It remains that we consider the principal objections that are usu- ally levelled against the truth asserted, and either answer them, or
128 ON THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST. [EXERC. XXIX.
show how that which we maintain is not concerned in them nor op- posed by them.
First, therefore, it is objected, “ That the punishment which we should have undergone was death eternal, but this Christ did not, nor could undergo; so that he underwent not the same punishment that we should have done.” Ans. Death as eternal was in the pun- ishment due unto our sin, not directly, but consequentially ; and that “a natura subjecti,” not “a natura cause.” For, that the punish- ment of sin should be eternal arose not from the nature and order of all things, namely, of God, the law, and the sinner, but from the nature and condition of the sinner only. This was such as that it could no otherwise undergo a punishment proportionable unto the demerit of sin but by an eternal continuance under it. This, there- fore, was not a necessary consequent of guilt absolutely, but of guilt in or upon such a subject as a sinner is, who is no more but a finite limited creature. But when, by God’s appointment, the same punishment fell on Him whose person, upon another consideration, was infinitely distanced from those of the sinners themselves, eter- nity was not of the nature of it. But then it may be said, “ That the admission of one to pay or suffer for another, who could discharge the debt in much less time than the other or offender could, is not the same that the law required; for the law takes no notice of any other than the person who had offended. And if a mediator could have paid the same, the original law must have been distinctive, —that either the offender must suffer or another for him.” Ans. These things are for the most part true, but net contrary to our as- sertion, as is pretended, through a misapprehension of it. For the law requires no such thing as one to suffer for another, nor, absolutely considered, doth admit of it. This was from God’s gracious dispen- sation of or with the law, as the supreme Lord and ruler over all. The law itself takes notice only of offenders, nor hath any such sup- position included in it as that the offenders must suffer or a media- tor in their stead. But this the law hath in it, and inseparable frora it, namely, that this kind of punishment is due to the transgressor of it, And by God’s gracious substitution of Christ in the room of sinners, there was no relaxation made of the law as to the punish- ment it required; nor is there any word in the Scripture giving — countenance unto such an apprehension, That there was a dispen- sation with the law so far as that one person should undergo the punishment (namely, the Son of God) which others did deserve, he becoming a mediator for them, the Scripture everywhere declares. Upon the supposition of his substitution in the place and stead of sinners, could there be any word of Scripture produced intimating such a relaxation of the law as that it should not require of him the
DIGRESS. | ON THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST. 129
whole punishment due to sin, but only some part of it, or not the punishment which was due to sinners, but somewhat else of another kind that was not in the original sanction and curse of it, there would be an end of this difference. But this appears not, nor is there any thing of sound reason in it, that one should suffer for another, in the stead of another, and thereby answer the law whereby that other was bound over unto punishment, and yet not suffer what he should have done. Nor is it pleaded, in this case, that the dignity of the person makes up what was wanting in the kind or degree of punishment; whence it is supposed that it would follow that then he who so suffered, suffered not what others should have done who were not so worthy. It is only said, that from the dignity of the person undergoing the same kind of punishment that others should have done, that respect of it which consisted in its duration, and arose from the disability of the persons liable unto it otherwise to undergo it, could have here no place.
It is yet further pleaded, “ That if the same be paid in a strict sense, then deliverance would have followed ipso facto, for the release - immediately follows the payment of the same; and it had been in- justice to have required any thing further of the offenders when strict and full payment had been made of what was in the obliga- tion.” Ans. To discuss these things at large would require a larger discourse than I shall now divert unto. But,—l. It hath been showed already, howsoever we allow of that expression of “ paying the same,” it is only suffering the same for which we contend. Christ underwent the same punishment that the law required, but that his so doing should be a payment for us depended on God’s sovereign dispensation, yet so that, when it was paid, it was the same which was due from us. 2. This payment, therefore, as such, and the deliverance that ensued thereon, depended on a previous compact and agreement, as must all satisfaction of one for another. This compact, as it concerned the person requiring satisfaction and the person making it, we have before described and explained; and as at concerns them who are to be partakers of the benefit of it, it is declared in the covenant of grace. Deliverance, therefore, doth not naturally follow on this satisfaction, but jure faderis ; and therefore was not to ensue ipso fucto, but in the way and order disposed in that covenant. 3. The actual deliverance of all the persons for whom Christ suffered, to ensue ipso facto upon his suffering, was absolutely impossible; for they were not [in being], the most of them, when he suffered. And that the whole of the time, way, and manner of this deliverance dependeth on compact, is evident from them who were delivered actually from the penalty long before the actual sufferings of Christ, merely upon the account of his sufferings which should