were not the meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings That no Sufferings are properly Paenal but what are infliced on the Delinquent himself that when Parents or Princes sinâ— and their Children or Subjects suffer their Sufferings are but Improperly or Analogically Poenal and that therefore Christ not being the actual Transgressor could not be in a proper Sense punished for our Sins That properly speaking he did not satisfie the violated Law And agreeably adds that the Sufferings were exacted by God not as he was a Rector as such but as a Rector supra Leges and as an offended Lord and Benefactor And that I may be the more clear in this attempt I will show how exact the Agreement between Mr. B. Crellius Episcopius Curcellius and Limborch is and how full a Confutation the Answers of Grotius to Socinus of the Bishop of Worcester unto Crellius and of the Principal of Jesus Oxon unto the Disciples of Episcopius are of the Principles which Mr. Baxter has advanced Subsect I. Of the Meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings 1. That Mr. Baxter denies our sins to be the near impulsive and proper meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings 1. It 's well known to the Learned That if Christs suffering be not ex obligatione Legis and by vertue of the Sanction of the Law sin cannot be the near impulsive or proper meritorious Cause of them For as an universal and perfect Obedience to the Praeceptive part of the Law as it respects the Promissary Part would according to the Rules of distributive Justice have been the meritorious Cause of the Promised reward in like manner Sin the transgression of the Precept as it respects the Paenal Sanction is the meritorious Cause of the threatned Sufferings If then I clear it that Mr. B. is of Opinion That Christs sufferings are not Ex obligatione Legis it must be acknowledged that he denies our sins to be their meritorious Cause which I hope to prove even to Mr. Alsop's Conviction and moreover to evince it that he doth expresly declare that our sins were not the meritorious Cause of Christs sufferings For 2. Mr. B. in his sixth Determination which is in the first Chapter of the third Part of his Methodus after he had set down his Distinctions between the Law of innocent Nature and the Law peculiar to the Mediator And considering the Law in the first Sense which he saith obliged Christ himself as Man and all others even sinners he adds another Distinction between the Obligation of this Law as a Remote and as a near Cause and declares his Judgment thus 1. ' The Law of Nature altho' it did oblige both Christ and us unto Obedience yet it did only oblige us not Christ unto Punishment The Law obligeth not an innocent Person to Punishment it condemns not the Just. 2. ' That the Law of Grace obliged Christ neither to Obedience nor to Punishment 3. ' By the Law peculiar to the Mediator called the Covenant between the Father and the Son Christ was obliged to suffer Punishment for Sinners namely by his Consent and proper Sponsion and the Fathers Will and Commandment From this Law the near obliging Cause of Christs suffering Punishment had its Rise 4. ' By the Law of Nature obliging us sinners unto Punishment Christ was not directly obliged to Punishment However it was the occasion of his Punishment and the Obligation we lay under was â—he Remote Cause of Christs Obligation for if the Law had not condemned us Christ had never undertaken or suffered a vicarious Punishment So 〈◊〉 Mr. B. 3. From what Mr. B. has so freely declared it 's â—ident he is of Opinion That the Obligation Christ 〈◊〉 under to suffer ariseth not from that Law we violated but from the mediatorial Convenant and â—at the Obligation to Punishment which is by â—â—rtue of the Sanction of the Law we violated â—nder which we all are by Nature is but an â—ccasion or Remote Cause and therefore our sins â—e not the near impulsive and proper meritorious â—â—use of Christs sufferings which is conform to that he has in his other Writings not only in his Posthumous Discourse of Universal Redemption but in the Preface to his Confession of Faith pag. 4. where he saith That as Christ could not take upon himself the same Numerical Guilt which lay on us so neither could he take upon himself Guilt of the same sort as having not the same sort of Foundation or Efficient Ours arising from the Merit of our sins and the Commination of the Law and his being rather occasioned than meritted by our sin and occasioned by the Laws threatning of us both which are as we may call them but â—rocauses as to him c. And in his Catho Theol. Part II. Pag. 78. Christ suffered not by that Obligation which bound us to suffer 4. These Passages I have mentioned do sufficiently clear it That Mr. B. owns not that our sins were the near impulsive or meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings the most he 'll yield being this viz. That our sins were the Occasion or Remote Impulsive Cause or the Pro-cause somewhat in the place of a meritorious Cause which is no more than Socinus Crellius and their Followers do grant as I will immediately show II. The Socinians do grant That our sins are a Remote Impulsive Cause or meer Occasion of Christs sufferings 1. That the Socinians make so large a Concession as this unto us is evident from most of their Writings Crellius against Grotius confesseth it Fatemur Peccata nostra posito Dei de salute nobis danda decreto eatenus etiam fuisse Impulsivam mortis Christi Causam c. Ad partic 2. Cap. 1. But 2. There is so much to this Purpose in the Answer the Learned Bishop of Worcester gives to what Crellius has on this Point that I will say no more of 〈◊〉 in this place but proceed to the Proposal of â—hat the Bishop offereth unto your Consideration III. What Mr. Baxter and the Socinians hold about our sins being only a Remote Impulsive Cause or Occasion of Christs sufferings opposed by the Orthodox particularly by the Bishop of Worcester 1. The Learned Bishop gives the Sense of the Socinians about the Impulsive Cause of Christs sufferings assuring us ' That tho' Crellius Attributes â—he sufferings of Christ meerly to Acts of Dominion without any respect to sin yet elsewhere he will allow a Respect that was had to sin antecedently to the Sufferings of Christ and that the Sins of Men were the Impusive cause of them And although Socinus in one place utterly denies any Lawful Antecedent Cause of the Death of Christ besides the Will â—f God and Christ yet Crellius in his Vindication â—ith by Lawful cause he meant Meritorious or â—â—ch upon supposition of which he ought to Die for elsewhere he makes Christ to die for the Cause or by the occasion of our Sins which is the same that Crellius means by an Impulsive or Procatartick Cause Of
above his Laws 3. That we may with the more distinction take in his genuine Sense it must be noted 1. That Mr. B. is of opinion there was a dispensing with the Law not only as to the Person suffering but as to the Penalty suffered that the Sufferings of our Saviour were not by Vertue of the Penal Sanction of the Law and therefore could be in no sense a fulfilling that part of the Law 2. That he considereth not God in exacting Satisfaction as a Rector qua talis whose part it is to see that the Law be satisfied but as a Rector qua supra Leges and God considered as such may be satisfied although no proper Punishment be indured 3. Thus much premised we shall find that he uses the word Satisfaction in a very large and comprehensive sense for whatever answers some remote ends of the Law The Sanction of the Law is essential to it and cannot be satisfied but by sufferings that are properly a Punishment But such ends of the Law as are not essential thereunto and only remote may be obtained without bearing the Punishment or indeed without enduring any Sufferings at all 4. That Mr. B. aims at no more by his Notion of Christs Satisfaction than an obtaining some remote ends of the Law is manifest from the very passage my Friend tells me Mr. Alâ—op refers unto to prove my Charge to be notoriously false and a careful observing its genuine Import which will be very plain if we consu't that entiâ—e Paragraph may convince an impartial Mind That Mr. B. hath different Apprehensions in thâ—se Points from his Orthodox Brethren For sâ—â—â—h he â—ocutione remota lata Christ us dici posâ—â—â— Legis fines remotas ipst non essentiales obtinendâ—â— ei satisfecisse In a remote large Sense Christ may be said to satisfie the Law But how not by obtaining any End essential to the Law but the remote Ends of the Law for its immediately added ' That Gods hatred of Sin and his Justices are no less demonstrated by Christs Satisfaction at least in a matter no less congruous for obtaining all the ends of Government than if the Sinners themselves had been damned If we compare this clause of the Paragraph with the foregoing part we shall find that what he saith of all the Ends of Government must â—e understood as he expresses it of all the remote â—nds of the Law which are not essential to the Law â—nd may in Mr. Baxters opinion be obtained withâ—ut Christs bearing a proper Punishment the true evincement of Gods hatred to Sin 5. That I take Mr. B. right will further appear â—y considering the Paragraph next after this where â—e distinguisheth between the Near and the Remote Ends of the Law affirming ' That the Finis proximus which doth enjoyn Obedience and threatens a punishment for Disobedience is a part of the Law and it must not be said that Christ did properly satisfie this End But there is the Remote End of the Law namely the prevention of sin the exercise and preservation of Humane Righteousness and demonstration of Divine Justice which is not the Law it self altho' it 's so termed by the Jurists because these Ends may be obtained by other Means than by Punishing So that it 's manifest he holds that these Ends might be obtained by the Lord Jesus tho' he never bore the punishment of our sins The Satisfaction then that Mr. B. is for is of another nature than what is embraced by the Reformed It is what 's done without Christ's suffering a proper Punishment and without a proper satisfying of the Law For saith he properly speaking Christ did not Satisfie the Law it self nor did he properly satisfie the Near End of the Law viz. the â—oenal part Met. p. 3. c. 1. p. 47. A Second Consideration 2. The very Notion Mr. B. hath of Christ's Satisfaction is not only different from what is embraced by the Orthodox but such as is so far from comprizing within its compass Christ's suffering a proper Punishment as to exclude it It is what can be made without the Lord Christ's taking on him the Guilt of our sins and what is inconsistent with Christ's making a proper Satisfaction to the Law 1. Thus much he endeavours to prove from the definition he gives of Satisfaction which is thus Satisfactio strictè sumpta est Redditio Aequivalentis indebiti pro ipso debito vel tantundem pro eodem and by Indebitum he means somewhat of a distinct nature from what the Law exacts somewhat that is not properly Poenal and consonantly by the Equivalens or Tantundem he intends what is very different from what is Received and Believed by the Reformed For whereas the Equivalent in their Judgment respects the Punishment we deserved and in those instances in which it 's not the same it doth in its Valuation bear a just proportion thereunto His Equivalent doth not respect the Sufferings we deserved but the Remote Ends of the Law and as it 's adjusted to those Ends tho' there be nothing of the Nature of Punishment in it yet is it an Equivalent 2. That this is his sense of an Equivalent is manifest from his asserting that Qui fines Legis Remotos alio Modo quam Puniendo obtinet Tantundem praestare putatur acsi Peccatorem Punivisset ubi sup p. 47. This account Mr. B. gives of Satisfaction is in the first Argument he urgeth to prove that properly speaking Christ did not satisfie the Law it self What is saith he impossible Christ did not do but to satisfie the Law strictly speaking is impossible The Minor he thus proves Satisfactio stricte sumpta est Redditio Aequivalentis indebiti pro ipso debito At impossibile est ipsam eandem Legem de qua loquimur commutare idem pro aequivalente This is his Argument in which lieth the main stress of his Cause which methinks may be soon enervated if we consider as indeed we must that the Poenal Sanction of the Law is not Abrogated that it is only Relaxed that the Relaxation is not of the Formal Nature of the Poenalty suffered but doth respect the Person suffering and that tho' the Relaxing be an act of Dominion yet God exacts and receives satisfaction is a Rector qua talis and not as a Rector supra Leges 3. The Learned Bishop of Worcester against Crellius cap. 4. § 5. hath with great clearness shown in what respects the Sufferings of Christ were the same with what we deserved in what Instances not That they were so far the same as to be a proper Punishment and in those circumstances wherein there was a difference there was an Aequivalent No more is necessary saith his Lordship to the delivery of another Person than the satisfying the Ends of the Law and Government And if that may be done by an Aequivalent Suffering tho' not the same in all respects then it may be a proper Surrogation If David had obtained his wish that he had Died
Christs Suffer Cap. 2. Sect. 2. 2. To this Notion of Socinus and Crellius the Bishop who throughly search'd into this Controversie Answers ' That we understand not an impulsive Cause in so remote a Sense as though our Sins were 〈◊〉 meer Occasion of Christs Dying because the Death of Christ was one Argument among many others â—o believe his Doctrine the Belief of which would make Men leave their Sins But we contend for a nearer and more proper Sense But when we come to consider that other point whether Christs Sufferings were a proper Punishment We shall hear further what his Lordship saith to this particular For he rightly informs us That if the Sufferings of Christ be to be taken under the Notion of Punishment then our Adversaries grant That our Sins must be an impulsive Cause of them in another Sense than they understand it What that other Sense is will be shown under the next Head about Punishment where you will meet with enough to satisfy you That the impulsive Cause which they 'l grant on a Supposition that Christs Sufferings are properly Paenal is a near impulsive and proper meritorious Cause 3. Dr. Edwards doth also in his Preservative against Socinianism Part 2. p. 94. speak very distinctly to this thing For saith he That Christ dyed for us are the plain words of Scripture He gave himself for us Gal. 2.20 Eph. 5.25 1 Thes 5.10 2 Cor. 5.14 15. And this not only in general for our good but he was delivered up for our Offences Rom. 4.25 He dyed for our Sins 1 Cor. 15.3 So to the same purpose and for the same Reason he is said to dye for the Vngodly Rom. 5.6 And it is mentioned as the great Instance of Gods Love to us that whilst we were yet Sinners Christ dyed for us ver 10. of the same Chap. All which Phrases of dying for Sins and Sinners plainly denote to us that Sin in those places is not to be considered as the Final but as the impulsive and meritorious Cause of Christs Death Thus you see the Agreement between Mr. Baxter Socinus and Crellius about our Sins being the remote impulsive Cause or meer occasion of Christs Sufferings to be real and that he hath herein left the Orthodox such as Grotius the Bishop and Dr. Edwards is clearly proved I will therefore consider what is â—aid of Christs Sufferings being Paenal Subject II. Of the Paenalness of Christs Sufferings 1. Mr. Baxter denies Christs Sufferings to be a proper Punishment 1. Mr. Baxter in his Methodus proposeth this Question Whether the Passion or Sufferings of Christ were properly and formally a Punishment and his Determination is such as clears it that he holds Christs Sufferings to be only Improperly Analogically and Materially not properly and formally a Punishment 2. To evince thus much I will distinctly conâ—â—der what he hath premised and show how he determines it 1. In his Premises he tells us ' That a proper Punishment is a natural Evil inflicted for a moral Evil. The Matter is Affliction or a natural Evil inflicted The Form is the Relation of this Matter to its meritorious Cause The Fault or moral Evil is either really such or by a wrong Judgment and so Punishment is distinguished into that which is due 〈◊〉 Justitia or that which is undue ex Injustitia The first is a Punishment in a proper Sense the â—ther is a Punishment Analogice and only in â—he sense of a Judge and others unjustly judging â—he word Punishment therefore is ambiguous Punishment in the first and most famous Sense is a natural Evil on the Delinquent himself Punishment 〈◊〉 a secondary and Analogical Sense is a natural Evil which doth not directly but mediately only and by accident flow from a moral Evil. This Punishment ' is twofold The one which naturally follows the Sin of another that is from that natural proximity there iâ— between the Sufferer and the Sinner The other which doth not naturally but by a voluntary Sponsion so that by Vertue of the Sponsion vicarious Punishments are endured 2. The Determination is 1. That Christ waâ— not re verâ the Sinner and therefore his Suffering were not Penal in the Primary and most Famouâ— Sense 2. Christ was not in the account of the Fatheâ— a Sinner For God doth not judge falsely and therefore he did not suffer an Analogical Punishment ex falsâ Reputatione Dei 3. Christ being miraculously conceived by the Holy Ghost could not suffer Anolagical Punishments for his Parents Sins 4. Christ being voluntarius Poenarum Sponsor did as our Sponsor suffer Analogical vicarious Punishments His Sufferings therefore as to the Reason of the thing were a natural Evil endured 〈◊〉 occasione causalitate remota Peccatorum human generis proxime from the Obligation of his propeâ— Sponsion and Consent 3. In these Premises and this Determination Mr Baxter freely declares That our Sins were but thâ— occasion or remote not the near impulsive Cause oâ— Christs Sufferings that his Sufferings were noâ— properly and formally but only Improperly and Analogically Penal Yea 4. There is more in it he is express That a proper Punishment cannot be inflicted on any but the Delinquent himself For saith he Poena in sensâ— primo famosissimo est ipsius Delinquentis malum nâ—ralâ—rale The formal Nature of Punishment lying in 〈◊〉 Relation unto Sin as its meritorious Cause the Punishment formally considered cannot he thinks â—e on any but them by whom the Sin is committed â—nd therefore agreeably enough in pursuit of his Principle He denies the Sufferings of Children and â—ubjects for their Parents and Princes Sins to be â—roperly and formally Penal His distinction is beâ—ween Punishment taken properly in Sensu primo â—â—mosissimo and in an improper secondary and an Analogical Sense His Determination that Punishment 〈◊〉 the first sense is only on him that actually commitâ—ed the Sin That there can be no Punishment â—ut what is deserved and that no Man can deserve â—hat another should be punished That when Paâ—ents and Princes sin and their Children and Subjects â—uffer their Sufferings cannot be properly and forâ—ally Penal because they did not commit the Sin â—nd so could not deserve it Their Sufferings thereâ—ore can be but improperly and analogically Penal as â—r B. freely owns when he saith That Poena in â—â—nsu secundo analogico est duplex Altera quae pecâ—atum alterius naturaliter sequitur id est ex proximiâ—â—te naturali patientis ad peccantem ita ob peccata â—ominorum Poenas consequenter patiuntur vernae 〈◊〉 in sensu adhuc pleniore filius pro Parentum peccatis 〈◊〉 Paenas which he thinks may be called Punishâ—ent aptly enough because they have a relation unto â—â—â—n as to an Occasion or remote meritorious Cause 2. Mr. Baxter's Agreement with Crellius about the meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings and his Sufferings being a proper Punishment The Sense of Crellius being with the greatest â—earness delivered by the Bishop of W.