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-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
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.
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Cicero Jure merito are most commonly joyned together So that where there is a Right to punish and sufficient reason for it such a one doth not suffer Immerito i. e. undeservedly If it be said That such a one is not dignus poena that implies no more than the other for Dignus or as the Antients writ it Dicnus comes from the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jus as Vossius tells us ut dignus sit cui tribui aliquid aequum est So that where there is an equity in the thing there is a Dignity in the Person or he may be said to be worthy to undergo it So far the Bishop who hath cleared it beyond contradiction that one may endure a proper Punishment for the sins of another and that thus it is in the case of Childrens and Peoples sufferings for their Parents and Princes fins 2. The confining a proper and just Punishment to the Person that commits the sin denying the sufferings of one for the sin of another to be properlâ— penal doth at once subvert both the Doctrines oâ— our Saviour's Satisfaction and Original Sin For iâ— a Man may not be justly punished beyond the Desertâ— of his own Acts the Lord Jesus who never committed sin could not bear a proper Punishment not could any of Adam's Posterity be justly punished for his sin In answer hereunto I will give you the sense of the Learned Dr. Edwards who expresseth himself in these words Now I say there hath not been for ought I know any Nation or Kingdom in the World that hath not in some cases and for some weighty Reasons thought and adjudged it lawful to punish one man for the sins of another So that over-hastily and peremptorily as the Socinians and Remonstrants do to pronounce the Imputation of Adam's sin and the punishing of his Posterity for it Vnlawfully barely for this Reason that no man can be justly punished who was not a Party and actually engaged in the practice of the sin is to contradict the Reason and condemn the Usage of all Mankind and not only so but as this Position is roundly and without exception laid down by them it tends plainly to overthrow the whole Design of the Gospel by denying the sufferings of Christ to have the true Notion of a Punishment whereby he satisfied the Justice of God for the sins of Mankind In short The present matter in debate between us and our Adversaries turns upon this point whether in any case a person may lawfully and justly be punished for a Crime which he did not personally commit They deny it and condemn the practice as absolutely unlawful We on the other hand say This may be justly done and for a proof of the Legality of it we can produce the consent of all the most Civiliz'd States and Governments that have been in the World who have accounted it in some cases Lawful and those especially two 1. Where there hath been the voluntary Offer and Consent of the Party as in the case of Sureties Hostages c. Or 2. Without that Consent where there is either a Natural or Civil and Political Union between the Persons offending and the Persons punished such as is that between a King and his Subjects Parents and Children And here we have which is a consideration of much greater weight the particular Direction and Example of God himself to justifie and warrant this practice Saul slew the Gibeonites and the Sons and Grand-children are executed for it 2 Sam. 21. David sinneth in numbring the People and God sent a Pestilence among his Subjects 2 Sam. 24. This and much more is in Dr. Edwards his Preservat part 2. p. 50 51 c. making it very clear That one may be properly punished for anothers sin And that thus it is in the case of Christ's suffering for us and of Childrens and Subjects suffering for the sins of their Parents and their Kings 3. What I have cited out of the writings of these great Men makes it very clear That Mr. Baxter's denying our Sin to be the proper meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings and his Sufferings to be a proper Punishment is a manifest contradicting the Body of Protestant Writers on these Points as an opposition to the allowed Custom of Mankind and the plainest Texts of Scripture And his affirming that a proper Punishment cannot be justly inflicted on any but him who committed the Sin and that when they who by their own Actions have not deserved a Punishment do suffer their Sufferings are no otherwise Penal than materially improperly and analogically he agrees with Socinus Crellius Episcopius and his Disciples is most evident and what the learned Bishop and Principal have insisted on in their answer unto our Socinian and Episcopian Adversaries is a most direct and exact Confutation of Mr. Baxter 4. These things are so plain that I doubt not of the concurrence of an impartial learned Reader However for the sake of Mr. Alsop and others less studied or prejudiced Divines I will offer sundry other Considerations for the fuller Proof that Mr. Baxter differs from his Orthodox Brethren and falls in with Episcopius and his Disciples in the Doctrine of our Saviours Satisfaction Subsect 4. Further Proof that Mr. B. hath left the common Doctrine of Protestants in the Article of Christs Satisfaction Consideration I. 1. It must be acknowledged That if Christs Sufâ—erings were properly Penal they would so far have â—nswered the Obligations of the violated Law that 〈◊〉 might be said properly speaking Christ satisfied the â—aw it self On the other hand in case it shall apâ—ear that Mr. B. denyes Christs satisfying the Law â—â—self in a proper Sense it must be yielded that he â—enyeth Christs Sufferings to be a proper Punishment The Connection that there is between the one and â—he other makes good what I herein affirm and whoever will search closely into this Controversie will find That the true Reason why Christs satisfying the Law in a proper Sense is denyed is because 〈◊〉 Satisfaction cannot in this Sense be made to the Law any otherwise than by Christs enduring a proper Punishment To satisfie the Law it self is to answer the Obligation of the Law and suffer by Vertue of its Sanction and nothing more evident than that Sufferings by Vertue of its Sanction are a proper Punishment But 2. Mr. B. is as express in denying Christs satisfyng the Law as he is in denying his Sufferings to be a proper Punishment This Charge hath so much Reason for its support that whoever will consult his Methodus p. 3. cap. 1. Determ 2. will see enough to convince him there he will meet with this Question Whether it may be properly said that Christ satisfied the Law it self as it obliged Sinners to Punishment to which he adds in a Parenthesis etiam si eam non patiendo implevit or rather ought we not to say That Christ satisfied not the Law but the Law giver as
Sufferings to be a proper Punishment from the Ignorant and Rude Assaults of my Adversary who if he had kept more closely to his Studies and minded Things more than Indecent Words could never have been imposed upon as in this Point he has been And certain I am that if the Learned and plain-hearted Mr. Baxter had been alive he would thank neither Mr. Williams nor Mr. Alsop for their Attempts to conceal his true sense of these Points from the World Before I close this Discourse I will set down a summary of Mr. Baxter's Belief in these matters particularly That Christ's sufferings were not ex Obligatione Legts That our sins were not the near impulsive or proper meritorious cause of his sufferings That his sufferings were not properly and formally poenal That no sufferings are properly punishments but what are inflicted on the Delinquent himself That when Parents sin and their Children suffer their sufferings are not properly and formally but materially improperly and analogically poenal That Christ properly speaking did not satisfie the Law nor God as a Rector quà talis only but as a Rector supra Leges as a pars offensa as an Injured Lord and Benefactor That a proper strict Satisfaction is the solution or payment of an Aequivalent which was not due for what was due That the Aequivalence lyeth in an aptitude to answer the Remote Ends of the Law That an answering the Remote Ends of the Law is of a distinct nature from answering its Obligations or Poenal Sanction That the Obligation Christ lay under to suffer arose only from the Mediatorial Praecept and Christ's voluntary Sponsion That what answers only the Preacept of a Law and is only an Act of Obedience cannot considered as such be a punishment That the true Reason why Christ's sufferings are said to be poenal is because of their matter which is painful and dolorous That the Justice of God which Christ satisfied tho' called punitive yet must not be understood in a strict sense for that punishing Justice from whence a proper punishment doth flow That Christ's entire Righteousness was his performance of the Condition of his Covenant with the Father and his performance of that Condition was his meritorious Title to God's promised Effects That tho' the matter of the Covevenant of Works was taken into the Mediatorial Law yet Christ was never under the Formal Obligation of the Law of Works nor did he strictly merit according to its Rule This is an impartial Account of Mr. Baxter's Sentiments touching the Nature of Christ's Satisfactiâ—n and Merit and as this Notion is distinct from what is embraced by the Reformed so whilst he uses the same Terms the Orthodox do yet it is in a different sense For by the works Punishment Punishing Justice Christ's Righteousness and Merit yea and proper Satisfaction he doth as I have already suggested intend quite another thing than the Protestants do And because these Terms and Phrases are not in Scripture he is not for an insisting on their use against the Socinians De Nomine vid. Satisfactionis non nultùm Litigandum est siqui Sociniani aut alii Satisfactionis nomen quia in Sacris Literis non reâ—eritur repudiant necessitatem Nominis non asserere lebemus Meth. Theol. part 3. cap. 1. Diterm 12. â— 49. But in opposition hereunto the Learned Dr. Edwards expresseth himself thus The words vid. Satisfaction and Merit are now adopted by the Church inserted into her Homilies and Liturgies they are part of the Catholick Faith and become the Common Language of all Christians So that we cannot lay them aside without giving infinite offence and scandal to all our Friends of the Reformation and at the same time of affording matter of Boasting and Triumph to our Adversaries of the Church of Rome who have long since told the World that we are grown weary of our Old Religion and are all ready to turn Socinians Besides all this it will justifie in great measure the Calumnies of our Modern Vnitarians who will exceedingly triumph to find their suspicion made good viz. that we secretly favour their Impious Opinions and that if it were not for the Biass that is given to our minds ly the Awe of our Superiours and the Love of our Preferments we would soon take off the Mask ard discover our True Sentiments in their favour Preservat against Socin Part. 3. p. 110. What this Learned Person offers against the very Notion of Mr. Baxter as well as of Curcellaeus and Limborch I do humbly recommed to the consideration not only of Mr. Alsop but of all the Brethren at Little St. Hellens and do wish with all my heart that Mr. Alsop may be enabled to weigh with deliberation and soberness whether there be the least Reason for his declaring so positively That neither Mr. Williams nor Mr. Baxter deny Christ's Sufferings to be proper punishments Or what pleasure it can afford him on a Dying Bed to consider what countenance he has given to the very Notions he now would be thought to abhorâ— How he hath discouraged yea reviled them who appear in the Defence of those Truths which so nearly affect our Salvation And how much he hath strengthened the hands of them who hold such Opinions as open a Door for the letting in the very Abominations we are at this time in most danger of For the very Engine chosen by the Socinian Combinators in the year 1546. as most likely to introduce their Impious Heresies was their corrupting the Doctrine of our Blessed Saviour's Satisfaction As Wissowatius in his Compendious Narration in the mention he makes of the Italian Combinators tells us it was to bring the Received Opinion of the Trinity into doubt so Sandius in his Anti-Trinitarian Bibiiothee p. 18. speaking of their Colledges and Conferences adds in quibus potissimùm Dogmata vulgaria de Trinitate ac Christ Satisfactione hisque similia in Dubium revocabant And what is remarkable Lubieniecius in his History of the Polonian Reformation lib. 2. c. 1. Ingenuously confesseth that 't was also their care to insinuare that in the Article of Justification an applying the Merit of Christ unto us by Faith alone was one of those Opinions introduced by the Greek Philosophers Of these things I take the more notice because at this time as Mr. Williams doth not omy corrupt the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction but that other of Justification in like manner He doth as these Socinians did subscribe with a distinction securing his own sense and carries it so subdolously as to influence some worthy Divines who are sound in the Faith to give too much Reputation unto him and consequently to his Erroneous Opinions I can hardly forbear the mention of an Aged Divine who hath been Mr. Williams his Tool to the hindring a Re-Union but at this time I will spare him And only add that Mr. Williams acts so like unto these Combinators that unless some more than ordinary care be taken to give check unto
Redemption and Salvation he had undertaken â—â—d whether it be said that Christ doth put on or â—lain or bear our Person the meaning is the same â—nd they who speak as if these three words of puting on bearing and sustaining the Person of Sinners had as many different meanings do talk as 〈◊〉 they understood not the genuine Import of the â—hrase The same is true of the Latin Phrase Christus sustinuit Personam nostram Christus sustinuit quodammodo seu quasi Personam nostram or the English Christ did sustain our Person Christ sustainâ—â— as it were our Person the signification is the same â—or whether quodammodo or quasi be added or not the meaning is That Christ did in Sensu forensi bear â—ur Person Take the word Person in Law-Sense â—nd there is no need of the word quodammodo or quasi but if the word Person Import a natural â—r proper Person then to ascertain the meaning to be Forensic it 's requisite to add either quasi or quodammodo For Persona moralis est quasi Persona propria And accordingly our Divines do indifferently use the Phrase with or without quasi or quodammodo for whether they use either of these words or not the Sense is known to be the same and the meaning of them who have it and who have it not is That Christ took on him our Person in Sensu forensi in Law Sense as I have cleared it in my Defence p. 24 25 c. so that I have not the least reason to scruple the adding that considerable word quasi and for the sake of a weak Brother am content to do it at any time when desired For 8. If the words Christ sustained our Person signifie somewhat really different from Christs sustaining as it were our Person then it must be owned that many Orthodox Divines who have been thought to be of a mind do really differ in this Point from each other And many learned Persons who express themselves with the greatest accuracy and caution affirming sometimes that Christ sustained our Person and at other times as it were our Person do really differ from themselves particularly Calvin who on 2 Cor. 5.21 saith That Christ did susciperâ— quodammodo personam nostram and on Gal. 3.13 personam nostram susceperat quarrell'd with himself or at least either the Reverend Mr. Poole or Marlorat did misrepresent Calvin on 2 Cor. 5.21 For as Marlorat gives the Sense of Calvin thus personam nostram quodammodo suscepit Christus ut Reus nostrâ— nomine fieret tanquam Peccator judicaretur noâ— propriis sed alienis Peccatis so Mr. Poole thus Christus autem Personam nostram suscepit ut Reus nostrâ— nomine fieret tanquam Peccator judicaretur So that the learned Mr. Poole is fallen into the very Error Mr. W. and his Defendor charge on me for as I am accused for leaving out that considerable word quasi Mr. Poole has left out as considerable a quodammodo But whether Mr. P. or these Gentlemen be the most skill'd in the Latin Tongue and the Civil Law is not over difficult to determine Once more 9. My Learned Adversary Mr. W. adds that I ought to have said And to appear as it were in our Person that is Christ appeared not properly in our Person To which I answer 1. What he means by this Passage Christ appeared not properly in our Person is not easy to understand If he means that Christ did not take upon him nor appear in our natural or proper Person I have over and over said it it being most manifest that he appeared only in our Legal Person which is what Mr. W. doth expresly oppose The thing he is against is Christs taking on him our Person in Sensu forensi in Law Sense 2. This word therefore properly if he will in Opposition unto me abide by his Notion that Christ did not take on him our Person in Law Sense must be tacked to Christs appearing as if he had said Christ did not properly appear before the Judgment Seat of God to answer for our Sins but only improperly or Metaphorically But 10. Had it been said That Christ did as it were take on him our Legal Person 't would have been to his purpose and have signified no more than that Christ did not really and truly take on him our Legal Person But not a word of this in the Scotch Confession There it is clear that the Lord Jesus did appear before the Judgment Seat of the Father in our Legal Person which was the point for which I produced it And altho' the quasi is in the Latin and as it were in the English yet the Doctrine therein contained is most opposite to what is advanced by Mr. W. and his more learned and upright Coryphaeus as I hope to the Conviction of an unbyassed Reader to evince For the differences amongst us are real in matters of the biggest Importance and nearest Concernment to our Immortal Souls Sect. II. The present Differences more than Verbal being about an Article that affects the Vitals of our Holy Religion In my Appeal to the learned Bishop of Worcester and the Principal of Jesus Colledge Oxon I charged Mr. Baxter whose Notions Mr. W. labours to propagate for denying Christs sufferings to be properly Paenal And I have received a Line from a learned Friend intimating that Mr. Alsop hath these words in his late Rhapsodie The Charge against Mr. Baxter is notoriously false all the Authors Tricks to force him to deny the Sufferings of Christ to be proper Punishments In this Charge the Heart of the Controversie betwixt us doth lye and if I make it good against Mr. Baxter I doubt not but that my Orthodox Breteren amongst the Presbyterians will acquit me from those Censures they now load me with The thing that lyeth on me to prove is That Mr. Baxter denyeth our Sins to be the meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings or that his Sufferings are a proper Punishment That this Charge sounds harsh in the Ears of the Orthodox who do not only think highly of him for the Services he did in confuting the real Antinomians but also for his exemplar Piety and in some Instanâ—es uncommon self denial For though they have â—een of Opinion that in opposing one extream he â—eemed to verge too much toward the other â—nd perhaps to fall in with Amyrald yet they â—ever thought that in the Doctrine of our Saâ—iours Satisfaction he left Grotius and fell in with Episcopius his Disciples It lies on me therefore to â—roduce very clear substantial Proof to support my Charge And that Mr. Alsop and his Associates â—ay be the more fully convinced that I am far â—rom Tricks to force Mr. Baxter to deny the Sufferâ—ngs of Christ to be proper Punishments I will make 〈◊〉 my endeavour to show that in the controverted â—oint about Christs Satisfaction he forsook Grotius â—nd the generality of the Reformed asserting as his â—ated Judgment ' That our Sins
such were some of you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—t is as may be seen in Poole talia scelera eratis â—â—th Wickednesses were some of you and as Caâ—arius ut cum Sceleratum dicimus Scelus The like also in Ephesians 5.8 ye were Darkness that is as Zanchy ut Scelus pro scelestissimo and Bishop Reynolds observes on Psalm 110. The Lord to signifie that his People were most Rebellious saith that they were Rebellion it self Ezek. 2.8 and many other instances of this kind might be given which may move some of no jealous Inclinations to suspect that the Objector hath been more conversant with the Poets than with the Prophets and Apostles 2. Well then by comparing Scripture with Scripture the signification of the word Sin is very obvious denoting the greatness of Wickedness we are Sin we are Sin in the Abstract we are Sinners in the highest degree But 3. Doth not this Interpretation give advantage to the Objector who saith you shall see the mystery of his Phraseology it was to mislead you into that Abomination that Christ was sinful that hâ— was a Sinner for if Christ was Sin in the same Acceptation that we are then he was sinful hâ— was a Sinner and the greatest Sinner that eveâ— was in the World To this I answer That whatever is here suggested my Interpretation of the word Sin gives not the least advantage to thâ— Objector For 1. If the word Sin has a Sense in the Superlaâ—tive Degree in which it is true not only of us buâ— of Christ without making Christ inherently sinful or personally guilty all this noise is to no purpose 2. That Christ was Sin in an Acceptation thaâ— we are Sin without being Inherently Sinsul iâ— evident as the word Sin imports Guilt I meaâ— Legal Guilt and a proper Punishment consequen thereupon Sin in Scripture oft imports the samâ— with Legal Guilt in the Sense described by the â—arned Bishop of Worcester and it also oft-times â—â—gnifies Punishment My Sin and sometimes my â—uilt at other times my Punishment and when â—uilt and Punishment are expressed by the word Sin â—e are not only directed to our Sins as the meritoâ—us Cause but to the dreadful and dismal Effects We are Sin we are upon the account of our Transâ—ressions exceeding Guilty and the Punishment they â—serve is exceeding great But 3. If Christ be not Sin in some of the same Acâ—ptations in which we are Sin then the Guilt of â—â—r Sins was never transferred upon Christ nor the â—unishment thereof inflicted on him which is a â—ry liberal giving up the Controversie to the Sociâ—ans who deny Christ to be made Sin in any one â—ense in which we are Sin and so will not own â—at our Guilt was laid upon him or a proper Punâ—ent inflicted on him 4. If Christ be in no Sense Sin in which we â—e Sin then our Sins were never imputed unto â—hrist nor did he in a proper sense bear our Guilt 〈◊〉 Punishment nor was he nor could he be a Proper â—â—crifice for sin To say that Christ was a Sacrifice 〈◊〉 sin in a proper sense and yet not sin in any one â—se in which we are sin is to say he had not the â—uilt nor the Punishment of sin upon him and that â—e was not a proper Sacrifice for sin for it 's essenâ—al to a proper Sacrifice for sin to have the Guilt â—â—d Punishment of sin laid upon it Upon this acâ—unt it is that amongst the Hebrews the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for sin the Guilt the Punishment and â—â—crifice And amongst the Greeks and Latines the â—ne word signifies a wicked man and an Expiatory â—â—crifice Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as Dr. Owen against Biddle cap. 22. observes Homo pia cularis pro Lustratione Expiatione Patriae devotus whence the word is often used as scelus in Latin for a wicked man a man fit to be destroyed and taken away Agreeably hereunto Budaeus renders that place oâ— the Apostle 1 Cor. 4.13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nos tanquam piacula we as as the accursed thing of the World and Sacrifices for the People it being a may be seen in Poole in loc the Custom of somâ— Countries in the day of their Calamity to take thâ— vilest amongst the People and Sacrifice them whâ— by the Athenians were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so common hath it been for the Sinner and the Sacrifice to beaâ— the same Name even amongst the Heathen but iâ— the Holy Scriptures nothing more evident because the Sin for which the Sacrifice was to be offered was laid upon it in the Old Testament whereby the Laying of our sins on the Lord Jesus which waâ— a necessary antecedent to his Death as he was a Sacrifice was prefigured But 5. Mr. A. writes as if he had either never known or had quite forgot what is so very obvious to mosâ— Divines and therefore what he saith on this occasion is to be the less regarded and to be considered as what can serve no other sort of People thaâ— the Socinians and their Allies tho' I still charitably hope that he abhors their Tenents even when hiâ— Writings do in too many instances favour theiâ— Cause The Fourth Objection That it is a mistake to conclude from Christâ— being called Surety that therefore he came undeâ— the Sanction of the Law of Works And the rather because being stiled the Surety of a better Testament can respect only the Covenant of Grace Reply 1. I do not say that this is an Objection of Mr. Alsop's framing nor will I answer it as such The Episcopianism and Socinianism that is in it is so clear â—n evidence of its being formed by a Well-wisher â—o the Errours of our Adversaries that I 'll not â—asten it on one in whose Writings I have not met â—ith it But that 't is of the same nature with â—hat Mr. W. hath advanced is to me most certain 2. Whatever this Objector hath with a boldness â—ommon amongst our Adversaries asserted I must â—ave leave to suggest that by this way of arguing â—â—d by these Assertions he hath left out Orthodox Writers and is gone over to the Tents of Limborch â—â—rcellaeus Schlictingtons and Crellius 3. That herein the Objector has forsaken the Orâ—odox I will evince by setting down the Sentiâ—ents of some of the most Eminent amongst them â—nd that I may be the more convincing in what I 〈◊〉 I must observe that the hinge of this Controâ—ersie turns on a sound determination of this Queâ—â—on viz. Whether Christs Suretiship belongs to his Priestly â—ffice or not For if it belongs unto the Priestly Ofâ—â—e 't will unavoidably follow that as our Surety â—e Lord Jesus offered up himself a Sacrifice to God 〈◊〉 the Expiation of the Guilt of our sins that to â—is end he took on him our Guilt and bore the â—unishment due to us which he could not do but by â—â—ming under the Sanction of the violated Law The â—â—nnection
there is between Christ's Priesthood â—â—d his offering up a proper Sacrifice between his â—eing a proper Sacrifice and his bearing the Guilt â—â—d Punishment of our sins and between his bearâ—â—g the Guilt and Punishment of our sin and his â—eing under the Sanction of the violated Law is so â—ose so firmly fixed and inviolable that on the â—â—anting that Christ's Suretiship belongs to him as â—â—iest the whole here mentioned necessarily follows The Links are too strog to be broken If then our Divines hold that the Suretiship mentioned in Heb. 7.22 belongs to Christs Priestly Office if they produce this Text to prove that Christ as our Surety took on him the Guilt and Punishment of our sins to satisfie God's Justice for them then they do run counter herein unto the Episcopians and Socinians in holding that Christ came under the Sanction of the Law 4. That in what I have delivered I have given the sense of the Orthodox is manifest The Learned Bishop Reynolds on Psal 110.4 p. 417. saith That Christ being a Priest must of necessity be a Mediator and Surety between Parties that he might have one unto whom and others for whom and in whose behalf to offer a Sacrifice Every Priest must be a Mediator to stand between God and the People and to intercept and bear the Iniquity oâ— their Holy things But every Mediator is not presently a Priest for there is a Mediator only by way of Intreaty and Prayer c. And there are Mediators by way of Satisfaction as Sureties are between the Creditor and the Debtor and such a Mediator was Christ not only a Mediator but also a Surety of a better Covenant Heb. 8.6 Heb. 7.22 He was not to procure Remission of our sins by way of Favour and Request but he was set forth to declare the Righteousness of God Rom. 3.25 and such a Mediator between God and Us must needs be a Priest too For the Debt which we Owed unto God was Blood Without shedding of Blood there is no Remission Heb. 9.22 Essenius who is applauded for his Defence of Grotius de Satisfactione by Lutherans as well as Calvenists saith the same Quantum ad Locum Heb. 7.22 rationes à Crellio allatas cur Christus Sponsor Novi Foederis vocetur minimè sufficere oftendimus Sect. 1. hujus Libri Imò in anâ—ecedentibus consequentibus agitur de Sacerdotio Christi quo ipse non fungitur nomine Dei apud bomines sed nontine Hominum apud Deum cui se victimam obtulit Atque Ita Sponsorem egit pro hominibus apud Deum Essenâ— Triump Crucis 〈◊〉 2. sect 3. cap. 1. p. 500. Judicious Mr. Strong his Discourse of the two Covenants lib. 2. cap. 2. â—â—ct 1. § 2. p. 128. has it thus ' The Lord Christ by becoming a Surety did give his hand that is be did enter into Covenant with the Lord and so his Name is put into our Bond Gal. 4.4 5. He is said to be made under the Law and that as a Covenant and when the Apostle saith He is the Surety of a better Covenant whereas the main of Christ's Suretiship refers unto the first Covenant the Covenant of Works broken and therefore in respect of our Debt he is the Surety of the first Covenant yet the Apostle doth not so express it but of the better Covenant because the Commutation of the Person the bringing in of a Surety doth properly belong unto the Covenant of Grace and it is a part of the Covenant of Grace that there should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a Propitiation one to stand in our stead or to make Satisfaction to the Justice of God for the Breach of the Covenant of Works and therefore the whole Suretiship of Christ doth refer unto the Covenant of Grace of which his standing in our stead and paying our Debt is a principal part To this of Mr. Strong I will add what Mr. Alsop with about the Covenant of Grace in his Anti-Sozzo 717 c. The Covenant of Grace may be considered either in its Constitution or Execution In the Execution of the fixed Constitution the Redeeming Mediator Vndertakes with God as a Righteous Judge and therefore becomes a Priest a Sacrifice a Price a Ransom a Curse to satisfâ—â—â— the Iudge and his Law Christ himself is promised in the Covenant as the Great Comprehensive Blessing of the Covenant Isa 49.8 9. So that Chrisâ— being given in the Covenant of Grace to Redeen us by his Death and Sufferings by his satisfying thâ— Judge and his Law from that Misery our sins haâ— brought upon us he might very well be stiled by thâ— Apostle Heb. 7.22 a Surety of a better Covenant oâ— Testament which shows the vanity of that part oâ— the Objection which saith Christ cannot be said to come under the Sanction of the Law of Works because being stiled the Surety of a better Testament catâ— respect only the Covenant of Grace Once more The Learned Dr. Owen in opposition to the Interpretation given of Heb. 7.22 by Schlictingius Curcellaeus and Hammond and I may justly add to that given by Mr. W. declares That the generality of Expositors Antient and Modern of the Roman and Protestant Churches on the place affirm that the Lord Christ as the Surety of the Covenant was properly a Surety or Vndertaker unto God for us and not a Surety or Vndertaker unto us for God And because this is a matter of great importance wherein the Faith and Consolation of the Church is highly concerned I shall saith he a little insist upon it It is the Priesthood of Christ that the Apostle treats of in this place viz. Heb. 7.22 and that alone Wherefore he is a Surety as he is a Priest and in the discharge of that Office and therefore is so with God on our behalf He undertook as the Surety of the Covenant to answer for all the sins of those who are to be and are made Partakers of the Benefits of it that is to undergo the Punishment due unto their sins to make Attonement for them by offering himself a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Expiation of their sins Redeeming them by the â—â—ice of his Blood from their state of Misery and Bondage under the Law and the Curse of it Isa 53.4 5 6 10. Matth. 20.28 1 Tim. 2.6 1 Cor. 6.20 Rom. 3.25 26. Heb. 10.5 6 7 8. Rom. 8.2 3. 2 Cor. 5.19 20 21. Gal. 3.13 And his was Absolutely Necessary that the Grace and Glory prepared in the Covenant might be communicated to us This and much more to the me purpose hath the Learned Dr. in his Disc of â—â—stif p. 256 c. To whom I will only add what â—e Learned Author of the Interest of Reason in Reâ—ion offers on this Point ' Whereas Christ is stiled saith he the Surety of a better Covenant it iâ— because the Enacting of the Covenant of Grace respects his Undertaking to he made sin and to undergo the Curse as the Moral Cause and
which saith his Lordship will be best done by laying down his principles as to the Juâ—tice of Punishments in a more distinct Method than himself hath done I will show the Agreement there is between Mr. B. and Crellius by proposing Crellius his Principles in the very words of the learned Bishop which in his Disc of Christs Sufferings Cap. 3. § 3. you will find to be thus 1. That no Person can be justly punished either for his own or anothers Fault but he that hath deserved to be punished by some Sin of his own For he still asserts That the Justice of Punishment ariseth from his own Fault though the actual Punishment may be from anothers But he that is punished without respect to his own Guilt is punished undeservedly â—â—d he that is punished undeservedly is punished unjustly 2 That Personal Guilt being supposed one Mans Sin may be the impulsive Cause of anothers Punishment but they cannot be the meritorious The difference between them he thus explains the Cause is that which makes a thing to be The impulsive 〈◊〉 that which moves one to do a thing without any Consideration of Right that one hath to do it Merit is that which makes a Man worthy of a thing either good or bad and so gives a right to it if it be good to himself if had to him at whose hands he hath deserved it Now he tells us that it is impossible That one Mans Sins should make any other deserve Punment but the Person who committed them but they may impel one to punish another and that justly if the Person hath otherwise deserved to be punished unjustly if he hath not The Reason he gives of it is That the viâ—osity of the Act which is the proper Cause of Punishment cannot go beyond the Person of the Offender and therefore can oblige none to Punishment but him that hath committed the Fault And therefore he asserts That no Man can be punished beyond the desert of his own Sins but there may be sometimes a double impulsive Cause of that Punishment viz. his own and other Mens whereof one made that they should be justly punished the other that they should be actually But the latter he saith always supposeth the former as the Foundation of just Punishment so that no part of Punishment could be executed upon him wherein his own Sins were not supposed as the meritorious Cause of it Here then you may see with what clearness the â—ishop hath stated the Principles of Crellius and if â—ou'll compare them with what I have taken out of Mr. Baxter's Methodus you 'll find the Agreement to be in the following Instances 1. That a proper Punishment cannot be inflicted â—n any but him that committed the Sin There â—â—n be here no difference between them unless in â—â—is that Crellius grants more and if I mistake not â—omes nearer to the Orthodox than either Mr. B. 〈◊〉 Mr. W. do when he owns 1. ' That a remote Conjunction may be sufficient for a Translation of Penalty viz. from one Generation to another 2. ' That Sins may be truly said to be punished in others when the Offenders themselves may escape Punishment Thus the Sins of Parents in their Children and Princes in their Subjects 3. ' That an Act of Dominion in some may be designed as a proper Punishment to others 4. ' That the Nature of Punishment is not to be measured by the Sense of it When I observe with what indignation Mr. B. â—xpresseth himself against our Suffering or being â—unished in Christ I cannot but conclude that herein Crellius yields more to the Orthodox than Mr. B. doth who I believe being aware that such learned Men as the Bishop of W. would make too great an Improvement of such Concessions he would not give the Advantage For indeed the Bishop hath well improved what Crellius grants as is plain from what he saith in Cap. 3. § 2. Now upon these Concessions though our Adversaries will not grant That Christ was properly punished for our Sins yet they cannot deny but that we may very properly be said to be punished for our Sins in Christ and if they will yield us this the other may be a Strife about words For surely there may be easily imagined as great a Conjunction between Christ and us as between the several Generations of the Jews and that last which was punished in the Destruction of Hierusalem And though we escape that Punishment which Christ did undergo yet wâ— might have our Sins punished in him as well as Princes theirs in their Subjects when they escapâ— themselves c. What I have suggested on this Occasion clearâ— it that Mr. B differs at least as much if not more from the Orthodox than Crellius and his Admirers do 2. They also agree in holding That the Sufferings of Children or Subjects when their Parents oâ— Princes Sin are not proper Punishments either oâ— the Children or Subjects and that Christs Sufferings because he was not the Sinner were not properly Penal The Opposition made by the Bishop of Worcester and the Principal of Jesus Oxon against the Principles embraced by Mr. Baxter anâ— Crellius 1. The Bishop having given a clear state of the â—rinciples of Crellius in this matter as I have alreaâ—y shown adds ' These are his viz. Crellius two main Principles which we must now thoroughly examine the main force of his Book lying in them But if we can prove that it hath been generally received by the Consent of Mankind that a Person may be punished beyond the desert of his own Actions if God hath justly punished some for the Sins of others and there be no Injustice in one Mans Suffering by his own Consent for another then these Principles of Crellius will be found not so firm as he imagins them 1. That it hath been generally received by the Consent of Mankind That a Person may be justly punished beyond the Desert of his own Actions For which Pupose Grotius objected against Socinus who appealed to the Consent of Nations about one being punished for anothers Fault that the Heathens did agree That Children might be punished for their Parents Faults and People for their Princes and that corporal Punishment might be born by one for another did appear by the Persians punishing the whole Family for the Fault of one In which Cases saith the Bishop The Punishment did extend beyond the Desert of the Person who suffered it for no other Reason is assigned of these Sufferings besides the Conjunction of the Person or his Consent but no antecedent Guilt is supposed as necessary to make the Punishment Just If it be said that the unjustice lies in this that such a one suffers undeservedly and therefore unjustly I answer If it be meant by undeservedly without sufficient Cause or Reason of Punishment then we deny that such a one doth suffer undeservedly Immerito in the Greek Glosses is rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and merito by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉