Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	law_n	sin_n	transgression_n	7,400	5	10.9794	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45162	Ultimas manus being letters between Mr. John Humphrey, and Mr. Samuel Clark, in reference to the point of justification : written upon the occasion of Mr. Clark's printing his book upon that subject, after Mr. Humfrey's book entituled The righteousness of God, and published for vindication of that doctrine wherein they agree, as found, by shewing the difference of it from that of the Papist, and the mistakes of our common Protestant : in order to an impartial and more full understanding of that great article, by the improvement of that whereto they have attained, or correction of any thing wherein they err, by better judgments : together with animadversions on some late papers between Presbyterian and Independent, in order to reconcile the difference, and fix the Doctrine of Christ's satisfaction.	Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.	1698 (1698)	Wing H3715; ESTC R16520	84,030	95

of following Truth hereafter wheresoever he finds it but this that God did look on Christ as appearing in our Person and so judged and condemned him for a sinner as one I say being in our Person that deserved his Wrath and Curse and therefore laid it on him whereby our full and proper Punishment was Born the Law Executed and Justice Done and if any will add with Ravensperg farther that the torments of Hell in his Agony and Suffering on the Cross when he cried Eli Eli lamasabacthani were laid on his Soul that nothing of the very Punishment may be abated him who does not see that such a satisfaction is so strait laced as will not fit the Person of Christ and that such Divines do more to drive Men to Socinianism than Socinus himself could while they stand upon such a Satisfaction as no reasonable Man can * Vera satisfactio est plen● deliti persolutio Vnusquisque nostram mortem aternam divinae isti justitiae debelat says Socinus De Ser. l. 3. c. 3. receive And whereas Mr. Lobb therefore and other such more considering Persons do see a necessity to come off and allow that it was not and could not be our very Punishment it self it being enough that Christ was surrogated under the Primordial Nature of the Puuishment to use his words though not under the horrid Circumstances we our selves were to suffer and does yield moreover that though the Punishment yet the Desert of our sins could not be laid on Christ because that would run him into Antinomianism which Concessions do draw after them such other suitable Notions as Mr. Baxter offers so that at last we must come to this that the Ends of Gods Law and Government being secured it must be left to the Wisdom of the Father and Son to agree upon what satisfaction pleased them for demonstrating Divine Righteousness against Sin and Mercy toward the Sinner and that be sufficient for us to believe For I must add that so long as we agree in our belief that Christs Death was a Ransom for our Redemption and a Sacrifice for our Sins in the Sense of the Types of old where the sin of the Sacrificer was laid on the Beast and the Blood thereof an Expiation for it to the end he might be forgiven it what matter is it tho' one holds this Death to be Formally another only Materially our Punishment or that one says our sins were the proper Meritorious Cause and the other the Remote Cause or Occasion of it they both hold it Satisfaction and intend the maintaining the Doctrine thereof Proper Punishment is an infliction of a Natural Evil on a Person for Committing a Moral Evil But Christ that endured the Natural Evil never committed any Moral Evil and how can that be proper Punishment The Punishment laid on him was not due to him but to us The Punishment d●e to us was Hell but his Sufferings only Temporal Death Is not here then one Punishment in the room of another as one Person suffering in the room of another And what Legerdemain can cover the Eye of any as not to see this a Vicarious Punishment Again when all proper Punishment is for sin as the Meritorious Cause of it and Christ sinned not and our sins cannot according to the Bishop deserve that another should be punished for them so that here is Punishment without Desert how is this proper Formal Punishment The Law by vertue of its Sanction punishes none but the Breakers of the Preceptive Part and how then can these sufferings arise Ex obligatione-Legis If they did arise from the Obligation of the Law then was the Law executed in Christs suffering but Christ suffered that the Law might not be executed but the Penitent Believing Sinner be pardoned I might go on and offer other Positions according to what is said by Mr. Baxter in his Eighteenth Deterininations Math. Theol. Part 3. Cap. 1. before quoted and Mr. Lobb the Dr or Bishop may as well deny that two and three makes five as fundamentally to deny any of them and therefore I shall forbear more being come already to the Composition which Grotius in that one word before hath made for us Impersonaliter these sufferings as due to us may be said to be properly formally Punishment Punishment for sin as the Meritorious Cause of it Punishment arising from the Obligation of the Law upon our breaking it punishment that was the Curse of the Law and which he bare when if we had our selves born it it had been the Execution of the Law the Execution whereof these Divines who are for the Common Doctrine apprehending as Socinus to be proper Satisfaction wherein they are perfectly out for that according to the Schools is contrary to it it makes them so extream as before mentioned in their Doctrine of Satisfaction as no Man unprejudiced can abide it But Personaliter on the other hand as these sufferings are laid upon Christ instead of us that is instead not as in our Person but instead that we might escape them they are Nominally and Materially indeed but they are not they cannot be Formally and Properly Penal They arise not from sin as the Metitorious Cause nor from the Obligation of the Law and are no Execution of it Why should I go on to say the same things over and over I will make bold to conclude with Mr. Baxter against any if there be any that think they have more sagacity herein than he to oppose him and say As the Person that suffered was loco nostri the sufferings were loco paenae our sins loco causae meritoriae his Sponsion loco obligationis ex Lege an Equivalent loco Debiti and loco solutionis here is at last effected proper Satisfaction Let Mr. Baxter's Adversaries be who they will and let them do what they can they shall never make more of it Another thing which Mr. Lobb observes of Mr. Williams that I must also take notice of is this As he does hold that the Obligation which lay on Christ to do as he did arose altogether from the Mediatorial Law so does he hold that the Righteousness which consists in his Performance of that Law is that which is imputed to the Believer for his Justification wherein there does manifestly appear that slip of Mr. Williams which I have before mentioned for seeing that Law and the Righteousness thereof did belong only or was proper to the Mediator it is impossible it should be imputed otherwise to us than in the Effects which when Mr. Baxter saw and asserted and Mr. Williams does follow him in what he says else and yet leaves him in this I cannot but give him again friendly Warning to retract that slip for otherwise the whole Doctrine he is engaged in which he hath knit together out of Mr. Baxter and endeavours to maintain by this one Stitch let fall if it be not amended must unravel and come to nothing The Argument I have used in

my Pacification Pag. 40. which Book I expected to have been answered by him or the Truth as to what concerns him acknowledged before this The last thing I will Note in Mr. Lobb is Though a righteousness he says which Answers the Obligation in the plural that is therefore both of the Preceptive and Comminatory Part of the violated Law of Works be necessary to our Justification yet we are not justified by the Law because we did it not our selves as the Law required but by the Gospel he apprehends in that the Gospel provides us such a Righteousness that is Christs Righteousness made ours by Faith as answers the Law that we may be justified Here is that apprehended which is as clearly thought as any one that will maintain the Common Doctrine can speak but I must Answer him That if the Gospel must provide us such a Righteousness as answers the Law that we may be justified by it then must that necessarily presuppose that it is by the Law we are to be judged but when indeed that is not so for if it be by the Gospel and not the Law as himself accounts that we are justified it is by the Gospel we must be judged for to be judged is either to be justified or condemned and accordingly it is not the Righteousness of Christ which answers the Law that the Gospel provides for us but it is the Righteousness of God that is manifested without the Law a Righteousness revealed in the Gospel in opposition to the Works of the Law that it hath provided for the Sinners Justification To be more full and satisfactory as we draw to an End The Law is sometimes taken strictly as it requires perfect Obedience to its Precepts that we may live in them and so it is opposed to the Gospel Or it is taken largly for the whole Doctrine of the Old Testament which contains Promises of Pardon and Life upon Mens Faith and Repentance as well as the Gospel In the first Sense St. Paul says the Righteousness of God is manifest without the Law In the second that yet it hath the witness of the Law and the Prophets For Moses tells us that God is Gracious Merciful forgiving Iniquities Transgression and Sin and the Prophets call on the People to Repent and cast away their Transgressions that they may live and not die which is all one with what the Gospel Teaches It is strange now that when this Doctrine of Faith and Repentance which is so plain in both Testaments The just Man shall live by his faith should be obscured by the Doctrine of Imputation which is a devised Doctrine not in Scripture I mean the Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sense of per modum formae or formalis causae when in the sense of per modum Meriti it does but explain and confirm the same Insomuch as those Scriptures which are usually brought for such Imputation do effectually prove the contrary to it I mean that it is not Christs Righteousness imputed to us but our Faith or Evangelick Righteousness imputed to us for Righteousness that justifies us This may appear by the Explication of such as these Scriptures following The Jews being ignorant of Gods Righteousness and going about to establish their own have not submitted to the Righteousness of God That is not to that way of becoming Righteous which God hath founded or instituted and so declared in the Gospel which in opposition to their Righteousness is by Faith in Jesus Christ For Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth The Law in general was an Instruction in order to the coming of the Messiah that we should believe in him and obey him when come and thereby be justified and saved So the Apostle otherwhere Wherefore the Law was our School-Master unto Christ that we might be justified by Faith By Christs being the end of the Law then we may understand either The end or design of the Law requiring perfect Obedience which no Man does or can perform is to drive us to Christ But how drive us to him Is it to his Righteousness to be made ours No there is no such thing said any where but to him for Righteousness through believing Or and for Christ is the end of the Law in that he by the Obedience of his Life and Death fulfilling the same in our behalf hath freed us from the Condition thereof requiring only our Faith instead of That and so Righteousness now or Justification is to every one who without the Works of the Law does perform the Terms of the Gospel There is no Condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the Flesh but after the Spirit That is They that are in Christ by Faith and their Faith is sound so as it causes them to walk sincerely before God they are freed from Condemnation For the Law of the Spirit of Life in Jesus Christ hath made me free from the Law of Sin and Death That is for the Law of Grace which is the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ doth free such from the Curse of the Law of Works For what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the Flesh God sending his Son in the likeness of sinful Flesh and for sin condemned sin in the Flesh That is The Law being not able to free us from Condemnation or to justifie us seeing thro' our Frailty we break it which else would do it God sent his Son to take our sins on him and by condemning sin in him or punishing him for them he hath bereft sin of its Damnatory Power over the Believer That the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the Flesh but after the Spirit That is that the Justification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we should have by the Law if we could perform it may be had by our performing only the Conditions of the Law of Grace which is walking not after the Flesh but after the Spirit or not after the Law but after the Gospel Do we then make void the Law by Faith Yea we establish the Law The Law taken largely as before declares Gods Ordination of a Sinners Justification by Faith and Repentance as the Gospel does and thereby is most plainly established or accomplished But to say further The Law is established says St. Augustine by the fulfilling it Now Faith if it be sound does work by Love and Love is fulfilling the Law But how does Faith and Love fulfil it Not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not in the Rigour of it but the Equity or according to Acceptation thro' Christ When God then for Christs sake does accept of our Faith or our sincere though imperfect Obedience for Righteousness this is that julfilling the Law which is all that can be in this Earth and thereby the establishing of it As by one Mans Disobedience many were made

perceive that Concatenation of Notions belonging to the way he takes will lay them so together as to make the whole agreeable knowing well that if he break one of the Set one Link he breaks all the whole Chain The fundamental Notion in the way that Mr. Baxter and I and Mr. Williams go is this That it is not by the Law but the Gospel not by the Law of Works but the Law of Grace that we are to be judged and consequently justified or condemned One other Notion of his near to this is that the Righteousness of Christ is not cannot be imputed to us that is reckoned to us as ours any otherwise than in the Effects The Righteousness of Christ is a Righteousness that answers the Law and if that be imputed to us in se for our Justification then we are justified by the Law When Mr. Williams therefore says with us that it is by the Gospel not the Law we are to be judged and yet that Besides the effects the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to the Believer that thereby he may be justified which must be understood it is a plain Inconsistency a perfect Tergiversation As for what Mr. Williams offers in Made made righteous p. 76. to 83. I have answered Pacifica p. 35 36. Let me ask him upon it when he says The very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to the Believer does he understand by the Righteousness of Christ that which his Brethren do or not If he does he is held under this Inconsistency and can never come off If he do not then the Brethren are deceived in him He appears to be of their Judgment about the Imputation of Christs Righteousness and yet understands by Christs Righteousness another thing than they do What Man before him ever said or understood that Christs Right to his Reward is the Righteousness which is imputed to a Believer I argue against him The Righteousness which is imputed to a Believer is that Righteousness which is the Meritorious Cause of his Justification But it is not Christs Right to his Reward but the Obedience of his Life and Death which two things he distinguishes and makes a double Righteousness and brings himself off with the first instead of affirming the last which is the Meritorious Cause of our Justification And as for what he says in affirming Christs Right to his Reward to be the Believers His own Right and the Believers to be the same Right it is impossible according to the Rule of Accidents as I answer him in my Pacification There is another Distinction of Mr. Williams which Mr. Alsop uses in his Rebuke directly contrary to him in the Terms yet Neither differing in the Doctrine of it that I will take this occasion to remember Dr. Crisp's Phrase of Change of Person Mr. Williams impugnes but yet grants a Change of Persons By Change of Person I doubt not but the Dr. meant a Change on both sides as appears by his Explication that Christ became a sinner as we and we righteous as he and that is a Change of Persons There is a Change of Person on one side and a Change of Person on both sides A Change of both sides is all one with a Change of Persons When Mr. Williams then upon this distinguishes between a Change of Person and Change of Persons it is his own Distinction when the Doctor never thought of any and when it is his own he may make what Construction of it he please and that he puts on it be sure shall be Orthodox for by the one he will have Dr. Crisp's Commutation understood and deny it by the other the Bishop's Commutation and hold it Here is his Doctrine found but his Distinction as he uses the Terms so forced strained unnatural that it is useless altotether but to bring himself off and serve his occasion Whereas the Distinction as used by Mr. Alsop is so apposite easie proper natural in the Terms that if it be stood to no Distinction can be of more use for deciding the Controversie of our Brethren By Change of Person Mr. Alsop understands One coming in the room of another By Change of Persons Both coming in the room of one another and when Mr. Williams grants a Change of Persons and denies a Change of Person he Mr. Alsop does hold a Change of Person and denies a Change of Persons and yet both agree I have said in the Doctrine they make of it Mr. Alsop's Distinction then fuller explained is between Christs sustaining or putting on our Person his taking our State and Condition or his obeying and suffering in our room or stead and Our sustaining or putting on Christs Persen taking on us his Quality or Condition or coming in his room or place The one he maintains and denies the other I will add he does hold and it is to be held that Christ stood in our room and stead and so may be said to put on our Person in obeying and suffering for us as necessary to the Doctrine of Satisfaction but he denies or I do as that which is to be denied that we take on us Christs Person or come in his room or stead as necessary which others affirm to our Justification To make this appear as to the right sense of it we must know that to take anothers Person or to do or suffer any thing in the room or place of another is to do or suffer the thing to free the other from the doing or suffering When Christ then is said to dye for us or for our sins which is all one as taking our Person or suffering in our room place or stead it signifies that he obeyed the Law and suffered the penalty that we might not be bound to that perfect Obedience as the Condition of Life and that we might not suffer the Curse of it and this is necessary to the making God Satisfaction that we may be pardoned and escape the same But for us to put on Christs Person or come in his room or stead does signifie our doing and suffering in him as our Legal or Civil Person what he did and suffered and so be look'd on as having fulfilled the Law both in obeying and suffering so that his Obedience both of his Life and Death is imputatively ours and we in sensu forensi as righteous as he in the sight of God and justified by the Law as Christ was This Commutation of Person therefore we deny as that Doctrine which subverts the Gospel It was a deep mistake in the much reading of Mr. Report to apprehend that the Commutation of Persons in the Sense of Grotius is conducive to the Explanation of the Doctrine of Justification according to the Common Protestant as it is to that of Satisfaction There was a Surrogation of Christs Person in our room for his making Satisfaction there is no Surrogation of our Persons in his room for receiving Justification Of the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us as if we

in turning us away from it because this must make him as he argues a sinner and one deserving to die Grotius takes him up and tells us that it was for sin but Impersonaliter This he explains in that our sins did deserve that Punishment should be exacted but such was the goodness of God to spare us and lay it upon his Son who was wounded for our Transgressions and through his stripes are we healed Now that God might do so without Injustice Grotius brings many Instances from David from Ahab from the Gibeonites from the second Commandment What God himself does or allows must be just David sins and his Child dies Ahab is wicked and his Punishment is deferred to his Sons Days Saul is cruel to the Gibeonites and his Grandchildren are put to death The Fathers sin and God visits their sin on the Children to three or four Generations Here is Merit as the Antecedent Cause of the Punishment in all these Instances and yet not the Merit of the Person or Persons that suffer it And what if I shall add here this great thing a thing wherein Divines are put so hard to it in giving their account even the greater Instance of Death passing on all Men with their innocent Babes among them for Adam's Transgression It is said of Grotius and that solidly in another place Peccata paenae causa sunt non aliter quam per modum Meriti which being true Socinus does indeed seem to argue strongly that therefore prater Dei ipsius Christi voluntatem non posse ullam legitimam causam reddi mortis Christi nisi dicamus Christum meritum fuisse ut moriretur This Grotius I say takes up and Answers thus Inest quidem in antecedente causa Meritum sed Impersonaliter From hence then we must distinguish there is a double Merit of Punishment Personal and Impersonal When Grotius tells us that in Christs sufferings there was truly Punishment because that though God laid it on his Son our sins required the infliction and Mr. Baxter says no formal proper Punishment because not only without desert in Christ but which is more because our desert could not be transferr'd on him though the Punishment was they both say true but rightly understood only the one Personaliter the other Impersonaliter as Grotious hath decided it And what is this in good earnest any other but what the Bishop hath in effect determined likewise No Man can deserve that another should be punished for him and yet because the Execution of Punishment depends on the wisdom of God a Change of Persons that is of Christ to bear it in our room Christ being willing and the thing just may intervene says the Bishop in more words and all apposite If Mr. Lobb then can but reconcile the Bishop to himself unto whom he seems heartily to subscribe he must reconcile Mr. Baxter and Grotius and be also reconciled to both And that he may be so the more easily the Bishop hath given a Test for the discovery of the Orthodox from the Socinian and Mr. Baxter shall thereby be tryed The true Controversie says he between the Socinian and us is Whether the Sufferings of Christ were to be considered as a Punishment for our sins and as a Propitiatory Sacrifice to God for them or only as an Act of Dominion over an innocent Person in order to his Advancement to Glory The same is affirmed after him by our Presbyterian Brethren and who is there can imagine ever Mr. Baxter denied that Christs sufferings was a Punishment for our sins and his death a Propitiatory Sacrifice for them He hath made him sin for us says Paul 2 Cor. 5.21 Upon which God hath made Christ a Sacrifice for sin says Mr. Baxter as others which Socinus denies Who his own self bare our sins in his own Body on the Tree says Peter 1 Pet. 2.24 Upon which It was the punishment of our sins which as a Sacrifice he bare in his sufferings on the Cross says Mr. Baxter But what need I quote any such particular Sayings when there is no Book of his that is great that can be without such a Testimony over and over What then you may ask shall we judge here of Mr. Lobb's great Industry Shall we look on him as the Fly upon the Axle-tree that hath raised all this Dust for nothing I will not say so seeing Dust there is that must be raised if our Wheels do but go and our Chariot drive to its designed end the quiet of the Brethren It is not enough that we are agreed indeed in this Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction though we are unless we also understand and know it Besides that when we are agreed there is need of some Anthority yet to tell us we are so that our selves may believe it The Composing a Controversie by Silence is but covering the Fire as Mr. Lobb observes not extinguishing it If the Matter be such wherein we indeed do agree the Ventilation of it must shew us the seeming Difference to be nothing and so compel a Concord If the Matter be such wherein we really disagree there is still need of beating it out that the Corn may be discovered from the Chaff by the threshing There are two Points we know among us both very great P●●●…ts and the one made difficult through the Intanglement of it with the Other One is of Christs Satisfaction wherein indeed we differ not The other is of our Justification wherein we do differ and there are two ways of Explication Mr. Baxter's and the Common Protestants Upon the Account now of this Difference in the latter Point there are many are stumbled in their Explication of the former As for Mr. Lobb he has verily given occasion for an Accomodation between the Brethren by his Appeal to the Bishop as to the Point of Satisfaction for seeing indeed there is therein no difference he is like to effect it But as for the other of Justification Mr. Lobb is behind and it will be a harder matter for any to moderate in it One thing in his strowing his way hereunto is to be preparatively considered He has read I suppose Socinus de Servatore as well as Grotius upon him and Crellius then against Grotius with other Socinians as also Dr. Crisp and other Antinomians and he is not ignorant where the Water sticks between us and them both The Socinian accounts Christ to be a good Man that taught us Holy Doctrine and dyed to bear Testimony to the Truth of it to the end we might believe it and live according to it and so be saved and upon this account is our Saviour But as for his dying for our sins any otherwise than for turning us away from them by his Doctrine and Example which is making our sins the Final Cause of his Death he understands not when as for the making it the Meritorious Cause of the Sufferings of an innocent Man and thereby satisfactory to the Justice of God

him the Obligation to suffer for our sins but not Our Obligation He bare the Punishment of our sins let me say yet Personally not Our Punishment When Christ is said to be made under the Law Gal. 4.4 I understand it of the Law of Moses as a Jew born for redeeming the Jews from it Yet as one of Mankind was he also under the Law of Works as to the Precept and fulfilled it for freeing us from that perfect Performance as the Condition of Life and from its being to us the Rule of Judgment but he was not under the Penal Sanction nor could be being innocent He was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gal. 3.13 made a Curse but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gal. 3.10 under the Curse which none but the Transgressor is And seeing Mr. Lobb is come already to see he must part with the Common Doctrine somewhere or fall into Antinomianism he is so rational and fair a Man I believe as his own Genius when once he can be cool and consider will suggest to him that it is better not to set out at all than to halt by the way and not to go quite home If he be convinced that the Personal Guilt of our sins could not be translated on Christ so as to make him a Legal Sinner which is all that the Crispian as well as the Common Protestant Doctrine ever meant then will he see that the Personal Righteousness of Christ cannot be translated neither on us so as that we should be Legally Righteous in him and consequently agree with Mr. Baxter and me leaving Mr. VVilliams if he wont come on behind in the Doctrine both of Satisfaction and Justification I must add as a Corollary that the Phrases my Friend does stand so much upon of Christs suffering in our Person or in our stead if they be used as the same and signifie no more but that Christ being a Divine Person did suffer a Temporal Death as an Equivalent to save us from suffering Eternal Damnation they are equally to pass But if either of them be made to bear such a Sense as that Christ did Legally personate us so as we are to be accounted to have done or suffered in him that which he did or suffered or what may seem less that this Commutation of Persons did put Christ under Our Obligation of the violated Law of VVorks so making him to be accounted of God a Sinner and dealt with as a Sinner to the end that his sufferings may be maintained to be a proper Punishment the Phrase or Phrases are stretch'd beyond the Staple become dangerous the Sense Antinomian and to be disallowed And now to dismiss Mr. VVilliams and Mr. Lobb both The summ of Mr. Lobb's Appeal comes to this Syllogism That Person who holds that the sufferings of Christ was not a Proper Punishment but a Vicarious Punishment Not Formally but Materially Punishment That our Sins were not the Proximious Meritorious Cause but the Remote the Pro-meritorious Cause or Occasion of them That they arose not from the Obligation of the Law or from the Sanction of the Law of VVorks which includes with Mr. Lobb that Commutation of Persons as makes Christ Guilty taken judged and executed in our Person but from his voluntary Sponsion or submission to his Fathers Commandment proper to him which implies with Mr. Lobb that the inflicting of Sufferings on Christ could be no act of Gods Rectoral Justice but of Dominion when I take it to be an act of God both as Rector and Supra Leges together and such a Relaxation of his Law as Zaleucus Fact was That consequently the Law in the Threat was not fulfilled by him such a Person is a Socinian and denies the Doctrine or denies that which is necessary to explain the Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction But Mr. VVilliams is such a Person Ergo Mr. VVilliams is one that denies that which is necessary to this Explanation Here Mr. Lobb makes it his business to prove the Minor which he hath effectually done in quoting Mr. Baxter in many places and many more might be added saying these things and then producing Considerations and Passages out of Mr. VVilliams to prove that he must be of the same Opinion Now if Mr. VVilliams denies the Minor and goes to vindicate himself as to that he may be ashamed for Mr. Lobb has done his Work But Mr. VVilliams I suppose as well as I will deny the Major And what hath Mr. Lobb to say for that but all Gratis Why here is a Supposition presumed that the Satisfaction Christ made for our sins was to be such and such as they have fancied or else it must be no satisfaction when the mistake is so great that if all that were necessary thereto which they pretend the Lord Christ was a Person uncapable to make it and so there must be none and we be all Socinians I have therefore two Answers to give Mr. Lobb The First shall be from himself who when Mr. Williams is arguing That if we may very properly be said to be punished in Christ for our sins then must it be granted that we made satisfaction in Christ and are our own Redeemers He answers No because the satisfaction arose not says he from our sufferings in Christ nor indeed from Christs Sufferings considered absolutely and in se but from the Fathers acceptation of the Sons sufferings This is judiciously said The words he adds as they were Ex obligatione Legis and an Equivalent to the demerit of our sins are Petitio Principii for he might put in 〈◊〉 well as our sins were the Proximous Meritorious Cause of them and as they were a proper Punishment I answer him therefore accordingly That seeing the Satisfaction Christ made was not indeed a Satisfaction of the Law it self but of the Law-giver who though Rector is also Supra Leges the Law indeed which requires Supplicium delinquentis being not executed but Satisfaction made that it might not be fulfilled on the Sinner and seeing the Satisfaction lay Fundamentally in the Acceptation of the Father or as perform'd according to the Will of both What if it pleased God to appoint and accept of a Vicarious Punishment instead of a proper Punishment who is there can have any more to say against it I will add in regard to some fresh Sheets of Mr. Lobb come out called A further Defence which in setting forth Mr. Baxters Doctrine as opposite to that which is commonly Received according to Dr. Edwards and others has done Mr. Baxter Right and Honour as I account That for as much as God acts according to him and Truth both as Rector and Lord also Supra Leges and the great Ends of Government in general such as the Demonstration of Gods Righteousness his hatred to sin the deterring the Sinner by exemplary Punishment and even his greater Glory might be attained in the way which God took without fulfilling the direct end of the Law in a proper punishment on the Sinner or on Christ as a Sinner It is such a Satisfaction as Mr. Baxter offers that is a Satisfaction of the Law-giver and not that Mr. Lobb stands upon a Satisfaction of the Law which is to be maintained For this being Socinus fundamental Errour That True Satisfaction lies only in a full payment of the Debt and Eternal Death being due to every Sinner the Doctrine of Satisfaction seems to him apparently False Christ suffering not that Punishment and those Divines now that fall in with him into that Conception have not an Answer to give Socinus whereas Mr. Lobb hath set out Mr. Baxter's Doctrine in the several branches to be so tight and uniform that the light thereof though wrapt in his Clouds of Blame about it does appear most ●onvictive and irresistible and I cannot but think that Mr. Lobb himself when he can be cool and lay by opposition must be ready to embrace it It is Mr. Baxter's Satisfaction which can be justified against Socinus Mr. Baxter's Doctrine is such as does force even the Socinians to yield and acknowledge themselves overcome by it This is such Doctrine as needs no more but the same more friendly display of it See Mr. Baxter's own 18 Determinations together for Mr. Baxter's Vindication and Mr. Lobb's Reduction The Second Answer I have is made already in these Sheets and that is that there is one Word and that taken from Grotius himself which hath done it The word Impersonaliter does reconcile Grotius and Baxter Mr. Williams and Mr. Lobb the Bishop and us all and that word therefore without any thing more is enough to solve the difficulty and consequently to explain and make good this Great Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction FINIS ERRATA PAg. 9. line 27. my read your p. 14. l. 21. r. existimare p. 22. l. 9. Premium r. Praemiant p. 74 in the Margin deliti r. debiti THE BOOKSELLER TO THE READER Reader THese Letters and Animadversions put thus together by my Appointment were intended to come out asunder the Animadversions as a second Part of the Friendly Interposer and the Letters as the finishing Work to that Doctrine proposed by Mr. H. in his Middle Way and confirmed in his Righteousness of God unto which Book he would have had them annex'd alone by themselves But in regard that the several Papers of his concerning the late Difference among the Nonconformists in Doctrinals whereof the Point of Justification is the chief will come with these to forty Sheets I have thought best my self and have found good Cause so to do to bind the whole in one handsom Book that any that will so long as each of a sort holds out may have it T. P.