore Zaleucus erred as almost all Pagans that he claimed a greater power over his own Body than was due But that Fact so much celebrated gives Testimony against that Knowledge that Socinus thinks is imprinted in the minds of men that no man can take upon himself the punishment of another man's Fault That we may conclude this Question this is not enquired Whether it is lawful for any Judge to inflict upon any man any punishment of another man's Crime For the Law of Superiour Judges takes away this power from the Inferiour Neither is this enquired Whether this be lawful to the highest Power among men in any punishment and over any man for sometimes either the Law of God or natural Reason hindereth But this properly is enquired into Whether the Act that is in the power of the Superiour may without consideration of another man's Crime be ordained by that Superiour for the punishment of another man's Crime The Scripture denies this to be unjust which shews that God did this Nature denies because it is not proved to forbid the Consent of Nations openly denies And that the thing may be presented more naked before the Eyes who judges Decimation that was usual in the Roman Legions to be unjust when he that offended and could have been pardoned no less than another is punished not for his own Fault only but for the Fault of all the other Who judgeth it unjust if the highest Power relaxing the Law some man useful to the Common-wealth but deserving Banishment for a Fault is retained in the Common wealth yet another of his own accord obliging himself to Banishment to satisfie the Example Who would judge it unjust if a chief Governour of a Common-wealth denies Preferments to Children of Rebels otherways not unworthy if there are others found as fit for them Verily there is no injustice here for in the first kind of Fact the proper fault of the Person punished in the second the valid Consent of the Party concerned in the third the Liberty of the Governour permitted that to be performed which the Governour useth for punishment In our Fact God hath power to punish Christ being Innocent unto a Temporal Death as Socinus confesseth to wit a Lordly Power Christ also had by Divine Concession yea as being God himself a Power which we have not over his own Life and Body I saith Christ have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Power and Authority to lay down my Life John 10.18 Therefore there is no Injustice in this That God who hath the highest Power for all things that are not of themselves unjust he himself being subject to no Law would use the Torments and Death of Christ to shew a weighty Example against the great Crimes of us all to whom Christ was very nearly joyned by Nature Kingdom Suretiship which how not only justly but also wisely was appointed by the most Wise and most Just God it will appear more in the following Chapter where we shall search into the Cause of this Divine Counsel CHAP. V. Whether there was sufficient Cause that moved God to punish Christ for us and it is shewed that there was Socinus often endeavours to prove that God was not willing that Christ should suffer punishment for us by this Argument because there appears no Cause that God would do so We need not here use the Lawyers Defence who deny that account can be given of all things that were appointed by Ancestors though this Refuge may much more justly be laid open to us than to them because it is not so difficult to men to search into the Causes of Human Will because of the Community of Nature but the Causes of the Divine Will many times through their very sublimeness are hid from us Who knoweth the mind of the Lord who hath been his Counseller Rom. 11.32 Therefore often 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 11.33 his ways are unsearchable It could be added that often the Will of God is sufficient to it self for a Cause for these things being excepted that contain in themselves a certain rectitude and determined to one which God willeth because they are just that is because they agree to his Nature in all other things that he willeth he maketh them just by willing so on whom he will he hath mercy and whom he will he hardneth Rom. 9.18 But it is not necessary that we should fly to those things because God himself hath manifestly enough declared unto us Causes of his own Counsel But it is convenient that we should say this only by way of Preface that Socinus doth not rightly require that such a Cause should be rendered which may prove that God could not do otherways for such a Cause in these things that God doth freely is not requisite But he that will say this Action is free will have Augustine for a Consenter that professeth God wanted not another possible way of delivering us but there was not another more convenient way for curing our Misery But also before Augustine Athanasius said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God could have said a word and so abolished the Curse if he had not come at all but it behoveth to consider that which is profitable to men and not the power of God in all things Therefore that demand of Socinus is so much the more unjust because he himself gives no Causes of the Torments and Death of Christ which draw any necessity with them for Oracles and Miracles could suffice to shew us the way of Holiness and Christ could without Death and Death without Christ for the Afflictions and Death of the Prophets also and Apostles the Life also of Christ could be abundantly sufficient unto us for this use Christ also could after a Life passed innocently here as Enoch or Elias have been translated into Heaven without Death and thence shew his Majesty to the Earth For these are the Causes to which Socinus