CHAP. V.

§. 1. IN this Point also, our Accuser is as Clamourous, as in the for∣mer; and what has been said in the fore-going 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 deny'd 'em to be a Proper Punish∣ment; and that therefore we are against the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, Ap. p. 4. 10. And lest this shou'd 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 Con∣troversie (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.

Page  119 §. 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 Suffer∣ings are not a Proper Punishment, but Ana∣logically only to be so call'd: That the Bishop never own'd it, nor any Person of note, in the Sense in which we deny it; and that we do not, Mr. Baxter never did de∣ny it, in the Sense in which the Bishop, (and other Famous Defenders of the Ca∣tholick Faith against Socinianism) Assert and Plead for it.

§. 3. To Evince this, there needs no∣thing more than a Just Representation of their Sense; what the one and the other intend by a Proper Punishment, and this they themselves were best able to ex∣press: 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. Page  120 Whatsoever Sufferings do answer all these ends of Divine Punishments, and are inflicted on the account of sin, have the proper notion of * Punishments in 'em. And again, Whatever is inflicted on the account of sin, and with a design to shew God's severity against it, and thereby to deter others from the practice of it, has the proper notion of Punishment in it. * 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 Pu∣nishment in the strictest Sense, as it does connote the suffering Person to have sin∣ned; and intends no more by it than that Christ was not himself a sinner. Poena in sensu primo & famosissimo est Ipsius De∣linquentis malum naturale.—concludendum est. Christus non-fuit rever a peccator; ideo{que}; * poenam sensu primo & famosissimo sic dictam non dedit. And this is no more than what every one must agree to; that sup∣posing it be taken into the Notion of Punishment, that the Snffering be inflicted upon one that has sinned, Christ's Suffer∣ings were not a proper Punishment. Nor was Mr. Baxter the only Person that ap∣prehended this to be the most strict and Page  121 proper Notion of Punishment, the Lear∣ned Pufendorf (after Grotius, and other Civilians) does upon this very Principle assert, That however one Man may suf∣fer, yet he cannot (properly speaking) be punish'd for another's Sin. Paenae vo∣cari nequit dolor ille aut damnum, qui in * 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 pro∣pinqui aut amici sui capit, nisi ipse fors ad istius delictum concurrerit, &c. 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 partici∣pavit, recte aliquem puniri non posse, &c. And the Famous Dr. Ames includes it expresly 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 in∣flictum. Amesii Medulla Theol. Lib. 1. Page  122 C. 12. §. 10. p. (mihi) 56. And there∣fore he adds, §. 14. Paena igitur proprie dicta non habet locum, nisi in Creaturis in∣telligentibus, in quibus etiam peccatum repe∣ritur.

§. 5. This therefore is the only Que∣stion that can lie betwixt us and our Ac∣cuser, Whether Christ was really a Sin∣ner, or not? If not (which we hope our Accuser himself will not scruple to say with us) then his Sufferings were not a Punishment, in that most full and proper Sense, in which the Sufferings in∣flicted on Sinnners themselves are so call'd. We willingly allow, That they were as properly Punishments, as it was possible the Sufferings of one, who was himself no Sinner, cou'd be; but we dare not say, that Christ was a Sinner: And therefore, though He suffer'd for Sin, yet the Sin (since it was not his own) did not so nearly and immediately ren∣der Christ liable to Suffering, as it did the Sinner himself. Death was not due to Christ immediately upon our having sinn'd; 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 our selves, 'till Christ voluntarily undertook to suf∣fer; he was not antecedently oblig'd, Page  123 but (when he might have refus'd) he freely chose to die for us, He gave Him∣self for our sins, Gal. 1. 4. He gave Him∣self 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 ac∣count of Sin, so far they agree; but the Sinner suffers for his own sin, Christ for the sins of others; the Sinner suffers de∣servedly, he receives the due reward of his deeds, Luk. 23. 41. but Christ's Suffer∣ings were undeserv'd, he having done nothing amiss: The Sinners sufferings were threatned by the Law; but where do we find any threatning against Christ: The Sinners Sufferings are inflicted with∣out and against his Consent; but Christ's were the matter of his free choice, what He might have refus'd, &c.

§. 7. Upon which, and other like grounds, how plain is it, That the Suf∣ferings of Christ are not in all respects Commensurate to the Sufferings of Sin∣ners; and that however they have such a respect to sin, on account whereof they may not unaptly be call'd Punishments (as Mr. Baxter himself asserts, Method. Theol. Part III. p. 38.) yet they have not altogether the same respect to Sin, as the Page  124 Sinners own Sufferings have, or would have had (as appears before) and there∣fore 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 compar'd with those of Sinners, we say, they are less Properly and Analogically call'd Punishments not in that Primary and most Famous sense in which the Sinners own sufferings are so call'd: and yet when we compare the same sufferings with meer Calamities, that have no relation to Sin, or guilt; we say, they are not unaptly, but pro∣perly enough to be call'd Punishments, for that they had such a respect to Sin, as has been before-said. In this Mr. Baxter * is plain: and therefore elsewhere As∣serts, That his (i. e. Christs) sufferings were truly Punishments because for sin, though not for his own; yet not Punish∣ments, 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, repre∣sented Mr. Baxter as agreeing with Crellius in this matter: Crellius (says he) says the same, only with this Explicati∣on, viz. that it must be taken materially Page  125 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 ma∣terially 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 call'd, Quoad nomen vero, non inepte poena dicuntur, dum ad Peccatum habent, relationem &c. Baxter ubi supra. I say, besides this, any considering and unprejudic'd Reader will easily see, can∣not but observe, that if at any time they happen both to use one and the same Term, they yet intend it in a vastly differing Sense. So if Crellius allow Christ's sufferings to be Punishments im∣properly so call'd; it is most evident he thereby excludes that respect they had to Sin, to our Sin, which we have in the fore-going Chapter asserted and clear'd, 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.

Page  126 And it may as well be said that Crellius says the same with Grotius, and the Bi∣shop, because he sometimes calls our Sins the Impulsive cause of Christ's sufferings; and that his sense is the same with their's, 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's words without any scru∣ple.

§. 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 In∣stance to this purpose, in reference to the very matter before us. The sufferings of Christ are to be consider'd as a Punish∣ment of sin, a Proper Punishment. In the Expression the Bishop of Worcester, and our Accuser are agreed; but that not∣withstanding, 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 sence, that he contends for; but if that were all he would have, there was no occasion for him to contend at all; Page  127 that having never (by those he Accuses) been call'd in Question: where he appre∣hended a difference betwixt his Lord∣ship and Mr. Baxter at the most, it could be but a Verbal one, that their sence, 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 re∣mark it to our Accuser, That whilst (either through Prejudice, or Inadver∣tency) he groundlesly charges us as dif∣fering 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 Punish∣ment (for which he alledges the Bishop of Worcester) he wou'd have 'em to be the very Punishment we had deserv'd, the very Punishment the Law threatned, Punishment inflicted by vertue of the Sanction of the violated Law. V. p. 23, 26, 28, 29, &c. This Notion almost runs throughout his Appeal. But this is Page  128 so far from being the sound Sense, in which his Lordship has us'd this Ex∣pression, 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 bin already, in some measure, manifested) utterly subversive of the True, and Universally own'd Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, to assert his suf∣ferings to have been Penal, in any such Sense, as would inferr or include their having been inflicted by vertue of the violated Law, undergone in the proper Person of Sinners, their having been for∣mally the same we were oblig'd to, and most immediately and properly deserv'd 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.