without such a Sacrifice or substitute-means as might preserve the Honour of his Law and Government and the future Innoceney of his Subjects as well as their Punishment in the full Sense of the Law wou'd have done Sect. 7. Now when the whole Matter or Thing is agreed to all that the Orthodox intend by that Phrase 't is a very insipid thing for any one vehemently to contend what Word or Name to call it by What if one call our Sins the Meritorious Cause another the Promeritorious Cause another the Occasion of Christ's Sufferings whilst they are all agreed as to the Reference they had to 'em But if any one by a Meritorious Cause intend more than what is abovesaid or by an Occasion intend less it may with just Reason be concluded they are mistaken with the Antinomians in the one or with the Socinians in the other Extream Sect. 8. We blame no one therefore meerly for calling our Sins the Meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings nay Mr. Baxter himself sometimes calls 'em so the Meritorious or Pro-meritorious Cause Confession of Faith p. 153. the Remote or assum'd Cause Life of Faith p. 311. and p. 321. he allows that our sins lay on Christ as the assum'd Meritorious cause of his Sufferings So in his Methodus Theologiae Ad peccatum Relationem habent speaking of the Sufferings of Christ ut ad occasionem ut ad causam meritoriam remotam si non proximam P. III. c. 1. Determ 5. p. 38. And in that other Book to which our Accuser refers us he thus expresses his Sense at his very entring upon this Point When He Christ is said to die for our Sins it may be understood for our Sins as the Pro-meritorious procuring Cause of his Suffering through his own Undertaking to bear what they deserv'd Or if any think it fitter to call 'em the Occasion than the Meritorious Cause they may Universal Redempt p. 5. And the very last Words that I have observ'd him to use of this Matter in that last-mention'd Tract are these The strictest Sense in which He Christ is said to die for Men is to die in their stead or to die for their Sins as the Procuring Cause on his own Undertaking yield this once and we shall much easiler agree c. Ibid. p. 91. Which Two Passages do so inclose and explicate all the rest that for a Person to represent any of the intermediate Passages to adiffering and disadvantageous Sense is what deserves a Censure so severe as we did not think fit to express otherwise than by a significant Silence Sect. 9. But though we allow others their Liberty yet accurately speaking it must be said That all that Reference that our Sins had to the Sufferings of Christ does not amount to a Proper Meritorious Cause Nor did Grotius ever think it did whatever our Accuser may imagine For though he does affirm as is intimated Appeal p. 6. that Praeter Dei Christi voluntatem datur Causa Antecedens Legitima mortis Christi yet he distinguishes once and again betwixt Punishment taken Personally and taken Impersonally By Punishment taken Personally he intends the Sufferings of Christ consider'd as his by Punishment taken Impersonally he means the Sufferings of Christ consider'd only as Sufferings And he expresly tells us That our Sins were only the Meritorious Cause of the Sufferings of Christ in this latter Sense For thus he speaks Illud quoque reprehensione indiget quod dicit Socinus Praeter Dei ipsius Christi voluntatem non posse ullam legitimam Causam reddi mortis Christi nisi dicamus Christum meritum fuisse ut moreretur Nam inest quidem in antecedente Causa meritum ut supra diximus sed Impersonaliter merebantur enim peccata nostra ut paena exigeretur c. Cap. 5. p. 113. Our Sins only did deserve Sufferings and those of such a value and cou'd not be remitted unless such a Compensation was made to Divine Justice for 'em but they never did deserve that Christ should die they made it necessary supposing we be Redeem'd that it be by such a Price but they did not deserve that we shou'd be Redeem'd with his Precious Blood All that Grotius asserts is That Death was deserv'd he no where says that Christ's Death was so § 10. And this is the true Reason why we are not fond of the Phrase a Meritorious Cause because it wou'd intimate Christ's Sufferings were deserv'd Now if they were deserv'd it must either be allow'd that they were the very thing that the Law threatned or we by our Sins deserv'd God shou'd Save and Ransom us by such Sufferings If either of these be true our Sins may then be said to be the Meritorious the proper meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings as our Accuser wou'd have 'em but cannot be strictly and truly so otherwise than upon the one or the other of these Principles In that they deserv'd such Sufferings for weight and cou'd not be remitted without such Sufferings and Christ hereupon consented to suffer for 'em they may be call'd the Meritorious Cause of his Sufferings or much more fitly the ground the reason the assum'd cause the pro-meritorious or quasi-meritorious Cause of his Sufferings But the real proper meritorious Cause of 'em they cou'd not be unless they in a strict and proper Sense deserv'd that Christ shou'd die Now the Death of Christ is considerable under a two-fold Notion either as a Curse or Blessing As inflicted upon Him 't was a most dreadful Curse As it was our Ransom the Price of our Redemption it was and is a most invaluable Blessing If our Sins therefore deserv'd the Death of Christ it must be either in the one or the other of these Respects But no one surely will dare to say That our Sins deserv'd such a Ransom that GOD in giving his Son to be the Saviour of the World gave us no more than we deserv'd this were egregious Blasphemy against the brightest and most amazing Instance of Love with which God ever bless'd the World § 11. It remains then that supposing our Sins the Proper Meritorious Cause of Christ's death they did deserve it as a Curse to be inflicted upon Him tho' not as a Blessing influential upon us And 't is not conceivable how our Sins cou'd so deserve the death of Christ unless this be suppos'd to be the very thing threatned in the Law if thou sinnest Christ shall die And this our Accuser sometimes seems to intend what else can he possibly mean when he tells us Appeal p. 25. If Christ's Obligation to suffer did not result from this Law i. e. the Law which we had violated our Sins were not the Impulsive Cause of his Sufferings Or if it did not immediately our Sins were but the Remote Cause or Occasion not a meer Impulsive or Proper Meritorious Cause of ' em And p. 50. If Christs Sufferings be not ex obligatione Legis we suppose he means the
same Law as before our Sins cannot be their Meritorious Cause And p. 41. Whence its impossible i. e. if Christ's Sufferings arise not from the violated Law but from the Mediatorial Law it s impossible Sin shou'd be their Meritorious Cause So that his Sense shou'd be That Christ's Sufferings were not could not be 't were impossible they shou'd be from our Sins as the Proper Meritorious Cause unless they did result and immediately result from the violated Law And this is what we also say and therefore while he pleads for our Sins being so properly so immediately the Meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings he must needs mean that they did result immediately result from the Law when violated i. e. so soon as ever the Law was violated so soon as we had sinn'd the Law immediately lays hold on Christ binds Him over to Death and that it cou'd not do unless he was threatned by it Here therefore I wou'd have manifested that the Death of Christ was not threatned by that Law but that I have already largely done it both in the first and third Chapters of this Discourse And our Accuser himself has render'd it the less needful by giving it as his true Sense That when the Law was at first given to Adam Christ was not in the Obligation it did not run Thou or thy Surety for thee p. 5. of this very Appeal We shall therefore instead of perusing the Matter further allow him leisure to bethink himself how these things will be made to consist together That Christ's Obligation to suffer did immediately result from the Law and that yet the Law did not include a Surety Humanity it self and much more Christianity obliging us to shew some pity and not to press too hard a Person that labours under the hardships of Self-contradiction § 12. To sum up this Head then Orthodoxness does not consist in Words and Phrases 't would be egregious weakness to imagine That the Controversies betwixt us and the Socinians are only whether this or the other Word or Form of Speaking be most apt and expressive of that Truth about which there is no difference That which the Bishop of Worcester has observ'd with a more particular respect to a Change of Persons will admit a much more extensive Application It is not says he the use of the Words but the Sense of 'em is to be enquir'd into See his Lordship's Letter to Mr. W. inserted in the Answer to the Report p. 57. 'T is not the bare Word Trinity that divides betwixt them and us in that point or the term Person or Satisfaction or meritorious Cause c. But 't is the Sense design'd to be express'd by those Terms in which they will not agree with us wou'd they allow the Truth we plead for that is wont to be express'd by those Words they wou'd no longer be Socinians nor wou'd any wise Man perpetuate the Contention with 'em tho' they shou'd yet be unsatisfy'd as to the foremention'd Phrases Our Accuser therefore does not to use that Right Reverend Persons Words again discover his profound Knowledge in these Matters if he think as he says Ap. p. 39. That the Heart of the Controversie lies in Asserting or Denying our Sins to be the Properly Meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings And if He know otherwise and to design to impose upon those that do not where is his Ingenuity 'T is so far from being true that the Heart of the Controversie lies here that so far as I have yet observ'd this very Man is the first that ever asserted Our Sins were the Properly meritorious Cause c. Grotius Vossius and the Bishop of Worcester do indeed speak of 'em as the Meritorious Cause but how they explain themselves we have before manifested as to two of ' em Nor does Vossius intend any thing more than only that they are truly Meritorious of Sufferings that they cou'd not be remitted without 'em and that in this Exigency Christ consents to suffer for us whereupon he calls 'em the Meritorious Cause of his Sufferings though he as Grotius means it only of the Sufferings he underwent not of those Sufferings as undergone by Him To this purpose we find him explaining himself Punitio omnis qua talis sive Impersonaliter spectata causam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habet Justitiam Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Procatarctica vero causa sunt peccata itidem Impersonaliter in genere spectata sine determinatione c. Punitio vero quae pro alio est plane misericordiae Divinae opus est procatarctica vero causa sunt peccata nostra Satisfactionem Exigentia Vossi Responsum ad Judicium Ravensperg Chap. 12. So that though they call 'em the Meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings yet they plainly manifest that they intend only they were meritorious of the Sufferings He underwent abstractly consider'd and therefore may improperly be said to be meritorious of his Sufferings but I no where find 'em asserting our sins to be the properly meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings much less fixing that as the Point in Controversie betwixt the Orthodox and the Socinians whether they be to be so call'd or not Nay 't is not only not needful to use the Phrase our Accuser wou'd impose upon us but unless carefully explain'd 't is very unsafe for that if the Words be taken as they sound they wou'd import that in a strict and proper sense Our sins deserv'd that Christ shou'd die an Assertion that in a sense very obvious does amount to blasphemy and without a manifest force put upon the Words cannot possibly be a Truth CHAP. V. That though Christ's Sufferings may not unaptly be call'd a Punishment yet not in the full and proper Sense in which the Sufferings of the Sinner himself might have been so calld § 1. IN this Point also our Accuser is as Clamourous as in the former and what has been said in the fore-going Chapter will furnish out a just Answer to all his Cavils upon this Head He represents us as if we did allow the Sufferings of Christ to be the Punishment of Sin only so far and in the same Sense as Crellius does Appeal p. 27. but deny'd 'em to be a Proper Punishment and that therefore we are against the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction Ap. p. 4. 10. And lest this shou'd not be enough to leave us under the Reproach of Socinianism he represents this as the very parting Point betwixt the Orthodox and the Socinians the Heart of the Controversie according to him lies in the Asserting or Denying Christ's Sufferings to be properly Penal p. 39. and if he be not mistaken Grotius Vossius and the B. of Worcester are of the same mind § 2. But after all what if it should appear That the Phrase is Ambiguous that in one Sense and which is plainly the Sense of that very Judicious and Learned Bishop and others that use the Phrase it is true That the Sufferings of
or guilt we say they are not unaptly but properly enough to be call'd Punishments for that they had such a respect to Sin as has been before-said In this Mr. Baxter is plain and therefore elsewhere Asserts That his i. e. Christs sufferings were truly Punishments because for sin though not for his own yet not Punishments in so full and strict a Sense as ours who suffer for our own sins § 9. And hence it appears that our Accuser has with no just reason represented Mr. Baxter as agreeing with Crellius in this matter Crellius says he says the same only with this Explication viz. that it must be taken materially and Improperly which is the sense in which Mr. Baxter takes it Appeal p. 27. But besides that Mr. Baxter so far as yet appears no where says that the sufferings of Christ are Punishments materially only as this Accuser intimates nay on the contrary he argues from their participating in the formal Reason of Punishment that they may properly enough be so call'd Quoad nomen vero non inepte poena dicuntur dum ad Peccatum habent relationem c. Baxter ubi supra I say besides this any considering and unprejudic'd Reader will easily see cannot but observe that if at any time they happen both to use one and the same Term they yet intend it in a vastly differing Sense So if Crellius allow Christ's sufferings to be Punishments improperly so call'd it is most evident he thereby excludes that respect they had to Sin to our Sin which we have in the fore-going Chapter asserted and clear'd and in reference to which Mr. Baxter with the Bishop of Worcester and all the Orthodox are agreed and so also when he calls our Sins the Occasion of Christ's Sufferings he means it not as Mr. Baxter does of such an Occasion as was so far as the Nature of the thing will admit a meritorious Cause of 'em also And it may as well be said that Crellius says the same with Grotius and the Bishop because he sometimes calls our Sins the Impulsive cause of Christ's sufferings and that his sense is the same with their's because sometimes his words are so and therefore also that their sense is the same with his and thereupon that they are Socinians I say there is the same Reason why they might also as well as Mr. Baxter be thus represented by our Accuser for that they also sometimes use Crellius's words without any scruple § 10. Nor is it any uncommon thing for several Persons to use the same words in differing senses Our Accuser himself affords us a most convincing Instance to this purpose in reference to the very matter before us The sufferings of Christ are to be consider'd as a Punishment of sin a Proper Punishment In the Expression the Bishop of Worcester and our Accuser are agreed but that notwithstanding the sense intended by the one and the other is not the same He pretends indeed p. 38. that it is not the Words and Phrases but his Lordship 's sound sence that he contends for but if that were all he would have there was no occasion for him to contend at all that having never by those he Accuses been call'd in Question where he apprehended a difference betwixt his Lordship and Mr. Baxter at the most it could be but a Verbal one that their sence when they explain themselves does well agree has been already manifested and since Mr. Baxter did and we do most Entirely agree that Christ's suffeings were a Proper Punishment according to the Notion his Lordship gives us of such a Punishment we may surely hope for an End of this Contention § 11. Only for a Close I would remark it to our Accuser That whilst either through Prejudice or Inadvertency he groundlesly charges us as differing from that Judicious and Right Reverend Person he does himself give Occasion for any one to return back the Charge with greatest Justice upon him For under the pretence That Christ's Sufferings were a proper Punishment for which he alledges the Bishop of Worcester he wou'd have 'em to be the very Punishment we had deserv'd the very Punishment the Law threatned Punishment inflicted by vertue of the Sanction of the violated Law V. p. 23 26 28 29 c. This Notion almost runs throughout his Appeal But this is so far from being the sound Sense in which his Lordship has us'd this Expression that 't is what he does most directly dispute against § 12. And whereas he does once and again Insinuate That 't is necessary Christ's Sufferings should be truly and properly Penal we must suppose he means it in his own not in the Bishop's Sense in Order to their being a proper Satisfaction to God's Justice for our Sins 't is as has bin already in some measure manifested utterly subversive of the True and Universally own'd Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction to assert his sufferings to have been Penal in any such Sense as would inferr or include their having been inflicted by vertue of the violated Law undergone in the proper Person of Sinners their having been formally the same we were oblig'd to and most immediately and properly deserv'd by our Sins while yet this is what he every where pleads for But of this Point of Satisfaction we design God assisting to treat more distinctly and at large hereafter FINIS Of the Sufferings of Christ last Edition p. 14. Dr. Owen on Psal CXXX p. 48. Elementa Jurisprud p. 1. §. 7 8. Lexic Jurid Sub Tit. Personae Sub Tit. Caput Elementa Jurisprud p. 19. De jure naturae gentium lib. 1. cap. 1 §. 12. To the same purpose he also speaks Elem Jurisp lib. 1 Def. 4. Treatise of Justif Righteous Part I. p. 58. Treat of Justifying Righteous page 56. Ibid. p. 58. Ibid p. 56. De Jure Nat. Gent. lib. 1 cap. 1. §. 12. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek as also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Hebrew do admit of two very differing Senses they signifie either sin it self or a sin-offering a Sacrifice for Sin as cannot be unknown to any that are conversant with the Scriptures of the Old Testament and the New in the Languages in which they were endited by the Inspir'd Penmen the Instances to that purpose are too numerous to be over-look'd I 'll name a few Isa 53. 10. When he shall make his soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an offering for sin So we read it there And in Lev. 7. This is the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not of the sin but of the sin-offering verse 1. So verse 2. They shall kill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sin-offering the blood thereof shall he sprinkle c. So Verse 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is a sin-offering Once more 1 Sam. 6. 3 4. If ye send away the Ark of the God of Israel send it not empty but in any wise return Him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
the World But whether their leisure from greater Affairs will permit 'em or indeed whether they shall account it worth their leisure to interpose in this Matter or not the Nature of the Charge is such that how groundlesly soever it be advanc'd it is not fit to be silent under it That which is apprehended more especially to require that this invidious Reflection be taken notice of is That this way the Reputation of that most excellent Person is undermin'd and his most valuable Writings as well as the Ministry of those that in this Matter are of his Judgment are so far as in this Accuser lies blasted and rendred odious and useless And such as either have wanted opportunity to look into the Socinian Writings or have not Judgment sufficient to distinguish betwixt Appearances and Realities may be so far impos'd upon by the Confidence of this Accuser as to believe the Charge advanc'd against us For their sakes therefore and our own to prevent their Guilt as well as to preserve our own Reputation and Usefulness and if possible also to undeceive this Accuser and his Brethren we think it fit and necessary that it be made appear There is no sufficient ground whereupon to Censure Mr. Baxter or those whom he calls his Followers as Socinians in that Great and Important Article of Christ's Satisfaction For the clearing whereof we shall with reference to the suspected Passages First manifest their Agreeableness to Truth And then shew the no-advantage hereby given to the Socinian Cause Now the Passages this Accuser and his Brethren are so much afraid of and griev'd at as he pretends we shall set together that we may see what they will in the whole amount to and they are these 1. Christi perpessiones quoad rationem reifuere malum naturale perpessum ex occasione causalitate remota peccatorum generis humani He should have added proxime ex sponsionis consensus proprii obligatione Bax. Method Theol. Pars III. Cap. 1. Determ 5. p. 38. This will be the better understood if it be observ'd that the Question he had before him was Whether the Suffering of Christ was properly and formally a Punishment For the Determination whereof he does define Punishment properly so call'd a Natural Evil that is an Evil of Suffering inflicted for or on account of a Moral Evil i. e. the Evil of Sin And besides other Distinctions which he had premis'd he distinguishes betwixt the Suffering of the Delinquent himself for his own Sin in which case his Sin is directly immediately and per se the cause of his Suffering and this he tells us is Punishment in the Primary and most Famous Sense of it and the Suffering of another by reason of the Delinquent's fault in which case though there be a Suffering for Sin yet that Sin is more indirectly mediately and per accidens the cause of the Suffering and therefore though it be Punishment yet 't is only in a Secondary and Analogical Sense to be so call'd And this Secondary sort of Punishment is two-fold 't is either Natural or Voluntary the Natural Punishment for another's Sin he calls that which follows upon the nearness of Relation in Nature betwixt the Sufferer and the Sinner as when Children suffer for their Parent 's Sins the Voluntary is when there is a free consent and undertaking to suffer on the behalf and in the stead of the Sinner though there was no previous Relation to the Sinner from whence he should naturally be oblig'd to suffer for him Now he does and surely with very just Reason conclude the Sufferings of Christ to be of this last kind for that they were not the Sufferings of the Delinquent himself and so not Punishment in the Primary and most Famous Sense of the Word they cou'd therefore only be Punishment in a Secondary and less proper Sense And since even in his Assuming our Nature Christ was conceiv'd miraculously by the Power of the Holy Ghost and did not descend from Adam by ordinary Generation therefore in that Secondary Sense his Punishment could not be the natural Effect of Adam's Sin It remains then that Christ only was punish'd as a Voluntary Undertaker and the Analogical Punishment He underwent was inflicted on him as a Sponsor in our stead our Sins were the ground and reason of his Sufferings yea the meritorious Cause but not so nearly and immediately as they wou'd have been of our own Sufferings for that his Sponsion and Consent did necessarily intervene so that they may not unaptly be call'd Punishments though not so fully and properly as the Sufferings of the Sinners themselves might have been so call'd To this Sense does that excellent Person speak and this is little else than a Translation of his Latine Words as will appear to any one that is capable and willing to consult the place referr'd to And this being the Substance of what he afterwards quotes from him I shall need to be at no farther trouble than only to recite the Words 2. And thus he goes on Peccata nostra fuere causa remota passionis Christi And again Culpa nostra non erat causa proxima ejus passionis sed tantum remota occasio Once more At sensu improprio i. e. not in that most proper and primary Sense in which they are imputed to the Sinner himself as may be collected from the immediately fore-going Words per meram Connotationem dici potest peccata nostro Christo imputata fuisse viz. quoad reatum paenae culpae ut ad paenam at non in se idque tantum remote non quasi peccata nostra paenas Christi merita essent sed quia nisi nobis paenas merita essent ille paenas non dedisset Et quia paena nulla est formaliter nisi propter peccatum ideo quatenus Christi passiones fuere paenae Analogice fic dictae peccatum non suum sed nostrum non causam meritoriam sed quasi procausam meritoriam occasionem connotabant Ibid. Determ 7. p. 40 41. 3. He quotes him again in English thus Man's Sin was an occasion of Christ's Sufferings as being Loco causae meritoriae for properly there was no meritorious Cause The Law 's Curse or Obligation was another occasion as being Miseriae causa removenda Christ's voluntary Sponsion or Consent was the moral obliging Cause Universal Redempt p. 7. Again We must distinguish betwixt Suffering Ex obligatione legis merito peccati as we should have done if we had suffered our selves and Suffering ex obligatione solius sponsionis propriae as Christ did without any Merit or Legal Obligation his own Sponsion being instead of both and our Sin and Obligation being but the occasion or Loco causae meritoriae Ibid. p. 25. Again The Law as binding us was the great occasion of Christ's Death and Loco causae obligatoriae but not the obligatory Cause it self Christ's own Sponsion and his Father's Will were the only proper
the Threatning were answer'd as well perhaps better by the Sufferings of Christ than they could have been by the sufferings of Sinners themselves Yet it cannot therefore be said that the Threatning it self was executed upon Christ In short some respect the Sufferings of Christ had to the violated Law as is above said but not such as that it can be said with Truth either that that Law oblig'd Him to suffer or that it was fulfill'd in and by his Sufferings 2. He does next Insinuate As if Christ cou'd not be a Mediator at least not suffer as such unless He suffer'd by Vertue of the Violated Law This surely must be his Sense if he have any P. 25. where he says That though Christ came not under the Obligation of the Law of Works but by the Father's Will and his own Consent Yet on his Entring into the Office of a Mediator the Obligation to suffer for Sin is immediately by Vertue of the Sanction of the Law I take him to mean That tho' He was not a Mediator without the Appointment of God and his own Consent yet upon his very becoming a Mediator the Obligation of the violated Law must immediately lay hold upon Him so that tho' He might have avoided Suffering had He declin'd his Mediatory Undertaking yet supposing Him to Mediate the Violated Law immediately seizeth on Him and obliges Him to suffer To which we Answer 1. The Violated Law did indeed oblige the Sinner himself to suffer but that it did or cou'd oblige any one else is what how oft soever it be said has never yet been prov'd 2. Nor does Christ's meerly entring into the Office of a Mediator necessarily and in the nature of the thing oblige Him to suffer for it is conceivable as a thing very possible that He might have Mediated for a mitigation of our Sufferings only Suppose for instance that instead of the Torments of Hell for ever we might only endure those Tortures for a determinate Number of Years I would not be mistaken I am not saying Christ did so being well assur'd He did otherwise nor am I devising a better Method or one equally good with that which took place 'T is not without inexpressible Delight and Gratitude that I do own and adore the Infinitely excelling Wisdom and Goodness that is conspicuous in the Gospel-way of Mediation All I say is That in the nature of the thing 't was not impossible there might have been a Mediation set on foot to this purpose in which case I ask how it does appear that the Mediator Himself must needs suffer And this with a design to convince Our Accuser his Argument can have no force in it for that it must according to all Rules of Logick proceed upon this Indefinite and Unlimitted Proposition Whoever Mediates for an obnoxious Criminal shall suffer Which Proposition is not to be allow'd unless every one that Mediates in what way soever for such an one must needs suffer An Assertion so weak that barely to mention it is sufficiently to expose it yet if he shou'd limit it to this or any other special Case 't would there only be a naked Assertion and no Argument 3. But supposing Christ was as I willingly grant he was upon his entring into the Office of a Mediator oblig'd to suffer for Sin yet still it appears not that He is so immediately by vertue of the Sanction of the Law That the Sufferings of the Mediator had a Respect to the Sanction of the Law as before we grant but that He was properly oblig'd by that Law to suffer whether mediately or immediately is what we believe this Accuser can never prove The violated Law never said If Christ Mediate for Sinners He shall die but another Law that was peculiar to Himself and which we therefore call the Law of Mediation 3. But he proceeds If Christ's Obligation to Suffer did not result from this Law i. e. the Violated Law our sins were not the Impulsive Cause of his Sufferings Ibid. p. 25. And he adds p. 41. It 's impossible Sin shou'd be their Meritorious Cause And again p. 50. If Christ's Sufferings be not by vertue of the Penal Sanction of a violated Law our Sins cannot be their Meritorious Cause The Answer to this we must defer to the Fourth Chapter where we shall have occasion to speak fully to it Again 4. He does also suggest in the last quoted Pages That Christ's Sufferings cou'd not otherwise be a proper Punishment The Consideration whereof is also to be reserv'd for the Fifth Chapter of this Discourse Moreover 5. He does next intimate That it was either by vertue of that Sanction i. e. that of the Violated Law or by vertue of no Sanction at all that Christ was oblig'd to suffer For that according to us the Mediatorial Law had no Penal Sanction and thereupon he challenges us to shew by vertue of what Sanction Christ was oblig'd to suffer Vid. p. 26. In Answer whereto We distinguish betwixt a Sanction In a more Loose and General Sense In a more Strict and Proper one Accordingly we say 1. In the strictest Sense as it does import the Threatning that is annex'd to a Law we see not how it can be said that Christ was oblig'd to Suffer by vertue of any Sanction for that we know no Law that threatned Him But 2. If we understand the Word in a looser and more general Sense as signifying only an Ordination at large we may say Sancitum fuit it was Ordain'd Enacted by the Law of Mediation that He shou'd suffer for Sin and so He was oblig'd to suffer by vertue of that Sanction 6. In the last place He does advance a very formidable Argument against us viz. That upon the fore-mention'd Principle we cannot hold Christ's Sufferings to have been in our place and stead otherwise than as it signifies only for our Benefit and Advantage This he inlarges upon p. 29 30. To which we Reply First and more generally That all that make use of that Distinction are not agreed upon one and the same Sense and therefore the Sense of the Terms shou'd be fix'd before they can signifie any thing in an Argument 'T is possible such a Sense may be affix'd to one or other of the Terms in which it may be true that we cannot hold Christ's Sufferings to have been in our place and stead or to have been otherwise so than as it signifies for our good Who knows what Secret Sense this Accuser may understand these Phrases in by which he may prove his charge against us We shou'd therefore know what it is he means both by Christ's Suffering in our place and stead and by his Suffering for our benefit and advantage For by knowing only his Sense of one of these Phrases we cannot possibly Conjecture whether the other with him import less or more or just the same thing Yet 2. And more particularly tho' we cannot in his declar'd Sense hold that Christ suffer'd
asham'd to own it and cannot but wonder that our Accuser should never once attempt to prove the contrary it lying upon him here again as being the Affirmer to produce his Evidence Surely this That Christ's Sufferings were Formally the same we were oblig'd to is not to be reckon'd amongst those Propositions which carry their own Light along with 'em and engage our Assent at the first Hearing Why then has he only mention'd our denial of it as if that alone were sufficient to expose us to the severest Censures Sect. 3. But we cannot satisfie our selves though we be on the Negative Part to deny and Dispute against Words that have no meaning or which is in Effect the same thing Words that have an unagreed and uncertain one And therefore though he has not told us his meaning we shall with greatest plainness tell him and the World ours that it may be understood what we intend when we deny That Christ's Sufferings were Formally the same we were oblig'd to Sect. 4. Now there are two Things that we apprehend may be meant when 't is Asserted That Christ's Sufferings were not only Materially but also Formally the same we were oblig'd to viz. Either that they were not only in a more loose and general way of Speaking but strictly and fully the same kind of Sufferings that we were oblig'd to Or also it may intimate That they were not only the same kind of Sufferings but even the very same thing in Law as if we our selves had Suffer'd And the former of these we dare not admit much less the latter Sect. 5. 1. Not the former viz. That Christ's Sufferings were strictly and fully of the same kind with those we were oblig'd to That they were not could not be so I think was sufficiently made appear Chap. I. Sect. 5. of this Discourse And Mr. Baxter has yet more distinctly and fully clear'd it by an Enumeration of several Particulars in which his were not the same with ours under these Three Heads I. Christus nullas tulit penas quae etiam peccata sunt II. Nullas tales paenas dedit quae sunt tantum naturalia peccandi consequentia III. Nullas Deus ipse paenas in Christum inflixit quae ex displicentia adversus Christum scil vel amoris diminutione aliqua proveniunt Vid. Method Theol. P. III. Cap. 1. Disp 4. P. 36 37. Sect. 6. 2. Much less can we agree to it in the Latter Sense as it intimates That Christ's Sufferings were the Idem the very same thing in Law as if we our selves had Suffer'd for that this it could not be unless He Suffer'd most strictly in our Person and that too by vertue of the Law which we had Transgress'd Both which have been abundantly Disprov'd by us in the Fore-going Chapters What has been there alledg'd against the one or the other of those Errors may also have place here again To which I shall only add 1. The Inconsistency hereof with the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction For if Christ's Sufferings should be allow'd to be strictly the same thing that the Law oblig'd to then they could not be a Satisfaction for our Non-Payment but would themselves have been the proper Payment Now these two things are vastly differing to pay a Debt and to offer some-what instead of Payment that is accepted as Satisfaction for Non-Payment Since the Word Satisfaction was borrow'd from the Civilians from them it is that the Import of it may be best understood And they do carefully distinguish betwixt Solution and Satisfaction Solution is when the very same thing is paid to which the Law oblig'd So Vinnius Solutio specialiter accepta denotat naturalem praestationem ejus quod debetur Which is agreeable to the account Grotius gives us of it with whom Solutio stricte sumpta is Solutio rei plane ejusdem quae erat in obligatione Solutio rei ipsius debitae Now this as the Bishop of Worcester tells us in the Sense of the Law is never call'd Satisfaction but strict Payment This is what cannot be refus'd when offer'd in Payment But Christ's Sufferings might have been refus'd God was not oblig'd to accept of them but might have insisted upon the Sufferings of Sinners themselves Therefore Grotius tells of another sort of Solution cum aliud quam quod in obligatione est Solvitur When some-what else and not strictly that which the Law requir'd is paid and this if accepted is peculiarly call'd Satisfaction Talis autem solutio says he quae aut admitti aut recusari potest admissa in Jure speciale habet nomen Satisfactionis quae interdum Solutioni strictus sumptae opponitur So that by a Satisfaction 't is plain they intend a valuable Consideration offer'd instead of what was due which the Creditor in Pecuniary and the Rector in Criminal Cases may accept or refuse at pleasure Under this Notion do the greatest and best of our Divines maintain the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction in Opposition to the Socinian Adversaries nor can it be Defended upon any other bottom To make the Controversie betwixt the Socinians and Us in the Point of Satisfaction to be not as it has been wont to be stated whether Christ's Sufferings were an Equivalent a valuable Consideration offer'd and accepted instead of what was due from us to Divine Justice so far as that upon account thereof we have Reconciliation Pardon and Eternal Salvation in the Order and upon the Terms of the Gospel I say to make the Question in difference not to be what is above-said but whether Christ's Sufferings be the very same thing the All that the Law requir'd oblig'd to the very Execution of its Threatning How plainly is this to betray the Cause into their Hands If the Bishop of Worcester has any Judgment in this Controversie and while the Learned World has so universally approv'd what he has wrote in it they cann't themselves be thought to have much that deny or doubt his thorow Acquaintance with it and of all Men living our Accuser who has appeal'd to him surely does not suspect it I say if that Right Reverend Person has any insight into this Matter the Socinian Cause can scarcely any way be more effectually befriended than by such as pretending to be their Adversaries do thus State our Controversie with 'em For with these remarkable Words does he close up his most Convincing Reasonings against Christ's Sufferings having been the very same thing which the Law requir'd When says he our Adversaries meaning the Socinians Dispute against this Opinion no wonder if they do it successfully but this whole Opinion is built upon a Mistake that Satisfaction must be the Payment of the very same which while they Contend for they give our Enemies too great an advantage and make 'em think they triumph over the Faith of the Church when they do it only over the Mistake of some particular Persons 2. Neither could the Sufferings of Christ be strictly and
immediately follows the Payment of the same and it had been Injustice to have requir'd any thing further in order to the Discharge of the Offender when strict and full Payment had been made of what was in the Obligation But we see that Faith and Repentance and the Consequences of those two are made Conditions on our parts in order to the enjoying the Benefit of what Christ has procur'd so that the Release is not immediate upon the Payment but depends on a New Contract made in consideration of what Christ has done and suffer'd for us This is but a small part of his most clear and invincible Arguings against Christ's Paying in his Sufferings the very same that we were to have paid And therefore we add 4. Had Christ's Sufferings been the very same thing that the Law threatned there had been there cou'd have been no such thing as Pardon we must have been discharg'd set at liberty as before but we could not afterwards have been said to be Pardon'd To remit a Debt or Penalty is a Phrase that is never us'd but in reference to such from whom the one or other was due and does import a Gracious Discharge of a Person either in whole or in part from what in Justice might have been requir'd The Civilians therefore explain it by Relaxatio Indulgentia c. And this is most manifestly the import of the Greek Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Proper Remission that cannot be that is not an Act of Grace and Favour but what in strict Justice we are oblig'd to Therefore Grotius does accurately distinguish betwixt Liberation and Remission allowing as he needs must That all Remission is a Liberation or Discharge but not that every Discharge is or may be so call'd Remission The Law it self does of course acquit and discharge a Person Debtor or Criminal that fully answers its Obligation but when a Discharge is granted by the Rector or Creditor out of meer Pleasure to one that according to the Rigour of the Law could not lay claim to it here is proper Remission Ubi idem Solvitur scil quod debetur aut a Debitore aut ab alio nomine debitoris nulla contingit Remissio Si quis poenam pertulerit quam debet Liberatio hic erit Remissio non erit Remitti aliquid recte dicitur etiam ubi solutio accedit sed talis quae sine actu voluntatis vim non habeat pariendae liberationis Where there is a Payment of what was owing there is no Remission no place for Forgiveness the quondam Debtor or Criminal now neeeds it not nor can the Creditor or Rector be said to have granted it the same Debt cannot be both Paid and Forgiven It is impossible as the Bishop of Worcester further urges to reconcile the freeness of Remission with the full payment of the very same which was in the Obligation Sect. 7. For the close therefore of this Head let it be consider'd That Mr. Baxter in that very Book to which our Accuser refers us thus Explains the Question before us It is not says he de materia debiti that we enquire but de forma whether it was the same formally which we ow'd and the obligation requir'd Or only the value and not the same full Debt Also you must know That though we may well use the Word Debt in this case because the Scripture does yet we must acknowledge it but a Metaphor and the proper Terms are whether Christ's Sufferings are the same thing that the Law in its Threatning requir'd i. e. oblig'd to and made due and so a fulfilling of that Threatning and this with great Aversness he does and very justly sure deny Now therefore if our Accuser will not own Christ's Sufferings to be formally the same we were oblig'd to in the Sense in which Mr. Baxter denied it why does he quarrel with him If he will 't is but reasonable to expect he should either disown and disprove the Doctrine of Satisfaction of Pardon of Sin c. Or else make it appear we have not justly charg'd these Consequences upon him CHAP. IV. That though our Sins were the Impulsive Meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings yet it was only more Remotely that they were so and not so nearly and immediately as they would have been of our own § 1. SInce our Accuser bears so hard upon this Point and seems most plausibly from hence to insinuate his Spiteful and Unchristian Surmizes of us I shall endeavour with all the Freedom and Plainness possible to deliver our Thoughts about this Matter that it may appear what we Deny and what we Own and that herein we do not in the least vary from the Common Faith of Christians or make the least Approaches towards the Socinian Tents Sect. 2. We do therefore distinguish in reference to the Controversie Whether our Sins were the Meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings betwixt the Name and the Thing intended by it as every one surely will do that does not prefer Strife before Truth If we can agree in this or other Controversies in Sense Words are not worthy of a Contention on either side 'T is strange that what the Apostle has said of such Contentions that just account he has given of their so base Original and sad Effects should not Awe the Spirits of all at least that make any Pretensions to the Christian Name 1 Tim. 6. 4. For according to the Order in which the Apostle has plac'd it this doting about Questions that are but a strife of words a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does presuppose the Person to be Proud puff'd up with Arrogance and Self-Conceit as the Word imports and withal extreamly Ignorant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that knows nothing that has no Skill no Judgment one that has never Penetrated into Things that has look'd no further than their outside and therefore is he so exceeding Sollicitous about Words for that he is acquainted with nothing more valuable about which to be concern'd he is sick nay he does insanire if his Word may not be allow'd such a Sense the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to carry in it Neither are the Effects of this Logomachy less fruitful thereof as the Apostle adds cometh envy strife railings evil-surmizings perverse disputings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as are nothing to the purpose that can serve no good End I wou'd requite all this Accuser's hard Speeches of us with a serious Admonition that he wou'd carefully look into the Text last mention'd and if to that he adds what does occur in The Carnality of Religious Contentions p. 39 40 41 42. A Tract well worthy of its most excellent Author Perhaps it may minister towards the Cure of his so sickly Mind and he may not hereafter so far dote upon an Unscriptural Word or Phrase or turn it to our Reproach that we are not alike fond of ' em Sect. 3. But to proceed We challenge this Accuser to instance
yet again Crimes unpunish'd are too much countenanc'd at least if they be not thereby authoriz'd We see the meer delay of Punishment is very frequently abus'd to this purpose Eccles 8. 11. Because Sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in 'em to do evil And if meer Forbearance have this effect what may we suppose wou'd have been the consequence of absolute Forgiveness So that we conclude GOD cou'd not consistently with either his own Honour or our Safety Pardon Sin without a Satisfaction it was necessary that Sufferings shou'd be insisted on and such Sufferings as shou'd be Equivalent to what was Threatned Sufferings that were adapted to answer the ends of the Law and Government as well or better than the Sufferings of Sinners themselves Hereupon IV. In order to our Remission the Sufferings of Christ were insisted on by the Father and agreed to by the Son by his Sufferings it was effected brought to pass that Sin might be remitted without either reflecting any Dishonour upon GOD or in the least encouraging any to Sin His Sufferings did fully answer all the Exigencies of our Case and therefore this Constitution is mention'd by the Apostle as a very condecent and becoming one Heb. 2. 10. Supposing so Gracious an Intendment towards us That GOD design'd to put us into the Hand of Christ that He might bring us to Glory it was what well became God to make the Captain of our Salvation perfect through Sufferings But what Condecency or Becomingness wou'd there have been in it if Sin might have been pardon'd and the Sinner sav'd as well without it Nay the Death of Christ was therefore insisted on that thereby GOD's Justice might be demonstrated Rom. 3. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 't is doubled to give it the greater Emphasis GOD would have been Just and sufficiently have demonstrated himself to be so if He had infficted upon us the Vengeance that was threatned but supposing that He Pardon us that He Justifie Sinners though Penitent Believers his Justice might well be call'd in Question unless Satisfaction be first made for our Sins therefore does the Apostle so industriously urge and inculcate this over and over as what he would not by any means have overlook'd Christ therefore was a Propitiatory-Sacrifice that GOD's Justice might be demonstrated that it might clearly be demonstrated to the World and the next Words rise yet higher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that He might be and not only that He might appear to be the Just as if upon the supposal of his Justifying Sinners He cou'd not otherwise be Just So that though meer Remission wou'd have well consisted with Mercy alone or the Damnation of all Apostate Sinners with Justice alone yet if GOD wou'd be merciful to Sinners He must also be Just and that He cou'd not be unless He so far and in such a way punish Sin as will suffice to keep up his own Honour and Authority and effectually to discourage Sin And hence it was that Christ became the Propitiation for our Sins Wherefore V. And in the last place The Sufferings of Christ being thus insisted on in order to his being a Successful Mediator with GOD for Sinners He is therefore said to have died for us and for our Sins Our Sins render'd Suffering necessary GOD thereupon insists on Suffering without shedding of Blood He will allow no Remission Hereupon Christ consents to die and accordingly dies a Sacrifice for us bears our sins carries our griefs c. Sect. 5. And this is that relation betwixt our Sins and the Sufferings of Christ which is intended to be express'd by Grotius and others when they say Our Sins were the Meritorious Cause of his Sufferings i. e. they deserv'd Death and so bound us over to it as that we cou'd not be exempted from it without a Satisfaction without some-what Equivalent to our dying in which Exigency Christ dies for us I cannot find that they or which with every Christian surely shou'd yet be of greater weight that the Scriptures themselves do mean any thing more Thus Grotius Causa altera quae Deum movit sunt peccata nostra paenam commerentia He does not mean that they deserv'd Christ shou'd be punished but they so bound us over to Punishment that unless Christ die for 'em we cou'd not Salva Divinae Justitiae demonstratione a paena mortis aeternae liberari as he had a few Lines before expressed himself And therefore having mention'd that Text a few Pages forward Gal. 2. 21. If righteousness be by the law then Christ died 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without a cause he adds Locus ipse Pauli de quo agimus aliam quam antecedentem causam intelligi non patitur And a little further adds Causam propriam cur se tradiderit Christus mortuusque sit hanc esse quod nos per legem justi non essemus sed rei paenae nostra ergo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 causa est antecedens mortis Christi To which he adds p. 36. Non potest alicujus actionis causa impellens esse Meritoria nisi finis sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And cap. 5. p. 113 114. Merebantur peccata nostra ut paena exigeretur quod vero paena in Christum collata fuerit hoc ita ad Dei Christi voluntatem referimus ut ea quoque voluntas causas suas habeat non in Merito Christi qui peccatum cum non nosset a Deo peccatum factus est sed in summa Christi aptitudine ad statuendum insigne exemplum c. So that whoever allows that our Sins deserv'd Punishment and so bound us over to Eternal Death as that we cou'd not be exempted from it with safety to the Divine Justice unless Satisfaction be made that Christ died for this end by satisfying Divine Justice to procure our Remission and that his Death therefore was antecedently thus caused by our Sin and was inflicted for an example to deterr us from Sin I say whoever agrees to this so far as I can find admits of all that Grotius ever design'd when he calls our Sins the meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings And so also the Bishop of Worcester Our Sins as an Impulsive Cause are to be consider'd as they are so displeasing to GOD that it was necessary for the Vindication of his Honour and the deterring the World from Sin that no less a Sacrifice of Atonement shou'd be offer'd than the Blood of the Son of GOD. Sect. 6. And to all this we do readily agree yea how fully has Mr. Baxter spoken to this Sense particularly in his Reasons of the Christian Religion Part I. Cap. 15. Sect. 9. P. 161 162 163. So also Part II. c. 4. § 6. P. 232. and c. 5. § 10. P. 253 254. The Passages are too large to Transcribe But he has there very plainly intimated That GOD neither has nor cou'd Pardon Sinners