The divine will considered in its eternal decrees, and holy execution of them. By…

But here 'twill be objected, That the innocent should suffer for the nocent is unjust, & that which is such cannot satisfy Justice.

But here 'twill be objected, That the innocent should suffer for the nocent is unjust, & that which is such cannot satisfie Justice.

I answer; 'Tis unjust if the innocent suffer compulsorily, but not if he suffer freely; 'tis unjust if the innocent sink under his sufferings, but not if he be able to bear them; 'tis unjust if there be no good in his sufferings commensurate to the evil, but not if the evil be exceeded by the subsequent good; 'tis unjust if the innocent stand in no relation to the nocent for whom he suffers, but not if he stand in relation to him. Suppose a natural relation; Saul's Sons were hanged up for Saul's sins, 2 Sam. 21. 9. Suppose a political relation; seventy thousand fall for David's sin, 2 Sam. 24. 15. which makes him cry out, Lo! I have sinned, but these sheep what have they done? Suppose a voluntary relation; Sureties must pay for their Principals, and that not only in Money-matters but in Capital punishments: thus the [Greek or Hebrew] engaged life for life, which the Apostle seems to insinuate in that passage, ⟨p. 234⟩Peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die, Rom. 5. 7. and why then may not Christ who by all these ways is conjoined to us, naturally as a Man, legally as a Surety, and mystically as a Head, justly suffer for us? Especially seeing there was free Action in his Passion, victorious Strength under his Burden, and the penal Evil crowned by such a grand Good as Redemption is, why may not he justly suffer for us? The Scriptures are positive in it, Christ died for the ungodly, Rom. 5. 6: the just for the unjust,