.
126 ON THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST. [EXERC. XXIX.
may be variously modified, from divers respects. Consider the punish- ment suffered, it may be it was the same; consider the person suffer- ing, and it was not the same, And therefore it may be said, as far as it was a penalty it was the same; as it was a payment it was not the same; or it was not the same as it was a satisfaction. For it was only what the law required, and the law required no satisfaction as formally such. Punishment and satisfaction differ formally, though materially they may be the same. I judge, therefore, that Christ was to undergo, and did undergo, that very punishment, in the kind of it, which those for whom he suffered should have undergone, and that, among others, for the reasons ensuing :—
1. Christ underwent the punishment which, in the justice or judgment of God, was due unto sin. That the justice of God did require that sin should be punished with a meet and due recom- pense of reward, we have proved already, and shall afterwards fur- ther confirm. To answer and satisfy this justice it was that Christ suffered; and therefore he suffered what that justice required. And this is what is pleaded for, and all. We should have undergone no more but what in the justice of God was due to sin. This Christ underwent,—namely, what in the justice of God was due to sin, and therefore what we should have undergone. Nor can it be supposed that, in the justice of God, there might be two sorts of penalties due to sin, one of one kind, and another of another. If it be said that because it was undergone by another it was not the same, I grant it was payment, which our suffering could never have been; it was satisfaction, which we by undergoing any penalty could not make; but he yet suffered the same penalty which we should have done. No more is intended but that the Lord Christ underwent that punishment which was due to our sins; which I cannot see how it can well be denied by those who grant that he underwent any punish- ment at all, seeing the justice of God required no other.
2. That which was due to sin was all of it, whatever it was, contained and comprehended in the curse of the law; for in the curse God threatened the breach of the law with that punishment which in his justice was due unto it, and all that was so. I suppose this will not be denied. For, the curse of the law is no- thing but an expression of that punishment which is due unto the breach of it, delivered in a way of threatening. But now Jesus Christ underwent the curse of the law; by which I know not what to understand but that very punishment which the transgressors of the law should have undergone. Hence our apostle says that he was “made a curse for us,” Gal. iii. 13; because he underwent the penal sentence of the law. And there were not two kinds of pun- ishment contained in the curse of the law, one that the sinner him-
DIGRESS. | ON THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST. 127
self should undergo, another that should fall on the Mediator; for neither the law nor its curse had any respect unto a mediator. Only every transgressor was cursed thereby. The interposition of a me- diator depends on other principles and reasons than any the law was acquainted withal. It was therefore the same punishment, in the kind of it, which was due to us, that the Lord Christ was to undergo, or it was that which neither the justice nor the law of God required.
3. It is said expressly that God caused all our iniquities to meet on him, Isa, liii. 6, or “hath laid on him the iniquity of us all;” that he bare our sins, verse 11, or “bare our sins in his, own body on the tree,” 1 Pet. ii. 24; whereby he who knew no sin was made sin for us, 2 Cor. v. 21;—the sense of all which places I have elsewhere pleaded and vindicated. Now, unless we will betake ourselves unto the metaphorical sense of our adversaries, and grant that all these, and the like expressions in the Scripture innumerable, signify no more but that Christ took away our sins, by declaring and confirming unto us the way of faith and obedience, whereby we may obtain the pardon of them, and have them so taken away, we can assign no sense unto them but that the Lord Christ underwent the punishment due unto our sins in the judgment of God, and accord- ing to the sentence of the law; for how did God make our sins to meet on him, how did he bear them, if he did not suffer the penalty due to them, or if he underwent some other inconvenience, but not the exact demerit of sin? And there is no other sense given of these places by them who plead for the satisfaction of Christ but this, that he bare the punishment due to our sins; which is all that is con- tended for. :
4, Christ suffered in our stead. He was our ’Avrinvuyos. And it is usual with all learned men to illustrate his being so by the instances of such as have been renowned in the world on that account; which they have clear warranty for from our apostle, Rom. v. 7. When one would substitute himself in the room of an- other who was obnoxious unto punishment, he that was so substi- tuted was always to undergo that very penalty, whether by loss of limb, liberty, or life, that the other should have undergone. And in like manner, if the Lord Christ suffered in our stead, as our ’ Ays/- ~buxog, he suffered what we should have done. And to conclude, if a certain punishment of sin be required indispensably, on the account of the holiness and essential righteousness of God, I know not on what ground we can suppose that several sorts or kinds of punish- - ment might be inflicted for it at pleasure.