Universal redemption of mankind, by the Lord Jesus Christ stated and cleared by the…

But now in Criminals its otherwise: Because the very Person offending is in the obligation as the subject of the penalty: Noxa Caput sequitur. So that formaliter it is not the suffering which was due to you, which another suffers for you. This I add as a main Argument for my proposition.

If the Law do require only supplicium ipsius delinquentis, then Christs sufferings were not the Idem, the same thing which the Law required: Nor is the Law fulfilled thereby. But the Law doth require only supplicium ipsius delinquentis: Therefore, &c. For the Major, or its consequence it needs no proof; for Christ was not ipse delinquens; He was made Sin, that is, one punishable and punished for Sin; but not really, nor in Law a Sinner. The Law never took any Man for a Sinner that did not Sin. Of this more anon. The Minor is proved from the words of the Law [In the Day thou ea•est thou shalt dye] [Cursed is he that continueth not in all things] It saith, [Thou shalt dye] not [another shall dye] for them that say, It means [thou or thy surety] 1. They add to Gods Law, out of their own Brain, 2. They make the Law to know a surety before Sin; 3. They confound hereby Law and Gospel: For it is only the Gospel that revealed a surety. 4. They make the Law to Curse the innocent, and to threaten Christ for our Sin dangerously 5. They make Christ a surety â part ante, and not ex post facto, and so corrupt the Doctrine ⟨p. 84⟩of his Office. Let them therefore prove it before they affirm it. I conclude therefore in this case (as Grotius, Essenius, &c.) Dumb alius soluit, simul aliud solvitur. And therefore Mr. O. and others that grant alius soluit, must needs grant that aliud solvitur. It was us and not Christ that the Law threatened, and therefore it is not Christs sufferings that is the Idem, the thing threatened, but ours; nor that is a proper fulfilling of the commination in the execution. So that the obligation is not ipso facto, in justice void on Christs satisfaction, as it would have been on our payment (had ours been possible,) and on the payment of the proper Debt.

If the Law do require only supplicium ipsius delinquentis, then Christs sufferings were not the Idem, the same thing which the Law required: Nor is the Law fulfilled thereby. But the Law doth require only supplicium ipsius delinquentis: Therefore, &c. For the Major, or its consequence it needs no proof; for Christ was not ipse delinquens; He was made Sin, that is, one punishable and punished for Sin; but not really, nor in Law a Sinner. The Law never took any Man for a Sinner that did not Sin. Of this more anon. The Minor is proved from the words of the Law [In the Day thou eaest thou shalt dye] [Cursed is he that continueth not in all things] It saith, [Thou shalt dye] not [another shall dye] for them that say, It means [thou or thy surety] 1. They add to Gods Law, out of their own Brain, 2. They make the Law to know a surety before Sin; 3. They confound hereby Law and Gospel: For it is only the Gospel that revealed a surety. 4. They make the Law to Curse the innocent, and to threaten Christ for our Sin dangerously 5. They make Christ a surety â parte ante, and not ex post facto, and so corrupt the Doctrine