C *A P. 2, Chrift underwent the Curie of the L4u'o 449 Anf. Though the Law intend only the punishment of the tranfgrefFour; Yet when the Law -giver difpenfeth with the Law , & accepteth of the punish- ment & futTeringof another , the punishment & fuffering of another , doth not eo Ifo, that it is the punishment & fuffering of another , become diffe- rent in kind & degree from the punishment en ;oyned by the Law ; as is ob- vious; when ene man fuffereth death for another, the Law being difpenfed with, that made death due to the tranfgreffour him(" : his death do h not become eoipfo , that it is the death of another, than óf nim that tranfgref- fed, another kind of death ar difiind as to degrees; it may be the fame as to both : And yet this is all the force of Mr. Baxter argument , dum aliur J Ivit, aliud folvitur; which whether it be a certaine & univerfal rule in the Law, I much doubt : but though it were : Yet no man can hence inferre, that atiud quoad genus gradus, eo ipfo folvitur : for it is a rule in logick , that a genere ad fpeciera non fequitur aftrinativè , fo that though , when the Law requireth, that he who finneth shall Puffer, & die , & another fuffereth & dieth , in the room & fteadof him who finned it may be Paid , that info farr aliud folvitux; Yet it cannot be hence inferred , that the death or fuffe- ring of hum who finned nor , is quite of another kind , & differeth in de- greesfrom that death , which the Law made due to the (inner, 1 Te mentioneth afterward in the 2., 3, 4. & 5. places forre particulars, which were not in Chrift's fufferings , & yet would have been in the fuffe- 'rings of linners thetnfelves r But all this is to no purpofe ; for the queftion is not, whether Chrift's fufferings were the fame every way with the fuffe -ÿ rings cf the damned , as to all circumftances , & confequents , flowing from the Condition of finners fuffering; But whether they were the fame, as to kind , with that death & Curfe, which was threatned in the Law , byway of punishment , & which was therefore due by Law unto the tranfgre4four, Let us now fee the particulars. 2. And fin (faith he ) itfelf (thoughnot ,ar fin) Wilt thegreatefi part of the finnerrpunishment. To be alienated from God, Q not to Love him r delight in hire, but to be corrupted 5 deluded 0 tormented by concupifcence. Anf. Thefe are indeed nece (faryconfequentsof fin in the per - fon, who is a firmer, and are confequently punishment; but not diredly fuch; neither were they threatned as punishments by the Law , & fo do not belong to the offence & fubftance of that punishment , which the Law threat- *tied , & which Chrift was called to undertake, 3. Saida he. And the name- dint unavoidable confequents refulteng from fin itfeif, were punishments, which Chriß did never undergo , ( as to be hateful difpleafing to God , as contrary to his holy nathie to be related ar criminal, to lofe right ro God's Favour h7 King- dom. Anf. To be hateful & difpleafing unto God , agreed) only to a creatu- re ( which God doth not hate , asfuch) as a finner inherently : and though Chrift did not feel God's hatred & anger again(t his ownperfon, yet he felt his anger & hatred againft fin , & linners. And Chrift was alfo related as Criminal not inherently , but by imputation when he was made fin for nc. 2. Cor. 5: i t. The (inner that is fuch inherently only , lofeth right to God's avour, pz Chrift miffed the fence thereof, when he criedout, mvGed,my God., u bi Lt./11han forfàl én me ? And }. ( faith tie) none of the further punish- rnent; ii Ìl
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=