VOL. XIX. 9
130 ON THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST. [EXERC. XXIX.
afterwards ensue. 4. Deliverance is no end of punishment, con- sidered merely as such; none is punished properly that he may be delivered; however, the cessation of punishment may be called a deliverance. 5. Mere deliverance was not the whole end of Christ’s sufferings for us, but such a deliverance as is attended with a state and condition of superadded blessedness. And the duties of faith, repentance, and obedience, which are prescribed unto us, are not enjoined only or principally with respect unto deliverance from punishment, but with respect unto the attaining of those other ends of the mediation of Christ, in a new spiritual life here and eternal life hereafter. And with respect unto them may they justly be re- quired of us, though Christ suffered and paid the same which we ought. 6. No deliverance ipso facto, upon a supposition of suffer- ing or paying of the same, was necessary, but only the actual dis- charge of him who made the payment, and that under the notion and capacity of an undertaker for others: which im this ease did ensue; for the Lord Christ immediately on his sufferings was dis- Sharbedi and that as our surety and representative.
But it may be further objected, “That it is impossible to recon- cile the freeness of remission with the full payment of the very same that was in the obligation; for it is impossible that the same debt should be fully paid and freely forgiven.” Ans. It is well if those who make use of this objection, because they suppose it of foree and weight, are satisfied with their own answers unto the Socinians when it is much urged and insisted on by them. For it seems at first view that if the freedom of pardon unto us exclude any kind of satisfac- tion to be made by another for us, that it excludes all; for as to the freedom of pardon, wherein soever that freedom doth consist, it is asserted in the Scripture to be absolute, without any respects or restrictions. It is not said that God will so freely pardon us that he will not require all that was due, the same that was due, but some- what he may and will. It is not said that he will not have a suffer- ing of this kind of punishment, but the suffering of another kind of punishment he will. And so to suppose is a thing unworthy of the grace and righteousness of God. ‘To say that God freely remitted our sins, abrogating the law and the curse of it, requiring no punish- ment, no satisfaction for them, neither from ourselves nor from the Mediator, hath, at first view, an appearance of royal grace and cle- mency, until, being examined, it is found inconsistent with the truth and holiness of God. To say that God required the execution of the sentence and curse of the law, in the undergoing of the punishment due unto sin, but yet, out of his love and infinite grace, sent his Son to undergo it for us, so to comply with his holiness, to satisfy his jus- tice, and fulfil his truth and law, that he might freely pardon sinners,
DIGRESS. ] ON THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST. 131
—this the Scripture everywhere declares, and the so doing is consis- tent with all the perfections of the divine nature. But to say that he would neither absolutely pardon us without any satisfaction, nor yet have the same penalty undergone by Christ which his justice and law required as due unto sin, but somewhat else, seems to be unworthy of the holiness of God on the one side, which is but par- tially complied withal, and of his grace on the other, which is not exalted by it, and is a conceit that hath no countenance given unto it in the Scripture. Wherefore, the absolute freedom of pardon unto us is absolutely consistent with Christ suffering the same penalty which was due unto our sins.
And whereas it is pleaded, “That satisfaction and remission must respect the same person, for Christ did not pay for himself, but for us, neither could the remission be unto him; so that what was exactly paid by him, it is all one as if it had been paid by us;” unless it be cautiously explained, it hath a disadvantageous aspect towards the whole truth pieaded for. The Scripture is clear that God pardoneth us for Christ’s sake; and no less clear that he spared not him for our sakes. And if what Christ did be so accounted as done by ourselves as that payment and remission respect immediately the same person, then be it what it will, more or less, that was so paid or so satisfied for, we are not freely pardoned, but are esteemed to have suffered or paid so much, though not the whole. This is not that which we do believe. But satisfaction was made by Christ, and remission is made unto us. He suffered, the just for the unjust, that we may go free. In brief, Christ’s undergoing the punishment due unto our sins, the same that we should have undergone,—or, to speak with respect unto that improper notion, his paying the same debts which we owed,—doth not in the least take off from the freedom of our pardon ; yet it much consists therein, or at least. depends thereon. I say not that pardon itself doth so, but the freedom of it in God, and with respect unto us, doth so. For God is said to do that freely for us which he doth of grace; and whatever he doth of grace is done for us freely. Thus the love and grace of God in sending Jesus Christ to die for us were free; and therein lay the foundation of free remis- sion unto us. His constitution of his suffering of the same punish- ment which was due unto our sins, as the surety and mediator of the new covenant, was free and of mere grace, depending on the compact or covenant between the Father and Son, before explained. The imputation of our sin to him, or the making him to be sin for us, by his own voluntary choice and consent, was in like manner free. The constitution of the new covenant, and therein of the way