A PLEA For the Late Accurate and Excellent Mr. Baxter, And those that Speak of the Sufferings of Christ as he does. IN ANSWER TO Mr. Lobb's Insinuated Charge of Socinianism against 'em, in his late Appeal to the Bishop of Worcester, and Dr. Edward's.  
With a Preface directed to Persons of all Persuasions, to call 'em from Frivolous and Over-eager Contentions about Words, on all sides.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Non agimur Partis Studiis—.  
LONDON: Printed for J. Laurence, at the Angel in the Poultry, 1699.   

TO THE (Whether Dissenting, or Consenting) Readers.  
THough the Concealment of my Name might (perhaps) be some Security to me, supposing any one should be offended at the following Papers; yet have I not thereupon allowed myself a Liberty (too commonly taken) to reflect upon and censure those, whose Sentiments are not the same with mine: I have indeed taken the Freedom to expose their Notions, as they deserve; but without reproaching those that hold 'em. There is scarce any thing more common, than for Persons to maintain such Principles, the necessary Consequences whereof they do abominate; but either through Ignorance, or Inadvertency, they discern 'em not: Many through weakness cannot, others for want of due attention do not apprehend the Connexion there is between 'em: In both which cases 'tis not allowable, nor have we allowed ourselves to charge such invidious Consequences upon 'em (which are not owned, but especially which are disowned by 'em); but to argue from 'em against their mistaken Principles, is what no one can reasonably disallow.— And this is what is Principally blamed in our Accuser, That he has laid us under the Imputation of Socinianism, at least of Socinianizing (Crimes which we do from our very Souls detest!) Had he attempted to prove it, as a Consequence upon One or Other Principle advanced by us, we should very thankfully have accepted his Endeavours to undeceive us; but having so injuriously Reproached us, we are necessitated to Vindicate ourselves; should we be silent under the Impeachment, we should too far participate in our Accuser's guilt: That same Law of God not permitting us to bear false Witness against ourselves, which Obliges us not to do it against our Neighbour. But though from this very Consideration the general Design of these Papers be Justifiable, that is not enough; nor yet though the management and manner of writing be so too: That may be justifiable, that is not greatly useful or commendable: We have therefore endeavoured that the ensuing Pages may do real service.  
In order whereunto, we have not only avoided all unbeseeming Reflections, upon any Person or Party, by reason of their differing Sentiments from us; but have also studiously declined all mere Logomachies, all Contentions about mere Words and Phrases, carefully distinguishing (upon every occasion) real from merely Verbal Differences; and as to the latter, even where the Words have been less Apt and Expressive, we have not thought Rend worthy of a Debate, being more solicitous to find out the Sense in which one or other Person uses them, than concerned about Phrases or Expressions on one side or other. And were this one Rule more universally observed, how greatly would it contribute to the Ending most of our Controversies; not to make mere Phrases and forms of speaking, the matter of a dispute either way; but to allow every one the liberty of their own expression, provided they can but agree in sense.  
'Tis hardly to be conceived, of how pernicious Consequence this one thing has been, the making necessary what God has never made so: should we take the freedom to instance in Self-devised Notions, and Ceremonies (some, as amongst the Papists, wicked and intolerable; others, almost amongst all other Persuasions that profefs Christanity, needless, and (at the best) but tolerable) which yet have been imposed with like rigour as if all Religion had deign in 'em; how black and dismal a Tragedy would it introduce! how great a part of that Christian blood, which has been spilt, would be found chargeable hereupon! But I shall confine myself to the Point before us, the insisting upon Terms and Phrases (such as are merely of Humane Stamp,) as if so Necessary that Orthodoxy in the Faith, that Christianity itself could not subsist without 'em.  
Such a Spirit as this has long been growing upon the Church; and in our Accuser it seems to have arrived to full Maturity: His whole Zeal and Strength and Time is, in a manner, taken up in Collecting, and heaping together, out of various Authors, certain words, and forms of speaking (without any fixed determinate sense); and (though they have no certain meaning) the man will needs force some upon us, that we must by no means leave out, unless we will fall under his Resentments; and another set of Phrases, we may not use (let our sense be what it will) but, by virtue of I know not what (Papal or Patriarchal) Authority, he will say, we do Socinianize.  
At this rate of magisterialness does he talk, in the Preface to his Appeal, p. 3. If any one that comes after shall use the same Expresions (meaning, the same that Mr. Baxter uses) — I say (and who then dare gainsay it?) He does Socinianize! And immediately after (speaking of such words, as He with others shall put into your Theses) he adds, much less may I be censured, though I express my Resentments against him, whosoever he be, that is for leaving such words out. One would have thought it had been no excess of modesty, if he had, at least, excepted his Superiors in State, Age, Gravity, Learning and Piety: If the King should Convene an Assembly of the most Pious and Judicious Bishops and others, to draw up Theses to avoid Socinianism and Arminianism, and they should leave out such Words, as this Dictator would put in, they are like (for what I see) to feel his Resentments, whosoever they be, without exception; though those worthy Persons, to whom he has Appealed, should be amongst 'em, they are to find no favour; nay, though the King Himself should preside in the Assembly, the Beams of Majesty will not be a sufficient Security to Him.  
In the mean time, it is to be observed, what a mighty stress this man lays upon Words and Expressions; these are all he talks of; not one Syllable about the sense or meaning of 'em: Men may mean what they will, so they do but use his Phrases; and let their meaning be never so sound, they must not escape his Censure, unless they speak his Words. What degree of Necessity he puts upon 'em, as well as what the particular Words and Phrases are that he would impose, may, the better appear if we also cast our eye upon the Letter he prefixed to his late Defence: there we are told, that the Phrases are those, that they of the greatest Character for Learning— have both used, and judged necessary— not only as a fence about the received Faith, and a Barrier against Eruptions upon common Christianity: but as such Phrases, without which the Doctrines of Christ's Satisfaction, and of our Justification could neither be Orthodoxly, nor Intelligibly expressed.  
You see 'tis not enough, that He may use 'em himself, but they must be imposed as Necessary: Nor is be satisfied, to have his Words accounted a Fence about the received Faith, a Barrier against Eruptions upon common Christianity; but they must be admitted as the standard of Orthodoxy: Nothing will serve the turn, but they must be esteemed Necessary, so Necessary, as that without them the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, and of our Justification can neither be Orthodoxly, nor Intelligibly expressed. And what these so invaluable Phrases are, he tells us afterwards in his Defence itself, p. 13. & passim. They are the very same that run through his Appeal, viz. a Commutation, or change of Persons between Christ and us; Christ's sustaining the Person of Sinners, and Suffering in their Person; His coming under the Bond and Obligation of the Violated Law, etc. These Forms of Speaking are not, by any means, to be omitted; we forfeit our Understandings, our Orthodoxy, our Christianity, if we dare to alter alter.  
And (perhaps) all the guilt of this kind does not lie at the Door of this Accuser, and others of his way; it were well, if there were not a Participation of it on all sides: And therefore, as one earnestly desirous of the more Healthy and Peaceful State of the Church amongst us, I will here adventure to lay my Hand upon the Contenders of all Denominations; and whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear, I will (at least, so far as relates to the Matter in hand) interpose a few Seasonable and Healing Advices.  
1. Distinguish carefully betwixt such Words or Terms as the Spirit of GOD has made use of, and such as are of our own devising.  
2. As to the latter, distinguish again betwixt Obscure and Improper Terms, and such as are Apt and Expressive of what is intended by 'em.  
3. Distinguish betwixt what you are obliged to use yourselves, and what you may expect from others.  
4. As to others, you will find a difference (which should be allowed for) betwixt such as are acted for one or other Party, by Ignorance or Prepossession, and Men of more large and free Understandings.  
5. But especially (as to the Expressions of other Men) distinguish betwixt what they Say, and what they Mean.  
Whereupon I add,  
(1.) It should be no Matter of Debate amongst Christians, Whether Scriptural, or other Terms, be to be preferred; the very Words of Scripture being Sacred, as well as the Sense. Though this will not altogether hold true, as to one or other Translation; yet of the Original Text, it is most certainly true, the very Words being Dictated by the Divine Spirit. And this (perhaps) is what principally distinguishes it from the best of other Writings: And even as to Translations themselves, by how much the nearer they approach (in their respective Languages) to the Original Text, and by how much the more exactly they express that, so much the greater regard is to be had to the very Words that are found in 'em. Thus far it may be hoped, such as are Christians will readily be agreed. I say not this to Countenance any in their Ignorant Misapplications of Scripture-Phrases; I would only have it to refer to an Understanding, and Apposite Use of 'em.  
(2.) As to merely Humane Phrases, or Forms of Speaking, there are none (upon any pretence) fit to be imposed; the most plausible Pretences commonly made use of, for that purpose, are either on one side, [Our Phrases are of Venerable Age, what the Church has long been in possession of]: Or, (perhaps) on the other side [Our Terms, though New, are most Clear and Expressive of the Truth, and render it easily Intelligible to every considering Mind]: Now, granting either the one or the other to be true, or (in some Instances) that they are both Old and Significant; yet all that can follow thereupon is, Therefore they are fit to be used; not, therefore they may, or aught to be Imposed. How weak would such a Method of Reasoning as this be, Such a Word the Ancients used, therefore we must use no other; such a Father, or such an Eminent Reformer used it, and therefore he is a Heretic, or a Man of very dangerous Principles, that varies from it]! Or again, should it be admitted on the other Hand; [Such a Word is very significant, therefore no other should be used]! Yet upon no better bottom do Multitudes suffer the Church's Peace, and their own Charity to be reasoned away.  
(3.) When we either speak, or write ourselves, we are obliged to make use of such Terms as have a most clear and agreed Sense, and are best adapted to express to others, what it is we mean: the very end of Speech itself proves this. And hereupon we ought, out of how great Variety soever offers, to choose the fittest for our own use; but we are not hereupon impower'd to choose for, or prescribe to others, [In these Words, and no other, shall Ye Pray to GOD, or Speak to Men, etc.] Those seem fittest to one Person, which do not so to another.  
(4.) Amongst Men that do not Religiously tie up themselves to the Phrases of one or other Party (but, placing their Christianity only in those Great and Necessary Things about which all Parties of Professors are agreed, as to other Matters, have a greater Latitude and Freedom, both of Thought and Speech) we may indeed expect the last mentioned Rule will be observed: But we should not wonder, if some do Tenacionsly adhere to the Terms and Modes of Expression, that are peculiar to their own Party, how Obscure and Improper soever; some out of Weakness cannot, and many out of Prejudice and Prepossession will not vary from 'em.  
(5.) Now even as to these, there is room to hope (at least), they may not mean altogether so bad, as their Words would seem to import: we should therefore (in such cases) do what in us lies, to find out the sound Sense they aim at, and approve of that, though not of their uncouth, and unintelligible Phrases. But,  
(6.) By no means seek to impose upon others, one or other self-devised Phrase, or Form of Expression, as if Truth could not be maintained without it; neither lay so great a stress upon mere Words, as if Orthodoxy or Heresy did depend upon 'em. And surely we should have little disposition so successively to cry up, and contend for our respective modes and forms of speaking, if we did consider,  
I. What a trifling Spirit it argues, wherever it has place! a Mind empty of every thing that is more great and manly! a childish Spirit that can find leisure for, and pleasure in such little, inconsiderable things!  
II. Especially, if we also add, (and I pray let it be added) How disagreeable it is, to a Spirit rightly Christian! and that on many accounts: particularly,  
1. As it manifests too little Veneration for the sacred Scriptures; how boldly are these impeached of insufficiency, when Words and Phrases not to be met with here, are obtruded upon the Church as Necessary, so Necessary as that without them, the most important Articles of the Christian Faith can neither be Orthodoxly nor Intelligibly expressed. With modest minds it should surely suffice to say [they are apt, and may be useful]: but if their Necessity be pressed upon us, they are at least equalised with, if not preferred to those of the Divine Spirit. And can any one that has the Spirit of Christianity in him, deliberately agree to this [my words, my Phrases are as Necessary as those the Holy Ghost has chosen]! He knew not how to convey his sense to the World so well as I! If any will thus insolently set up themselves and traduce the sacred Oracles of our holy Religion, my Soul, come not thou into their secret!  
2. Nor will Christianity suffer, that the Prerogative of God should be thus invaded: his Sovereign Rights are hereby usurped upon: for as much as it is one of his Peculiarities, to impose any thing upon the Church as Necessary. He claims it, as what belongs to him, not only to be a Lawgiver, but to be the one, the only Lawgiver in reference hereto: and who are we, that we should justle him out of his Throne.  
3. How disagreeing to the Spirit of Christianity is it, to give way to and countenance such uncharitable censures; [that such an one is unsound, Heretical, no Christian; because he does not use my Words.] How common a guilt is this! And by how much the more lately such an Over-magnified Phrase was introduced, so much the farther does the censure reach: For Instance, Christ's Suffering in our Person, etc. If no one may be allowed for Orthodox, that uses not this Phrase; the whole Christian Church is laid under Censure, except an inconsiderable bandful within this last Age. But can it consist with Christianity (whereof Charity is a most Essential and inseparable part) to reproach, and unchristianize (in a manner) the whole Christian Church? Besides,  
4. We do not only hereby revile Christians, (and so offend against the Generation of God's children); but we do also debase Christianity itself: how contemptibly mean, and vile is it rendered in the eyes of Bystanders, when they see us with so unproportionate beat and Zeal contend for and against insignificant words and Phrases; and labouring to proselyte men to these, as if the Kingdom of God was in these Letters and Syllables: How do they hereupon ridicule, and break their Profane Jests upon Our Holy Profession! and how are they fixed in their Prejudices against it! And is it nothing to us, that the Name of Christ, and Christianity, is Blasphemed through us, by our means.  
5. Besides, How are we hereby diverted, our Minds diverted from intending the most amazingly great and awful Things that relate to Christianity: Those Principles and Practices that do most truly Essentiate and Constitute it: Those Truths which are according to Godliness, and which are adapted to advance and promote it; which do both tend to make the Temper of our own Spirits better, and to excite us to do more good to Others. These are forgotten, and overlooked: hereupon (being diverted from what should Animate and Nourish us) what a Ghastliness and Languor appears in the Face of Our Profession! How are we become as dead Men! How little of the Life and Power of Godliness is to be found amongst us! And should not this (will it not) be laid to Heart by such as have any serious Regard to the Welfare of Christianity, or of their own Souls? Will it not henceforward render Strifes of Words less Grateful and Relishing to such, that they are likely to be attended with so pernicious Effects. We cannot surely deliberately consent, that One or Other Phrase should be to us instead of our God, our Redeemer, our Faith, our Hope, our Love, Holiness, and our Heaven; nor place out the Zeal on that, which should be reserved for these.  
But again,  
III. If this Spirit were not so disagreeing to Christianity; 'tis no way fit to be indulged, on the account of those perpetual Quarrels, it must necessarily introduce amongst us: It would endlessly be Contested (without the possibility of being ever decided) what particular Phrases shall be admitted as necessary? By what Rules their Necessity, or no-Necessity shall be adjusted? Or, with whom the Judgement of this grand Affair shall be entrusted?  
And IV. It would greatly tend (should it obtain) to discourage all Improvements in Knowledge: Every increase of Light will require more or less Alteration to be made in the old and customary Modes of Expression; and consequently endanger a Person's Reputation. At how much easier Cost, may Men learn a set of Phrases, that they do not understand; and save their Pains, and their Orthodoxy at once.  
V. And Lastly, It has not the least Advantage attending it, to compensate for, and set against all its mischievous Effects. That which is commonly pretended for it, is, that it may be a Security against Error. But how utterly insufficient is it for any such Purpose! How possible, nay, how common a Case is it, for Persons to use the same Phrase, and yet not mean the same thing. So vain, and so Pernicious does it generally prove, when we leave the Methods God has prescribed, and will needs prevent or remove the Church's Maladies by Ways and Means of our own devising.  
But to draw to a Close, there is one thing farther that I would add (to avoid Offence) and 'tis in Reference to the mention of Mr. Cross' Name, in the long Marginal Note: When I wrote what you find there, I was in hopes of his second Thoughts upon that Text; and the Papers were out of my Hand sometime before I heard of his Death (I not having seen 'em for several Months passed): Nor, till I saw it in Print, did I remember there was any thing in which he was concerned; otherwise I should at least have suppressed his Name, if not all that relates to him— for I cannot but be averse to every thing that looks like trampling upon the Ashes of the Dead.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 5. l. 26. r. nostra, p. 15. l. 8. r. as Errors, p. 20. l. 16. r. allege, p. 28. l. 26. r. surely, p. 45. l. 2. r. that, p. 75. l. 14. r. strictius, p. 92. l. 2. add it, p. 114. l. 4. r. pursuing.   

Introduction.  
NOT knowing whether that Right Reverend and Worthy Bishop, or the other very Learned Person (in the great and constant Cares of a more public Nature that attend their Stations) may not account it rudeness for us to break in upon and disturb 'em with our petty Quarrels; I have not thought fit so directly to apply to them; and for this only Reason it is, that I have not joined in the Appeal to 'em. Their Determination is not hereby intended to be declined; there being no Reason to fear the Issue should they think fit to publish their Judgements to the World.  
But whether their leisure from greater Affairs will permit 'em (or indeed, whether they shall account it worth their leisure) to interpose in this Matter, or not; the Nature of the Charge is such, that (how groundlessly soever it be advanced) it is not fit to be silent under it.  
That which is apprehended more especially to require that this invidious Reflection be taken notice of, is, That this way the Reputation of that most excellent Person is undermined, and his most valuable Writings (as well as the Ministry of those that in this Matter are of his Judgement) are (so far as in this Accuser lies) blasted, and rendered odious and useless. And such as either have wanted opportunity to look into the Socinian Writings, or have not Judgement sufficient to distinguish betwixt Appearances and Realities, may be so far imposed upon, by the Confidence of this Accuser, as to believe the Charge advanced against us.  
For their sakes therefore, and our own; to prevent their Gild, as well as to preserve our own Reputation and Usefulness (and, if possible, also to undeceive this Accuser and his Brethren) we think it fit and necessary that it be made appear, There is no sufficient ground whereupon to Censure Mr. Baxter, or (those whom he calls) his Followers, as Socinians, in that Great and Important Article of Christ's Satisfaction.  
For the clearing whereof, we shall, with reference to the suspected Passages, (First) manifest their Agreeableness to Truth. And then show the no-advantage hereby given to the Socinian Cause.  
Now the Passages this Accuser, and his Brethren, are so much afraid of, and grieved at (as he pretends) we shall set together, that we may see what they will in the whole amount to; and they are these:  
1. Christi perpessiones quoad rationem reifuere malum naturale perpessum ex occasione & causalitate remota peccatorum generis humani. (He should have added) & proxime ex sponsionis & consensus proprii obligatione. Bax. Method. Theol. Pars III. Cap. 1. Determ. 5. p. 38. This will be the better understood, if it be observed, that the Question he had before him, was, Whether the Suffering of Christ was properly and formally a Punishment? For the Determination whereof, he does define Punishment (properly so called) a Natural Evil (that is, an Evil of Suffering) inflicted for, or on account of a Moral Evil (i. e. the Evil of Sin.) And (besides other Distinctions which he had premised) he distinguishes betwixt the Suffering of the Delinquent himself, for his own Sin, in which case his Sin is directly, immediately, and per se, the cause of his Suffering; and this (he tells us) is Punishment in the Primary and most Famous Sense of it: and the Suffering of another by reason of the Delinquents fault; in which case, though there be a Suffering for Sin, yet that Sin is more indirectly, mediately, and per accidens the cause of the Suffering; and therefore though it be Punishment, yet 'tis only in a Secondary and Analogical Sense to be so called.  
And this Secondary sort of Punishment is twofold; 'tis either Natural or Voluntary; the Natural Punishment for another's Sin, he calls that which follows upon the nearness of Relation in Nature betwixt the Sufferer and the Sinner; as when Children suffer for their Parent's Sins; the Voluntary is, when there is a free consent and undertaking to suffer on the behalf, and in the stead of the Sinner, though there was no previous Relation to the Sinner from whence he should naturally be obliged to suffer for him.  
Now he does (and surely with very just Reason) conclude the Sufferings of Christ to be of this last kind, for that they were not the Sufferings of the Delinquent himself, and so not Punishment in the Primary and most Famous Sense of the Word; they could therefore only be Punishment in a Secondary and less proper Sense. And since, even in his Assuming our Nature, Christ was conceived miraculously by the Power of the Holy Ghost (and did not descend from Adam by ordinary Generation) therefore in that Secondary Sense, his Punishment could not be the natural Effect of Adam's Sin. It remains then, that Christ only was punished as a Voluntary Undertaker, and the Analogical Punishment He underwent was inflicted on him as a Sponsor in our stead; our Sins were the ground and reason of his Sufferings, yea the meritorious Cause (but not so nearly and immediately as they would have been of our own Sufferings;) for that his Sponsion and Consent did necessarily intervene; so that they may not unaptly be called Punishments, though not so fully and properly as the Sufferings of the Sinners themselves might have been so called. To this Sense does that excellent Person speak, and this is little else than a Translation of his Latin Words, as will appear to any one that is capable and willing to consult the place referred to. And this being the Substance of what he afterwards quotes from him, I shall need to be at no farther trouble than only to recite the Words.  
2. And thus he goes on; Peccata nostra fuere causa remota passionis Christi. And again, Culpa nostra non erat causa proxima ejus passionis, sed tantum remota & occasio. Once more; At sensu improprio (i. e. not in that most proper and primary Sense in which they are imputed to the Sinner himself, as may be collected from the immediately foregoing Words) per meram Connotationem dici potest, peccata nostro Christo imputata fuisse, viz. quoad reatum paenae (& culpae ut ad paenam, at non in se) idque tantum remote: non quasi peccata nostra paenas Christi merita essent, sed quia nisi nobis paenas merita essent, ille paenas non dedisset. Et quia paena nulla est formaliter nisi propter peccatum, ideo quatenus Christi passiones fuere paenae Analogice sic dictae, peccatum (non suum, sed nostrum; non causam meritoriam, sed quasi procausam meritoriam & occasionem) connotabant. Ibid. Determ. 7. p. 40, 41.  
3. He quotes him again in English, thus: Man's Sin was an occasion of Christ's Sufferings, as being Loco causae meritoriae, for properly there was no meritorious Cause. The Law's Curse, or Obligation, was another occasion, as being Miseriae causa removenda. Christ's voluntary Sponsion or Consent, was the moral obliging Cause. Universal Redempt. p. 7. Again, We must distinguish betwixt Suffering Ex obligatione legis, & merito peccati, as we should have done if we had suffered ourselves; and Suffering ex obligatione solius sponsionis propriae, as Christ did, without any Merit, or Legal Obligation, his own Sponsion being instead of both, and our Sin and Obligation being but the occasion, or Loco causae meritoriae, Ibid. p. 25. Again, The Law, as binding us was the great occasion of Christ's Death, and Loco causae obligatoriae; but not the obligatory Cause itself: Christ's own Sponsion, and his Father's Will, were the only proper Obligations, P. 34. Again, Christ did not suffer from the Obligation of the Law, but from the Obligation of his own Sponsion, on occasion of the Law's obliging us to suffer, P. 48. Once more, Christ's Sufferings had no real, proper, meritorious Cause; but yet Man's Sins were the pro-causa meritoria, he undertook to bear that Suffering which for them was due to us (not to Him) and therefore when I say, He bore the Sufferings due to us, I mean it materialiter only; such Sufferings for kind and weight He bore, but his Obligation to bear 'em was only from his own Sponsion, and not the Law, P. 91.  
These are alleged by the Accuser, as some of those Passages which move him and his Brethren to fear, etc. Appeal, P. 4. But these being but some of 'em, he adds the rest, P. 10. 11, 12. and what he further transcribes is this:  
4. We must not say that Christ died nostro loco, so as to Personate us, or represent our Persons in Law-Sense, but only to bear what else we must have born, P. 51. And, As for your Objection, That no other way but Representing our Persons could suffice to Save us by the Satisfaction of another, 'tis a gross Mistake, and naked Affirmation, without Proof: And for them that say, Christ suffered in persona nostra, but not satisfied, or merited so: I Answer, They speak Inconsistencies, P. 76. To which he adds his Explication of that Phrase of Christ's Suffering loco nostro; as it signifies, Suffering that which another was obliged to suffer towards the freeing him from it; being materially the same, but not formally, from the same Obligation, but from the Obligation of a voluntary Sponsion; and this not in the Name, or as representing the Person of that other, but in a Third Person, viz. in the Person of a Mediator, Redeemer, or Friend, P. 22. 23. I need not mention what he next adds, for that it were exceeding strange if any one should (with this Author) Traduce a Person as Socinianizing, for distinguishing betwixt Christ's dying in our stead, and his dying for our good.  
Now to what purpose have we all these Passages Transcribed by him? with what design? what, can it be imagined the Man will make of 'em! (unless he have a mind to bring some of his Friends into a better Acquaintance with that most excellent Person.) What has he to except against any of the Recited Clauses? For my part, I was not able to guests, what Evil it was that he would charge upon 'em; nor could I have been more surprised, if any one had Cavilled against the plainest Theorem in Euclid; Mr. Baxter's Theses in this Case, being as plainly demonstrable (upon Scripture-Principles) as any of Euclid's are (upon Principles of Common Reason:) nor is it fit (perhaps) that any thing should be admitted into the rank of Christian Doctrines, but what is so. But what dangerous, what pernicious Error has he found in these Passages! Why, he dreams at least, that he is aware of a Design (bade enough, you may be sure) against the Doctrine of a real, full, and proper Satisfaction to God's Justice for our Sins, P 4. Risum teneatis. Well, but how must this Design be carried on? Why, don't you observe it, here's left out a Change of Persons between Christ and us all along? I'm well aware of it; and what then? Why, and then there's not a Word of Christ's Sustaining our Person, nor of Christ's Suffering in the Person of Sinners; and a Design there is on foot (I smell it at a distance) to turn [Christ's Suffering in the Person of Sinners] into [his Suffering in the Person of a Mediator.] Why surely, though one can't yet guests what hurt there should be in it, yet (if it be kept so very close, as this Man's way of Expression would intimate) one would be ready to suspect, there was some ill design in it; but (upon further Enquiry) it appears, there was no need of so great Cunning to find out that this was designed; 'tis what Mr. Baxter proclaimed openly (in the hearing of the whole World) near Forty Four Years ago; for thus he spoke in his Confession of Faith, P. 152, 153. Christ, as the public Sponsor, did bear the Punishment deserved by the Sins of the World, and made to his Father a Satisfaction sufficient for the Sins of all: but this he did in the Person of a Mediator, that undertook to bear the Penalty, and not in the Person of the Elect, or of any particular Sinner, etc. Nor has he at any time since made a Secret of it; but upon every befiting occasion this has still been his constant Language. So in the Catechism, at the end of his Family-Book, P. 447. Christ suffered for our Sins, and in our stead, because it was to free us from Sufferings; but yet He suffered in the Person of a Mediator, who indeed is one that undertook to suffer in the Sinner's stead, but never was, nor consented to be esteemed the Sinner himself. And a little farther; Christ suffered in our stead, but not as our Delegate, nor in our Name and Person properly, but as a voluntary Mediator, etc.— So also in his Treatise of Justifying Righteousness, Part I. P. 55. Christ suffered and obeyed in the Person of the Mediator, between GOD and Man, and as a Subject to the Law of Mediation. The like again, P. 24. as indeed frequently in that Book. So in his Meth. Theol. P. III. P. 42. Christus in Persona Mediatoris passus est— non in Persona— offendente. And in his Cath. Theol. Part II. P. 38. §. 41. Christ did not take upon Him strictly and properly the (Natural or Civil) Person of any Sinner, much less of all the Elect, or all Sinners, but the Person of a Mediator between God and sinners. See also §. 43. And P. 66. §. 142. He (God) judges Christ to have been the Sponsor and Mediator, and in that Person to have done and suffered as He did; because it is true: but He judges Him not to have been the Legal Person of the Sinner,— because that is not true. It were almost endless to refer you to all the other places where he thus speaks— Now after all, is it not very pleasant, to have this Man come and whisper it (as if it had been some mighty Secret) That he was aware this great Man had a design to turn [Christ's suffering in the Person of Sinners] into [his suffering in the Person of a Mediator.] P. 12. If it be a Plot, 'tis surely a very innocent one, that he should carry it on (for so many Years) so openly, and in the view of all the World; 'twas what he never was ashamed to own; and what was known to be his Sense of the Matter (for aught I know) before this Informer was born.  
But to proceed, Suppose he was for Christ's Suffering in the Person of a Mediator, and not of Sinners, (as, though 'tis by this Accuser only hinted as a remote Design, yet we have (if that will do him any kindness) given him very full and plain Evidence of it) what hurt is there in it?— What! why then Christ was never by virtue of the Sanction of the Law obliged to suffer for us; that is, as he oft tells us, the Original Law, the Law which we had transgressed did not oblige Christ to suffer. Well, 'tis granted! pray go on; And then, He suffered not a proper Punishment [but only the same Sufferings we were obliged to materially, not formally:] This is the Design he (the Reporter) was aware of, and so suggested it, P. 12.  
The Reporter (if all Reports be true) has been aware of other kind of Designs which yet he has not thought fit to suggest; and if he be so good at an Intrigue himself, as he is commonly famed to be, no wonder if he be jealous of every one else: It would incline one (that is of no very surmising Temper) to fear his Thoughts run much upon Designs and Plots when he is awake, that he cannot sleep but he must Dream of 'em, and like one delirious cry out in his sleep, Oh! they have a Design, a Cursed Design, I'm aware of what they aim at! And when he is perfectly awake, he can tell of no more that they design, than only to turn [Christ's suffering in the Person of Sinners] into [his suffering in the Person of a Mediator] who was never by virtue of the Sanction of the Law, obliged to suffer for us, and who suffered not a proper Punishment, but only the same sufferings we were obliged to materially, and not formally; though in his Dream he had talked of a Design against the Doctrine of Satisfaction.— Whereas these two things do so widely differ, as that the one may be designed, where the other is not, as shall hereafter be made appear; yea, that 'tis as consistent, as for a most sincere Anti-Socinian to be as heartily engaged against Antinomianism; and that nothing but his Ignorance can disprove this Accuser's being engaged in a design to promote either the one or the other, Socinianism, I mean, or Antinomianism; though whether of the two may hereafter more evidently appear, if ever he should have either less Policy, or more Integrity than now.  
In the mean time, as a Vindication of that (Not-without-just-veneration-to-be-named) Mr. Baxter, and those who (with myself) Bless God for him, and his Excellent Labours, (though we, as the Servants of Christ, dare follow no one farther than he is a Follower of our Lord;) I say, as a Vindication of him and ourselves, I shall undertake these Two Things in the following Papers, viz. to prove, That what is here Transcribed from Mr. Baxter is the Truth, that must secure us from the Impious and to be abhorred Blasphemy of Antinomianism: And afterwards, to make it appear, That the equally horrid Opinions (on the Socinian Extreme) are (not only not-countenanced, but also) most effectually refelled upon these Principles.  
To which I shall apply myself, when I have only added, That what is here said, is not intended as an Anticipation to the Just Defence that may be expected from that other worthy Person, whom this Accuser does also by Name traduce; and therefore I do not meddle with any of those Passages wherein he is personally concerned.   

PART I.  
§. 1. THIS Accuser having throughout his Appeal Insinuated that the before-recited Passages are Unsound, and Socinianizing at least, if not Socinian, has made it necessary in order to our Defence, that we make it appear, they are not chargeable Errors, much less as Socinianism: The former of these we shall begin with, viz. That there is nothing Erroneous or Unsound in the Particulars he has Transcribed from Mr. Baxter.  
§. 2. In order to which we shall consider 'em distinctly, according to the several Heads, to which he seems to have reduced 'em; tho' for want of Method in his Book (or through the Intricacy of it at least) 'tis not easy to find 'em out— But the Principles he seems to Extract from the abovementioned Passages, and to expose to Censure are these, viz.  
I. That Christ Suffered by Virtue of the Law of Mediation, not by Virtue of the Sanction of the Violated Law.  
II. And consequently that he Suffered in the Person of a Mediator, not in the Person of Sinners.  
III. And that thereupon his Sufferings were only Materially, not Formally the same we were obliged to.  
IU. And that our Sins (tho' they were the Impulsive Meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings) yet it was only more remotely that they were so, and not so nearly and immediately as they would have been of our own.  
V. And therefore, though his Sufferings may not unaptly be called a Punishment, yet not in that full and proper Sense in which the Sufferings of the Sinner himself might have been so called.  

CHAP. I.  
That Christ did not suffer by Virtue of the Law which we had Transgressed, but only by Virtue of the Law of Mediation.  
THIS is so far from being a pernicious Error, as that it is a very Important and most Useful Truth; for the manifesting which I'll set myself to hint the absurd Consequents of the opposite Notion, and to obviate the seeming Reasonings of this Accuser against it.  
§. 1. Suppose we for a while that this Notion of Mr. Baxter's is false, as this Accuser would have it; now if it be so, than the Proposition contrary to it must needs be true; and if it were true, nothing but what is so could naturally and necessarily flow from it. We will therefore consider some of the direct Consequences of that opposite Notion, and they are such as these.  
§. 2. 1. If Christ did suffer by virtue of the violated Law, than it must needs be, either that he was a Violator of the Law Himself, or that Law must be disjunctive; [Thou, or thy Surety, shall obey, otherwise, Thou, or thy Surety, shall suffer.] That one of these Consequents must be allowed, cannot (with any appearance of Reason) be denied: He could not suffer by virtue of that Law, unless He were under the reach of it; and how could He be any other way under the reach of that Law, than one of these two:  
Either as having violated it Himself; or, being bound, when the Law was given, as a Surety in the same Bond with us.  
There is indeed a third way pretended by this Accuser, and that is, That by his own Sponsion, and by the will of the Father, He came under the Obligation of the Violated Law, and so stood bound by this Law to suffer, Ap. p. 5, 6. But 'tis strange, that a Person so well acquainted with Laws, as he would be thought to be, should need to be told, that if the Obligation Christ laid Himself under to suffer, was as exactly the same, with that we lay under, as it was possible to be; yet the Change that was made in the Person obliged to suffer, did alter the Form of it, and make it truly another Law, another Obligation, and not that of the Original Law, otherwise than Materially only. We are willing to allow, That Christ suffered the same for Quantity and Quality that we should have suffered, so far as there is but probable Proof. Baxt. of Univers. Redempt. p. 78, 79. But if it were most strictly the same thing that we were obliged to, yet it is not sufficient to prove, He suffered under the Formal Obligation of the Violated Law, or that He stood bound by that Law to suffer; for that another Person may, in the stead of a Criminal, suffer the very same kind of Pain, or Loss, That the Criminal himself was Condemned to, and this by his own Sponsion, and the Will of the Prince: In which case I dare appeal to all the Learned in the Law, whether the Obligation be not another; whether the Law by virtue whereof He suffers, be not differing from that which Condemned the Malefactor himself.  
So that if Christ did (as this Accuser of him, as well as us, says) suffer by virtue of the Violated Law; 'tis not to be conceived, how the threatening of that Law could reach Him, unless He were (as we have hinted)  
Either a Violater of that Law Himself, or an Antecedent Surety with and for us.  
Which either of these he shall say, it will equally be subversive of the whole Gospel.  
§. 3. (1.) Should he have the Front to say, That Christ was Himself a Violater of that Law, what more Egregious Blasphemy could he utter against the Author of our Holy Religion? How should He be the Redeemer of Sinners, that was a Sinner Himself! The whole Gospel does depend upon, and necessarily presuppose his Innocency (yea, which is more, his Divinity) as the Foundation of it, John 1. 1. Hell itself cannot Foam out greater Rage and Nonsense than to call God a Sinner; and while we are so expressly assured, That our Lord Jesus was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, Heb. 7. 26. That He knew no sin, 2 Cor. 1. 21. Heb. 4. 15. 1 Pet. 2. 22. 1 Joh. 3. 5. 1 Pet. 1. 19 We shall not so much as suspect, that any one Professing the Christian Name will imagine, that Christ suffered as being a Violater of that Law Himself.  
2. If then He suffered by Virtue of the Sanction of that Law, it remains that He was an Antecedent Surety with and for us; otherwise the Obligation of that Law could never reach Him; and then the Law as given to Adam, must be supposed to run [Thou shalt obey, or thy Surety for thee; otherwise, thou shalt die, or thy Surety for thee.] Now if the Original Law did thus take in a Surety, how plain is it, that it was never violated! Our Surety did obey, did fulfil all Righteousness; if then it only obliged either Him, or us disjunctively to obey; what ground is there left, whereupon either Christ or we should suffer!  
Obj. But I presume some will allege, His Suretyship did only respect the Sanction, not the preceptive part of the Law; that the Law did not oblige Him to obey; but only (supposing our Disobedience) either He or we must suffer.  
Repl. To which it might be replied, The Surety's Name is not more Legible in the Penal; than in the Preceptive Part of the Law; and we find He did Obey, as well as Suffer; and therefore have reason to think He was equally obliged to Obey, as He was to Suffer. But yet we will suppose it to be (as they would have it) that Christ was only obliged in case of our Disobedience; that He was only a Surety with reference to the Penalty; and that the Sense of the Law was [Thou Adam shalt obey, otherwise, thou or Christ, shall die.] And thus far at least He must be obnoxious to the Original Law, otherwise He could not possibly suffer under the Obligation of that Law; He could not be said to be (as this Accuser would have it thought He was) in the same Bond with us, and obliged to suffer by virtue of the Sanction of the same Law that obliged us to suffer.  
§. 4. Now this Notion in the Consequences of it, is equally subversive of Christianity with the former,  
For 1. If the Original Law (as to its Penal Part) was disjunctive, viz. either that the Offender should suffer, or Christ for him, than the Gospel had not been the bringing in of a better Covenant, but a performance 
Of the Sufferings of Christ, last Edition, p. 14.  of the Old. Thus does that Right Reverend Person, to whom this Accuser has Appealed, argue against him. Upon this Principle, what the Apostle had so carefully distinguished, are confounded together, and made one and the same thing, when upon a comparing 'em together, he does once and again give the Preferrence to the latter Covenant, (as Heb. 7. 22.— 8. 6.) 'tis plain he supposes the one is not the other; or, if the Apostle in that Discourse had a more immediate Reference to the Mosaic Law, his Argument will hold a fortiori from hence, in reference to the Original Law. But there is one thing farther I would add under this Head, which perhaps will be of weight with this Accuser and his Friends, and that is, That hereupon the Gospel must needs be a Law, the very Old, Original Law, and not so much as a Law of greater Grace; what can there possibly be left to distinguish the Old, Original Law, and the Gospel, if this Principle be admitted?  
2. If the Original Law (as to its Penal Part) was disjunctive, it would also follow, That we are Justifiable, according to the utmost Rigour of that Law; for supposing the Penalty to be already borne, what has that Law further to Charge upon us? The Psalmist (surely) had much differing Apprehensions of the Matter, when he cried out, If thou, Lord, shouldst mark Iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? Psal. 130. 3. The Reverend Dr. Owen's Words upon this place, are very remarkable: But (says he) may not an Intercessor be obtained to Plead on the Behalf of the guilty Soul? Eli determines this matter, I Sam. 2. 25. If one Man sin against another, the Judge shall judge him; but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall entreat for him? There is not, says Job, between us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that might argue the case, in pleading for me, and so make up the Matter, laying his hand upon us both, Job 9 33. We now (as he immediately adds) consider a Sinner purely under the 
Dr. Owen, on Psal. CXXX. p. 48.  Administration of the Law, which knows nothing of a Mediator. So that (according to him, and indeed according to the Truth of the thing) the Original Law did not admit or appoint any Mediator, any Christ to suffer and plead on the behalf of the guilty Soul; and consequently left no place for hope. But upon this Supposal, That that Law only obliged either Christ, or us to suffer, what reason was there for so dismal Apprehensions? tho' God should mark Iniquities, resolve to Animadvert upon 'em with utmost Rigour, we may yet stand; for that the very rigour of the Law does (according to them) require only, that either Christ, or we should suffer, not that both should, now then where is the danger the Psalmist was so apprehensive of? And whence is it, that he does elsewhere so earnestly deprecate God's Judicial Process, Psal. 143. 2. Enter not into judgement with thy servant, for in thy sight shall no man living be justified. It must needs be, either that the Psalmist, or these Men, have very greatly misapprehended the Sense of that Law; for that according to him, if God should judge us by that Law, no man living could be justified; whereas according to them, though God should judge us by that Law, we cannot but be Justified; for when the threatened Penalty is inflicted, the most rigorous Justice can go no further; we are Recti in Curia, when the Law is satisfied; no further charge can have place against us.  
3. Yea further, it follows, That we never had (as indeed we could never need) a Pardon. The Case will be very plain by a familiar Instance: Suppose two Persons jointly bound for the Payment of a certain Sum of Money, or for the performance of any other Condition or Contract; if either Party pay the Money, or discharge the Bond, the other is quit in Law, and the Creditor cannot be said to have forgiven him. Justice itself is so far from requiring, that it would not admit of double Payment. Now then, if Christ was in the same Bond with us, if either He or we suffer, the Debt is Paid, the utmost Demands of Justice are answered; what place is there then left for Forgiveness? Can a Penalty be said to be forgiven, that was not due? or can it be yet due, when 'tis already paid? and is it not in Law paid, if either the Principal or Surety pay it? Upon this Principle than it is plain, That God cannot be said to have forgiven us, to have been gracious to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: For tho' Socinus did (as Grotius has manifested) Argue from those Terms, with great weakness, against all Satisfaction; yet nothing can, with greater force and evidence, disprove a full and proper Solution. What shall we then say to those numerous Texts, where we and our Sins are said to be forgiven? Hereupon the Gospel-Covenant, as offering Remission, Luke 24. 47. and the Sacraments of the Gospel, as Sealing it to Sincerely Penitent Believers, Acts 2. 38. Mat. 26. 28. are rendered mere Impertinencies; and can it be thought these Persons do ever pray for Pardon; or that they do account themselves beholden to God for it? how they can consistently with this their Opinion, I see not.  
4. Moreover, this Doctrine renders our Repentance, and all Obedience of ours needless; and a continued course of the most enormous wickednesses would hereupon be unhurtful to us. If these Persons will be consistent with themselves, it seems necessary for 'em to say (as Dr. Crisp) that Sin can do us no hurt, and Holiness can do us no good. Upon this Principle, what hurt can Sin, the grossest wickedness do us? Suppose a Person an Atheist, a Blasphemer, an Adulterer, that he live and die such; in this case it can only be said, The Law was violated, and therefore the Threatening must take place: But if this Notion be true, that the Law threatens only, that either the Sinner or Christ shall die, it cannot touch such a Creature as this, it having been already executed.  
And alike needless must it needs render Holiness and Obedience in all the Instances of it; for to what purpose is it, can it be supposed to be needful, if he may be accepted with God, if he may be Rectus in curia without it.  
5. Again, If this Principle be admitted, none of our sufferings would consist with the Justice of God: for that according to them, the Law did oblige only Christ, or us, to suffer; if either suffer therefore, full Payment is made; the Law has no farther demands to make; how is it then, that we notwithstanding suffer? that we are subjected to any Sufferings, Spiritual or Temporal (not to make any mention here of Eternal ones) Whence is it that God withdraws the Quickening, or Comforting Influences of his Spirit from any? Whence is it, that He gives up any to their own Hearts Lusts? Whence is it that any are exposed to the fiery Darts of the wicked one? Or yet, that the Arrows of the Almighty do wound, do stick fast in any Soul? Or, if we should yet come lower, how unaccountable were it, that we should groan under pining Sicknesses, noisome Diseases, racking Pains, and at length yield to Death?  
It will, perhaps, be pleaded, That God may inflict all these Evils, and many more at pleasure, as being Absolute Lord of his Creatures; but it should be remembered, That having given us a Law, He is become our Ruler; and thereby He does declare, That He will not, however (antecedently thereto) He might have Arbitrarily inflicted any Evil upon us: The very giving out a Law, in and by which it is Enacted, That such certain Evils shall be inflicted upon the Transgressor's of it; how plainly does it indemnifie-the Non-violaters of it from such Sufferings? Such threatenings otherwise could answer no End; if it were intended, That whether they violated the Law, or not, they should be alike obnoxious. Now if we consider God as a Governor, the Evils He inflicts come under another Consideration; they are not merely Afflictions or Sufferings, but they are also Punishments, and therefore they are not dispensed Arbitrarily, but according to a Stated Rule; He does not punish any but such as by the Law are obnoxious; hence is it that we read of his Righteousness in Reference to this Matter.  
And as this does more generally evince, That all Evils inflicted by a Ruler as such, are Punishments; so (with Reference to the particular Instances abovementioned) it might be distinctly made appear, that they are, in the most strict and proper Sense, Punishments— In the last (which is not the least doubted) Case, how plain is it! that the Separation of Soul and Body is Penal; that 'tis a natural Evil no one doubts, as such 'tis abhorred of all; and that 'tis inflicted for, or by reason of Sin, is as unquestionable, if the Apostle's account of the Matter may be allowed; for so he tells us, Rom. 5. 12. By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. So that Death (amongst Men) has the nature of a Punishment in it, but how then comes it to be inflicted, if it be not due? If we be not obnoxious to the Sentence of the Law, it cannot be said to be due to us; if the Threatening was disjunctive, both Parties Bound could not be obnoxious, if Sentence be executed on either, the other is clear; how comes it then that we are punished and Christ too! What shall we say? Is God unrighteous that taketh vengeance? Rom. 3. 5. Or is not this rather an unrighteous Doctrine, that would reflect the Imputation of Injustice upon the Holy God?  
6. Yet again, According to this Notion, How can the Eternal Damnation of any Soul consist with Divine Justice? This Surety is a Punishment with a witness; but how can it be a righteous one if it be not due? And it cannot be due to any Man, if it be already paid; and every Man has paid it, if his Surety have done it. I see not, upon this Principle, how God can, in Justice, Damn any individual Soul: Here than is Universal Redemption, and Universal Grace, beyond the utmost stretch of Arminianism itself. What! is it than not only possible that they may, but is it also certain that all shall be Saved from Everlasting Perdition! Is there not only a Sufficiency of Grace afforded to all, but that Efficacious Influence that will secure the Effect! Is God not only unwilling to Damn any, but is He also unjust, unrighteous if He do! 'Tis strange then, that we should read of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. 2. 5. and an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Heb. 2. 2. Certainly a Threatening us with Wrath, because of God's righteous Judgement, and with Remediless Ruin, as a just Recompense of Reward, cannot but intimate, That God would be Righteous and Just, tho' careless obdurate Sinners should finally perish.  
Nay, while we are assured, That Sodom and Gomorrah, Judas, v. 7. and many others, suffer the vengeance of Eternal Fire, and that God has not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Power, Ability, Mat. 10. 28. but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Power, Authority, Luke 12. 5. to cast into Hell: those, and many like Texts, cannot be more true, than this Opinion is false, that would infer God cannot Punish, cannot cast into Hell, were unjust if He should do it; yea, such a Notion must needs be false, that these Sacred Scriptures may be true.  
7. I'll add but one more absurd Consequence of this Opinion (though many more might be subjoined) and that is, That the Patrons of this Principle do hereby greatly obscure, and lessen that Freegrace in Christ, which they so highly pretend to Exalt and Magnify. When they have seemed to advance Freegrace beyond all others, to cry up Gospel-Grace, and Gospel-Preaching, they do at length subvert all Purely-Gospel-Grace at once, and necessarily resolve the Whole of Divine Grace into the Constitution of the Law of Works: For, supposing (with them) that Christ's Name was put into the Original Bond; supposing that Law did take in Christ as Surety with us; 'tis not of Grace, but Justice, that God is reconciled to us, or that we are accepted with Him; it should not be said that we are Justified freely by his Grace, but that the Rigour of the Law did exact nothing more, and therefore our Justification was a due debt, 'twas what was owing to us by Governing Justice; the Righteous God could not Condemn us, having already exacted the threatened Punishment at our Surety's Hands. Now is it so Adorable, so Surprising Grace, that God should be just to his own Law! Is it so very Astonishing and Wonderful a thing, that God should be true to his Word! Thus, after all their Pretences of a more exalted Admiration of, and Value for Divine Grace, they do by this Notion shrink it into so narrow a Compass, as the Framing the Original Law; and as for all that which the Gospel magnifies as Grace, they render it nothing other than pure Justice; all Gospel Grace should (with them, if they will consist with themselves) be nothing differing from a due Debt, tho' the Apostle does so carefully contra-distinguish and oppose 'em to each other, Rom. 4. 4.  
§ 5. (2.) If Christ did suffer by Virtue of the violated Law, than his Sufferings were most strictly the same that we were obnoxious to; this is as plain, as that the Sanction of the Law was the same with itself. But is it to be admitted, that our Lord Jesus Christ was alienated from the Life and Love of God that He was dead in trespasses and sins! deserted of the Spirit of Holiness! was his Soul overrun with outrageous and impetuous Lusts! All which, under one consideration, is our Punishment, tho' under another respect it be also our Sin. Or was the Lord Jesus hated, abhorred of the Father! Did He lose all right to, and Interest in God's Favour and Kindness? Did He bear the stinging Reflections of a guilty Conscience, the horrors of a despairing damned wretch in Hell? This is but part of the Punishment included in the Threatening against us; but what Pious Soul would not rise with Indignation against any one, that should so far Blaspheme the Holy and ever-blessed Redeemer, as to say this was his Case, his State? And if He did not suffer what that Law threatened, it cannot be said that He suffered by virtue of that Law. It remains then, that He did only suffer by virtue of the Law of Mediation, as before.  
§. 6. (3.) Then the Law obliged him to suffer; whereupon it would follow, that neither He could refuse the Undertaking; nor God refuse to accept it as Punishment; but this I shall but mention here.  
§. 7. We are next to obviate the seeming Reasonings of this Accuser against this Truth; and what he does loosely (and immethodically enough) offer here and there to this purpose, we shall endeavour to reduce into some Order, that it may appear, with all the force it has, against us; and be more capable of receiving a just Reply. And,  
(1.) He does insinuate, That Christ's Sufferings cannot otherwise be an Act of Rectoral Justice; but only Acts of Obedience and Dominion. Take his own Words: We are of Opinion, That Sufferings which are not from the Obligations of a Violated Law, cannot be an Act of Rectoral Justice, which does Essentially respect the Law in its Distributions.— If a Rector sentenceth any to Sufferings, without a regard to Sin, it is Unjust. Appeal, p. 7.  
And again, If Mr. B. resolve Christ's Sufferings wholly into a Conformity to the Precept of the Mediatorial Law,— they can be but Acts of Obedience and Dominion, not Acts of Justice, p. 50, 51. So he goes on, p. 52. They affirm 'em to be but Acts of Obedience, and consequently Acts of Dominion, not of Punitive Justice. So again, p. 54. The Sufferings of Christ— could not be a Judicial Act of God: He (Christ) could not be Condemned, nor could Sentence pass upon Him; nor according to any Sentence could He be executed; for where no Obligation to Punishment by the Sanction of the Law, there no Gild in any Sense; where no Gild, no Condemning, no Passing a Sentence justly, no Execution, etc. And P. 56. His Sufferings could be but an Act of Dominion.  
Now to all this we Answer.  
1. That He is so Confused, and Unsteady in the Forming this Objection, that we can hardly so much as guests what it is he means: Sometimes he speaks of the Sufferings of Christ as an Act of Rectoral Justice, and a Judicial Act of God; where one would think he considers 'em as inflicted by God; and yet in other places, he speaks of 'em as Acts of Justice, where 'tis not certain, but he may refer to 'em as undertaken by Christ: Now these two are far from being the same thing, That Christ was not unrighteous in undertaking, and undergoing those Sufferings; and that God was not unrighteous in inflicting and laying 'em upon Him.  
Again, he thus confounds, an Act of Dominion, and Acts of Dominion; whereas the former may import, That the Father (as Dominus Christi, as his Lord) might enjoin Him to suffer; and the latter may signify, That Christ (as Lord of his own Acts) might offer, might consent to suffer.  
Besides, he confounds Sufferings inflicted by virtue of the Sanction of the Law, and Sufferings inflicted, with a regard to Sin, and makes the latter signify as much as the former, whereas we constantly (and with the justest Reason) distinguish betwixt 'em; and allow that in the Sufferings of Christ, there was a regard had to Sin, to our Sin, as what had offended, highly incensed the Divine Majesty against us, and rendered it necessary (for the Reputation of his Wisdom, Holiness, Justice, and the support of his Governing-Authority) that his Displeasure should in one way or other be manifested against Sin, if He should (and that He might) remit the Penalty due to the Sinner. And hereupon it was agreed betwixt the Father and the Son, that Christ should Suffer; the Divine Wisdom this way at once providing for the Honour of God, as Governor, and for the Redemption of Apostate-Man. So that we readily grant, there was a respect had to sin, in the Sufferings of Christ; yea, that it could not have consisted with the Justice of God as Rector, to Sentence Him to suffer, without a regard to sin. But it does not, cannot thence follow, that He suffered by virtue of the Obligation of the Violated Law; that that Law obliged Him to suffer; unless you will also say, That that Law obliged God to Save Sinners, and to appoint this Ransom for 'em. But,  
2. Supposing him to mean (as his Reference to the Bishop of Worcester's Letter would intimate) That unless we will allow Christ's Sufferings to have been by virtue of the violated Law, they could not be inflicted by God as a Ruler, but only as an absolute Lord. We deny the Consequence: neither is it to be allowed, unless he can make it appear, that this is the only Law, by virtue whereof Christ could be obliged to suffer.  
And therefore also, it might be (and was) a Judicial Act of God, an Act of his Rectoral Justice to inflict Sufferings upon Christ, because the Law of Mediation rendered him obnoxious to Sufferings: and being hence obliged to suffer (and, in that general Sense, having guilt upon Him) He might have Sentence justly passed and executed upon Him; and accordingly we find (in that Prophetical Psalm, 22. 3.) Christ Justifies God the Father under the very depth of his Sorrows.  
Nay, Christ's Sufferings did not only consist with the Justice of God as a Rector; but did also declare and demonstrate it to the World, Rom. 3. 25, 26. God set Him forth, set Him in view of all the World, by Him (by his Blood) to declare his Righteousness, that He might be, and appear to be just, though He was a Justifier of sinful Men. As we shall (God willing) more fully clear, when we come to deal with the Socinian Adversaries, in the Second Part of this Discourse.  
(3.) Whereas he argues from their being Acts of Obedience (in our Opinion) that consequently we must hold, that they are only Acts of Dominion, etc. We again deny the Consequence; nay, rather think the direct opposite should have been inferred, viz. That because we do consider the Sufferings of Christ, as Acts of Obedience to a Law, therefore God is not, in reference hereto, to be looked upon as a mere Lord or Owner, but also as a Ruler.  
And we are the less afraid of having any ill consequence proved upon us, as to this, because (which yet this Accuser, as if he very little conversed with the Scriptures, seems not to know) 'tis consecrated Language as well as Divine Truth; 'tis not only the sense, but also the words of the Holy Ghost, Rom. 5. 19 Phil. 2. 8. Heb. 5. 8. So that the Sufferings of Christ were Acts of Obedience, and consequently we may infer, did correspond to the Precepts of a Law, and what other could it be but that of Mediation: Accordingly, in reference to these very Sufferings, our Saviour himself tells us, That he acted herein pursuant to a Command he had received of his Father, John 10. 17, 18. He says not, this I was obliged to by the threatening of one or other Law; but a Command I have received to this purpose, and I'm ready to obey; for thus also in the Volume of the Book it is written of him, Lo, I come to do thy Will, O God; for to the offering of his Body, the Apostle does apply those words, Heb. 10. 7— 10.  
(4.) And lastly, To close this head, we add, That if indeed we had said, that the Sufferings of Christ had no respect at all to the violated Law, he might then (with some force of Reason) have inferred upon us, that we thereby rendered 'em, with the Socinians, a mere Act of Dominion upon Christ, and not (in any sense) an Act of Justice: But he cannot but know, that we willingly grant, that they had some Reference even to the Sanction of that Law, and that both as, 

The Law, obliging us to suffer, was the ground and reason of his Undertaking to suffer.  
His Sufferings did in great part answer the Ends, for which that Sanction was annexed to the Law.    
(1.) The Law, as obliging us to suffer, was the Ground the Reason of Christ's Undertaking to suffer; but his Sufferings themselves, were by reason of that Undertaking; had it not been that we were under sentence of Death by that Law, we had not needed a Mediator; Nay further, could that Sentence have been remitted without any satisfaction made; Could the Threatening have been absolutely recalled (so as that no severe Marks of Divine Displeasure should have been left upon Sin) and this without weakening his Authority, and rendering the Majesty of Heaven cheap: Christ had never suffered, never undertaken to suffer— But these things are vastly differing; to say that upon this Reason Christ undertook to suffer; and to say, that that very Sanction obliged him to suffer; in the former Case, 'tis no more than loco causae Obligatoriae; in the latter, it would be the Obligatory Cause itself.  
(2.) Christ's Sufferings did, in great part answer the Ends of that Sanction; as will appear, if we consider for what purposes a Sanction was added to the Law; and amongst others, such as these do readily occur, viz. thereby to express God's hatred of Sin; to secure the Law and Lawgiver from Contempt; and to enforce Obedience, etc. Now these Ends of the Threatening were answered as well (perhaps better) by the Sufferings of Christ, than they could have been by the sufferings of Sinners themselves. Yet it cannot therefore be said, that the Threatening itself was executed upon Christ. In short, some respect the Sufferings of Christ had to the violated Law, as is above said, but not such, as that it can be said with Truth, either that that Law obliged Him to suffer, or that it was fulfilled in and by his Sufferings.  
(2.) He does next Insinuate, As if Christ could not be a Mediator, at least, not suffer as such; unless He suffered by Virtue of the Violated Law. This (surely) must be his Sense, if he have any, P. 25. where he says, That though Christ came not under the Obligation of the Law of Works, but by the Father's Will, and his own Consent— Yet (on his Entering into the Office of a Mediator) the Obligation to suffer for Sin, is immediately by Virtue of the Sanction of the Law. I take him to mean, That tho' He was not a Mediator, without the Appointment of God, and his own Consent, yet upon his very becoming a Mediator, the Obligation of the violated Law must immediately lay hold upon Him; so that tho' He might have avoided Suffering, had He declined his Mediatory Undertaking; yet supposing Him to Mediate, the Violated Law immediately seizeth on Him, and obliges Him to suffer. To which we Answer,  
1. The Violated Law did indeed oblige the Sinner himself to suffer; but that it did or could oblige any one else, is what (how oft soever it be said) has never yet been proved.  
2. Nor does Christ's merely entering into the Office of a Mediator, necessarily (and in the nature of the thing) oblige Him to suffer; for it is conceivable, (as a thing very possible) that He might have Mediated for a mitigation of our Sufferings only. Suppose (for instance) that instead of the Torments of Hell for ever, we might only endure those Tortures for a determinate Number of Years. I would not be mistaken: I am not saying Christ did so, being well assured He did otherwise; nor am I devising a better Method, or one equally good with that which took place: 'Tis not without inexpressible Delight and Gratitude, that I do own and adore the Infinitely excelling Wisdom and Goodness, that is conspicuous in the Gospel-way of Mediation. All I say is, That in the nature of the thing 'twas not impossible, there might have been a Mediation set on foot to this purpose; in which case I ask, how it does appear, that the Mediator Himself must needs suffer? And this with a design to convince Our Accuser, his Argument can have no force in it; for that it must according to all Rules of Logic, proceed upon this Indefinite and Unlimited Proposition, Whoever Mediates for an obnoxious Criminal, shall suffer. Which Proposition is not to be allowed, unless every one that Mediates (in what way soever) for such an one must needs suffer: An Assertion so weak, that barely to mention it is sufficiently to expose it; yet if he should limit it to this, or any other special Case, 'twould there only be a naked Assertion, and no Argument.  
3. But supposing Christ was (as I willingly grant he was) upon his entering into the Office of a Mediator obliged to suffer for Sin; yet still, it appears not that He is so, immediately by virtue of the Sanction of the Law. That the Sufferings of the Mediator had a Respect to the Sanction of the Law (as before) we grant; but that He was properly obliged by that Law to suffer (whether mediately, or immediately) is what we believe this Accuser can never prove. The violated Law never said, If Christ Mediate for Sinners, He shall die; but another Law that was peculiar to Himself, and which we therefore call the Law of Mediation.  
(3.) But he proceeds, If Christ's Obligation to Suffer did not result from this Law (i. e. the Violated Law) our sins were not the Impulsive Cause of his Sufferings, Ibid. p. 25. And he adds, p. 41. It's impossible Sin should be their Meritorious Cause. And again, p. 50. If Christ's Sufferings be not— by virtue of the Penal Sanction of a violated Law, our Sins cannot be their Meritorious Cause.  
The Answer to this we must defer to the Fourth Chapter, where we shall have occasion to speak fully to it. Again,  
(4.) He does also suggest, in the last quoted Pages, That Christ's Sufferings could not otherwise be a proper Punishment— The Consideration whereof is also to be reserved for the Fifth Chapter of this Discourse. Moreover,  
(5.) He does next intimate, That it was either by virtue of that Sanction (i. e. that of the Violated Law) or by virtue of no Sanction at all, that Christ was obliged to suffer: For that according to us, the Mediatorial Law had no Penal Sanction; and thereupon he challenges us to show, by virtue of what Sanction Christ was obliged to suffer, Vid. p. 26. In Answer whereto,  
We distinguish betwixt a Sanction 

In a more Loose and General Sense;  
In a more Strict and Proper one.    
Accordingly we say,  
1. In the strictest Sense, as it does import the Threatening that is annexed to a Law, we see not how it can be said, that Christ was obliged to Suffer by virtue of any Sanction; for that we know no Law that threatened Him. But,  
2. If we understand the Word in a loser and more general Sense, as signifying only an Ordination at large; we may say, Sancitum fuit, it was Ordained, Enacted by the Law of Mediation, that He should suffer for Sin; and so He was obliged to suffer by virtue of that Sanction.  
6. In the last place, He does advance a very formidable Argument against us, viz. That (upon the forementioned Principle) we cannot hold Christ's Sufferings to have been in our place and stead, otherwise than as it signifies only for our Benefit and Advantage. This he enlarges upon, p. 29, 30.  
To which we Reply, First, and more generally, That all that make use of that Distinction, are not agreed upon one and the same Sense; and therefore the Sense of the Terms should be fixed, before they can signify any thing in an Argument. 'Tis possible such a Sense may be affixed to one, or other of the Terms, in which it may be true, that we cannot hold Christ's Sufferings to have been in our place and stead, or to have been otherwise so, than as it signifies for our good. Who knows what Secret Sense this Accuser may understand these Phrases in, by which he may prove his charge against us.  
We should therefore know, what it is he means, both by Christ's Suffering in our place and stead, and by his Suffering for our benefit and advantage: For by knowing only his Sense of one of these Phrases, we cannot possibly Conjecture, whether the other (with him) import less or more, or just the same thing. Yet,  
2. And more particularly, tho' we cannot (in his declared Sense) hold that Christ suffered in our place, yet it will not follow, that we do not (or cannot) hold that He suffered in our stead, otherwise than as it signifies for our good only. But what we do, (and consistently with ourselves can) maintain his Suffering in our stead, in such a Sense in which the Socinians ever denied it, shall (through Divine Assistance) be made appear in the Second Part of this Discourse.   

CHAP. II.  
That Christ did not Suffer in the Person of Sinners, but in the Person of a Mediator.  
§. 1. THIS also he would have to be accounted amongst our Errors, as appears not only from several Passages in his Appeal, but also from his objecting this, amongst other faults, against the Third Paper (in his Report) viz. That it was so worded as to be calculated to their Meridian, who hold, That Christ suffered only in the Person of a Mediator, not in the Person of Sinners.  
§. 2. That Christ was a Mediator, and did suffer as (or in the Person of) a Mediator, I will suppose is no part of the Controversy betwixt the Accuser and us: All that can then remain as questionable, is, Whether he suffered as (or in the Person of) a Sinner— which being affirmed, should also have been proved by this Accuser: We being only Doubters or Deniers in this Point, have nothing to do but only to hear his Proofs: No Rules I have yet met with, oblige us to any thing more.  
§. 3. Yet since he has not (as might have been expected) done his part; or perhaps, could not do it; we shall more than do our own; that it may appear, what it is we do herein deny, and upon what Reasons we do it. And  
§. 4. In order to a better understanding the state of the Case, it should be considered, That the Phrase itself is what the Scriptures are utterly a Stranger to: We no where read in those sacred Oracles, either of Christ's sustaining, or suffering in the Person of Sinners; and 'tis but reasonable for us, when Articles of Faith are proposed to, nay pressed upon us, to hesitate about 'em (can we be blamed, if we also deny, renounce 'em) unless Scripture-Evidence be produced for 'em. If their sense of this (or any other) Phrase appear in the Scriptures, we shall readily own that sense; but the Phrase itself cannot be thought necessary, while it is not there.  
§. 5. But besides, This is not only an Humane Phrase, but a very obscure and ambiguous one; and 'tis hard to conceive (amongst the many senses it is capable of) any one sense, in which it may be tolerably applied to the present Case— We shall briefly mention some of the more remarkable Notations of the Word [Person:] And passing by several others, I shall only take notice of the vastly differing sense in which the Word is used by Metaphysicians, and by Civilians.  
§. 6. The word [Person] as made use of by Metaphysicians, is designed to express an individual, complete; intelligent Substance. Thus every Man, and every Angel are distinct Persons; and Christian Philosophers transfer this account of the word [Person] to Christ as God-Man; yea, and to the Godhead itself, when they use that Term with reference to the Sacred Three, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. But in this sense 'tis not to be admitted, that Christ suffered in the Person of Sinners; for that in order to his suffering in any Person (one or other) it was first necessary he should assume that Person; Now, however he did assume the Nature of Man, yet he did not, 'twas not possible that he should, in this sense, assume the Person of any Sinner. Surely this Accuser himself will not dare to assert, That Christ was the individual Substance of Peter, Judas, etc. if not, he was not their Person; and if not their Person, than he did not suffer as such.  
§. 7. Or if they should refer us to Civilians for the sense of the word, 'tis amongst them a very perplexed and un-agreed Term. Sometimes they do only in general contradistinguish Persons to Things, and make the word Person to be equivalent to the word Man. Thus Zouch, Res sunt de quibus homines agunt; Personae quae agunt in se; i. e. Viri & 
Elementa Jurisprud. p. 1. §. 7, 8.  Mulieres: qui Hominis appellatione continentur. Yet according to others, this Term of Person is not so extensive as that of Man. So 
Lexic. Jurid. Sub Tit. Personae.  Calvin tells us, Personae appellatio cum hominis appellatione non est eadem; haec enim quam illa est generalior— Omnis Persona est homo, sed non vicissim. Ind Persona definitur Homo, qui caput habet civil. By caput civile habens. he does not (as some apprehend) mean one that has a Civil Head, or a superior in the State; then indeed (as they infer) a King would be no Person; but what he and other Civilians intent by it, is one that has the liberties of a Freeborn Subject in the State; and so is designed only to exclude Prisoners of War, Bondslaves, etc. from being Persons. Thus 
Sub Tit. Caput.  he explains himself at large, Qui in eum (scil. liberorum) ordinem cooptatur, caput jam habere dicitur: Unde servus, qui pro lihertate pretium persolvit, pretium pro capite solvere dicitur, apud Plautum & J. consultos frequentissime, i. e. ut liceat illi caput in ordinem libertorum habere: Qui, si postea libertate mulctetur, capite minutus dicetur; and thus also the Learned Pufendorf explains it: Persona apud J. Consultos praeprimis, 
Elementa Jurisprud. p. 19  illa dicitur, quae caput (i. e. libertatem personalem) habet. But this distinction is not to be admitted with reference to the Sufferings of Christ; in dying he had a respect, not only to Jews, but to Gentiles; and amongst them not only to the Learned Greeks, but also to the more uncultivated Barbarians and Scythians; not only to such as were free among 'em, but also to the very bond slaves, Rom. 10. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 13. Gal. 3. 28. Col. 3. 11.  
§. 8. Again, sometimes they do by the Term [Person] intimate (not absolutely the Man himself, but) the Man respectively considered, with Reference to the Quality, State or Condition, in which he stands. So Calvin, ubi supra. Persona tam hominem, quam qualitatem hominis & conditionem significat. 
De jure naturae & gentium, lib. 1. cap. 1 §. 12. To the same purpose he also speaks. Elem, Jurisp. lib. 1, Def. 4.  And more fully, Pufendorf, Personae morales— sunt homines— considerati cum statu suo aut munere, in quo in vita communi versantur.  
Now will this Accuser say, That in this Sense Christ did sustain, and suffer in the person of Sinners? Was He every one of those very Men for whom He died? Did He possess the place, state, condition, quality of every individual Sinner.  
§. 9 But amongst Political Persons (to omit other Sub-divisions) there is one special kind, which they call Representative Persons; and this I suppose may be intended, when 'tis said, That Christ suffered in the Person of Sinners. Under this rank the Civilians do commonly reckon Ambassadors, Plenipotentiaries, Vice-Roys, etc. as acting in the Person of the Prince that Commissionates 'em: Members of Parliament, as Personating or Representing those that do Elect 'em: Advocates or Attorneys, as Pleading in the Person of their Clients: Tutors and Guardians, acting for, and in the Name of the Pupils and Minors, with whom they are entrusted: a Servant, or any other Delegate, whom we Authorize and Appoint to pay Money, or Transact any other Affair for us; so far as any one does with Authority manage any of our Affairs, he may in some Sense be said to Represent us, or to do it in our Person. Now if in any tolerable Sense it may be said, That Christ suffered in the Person of Sinners, it must (I conceive) be in this, that He did suffer as their Representative.  
§. 10. And therefore, that it may the better appear, how far He did, and wherein He did not Represent, or personate us in his Sufferings, we should carefully distinguish,  
1. Betwixt Christ's Representing us in his Sufferings; and representing us in his Obedience.  
2. Betwixt his Representing, or Personating a Sinner in his Sufferings, and his Representing or Personating Sinners therein.  
3. Betwixt his Representing, or Personating sinners when He suffered, only in some very limited and restrained Sense; and his Representing 'em therein simply and absolutely.  
4. We may also distinguish betwixt a Representative, that is deputed and delegated thereto by us; and one that is appointed and authorised by God.  
§. 11. Whereupon I add, I. He did not so far Represent, or Personate Sinners in his Holiness and Obedience, as in his Sufferings; 'tis (as we shall immediately show) in some Sense allowable to say, Christ suffered in the Person of a Sinner, or Sinners; but I know no Sense in which it may be said, That He obeyed in the Person of a Sinner, or Sinners. He did not Personate a Sinner, much less Sinners, in his sinless Obedience; this were as grossly absurd (as Mr. Baxter himself 
Treatise of Justif. Righteous. Part I. p. 58.  hints) as it would be to say, In the Person of Sinners He never sinned. Now this we the rather take notice of, because this Accuser extends Christ's Personating us indifferently, and equally, to both his Obedience and his Sufferings; for thus he speaks in his late Defence, p. 28. Christ's thus suffering and obeying in the Person of Sinners, it is to all intents and purposes as effectual, as if they did it themselves. And what any Libertine or Antinomian would say more than this, I know not; or which way he will ●…can, make this consist with the necessity of Faith and Repentance, in order to our actual Discharge from Punishment (which yet he largely asserts, Appeal, p. 8. 9) I cannot imagine.  
§. 12. II. It is more allowable to say, That Christ suffered in the Person of a Sinner, than that He suffered in the Person of Sinners: for that the former of these signifies no more, than that He suffered as a Sinner. Now that may be supposed to intimate, either that Christ, in the inflicting Sufferings upon Him, was dealt with like a Sinner; or also, that therein He was reputed and declared a Sinner, suffered under that Imputation and Charge: And both these are true; the former, whether we consider Him as suffering under the Hand of God or Men; and even the latter also, so far as Men were concerned in 'em; He died by their Sentence as a Blasphemer.  
§. 13. III. Yet in a very Limited and restrained Sense it may be said, That Christ suffered in the Person of Sinners; that is, so far as that He suffered in our room and stead, He stood before God as an Undertaker to suffer for our sins, and accordingly became a Sacrifice for us: If any one will say He was our Representative, or suffered in our Person thus far, I shall not contend with him. Nor would Mr. Baxter neither, as is plain from such Passages as these— When we are agreed, That the Person of the Sponsor, 
Treat. of Justifying Righteous. page 56.  and of every particular Sinner, are divers; and that Christ had not suffered if we had not sinned; and that He, as a Sponsor, suffered in our stead, and so bore the Punishment which (not He, but) we deserved: If any will here, instead of a Mediator or Sponsor, call Him our Representative, and say that He suffered in all our Persons reputatively,— not representing our Persons simply, and in all respects, and to all ends; but only so far as to be a Sacrifice for our Sins, and to suffer in our place and stead. We take this (says he) to be but lis de Nomine— and will not oppose any Man that thinks those Words fittest, as long as we agree in the Matter signified.  
Again, Christ suffered in our stead, and 
Ibid. p. 58.  in a large sense, to certain uses, and in some respects, as the Representer, or in the Person of sinners.  
Yet further, Though the Person of 
Ibid, p. 56.  the Mediator be not really, or reputatively the very Person of each sinner, yet it does belong to the Person of the Mediator, so far (limitedly) to bear the Person of a sinner, and to stand in the place of the Persons of all Sinners, as to bear the Punishment they deserved, and to suffer for their Sin.  
I'll mention but one more, though there be several other Passages to this purpose— It belongs to Him (Christ) as Mediator, to undertake the Sinner's Punishment in his own Person; and if any will improperly call that, the Personating and representing of the sinner, let 'em limit it, and confess that it is not simply, but in tantum, so far, and to such uses, and no other; and that yet Sinners did it not in and by Christ, but only Christ for them, to convey the Benefits as He pleased; and then we delight not to quarrel about mere Words, though we like the Phrase of Scripture better.  
§. 14. IV. So far as He did Represent, or Personate us in his Sufferings; He did it not as our Deputy, or Delegate; we did not order, nor could we authorise Him thereunto; not being capable either of obliging Him to suffer, or of impowering Him in such Sufferings to represent us, and stand in our stead: But, He voluntarily consenting to suffer for us, God authorised and appointed Him thereunto; and from that Divine Appointment his Sufferings become efficacious for us; and therefore from thence it is, from that Appointment of God, that it must be adjusted how far, and to what ends and uses, He should suffer as the Representative, or in the Person of Sinners; and in what way and method, and upon what terms his Sufferings should be of Saving Benefit and Effect to 'em. Christ did not represent us as far as we please; or to what ends and uses we please; nor will his Sufferings be effectually Saving to us in what way and method we please, upon any, or no terms, as we think fit; but all this is (according to Divine Pleasure) unalterably Determined and Fixed, by that Appointment and Law of God, by which it was also ordained, That Christ our Mediator should be Sacrificed for us. He could not Personate us farther than He was allowed and impower'd of God; and how far therefore his Commission did extend, or with what Limitations it was attended, is only to be Collected from the Oracles of God; so far then, as it shall appear by the Sacred Scriptures, that Christ suffered in the Person of sinners, or as their Representative, we shall readily agree, and no farther.  
§. 15. V. and Lastly, The Veneration we have for those Sacred Oracles, will not admit us (without any limitation) to say, as this Accuser does, that Christ suffered as the Representative, or in the Person of sinners: The Reasons whereof will the better appear, if it be first agreed what is the exact and proper Notion of such a Person, a Representative Person: and in this Matter, I suppose, our Accuser is not unwilling (and for my part, I am most willing) that the Learned Pufendorf should be our Instructor. This therefore is the account he gives us of it, Peculiaris species Personarum politicarum est, quas dicere possis Representativas, 
De Jure Nat. & Gent. lib. 1, cap. 1. §. 12.  ideo quod Personam aliorum referant: quae scil. potestate & authoritate agendi ab aliquo instructae, hujus vice negotia expediunt eodem cum effectu, ac si ab illo ipso essent confecta.  
So that according to him (and indeed according to the truth of the thing) so far as any one is allowed to Represent another, they are both in Law reputed one Person; and thereupon, whatever he has, does, or suffers as a Representative, it is (eodem cum effectu, i. e. as this Accuser well enough Englishes it) to all intents and purposes the same thing, as if it were had, done, or suffered by that other whom he Represents.  
§. 16. Now, if it be the same thing, then 'tis neither more or less, than if we had so suffered ourselves; there are therefore two things that we have to plead against Christ's thus Personating, or Representing us; and they are, that such a Representation of us by Christ, is in differing respects, both too much and too little to answer the Exigencies of our case, and the Scripture-account of this matter.  
§. 17. And (1.) In some respects, Such a Representative personating of sinners in and by Christ's Sufferings, would render 'em too little to answer the Exigencies of our Case, and the account which the Scriptures give of 'em: For if Christ in his sufferings was looked upon as properly, and most strictly our Person or Representative, his sufferings (as has been hinted) would be but the same thing, and no more in Value or Virtue, than if we ourselves had so suffered: But if we ourselves had suffered as Christ did, would it have been effectual to the great and necessary purposes of obtaining Redemption, Reconciliation, Pardon, the Holy Spirit, and Eternal Salvation for us! Can any one think? Dare any one say, Our own suffering what Christ did, Our own dying as he did, would (by way of merit) have procured such consequent Blessings as the Death and Sufferings of Christ did!  
Such as the mentioned Blessings we needed, our Case called for; and these Blessings we find attributed to the Death of Christ, as what did (meritoriously, and by way of a price) procure 'em for us— So the Apostle tells us, we have Redemption through his blood, Eph. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. He obtained it for us by his own blood, Heb. 9 12. so 1 Pet. 

The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek, as also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Hebrew, do admit of two very differing Senses; they signify either sin itself, or a sin-offering, a Sacrifice for Sin; as cannot be unknown to any that are conversant with the Scriptures of the Old Testament and the New, in the Languages in which they were indicted by the Inspired Penmen; the Instances to that purpose are too numerous to be overlooked; I'll name a few, Isa. 53. 10. When he shall make his soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an offering for sin; So we read it there, And in Leu. 7. This is the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (not of the sin, but) of the sin-offering, verse 1. So verse 2. They shall kill, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sin-offering, the blood thereof shall he sprinkle, etc. So Verse 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is a sin-offering. Once more, 1 Sam. 6. 3, 4. If ye send away the Ark of the God of Israel, send it not empty, but in any wise return Him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (not Sin but) a Sin-offering— then said they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what shall be the sin-offering; which you find afterwards specified in that Verse.  
So for the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how promiscuously is it used in that one Chapter, Leu. 4. If any one of the common People, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there it is commit a sin, verse 27. And so again, ver. 28. If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his sin which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge, than he shall bring his offering [a kid, etc.] for his sin which he hath sinned; there you have the same Word again. Yet in the very next Verse the Sense of the Word is changed, and that very Kid which is offered, is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— So verse 29. And he shall lay his hand upon the head 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ('tis not now to be read of the sin, but) of the sin-offering: and slay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sin-offering: The very Word that, but the Verse before, signified Sin itself. The same Word you have again twice for a sin-offering, ver. 33. And again, the Priest shall take of the blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the sin-offering, ver. 34. It would be endless to refer you to the many other places of Scripture, where the same Observation would occur; I'll therefore only mention one Text more (which may help to evince the Usefulness hereof in interpreting several difficult Texts of Scripture) and that is, Hos. 4. 8. They eat up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sin of my People; so we read it; but it were scarce possible, to devise any tolerable Sense that the Words could be capable of, according to that reading; yet what we have observed, renders 'em exceeding easy and plain; all the Difficulty disappears when you read, They eat up the sin-offering of my people; And by this Reading of the Words, the latter part of the Verse may be also most satisfactorily accounted for; they set their heart on their Iniquity; i. e. they rejoicé at, or are pleased with it.  
Thus does the very ingenious and Reverend Bishop of Salisbury Comment upon the Words:  
That corrupt Race of Priests (says he) attended still upon the Temple, and offered up the sin-offering, and Feasted upon their Portion:— And because of the Advantage this brought 'em, they were glad at the abounding of Sin, etc. Discourse of the Pastoral Care, p. 23. (A Tract so very valuable and useful, that having mentioned it, I could not forbear to recommend it, though I could wish what is said of Praying by the Spirit, p. 199, 200. were reviewed by the very Reverend Author, and somewhat more distinctly Explained; that he might not seem to reflect upon Praying by the Spirit itself, when (I suppose) he only intends to animadvert upon some Persons mistaken Apprehensions of it; The same I could also wish in reference to one or two Passages in that Book which I may not now stay to mention.  
Now the words that the LXX. use in those places, are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— but we shall only take notice of the second of those Words, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] and sometimes indeed by a reduplicated Article, or by a Preposition, they plainly refer to some or other Word that is understood. So we read in that 4th Chap. of Leviticus, sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and chap. 6. ver. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Where the Word immediately foregoing is most probably referred to, i. e. in one place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the she-goat, in another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the be-goat; and in the third, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the burnt-offering; sometimes the Phrase is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for sin, where the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sacrifice, is plainly enough intimated, though not expressed: yet sometimes again there is nothing more than the bare Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sin, expressed, where yet a Sin-offering must needs be meant; for instance, Leu. 4. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is (not a Sin, but) a Sin-offering for the Congregation. And Leu. 6. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, This is the Law (surely not that they should Sin by, but that they should Sacrifice according to) the Law of the Sin-offering. So also in that mentioned Hos. 4. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they eat (not the Sins, for how could that be done, but) the Sin-offering of the People.  
And the New Testament Style is generally conformed to the Septuagint: thus you read here also, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Heb. 10. 6. in burnt-offerings, and for Sin (i. e. and in Sacrifices for Sin, as we render it) Thou hast had no pleasure. And Rom. 8. 3. we are told, That God condemned Sin in the flesh of Christ; but how, which way? by sending Him in our likeness, to die a Sacrifice for Sin. And since the Word will as well signify a Sacrifice for Sin, as Sin itself, it should surely be readily agreed to intend only a Sacrifice for Sin, in that 2 Cor. 5. 20. He made Him to be a Sin-offering for us, etc. Nor does any thing in the Context discountenance this Reading— He that knew no Sin, was not a Sinner, what should hinder but He might be (nay, for that very reason was He the fitter to be) made a sin-offering for us: I could not therefore read Mr. Cross' Objection, without a Smile, when he alleges against our thus Interpreting Sin for a Sin-offering; that then Sin would be used Equivocally in differing Senses; and suppose it be, what would the ill Consequence be? Why, he tells you, The Apostle than would bring a Sophism instead of an Argument. He knew no Sin properly, ergo, He was made Sin. Cross 's Two Sermons on Justification and Imputed Righteousness, p. 32. Now what if this Text be a naked Assertion, and not designed for an Argument, what Sophistry would there be in it, if the Apostle barely tell us, He that was no Sinner Himself, was yet made a Sacrifice for our Sin. But if he will have no Argument of it, 'twill be as weak and impertinent, though the Words should be Interpreted according to his Mind: He knew no sin properly, ergo, He was made Sin; I see no Consequence in it, whether the Phrase bore his Sense or ours. As to what he next alleges, p. 33. from its Opposition to Righteousness, it signifies as little; for that the Apostle is not here (there is no appearing proof that he is) Critically Contradistinguishing Christ's being made Sin, and our being made Righteousness; nay, the contrary is plain, for that he uses differing Words in reference to Christ and us to intimate that he did not intend, Christ was made sin, in the same way, or sense, that we are made Righteousness; nor can he for that Alteration, be justly charged again as Sophisticating, whilst he only designs to acquaint us, That our being made Righteousness (take it in one Sense or other) did pre-require, and derive from Christ's having been made a Sacrifice for us. As to his Third Allegation against us, I can't guests what he produced it for. And for his Fourth, that the Word made is sometimes used for Imputed, if that should be granted him, yet still it must be added, That 'tis where other Words are found in the Greek Text; for I remember not (nor do I think our Opposer can produce) one single Instance where the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which is made use of in the Text) does carry that Sense: it does most plainly intimate the work of an Effective Agent; and therefore does strongly argue for our Sense of the Text, That He was made a Sacrifice for Sin, made sin in such a Sense as that GOD might be the Author and Efficient, without being chargeable as the Author of Sin. And for his Fifth and last Objection, That Critics distinguish betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and say the latter is used for a Sacrifice, not the former: I think we have already made the contrary sufficiently appear from the LXX. to whom he refers us. So that I see not what further can be pleaded against this Interpretation of the Text.   1. 18, 19 So also our Reconciliation is the purchase of his Blood; this account we have of it, Rom. 5 10. When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the Death of his Son. And having through several Verses before spoken of this Reconciliation, he at length tells us, that God made him to be sin, i. e. a sin-offering for us, to intimate to us which way that Reconciliation was procured and brought about, 2 Cor. 5. 21. He made him to be sin, etc.  
And in that, Eph. 2. 16. we are said to be reconciled to God by the Cross. And Col. 1. 20. Christ is said to have made peace through the Blood of his Cross; but would our Death have availed to any such purpose? If not, how can he herein be said strictly to have Represented us—  
The same might be also pleaded in reference to the procurement of our Pardon, Mat. 26. 28. And the Holy Spirit, Heb. 10. 10, 14.— 13. 22. with Eternal Salvation, 1 Thess. 5. 9 10. These are Blessissing that we could not have procured by our own dying (this, to Christians surely, I shall not need to prove): Now, if Christ died strictly in our Person, his death had signified no more than ours: A Representative, so far as he represents another, is in Law looked upon no otherwise, than as that other whom He represents; whatever Excellencies he may otherwise have above that other, yet do they not come under Consideration here; as a Representative, He does but personate that other Man; and what He does or suffers as a Representative, is but the same thing, as if that other Man had done or suffered. So far as there is any difference allowed in Law, 'tis plain the Law looks upon 'em to be two distinct Persons; so far the one does not, cannot Represent the other. Either therefore these Benefits were not procured for us by the Sufferings of Christ, or He suffered otherwise than as our Representative, or in our mean and vile Person, viz. in the most highly dignifyed Person of a Mediator. To this Sense Mr. Baxter had pleaded long since, in the forecited Treatise of Justifying Righteousness, P. I. p. 96. If Christ (says he) suffered but in the Person of sinful Man, his Sufferings would have been in vain, or no Satisfaction to God, etc. See also Baxter's Life of Faith, p. 322. Thus therefore such a Representation of us by Christ, would have been too little for us.  
§. 18. But again, (2.) If the matter be considered under other respects, Christ's strictly personating or representing us in his Sufferings, would be too much for us. For (as we have before observed) betwixt a Representative and that other whom he represents, the Law makes no difference: Whatever the Representative does as a Representative, in the sense of the Law, that other does whom he represents.  
(1.) If then Christ suffered strictly and properly in the Person of Sinners, or as their Representative, they did, in the account of the Law, suffer themselves; and whatever is the Moral Effect (i. e. whatever the Law under which Christ suffered has annexed, by Promise, as a Consequence) of his Suffering, it being the Effect of our Representative's Sufferings, may be attributed to us whom He did therein represent; whatever is in Scripture ascribed to the Sufferings of Christ, as an Effect of 'em, if He suffered in our Person, would be to be ascribed to us: so we should be our own Redeemers, our own Saviour's, we should have merited our own Peace, our own Pardon, etc. as truly as I pay Money, which one that in the strict Sense of the Law represents me, does pay in my Name; or Purchase Land, which my Legal Representative Purchases for me.  
§. 19 (2.) If Christ had Suffered strictly in our Representative Person, we should have had an immediate and absolute right to all the proper Results and Benefits of his Sufferings: Indeed, if Christ in his own Person, as Mediator, purchased these Blessings by Suffering for us, He may confer 'em on us at what time, in what measure, in what order, and upon what terms He pleases, as we find He does: But supposing Him to have been our proper Representative therein, our Right in Law, to all the Benefits of his Sufferings, would have been absolute (as His now is) and have immediately resulted from his having so suffered; so as that no place could have been left for the introducing and imposing upon us any Terms or Conditions in order to our enjoying such Benefits: there could be no room for such a Constitution afterwards, if thou [Sinner] Repent, Believe in Christ, etc. thou shalt be saved: For according to this Principle, the Sinner has purchased Salvation by the Sufferings of Christ [as his Representative] He has thereupon an absolute and present right to the Salvation so purchased; to deny or suspend his right, or withhold him from Possession, would be injurious to Him, as keeping Him from that which is his own: How then will this consist with the Justice of God, who does not give Sinners immediately the full of what was purchased by the Sufferings of Christ! God does not give 'em an immediate and absolute Pardon, present freedom from all sin and sorrow, present possession of the Heavenly Inheritance— If Sinners have an immediate absolute right to these Blessings, it would be a wrong done to 'em, for God to keep 'em out of Possession as He does; and such a Right we should have, if He Suffered (strictly) as our Representative— So that this way considered, it does as much exceed, as the other way it fell short of Answering the Exigencies of our Case.  
§. 20. And we may add, as a farther Consequent hereupon (3.) If Christ had Suffered (strictly) as the Representative Person of Sinners (indefinitely, as 'tis expressed) it would follow, that every Sinner equally has a right to the forementioned Benefits of Christ's Sufferings; why then have not all equally a Pardon? Why are not the Influences of the Divine Spirit equally diffused? Why are some (yea, even of the truly sanctify'd) more freed from Sin and Sorrow, than others? Some but babes, while others are strong Men in Christ? Nay, why are not all in Heaven (whom Christ did represent) as well as some there?  
§. 21. Moreover (4.) If Christ had thus suffered as our Representative (and we had thus Satisfied and Merited in Him) what room would there have been left for His Holiness and Obedience to bestead us, or be of any advantage to us. We are most expressly assured, That by the Obedience of One (i. e. of Christ) we are made righteous, Rom. 5. 19 Suppose his Sufferings and Death to be included, as it cannot be denied, yet 'tis as they were instances of his Obedience, Phil. 2. 8. and (according to that known Rule, a quatenus, ad omne valet consequentia) if his Sufferings did meritoriously procure our Pardon, Peace, etc. as they were instances of his Obedience to the Law of Mediation, than whatever was an instance of such Obedience, had an influence upon the same effect. His Habitual, Active and Passive Obedience, are therefore to be considered as one entire Meritorious Cause, one entire Purchasing Price of such Blessings.— But upon this Principle, That Christ in suffering did strictly Personate, or Represent us, where can his Habitual Holiness, and Active Obedience be taken in! what room is there for 'em! what need is there of 'em! when we have merited a Pardon, acceptance with God, Eternal Salvation already, by the Sufferings of Christ as our Representative; what further need can we have of his Obeying for us?  
Or shall we say, That He was our Representative, in his Obeying, as well as in his Suffering? So indeed our Accuser would have it, in his Defence, P. 28. Christ (says he) thus Suffering and Obeying in the Person of Sinners, it is, to all intents and purposes, as Effectual, as if they did it themselves. But besides, that these two Parts of the Assertion are inconsistent with each other, had He Obeyed in our Person, He needed not to have Suffered in our Person; or had He Suffered in our Person, He needed not so to have Obeyed. I say, besides that, the Notion carries a manifest Inconsistence in it— If it were admitted, it would infer all those Seven Absurdities mentioned in the foregoing Chapter, with many more, that I cannot now stay to mention.  
§. 22. In a Word then, since his strict Representing, or Personating us, would intimate, That Christ and we are, in the Sense of the Law, but one Person; and thereupon his Suffering in our Person (our Representative Person, properly so called) would intimate either that He (in his Sufferings) was (in the esteem of God and the Law) depressed to the mean, and vile, and sinful State of us, whom He did Represent; or else that we are (in the account of God and the Law) exalted to the Dignity and Perfection of his State who Represented us: and neither of these are to be admitted. Not the former, for that it would render Christ's Sufferings unavailable to the great purposes that were to be served of 'em; not the latter, for the Reasons last mentioned: It follows, That He cannot (otherwise than very improperly, and with great Limitations) be said to have Suffered in the Person (the Representative Person) of Sinners.   

CHAP. III.  
That Christ's Sufferings were only Materially, not Formally the same we were obliged to.  
§. i THIS our Accuser charges also upon us, as a Branch of that Design, that Plot he impeaches us of; a Socinian Plot, a Plot to introduce Socinianism: That we have such a Design, he once and again insinuates, and thereupon Brands us as Episcopians, Socinianizing Arminians, etc. He had signified his Apprehensions, his fears of a Design against the Doctrine of a Real, Full, and Proper Satisfaction to God's Justice for our Sins, P. 4. but by that time we are got to the 12th. Page, those Surmizes are improved into clear Evidence, he is now aware of the Design; nay, twice together we are told it, to intimate (no doubt) that he is throughly aware of it; and to make Proof of it, he does allege, amongst other Matters, That (according to us) Christ's Sufferings were the same we were obliged to, only Materially, and not Formally. Now the Design he suggests, is what we do from our Souls abhor; and if this Accuser were himself a Socinian, he could no way more effectually serve their Interests, than by persuading the World (as he here endeavours) That all must be Socinians, at least Socinianize, that are not Antinomians.  
Sect. 2. But for the Principle he charges upon us, we are not ashamed to own it; and cannot but wonder, that our Accuser should never once attempt to prove the contrary; it lying upon him here again, as being the Affirmer, to produce his Evidence: Surely this, That Christ's Sufferings were Formally the same we were obliged to, is not to be reckoned amongst those Propositions which carry their own Light along with 'em, and engage our Assent at the first Hearing: Why then has he only mentioned our denial of it, as if that alone, were sufficient to expose us to the severest Censures.  
Sect. 3. But we cannot satisfy ourselves (though we be on the Negative Part) to deny, and Dispute against Words that have no meaning, or (which is, in Effect, the same thing) Words that have an unagreed and uncertain one: And therefore though he has not told us his meaning, we shall, with greatest plainness, tell him, and the World, ours; that it may be understood what we intent, when we deny, That Christ's Sufferings were Formally the same we were obliged to.  
Sect. 4. Now there are two Things that (we apprehend) may be meant, when 'tis Asserted, That Christ's Sufferings were not only Materially, but also Formally the same we were obliged to, viz. Either that they were not only in a more loose and general way of Speaking, but strictly and fully the same kind of Sufferings that we were obliged to: Or, also it may intimate, That they were not only the same kind of Sufferings, but even the very same thing in Law, as if we ourselves had Suffered. And the former of these we dare not admit, much less the latter.  
Sect. 5. 1. Not the former, viz. That Christ's Sufferings were strictly and fully of the same kind with those we were obliged to. That they were not, could not be so, I think was sufficiently made appear, Chap. I. Sect. 5. of this Discourse. And Mr. Baxter has yet more distinctly and fully cleared it, by an Enumeration of several Particulars, in which his were not the same with ours, under these Three Heads;  
I Christus nullas tulit penas, quae etiam peccata sunt.  
II. Nullas tales paenas dedit, quae sunt tantum naturalia peccandi consequentia.  
III. Nullas Deus ipse paenas in Christum inflixit, quae ex displicentia (adversus Christum scil.) vel amoris diminutione aliqua proveniunt. Vid. Method. Theol. P. III. Cap. 1. Disp. 4. P. 36, 37.  
Sect. 6. 2. Much less can we agree to it in the Latter Sense, as it intimates, That Christ's Sufferings were the Idem, the very same thing in Law, as if we ourselves had Suffered; for that this it could not be, unless He Suffered (most strictly) in our Person; and that too, by virtue of the Law, which we had Transgressed: Both which have been abundantly Disproven by us in the Foregoing Chapters. What has been there alleged against the one, or the other of those Errors, may also have place here again. To which I shall only add;  
1. The Inconsistency hereof with the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction. For if Christ's Sufferings should be allowed to be strictly the same thing that the Law obliged to, than they could not be a Satisfaction for our Nonpayment, but would themselves have been the proper Payment: Now these two things are vastly differing, to pay a Debt; and to offer somewhat instead of Payment, that is accepted as Satisfaction for Nonpayment. Since the Word [Satisfaction] was borrowed from the Civilians, from them it is that the Import of it may be best understood; And they do carefully distinguish betwixt Solution and Satisfaction. Solution is when the very same thing is paid, to which the Law obliged. So Vinnius,— Solutio, specialiter accepta, denotat 
In Notis ad Justini. Instit. Tit. 30. p. (mihi) 494.  naturalem praestationem ejus quod debetur. Which is agreeable to the account Grotius gives us of it, with whom Solutio stricte sumpta, is Solutio rei plane ejusdem, quae erat in obligatione; Solutio rei ipsius debitae. Now this, as the Bishop of Worcester tells us, in 
De Satisf. p. 123, 126  the Sense of the Law is never called Satisfaction, but strict Payment. This is what cannot be 
P. 13.  refused, when offered in Payment. But Christ's Sufferings might have been refused: God was not obliged to accept of them, but might have insisted upon the Sufferings of Sinners themselves. Therefore Grotius tells of another sort of Solution, cum aliud, quam quod in obligatione est, Solvitur. When somewhat else, and not strictly that which the Law required, is paid; and this, if accepted, is peculiarly called Satisfaction. Talis autem solutio (says he) quae aut admitti, aut recusari potest, admissa; in Jure, speciale habet nomen Satisfactionis; quae interdum Solutioni 
Ib. p. 124.  strictus sumptae opponitur. So that by a Satisfaction, 'tis plain they intent a valuable Consideration offered instead of what was due, which the Creditor in Pecuniary (and the Rector in Criminal) Cases, may accept or refuse at pleasure. Under this Notion do the greatest and best of our Divines maintain the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, in Opposition to the Socinian Adversaries; nor can it be Defended upon any other bottom. To make the Controversy betwixt the Socinians and Us (in the Point of Satisfaction) to be not (as it has been wont to be stated) whether Christ's Sufferings were an Equivalent (a valuable Consideration) offered and accepted, instead of what was due from us to Divine Justice; so far as that upon account thereof, we have Reconciliation, Pardon, and Eternal Salvation, in the Order, and upon the Terms of the Gospel? I say, to make the Question in difference, not to be what is abovesaid, but whether Christ's Sufferings be the very same thing, the All, that the Law required, obliged to, the very Execution of its Threatening? How plainly is this to betray the Cause into their Hands!  
If the Bishop of Worcester has any Judgement in this Controversy (and while the Learned World has so universally approved what he has wrote in it, they can't themselves be thought to have much, that deny, or doubt his thorough Acquaintance with it; and of all Men living, our Accuser, who has appealed to him, surely does not suspect it; I say, if that Right Reverend Person has any insight into this Matter) the Socinian Cause can scarcely any way be more effectually befriended, than by such as pretending to be their Adversaries, do thus State our Controversy with 'em: For with these remarkable Words does he close up his most Convincing Reasonings against Christ's Sufferings having been the very same thing which the Law required: When (says he) our Adversaries (meaning the Socinians) Dispute against this Opinion, no wonder if they do it successfully; but this whole Opinion is built upon a Mistake, that Satisfaction must be the Payment of the very same; which while they Contend for, they give our Enemies too great an advantage, and make 'em think they triumph over the Faith of the 
Discourse of the sufferings of Christ, P. 17.  Church, when they do it only over the Mistake of some particular Persons.  
2. Neither could the Sufferings of Christ be strictly (and individually) the same thing that the Law threatened; for it threatened the Death of the Offenders themselves: In the day Thou eatest, Thou shalt die, Gen. 2. 17. The same Individual that sinneth, shall die: Thus does the Prophet express it, The Soul that sinneth, it (that very Soul) shall die. Ezek. 18. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The very sinning soul itself, that very soul shall die. The Sense of the Holy Ghost could not have been more fully expressed to this purpose. And so also the Apostle, Gal. 3. 10. Cursed is every one that continues not, etc. 'Tis denounced against no one but the Sinner himself? since then the Law mentions no Surety or Substitute; the Sufferings of Christ could not be the Execution of its threatening, unless He was the very Soul that sinned, that very individual Soul.  
And hence we may be assisted in that only Difficulty, with which our Accuser (at the second hand) does seem to press us: For in the Passage he quotes from his Brother Ferguson, (P. 5.) amongst other Attributes of GOD that were to influence the Grand Affair of our Redemption, he mentions the Divine Veracity: God's Truth (as that Gentleman says) and his Immutability must be evidenced in proceeding according to the 
Interest of Reason in Religion, p. 536.  Penal Law He had at first Enacted. And this being presupposed, he would naturally enough iufer, That Man (having sinned) could not be received into favour, but in such a way as might evidence that Truth of God, etc. Now indeed, if the Truth and Immutability of GOD did require, that He should proceed (exactly) according to the Penal Law He had Enacted, it must be granted then, That Christ's Sufferings could not otherwise bestead us, then as being the very Execution of that Penal Law, the very Penalty therein threatened.  
And this Objection I shall the rather take notice of, because (whatever Character our Accuser, and this Brother of his deserved) I find some of greatest Name (and deservedly too) both for Learning and Piety, speak as if they did apprehend, That the Truth of GOD did engage Him to Execute the Threatened Penalty; that unless the Punishment due by that Law had been inflicted, his Veracity could not have been Justified.  
But (how much soever I reverence the Names of some that speak thus) I dare not agree, out of respect to any Man, so far to expose the Veracity of the Holy GOD, as to suspend it upon any thing that is not certainly True, much less upon what is evidently untrue.  
1. Supposing it only to be uncertain, whether He was obliged formally to Execute the Threatening of that Law, 'tis no way fit the Veracity of God should be suspended upon an Uncertainty: May I not be sure that GOD is true, though I were not sure, that his Threatening must needs be executed!  
2. And especially, when we have full and clear Evidence, That He has not Executed that Threatening; we should surely be afraid to say, His Truth obliged Him to Execute it; He has falsified his Word in Not-Executing it. Though we could not see which way GOD's Veracity could be reconciled with the Non-Execution of his Threatening; yet when He has Relaxed or Dispensed with his Threatening (as in this Case He manifestly has) we may be assured, it is not inconsistent with his Truth. The Law threatened the Delinquent himself, and every Delinquent; another (who was no Delinquent) dies for us: Here is not then an Execution of the Threatening; is the Truth of GOD therefore violated? GOD forbid. Yet had his Truth obliged Him to inflict the Threatened Penalty at all, it would as well have obliged Him to inflict it on the Offenders themselves. That GOD has inflicted Death for Sin, is not therefore because of his Truth, but for other Reasons that have been already hinted. And this is that which does difference threatenings from Predictions: That threatenings do only constitute the dueness of Punishment, and make the Offender obnoxious, without determing certainly whether (eventually) it shall be inflicted, or not; but Predictions do primarily respect a certain Event. So that the Truth of GOD is indeed concerned to accomplish a Prediction; but not to execute a Threatening; a mere Threatening does only render the Transgressor liable to suffer, but GOD is afterwards at liberty to inflict, or not inflict the Penalty incurred, as his Wisdom shall see fit; indeed if a Prediction should also be added to the Threatening, GOD's Word is then past for its Execution, and his Truth obliges Him accordingly— They that are otherwise Opinionated in this Matter, may do well to consider, which way the Veracity of GOD (upon their Hypothesis) can possibly be maintained: When the Law was at first given to Adam (as our Accuser himself expressly owns) Christ was not in its obligation; it did not run [Thou, or thy Surety for thee.] Hereupon the afteradmission of a Surety, and the Transferring our Punishment upon Him (supposing He had undergone, as far as was possible, the same that we should) was an Act of Soveraign-Dispensing-Power: The Threatening was so far relaxed, or dispensed with; not Executed. But if GOD had engaged his Word (by an absolute Prediction) to punish the Offender, there had been no place for a Dispensation; In that case, as indeed in every case where the Divine Truth is concerned, the Event will infallibly, and in every respect be answerable to what GOD has fore-declared. Since therefore the Event did not answer in this case, the very sinning Soul itself did not die, but Christ for him, it must be concluded, That this was not a Prediction of what eventually should be, but a mere Threatening of what legally might be inflicted; importing only what the Sinner was obliged to undergo, not what GOD was obliged to lay upon him. And therefore his Truth was no way violated, though Christ's Sufferings were not strictly the same Thing that the Law threatened. To which I might add,  
3. That if Christ's Sufferings had been the very same thing that the Law required, we must thereupon, ipso facto, have enjoyed present and perfect Deliverance; if the Idem, the all (and that it must needs be, if it was the same) that the Law threatened, was endured in the Sufferings of Christ, what further Penalty could remain upon us? Justice itself could require no more than the Idem quod debetur. To this purpose the Learned Grotius speaks, Ipso facto liberat, solutio 
Grotius de Satisfact. Cap. 6. P. (mihi) 123  rei plane ejusdem, quae erat in obligatione. Upon which account he does determine, That the Death of Christ was not Solutio rei ipsius debitae. And so also 
P. 126.  that very Judicious and Right Reverend Person (the Bishop of Worcester) to whom this Accuser has Appealed, does not only deny, but does also very largely and nervously disprove, Christ's Sufferings to have been the very same that the Law required; we shall only transcribe what he offers to the purpose we are Arguing upon— If (says he) the 
Discourse of the sufferings of Christ, P. 15.  very same had been paid in the strict Sense, there would have followed a Deliverance ipso facto; for the Release immediately follows the Payment of the same; and it had been Injustice to have required any thing further, in order to the Discharge of the Offender, when strict and full Payment had been made of what was in the Obligation. But we see that Faith and Repentance, and the Consequences of those two, are made Conditions on our parts, in order to the enjoying the Benefit of what Christ has procured; so that the Release is not immediate upon the Payment, but depends on a New Contract, made in consideration of what Christ has done and suffered for us. This is but a small part of his most clear and invincible Arguings against Christ's Paying (in his Sufferings) the very same that we were to have paid. And therefore we add,  
4. Had Christ's Sufferings been the very same thing that the Law threatened, there had been, there could have been no such thing as Pardon; we must have been discharged, set at liberty as before; but we could not afterwards have been said to be Pardoned. To remit a Debt or Penalty, is a Phrase that is never used but in reference to such from whom the one or other was due; and does import a Gracious Discharge of a Person (either in whole, or in part) from what in Justice might have been required. The Civilians therefore explain it by Relaxatio, Indulgentia, etc. And this is most manifestly the import of the Greek Term [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉]. Proper Remission that cannot be, that is not an Act of Grace and Favour, but what in strict Justice we are obliged to. Therefore Grotius does accurately distinguish betwixt Liberation and Remission; allowing (as he needs must) That all Remission is a Liberation, or Discharge; but not that every Discharge is or may be so called, Remission: The Law itself does of course acquit and discharge a Person (Debtor or Criminal) that fully answers its Obligation; but when a Discharge is granted, by the Rector or Creditor, out of mere Pleasure, to one that according to the Rigour of the Law could not lay claim to it, here is proper Remission. Ubi idem Solvitur (scil. quod debetur) aut a Debitore, aut ab alio, nomine debitoris, nulla contingit Remissio— Si quis poenam pertulerit quam debet, Liberatio hic 
Ib. p. 123.  erit; Remissio non erit. Remitti aliquid recte dicitur, etiam ubi solutio accedit, sed talis quae sine actu voluntatis vim non habeat pariendae liberationis. Where there is a Payment of what was owing, there 
Ib. p. 133.  is no Remission, no place for Forgiveness; the quondam Debtor or Criminal now neeeds it not, nor can the Creditor or Rector be said to have granted it; the same Debt cannot be both Paid and Forgiven. It is impossible (as the Bishop of Worcester further urges) to reconcile the freeness of Remission, with the full payment of the very same, which was in the Obligation. 
Ib. p. 16.   
Sect. 7. For the close therefore of this Head, let it be considered, That Mr. Baxter (in that very Book to which our Accuser refers us) thus Explains the Question before us: It is not (says he) de materia debiti that we inquire, but de forma; whether it was the same formally which we owed, and the obligation required? Or, only the value, and not the same full Debt? Also, you must know, That though we may well use the Word [Debt] in this case, because the Scripture does, yet we must acknowledge it but a Metaphor, and the proper Terms are, whether Christ's Sufferings are the same thing that the Law in its Threatening required, i. e. obliged to, and made due; and so a fulfilling of that Threatening? and this with great Averseness he does (and very justly sure) deny. Now therefore if our Accuser will not 
Baxt. of Universal Redempt. p. 79.  own Christ's Sufferings to be formally the same we were obliged to, in the Sense in which Mr. Baxter denied it, why does he quarrel with him? If he will, 'tis but reasonable to expect, he should either disown and disprove the Doctrine of Satisfaction, of Pardon of Sin, etc. Or, else make it appear, we have not justly charged these Consequences upon him.   

CHAP. IU.  
That though our Sins were the Impulsive, Meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings, yet it was only more Remotely that they were so; and not so nearly and immediately as they would have been of our own.  
§. 1. SInce our Accuser bears so hard upon this Point, and seems most plausibly from hence to insinuate his Spiteful and Unchristian Surmizes of us, I shall endeavour with all the Freedom and Plainness possible, to deliver our Thoughts about this Matter; that it may appear what we Deny, and what we Own; and that herein we do not in the least vary from the Common Faith of Christians, or make the least Approaches towards the Socinian Tents.  
Sect. 2. We do therefore distinguish (in reference to the Controversy, Whether our Sins were the Meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings) betwixt the Name, and the Thing intended by it; as every one surely will do, that does not prefer Strife before Truth. If we can agree in this, or other Controversies, in Sense, Words are not worthy of a Contention on either side: 'Tis strange that what the Apostle has said of such Contentions, that just account he has given of their so base Original, and sad Effects, should not Awe the Spirits of all (at least) that make any Pretensions to the Christian Name, 1 Tim. 6. 4. For (according to the Order in which the Apostle has placed it) this doting about Questions, that are but a strife of words, a [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] does presuppose the Person to be Proud, puffed up with Arrogance and Self-Conceit, as the Word imports; and withal extremely Ignorant, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one that knows nothing, that has no Skill, no Judgement, one that has never Penetrated into Things, that has looked no further than their outside; and therefore is he so exceeding Solicitous about Words, for that he is acquainted with nothing more valuable about which to be concerned; he is sick, nay, he does insanire, if his Word may not be allowed [such a Sense the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to carry in it]. Neither are the Effects of this Logomachy less fruitful; thereof (as the Apostle adds) cometh envy, strife, rail, evil-surmizings, perverse dispute, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such as are nothing to the purpose, that can serve no good End. I would requite all this Accuser's hard Speeches of us, with a serious Admonition that he would carefully look into the Text last mentioned, and if to that he adds, what does occur, in The Carnality of Religious Contentions, p. 39, 40, 41, 42. (A Tract well worthy of its most excellent Author.) Perhaps, it may minister towards the Cure of his so sickly Mind; and he may not hereafter so far dote upon an Unscriptural Word or Phrase, or turn it to our Reproach, that we are not alike fond of 'em.  
Sect. 3. But to proceed, We challenge this Accuser to instance any one particular thing plainly intended by the Orthodox (Grotius, the Bishop of Worcester, etc.) that use this Phrase against the Socinians; I say, Let him instance (if he be able) any one thing they intent by it, that is not readily agreed to by us. We have reason to suppose, That he himself may intend somewhat more by it, than we are willing to allow (and which in due place may be taken notice of): But we cannot find that they thereby design (in general) to express any thing more, than that the Sufferings of Christ had a respect to sin, to our sins, as the ground or reason of 'em; they were the assumed Cause of 'em; He suffered for, or on the account of our sins. Now, whereas it may be difficult to conceive how, or which way our Sins could influence his Sufferings in such sort, as that He should be said to suffer for our sins, to die for our sins: What they say for the clearing this Relation that our Sins had to the Sufferings of Christ, as an Antecedent, procuring Cause (for we meddle not now with the other Respect they bear to 'em as a final Cause; though He also suffered for our Sins, so as in a proper Sense to Expiate, and make Atonement for 'em) I say, the whole of what they offer, for the clearing the Relation our Sins had to Christ's Sufferings, as their Antecedent Procuring Cause, may (so far as I have yet observed) be reduced to the following particulars, viz.  
Sect. 4. I. Our Sins, both in the nature of the Thing, and according to the Constitution of the Divine Law, deserved Death, Eternal Death, Rom. 1. 32. This was what they had rendered our Due; they were (in the strictest and most proper Sense) Meritorious of our own Sufferings. Had we lain Eternally under the Avenging Wrath of GOD, it could not have been said, with Truth, that He had done us any wrong; it would have been but the Wages we had earned, Rom. 6. 23. And what Apostate Angels do actually undergo.  
II. Hereupon (Death being the demerit of our Sin) it follows, That we must of necessity suffer, unless we be forgiven; for no one (surely) will, or can imagine, That it might be avoided by our own Power or Policy (whether alone, or in Conjunction with any other Creature, or Creatures): Is it possible we should either hide from GOD's Allseeing Eye, or prevail against his All-powerful Hand! We cannot therefore escape against, or without the Divine Pleasure. Now, a Liberation, a Deliverance from deserved Wrath, that does depend upon, and derive from the Divine Will and Pleasure, is most Proper Remission, as has been before said. And, how is to be conceived, that the Miseries which the Law threatened, and we had deserved by our Sins, could otherwise possibly be avoided, than by virtue of such an intervening Act of the Divine Will, whereby the Penalty is graciously remitted.  
III. Several things concurred to render it unmeet, that GOD should merely Pardon; that He should so forgive the Sinner, as not to leave (one way or other) any severe marks of his displeasure upon sin. He did retain (in the height of his Displeasure) such a Love of Benevolence, as did incline Him to commiserate the case of lapsed, sinful Man; and (in some befiting way) to re-admit him into favour. But it was highly fit and necessary, it should be in such a way as should both duly provide for the Honour of GOD, and be most apt to deter and affright Men from sinning. Due regard must be had to both these; the Sinner could not be forgiven, unless (consistently therewith) the Honour of GOD could be secured, and sin rendered frightful, and to be dreaded by us. Now in reference to  
The Former; the Honour of God did require, That if He Pardon Sinners, it should be in such a way, as should manifestly vindicate and acquit Him, from the Reflections that are not uncommon upon such occasions. 'Tis a very usual and known case, in Humane Governments, that the Sovereign's Reputation suffers by too easy Pardons: In the case before us, it is exceeding plain, That the Honour of GOD's Power and Wisdom, but specially of his Holiness and Justice, were to be provided for; whilst He magnified his Mercy in our Forgiveness.  
1. Whereas nothing is more common, than for too easy Pardons to be imputed to a Governor, as an Evidence of his Weakness and want of Power; it was a most condecent and becoming thing, That GOD should Pardon in such a way, as yet should manifest his Power; that it might appear, He was not afraid, or unable to vindicate his injured Law; That He did not forgive, through a mere want of Power to punish.  
2. It was equally fit and necessary, That He should also vindicate the Honour of his Wisdom, and not by a light and easy Pardon tempt the World to impeach Him of Levity and Folly; as if He had rashly and unadvisedly made a Law, of the Consequences whereof He was not aware; and therefore was afterwards obliged to change his mind, and indemnify the Transgressor's, without any Compensation.  
3. Yea, a mere Pardon would also have reflected upon his Holiness; it was therefore necessary that GOD (for the Vindication of his Essential Purity) should make it appear, that He hated sin, though He loved the Sinner; that Men might not look upon Him to be a GOD that has pleasure in Iniquity (the direct contrary to what He has declared of Himself, Psal. 5. 4.) neither yet, as if He was indifferently affected towards it. He is (as we are assured) of purer Eyes than to behold Iniquity, i. e. So as to allow, or not to be displeased at it, Hab. 1. 13. This Holiness of his, is that which gives a most adorable and conspicuous Beauty and Lustre to all his other Perfections, He is Glorious in Holiness, Exod. 15. 11. And therefore it could be no way meet, that the Honour of this Attribute should be neglected, or postponed to our safety: 'Twere better that Ten Thousand Worlds should perish, than that the Glory of GOD's Holiness be stained: But how shall it be vindicated, if Sin be absolutely remitted! That Connexion we find betwixt his Holiness, and his not forgiving sin, Josh. 24. 19 does very plainly intimate, That the Holiness of God is a Bar that lies in the way of Pardon, that does (as it were) oblige GOD not to give out Pardons too easily; not to Pardon absolutely, or without due Provision made for the demonstrating his Antipathy against Sin; that in his Eye (as well as in its own nature) 'tis an abominable thing, what his Soul hates, Jer. 44. 4.  
4. It was further necessary, That the Reputation of his Governing Justice, should also be consulted. GOD (considered as a Governor) is necessarily Just, cannot but be so: How monstrous a sound would these two Words conjoined carry in 'em [an unjust GOD!] they do mutually destroy and subvert each other; He that is GOD cannot be unjust; and that Being that is unjust, for that very reason cannot possibly be GOD. Now this Justice of GOD, not only has place in the conferring Promised Rewards, but also in the executing threatened Penalties: Of the former, no one makes a doubt; 'tis the latter therefore that only needs to be cleared: And how plain is it that even the Punishment of Sin is still mentioned as an Act of Justice, Rom. 3. 8.— 2. 5. 2 Thess. 1. 6. Heb. 2. 2. Rev. 16. 5. 7.— 19 2. But though in the nature of the thing, and from these Texts it is most evident, That when GOD punishes Sin, He does it justly; it may yet be a doubtful Case with some, Whether, or how far his Justice obliges Him to punish it? And that it does oblige Him in some Cases, surely should be agreed; for that we cannot form a Notion of Rectoral Justice, that does not import and carry in it a difference betwixt the Righteous and the Wicked in its Distributions; it will not admit, that all be alike treated: The Wise Man therefore complains of this, as one of the great Evils of our World, That there be Righteous Men to whom it happens according to the work of the Wicked, and wicked Men to whom it happens according to the work of the Righteous, Eccles. 8. 14. But is certain it shall not (at last) be well with 'em, v. 13. GOD has declared this Justifying the Wicked in Humane Judicatures, to be an abomination to Him, Prov. 17. 15. and has accordingly denounced a Woe against it, Isa. 5. 23. and therefore surely it can have no place with Him. Besides that in reference to Himself, we are assured, that He is no Respecter of Persons in Judgement, Rom. 2. 11. which Text is the more considerable, for that the Apostle does there allege this as an Argument to Evince, That GOD will render to every man according to his works, and thereby manifest his Judgement to be Righteous, v. 5. 6. Intimating that his Justice does consist therein, viz. In rendering to every one according to his works; his Justice obliges Him thereto: Now, that we may not mistakingly imagine, that He intends it only of the good that is their due, He carefully distinguishes betwixt Good and bad, and applies this Exercise of Justice to both— Not only will He (as Justice obliges Him) render glory, honour, and peace to every man that worketh good, but also (as the same Justice obliges) tribulation and anguish upon every Soul of Man that does evil, ver. 9 10. Not upon one, or two, but every one; for there is no respect of persons with GOD. And (to give this yet the greater force) we find it conjoined with the denial of any Iniquity in GOD, 2 Chron. 19 7. There is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor respect of persons. Signifying thereby, That should GOD (as a Ruler) deal unequally with Persons, whose cases are the same; or deal alike with Persons, whose cases are differing (either of which ways there would be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Respect of Persons) He would be chargeable with Iniquity: 'Tis as certain therefore that GOD cannot but severely Animadvert upon Sin, as that there can be no Iniquity in Him. But what need we further Proof, while Crellius himself owns it, That the Justice of God in some cases oblige Him to punish. Nec illud negamus, rectitudinem ac justitiam Dei, nonnunquam eum ad peccata punienda movere; eorum nempe, etc.— Quales sunt homines non-resipiscentes, atque in peccatis contumaciter perseverantes, etc.— Maxim, si ipsum peccati Genus in quo persistunt, insignem animi malitiam, aut apertum Divinae Majestatis contemptum spiret. And he not only grants this (which yet, as we may hereafter make appear, does plainly infer the whole of what he had been pleading against) but he does also nervously prove it in the immediately following Words, Si enim hujusmodi hominibus venia concederetur, facile supremi Rectoris Majestas (ex qua Ordo Universitatis pendet;) & Legum, ab 
Crell. Resp. ad Grot. Cap. 1. §. 78. p. (mihi) 98.  ipso latarum, Authoritas evilesceret; & gloria ipsius, quae praecipuus operum ejus finis est, minueretur. To the same purpose he speaks again: Non resipiscentes paena non liber are— Positis quibusdam finibus quos 
C. 2. §. 29. p. 198.  Deus sibi in regendis hominibus prefixit, factu necessarium, etc.  
Now upon these Concessions of Crellius, it may be inferred, That supposing GOD to rule us by his Laws, we must conceive of Him as necessarily obliged to punish the Impenitent; But, why is He so necessitated to punish? That the Honour of his Majesty, and the Authority of his Law may be maintained: And that Principle (as we may call it) that in God which obliges Him for these Ends to punish the Impenitent, the Contumacious, he allows to be his Justice. Now therefore if Crellius will consist with himself, I think he needs must own, that unless GOD Govern the World so, as to attain the great Ends of Government, he would not be Just; and that those Ends cannot be attained, unless Sin be punished, will easily be made appear, if any one should make a doubt of it; but the further Consideration of this, is more properly to be reserved, till we meet with it in the Second Part of this Discourse.  
In the mean time, let it be observed, how far we have proceeded; and these things seem to be very plain, viz. That GOD is (in a most proper Sense) the Governor of Intelligent Creatures; That (as such) He is most necessarily Just; That his Justice does respect the Distribution of Rewards and Punishments, and that however in Reference either to Rewards or Punishments, it may not always oblige Him to execute strictly what the very Letter of the Law imports; yet will it not admit, either in reference to the one or other, of any such Relaxation or Change, as would not well consist with, and secure the great Ends of threatenings or Promises. This Governing Justice therefore was a further Bar in the way of a mere Pardon; GOD could not (consistently herewith) absolutely Pardon: If the very Penalty threatened be not inflicted, Justice itself required that an Equivalent should, i. e. such Sufferings as should as well attain the ends of the Law, as the threatened Penalty itself should. Thus, in respect of GOD, his Honour, the Honour of his Power, Wisdom, Holiness, and Governing Justice, did necessarily require, that if GOD Pardon the Sinner, He should yet (one way or other) leave such marks of his displeasure upon Sin, as should as effectually support the Authority, and secure the Ends of his Government, as if the Sinner himself had suffered according to the utmost rigour of the Law. And in reference also,  
To the Latter Thing mentioned, i. e. That we be discouraged and affrighted from Sinning; in order thereto, it was alike necessary, that Sin should with great Severity be animadverted on; if no Punishment was inflicted, or none proportioned to the Offence, what should keep the World in awe, or make 'em afraid of Sinning yet again? Crimes unpunished are too much countenanced at least, if they be not thereby authorised. We see the mere delay of Punishment is very frequently abused to this purpose, Eccles. 8. 11. Because Sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in 'em to do evil. And if mere Forbearance have this effect, what (may we suppose) would have been the consequence of absolute Forgiveness? So that we conclude GOD could not (consistently with either his own Honour, or our Safety) Pardon Sin without a Satisfaction; it was necessary that Sufferings should be insisted on; and such Sufferings as should be Equivalent to what was Threatened, Sufferings that were adapted to answer the ends of the Law and Government, as well, or better than the Sufferings of Sinners themselves. Hereupon,  
IV. In order to our Remission, the Sufferings of Christ were insisted on by the Father, and agreed to by the Son; by his Sufferings it was effected, brought to pass, that Sin might be remitted, without either reflecting any Dishonour upon GOD, or (in the least) encouraging any to Sin. His Sufferings did fully answer all the Exigencies of our Case; and therefore this Constitution is mentioned by the Apostle as a very condecent and becoming one, Heb. 2. 10. Supposing so Gracious an Intendment towards us, That GOD designed to put us into the Hand of Christ, that He might bring us to Glory, it was what well became God, to make the Captain of our Salvation perfect through Sufferings. But what Condecency or Becomingness would there have been in it; if Sin might have been pardoned, and the Sinner saved as well without it? Nay, the Death of Christ was therefore insisted on, that thereby GOD's Justice might be demonstrated, Rom. 3. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 'tis doubled to give it the greater Emphasis. GOD would have been Just, and sufficiently have demonstrated himself to be so, if He had infficted upon us the Vengeance that was threatened; but supposing that He Pardon us, that He Justify Sinners (though Penitent Believers) his Justice might well be called in Question, unless Satisfaction be first made for our Sins; therefore does the Apostle so industriously urge and inculcate this over and over, as what he would not, by any means, have overlooked— Christ therefore was a Propitiatory-Sacrifice, that GOD's Justice might be demonstrated, that it might clearly be demonstrated to the World; and the next Words rise yet higher, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that He might be (and not only that He might appear to be the) Just, as if, upon the supposal of his Justifying Sinners, He could not otherwise be Just. So that though mere Remission would have well consisted with Mercy alone; or the Damnation of all Apostate Sinners with Justice alone; yet if GOD would be merciful to Sinners, He must also be Just; and that He could not be, unless He so far, and in such a way punish Sin, as will suffice to keep up his own Honour and Authority, and effectually to discourage Sin: And hence it was that Christ became the Propitiation for our Sins.— Wherefore,  
V. And in the last place, The Sufferings of Christ being thus insisted on, in order to his being a Successful Mediator with GOD for Sinners, He is therefore said to have died for us, and for our Sins. Our Sins rendered Suffering necessary: GOD thereupon insists on Suffering, without shedding of Blood He will allow no Remission: Hereupon Christ consents to die, and accordingly dies a Sacrifice for us, bears our sins, carries our griefs, etc.  
Sect. 5. And this is that relation betwixt our Sins and the Sufferings of Christ, which is intended to be expressed by Grotius, and others, when they say, Our Sins were the Meritorious Cause of his Sufferings, i. e. they deserved Death, and so bound us over to it, as that we could not be exempted from it, without a Satisfaction, without somewhat Equivalent to our dying; in which Exigency Christ dies for us. I cannot find that they (or, which with every Christian surely should yet be of greater weight, that the Scriptures themselves) do mean any thing more. Thus Grotius, Causa altera, quae Deum movit sunt peccata nostra paenam commerentia. He does not mean that they deserved Christ should be punished; but they so bound us over to Punishment, that unless Christ die for 'em, we could not Salva Divinae Justitiae demonstratione, a paena mortis aeternae liberari, as he had a few Lines before expressed himself. And therefore having mentioned that Text a few Pages forward, Gal. 2. 21. If righteousness be by the law, than Christ died 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without a cause, he adds, Locus ipse Pauli, de quo agimus, aliam (quam antecedentem) causam intelligi non patitur— And a little further adds; Causam propriam, cur se tradiderit Christus, mortuusque sit, hanc esse, quod nos per legem justi non essemus, sed rei paenae; nostra ergo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
De Satisf. cap. 1. p. 9, 10.  causa est antecedens mortis Christi. To which he adds, p. 36. Non potest alicujus actionis causa impellens esse Meritoria, nisi & finis sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And cap. 5. p. 113, 114. Merebantur peccata nostra ut paena exigeretur: quod vero paena in Christum collata fuerit, hoc ita ad Dei & Christi voluntatem referimus, ut ea quoque voluntas causas suas habeat, non in Merito Christi (qui peccatum cum non nosset, a Deo peccatum factus est) sed in summa Christi aptitudine ad statuendum insigne exemplum, etc. So that whoever allows, that our Sins deserved Punishment, and so bound us over to Eternal Death, as that we could not be exempted from it, with safety to the Divine Justice, unless Satisfaction be made; that Christ died for this end, by satisfying Divine Justice to procure our Remission; and that his Death therefore was antecedently thus caused by our Sin, and was inflicted for an example, to deter us from Sin; I say, whoever agrees to this (so far as I can find) admits of all that Grotius ever designed, when he calls our Sins the meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings. And so also the Bishop of Worcester; Our Sins, as an Impulsive Cause, are to be 
Discourse of Christ's Suff. p. 69.  considered, as they are so displeasing to GOD; that it was necessary for the Vindication of his Honour, and the deterring the World from Sin, that no less a Sacrifice of Atonement should be offered, than the Blood of the Son of GOD.  
Sect. 6. And to all this we do readily agree; yea, how fully has Mr. Baxter spoken to this Sense, particularly in his Reasons of the Christian Religion, Part I. Cap. 15. Sect. 9 P. 161, 162, 163. So also Part II. c. 4. §. 6. P. 232. and c. 5. §. 10. P. 253, 254. The Passages are too large to Transcribe. But he has there very plainly intimated, That GOD neither has, nor could Pardon Sinners without such a Sacrifice, or substitute-means, as might preserve the Honour of his Law and Government, and the future Innoceney of his Subjects, as well as their Punishment in the full Sense of the Law would have done.  
Sect. 7. Now when the whole Matter or Thing is agreed to, all that the Orthodox intent by that Phrase, 'tis a very insipid thing for any one vehemently to contend what Word or Name to call it by: What if one call our Sins the Meritorious Cause, another the Promeritorious Cause, another the Occasion of Christ's Sufferings; whilst they are all agreed as to the Reference they had to 'em: But if any one by a Meritorious Cause intent more than what is abovesaid, or by an Occasion intent less, it may with just Reason be concluded, they are mistaken with the Antinomians in the one, or with the Socinians in the other Extreme.  
Sect. 8. We blame no one therefore merely for calling our Sins the Meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings; nay, Mr. Baxter himself sometimes calls 'em so, the Meritorious, or Pro-meritorious Cause. Confession of Faith, p. 153. the Remote, or assumed Cause. Life of Faith, p. 311. and p. 321. he allows, that our sins lay on Christ as the assumed Meritorious cause of his Sufferings. So in his Methodus Theologiae— Ad peccatum Relationem habent (speaking of the Sufferings of Christ) ut ad occasionem, & ut ad causam meritoriam remotam, & si non proximam. P. III. c. 1. Determ. 5. p. 38. And in that other Book to which our Accuser refers us, he thus expresses his Sense, at his very entering upon this Point? When He (Christ) is said to die [for our Sins] it may be understood— for our Sins as the Pro-meritorious procuring Cause of his Suffering, through his own Undertaking to bear what they deserved: Or, if any think it fitter to call 'em the Occasion, than the Meritorious Cause, they may. Universal Redempt. p. 5. And the very last Words that I have observed him to use of this Matter (in that last-mentioned Tract) are these: The strictest Sense in which He (Christ) is said to die for Men, is, to die in their stead; or to die for their Sins as the Procuring Cause, on his own Undertaking: yield this once, and we shall much easiler agree, etc. Ibid. p. 91. Which Two Passages do so enclose and explicate all the rest, that for a Person to represent any of the intermediate Passages to adiffering and disadvantageous Sense, is what deserves a Censure so severe, as we did not think fit to express, otherwise than by a significant Silence.  
Sect. 9 But though we allow others their Liberty, yet (accurately speaking) it must be said, That all that Reference that our Sins had to the Sufferings of Christ, does not amount to a Proper Meritorious Cause: Nor did Grotius ever think it did; whatever our Accuser may imagine; For though he does affirm (as is intimated, Appeal, p. 6.) that Praeter Dei & Christi voluntatem, datur Causa Antecedens Legitima mortis Christi: yet he distinguishes once and again, betwixt Punishment taken Personally, and taken Impersonally: By Punishment taken Personally, he intends the Sufferings of Christ, considered as his; by Punishment taken Impersonally, he means the Sufferings of Christ considered only as Sufferings: And he expressly tells us, That our Sins were only the Meritorious Cause of the Sufferings of Christ in this latter Sense. For thus he speaks, Illud quoque reprehensione indiget quod dicit Socinus, Praeter Dei, & ipsius Christi voluntatem non posse ullam legitimam Causam reddi mortis Christi, nisi dicamus Christum meritum fuisse ut moreretur: Nam inest quidem in antecedente Causa meritum, ut supra diximus, sed Impersonaliter; merebantur enim peccata nostra ut paena exigeretur, etc. Cap. 5. p. 113. Our Sins only did deserve Sufferings, and those of such a value, and could not be remitted, unless such a Compensation was made to Divine Justice for 'em; but they never did deserve that Christ should die; they made it necessary, supposing we be Redeemed, that it be by such a Price; but they did not deserve that we should be Redeemed with his Precious Blood: All that Grotius asserts is, That Death was deserved, he no where says that Christ's Death was so.  
§. 10. And this is the true Reason why we are not fond of the Phrase [a Meritorious Cause] because it would intimate, Christ's Sufferings were deserved: Now if they were deserved, it must either be allowed, that they were the very thing that the Law threatened, or we (by our Sins) deserved God should Save and Ransom us by such Sufferings. If either of these be true, our Sins may then be said to be the Meritorious, the proper meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings, as our Accuser would have 'em; but cannot be strictly and truly so, otherwise than upon the one, or the other of these Principles. In that they deserved such Sufferings for weight, and could not be remitted without such Sufferings, and Christ hereupon consented to suffer for 'em, they may be called the Meritorious Cause of his Sufferings, or, much more fitly, the ground, the reason, the assumed cause, the pro-meritorious, or quasi-meritorious Cause of his Sufferings: But the real, proper meritorious Cause of 'em they could not be, unless they in a strict and proper Sense deserved that Christ should die. Now the Death of Christ is considerable under a twofold Notion, either as a Curse or Blessing. As inflicted upon Him, 'twas a most dreadful Curse: As it was our Ransom, the Price of our Redemption, it was and is a most invaluable Blessing. If our Sins therefore deserved the Death of Christ, it must be either in the one, or the other of these Respects: But no one surely will dare to say, That our Sins deserved such a Ransom; that GOD in giving his Son to be the Saviour of the World, gave us no more than we deserved; this were egregious Blasphemy, against the brightest and most amazing Instance of Love, with which God ever blessed the World.  
§. 11. It remains then, that (supposing our Sins the Proper Meritorious Cause of Christ's death) they did deserve it as a Curse to be inflicted upon Him, tho' not as a Blessing influential upon us. And 'tis not conceivable how our Sins could so deserve the death of Christ, unless this be supposed to be the very thing threatened in the Law; [if thou sinnest, Christ shall die]: And this our Accuser sometimes seems to intend; what else can he possibly mean, when he tells us, Appeal, p. 25. If Christ's Obligation to suffer did not result from this Law (i. e. the Law which we had violated) our Sins were not the Impulsive Cause of his Sufferings: Or, if it did not immediately, our Sins were but the Remote Cause, or Occasion; not a mere Impulsive, or Proper Meritorious Cause of 'em. And p. 50. If Christ's Sufferings be not ex obligatione Legis (we suppose he means the same Law as before) our Sins cannot be their Meritorious Cause. And p. 41. Whence its impossible (i. e. if Christ's Sufferings arise not from the violated Law, but from the Mediatorial Law, it's impossible) Sin should be their Meritorious Cause. So that his Sense should be, That Christ's Sufferings were not, could not be, 'twere impossible they should be from our Sins, as the Proper Meritorious Cause, unless they did result, and immediately result from the violated Law. And this is what we also say; and therefore while he pleads for our Sins being so properly, so immediately, the Meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings; he must needs mean, that they did result, immediately result from the Law when violated; i. e. so soon as ever the Law was violated, so soon as we had sinned, the Law immediately lays hold on Christ, binds Him over to Death; and that it could not do, unless he was threatened by it.  
Here therefore I would have manifested that the Death of Christ was not threatened by that Law, but that I have already largely done it, both in the first and third Chapters of this Discourse: And our Accuser himself has rendered it the less needful, by giving it as his true Sense, That when the Law was at first given to Adam, Christ was not in the Obligation: it did not run [Thou, or thy Surety for thee] p. 5. of this very Appeal. We shall therefore (instead of perusing the Matter further) allow him leisure to bethink himself how these things will be made to consist together, That Christ's Obligation to suffer did immediately result from the Law, and that yet the Law did not include a Surety: Humanity itself (and much more Christianity) obliging us to show some pity, and not to press too hard a Person that labours under the hardships of Self-contradiction.  
§. 12. To sum up this Head then, Orthodoxness does not consist in Words and Phrases; 'twould be egregious weakness to imagine, That the Controversies betwixt us and the Socinians are only whether this, or the other Word, or Form of Speaking, be most apt and expressive of that Truth about which there is no difference: That which the Bishop of Worcester has observed, with a more particular respect to a Change of Persons, will admit a much more extensive Application. It is not (says he) the use of the Words, but the Sense of 'em is to be enquired into. See his Lordship's Letter to Mr. W. inserted in the Answer to the Report, p. 57 'Tis not the bare Word [Trinity] that divides betwixt them and us in that point, or the term [Person] or [Satisfaction] or [meritorious Cause] etc. But 'tis the Sense designed to be expressed by those Terms, in which they will not agree with us; would they allow the Truth we plead for, that is wont to be expressed by those Words; they would no longer be Socinians; nor would any wise Man perpetuate the Contention with 'em, tho' they should yet be unsatisfied as to the foremention'd Phrases.  
Our Accuser therefore does not (to use that Right Reverend Persons Words again) discover his profound Knowledge in these Matters, if he think, as he says, Ap. p. 39 That the Heart of the Controversy lies in Asserting or Denying our Sins to be the Properly Meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings: And if He know otherwise, and to design to impose upon those that do not, where is his Ingenuity. 'Tis so far from being true, that the Heart of the Controversy lies here, that so far as I have yet observed, this very Man is the first that ever asserted, Our Sins were the Properly meritorious Cause, etc. Grotius, Vossius, and the Bishop of Worcester, do indeed speak of 'em as the Meritorious Cause; but how they explain themselves we have before manifested as to two of 'em. Nor does Vossius intent any thing more, than only that they are truly Meritorious of Sufferings, that they could not be remitted without 'em; and that in this Exigency, Christ consents to suffer for us; whereupon he calls 'em the Meritorious Cause of his Sufferings; though he (as Grotius) means it only of the Sufferings he underwent, not of those Sufferings as undergone by Him. To this purpose we find him explaining himself; Punitio omnis qua talis, sive Impersonaliter spectata, causam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habet Justitiam Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Procatarctica vero causa sunt peccata, itidem Impersonaliter, & in genere spectata, sine determinatione, etc. Punitio vero, quae pro alio est, plane misericordiae Divinae opus est: procatarctica vero causa sunt peccata nostra Satisfactionem Exigentia. Vossi Responsum ad Judicium Ravensperg. Chap. 12. So that though they call 'em the Meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings, yet they plainly manifest, that they intent only they were meritorious of the Sufferings He underwent (abstractly considered) and therefore may improperly be said to be meritorious of his Sufferings; but I no where find 'em asserting our sins to be the properly meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings, much less fixing that as the Point in Controversy betwixt the Orthodox and the Socinians, whether they be to be so called, or not.  
Nay, 'tis not only not needful to use the Phrase our Accuser would impose upon us, but (unless carefully explained) 'tis very unsafe; for that if the Words be taken as they sound, they would import that (in a strict and proper sense) Our sins deserved that Christ should die: an Assertion, that in a sense very obvious does amount to blasphemy, and (without a manifest force put upon the Words) cannot possibly be a Truth.   

CHAP. V.  
That though Christ's Sufferings may not unaptly be called a Punishment, yet not in the full and proper Sense in which the Sufferings of the Sinner himself might have been so called.  
§. 1. IN this Point also, our Accuser is as Clamourous, as in the former; and what has been said in the foregoing Chapter will furnish out a just Answer to all his Cavils upon this Head. He represents us, as if we did allow the Sufferings of Christ to be the Punishment of Sin, only so far, and in the same Sense as Crellius does, Appeal, p. 27. but denied 'em to be a Proper Punishment; and that therefore we are against the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, Ap. p. 4. 10. And lest this should not be enough to leave us under the Reproach of Socinianism, he represents this as the very parting Point betwixt the Orthodox and the Socinians; the Heart of the Controversy (according to him) lies in the Asserting or Denying— Christ's Sufferings to be properly Penal, p. 39 and (if he be not mistaken) Grotius, Vossius, and the B. of Worcester, are of the same mind.  
§. 2. But after all, what if it should appear, That the Phrase is Ambiguous; that in one Sense (and which is plainly the Sense of that very Judicious and Learned Bishop, and others, that use the Phrase) it is true, That the Sufferings of Christ are a Proper Punishment; and yet in another Sense (which shall appear to be the Sense of Mr. Baxter, and those whose Sentiments agree with his in this Matter) it is as true, That Christ's Sufferings are not a Proper Punishment, but Analogically only to be so called: That the Bishop never owned it, nor any Person of note, in the Sense in which we deny it; and that we do not, Mr. Baxter never did deny it, in the Sense in which the Bishop, (and other Famous Defenders of the Catholic Faith against Socinianism) Assert and Plead for it.  
§. 3. To Evince this, there needs nothing more than a Just Representation of their Sense; what the one and the other intent by a Proper Punishment, and this they themselves were best able to express: Now then to constitute a Proper Punishment in the Bishop's Sense, there is no more needful, than that there be Sufferings inflicted on the account of Sin, to deter Men from Sinning, and to assert GOD's Rights as a Sovereign, and vindicate his Honour to the World. Whatsoever Sufferings do answer all these ends of Divine Punishments, and are inflicted on the account of sin, have the proper notion of 
Discour. of the Suff. of Christ. P. 59  Punishments in 'em. And again, Whatever is inflicted on the account of sin, and with a design to show God's severity against it, and thereby to deter others from the practice of it, has the proper notion of Punishment in it. 
Ib. p. 73.  This is plainly the Sense of that Right Reverend Person, he means no more when he calls the Sufferings of Christ a proper Punishment, than what is abovesaid. And to all this we cheerfully consent.  
§. 4. But Mr. Baxter, when he denies the Sufferings of Christ to have been a proper Punishment, 'tis plain, he takes Punishment in the strictest Sense, as it does connote the suffering Person to have sinned; and intends no more by it than that Christ was not himself a sinner. Poena in sensu primo & famosissimo est Ipsius Delinquentis malum naturale.— concludendum est. Christus nonfuit river a peccator; ideoque; 
Meth. The. P. III. c. 1. determ. 5. P. 38.  poenam sensu primo & famosissimo sic dictam non dedit. And this is no more than what every one must agree to; that supposing it be taken into the Notion of Punishment, that the Snffering be inflicted upon one that has sinned, Christ's Sufferings were not a proper Punishment. Nor was Mr. Baxter the only Person that apprehended this to be the most strict and proper Notion of Punishment, the Learned Pufendorf (after Grotius, and other Civilians) does upon this very Principle assert, That however one Man may suffer, yet he cannot (properly speaking) be punished for fewer Sin. Paenae vocari nequit dolor ille aut damnum, qui in 
Pufendorf. Element. Jurisp. Univers. Lib. 1. def. 21. §. 7. p. 237.  illos redundat, qui nihil deliquerunt— & qui in altero paenae rationem habiturus est dolor aut damnum, delictum proprium tanquam causam respicere debet. Unde Paena non est dolor ille, quem quis ex paenae propinqui aut amici sui capit, nisi ipse for'rs ad istius delictum concurrerit, etc. To the same purpose he also speaks in his larger Tract; Illos quidem, qui revera de reatu delicti participant, pro ratione influxus ad facinus aliquod puniri posse, extra dubium est; cum iidem non alienum, sed proprium delictum luant. De Jure Naturae & Gent. Lib. VIII. c. 3. §. 28. p. 831. But §. 30. p. 834. he adds, De coetero firmum manet istud, in foro humano, ob delictum alienum, de quo nulla ratione quis participavit, recte aliquem puniri non posse, etc. And the Famous Dr. Ames includes it expressly in the Notion of Punishment, not only that it be some Evil inflicted for or on the account of Sin, but also that it be inflicted upon the Sinner himself. Paenae est malum Peccatori propter peccatum inflictum. Amesii Medulla Theol. Lib. 1. C. 12. §. 10. p. (mihi) 56. And therefore he adds, §. 14. Paena igitur proprie dicta non habet locum, nisi in Creaturis intelligentibus, in quibus etiam peccatum reperitur.  
§. 5. This therefore is the only Question that can lie betwixt us and our Accuser, Whether Christ was really a Sinner, or not? If not (which we hope our Accuser himself will not scruple to say with us) than his Sufferings were not a Punishment, in that most full and proper Sense, in which the Sufferings inflicted on sinners themselves are so called. We willingly allow, That they were as properly Punishments, as it was possible the Sufferings of one, who was himself no Sinner, could be; but we dare not say, that Christ was a Sinner: And therefore, though He suffered for Sin, yet the Sin (since it was not his own) did not so nearly and immediately render Christ liable to Suffering, as it did the Sinner himself. Death was not due to Christ immediately upon our having sinned; the Law did not threaten Christ [if Men sin, thou shalt die]: After we had sinned, there was no one obnoxious to Suffering for it besides ourselves, till Christ voluntarily undertook to suffer; he was not antecedently obliged, but (when he might have refused) he freely chose to die for us, He gave Himself for our sins, Gal. 1. 4. He gave Himself a ransom for us, 1 Tim. 2. 6.  
§. 6. So that here is a vast difference betwixt the Sufferings of Christ, and the Sufferings of a Sinner. The Sinner, and Christ do indeed each suffer on the account of Sin, so far they agree; but the Sinner suffers for his own sin, Christ for the sins of others; the Sinner suffers deservedly, he receives the due reward of his deeds, Luk. 23. 41. but Christ's Sufferings were undeserved, he having done nothing amiss: The Sinners sufferings were threatened by the Law; but where do we find any threatening against Christ: The Sinners Sufferings are inflicted without and against his Consent; but Christ's were the matter of his free choice, what He might have refused, etc.  
§. 7. Upon which, and other like grounds, how plain is it, That the Sufferings of Christ are not in all respects Commensurate to the Sufferings of Sinners; and that however they have such a respect to sin, on account whereof they may not unaptly be called Punishments (as Mr. Baxter himself asserts, Method. Theol. Part III. p. 38.) yet they have not altogether the same respect to Sin, as the Sinners own Sufferings have, or would have had (as appears before) and therefore when we call 'em Punishments, we must not take so much into the Notion of Punishment as when we call the Sinners own Sufferings by that name.  
§. 8. So that when the Sufferings of Christ are compared with those of Sinners, we say, they are less Properly and Analogically called Punishments not in that Primary and most Famous sense in which the Sinners own sufferings are so called: and yet when we compare the same sufferings with mere Calamities, that have no relation to Sin, or guilt; we say, they are not unaptly, but properly enough to be called Punishments, for that they had such a respect to Sin, as has been before-said. In this Mr. Baxter 
Baxt. Two Disputat. of Original Sin, p. 156.  is plain: and therefore elsewhere Asserts, That his (i. e. Christ's) sufferings were truly Punishments because for sin, though not for his own; yet not Punishments, in so full and strict a Sense as ours, who suffer for our own sins.  
§. 9 And hence it appears, that our Accuser has with no just reason, represented Mr. Baxter as agreeing with Crellius in this matter: Crellius (says he) says the same, only with this Explication, viz. that it must be taken materially and Improperly which is the sense in which Mr. Baxter— takes it. Appeal, p. 27. But besides that Mr. Baxter (so far as yet appears) no where says, that the sufferings of Christ are Punishments materially only, (as this Accuser intimates) nay, on the contrary, he argues from their participating in the formal Reason of Punishment, that they may properly enough be so called, Quoad nomen vero, non inepte poena dicuntur, dum ad Peccatum habent, relationem etc. Baxter ubi supra. I say, besides this, any considering and unprejudiced Reader will easily see, cannot but observe, that if at any time they happen both to use one and the same Term, they yet intent it in a vastly differing Sense. So if Crellius allow Christ's sufferings to be Punishments improperly so called; it is most evident he thereby excludes that respect they had to Sin, to our Sin, which we have in the foregoing Chapter asserted and cleared, and in reference to which Mr. Baxter with the Bishop of Worcester, and all the Orthodox are agreed: and so also when he calls our Sins the Occasion of Christ's Sufferings, he means it not as Mr. Baxter does, of such an Occasion as was (so far as the Nature of the thing will admit) a meritorious Cause of 'em also.  
And it may as well be said that Crellius says the same with Grotius, and the Bishop, because he sometimes calls our Sins the Impulsive cause of Christ's sufferings; and that his sense is the same with theirs, because sometimes his words are so; and therefore also, that their sense is the same with his, and thereupon that they are Socinians: I say, there is the same Reason why they might also, as well as Mr. Baxter, be thus represented by our Accuser, for that they also sometimes use Crellius' words without any scruple.  
§. 10. Nor is it any uncommon thing, for several Persons, to use the same words in differing senses: Our Accuser himself affords us a most convincing Instance to this purpose, in reference to the very matter before us. The sufferings of Christ are to be considered as a Punishment of sin, a Proper Punishment. In the Expression the Bishop of Worcester, and our Accuser are agreed; but that notwithstanding, the sense intended by the one, and the other is not the same. He pretends indeed p. 38. that it is not the Words and Phrases, but his Lordship's sound sense, that he contends for; but if that were all he would have, there was no occasion for him to contend at all; that having never (by those he Accuses) been called in Question: where he apprehended a difference betwixt his Lordship and Mr. Baxter at the most, it could be but a Verbal one, that their sense, when they explain themselves, does well agree, has been already manifested; and since Mr. Baxter did, and we do most Entirely agree, that Christ's suffeings were a Proper Punishment, according to the Notion his Lordship, gives us of such a Punishment, we may surely hope for an End of this Contention.  
§. 11. Only for a Close, I would remark it to our Accuser, That whilst (either through Prejudice, or Inadvertency) he groundlessly charges us as differing from that Judicious and Right Reverend Person; he does himself give Occasion, for any one to return back the Charge, with greatest Justice, upon him. For under the pretence, That Christ's Sufferings were a proper Punishment (for which he alleges the Bishop of Worcester) he would have 'em to be the very Punishment we had deserved, the very Punishment the Law threatened, Punishment inflicted by virtue of the Sanction of the violated Law. V. p. 23, 26, 28, 29, etc. This Notion almost runs throughout his Appeal. But this is so far from being the sound Sense, in which his Lordship has used this Expression, that 'tis what he does most directly dispute against.  
§. 12. And whereas he does once and again Insinuate, That 'tis necessary Christ's Sufferings should be truly and properly Penal (we must suppose he means it in his own, not in the Bishop's Sense) in Order to their being a proper Satisfaction to God's Justice for our Sins: 'tis (as has been already, in some measure, manifested) utterly subversive of the True, and Universally owned Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, to assert his sufferings to have been Penal, in any such Sense, as would infer or include their having been inflicted by virtue of the violated Law, undergone in the proper Person of Sinners, their having been formally the same we were obliged to, and most immediately and properly deserved by our Sins; while yet this is what he every where pleads for: But of this Point of Satisfaction we design (God assisting) to treat more distinctly and at large hereafter.   
FINIS.