especially that which was not due But that which Socinus puts for a thing most certain that this also is required to the signification of that word that a man should take something from himself and should deprive himself of a benefit of his own is not true For not only all those things that are mentioned in many places of the Scripture concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the free Gifts of God as amongst others for example when it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be given to us to believe in Christ and to suffer for Christ. Jesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 freely gave to the blind man his sight When did Christ deprive himself of any benefit when he did so He that for the sake of any man condemns an innocent person is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 freely to give him Acts 25.11 and 16. who yet did not belong to the Condemner Paul exercised the severity of Apostolick Discipline towards the person guilty of Incest not being injured himself neither for any advantage of his own And forgiving this he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he forgave 2 Cor. 2.10 admonishing also the Corinthians to admit the same man unto the priviledge of their former Friendship this also he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 freely to give Ib. 7.10 By these and many other places both of the New Testament and also of other Writers it evidently appears that it is sufficient to the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that something of advantage that was not due comes to the Patient though nothing is taken away from the Agent Moreover we shewed above that a Governour in punishment doth not abdicate any thing proper and private and that is the more evident in this matter because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not only attributed to God but also to Christ Eph. 4.32 but the injury of sin is directed properly against God so that if upon that account God forgiving sins should be said to take away from himself that which is his own yet the same cannot be said of Christ as Mediatour Neither is that more true which Socinus deduceth from that already supposed to wit That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is contrary to any Satisfaction For it is not contrary to that Satisfaction which is both freely admitted when it could have been rejected and unto which he that receives the benefit contributed nothing himself We are in vain solicitous concerning that word condonare because the Holy Spirit caused not any thing to be written in that Language What if yet this word also should appear in Sacred Scripture Yet because in Punishment a Donation properly so called hath no place neither is the Translation of that word unusual nothing could hence be inferred against Satisfaction a thing may be said rightly to be forgiven as also to be pardoned then also when payment is made but such a payment as hath no power to purchase Liberation without an act of the Will For Princes also when they give pardon unto persons guilty of Capital Crimes they use to require of them both some Mulct and a certain publick deprecation of the Fault neither yet are they therefore said the less to forgive Crimes Therefore how much more justly may that word be used here where the required satisfaction proceeds not from us but Liberation comes altogether freely in respect of us though not freely absolutely which the Scripture declares when it says we are justified freely and immediately adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the redemption which is in Christ Jesus Rom. 30.24 Verily seeing the Scripture says not in one place only that we are redeemed and that with a price and that Christ gave himself or his Flesh to deliver us no Equity suffers to overthrow all the force of these by urging the word condonare beyond what the use of the word requires But to that other Argument of Socinus which is drawn from the imitation of God and Christ in freely giving which we are commanded there is no need that any other thing should be answered but what we have already said on the Parable Matth. 13. that the thing is proposed to our imitation not the manner of the thing The thing is the Bounty it self even after sin and the Remission following from it or the Forgiving if so you are pleased to speak the manner is different in God Satisfaction going before in us without it neither is it any wonder because God is a Judge and we private Persons What if a man consider the matter more nicely he will find that all Satisfaction is not removed wholly from that Condonation that is commanded to us but that only which in respect of the Person to wit an Equal not a Superiour exceeds measure For the very Confession of a Fault and Deprecation which Christ forbids not to be required Luke 17.4,5 is so far from disagreeing with Satisfaction that elegant Latin Authors do call it as it were by a peculiar name Satisfacere to satisfie So also Paul useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning the Corinthian when yet the Rebuke of many had went before 2 Cor. 2.6 And we know that in the Ages next the Apostles the peace of the Church as they called it was not given to them that fell but after some publick Acts of Submission which they therefore called Satisfactions The Reason drawn from Liberality leans upon a weak Foundation For as we shewed before that the Vertue which God useth in forgiving of sins is not Liberality but Clemency which Seneca rightly defineth the Meekness of a Superiour towards an Inseriour in appointing punishment Cicero putting the name of a Gender for a Species called this same Clemency Meekness and defined it Justice placed in the moderation of Punishment taking the word Justice in so large a sense that it comprehends Piety and Faith and Friendship Therefore this Clemency belongs to that Vertue which Aristotle in his Ethicks calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Meekness for Clemency is the Meekness of a Ruler But Meekness and Liberality are very much different The Scripture by a somewhat more general name calls this Clemency of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Goodness Rom. 2.4 and 11.22 Tit. 2.4 but never called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Liberality Yea which is more the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Liberality is not applied to God no not in other things that use to be given and received but this Vertue also is rather called the Love of God because it properly belongs to Liberality so to give a thing that it perisheth to the giver But that Socinus with great intemperance of Speech condemns the constant Opinion of the Church of Impiety and Sacriledge because that he himself acknowledgeth a twofold Liberality of God and we only a simple in that thing he doth a great injury to the Truth for our Opinion also acknowledgeth in God a twofold not Liberality for that word is unsutable to
Death of Christ besides the Will of God and Christ Which is manifestly contrary to the saying of Paul If there is righteousness by the Law then Christ died 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in vain Gal. 2.21 where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in vain by the acknowledgment of Socinus signifies without Cause but there should have been added without an Antecedent Cause which is the original and most frequent signification of this word The original of it is from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a Gift that is such a Gift as hath not an Antecedent Cause of Right whence it began to be translated also to other things in which the Antecedent Cause is not found So David Psalm 25.19 speaking of his Enemies says They hated me hinam in vain that is when I had given them no Causes of hatred Which Christ applying to himself John 15.25 says They hated me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without a cause just in the same signification The place of Paul it self of which we are treating suffers not another Cause than an Antecedent to be understood For the Cause which Socinus deviseth to wit That they who mend their lives should be assured of the pardon of their sins this Final Cause appertains unto the Preaching and the Resurrection but not to Death which when Socinus saw here he would have Christ understood by the name of Death and also that Preaching and the Resurrection are included both wrestingly and contrary to the mind of Paul for Paul denying that Christ died for all signifies that there is some peculiar Cause which should belong to the Death of Christ for otherways he could have preached for a certain Cause and for a certain Cause have received a Reward for according to Socinus the Resurrection is only referred hither and not have died Moreover that Paul had a peculiar respect to the Death of Christ that which goes before makes it sufficiently evident who gave himself for me for that Giving every where in the Scripture signifies Death And Paul calling this same thing the Grace of God denies that that is despised or rejected by him and immediately gives a Reason For if righteousness came by the Law Christ then died in vain signifying by the contrary that this is the peculiar Cause why Christ gave himself and died because we by the Law were not just but guilty of punishment therefore our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iniquity is the Antecedent Cause of the Death of Christ The other Efficient Cause is Christ himself and that a willing Cause I lay down my life saith Christ no man taketh it from me but I lay it down of my self John 10.18 Christ gave himself for us for the Church Gal. 2.20 Eph. 5.2 and 5.25 The Cause that moved Christ was his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Love to Mankind This is saith he my Command that ye love one another as I loved you Greater love than this hath no man that a man should lay down his life for his Friends Ye are my Friends John 15.13 In the Faith of the Son of God that loved me and gave himself for me Gal. 2.20 Who loved us and washed us from our sins in his blood Apoc. 1.5 Christ loved us and gave himself for us an Oblation Eph. 5.2 Christ loved the Church and gave himself for her Eph. 5.25 The Matter is both the Torment going before Death and chiefly Death it self Isaiah calleth Torments by a pathetical name haburah a Wound Isai 53.5 And 1 Pet. 2.24 calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stripes Therefore we also see mention made of the Cross where this Argument is handled He reconciled both to God by the Cross Ephes 2.16 Having made peace by the blood of the Cross 1 Col. 12. Neither should only those Corporal pains be understood by the name of Torments but chiefly those very grievous Sufferings of Mind which the Evangelists signifie by the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be sorrowful to be astonished to be heavy in respect of which chiefly Christ cried out that he was forsaken of God The other part of the Matter Death it self is urged in many places I lay down my life John 10.18 He reconciled us by Death Coloss 1.22 Death coming between for the Redemption of Transgressions Hebr. 9.15 This Death in the holy Scriptures is considered chiefly with two qualities as Bloody and as Ignominious That quality of bloody Death is denoted by the word Blood This is the Blood of the New Covenant which is poured forth for many for the remission of sins Matth. 26.28 Luke 22.20 God purchased the Church with his own blood Acts 20.28 God hath appointed Christ for a Propitiation by Faith in his Blood Rom. 3.25 Justified in his Blood Rom. 5.9 We have redemption by his Blood the remission of sins Eph. 1.7 Ye that sometimes were afar off are made near by the Blood of Christ for he is our peace Eph. 2.13 We have redemption by his Blood Col. 1.14 Having made peace by the Blood of the Cross Col. 1.14 Not by the Blood of Bulls or Goats but by his own Blood he entred into the holy place having obtained eternal redemption Hebr. 10.12 Without shedding of Blood there is no remission Hebr. 10.22 Ye are come to the Blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of Abel Hebr. 12.24 According to the purification of the Blood of Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 1.2 The Blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin 1 John 1.7 Christ washed us from our sins in his Blood Apocal. 1.5 But the other quality of an Ignominious Death is signified by the very Name of the Cross for in that very punishment there is great ignominy whence it is said He suffered the Cross having despised the shame Hebr. 1.2 And by the name of Contempt which Isaiah used Isai 53.3 Here by the by it may be observed That not only in the places now alledged and others like them that either only or chiefly treat of the remission of sins there is mention made of Death Cross Blood but that in very many places the Apostles did profess they knew nothing they taught nothing but Christ and him crucified 1 Cor. 1.23 and 2.2 and that therefore the Gospel it self is by them called the Word of the Cross 1 Cor. 1.12 Moreover Christ appointed the Sacred Sacrament of his Supper not peculiarly for a Commemoration of his Life or Resurrection but of his Death and the shedding of his Blood 1 Cor. 11.26 Which things having been so often repeated do manifestly shew that some proper and peculiar Effect should be attributed unto this Death and Blood which Socinus cannot do For the whole Life of Christ gave an Example of Holiness more than his Death it self which was compleated in a short time But the Confirmation of that Promise of Celestial Life consists properly in the Resurrection of Christ unto which Death is only as a way
which ascribe the remission of sins to the Blood of Christ that place should be joyned which we just now cited Being justified in his Blood Rom. 5.9 Also those that attribute the washing away of sins to Blood or Death Te Blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin 1 John 1.7 For the purging of the Blood of Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 1.2 Christ washed us from our sins in his Blood Apoc. 1.5 For though to wash away to cleanse and the like words may signifie either to cause that sins may not be committed in time to come or that being committed they may not appear yet the other Interpretation is more agreeable to the Phrase of Scripture So to abolish sins is expounded not to remember sins Isaiah 43.24 and to cleanse from Iniquity is shewed to be the same thing with forgiveing Jer. 33.8 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that sins may be blotted out hath evidently the same sense Acts 3.19 And these are taken wholly for the same thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to forgive sins and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to cleanse from all inquity 1 John 1.9 and elsewhere these are put as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 synonimous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to be cleansed and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that pardon may be Hebr. 9.22 Wherfore also Socinus is forced to confess that in John's Apocal. cap. 1. vers 5. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to cleanse is attributed to Blood deliverance from punishment is more rightly understood than the cleansing of the Soul To these may be joyned that of Isaiah just now cited The chastisement of our peace was upon him that is his punishment procures us peace with God concerning which peace the Angels speak Luke 2.14 And that of the same Isaiah By his stripes we are cured that is by his punishment we have freedom from punishment By these Testimonies therefore it is manifest that the impunity of our sins is the End of the Death of Christ and also an Effect of the same Death Socinus who is not willing to acknowledge this Connexion of Death with the Remission of sins performed unto us brings others wonderfully different from the words and scope of the Scripture But all these that he hath here and there scattered in his Book seem to be reducible to these four Heads The first is That Christ when he preached that the remission of sins lyes open to the Penitent did not refuse Death to give testimony to that Preaching But this sense makes the Death of Christ an Effect of remission more than remission of Death For the Existence of a thing is the cause of a Testimony not contrariways But the Scrripture says that we obtain remission by Blood Ephes 1.7 Coloss 1.14 And that Blood blots out our sins 1 John 1.7 Also that the shedding of Blood is a thing Antecedent without which there is no Remission Hebr. 9.22 Moreover if this Interpretation were true the Martyrs also might be said to have shed their Blood for the remission of sins and that we obtain remission by that Blood when yet the Scripture gives this priviledge to Christ only Moreover the Cause of the Killing of Christ in respect of men was not properly the preaching of Repentance and Remission of Sins but that he called God his Father making himself equal to God John 5.18 and consequently that he did profess himself to be God For which cause his Death gave properly a Testimony to this Profession not to the preaching of Pardon And also a Testimony concerning the Doctrine was given no less but more by the Miracles than by the Death of Christ But no where is this Effect attributed unto Miracles that by them we obtain Remission of sins The second thing that Socinus brings is That Christ by his Death obtained the power of giving Remission But Socinus himself overturns this Position who sheweth that Christ living on Earth had and exercised this Power But that which is cannot be any more made mine And lest any man should so mistake which Socinus doth more hint at than affirm as if this Power of Christ had only respect to Punishments Temporal and of this Life it must be observed That when Christ is said to have had power upon earth to forgive sins the Effect is not restrained by that Addition on Earth but the place of the Action is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 emphatically expressed For it is also said to the Apostles Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth where though to loose is to declare to be loosed yet that Expression on the Earth signifies only the place of the Action for it follows they shall be loosed in Heaven For that is it which Christ signified that that Power though so eminent and Celestial belonged to him living on the Earth Neither do the People wonder at any other thing but that so great power was given to men that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by enallagy to one of the number of men Christ himself also first forgives the sins of the man that had the Palsy before he takes away the Palsy which was a Temporal Punishment and manifestly distinguishing both Powers he proves the one by the other to wit the invisible by the visible Then Christ did not at length obtain the power to forgive sins by his Death and consequently those sayings which ascribe the Effect of the remission of sins to his Death cannot be drawn to this sense Moreover the Scripture explains the way of the Connexion between Death and Remission by the word Propitiation and other such like words which cannot be applied to the power of giving Pardon The third thing is That in the Death of Christ an Example of Patience and Obedience is proposed to us But this Example in some respect pertains to Sanctification and that which follows it Eternal Glory but not any ways to the remission of sins for Christ by his Patience and Obedience obtained no pardon to himself as having no sin Wherefore when Christ is proposed for Imitation that we keeping that way which he went may come to the same Mark nothing would be more unseasonable than to make any mention of remission of sins And the Phrases of Scripture Blood cleanseth us By his Blood we have Remission do utterly reject this sense The fourth thing remains which most pleased Socinus So that in very many places he inculcates this as the support of his Cause and it is this That the Death of Christ perswades us to that very thing that is required for the obtaining remission of sins to wit Faith or as Socinus explains himself the hope of obtaining Eternal Life But verily what is more disagreeable unto truth than that so bloody a death of a most innocent man doth of it self conduce unto this that it may perswade us that great Joys are prepared by God for us living holily Wherefore Socinus seeing the absurdity of this Invention saith That the Death of Christ doth not this but his Resurrection
A DEFENCE OF THE Catholick Faith Concerning the Satisfaction of Christ Written originally By the Learned HVGO GROTIVS And now Translated by W. H. A Work very necessary in these Times for the preventing of the Growth of Socinianism LONDON Printed for Thomas Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns at the lower end of Cheapside near Mercers Chappel and Jonathan Robinson at the Golden Lyon in St. Paul's Church-yard 1692. TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL Sir CHARLES WOOSELEY Knight and Baronet Much Honoured Sir THE Translation of this worthy Labour of the great and famous Grotius may boldly Claim the Honour of being Dedicated to your Patronage for many Causes The Excellency of this Subject being a Defence of one of the most Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith requires a Patron of Worth and Excellency and such a one I may speak it without flattery is your self who are eminent for Learning and exemplary for Piety Your Works that are published in the World which are both greatly approved for their Piety and justly admired for their Profundity are an invincible Argument how Greatness and Goodness are joyned together in you by a a lovely Union But there is also a peculiar Encouragement to Dedicate this Book to you because you were the first that encouraged the Translation and Publication of this Work And verily if the seasonableness of a thing adds to its beauty as Solomon hath testified this Work hath found a fit time for its Impression For at this time that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 damnable Heresie or Heresie of Destruction as the word in the Original signifies that Root of Bitterness the hellish Error of wretched and blasphemous Socinus who trampled under his Feet the Blood of Jesus the Mediatour of the New Covenant is now beginning to spread it self in England and to infect whole Houses with a worse and more dangerous than any Egyptian Plague If the Son of Croesus who had been dumb all his days before was so wonderfully affected with the danger his Father's Life was in that the bands of his Tongue through the vehemency of Natural Affection were dissolved so that he that never spake before suddainly cried out Kill not my Father King Croesus how much more zealously may I that have been a great while lurking in Darkness as those that have been long dead now appear in the Light against those Enemies of my Redeemer who by their horrid Blasphemies are not ashamed to spit in the Face of my Lord Jesus with greater Impudence than ever did the Jews at his Crucifixion I am very glad that my blessed Redeemer hath honoured me to be Instrumental for the Confutation of that filthy Error of Socinianism which is as ready a way to Hell as ever the Devil of Hell found out since he was a Devil Methinks the very mention of the name of Socinus may make the heart of a gracious Christian to rise with holy Indignation and his hair to stand with amazement that such a blasphemous Wretch could be found upon the Earth How did this Blasphemer strive to vilifie the Blood of Christ Jesus as if thereby our Sins had not been expiated as if thereby no Satisfaction had been made to the Justice of the holy God as if the Death and Sufferings of this Lamb of God had not taken away the sins of the World and had been no Propitiation for our sins Those wicked Blasphemies are throughly Confuted both by invincible Arguments of sound Reason and evident Testimonies of Scripture in this Learned Work of Grotius God hath exhorted all Christians by the holy Apostle Jude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to contend vehemently or to contend as men that are striving for the mastery as the Original Word signifies for the Faith that was once delivered to the Saints therefore I may justly hope that this Work will be acceptable to all good Christians into whose hands it shall come And that your self as you were the first Encourager of its Publication will now also willingly Patronize its being published Worthy Sir I recommend you to the Grace of the Lord Jesus and I beg of God that he may prolong your Life to the glory of his Name and after you have passed the time of your Mortality that an Entrance may be ministred to you abundantly into the Everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ I am Your much obliged Servant W. H. A DEFENCE OF THE Catholick Faith Concerning the Satisfaction of Christ AGAINST FAVSTVS SOCINVS Written by Hugo Grotius CHAP. I. The State of the Controversy is shewed and the true Opinion is Explained in the Words of Scripture BEfore we come to this Dispute we will first set down that Opinion which being taken out of Sacred Writings the Church of Christ hath hitherto defended with an unwavering Faith that afterwards it may evidently appear what is the difference between this and the Opinion of Socinus Therefore we shall explain the same Opinion bringing some Testimonies of Scripture which because Socinus wrested to another Sense by the way the true Interpretation of them shall be vindicated Therefore the Catholick Opinion is thus God being moved by his own Goodness to be signally beneficial unto us but our sins standing in the way which deserved Punishment he appointed that Christ being willing of his own free Love towards men should suffer punishment for our sins by enduring very grievous Torments and a bloody and ignomious Death that without prejudice to the demonstration of the Divine Righteousness we should by Faith Interposing be delivered from the punishment of Eternal Death The first Efficient Cause of the Thing whereof we treat is God God gave his only begotten Son that he that believeth in him should not perish John 3.16 God spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all Rom. 8.32 God laid upon Christ the sins of us all Isai 53.6 God made Christ sin 2 Cor. 5.21 The former Cause that moved God is Mercy or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Love to Mankind So God loved the World that he gave his Son John 3.16 God commends his Love to us that when we were yet sinners Christ died for us Rom. 5.10 The other Cause which moved God is our Sins deserving Punishment Christ was delivered for our sins Rom. 4.25 Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is with an Accusative which amongst the Authors of the Greek Tongue Sacred and Profane is a very usual sign of an impulsive Cause As when it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For these things the wrath of God comes upon the Children of Disobedience Eph. 5.6 And as oft as that Phrase propter peccata for Sins is joined to Sufferings it admits no sense different from an impulsive Cause I will punish you seven times for your sins Levit. 26.28 For those Abominations the Lord God casts them out from your sight Deut. 18.12 and in several other places of Scripture neither is it any where other ways And that other Phrase pro peccatis for
sins hath the same force as oft as it is join'd with Sufferings Hitherto belong those Christ died 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for our sins 1 Cor. 15.3 Christ suffered once 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for sins 1 Pet. 3.18 Christ gave himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for our sins Gal. 1.4 Christ offered a Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for sins Hebr. 10.12 And yet in these places Socinus would have the final Cause and not the impulsive to be denoted Yea which is more he adds That by the word pro for and the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for there was never an impulsive Cause declared but always a final Many places do evince that this latter on which Socinus relies is not true For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 use to signifie no less the impulsive Cause than the final Cause The Gentiles are said to praise God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Mercy Rom. 15.9 that thanks may be given on our behalf 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faith Paul 2 Cor. 1.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for you Eph. 1.16 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 5.20 We pray 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Christ's sake 2 Cor. 5.21 Great is my glorying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on your behalf 2. Cor. 7.4 and 9.2 and 12.5 straits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Christ 2 Cor. 12.10 I give thanks to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for you 1 Cor. 1.4 God will rebuke the wicked 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all their ungodly Deeds Jude 15. So also the Latines say Pro beneficiis gratias agere aut reddere to give or render thanks for benefits as Cicero doth very often The same said Vlcisei pro injuriis To revenge for Injuries Pro magnitudine sceleris poenas persolvere To suffer punishment for the greatness of the Crime Supplicia pro maleficiis metuere To fear punishments for evil Deeds As Plautus Castigare pro commerita noxia To chastise for a deserving Crime And Terentius Pro dictis factis ulcisci To take vengeance for Words and Deeds In all these places pro for signifies not the final Cause but the impulsive So also when Christ is said pro peccatis passus aut mortuus to have suffered or died for sins the Matter it self suffers not the final Cause to be understood as Socinus would have it for because there is a twofold End 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The End to whom and the End for whom As the End to whom the Medicine is made is the diseas'd Man the End for the sake whereof is Health and neither of them agree to sin For whether you say with Socinus that it is the end of Christ's Death that we should be drawn back or removed from our sins or whether also that we may obtain the remission of sins that we may omit that this End according to his opinion could not be attributed unto Death but very remotely neither of them can be expressed by these words propter peccata for sins or pro peccatis for sins for the End to whom will be Man but the End for what is not for sins but for that which is most contrary to sins the destruction or remission of sins Who ever said a Drug or Medicine was taken for Death that is to prevent Death But it is therefore said to be taken for the Disease because the Disease drives us thitherto It follows therefore that the impulsive Cause should be understood here Wherefore when also the Particle Min amongst the Hebrews denoted the Antecedent or impulsive Cause as Psal 38.9 and elsewhere often that place of Isai 53.5 cannot be translated better and more agreeably to other Scriptures than Dolore afficitur ob defectiones nostras atteritur ob iniquitates nostras he is afflicted for our faults he is bruised for our iniquities And that Romans 6.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 died unto sin what other thing can it signifie but Mortuus est ob peccatum he died for sin But the impulsive Cause though it may be manifold yet in this place it must be taken for meritorious for the Discourse is of Punishment as we shall presently shew Now sins are the cause of punishment no otherways than by way of merit Neither can it be shewed that these words ob peccata for sins or propter peccata for sins are any otherways taken in the holy Scriptures than in this signification of Merit especially when they are joined with Sufferings That place doth not prove the contrary 1 Kings 14.16 God will deliver Israel for the sins of Jeroboam for the sins of Jeroboam in that place signifie the kind it self of the sin to wit Idolatry unto which Jeroboam stirred up the People for the following words make that evident quibus peccavit quibus peccare fecit Israelem which he sinned and which he made Israel to sin For this is the truer Interpretation than that brought by Socinus Qui peccavit qui peccare fecit Israelem Who sinned and who made Israel to sin Therefore those sins whereof Jeroboam was the Author and the People the Followers deserved that Punishment of being delivered up Though I may also mention that Sacred Writings do testify that the followers of other mens sins are justly punished not only for their own but also for other mens sins which is so evident that Socinus himself is compelled to confess that a man may be punished for other mens sins if he is partaker of the Crime But that place of Psalm 39.12 which Socinus citeth makes evidently against him In increpationibus propter iniquitatem corripuisti aliquem liquefieri fecisti ut tineam desiderium ejus With rebukes thou hast corrected man for iniquity and hast made his beauty to consume like a Moth that is If thou would'st punish a man as much as his sin deserves verily that man's life would not be worth the enjoying of it for by this Argument he endeavours to move God to pity As elsewhere If thou mark iniquities that is if thou strictly requirest punishment for them who shall stand or endure Psal 130.3 Therefore that remains unshaken that the Phrase ob peccata for sins doth denote the Impulsive Cause and indeed the Meritorious for that Socinus somewhere seeks this way of escape that he says It is sufficient for the truth of this Phrase that any kind of occasion be signified First That is contrary to his Position in which he had said that the word pro for was never referred to an Impulsive Cause but always to a Final Cause because an Occasion is no way a Final Cause but if it deserves to be called a Cause it ought to be referred to an Impulsive Moreover both the Custom of Scripture and Usual Speech doth clearly confute such an Exposition of the words pro peccatis for sins and ob peccata for sins Hence it may be understood how erroneously Socinus denies That there may be found an Antecedent Cause of the
and those things that followed his Resurrection But that it was requisite Death should go before But if the Scripture had signified so it would have mentioned perpetually the Resurrection or rather the Exaltation unto Heaven and sitting at the right hand of God where forgiveness of sins is discoursed of not Death and Blood at least not so often and in words so significant For that so frequent and usual joyning of Blood with Remission signifies some Effect not common but proper not far remote but near hand For what By-ways are these The Remission of sins is granted unto none but them that live holily for so speaks Socinus Faith and a certain hope of reward makes for holiness of Life This Faith is begotten by the Example of Christ raised from the Dead and glorified for holiness of Life as Socinus would have it Death went before that raising up therefore rightly and fitly is Remission said to be obtained by the Death of Christ Is not this it really which he finds fault with in others Alas That the Pine-tree was cut in the Pelian Wood for that is brought for a cause which is not some near thing or at least not far distant but that which is most remote from the Effect What if this had been in one place of Scripture it would perhaps have been less wonderful But what man that is in his right wits can believe that the Scripture speaks so often so obscurely and so coldly That Saying of Paul is very unlike Christ was raised from the dead for our justification Rom. 4.25 Which that it may be explained there is no need to fetch so long a compass of Socinus For the Resurrection of Christ begets in us Faith and Reliance on God and Christ to which Faith is promised Remission of sins And this Series is manifestly shewed Acts 13.33,38 Rom. 1.4 and 10.9 for Death is so far from being fit to beget Faith that on the contrary it most affrighteth men from that Faith And therefore in preaching the Gospel the Apostles do always oppose the Resurrection to the Ignominy of the Cross and the Misery of Death But that by Death and the shedding of Blood which the Scripture frequently expresseth in this Argument which is not properly a Cause of the Resurrection but only an Antecedent he would have the Resurrection it self to be expressed What is it else but to name Night that thereby Day may be understood Moreover if Death did not belong to the Remission of sins except because of the Resurrection that followed how could it have happened that Remission of sins was very seldom referred to the Resurrection but to Death in innumerable places Now add this also that Paul doth attribute to Death it self apart that is as it is abstracted from the Resurrection and Glory of Christ the Effect of Redemption purchased For he says If when we were Enemies we were reconciled to God by the Death of his Son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his Life Rom. 5.10 Death is opposed unto a glorious Life and as Reconciliation is ascribed distinctly unto that so is Preservation unto this Reconciliation is obtained for Enemies by Death as a Sacerdotal Act being reconciled they are kept by his Kingly Power unto which Resurrection made access So also elsewhere the same Apostle puts Reconciliation before Preaching which begets Faith God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself not imputing their sins unto them and did put in us the Word of Reconciliation therefore we are Ambassadours for Christ and as if God were requesting by us we beseech you in Christ's stead be ye reconciled unto God 2 Cor. 5.19,20 Here a twofold Reconciliation is put the former which is declared by the Word the other that is made by the Word that is the Reconciliation of Impetration this of Application that is before the Word this is after the Word We treat of that former and do justly deny that it can be referred to the Ingeneration of Faith which comes by the Word That also may be added John 3.16 where Christ is said to be given to wit unto death that they who believe may not perish Therefore it is profitable for another thing than that they may believe And verily if you please to attend the same thing is not obscurely shewed in that very place of Paul which is by Socinus cited for to confirm his own Opinions to wit that of which we discoursed who was delivered to wit unto death for our sins and rose again for our justification Because Sins are an evil thing and Justification a good thing it appears that the word propter for is not taken alike in both Members and it is convenient that the final Cause should be expressed in the latter Member if I am not mistaken we sufficiently shewed above that in the former the Impulsive Cause is signified Just as if I say that a Medicine is taken for a Disease and for Health Therefore Justification is the end proposed unto the Resurrection to wit by the Ingeneration of Faith by the Confession of Socinus Though verily I know not whether the Resurrection in this place is looked upon as an Argument to perswade Faith or whether it rather signifies the whole glorious state of Christ who hath this end proposed to himself amongst others that the Preachers of the Gospel may be sent and that their Endeavour may be promoted with a very plentiful Influence of the Spirit and Faith being made after that manner men may obtain the Remission of sins for so said Christ himself All Power is given to me in Heaven and in Earth Therefore go ye and teach all Nations Behold I am with you always to the end of the World Matth. 28.18,19,20 Before as John saith the Spirit was not to wit poured forth with that efficacy and abundance the cause is added because Jesus was not yet exalted to Glory John 7.39 Paul also said of Christ When he had ascended on high he led Captivity captive and gave gifts to men He gave some Apostles others Prophets and others Evangelists and others Pastors and Teachers to the perfecting of the Saints Ephes 4.8,12 But whether of these two ways you take it it appears that some peculiar and is ascribed to the Resurrection inasmuch as it is distinguished from Death On the other side it is ascribed unto Death apart or deliverance unto Death that it happened for sins but that very thing is no where ascribed unto the Resurrection and in this place it is not obscurely taken from the same But the Death of Christ in this Affair is both to be separated from the Resurrection and from the Ingeneration of Faith and in these places which deduce the Remission of sins from the Resurrection of Christ a certain distinct Effect is to be understood which the very simplicity of the Words import agreeing with other words of Scripture which say That Christ for our sins died a bloody death and that the
what Common-wealth or under what Governor any man suffers the punishment of a Crime for he shall be equally delivered amongst all men which would not be so if there were a certain Creditor as of other things so also of punishment For payment made to him only not to others also except by his Command would free the Debtor The contrary for the most part appears in Reward for it is rightly said a Reward is owing to him but the certain person that owes it if you lay aside the Positive Law doth not appear For if any man say There is a certain Common-wealth that owes a Reward because it received a Benefit that man will not distinguish Favour from Reward Experience it self teacheth that those men also are honoured with Rewards by Governours who have profitted not their own Common-wealth in particular but Mankind as Inventers of things profitable for the common good yea also we see Rewards given to Counsels nobly undertaken though success hath been wanting and thereby no profit redounded unto any man Therefore neither is there here any relation between definite persons such as in that kind of owing which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of mutual Exchanges But if any man desires something in punishment to be given him that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 analogical to a Creditor perhaps it will not be said amiss that the order of things and the publick good is in the place of a Creditor the dispensation of which Order and Good is permitted to the Government for this seems to be signified by that Proverbial Speech It is for the Publick Good that Crimes should be punished And hence it comes to pass that when in other Causes the Judge exerciseth Judgment between two Parties oftentimes in the Cases of Crimes the accused Person appears the Accuser appears not because Order it self or the Publick Good is as it were in the place of an Accuser which the Scripture also seems to intimate when it saith That sin crieth against the sinner And where a man acts for punishment he acts either as any man as in those places where Accusations lye open to all men promiscuously or as appointed for this thing by the Law which happens in those places which have Accusers publickly constituted Both of which is a certain token that by nature and really there is not here any definite Adversary and as it were a Requirer of Punishment Another Question follows What is the force of that word when any Governor is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to forgive or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pardon sins or which is the same the punishment For many being deceived by this word have thought that here some Property or Debt goes before in which they are much deceived For the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies to remove from a man's self and so it is taken Matth. 4.20 and elsewhere often whence the Metaphor being taken it signifies both to forsake and let go and permit but most frequently to have no regard of a thing which the Latines signifie by a like Expression Missum aliquid facere therefore the Greek Scholiasts expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to neglect So it appears this word is taken Matth. 15.14 18.12 23.23 Mark 1.8 So also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is peccata missa facere to let sins pass because elsewhere the Scripture further following this Translation calls it peccata in mare projicere to cast sins into the Sea Mich. 7.19 So also the Latin Poets say that those things which they signifie are put out of care Ventis tradi in mare raptanda are delivered to the Winds to be violently carried into the Sea Wherefore as these things are opposed missum aliquid facere to let a thing pass and retinere to retain it so are opposed to one another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore missa facere peccata to let sins pass as also delere peccata to abolish sins and tegere to cover them is the same thing that elsewhere is more plainly expressed not to remember Jer. 31.34 But not to remember as the Latin ignoscere is not to be willing to punish Wherefore as in these words not to remember to cover to abolish not to be willing to retain there is not the signification of Lordly Right or Debt so neither in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But because that word that signifies to let pass is general therefore it is also applied to those things that we have in our Property and to Names and other things by the like right So also the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belongs to all kinds of gratifying Christ unto the blind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gave sight Luke 7.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was given to you to suffer for Christ Phil. 1.29 So also the Judge that for the sake of another Condemns or Absolves a man is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give him to another man Acts 3.14 25.11 and 16. All which signifie that no Property or Debt is necessarily signified by that word Concerning the Latin words donandi condonandi remittendi of giving forgiving pardoning it is less necessary that we should be solicitous because they are not extant in Holy Scripture and yet it is easie to give an account of them for that hath happened unto those words that hath happened unto many other yea almost all that they are brought from like things to like things Donare to give properly is to make that freely another mans which was his own by Property Punishment therefore is not properly given for what is given exists before and afterwards remains Punishment was neither before it was given and by giving it is made not to be But herein is the similitude that as the Giver hath right in the thing so hath the Governor in punishment but not the same right or equally free For the right of Property as we said before is for the sake of the Owner but the right of Punishment for the sake of the Common Good the dispensation whereof as of other common things belongs to the Governour The second Agreement is in this that both in Donation the right of the Giver and in granting freedom from Punishment the right that was the Governor's to punish is taken away The third is That both Donation and Granting of freedom from Punishment proceeds from the same Fountain of Bounty and profits another Neither only here but also elsewhere often the word giving is translated to those things in which Lordly Power hath no place So a man is said donari to be gifted by a Magistrate Civitate with the Priviledges of the City vacatione with vacation honore with honour proemio with Reward So Seneca said moram donare to give delay for auferre moram to take away delay for the sake of a man So we are said to give our time to others But remittere signifies originally as
this matter and unusual to Scripture but Bounty and that much greater than that lately started up Opinion of Socinus The former Bounty is that God seeing he was stirred up with great hatred against sin and could have as well been utterly unwilling to spare us as he was utterly unwilling to spare the Angels that finned yet that he might spare us he did not only admit such a payment as he was not obliged to admit but he also himself of his own accord found it out Verily this benefit is much greater and much more glorious than if God judging it a matter of no value whether some Example were made or not had suffered our sins to go unpunished as Socinus would have Therefore the Glemency of God is not overthrown by the payment of punishment because to admit such payment and much more to invent it proceeded from meer Clemency The other Bounty is that he delivered up to death his own Son being most dear unto him the Image of himself and if it is lawful so to speak his other self not only that he might give a Testimony to the Truth of the Doctrine and so might attain unto the Resurrection within which Socinus contained himself but chiefly that he might perform that payment or satisfaction by suffering the punishment of our sins in which part Socinus ought to confess that he would owe much less to Christ than we owe yea this evidenceth that a greater love of God is declared by us because it is just that Benefits should be esteemed not only for the Expence but chiefly for the Advantage that by the Expence redounds unto the person on whom the Benefit is bestowed But we besides the Advantages which together with us Socinus confesseth acknowledge a chief one which he denies Neither say we That God bestowed his Son that God himself might receive his own and so make God sordid with which Socinus upbraids us but we say God therefore did it that he might openly declare the merit of sin and his own hatred against our sins and also that he might consult the order of things and his own Law as much as be could in sparing us Neither is that less unjust and that I may use his own word cruel that he sats we make God cruel For that end of the Satisfaction being added makes the Sufferings of Christ no heavier which Socinus is compelled to confess that they were laid upon him by God without any cruelty yea how many more ends there are so much farther is the appearance of Cruelty removed for he is a cruel person that without cause or for a light cause tormenteth any one Moreover this end of Satisfaction or bearing Punishment coheres with the Death of Christ much more evidently and with a much surer connexion than those ends that Socinus acknowledgeth for Miracles could give Testimony to the Doctrine enougn and abundantly Also Celestial Glory could have been conferred upon Christ without the intervening of Death but Death such a Death especially is fitted properly for suffering Punishments and punishment for procuring deliverance But though we hitherto shewed that satisfaction was made to God by the punishment of Christ yet we desire not to deny that the force of satisfaction is in the very action of Christ For oftimes an acceptable action useth to be admitted instead of a punishment A benefit coming after saith Seneca suffereth not an injury to appear Lib. 6. cap. 5. In which place he sheweth that to render is to give a thing for a thing and that by payment the same thing is not paid but so much But though God that needeth nothing cannot receive a Benefit yet his great Goodness taketh any Dutifulness for a Benefit So Achab prevented a Temporal punishment by calling humbly upon God Neither doth only a mans own action profit him for freedom from punishment but also another man's with whom he is joyned So punishment was forgiven to the Posterity of David for the sake of David himself 2. Kings 8.19 not only for the Promises made to David but also because the actions of David pleased God judging graciously of them 1 Kings 11.13 and 20.6 So Aelianus tells That Aeschylus was delivered from punishment because his Brother Amyntas had acted valiantly for bis Country So amongst the Romans when Titus Quintius was accused the Memory of his Father profitted him Livius concerning Appius He commemorated the Merits of his Forefather towards the Common-wealth that he might deprecate punishment Death was forgiven to Plautius Lateranus for the eminent Merit of his Uncle And in the general Sallustius said If they offended their ancient Nobility the valiant Acts of their Ancestors are present for a Safeguard unto them Cicero It will behove him who shall require that he may be pardoned to produce good Deeds of his Predecessors if any are known Quintilian The Merits of Progenitors plead for a person in danger And as Works temporally good avail for a temporal impunity so the Work of Christ being perfectly and spiritually good availed for deliverance from eternal punishment Unto which that hath reference By the obedience of one man many are made righteous that is they are justified they are esteemed as innocent Rom. 5.19 and that other for his Name to wit the Name of Christ and there was no mention of God before as Socinus confesseth And moreover the like Sentence proveth this same thing Acts 10.43 Our sins are forgiven to us 1 John 2.13 For it is certain that by this phrase for the name of a man the impulsive cause is signified Neither can Socinus prove the contrary by any place of Scripture But what we said of Satisfaction that it is first given to the punishment and afterward to the obedient action if self the same should be understood concerning the appeasing God concerning our Redemption and concerning Expiation for the explaining whereof we are now preparing CHAP. VII Concerning Propitiation and Reconciliation made by the Death of Christ SOcinus himself took care that no man might mistake this present Disputation as if it were concerning a word only for he professeth in many places That be opposeth not the naked word of Satisfaction but the thing it self signified by the word Therefore Christ reconciled God unto us by his blood Christ delivered us out of the hands of Divine Justice by giving thereunto his own blood the price of our Redemption Christ made amends for our wicked works by his own obedience Christ worthily deserved that God should bestow upon us the remission of sins Christ pacified the Anger of God by the loss of his life Socinus no less disallows all these than the word Satisfaction it self and yet if this Disputation were concerning the word the Church cannot be justly defrauded of the liberty of interpreting Scriptures In which this also is comprehended to translate very aptly into other Languages those things that either the Prophets spake in Hebrew words or the Apostles in Greek words which savoured many times
of a Hebraism or Syrianism or to epitomize in a perspicuous compend of words those things which belonged to the same Matter the Scripture hath delivered in several places So that which the Scripture said That Christ was delivered to death for sins and to have suffered sins that is the punishment of sins and that his blood was shed for the remission of sins is expressed in elegant Latine and significantly by the word satisfaciendi of satisfying for that word in Law or common use signifies the exhibition of a Fact or Thing from which Deliverance followeth not ipso facto but an Act of the Will being joyned And it useth to be taken in this sense not only in pecuniary Debts but also in Crimes which Languages that are derived of the Roman Language with depravation call contentare to content But that it may appear that Expressions of the same value yea those very Expressions that Socinus rejects are found in Sacred Scripture we shall add some other Testimonâ—…s unto those that were drawn out of the Sacred Book above in the first Explication of this Sentence and we shall refer them to four Classes The first Class shall be of those Expressions that signifie the turning away of Anger The other of those that declare Deliverance made by Redemption or the paying of a price The third of those that signifie Subrogation The fourth of those that ascribe unto the Death of Christ the vertue of an Expiatory Sacrifice That we may enter upon the first Class it is very well known that to turn away the wrath of a man is called in the Greek Language 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the Latine placare pacare conciliare reconciliare also propitiare to appease to pacify to reconcile to propitiate Both the act it self and also that by which the act is properly performed is called by the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by the Latines placamen In God Anger as we said above is called by anthropopathy as it were the affection of punishing which the Apostle saith is revealed from heaven upon all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men that detain the Truth in unrighteousness that is that go against the known Commands of Christ But no man is excepted because we are all by nature the sons of wrath that is liable to the anger of God This anger abides upon some Joh. 3.26 and it is turned from them upon whom it abides not Christ by his Death attains this Aversion and therefore it is very rightly called Propitiation So John the Apostle calls him twice when he says If any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the Righteous and he is a Propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but for the sins of all the world Epist 1. cap. 2. vers 2. Also in this is love not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his son to be a Propitiation for our sins cap. 4. vers 10. with which place that of Paul must be compared God commendeth his love that when we were yet sinners Christ died for us Rom. 5.8 for both Paul and John prove by the same Argument that we did not first love but were beloved of God and that which Paul calls he died John calls he was made a Propitiation Moreover that place of Paul must be added We are justified freely by the Redemption in Christ Jesus whom God hath set forth to be a Propitiation by Faith in his Blood Therefore Christ was made a Propitiation in his own blood which what is it else but that very thing that Socinus denies That God was reconciled in Christ for that he interprets in John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Expiation and by the word Expiation understands the destruction of sin he doth that for no cause and guarded by no example 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all Greek Writers Poets Historians and others is to propitiate and useth to be construed with an Accusative signifying the person whose anger is turned away neither is it otherways taken in the Septuagint and Luke 18.13 In one place only which is Hebr. 2.17 Christ is said to be appointed a Chief Priest to propitiate the sins of the people where there is an Enallagy coming from the Hebraism to propitiate the sins when it should have been said according to custom to propitiate God for the sins of the people Therefore he there signifies Expiation but that which is made by Reconciliation Otherways this use of the word should have nothing common with the nature of the word and the perpetual signification of the same Wherefore that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to propitiate and the word thence derived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propitiation cannot signifie such an Expiation as Socinus deviseth that is the destruction of sin which is performed without atonement But Socinus interpreteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned by Paul that in which God sheweth himself appeased We deny not that this signification may agree to the word and for some such reason the covering of the Ark is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Writer to the Hebrews But because words of that Termination signifie properly a certain effective Vertue and improperly a declarative no reason suffereth us here to depart from property for it is evident that Christ is so called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Paul as he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by John But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verily signifies atonement not the testimony of atonement wherefore Scripture interpreting Scripture the word also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be expounded of Christ actively not declaratively Moreover the word blood being joyned with it shews the same to which the virtue of reconciling is attributed because without shedding blood there is no remission These are well known Sanguine placastis ve'ntos virgine coesa Ye pacifi'd the Winds with blood and a Virgin slain and the like in Poets concerning which there will afterwards be place to discourse more accurately The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is like the word appeasing to procure favour and reconcile which Paul useth in this very Argument Rom. 5.10 and 11.292 Cor. 5.18 and Eph. 2.16 and Col. 1.10 Socinus opposeth That it is written that God was not reconciled to us but we to God and that upon that account because God was not angry at us but we were turned away from God For the word reconciling as also the word appeasing promiscuously assigns sometimes the Dative sometimes the Accusative to either party both the party that is angry and also the party that is not angry at all or less angry Therefore it hath the same signification that we are reconciled to God and God to us Sophacles in Ajax 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But he goes being turned to the best Opinion That he may be reconciled to the Gods from his anger Where the Quire expresseth that which Ajax had said
before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I go to washings and the brinks of the shore that having cleansed my faults I may escape the heavy wrath of the Goddess We see here manifestly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be reconciled to the Gods is the same with escaping their anger And verily he that diligently hath lookt into those places just now cited cannot deny that they speak of this Reconciliation that is the turning away of the wrath of God or verily of this also For Rom. 5. Paul after his own manner expressing twice the same thing that which he had said before that Christ died for the wicked and sinners vers 6. and 8. presently he expresseth the same in these words that when we were Enemies we were reconciled unto God by the death of his Son vers 10. And it appears by the opposite Member that this benefit is before Conversion it self If these things saith he are so much more now being justified by him we shall be saved from wrath verse 9. also much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life The Apostolick Argumentation proceeds à majori If God was so good towards us before we were converted what will he be to us being converted Here the word Reconciliation in the formed Member cannot signifie Conversion for the Apostle observes some singular thing in Christ but to convert sinners is not such a thing for they are not converted at any time but being sinners But it is a rare and altogether singular thing to dye for sinners and to reconcile sinners by death seeing that there have been always very few who would dye for their Friends being good men vers 7. Then Conversion is more aptly ascribed unto the glorious Life of Christ than his Death but this Reconciliation is attributed to Death distinguished and discriminated from a glorious Life as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 opposite signification of the word shews Moreover by the latter benefit it is given to be understood what the former is The latter that comes to the converted is to have peace with God verse 1. to be saved from wrath vers 9. and 10. The Apostle calls this same to receive reconciliation verse 11. What other thing is it here to receive reconciliation but to receive remission of sins as the Scripture speaks Acts 10.43 and 26.18 but to receive Conversion is an unknown kind of speaking If therefore in the latter Member to receive reconciliation is to receive the reconciliation of sinners and in effect to be delivered from wrath or from punishment in the former Member also to be reconciled should have an analogical signification that the former Member may be a right to the thing the latter an exhibition of the same thing Add unto all these that the love of God cannot be said but very unsutably and unaptly to be gathered from this that we have departed from the hatred of God For though Paul would have discoursed of the benefit of our Redemption it should have been expressed with anotherguess word that might signifie not our action but Gods But nothing is more plain than our Interpretation nothing more agreeable to the Apostle's purpose But that Socinus objects that the mention of satisfaction here is not sutable yea that the praise of love is thereby diminished it is a vain thing for mention is not made of satisfaction in respect of its being a punishment but as it is a way of delivering us Neither as we proved before can the love of God towards men be more manifestly shewed any way than that being angry that is requiring punishment yet found a way for our freedom from punishment having bestowed Christ for that purpose In that place 2 Cor. 5. about the end as in that to the Romans there is found mention of a twofold Reconciliation The former Reconciliation is that whereby God reconciled all things or the World to himself by Christ or in Christ vers 18 and 19. The latter is that unto which the Apostles as Ministers of Reconciliation in whom the word of Reconciliation is put exhort men in the name of God and Christ vers 18 19 20. Therefore that former cannot be Conversion it self for it is the Antecedent and chief Matter of that word by which conversion is made Moreover Paul himself sheweth that it consists in the not imputing of sins that is in the decree of not imputing them But now to impute sins and to forgive them signifie the same thing Rom. 4.6,7,8 But how is this Decree of not imputing sins founded on Christ Paul will tell for God made him that knew no sin to become sin for us That which Socinus objects That the not imputing of sins is contrary to that way of reconciling by satisfaction is without reason for as was explained before satisfaction goes before afterwards emission and non-imputation of sins follow It may also be said that it is not absolutely said that God imputes not sins but that he imputes them not to them that is to the sinners And that sin may be forgiven to one man or not be imputed to him and that it may be imputed to another man for example or that another man may upon that account be afflicted and punished it appears sufficiently both by many things that we alledged before and also chiefly by that which happened to David And though these are not joyned immediately in words not imputing sins and he made him that knew no sin to become sin that doth not make them not to belong to the same thing For these are joyned to one another by conjunctive words and and for neither doth any new speech and differing from this argument come between but this is said that God hath made the Apostles Ambassadors and Ministers of the benefit by him bestowed to wit that they were sent for this purpose through the World that they might plant the Faith of that benefit in men by their preaching But the strongest argument for making that Faith is from the delivering up of Christ unto Death for it is not credible that God would have had his Son that was most dear to him and most innocent so heavily afflicted except he had proposed some excellent end unto himself But this end to wit the proper end and most nearly adhering to that fact Scripture every where and reason it self in some respect by induction testifying can scarcely be any other but the obtaining the right of pardon by antecedent satisfaction But that we request you in Christ's stead be ye reconciled to God though according to the nature of the word it may signifie either cast ye away your hatred towards God or receive ye the remission of sins to wit by repentance as is shewed Mark 1.4 Luke 3.3 Acts 3.19 and 5.31 yet according to the nature of the thing discoursed of it more rightly admits the latter sense for a weaker person useth not to be requested to receive more
after we are justified by Faith Rom. 5.1 Before we are sons o wrath Eph. 2.3 for our sins are the cause of separtion that is they make God averse from us Isai 59.2 This Anger excludes Peace or Friendship but not any kind of Love generally so called as appears John 3.16 and 1 John 4.10 And verily Socinus himself supposeth That sins are not forgiven to men before repentance But he cannot be said to be reconciled or as Socinus expresseth it throughly reconciled who yet imputes sins Which thing that it may be more clearly understood there are verily three moments that I may so say of Divine Will to be distinguished The first is before the coming to pass of the Death of Christ either really or in the decree and foreknowledge of God In this moment God is angry at a sinner but so as he doth not abhor all ways and reasons of laying down his wrath The second moment is when Christ's Death is now come to pass In which God doth not only appoint but also promise that he will lay down his wrath The third is when a man believes with a true faith in Christ and Christ according to the form of the Covenant commends the Believer to God Here now God lays down his anger and receives a man into favour But because Verbs Active and Passive answering to the same use to have a twofold signification either that they are confined within Vertue and Efficacy or that they include Effect also it follows that in the first moment neither of these have place and therefore in respect thereof God may be called only reconcileable In the second and third he is rightly said to be reconciled the two Senses that I mentioned being distinguished In the former sense God is said to have reconciled the world to himself and we reconciled to God when we were Enemies In the latter is that Be ye reconciled to God and we received Reconciliation and the same is the signification of the words Redemption and Expiation and that expression whereby Christ is said sometimes to have died for all sometimes for some Moreover that must be observed that the word Reconciliation doth not exclude Satisfaction or all Performance and Expence For in Livius there is That by that gift he might reconcile unto himself the minds of his Country men and elsewhere in many places the like may be seen so that upon that account Christ should no less be called our Reconciler which very thing the Scripture also shews when it adds to Reconciliation the mention of Blood CHAP. VIII Concerning our Redemption purchased by the Death of Christ THat we may come to the second Class of Testimonies which is of Redemption before all things it must be put beyond Controversie that Redemption and the like words in holy Scripture are applied to our deliverance from deserved Punishment which appears to be so Gal. 3.13 Rom. 3.24 and especially Eph. 1.7 and Coloss 1.14 neither doth Socinus deny it Yea also those places which say that we were redeemed from iniquity and vain conversation as Tit. 2.14 and 1 Pet. 1.18 belong to the same for it is a very frequent thing for sin to be put for the punishment of sin And in that place to Titus the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being added that is to expiate which we shall afterwards explain and after that in the place of Peter the mention of a Lamb that is a Sacrifice make this evident because the Scripture in many places bears witness that this Redemption is ascribed to the Death of Christ as the cause as Eph. 1.7 Rom. 3.24 Hebr. 10.12 Socinus could not deny it But how the Death of Christ is the cause of Redemption this is it that is in Controversie For we say That the Death of Christ is therefore the cause of Redemption because thereby he moved God to deliver us from punishment but Socinus denies this thing But though there were something ambiguous in these Testimonies in which mention of Redemption is made it would be sufficient to bring other places of the same Argument for interpreting them of which sort we have cited many which signifie not obscurely that Christ died for our sins suffered punishment for us and so obtained us the remission of sins to wit God being reconciled by his Death yet we hope that the same Opinion may be proved clearly enough by these places which use the word Redemption and other like it Now there is a twofold phrase in Scripture one which names the Redemption of sins another which names our Redemption by a divers kind of speaking but with the same signification That former phrase Hebr. 9.15 where the Death of Christ is said to have been caused 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the redemption of transgressions but that by this kind of speaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Latine culpas delicta crimina redimere to redeem faults offences crimes there is not only signified the Cause moving to deliver but such also as includes Compensation or Satisfaction it is so manifest that Socinus ought to have confessed that also Therefore sith this is the most usual signification of that word it is not allowed us to recede from it except two things be proved that sometimes though less frequently another thing is signified by that expression and that there is here just cause why the less usual signification should be preferred before the more usual Neither of these is proved by Socinus For he brings no place of Sacred or Profane Writer where to redeem transgression sins faults offences signifies any other thing but that which we said In the Sentence of Solomon Prov. 16.6 there is a Hebrew word Chaphar which doth not properly answer the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which very thing Socinus also acknowledgeth when he saith Expiation rather than Redemption is signified by that word It may be added that the most native signification of that word is to cover and thence it is drawn to other things by a certain resemblance Neither doth it follow because the word Chaphar which among the Hebrews as many others because of the penury of primitive words in that tongue is of many significations so that it may signifie both other things and also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to redeem that therefore likewise the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should have all the significations that Chaphar hath because the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is simple among the Greeks answering its own Original but other words of the Greeks express other significations of the word Chaphar In Dan. 4.24 there is a Hebrew word Pharak which is not of equal force with the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but both properly and frequently it signifies to tear to break to pluck up and for this also to deliver Howbeit though we should interpret redimere in this place with the Ancients nothing compels to take this word out of the signification that we defend
that we should follow that cannot at all be applied to the remission of sins that happened not to Christ Wherefore then is that so often repeated mention of Death in this business of Redemption Socinus brings two things first because in Death there is some Expence which is not in the Resurrection therefore the mention of Death is fitter for Redemption also because the Love of God and Christ is more declared by Death As touching the first we go back to the same thing for if by the Death of Christ the effect of our deliverance did not follow of it self which is the profession of Socinus himself expressed in manifest words there was no need that Christ and his Apostles should have mentioned either Redemption or Price especially so often sith Deliverance might be expressed more conveniently in other words But that other consideration though it may belong to those Sentences that commemorate the Love of God yet is not very sutably brought to explain other Sentences which do not nor yet the very word Redemption It may also here be mentioned that Love is not shewed by this thing because it was not so much the cause as the naked occasion of our good Socinus thinks he pursueth our Opinion when he says That the Scripture so treats of the Redemption purchased by the Death of Christ that it sets something manifest before the eyes but not that it may declare some hidden Vertue such as he thinks that to be which we deduce from Scripture But when he says this he wounds not us but rather furnishes us with a Dart against themself For those things which are God's who knows but the Spirit of God and he to whom he will reveal them 1 Cor. 2.10,11 But that the Death of Christ is procured by God for this purpose that the punishment of our sins might be required of him and that he might become our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isaiah said it long before Christ himself said it neither did the holy Rites in the Old Covenant signifie any other thing So that he who should take notice of these things could not be ignorant of God's Will and Decree about this business though I may now also say that Nature it self says that Death is the wages of sin This Will of God being known by Oracles there is afterwards gathered the great love of God towards us as John speaks 1 Epist 4.10 and Paul Rom. 5.10 Neither is it any other thing that is signified by the word witness 1 Tim. 2.6 as it is easie to understand by those things that go before vers 4. And verily the words of Scripture themselves simply understood bring these things with them whereas it is so impossible for any man to gather that consequence of deliverance from Death which Socinus deduceth through so many Degrees and so variously from the words of Scripture themselves that it cannot be easily understood out of Socinus himself what he would have to be the proper sense of Scripture in these Expressions Therefore true Redemption hath been proved by us as just now true Reconciliation hath been proved But either of those being proved that which is intended is proved to wit That we are delivered by the punishment of Christ which he paid for our sins Not that all Redemption and Reconciliation is such but because the subject matter admits of no other Therefore it is vain and nothing to the purpose that Socinus so often says both that a man may be appeased though nothing is performed and also that a man may be truly redeemed that owes nothing and therefore without payment For we treat of that Propitiation and Redemption which the Scripture declares to be made by the performance of something to wit by Death and of that Redemption by which the same Scripture testifies that we are delivered from deserved punishment but such a performance which frees the Debtor of punishment from punishment is both rightly and properly called Satisfaction which Socinus seeing that he might take away Satisfaction he took away also Propitiation and true Redemption Here I think good to censure some other things which he did not discourse of whilst he handled the Argument of Redemption yet he discoursed of them elsewhere as belonging to this Argument He would not have the word Mediator to signifie any other thing in the holy Scripture but the Interpreter of God Two places do perswade me of another thing the one 1 Tim. 2.5 where there is said to be one Mediator of God and Men Jesus Christ who gave himself an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all The other Hebr. 9.15 where Christ is called the Mediator of the New Covenant that Death intervening for the Redemption of Transgressions they that are called might obtain eternal life To which fitly may be added a third Hebr. 12.24 which shall be discoursed of afterwards it appears here that Mediation is placed in Redemption it self neither is the word contrary For it belongs no less to the Office of a Mediator to be in the room of Men with God than to be in the room of God with Men. Neither is a Mediator only among the unlearned called he that appeaseth a man but also amongst those who speak elegantly Whence Suidas interpreted that word Peace-maker Elsewhere Socinus says The dignity of the Person makes nothing for the estimation of the punishment and consequently that the Divine Nature of Christ and his great Perfection brings no value to the punishment But we believe otherways to wit that this punishment was thence to be esteemed that he who suffered the punishment was God though he suffered not as God For hitherto belongs that Expression whereby God is said to have purchased the Church with his own Blood Acts 20.23 After which manner also elsewhere the Lord of Glory is said to have been crucified 1 Cor. 2.8 Also the Dignity of the whole Person that is Christ contributes not a little to this estimation Therefore in the Scripture it is called emphatically the Blood of the Lord 1 Cor. 11.27 the Blood of Christ Hebr. 9.14 The blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God 1 John 1.7 both the most perfect innocency and holiness of Christ comes into the same estimation Hence it is called precious blood to wit of the Lamb without blame 1 Pet. 1.19 making allusion to the custom received not only by the Hebrews but also the Gentiles that they sacrificed Beasts excellent for whiteness and all beauty of Body which because they were exempted from the whole Flock thence by a word invented in holy things but presently translated to prophane they were called eximiae excellent To the same purpose belong these also My righteous servant shall justifie many Isai 53.11 He made him that knew no sin to become sin 2 Cor. 5.21 But that Socinus disputes because the Divinity it self doth not suffer therefore that this comes not into the consideration of punishment it is just as if you should say that it is the same
Town with Cursings that all the Evils of the City might fall upon him and so he was sacrificed to the Immortal Gods All which being gathered together into one we shall see that Plinius not without cause cried out concerning these Sacrifices So those things agreed with all the World though it was at variance and unknown to it self Thus we have discoursed by the by concerning Humane Sacrifices in which the Heathen sinned not only that they sacrificed unto false Gods but also because they had no command to worship God after that manner such as Abraham had But that Custom of the Gentiles in Expiating the sins of Men or Sacrificing of Beasts brings no little light to the understanding of the nature of an Expiatory Sacrifice and the proper names of that Argument And so much the less can this labour be deâ—…iâ—…d because Socinus says That the Baptist when he called Christ the Lamb of God had respect unto Sacrifices in the general by which not only amongst the Hebrews but also among the Heathen sins were believed to be expiated And it is an undoubted thing that seeing the Divine Writer to the Hebrews in this very Argument of Expiatory Sacrifice often useth the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he used it in that sense which the Greek Tongue had received Whence it is easie to understand what that signifies that Christ is called a Sacrifice for sin or expiation For whereas Socinus brings three Interpretations the first That the Death of Christ by begetting Faith in us draws us from sins in time to come The second That Death it self is a certain thing antecedent to the obtaining remission of sins The third That it bears testimony as it were to the remission it self or the Decree made concerning it Of these three only the second belongs hereto Not that Christ did not also those other things and that much more effectually than Socinus thinks but because those things belong not to Sacrifices for sins for Socinus confesseth That the similitude of legal Sacrifices for sin and of the Sacrifice performed by Christ consists in Expiation To which may be joyned the like Sacrifices of the Gentiles considered not according to the thing but according to the opinion of the Gentiles But these Sacrifices did not withdraw from sin especially by procuring the belief of any thing neither did they bear testimony to remission performed or certainly decreed but as Socinus acknowledgeth they were a certain antecedent thing requisite unto remission which those words of the Law shew He shall make atonement and it shall be forgiven Therefore in this the Comparison consists and it is necessary that Expiation should signifie the same when it is applied to legal Sacrifices and when it is applied to Christ because the Writer to the Hebrews brings both from the same Decree to wit that without shedding of Blood there should be no remission but expiation must be made in blood Hebr. 9.21 It hinders not that it is said Hebr. 10.4 that it was not possible that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away sins for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to conscience must be repeated from what was said before as appears manifestly if you compare the like places with this chap. 9. vers 9 and 14. The blood of beasts took away sins that is Temporal Guiltiness but not Spiritual Guiltiness as we shewe before Neither can you without a remarkable wresting interpret that in the Apocalyps who washed us from our sins as if it signified who declared that we are washed Or 1 John 1.7 where it is said The blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin as if it signified it declares us to be clean for both the property of the Words and the perpetual use of Scripture in this Argument contradicts it Socinus confesses That Guiltiness in many places is signified by the name of Vncleanness Hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to take away that guiltiness or to make remission as the Writer to the Hebrews expounds the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 9.22 Christ by himself made this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 purification Hebr. 13. Christ purgeth the conscience from dead works Hebr. 9.14 that is as Socinus himself interprets He frees the conscience from guiltiness and punishment and the fear of punishment Also in the Old Testament tachar hath the same sense Psalm 51.9 But that which in these places is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to cleanse The same upon a like account is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sprinkle 10.22 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to wash in the same verse Whereto belongs the Prophesy Zach. 13.1 There is no reason to go from the sense of the Apostle John in these places for though Jesus is called a faithful witness Apoc. 1.5 yet that washing should not therefore be referred unto bearing witness for those do not cohere immediately the faithful witness and he washed but the mention of his being the first-born from the dead comes between them and the mention of a Kingdom and afterwards of Love that it may appear to a blind man that many Offices and Benefits of Christ are joyned together to illustrate his Dignity But in the Epistle of John it is utterly absurd to interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the declaring of purification and not of purification it self because a little while after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are joyned The Apostle reasons from things joyned together If you walk in light you have cleansing that is remission by the blood of Christ because sins are imputed unto none that walk in the light And the preaching of the Baptist naming Christ the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world seeing it respects the Expiatory Sacrifices both of the Hebrews and the Gentiles according to the acknowledgment of Socinus suffers us not otherways to interpret to take away sins than to take away guiltiness For Expiatory Sacrifices did this but did not withdraw from sinning Neither is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the putting away of sin Hebr. 9.26 any other thing but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we may be cleansed that we may have remission as appears by vers 22. But this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 putting away of sin was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the sacrificing of himself verse 26. But though Socinus endeavours to pluck away some places from the true sense yet being convinced by many others he acknowledgeth That in the Sacrifice of Christ it is expressed that an Expiation was made which goes before the remission of sins as something requisite Yet he denies that God by that Sacrifice is moved to pardon but he say That a certain Faith is begotten in us by which being brought to amendment of life at length we obtain remission of sins In which first he did little remember that which he said That the figure should agree with
the thing fignified by the figure in that in which the Comparison is made Neither did he remember that which the Scripture shews that those words All things are cleansed by blood belong the same way to Legal Sacrifices and to Christ Hebr. 9.22 But Legal Sacrifices did not at all beget such a Faith neither is that Exposition of the word tolerable that to expiate is to do something that is requisite for remission For on the contrary all these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the like which the Apostles use of their own nature and by perpetual use design not only a precedency of order but also a certain efficacy The Scripture also furnisheth us with other most certain Arguments for the overthrowing this Interpretation invented by Socinus For it saith there was need of a new Priest after the Order of Melchisedec Hebr. 7.11 But the Levitical Priests also could preach Faith in God yea and confirm this preaching by their Death Wherefore if the Priesthood of Christ doth nothing more which Socinus would have it follows there was no need of him Moreover this very thing that Christ died for our sins is believed unto salvation 1 Cor. 15.2,3 therefore the Expiation of Christ was not chiefly procured for this that it might bring a man to believe seeing it self is among things to be believed For that which serves only to gain credit to a thing it is necessary that it should be different from the thing to be believed Moreover after the implantation of Faith the Expiation of Christ hath effect in us For Christ is a High Priest appointed to expiate the sins of the people that is of Believers Hebr. 2.17 Therefore to expiate cannot be to bring to Faith But now that we may not only beat down the false Interpretation of Socinus but also prove the true one which is this That God is moved by the Death of Christ to forgive sins Observe that place to the Hebrews where Christ's blood of sprinkling is said to speak better than the blood of Abel The blood of Abel cried unto God for vengeance The blood of Christ cries for pardon Socinus denies that God is reconciled by Expiatory Sacrifices But the Writers above alledged by us testifie the contrary who use the word reconciling to express those Sacrifices Whence also that phrase came in the Epistle to the Hebrews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 placare peccata to reconcile sins that is to expiate sins by reconciling God Socinus acknowledgeth no Satisfaction in Expiatory Sacrifices Whereas the very word expiating signifies no other thing but making satisfaction by punishment and in many places the Authors cited when they would periphrastically express Expiating they call it to give blood for blood life for life soul for soul to purchase a thing with blood to obtain salvation by the death of another Neither do the Hebrew words disagree from this for Chaphar is not only to cover but also to redeem Exod 21.30 Psalm 49.7 and to appease Gen. 32.20 and thence to expiate Hata is to suffer punishment Gen. 31.39 whence this also began to be used for signifying Expiation Now Expiation is attributed first to Sacrifices as appears Hebr. 9.13 and 23. therafter to the Priest for the Sacrifices that he offers as often in Leviticus and then to God admitting that Satisfaction But as the word Redeeming began to be used improperly for any Deliverance so also it began to be called Expiation for the like effect yea where no Satisfaction intervenes Psal 51.8 But Expiation is attributed unto Christ as unto a Sacrifice and therefore the word blood is added but blood in Sacrifices as before was proved is given instead of the soul of a sinner whence of necessity this word Expiation must be taken properly here Add unto these things that if that were true which Socinus would have That Expiation was made much more by the Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven than by Death and shedding of Blood because those are fitter to perswade us to believe than Death it self at least in some place of Scripture Expiation would have been attributed unto those acts which it did no where It is false that Socinus saith That expiation or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 purification is attributed unto the manifestation of the Divine Will neither do the places alledged prove this For Hebr. 1.3 Christ is said to sustain all by his Word because all things are subject to his Dominion as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is found in the same sense chap. 11. verse 3. and Luke 5.5 and chap. 10. verse 26 and 29. The knowledge of the Truth and sanctification by Blood are not put for the same but many Benefits are joyned together that the Crime of an unthankful man may appear the more odious There is added sometimes unto Blood the mention of a Covenant but much more oftner of a Sacrifice wherefore that Interpretation is to be taken that may joyn them together But this will be if we look unto that part of the Covenant in which Christ engaged that if he underwent death it should come to pass that their sins should be forgiven them that believed in him and God promised the same as appears Isai 53.10 But that Christ is said to offer his blood in Heaven that is to shew his death to his Father and as it were to put God in remembrance thereof which is also read to make intercession for us these things take not away the Expiation that was compleated upon the Cross For the Expiation performed upon the Cross moves God to forgive and acquires us a right but under a certain Condition and Manner in which is comprehended Intercession on Christ's part and on our part true Faith as hath been explained when Satisfaction was discoursed of But Socinus manifestly contradicts the Scripture when he denies that Expiation was made before Christ went into Heaven For in many places Scripture attributes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 redemption purification and sanctification and the putting away of sin to death and declares the same thing to be already performed an Oblation indeed was made in Heaven but so that Socinus should not have denied that title to the death that Christ suffered on Earth against the manifest words of Paul Eph. 5.2 where Christ is said to have delivered himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an offering for us The looking upon the coherence of the words is a sufficient refutation of his Interpretation In the same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Offering and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacrifice are joyned together And all the Books of Greek and Latin Authors declare That a Sacrifice is compleated when the thing to be sacrificed is put to death Whence it came to pass that mactare signifies both to sacrifice and also to kill any way the signification being extended from Sacrifices to other things Hence Ammonius distinguisheth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Appellations of
punishment of our sins was exacted of him concerning which things we have already treated and with those words of Scripture which testifie not obscurely That God was appeased and reconciled to us by the Blood of Christ That his Blood was a price given for us That Christ died in our stead and was our Propitiation of which there will be occasion to speak afterwards CHAP. II. How God should be considered in this Affair and it is shewed that he should be considered as a Governour THe State of the Controversie being understood and that Opinion being confirmed by Scriptures on which the Faith of the Church is supported that the Objections which the Reason of Socinus or rather the abuse of his Reason furnish-him with may be routed it is requisite that it should be understood What is God's part or office in this matter to be discoursed of Socinus confesses That the Discourse is concerning Deliverance from Punishment We add That the Inflicting of Punishment is also treated of Whence it follows That God must needs be here considered as a Governour For to inflict Punishment or to Deliver a man from Punishment whom thou mayest punish which the Scripture calls to justifie is only the part of a Governour as such firstly and of it self As for Example Of a Father in a Family Of a King in a Common-wealth Of God in the Universe Though this is manifest unto all yet it may be easily proved because Punishment is the last thing in Compulsion but Compulsion belongs only to a Superior 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the higher Power whence Seneca called Clemency the meekness of a Superiour towards an Inferiour in appointing Punishment Neither doth it hinder that Revenge seems sometimes to be attributed to men private and furnished with no superior Power For that Revenge is either of fact not of right which is contrary to natural Justice it self or it signifies a certain right belonging to some man not first and of it self but by the concession of another whence the Father of the ravished Maid kills the Ravisher and any man kills the banished man or it signifies not the Act of Punishment it self but the requiring of the Punishment to be inflicted either by God himself or by another Governour Unto which ways of revenging so many ways of remission of sins or pardon are answerable which both Scripture and common Speech attributes to private men But this Assertion needs so much the less proof because Socinus himself somewhere confesseth That God should be looked upon as a Prince in punishing and absolving men then which nothing more true can be said Neither did James signifie any other thing when he said there is one Law-giver who can save and destroy James 4.12 Therefore in this matter we have a new 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habitude of God which being found it is easie to remove all others First then We grant this to Socinus requiring it That here God should not be looked upon as a Judge appointed under a Law for he that is such a Judge could not free the Offender from punishment by translating the punishment upon another Not because that of it self it is unjust but because it agrees not with the Law whereof he is chosen a Minister Which Lactantius expressed in these words concerning the Anger of God Chap. 19. A Judge cannot give pardon to Offences because he is subject to the Will of another But God can because he himself is the Decider of his own Law which when he appointed verily he took not away all power from himself but hath liberty to forgive Seneca says well Clemency hath a Free-will not under a Condition but judgeth according to justice and Goodness for Equity belongs to a Judge tied to a Form of Law but Clemency properly so called belongs only to the highest Governour in every Community The same Seneca bids a Prince think on this Any man may kill against the Law bur none can save against the Law but my self Augustinus took notice of this distinction It is appointed by the Judges that it should not be lawful to repeal a Sentence given against a guilty person Will the Emperour also be under this Law For it is lawful to him only to repeal a Sentence and absolve a person guilty of Death and to pardon him And Symmachus For there is one condition of Magistrates whose Sentences seem to be corrupted if they are milder than the Laws and there is another power of Sacred Princes whom it becomes to mitigate the sharpness of a severe Law Unto which also Cicero had respect when he said for Ligarius to Caesar I did not I thought not such Arguing useth to be before a Judge but I say to a Father I have erred I did rashly I repent I fly to thy Clemency I beg pardon of the fault I beseech you that you would pardon But Socinus though in the place above-cited he looks upon God as the highest Prince yet in many places in all this act he attributes another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habitude to him to wit of a Party offended And he would have every offended Party to be the Creditor of the Punishment and therein to have such a power as other Creditors have in things owing to them Which power he often calleth by the name of Lordship therefore he very often repeats that here God should be looked upon as a Party offended as a Creditor as a Lord putting these three as signifying the same thing This Error of Socinus because it is largely spread abroad through his whole Treatise and may be said to be in this matter his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chiefest lye must be confuted accurately That this may be performed this Assertion may be put first To punish is not an Act belonging to the Party offended as such this is proved because otherways the power of Punishment of it self would belong to every offended Party which appears to be false because we proved that to punish is an act 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Superiority By the Confession of Socinus himself when he says That God should be look'd upon as a Prince whence another firm Argument ariseth If God punisheth and taketh away punishment as a Prince then not as a Party offended for the same thing cannot be attributed to two divers things as such But at the same time we deny not that God who punisheth sins or lets them go unpunished is rightly called the offended Party But we deny that to punish or let go unpunished is attributed to him as an offended Party For it is very well known that a thing may be said of a man that doth not agree to him as such as a Counseller of Law sings not as a Counseller of Law but as a Musician Lactantius observed this rightly We rise to punishment not because we are injured but that Discipline may be preserved Manners may be corrected Licentiousness may be restrained This is just Anger which as it is necessary in man